2018 # JAMR at Materials Selection in Construction Industry

Journal of Advances in Management Research
A sustainable assessment model for material selection in construction industries

perspective using hybrid MCDM approaches
Kaliyan Mathiyazhagan, A. Gnanavelbabu, B. Lokesh Prabhuraj,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kaliyan Mathiyazhagan, A. Gnanavelbabu, B. Lokesh Prabhuraj, (2018) "A sustainable assessment
model for material selection in construction industries perspective using hybrid MCDM approaches",
Journal of Advances in Management Research, https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-09-2018-0085
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-09-2018-0085
Downloaded by INSEAD At 03:03 04 December 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 04 December 2018, At: 03:03 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0972-7981.htm
Hybrid MCDM
A sustainable assessment approaches
model for material selection
in construction industries
perspective using hybrid
MCDM approaches
Kaliyan Mathiyazhagan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amity University,
Noida, India, and
A. Gnanavelbabu and B. Lokesh Prabhuraj
Department of Industrial Engineering,

Anna University, Chennai, India
Abstract
Purpose – Urbanization and globalization in India have led to the depletion of resources and degradation of
the environment to meet the demands. Because of these issues, researchers and practitioners have begun to
study various strategies to reduce the level consumption of resources to utilize it for present and future needs.
In pursuit of finding solutions to the problems, sustainable building construction is found as the best key to
avoid depletion of resources. Sustainable material selection is found as a vital strategy in construction. The
paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – A three-phase methodology is proposed for framing the assessment
model for construction industries to select materials for construction. In the first phase, a total of 23
sub-criteria of triple bottom line (TBL) and four brick materials as alternatives were identified. The second
phase finds the weights and ranks of criteria and sub-criteria using the best worst methodology (BWM) the
third phase involves ranking of materials concerning sub-criteria weights determined in phase II using Fuzzy
Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
Findings – The objective of study is fixed to identify the criteria list for the selection of material in
construction industries from the literature review especially for Indian construction industries; to rank the
criteria for selection of materials with the help of the BWM approach; and to prioritize the identified materials
in the view of sustainability with the help of Fuzzy TOPSIS in construction industries perspective. This study
analyzed and choosing right sustainable materials by the three pillars of sustainability which are the
environment, economic and social, also called TBL, for Indian construction companies by framing a
sustainable material assessment model.
Originality/value – The results of this study facilitate to frame an assessment model for evaluating and
selecting sustainable building materials.
Keywords India, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Construction industries, Material selection, Sustainable assessment,
Best worst methodology (BWM)
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The construction sector has an important effect on our environment, health and the overall
economy and efficiency. The world is becoming increasingly urban, and to date,
urbanization has led to increased consumption and ecological degradation across the
globe (Mahadevi, 2001). India should make an enormous effort to increase its innovation
potential. On aggregation, India is the fourth largest consumer of resources and the most
substantial ecological devastation among those countries surveyed (Selles, 2013). The Journal of Advances in
Management Research
ecological impact and on the quality of its urban environment has become a major © Emerald Publishing Limited
0972-7981
justification for the concept of “Sustainable Cities. ‘To ensure green products leading DOI 10.1108/JAMR-09-2018-0085
JAMR manufacturers in the developed countries such as Apple tried reducing the overall carbon
footprint, Toyota in the recovery and reuse of end of life vehicle components and HP in the
manufacture of environmental protective inks’ to decrease the environmental and social
effect” (Ganapathy et al., 2014).
For achieving sustainable development (SD), countries need to create a robust and
sustainable economy (Alam et al., 2007). The industries policymakers are now making the
concept of SD as an important objective (Singh et al., 2009). WCED (1987) pointed out that
Brundtland defined SD as development that meets the demand of the present generations
without arbitrating the future generations to meet their demands. Nowadays, the SD has
been the subject of discussion and debate within government, non-government, academic
circles, leading concentration of national and international economic, social and
environmental agendas (Wang et al., 2009). Hence, SD can be viewed as the satisfaction
of present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. Sustainability is referred to the triple bottom line (TBL) of an organization
(Kleindorfer et al., 2005), which includes the three dimensions environment, economic and
social (Govindan et al., 2016). According to the current scenario from past research, it is
observed that sustainable architecture and green design is one of the emerging research
areas (GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2013). The critical concept in development thinking at all
levels is sustainability. It is vital to develop by considering the trends, applications,
constraints and also knowing the importance of environmental assessment and energy
performance of the buildings toward the development of green environmentally sustainable
constructions. The major building components used in construction sectors are brick, clay,
stone, cement, gravel, paint and sand. These materials have inherent capabilities and
natural resources which exist already for damaging the environment due to their continuous
exploitation (Pappu et al., 2007). The climatic changes are the major key factors to be found
during the last decade (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). This rise in enormous threats and
depletion in natural resource and accompanying social problems led to the growth in SD.
SD in construction industries has the flagship of construction of green buildings. It also
promotes by giving an opportunity to create occupant friendly buildings and environment
responsible ones (Bansal et al., 2017). Sustainable construction collected more positive
reviews from critics due to its impact on the environment, society and economy.
The construction companies are struggling hard to implement and adopt sustainable
practices into their construction and try to initiate various strategies (Govindan et al., 2016).
The sustainable construction’s history remains unclear, but the first literature definition
was proposed by Charles Kibert (1994). Over the past five decades of the Indian economy,
the Indian construction sector has been the major stem for the growth and is the basic input
for the socioeconomic development of the country. Over the past five years, construction
was the second largest economic activity after agriculture, and it contributed 6–9 percent of
India’s GDP. So the importance of the Indian construction industries was grown up
simultaneously. Moreover, from this, the right choice is to adopt “green building” practice.
It is also the same way of constructing buildings and infrastructure, which minimizes the
use of resources and reduces harmful effects on the ecology and creates a healthier
environment for the society.
Many researchers have applied various approaches to solving the material selection
problem. Fetching decision in the presence of multiple conflicting criteria is known as
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) process (Chatterjee et al., 2009). Hence, an MCDM
method become a useful tool to deal with this problem, so the proper selection of material is
carried out by MCDM approach in which Dr Jafar Rezaei proposed a methodology called
best worst methodology (BWM). This method is a systematic pairwise comparison of the
decision criteria and used to evaluate a set of alternatives concerning a set of decision
criteria. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
technique was first developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981). The best alternative will be Hybrid MCDM
one that is closest to the positive ideal solution and farthermost from the negative approaches
ideal solution. Fuzzy TOPSIS using a linguistic scale for comparison of alternative is utilized
for this research.
The reasons for sustainable construction material selection issues are listed as follows:
• increasing pollution caused by inappropriate materials selected for construction in India;
• less resource availability has caused industries to focus on sustainable practices;
• increasing economic and environmental consciousness among customers has made
Indian industries to follow a model of criteria for sustainable material selection; and
• to make the material selection process for Indian construction style considering the
three pillars of sustainability as a standard procedure all over the globe.
1.1 Research objectives

• To identify the criteria list for selection of material in construction industries from the
literature review especially for Indian construction industries;
• to rank the criteria for selection of materials with the help of BWM approach; and
• to prioritize the identified materials in the view of sustainability with the help of
Fuzzy TOPSIS in the construction industries perspective.
To meet the objectives of this research, BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology is used.
According to Rezaei (2015), BWM is a novel methodology; the relationship between BWM
and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is that “BWM is more efficient and easier for
pairwise comparisons.” Phase II: The BWM approach is used for identifying the most
important criteria for the selection of materials (ranking the criteria). Phase III: Fuzzy
TOPSIS methodology is used to select the right alternatives.
Section 2 consists of a literature review and the model used to select the suitable
materials based on sustainable perspective (environmental, economic and social). Section 3
consists of a justification of the study. Section 4 presents the problem environment followed
by Section 5 corresponds to the solution methodology used for the given problem. Section 6
consists of a research design, and Section 7 covers the application of methodology and
validation followed by results, discussion and the conclusion in the last sections.
2. Literature review
The term “sustainability” can be defined as enhancing the quality of life and making people
live in a healthy environment thus allowing them to improve social, economic and
environmental conditions for present and future generations (Simão et al., 2016). The first
definition of sustainability was proposed in the first international conference on sustainable
construction in 1994 in Tampa by Charles Kibert. Kibert stated “Sustainable management is
the creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on resource
efficient and ecological principles” (Du Plessis, 2007; Bourdeau, 1999). Govindan stated that
because of rapid urbanization in many cities, there is a high requirement of residential and
commercial buildings. It requires a large number of resources to accommodate the rapid
growth of urbanization, but the consumption of resources will make them depleted. Now
many countries like UAE, Canada, USA, India and other European and Asian countries
started adopting sustainable practices to select construction materials to construct
buildings in order the resources do not go depleted. Day by day, construction companies all
over the world are starting to move toward sustainability because of realizing the
importance of the growing awareness about natural resource depletion, concerning the
JAMR world’s health and obviously because of market demand for sustainable products.
Environmental management of buildings and construction will be important because of the
CO2 emission from unsuitable materials and energy consumption in manufacturing the
materials (Häkkinen, 2007). The usage of unsuitable materials causes damage to
the buildings later and to the environment. These materials do not stay stable during
climate change conditions. Social aspects bring the consumer’s view toward material
selection. The selection of inappropriate material will bring down the social acceptability of
the buildings. The materials should be selected in a way that the local community accepts it,
and the political risks should also be taken care of. Economic has an indirect relation to
environmental and society as well, choosing the right material will reduce the environmental
impact on society. The budget for construction decides the sustainability of the resources.
Material selection has great importance in the design, development of construction
building materials and sustainability (Zhang et al., 2017). Many researchers have done
studies related to the sustainable material selection in India. As stated in the earlier section,
the criteria for material selection in construction industries are based on the three major
sustainability pillars called environment, economic and social, otherwise called as TBL
(Diabat et al., 2014; Bajaj et al., 2013). Many authors have studied the material selection for
construction under sustainability pillars they have considered few sub-criteria which come
under the environmental, economic and social sustainable perspectives. Venkatarama
studied certain issues related to carbon emissions, energy intensity of materials, natural
resources and raw materials consumed and impact on the environment, and compared some
alternative low energy materials from industrial and mines solid wastes with that of
conventional building materials. The findings after embodied analysis of buildings using
the low energy materials and techniques indicate that energy saving can be 50 percent of
total embodied energy in the material composition. González and Navarro (2006) pointed out
that by careful selection of low energy emitting materials the CO2 emissions (Gustavsson
et al., 2006; Kneifel, 2010) to the atmosphere can be saved by 30 percent. The study says that
abundant CO2 gas is emitted through the production of materials and products, construction
of buildings, the renovation, in the exploitation and final demolition.
Arif et al. (2012) studied the problem of waste generation on construction sites and issues
related to the application of waste management practices on construction sites in India. Data
were collected from semi-structured interviews and two case studies; both the buildings
were LEED-registered. One was an office building located in Hyderabad, India, with 16
floors and 5 basement floors, and other was a business park campus located in Bangalore,
India. The findings indicate that congested construction sites lack ownership of waste
materials and lack of education among workers were the major challenges for the
application of waste minimization practices. The companies promote waste management
and environmental actions as major criteria for material selection (Gluch et al., 2009).
Tathagat and Dod (2015) highlighted the importance of green building and its SD in India
mainly on the construction sector due to the environmental aspects with increasing urban
population, globalization and depletion of fossil fuels and other resources. The author also
presented the scope of green buildings in India and the benefits of green techniques and
green building rating systems such as energy star and LEED and the certification processes
and rating systems in India. Baharetha et al. (2013), in their study, highlight that in selecting
sustainable materials, the aim of a designer should be to maximize durability, reuse, energy
efficiency, maintainability and utilization of local materials to decrease the impact on the
environment by construction. Langston et al. (2008) discussed the adaptive reuse potential
model for Hong Kong market exploring the relationships between financial, environmental
and social parameters associated with building materials reuse. Green material selection
greatly helps to cover all the three pillars of sustainability (Khoshnava et al., 2016). Chikhi
et al. (2013) said that green materials direct impact on the environmental dimension of
sustainability, but there is an indirect impact on the other two dimensions (social and Hybrid MCDM
economic) of sustainability. Their final goal is to reduce the final production cost, which falls approaches
under the economic dimension of sustainability.
Govindan et al. studied about the construction in UAE, and the main aim of the paper
was to propose a model to evaluate the best sustainable construction material based on
sustainable indicators through a hybrid MCDM methodology. He collected criteria under the
three pillars of sustainability from literature, and the proposed framework was validated
with a case study. The findings indicate that the most influencing sustainable material is
wool brick among other alternatives. Behera et al. (2014) stated the urge to protect the urban
future by building in such a way to reduce the impacts caused to environments and natural
resources. Zuo and Zhao (2014) presented a systematic review of existing studies also
identified that focus is mainly on environmental aspects and then giving more emphasis on
social sustainability. The growth in the Indian economy has brought the importance of
boosting up the rise in the construction industry. Around $70bn is spent every year in this
industry. Doloi et al. analyzed that Indian construction projects are experiencing a lag in
their work, due to the shift in volume and capacity in the construction sectors. However, the
Indian construction companies are finding pathways to soon introduce the sustainable
practices and various strategies in the construction sectors. These studies say that
the adoption of a model for selecting the building materials based on the criteria which come
under the TBL of sustainability. Many researchers have found criteria coming under this
TBL, and they have given reviews about the environment, social and economic dimensions
of sustainability covering few criteria which should be considered in selecting the building
material. Based on further extensive literature review various sub-criteria under
environment, social and economic perspectives of sustainability are identified and listed
in Table I. Also, the main criteria and sub-criteria are presented in Table I for material
selection in construction industries.
3. Research gap
The use of sustainable materials in the construction industry has a large market,
particularly in the case of sustainable products which present a significant potential market
in India and other developing nations. There have been an enormous number of research in
the past for the concept of sustainable materials (Venkatarama Reddy, 2009; Akadiri et al.,
2013; Madurwar et al., 2013; Alwan et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2018; Mousavi-Nasab and
Sotoudeh-Anvari, 2018; Palliyaguru et al., 2018). All the studies have been focused on the
selection of materials, which leads a direction to produce sustainable products used in the
construction sectors.
Few studies have been made in the field of mainly sustainable material selection for the
construction industry (Govindan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2009) but most
of the studies have been in the context of developed countries. Govindan et al. (2016) studied
about the sustainable material selection for construction industry in the UAE in particular,
and proposed a model to evaluate best sustainable construction material based on
sustainable indicators (indicators were collected from existing literature), through a hybrid
MCDM approach and proposed framework was validated with a company’s case study.
Akadiri et al. (2013) presented a model for the selection of the building material by using the
Fuzzy extended AHP techniques. To select the optimal material alternative, an integrated
MCDM method which combines the complex proportional assessment method and the
evaluation of mixed data method was used (Chatterjee et al., 2009). Zhao et al. (2016) used an
integrated multi-attribute decision-making approach GRA method for commercially
available materials selection in sustainable design. There are very few studies available in
literature related only to green building design made on the context of developing countries
like India, Pakistan, etc. ( Joglekar et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2018; Hussin et al., 2013).
JAMR Criteria Definition Reference
Environment
Contribution to global The use and release of CFCs, emission of San-José et al. (2007), Sengupta (2008)
warming (E1) CO2 and other greenhouse gases
Healthy interior It is taken to ensure that materials and Umar et al. (2013), Nassar et al. (2003)
environment (E2) building systems do not emit toxic
substances and gasses into the interior
atmosphere
Environmental form (E3) All possible measures considered to Umar et al. (2013)
associate the form of construction
material to a pleasant relationship
among the native and natural world
(plan of the design to the site, the region
and the climate)
Recycle and reuse (E4) Ability to get the raw material recovery Govindan et al. (2016), Spence and
at the final lifetime of the building with Mulligan (1995), Pappu et al. (2007)
no loss of quality and its potential for
reuse capability of the material

Waste management (E5) It refers to the waste materials generated Arif et al. (2012), Pappu et al. (2007),
during work and after demolitions Ramaswamy and Kalidindi (2009)
Water consumption (E6) The quantity of fresh water required for Govindan et al. (2016)
various construction processes and
supporting activities(excavation,
concrete preparation, and curing works)
Production and It refers to the ease of transportation and Gulyani (2001), Govindan et al. (2016)
transportation activities production concerning green concerns
(E7)
Land acquisition (E8) Land occupied by the construction for Ramaswamy and Kalidindi (2009),
maintaining the inventory which damages Govindan et al. (2016)
the land near the construction site
Consumption of natural Demands suppliers and manufacturers Jain and Shrivastava
resources (E9) to consume more mineral soils and
agricultural land to make fundamental
construction materials due to increase in
urbanization and industrialization
Social
Ecological and social Dissimilar nations have their Umar et al. (2013)
acceptability (S1) architectural design and priority with
the perceptual experience of benign
materials
Social benefits and It refers to the social progress in the local Wang et al. (2009)
development (S2) regions by job creations and income
generation in less developed regions
Availability and Available in a continuing renewing Spence and Mulligan (1995), Florez et al.
adaptation (S3) manner, looking for locally accessible (2013)
materials with good labor availability
and utilizing eco-friendly materials to
boost environmental performance
Health and safety (S4) Well-being to the occupants or workers Spence and Mulligan (1995), Govindan
by exposing to toxic and harmful et al. (2016), Maiti (2008)
chemicals taking into consideration
about human health followed by the
Table I. ergonomics and occupation safety
Sustainable measures
dimensions and
criteria with
references (continued )
Criteria Definition Reference
Hybrid MCDM
approaches
Political risks (S5) Government intervention with the Wang et al. (2009), Ling and Hoi (2006)
ordinary behavior of business like
expropriation, postponement in
approvals, bribery and alteration of laws
Aesthetics (S6) Refers to humans recognize and judge Styhre (2008), Govindan et al. (2016)
materials according to their looks and
views
Resistance against Have the capability against decay and Joseph and Tretsiakova-McNally (2010),
natural contamination the ability to withstand natural Spiegel and Meadows (2010), Lo et al.
and habitat disasters (S7) calamities (2008), Keraminiyage et al. (2007)
Economic
Energy efficiency (EC1) The building’s use of energy is minimal, Umar et al. (2013), Jaber et al. (2004)
e.g. cooling, heating and lighting
systems use the methods and products
that conserve or eliminate energy use
Investment cost (EC2) Based on the budget, the selection of Wang et al. (2009)
green materials and other sustainable
resources is taken into consideration
Operation and It includes employee wages, funds spent Wang et al. (2009), El-Haram and
maintenance cost (EC3) for material systems and the products or Horner (2002)
services for material handling
operations. The maintenance cost is
incurred for aiming the material for
longer life and avoid frequent
replacements
Societal costs of Involves manufacturing(extraction, Govindan et al. (2016)
construction materials processing, packaging, and shipping),
(EC4) usage(construction, installation,
operation, maintenance) and disposal
(recycling and reuse)
Meeting user needs (EC5) The rating of the material based on its Govindan et al. (2016), Florez et al.
capability in meeting all expectations of (2013)
the consumer and highly satisfying to
the user
Financial and economic Financial risks are associated with Wang et al. (2009), Ling and Hoi (2006)
risks (EC6) “interest rates, credit ratings, capital
supply, cash flows and rentals.”
Economic risks relate to materials
supply, labor supply, equipment
availability, rising prices, tariffs
Tax contribution (EC7) It refers to the tax involved and Ling and Hoi (2006), Keswani (1997)
contributed by the material (e.g.
imported materials-entry tax, service
tax, and state tax) Table I.
There is no study done in the context of India about sustainable material selection for the
construction industry based on the three pillars of sustainability. So, this study is the first
attempt to provide a framework for material selection among construction industries based
on the three pillars of sustainability. In this study, the various brick materials used for any
building/structure in South India are taken for selecting the best among them concerning
TBL criteria of sustainability. The materials are chosen based on literature and consultation
with industry and academic expert panel.
JAMR Rezaei (2015) developed a new MCDM approach called BWM, which is far superior to AHP
method because BWM facilitates less computational works, more consistent results and
ability to combine with any MCDM method for further processes. Gupta and Barua (2017)
applied BWM methodology for supplier selection, and now this study is trying to use for
material selection in the construction industry for getting the weights of each criterion and for
ranking process. In this paper, we have used the Fuzzy extended TOPSIS technique of MCDM
approach to select material alternatives. The TOPSIS technique was first introduced by
Hwang and Yoon (1981). The reason for using Fuzzy TOPSIS instead of TOPSIS is that
TOPSIS uses crisp values for selecting the alternatives but humans tend to use preference
values, so Fuzzy TOPSIS uses a linguistic scale for comparison of alternatives (Ghorbani et al.,
2013; Gupta and Barua, 2017). However, the combination of BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS
methodology was used in studies like supplier/partner selection among SMEs by their green
innovation ability (Gupta and Barua, 2017). Hence, this study, to the best of our knowledge is
the first attempt in using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology integrating both the
methodologies for material selection in the construction industry in the context of the Indian
scenario. The alternative material for this study is shown in Table II.
The research objectives are presented below:

(1) an environmental assessment model was developed for the construction industry to
select the suitable materials based on the application by considering environmental,
economic and social issues (main criteria and sub-criteria);
(2) the model used to select suitable materials based on a sustainable perspective
(environmental, economic and social);
(3) BWM approach is used to select the criteria and find the weights of the criteria for
material selection based on the expert opinion and individual observations; and
(4) Fuzzy TOPSIS determined the best alternative for material selection.
4. Problem description
The construction process of buildings, operations and demolition of buildings are important
factors of human impact on the environment and society. To kickback these impacts, there is a
growing awareness among organizations who are devoted to the environment to select
appropriate strategies and actions which are needed to make a proper material selection (Barrett
et al., 1999; Abidin, 2010; Akadiri and Olomolaiye, 2012). Most developed countries have their
consulting bodies for their construction works (Lam et al., 2011; Ortiz et al., 2009; Zhang et al.,
2011). Lam et al.’s (2011) study mentioned that the USA and Canada are supported by their own
Construction Specification Institutes with the help of National Institute of Building Sciences in
the USA, and in the UK, the National Green Specification facilitates guidance on Sustainable
constructions. From the literature review, it is seen that the well-developed countries have
adopted sustainable material selection for their construction works realizing the significance of
sustainability. Sustainability has made the developing countries like India to adopt green and
sustainable material selection practices, but still, construction industries do not know proper
criteria for right material selection. Hence, the Indian industry should adopt a proactive approach
Material alternatives for bricks Material type
Brick 1 (B1) Common burnt clay bricks

Table II. Brick 2 (B2) Burnt clay fly ash bricks
Brick material Brick 3 (B3) Hollow concrete blocks
(alternatives) Brick 4 (B4) Autoclaved aerated concrete blocks
to address the issue of sustainable construction material selection for future competitiveness. Hybrid MCDM
Applying sustainability concept to select the materials in construction industries is a tough task approaches
for managers in India. The growth of construction industries in India is exponential, and it needs
a more structured way to adopt the proper practices in their regular activities.
Research is necessary for identifying and assessing the criteria coming under the three
pillars of sustainability, that is TBL of sustainability and selecting the right sustainable material,
by comparing with the criteria associated with the Indian scenario. Although Indian industries
have adopted the practice of using the sustainable material for any building, these materials are
not chosen adequately based on the TBL criteria of sustainability. To make the construction
industries to adopt and implement the practice, more research studies in the context of Indian
scenario should be encouraged to spread the awareness of sustainability. In this study, through
detailed literature and discussions with academic and industrial experts, 23 sub-criteria and
have been identified as essential and categorized based on the main criteria of sustainability,
and four brick materials (alternatives) also have been identified which are used in India. Criteria
and building materials with sources are illustrated in Tables II and III. The 23 criteria and
4 alternatives were chosen by the academic and industrial experts from a total of many criteria
identified through detailed literature review. The decision makers who had more than ten years
of experience in civil engineering studies, structural construction, etc., were chosen to give the
data and make decisions. The criteria and materials were framed into a questionnaire to collect
data and sent to many industries and academic experts. Hence, this study is a novel approach to
have an assessment model for selecting the right building materials to bring sustainability.
A hierarchical framework for evaluating materials is shown in Figure 1.
Industry type Total Percentage
Commercial buildings 34 27.2

Residential buildings 25 20
Medical buildings 12 9.6
Educational buildings 11 8.8
Government buildings 12 9.6
Industrial buildings 10 8
Military buildings 7 5.5
Parking structures and storage 9 7.2
Religious buildings 5 4
Total 125 100
Size (employees)
W3,000 (enterprises) 4 3.2
2,000–3,000 (large) 21 16.8
1,000–1,999 (medium) 42 33.6
500–999 (small) 58 46.4
Total 125 100
Ownership
Private 84 67.2
Joint venture 41 32.8
Total 125 100
Turnover/annum (Rs Crores)
W201 (enterprises) 6 4.8
176–200 (large) 12 9.6 Table III.
101–175 (medium) 49 39.2 Profile of total
50–100 (small) 58 46.4 respondent South
Total 125 100 Indian companies
JAMR Contribution to global warming (E1)
Healthy interior environment (E2)
Environmental form (E3)
Environment Common burnt
Criteria (E) Recycle and reuse (E4)
clay bricks
Waste management (E5) (B1)
Water consumption (E6)
Production and transportation
activities (E7)
Land acquisition (E8)
Consumption of natural resources
(E9)
Energy efficiency (EC1) Burnt clay fly

Investment cost (EC2) ash bricks (B2)
Operation and maintenance cost (EC3)
Societal costs of construction
Sustainable
Economic materials (EC4)
building
material (EC) Meeting user needs (EC5)
selection Financial and economic risks (EC6)
Tax contribution (EC7)
Hollow
concrete blocks
Ecological and social acceptability (B3)
(S1)
Social benefits and development (S2)
Availability and adaptation (S3)
Health and safety (S4)
Social (E)
Political risks (S5)
Figure 1. Aesthetics (S6)
Autoclaved
A hierarchical Resistance against natural
framework for aerated
contamination and habitat disasters
evaluating building concrete blocks
(S7)
materials (alternatives) (B4)
5. Solution methodology
From the literature review, discussions with the academic and industrial experts, a detailed
questionnaire was framed and circulated to various industries and colleges located in
the southern part of India. The questionnaires were filled and returned. The filled questionnaires
were explored, and the important TBL criteria selected by the academic and industrial experts
in the Indian context from many criteria identified from the literature review globally for
material selection were identified. A three-phase methodology is designed for sustainable
material selection problem for any construction/structure in this study, as shown in Figure 2.
Phase I comprises finalization of criteria for material selection through extant literature
and discussions with experienced professionals, phase II comprises computing the
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY Hybrid MCDM
PHASE I DATA COLLECTION PHASE II BEST WORST METHODOLOGY PHASE III FUZZY TOPSIS approaches
Definition of the problem Finalization of decision criteria Select the alternatives defined
Application of weights
obtained for the 23 sub criteria
Selection of experts Determination of Best Worst from the Best worst
Capture of the Expert’s

knowledge Preference rating for the best Construction of the decision
criteria over criteria’s matrices with fuzzy numbers
Selection of
alternatives, selection
of criteria/sub-criteria Preference rating for the other Normalizing the final decision
criteria over worst criteria matrix
Development of
questionnaire
Determination of the ideal

positive/negative solution
Calculation of relative
distance of each alternative to
ideal solution
Determination of closeness
coefficient and preference
Evaluation of results of survey ranking for the alternative
Figure 2.
Proposed
methodology for
Agreement on the selected Optimize weights of all the framing a sustainable
alternatives criteria Optimal solution assessment model
weights and ranks of each criterion using BWM and phase III comprises comparing each
criterion with the selected sustainable materials (alternatives) and ranking them. The
sustainable material selection process involves initially calculating the weights of the
criteria selected by the decision makers for study and then calculating the rank of each
alternative (material) concerning these criteria (Sevkli, 2010; Zeydan and Çolpan, 2009;
Bruni et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2016; Ravi et al., 2008; Kaur et al., 2018; Emrouznejad and
Marra, 2017; Chan et al., 2008). The new MCDM technique called BWM developed by
Dr Jafar Rezaei in 2015 can overcome the issue in AHP technique. The weights of
criteria are found using the BWM technique, and the alternatives (materials) are ranked
using the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique in this study. Each of these phases is discussed in the
respective sections.
5.1 Phase I: finalization of criteria and alternatives (building materials)

In this phase, the selection of criteria and alternatives from the literature review were
summarized in Section 5.1.1.
5.1.1 Prioritize the criteria and alternatives. This study starts by identifying the
designations of decision makers who are eligible to give the response (Gupta and Barua,
2017; Govindan et al., 2016). The decision makers who hold these selected designations are
given preference, and the questionnaires are sent to them.
JAMR The past studies on sustainable construction have been extensively reviewed, which is
an inevitable step in selection. From the literature review, many sub-criteria and alternatives
(building materials) for residential and commercial buildings were identified from the global
perspective. The identified sub-criteria and alternatives were put for deliberation in the form
of questionnaire and sent to the decision makers. The respondents (decision makers)
analyzed the sub-criteria and alternatives and sorted out the sub-criteria and alternatives
which are relevant to the Indian context, and from these data, the sub-criteria and
alternatives are finalized. Based on the data given by the respondents, a four-level decision
hierarchy for the problem is shown in Figure 1.
The decision hierarchy is subjected to a decision process where the hierarchy is checked
for the data conformance to the consolidated data from the respondents. After the
finalization of criteria, the next step is to calculate weights of these criteria. The finalized
criteria and alternatives (materials) are shown in Tables II and III.
5.2 Phase II: calculation of criteria weights using BWM

5.2.1 Overview of BWM. In AHP, the weights and scores are derived from pairwise
comparisons of the criteria and alternatives respectively. This method requires numerous
pairwise comparison data of the criteria against all criteria to derive the weights of the
criteria and getting the overall score of the alternatives. Unfortunately, for many reasons,
there are recurring inconsistencies in pairwise comparison matrices (Forman and Selly,
2001). To make the comparison matrix consistent, the suggested remedy is to revise the
comparison data given by the decision makers, but this solution consumes more time and
not successful (Rezaei, 2015). To avoid this problem, the new technique BWM derives the
weights of the criteria based only on the reference comparisons (comparing the best and the
worst criteria to the others), unlike in AHP, comparing all criteria with all criteria (Rezaei,
2015). There are few salient features that make BWM booming than AHP as follows:
• BWM only needs 2n−3 comparisons, while AHP needs n (n−1)/2 comparisons.
• The final optimized weights derived from BWM are highly reliable because it provides
more consistent comparisons compared to AHP. In BWM, the consistency ratio is used
to check the level of reliability as the output of BWM is always consistent.
• It can be combined with other MCDM methods, even though it can derive weights
independently.
• In BWM, we deal only integers while using comparison matrix, but in AHP, fractional
number are also used which makes the computations difficult (Rezaei, 2015).
Steps of BWM are as follows.
There are five steps in BWM to rank the criteria:
(1) Step 1: finalization of a set of decision.
(2) Step 2: defining the Best and the Worst criteria among main as well as sub-criteria.
(3) Step 3: preference rating for the best criterion over other criteria.
(4) Step 4: preference rating for all the criteria over the worst criterion.
(5) Step 5: finding the optimal weights of all the criteria.
5.3 Phase III: ranking the alternatives using Fuzzy TOPSIS

5.3.1 Overview of Fuzzy TOPSIS. The TOPSIS methodology selects the best alternative
among all the alternatives which are closest to the positive ideal solution and farthest from
the negative ideal solution. The limitation in traditional TOPSIS methodology is that crisp Hybrid MCDM
values are used for selection of the alternatives. The preference ratings on human judgment approaches
can be imprecise due to the crisp value ranking of alternatives, and to overcome this
limitation, Fuzzy TOPSIS using a linguistic scale for comparison of alternative is utilized for
this research.
5.3.2 Steps of Fuzzy TOPSIS
• Step 1: building a comparison matrix (kij) of alternatives with different criteria using
linguistic variables discussed in Table V.
• Step 2: next step is to obtain a normalized decision matrix using the following equation:
8 9
>
> l kij mkij ukij
; ; ; 8 ; >
>
< xþ xþ xþ x
ij ij is a positive criterion =
r~ kij ¼ :
ij ij ij
(1)
>
> >
: l kijij ; mijkij ; ukijij ; 8ij ; xij is a negative criterion >
x x x
;
• Step 3: next step is to obtain a weighted normalized decision matrix using the
following equations:

V~ ¼ v~ ij mn ; (2)
v~ ij ¼ r~ kijwj : (3)
• Step 4: next step is to determine FPIS and FNIS, where FPIS and FNIS are Fuzzy
positive ideal and the Fuzzy negative ideal solution, respectively:

A þ ¼ v1þ ; . . .. . .; vnþ ; where vjþ ¼ max vij if jeJ ; min vij if jeJ 0 ;
j ¼ 1. . .. . . n; (4)

A ¼ v 0
1 ; . . .. . .; vn ; where vj ¼ max vij if jeJ ; min vij if jeJ ; j
¼ 1. . .. . . n: (5)
Where, J is for positive criteria, J′ is for negative criteria.

• Step 5: next, calculate the distance of each alternative from FPIS and FNIS using the
following equations:
( )
Xn 2 1=2
þ þ
di ¼ vij bij ; i ¼ 1. . .. . . m; (6)
j¼1
( )1=2
n
X 2
d
i ¼ vij v
ij ; i ¼ 1. . .. . . m: (7)
j¼1
• Step 6: next, calculate the Closeness coefficient (CCi) of each alternative by using the
following equation:
d
CCi ¼ i
; i ¼ 1. . .. . . m CCi eð0; 1Þ: (8)
d i þdiþ

• Step 7: the final step is to rank the alternatives to select the supplier by CCi values in
descending order.
JAMR 6. Research design
6.1 Developing the questionnaire
Initially, before starting, the survey numerous criteria and alternatives (variant brick
materials) were identified under environment, economic and social perspectives which are
TBL of sustainability. The TBL of sustainability is the main criteria in this study. The
criteria which are identified under TBL are sub-criteria. Since the purpose of the study is to
assess and rank the criteria and sub-criteria for the material selection in the Indian scenario,
this study targeted academicians (professors from Civil Engineering and Material science
department) and industry experts (managers, higher and middle level, and engineers, higher
level) from South India to select the sub-criteria suitable for the Indian scenario among the
various criteria identified. An expert panel was formed to discuss the finalization of
essential sub-criteria. A panel consensus approach generally proves that opinion from
several experts is always better than an opinion from a single expert. The panel considered
of two academicians in structural, one academician in solid, one academician in water and
environmental divisions of Civil and Material science Engineering Departments from a
reputed college in South India and two specialists from construction industries. Through the
expert panel discussion, the sub-criteria and alternatives are finalized and are shown in
Tables II and III. From these results, the questionnaire for the Indian construction industries
was prepared. The questionnaire consisted of the goal of the study, general industry
information, pairwise comparison 1–9 point scale, Fuzzy linguistic expression scale and
matrices for criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives comparisons. The analytical profile of all
the respondents is shown in Table III.
6.2 Data collection

This study targeted managers, engineers and academicians in higher levels from South India.
Before starting the work, the purpose of the study, sustainability concepts were described in
the questionnaire to make the decision makers understand the elements in the questionnaire
and how data would be used. The questionnaires were sent to 221 South Indian companies in
December 2017, and periodic reminders were sent to get a proper response. All the companies
were selected with the help of a Confederation of Indian Industry directory, and all
these companies obtained ISO 14001 environmental management certification. Out of
221 companies, the total respondents were 125; this gave a response rate of 42.67 percent,
Malhotra and Grover (1998) pointed that a response rate more than 20 percent was enough for
a positive assessment of the survey. The respondents had to choose the types of building that
they construct, there were many common choices of the types of buildings which they
construct. The duration of the survey was fixed as two months; the valid overall response was
taken into consideration for further proceeding with the methodology.
The data collection consists of two steps. The first step is that the decision maker was
asked to give reference comparison values from a 1–9 point scale, the decision maker
was asked to select a best and worst criterion and give comparison values for criteria and
sub-criteria to find the weights. These data collected from various decision makers was
consulted with the expert panel and was compiled into a single data by taking an average.
These data are used to arrive at the weights using the BWM technique as described in
phase II, Section 5.2.
The second step is to select the best alternative. The decision makers were asked to evaluate
all the four alternatives by doing a pairwise comparison using Fuzzy linguistic variables/
expressions. The Fuzzy linguistic variables with their corresponding Fuzzy triangular numbers
are shown in Table IV. The decision makers gave pairwise comparison expressions between all
the alternatives and the sub-criteria and later these values were converted into values. These
values based on an expert’s opinion and consultations were averaged using Fuzzy mathematics.
The data collected are used in the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique, as described in phase III,
Section 5.4. Based on rigorous expert panel discussion and interaction with industry experts, Hybrid MCDM
this survey facilitated to provide data for a numerical illustration of methodology, which is approaches
given in the following section.
7. Application of methodology
This section will illustrate the application of the proposed methodology in phases I and II.
The data collected from phase I is used to illustrate the methodologies and to develop a
sustainable model for selecting the right construction material based on the TBL of
sustainability for Indian construction. This application signifies the effectiveness and
robustness of the proposed methodology in this study.
7.1 Finalization of criteria and alternatives (materials)

The criteria and alternative construction materials were identified through an extensive
literature review for bringing sustainability in India buildings. An expert panel was formed
to select and finalize the criteria for Indian context alone. A total of 23 criteria and
4 alternative materials were finalized for the study, and the questionnaire was prepared and
sent to the companies.
7.2 Calculation of criteria weights using the BWM

The next step after finalization of criteria is to determine the best and worst criteria among the
main. After determining the best and worst criteria, the next step is to give the preference rating
of best criteria over all other criteria and give the preference rating of the other criteria over
worst criteria on a scale of 1–9. The data given by the respondents were sorted and compiled
into a single collection of data. The main criteria pairwise comparisons are shown in Table V.
As main criteria are subjected to pairwise comparison, similarly, all the sub-criteria under
each main criterion is subjected to a pairwise comparison on a scale of 1–9 after determining
the best and worst, which is presented in Tables VI–VIII. After obtaining the pairwise
comparisons of all the main and sub-criteria, the next step is to obtain weights of main and
sub-criteria. The weights are determined using Equation (2) which is a mathematical model, as
discussed in phase II, Section 5.3. The mathematical model is coded and solved using IBM
ILOG CPLEX which is an optimization software. The software solves the mathematical model
through the simplex method using the primal or dual variant, which is developed as the
backend operation. The pairwise comparison data of main and sub-criteria are formulated as
Linguistic variables Corresponding Fuzzy numbers
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 2)

Low (L) (0, 2, 4)
Medium (M) (2, 4, 6)
High (H) (4, 6, 8)
Very high (VH) (6, 8, 10) Table IV.
Excellent (E) (8, 10, 10) Linguistic expressions
BO Environment (E) Economic (EC) Social (S)

Best criteria: environment 1 5 7
OW Worst criterion: social (S)
Environment (E) 7 Table V.
Economic (EC) 5 Main criteria
Social (S) 1 pairwise comparison
JAMR BO E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9
Best criterion: E1 1 4 8 3 4 4 5 3 4
OW Worst criterion: E3
E1 8
E2 6
E3 1
E4 4
E5 5
Table VI. E6 4
Pairwise comparison E7 4
for environment E8 5
sub-criteria E9 3
BO EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7

Best criterion: EC5 3 3 2 4 1 2 7
OW Worst criterion: EC7

EC1 5
EC2 5
EC3 6
Table VII. EC4 4
Pairwise comparison EC5 7
for economic EC6 4
sub-criteria EC7 1
BO S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Best criterion: S4 2 3 3 1 4 7 2
OW Worst criterion: S6
S1 6
S2 6
S3 5
S4 7
Table VIII. S5 4
Pairwise comparisons S6 1
for social sub-criteria S7 6
the mathematical model and solved. The computational results of main criteria are shown
in Table IX, and the consistency value of main criteria as shown is lesser than zero, which
shows high consistency among pairwise comparison.
The weights and global weights of all the sub-criteria are presented in Table X along
with the main criteria and their consistency values as shown are also lesser than zero. The
global weights are used to rank the sub-criteria, which helps to create the model for
sustainable material selection. The next step is to rank the alternatives (materials)
concerning these criteria ranks.
7.3 Ranking the alternatives using Fuzzy TOPSIS

The next step after obtaining the weights of all main and sub-criteria is to determine the best
material concerning all the sub-criteria. Fuzzy TOPSIS is used to obtain the ranks of
alternatives, as discussed in phase III in Section 5.5.
Decision makers were asked to evaluate the four brick materials chosen for Indian Hybrid MCDM
buildings concerning the sub-criteria using linguistic variables as shown in Table V. The approaches
resultant comparison matrix having corresponding Fuzzy values of linguistic variables is
shown in Table XI. The next step is to obtain a Fuzzy normalized matrix using Equation (1).
After obtaining a normalized matrix, the next step is to obtain Fuzzy weighted normalized
matrix using Equation (3), which is presented in Table XI. The next step is to determine
FPIS and FNIS using Equations (4) and (5). The next step is to determine the geometric
distance of each alternative from FPIS and FNIS using Equations (6) and (7).
The next step is to determine the closeness coefficient value CCi using Equation (8).
Based on the CCi values arranged in descending order, the alternatives can be ranked. The
CCi values and the ranks of the alternative’s materials are shown in Table XII.
The results of the three-phase methodology are discussed in the following section.
8. Results and discussions

The results obtained from the application of the methodologies are tabulated and presented in
Table X. To highlight sustainability in construction industries, the three pillars, environment,

economic and social, which are all also TBL, are taken as the main criteria for this study.
Main criteria Weights ξ* Consistency ratio
Environment (E) 0.6922 2.0022 0.5367 Table IX.

Economic (EC) 0.2309 Main criteria weights
Social (S) 0.0769 and consistency ratio
Main Weights main Weights Global

perspective perspective Criteria criteria weights Ranking Consistency ratio
Environment 0.6922 E1 0.283 0.19589 1 0.3859

E2 0.1244 0.08611 4
E3 0.0291 0.02014 15
E4 0.111 0.07683 6
E5 0.0953 0.06597 7
E6 0.0662 0.04582 10
E7 0.0662 0.04582 11
E8 0.1957 0.13546 2
E9 0.1244 0.08611 5
Economic 0.2309 EC1 0.2105 0.0486 9 0.3072
EC2 0.193 0.04456 12
EC3 0.2383 0.05502 8
EC4 0.137 0.03163 14
EC5 0.391 0.09028 3
EC6 0.1732 0.03999 13
EC7 0.048 0.01108 19
Social 0.0769 S1 0.2192 0.01686 18 0.3373
S2 0.1432 0.01101 20
S3 0.1432 0.01101 20
S4 0.2494 0.01918 16
S5 0.0828 0.00637 22 Table X.
S6 0.0302 0.00232 23 Weights and global
S7 0.2418 0.01859 17 weights of sub-criteria
JAMR Brick E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9
B1 (8, 10, 10) (2, 2, 2) (6, 6, 6) (8, 8, 8) (8, 10, 10) (8, 10, 10) (4, 6, 8) (4, 6, 8) (6, 8, 10)
B2 (4, 6, 8) (4, 6, 8) (4, 6, 8) (6, 8, 10) (2, 4, 6) (4, 6, 8) (4, 6, 8) (4, 6, 8) (2, 4, 6)
B3 (6, 8, 10) (6, 8, 10) (4, 6, 8) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (0, 0, 2)
B4 (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (0, 0, 2) (0, 0, 2) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6) (2, 4, 6)
Weights 0.19589 0.08611 0.02014 0.07683 0.06597 0.04582 0.04582 0.13546 0.08611
EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7
B1 8, 10, 10 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 0, 0, 2 0, 0, 2 0, 0, 2
B2 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8
B3 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8
B4 4, 6, 8 6, 8, 10 6, 8, 10 4, 6, 8 0, 0.2 6, 8, 10 6, 8, 10
Weights 0.0486 0.04456 0.05502 0.03163 0.09028 0.03999 0.01108
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
B1 0, 0, 2 0, 0, 2 0, 0, 2 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6
Table XI. B2 4, 6, 8 4, 6, 8 4, 6, 8 6, 8, 10 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8
Fuzzy comparison B3 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 4, 6, 8 4, 6, 8
matrix for B4 0, 0, 2 0, 0, 2 4, 6, 8 2, 4, 6 2, 4, 6 0, 0, 2 2, 4, 6
material selection Weights 0.01686 0.01101 0.01101 0.09118 0.00637 0.00232 0.01859
BRICK d+ d− CC Ranks
Table XII. B1 0.235637 0.176343 0.428037 3

Closeness coefficient B2 0.146359 0.267582 0.646425 1
and ranking B3 0.174046 0.238375 0.577989 2
of materials B4 0.324936 0.087264 0.211702 4
The weights of the main criteria and sub-criteria are determined using BWM, and global
weights of the sub-criteria are determined – it is the product of sub-criteria weights and main
criteria weights – and the weights are determined by considering all the three pillars together.
Among the three perspectives, it was observed that the significance of environmental aspects
was greater than the other two perspectives: it ranks first. Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) stated
that from the last decade, negative environmental impacts are the key factor for climatic
changes. The natural resources in the environment are consumed enormously to meet the
rising urban demands. This majorly leads to the depletion stage and affects the climate
hugely. The process of preparing unsuitable materials which are hazardous releases of CFCs
into the atmosphere (Sengupta, 2008). Now, this is becoming a challenge to manage the
environment safely concurrently to meet the urban demands. Here sustainability comes into
play, which is very much essential to managing the resources to fulfill the present and future
needs, selecting environmentally sustainable materials to reduce the emission of toxic gases
into the interior atmosphere of buildings (Umar et al., 2013). Hence, sustainable environment
criteria should be considered while selecting materials for construction. Then environmental
aspects were followed by economic and social by the ranks like EWECWS in our sustainable
material assessment model. From this determination, we conclude that environmental criteria
are given more importance than the other criteria considered in the overall view of Indian
construction context. There have been innovations in favor of more environmentally friendly
buildings, and sustainable construction has centered on residential and commercial buildings.
This environment criterion has further nine sub-criteria, and they have been ranked
accordingly to global weights as follows E1WE8WE9WE2WE4WE5WE6WE7WE3.
The contribution to global warming is ranked first among the other criteria considered in
this perspective. Conventional materials largely contribute to the emission of CFCs, CO2 and
other greenhouse gases which affect the health of inmates of a building and the atmosphere;
it is a significant health damaging factor also proved by previous studies (San-José et al., 2007). Hybrid MCDM
Second ranked sub-criterion is land acquisition; lands are being destroyed extensively for approaches
construction purposes, and land surrounding the site also damaged heavily by storing
inventory, machines, equipment and utilities (Govindan et al., 2016). These two sub-criteria
are followed by consumption of natural resources (E9), healthy interior environment (E2),
recycle and reuse (E4), waste management (E5), water consumption (E6), production and
transportation activities (E7) and environmental form (E3). Among the main criteria, the
second ranked criterion is the economic perspective. It has been addressed that the economic
and environmental aspects are contradictory to each other (Govindan et al., 2016). People often
tend to buy low-cost materials, but the quality is not considered very much. Choosing the right
green materials for construction in a location is a mode of investing as the materials do not
require maintenance cost during climatic changes (Wang et al., 2009). This criterion indirectly
affects the environment when low-quality materials of cheap cost are used. This criterion has
seven sub-criteria: they are ranked as follows EC5WEC3WEC1WEC2WEC6WEC4WEC7.
Based on the data given by industrial experts according to the current real situation, meeting
user needs (EC5) is the first among other criteria. It concerns the rate and capability of the
material which should satisfy the user. It is followed by operation and maintenance cost (EC3),
which concerns the wages given to employees and cost incurred in maintaining the materials;
if right materials are used, the time taken will become less and cost will decrease. The other
criteria are in the following order energy efficiency (EC1), investment cost (EC2), financial and
economic risks (EC6), societal costs of construction materials (EC4) and tax contribution (EC7).
The last main criterion is the social perspective; the materials should not affect the health of
the users, which is the major concern. Society criterion considers the acceptance issue of
certain new material by a locality; it might be refused because of inherent usage of
conventional materials (Umar et al., 2013). However, using the same type of material
which is unsuitable for a location will affect the locality. Considering the sub-criteria of the
social perspective, the results are as follows: S4WS7WS1WS2WS3WS5WS6. Health and
safety criterion is found greater in weights than the other criteria. A location may require
material for its geographical parameters to sustain (Umar et al., 2013). This criterion is
followed by resistance against natural contamination (S7), ecological and social acceptability
(S1), social benefits and development (S2), availability and adaptation (S3), political risks (S5)
and aesthetics (S7).
The main aim of the research is to create a sustainable model for the selection of the best
suitable building material considering the TBL criteria. The criteria and sub-criteria are
ranked, and now the alternate material evaluation is done by the Fuzzy TOPSIS
methodology. This study mainly concentrated on the selection of best and suitable brick
material for any type of building. The questionnaire was prepared for brick material and
sent to decision makers. From the Fuzzy TOPSIS results, it is observed that burnt clay fly
ash bricks topped the first position than the other bricks taken into consideration. Joglekar
et al. (2018) found that the rank of brick alternative mainly depends upon the cost of brick
along with its properties, acceptability by society and discharge of various gases during
manufacturing and construction.
Historically, the fired clay brick is the most common building material in India due to its
low manufacturing cost and the availability of clay throughout the country. Poinot et al.
(2018) identified that fly ash bricks could be produced for the same costs as the clay fired
brick with decreased environmental impact, making them a feasible alternative in the
market. The fly ash brick is followed by hollow concrete blocks, burnt clay blocks and
autoclaved aerated blocks (AAB). Even though AAB has better environmental quality than
burnt clay bricks, the economic and social criteria come into play and push it to the last.
All the previous studies have developed a model for other foreign countries for material
selection, and there is no study yet considering the TBL of sustainability and its sub-criteria
JAMR for material selection in the Indian context. Hence, this research yields an optimal result in
the selection of sustainable materials for the construction industry in the view of industries
in India.
8.1 Managerial implications

The research outcomes were discussed with the industry and academic experts to examine
and bring forward the issues related to the material selection in construction industries
based on sustainable perspective criteria. The study also brings the various criteria used to
assess the materials for construction purposes. Therefore, this research work has specific
managerial and practical implications that are discussed as follows.
8.1.1 Itemizing the various criteria of sustainability for material selection in construction
industries. This study reveals 3 main criteria and 23sub-criteria for material selection in
construction industries. Most of the organizations nowadays are asked to focus the TBL of
sustainability on capturing the market and the severe competition in the market; this has
focused them. not only giving importance on the economic basis, but also in the
environment and other perspectives of sustainability. To achieve this awareness of

sustainability as well as various criteria of sustainability, it must be known in a proper and
clear manner so that the competition among various organizations in the field of
sustainability can be handled effectively. The current research work is a first attempt to
highlight various criteria and sub-criteria of sustainability for material selection in the
construction industry based on Indian context. From the existing literature review and
discussion with industry experts and academicians, the three main criteria were finalized
(environment, economic and social). Focusing on the TBL of sustainability, the competition
and various regulations set by the government organizations can develop environmentally
friendly and economical products with better adaptation to social development to acquire
new business based on sustainability factors.
8.1.2 Establishing a novel and robust framework for material selection in the construction
industry. The selection of materials among various alternative materials in construction
industries has always been in a dilemma, which leads to adverse situations concerned by
managers or officials in charge of it. This study presents a novel framework for material
selection in construction industries. BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies have been
used for material selection. The BWM method, being more consistent than AHP, is used to
calculate weights and, consequently, ranks of each criterion as well as sub-criteria.
Managers, engineers’ other officials in charge of it can easily be able to identify the
necessary and important criteria for material selection by using this framework. This
proposed framework is tested on a case company and helps the managers to select
appropriate materials among various alternatives taken for the study.
9. Conclusions and future scope

Today the concept of SD is increasingly in great demand for the construction sector;
the main reason is due to environmental regulations and other rules and regulations for the
protection of the environment. As the growth of population also increases day by day,
the pollution and consumption of natural resources and the pollution level also tend to
increase enormously, and in case of companies manufacturing, the products and utilizing
materials in the construction industry, the various factors of economic, social, environment
as well as the increasing competition. Among those industries, new ways of adopting
sustainability in their practices of manufacturing as well as procuring the materials,
which lead to lessening the effect over the external environment and the healthy life of
inhabitants. So due to these factors, the companies and various industries are in a hunt of
new technologies and materials, which leads to a great level of sustainability as well as high Hybrid MCDM
usability of materials in construction practices. approaches
To select suitable material, the selection among the other alternatives has always been
in a different dilemma. So, with the concept of SD, a three-phase methodology is proposed in
this research to select the suitable material in the construction industry based on the Indian
context. The proposed methodology is used by organizations to select the proper materials
for a new project or for selecting the best alternatives. The first phase, which involved
selecting the criteria for material selection in construction industries, literature review and
expert opinion, was used for selecting and finalizing the criteria for material selection in the
construction industry; a total of three main criteria and 23 sub-criteria were selected for the
study. The second phase involved the BWM methodology to calculate weights and ranks of
the main criteria as well as sub-criteria. BWM is an extension of the AHP methodology and
provides consistent results with lesser pairwise comparisons. The third phase involved
ranking of the materials by using the criteria weights obtained using BWM and using them
in the Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology; brick2 (B2) burnt clay fly ash appeared as the best
material alternative among all the four bricks taken up for analysis. Hence, this study
provides a sustainable assessment model for material selection in the construction industry.
9.1 Limitations and future scope

This study also has certain limitations. This study uses a combination of BWM and
Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for material selection, other MCDM techniques like VIKOR,
PROMETHEE, MAUT, FUZZY AHP and ELECTRE can also be used for this study. Based
on the organization perspective, criteria can be updated for the selection of materials with
future innovations to yield an optimal solution for the cases considered. Future studies can
include various materials like sand, cement, tiles and wood, and alternatives can be
evaluated including companies all over India.
References
Abidin, N.Z. (2010), “Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept
by Malaysian developers”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 421-426.
Akadiri, P.O. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (2012), “Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building
materials selection”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 666-687.
Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Chinyio, E.A. (2013), “Multi-criteria evaluation model for the
selection of sustainable materials for building projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 30,
pp. 113-125.
Alam, S., Fatima, A. and Butt, M.S. (2007), “Sustainable development in Pakistan in the context of
energy consumption demand and environmental degradation”, Journal of Asian Economics,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 825-837.
Alwan, Z., Jones, P. and Holgate, P. (2017), “Strategic sustainable development in the UK construction
industry, through the framework for strategic sustainable development, using building
information modelling”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 349-358.
Arif, M., Bendi, D., Toma-Sabbagh, T. and Sutrisna, M. (2012), “Construction waste management in
India: an exploratory study”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 133-155.
Baharetha, S.M., Al-Hammad, A.A. and Alshuwaikhat, H.M. (2013), “Towards a unified set of
sustainable building materials criteria”, ICSDEC 2012: Developing the Frontier of Sustainable
Design, Engineering, and Construction, pp. 732-740.
Bajaj, S., Jha, P.C. and Aggarwal, K.K. (2013), “Single-source, single-destination, multi product EOQ
model with quantity discount incorporating partial/full truckload policy”, International Journal
of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 198-220.
JAMR Bansal, S., Biswas, S. and Singh, S.K. (2017), “Fuzzy decision approach for selection of most suitable
construction method of Green Buildings”, International Journal of Sustainable Built
Environment, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 122-132.
Barrett, P.S., Sexton, M.G. and Green, L. (1999), “Integrated delivery systems for sustainable
construction”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 397-404.
Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Minocha, A.K., Deoliya, R. and Maiti, S. (2014), “Recycled aggregate
from C&D waste and its use in concrete – a breakthrough towards sustainability in construction
sector: a review”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 68, pp. 501-516.
Bourdeau, L. (1999), “Agenda 21 on sustainable construction”, CIB Report Publication No. 237, CIB.
Bruni, M.E., Beraldi, P. and Iazzolino, G. (2014), “Lending decisions under uncertainty: a DEA
approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 766-775.
Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M.M. (2005), Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global
Environmental Governance, Vol. 4, Psychology Press.
Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A.O. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2018), “Critical barriers to green building
technologies adoption in developing countries: the case of Ghana”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1067-1079.

Chan, F.T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M.K., Lau, H.C. and Choy, K.L. (2008), “Global supplier selection: a
Fuzzy-AHP approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 14,
pp. 3825-3857.
Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S. (2009), “Selection of materials using compromise
ranking and outranking methods”, Materials and Design, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 4043-4053.
Chikhi, M., Agoudjil, B., Boudenne, A. and Gherabli, A. (2013), “Experimental investigation of new bio
composite with low cost for thermal insulation”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 66, pp. 267-273.
Diabat, A., Kannan, D. and Mathiyazhagan, K. (2014), “Analysis of enablers for implementation of
sustainable supply chain management – a textile case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 83,
pp. 391-403.
Du Plessis, C. (2007), “A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-76.
El-Haram, M.A. and Horner, M.W. (2002), “Factors affecting housing maintenance cost”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 115-123.
Emrouznejad, A. and Marra, M. (2017), “The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017):
a literature review with a social network analysis”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 55 No. 22, pp. 6653-6675.
Florez, L., Castro, D. and Irizarry, J. (2013), “Measuring sustainability perceptions of construction
materials”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 217-234.
Forman, E.H. and Selly, M.A. (2001), Decision by Objectives: How to Convince Others that You are Right,
World Scientific.
Ganapathy, S.P., Natarajan, J., Gunasekaran, A. and Subramanian, N. (2014), “Influence of
eco-innovation on Indian manufacturing sector sustainable performance”, International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 198-209.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlan, N.D., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N. and
GhaffarianHoseini, M. (2013), “Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review
of current theories, implementations and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 25, pp. 1-17.
Ghorbani, M., Mohammad Arabzad, S. and Shahin, A. (2013), “A novel approach for supplier selection
based on the Kano model and Fuzzy MCDM”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 51 No. 18, pp. 5469-5484.
Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M. and Thuvander, L. (2009), “An absorptive capacity model for green
innovation and performance in the construction industry”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 451-464.
González, M.J. and Navarro, J.G. (2006), “Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the Hybrid MCDM
construction field through the selection of materials: practical case study of three houses of low approaches
environmental impact”, Building and Environment, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 902-909.
Govindan, K., Shankar, K.M. and Kannan, D. (2016), “Sustainable material selection for construction
industry – a hybrid multi criteria decision making approach”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 55, pp. 1274-1288.
Gulyani, S. (2001), “Effects of poor transportation on lean production and industrial clustering:
evidence from the Indian auto industry”, World Development, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1157-1177.
Gupta, H. and Barua, M.K. (2017), “Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green
innovation ability using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 152,
pp. 242-258.
Gustavsson, L., Pingoud.and, K. and Sathre, R. (2006), “Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution:
comparing concrete-and wood-framed buildings”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 667-691.
Häkkinen, T. (2007), “Assessment of indicators for sustainable urban construction”, Civil Engineering
and Environmental Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 247-259.

Hussin, J.M., Rahman, I.A. and Memon, A.H. (2013), “The way forward in sustainable construction:
issues and challenges”, International Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 15-24.
Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981), “Methods for multiple attribute decision making”, Multiple Attribute
Decision Making, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 58-191.
Jaber, J.O., Badran, O.O. and Abu-Shikhah, N. (2004), “Sustainable energy and environmental impact:
role of renewables as clean and secure source of energy for the 21st century in Jordan”,
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 174-186.
Joglekar, S.N., Kharkar, R.A., Mandavgane, S.A. and Kulkarni, B.D. (2018), “Sustainability assessment
of brick work for low-cost housing: a comparison between waste based bricks and burnt clay
bricks”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 37, pp. 396-406.
Joseph, P. and Tretsiakova-McNally, S. (2010), “Sustainable non-metallic building materials”,
Sustainability, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 400-427.
Kaur, J., Sidhu, R., Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. and Goyal, S. (2018), “A DEMATEL based approach for
investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 312-332.
Keraminiyage, K.P., Amaratunga, R.D.G. and Haigh, R.P. (2007), “Role of construction in managing
disasters in developing economies”, Annual Bank Conference on Developing Economics,
The World Bank, Bled, May 29-30.
Keswani, K. (1997), “The contribution of building centres to low-cost housing in India”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 50-64.
Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M. and Rahmat, A.R. (2016), “Rank of green building
material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria
decision making method”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 173, pp. 82-99.
Kibert, C.J. (1994), “Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction”, Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL, November, pp. 6-9.
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K. and Wassenhove, L.N. (2005), “Sustainable operations management”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492.
Kneifel, J. (2010), “Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial
buildings”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 333-340.
Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C.K. and Poon, C.S. (2011), “A sustainable framework of ‘green’
specification for construction in Hong Kong”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 16-33.
JAMR Langston, C., Wong, F.K., Hui, E.C. and Shen, L.Y. (2008), “Strategic assessment of building adaptive
reuse opportunities in Hong Kong”, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1709-1718.
Ling, F.Y.Y. and Hoi, L. (2006), “Risks faced by Singapore firms when undertaking construction
projects in India”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 261-270.
Lo, S.M., Zhao, C.M., Liu, M. and Coping, A. (2008), “A simulation model for studying the
implementation of performance-based fire safety design in buildings”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 852-863.
Madurwar, M.V., Ralegaonkar, R.V. and Mandavgane, S.A. (2013), “Application of agro-waste for
sustainable construction materials: a review”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 38,
pp. 872-878.
Mahadevi, D. (2001), “Sustainable urban development in India: an inclusive perspective”, Development
in Practice, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3, pp. 242-259.
Maiti, R. (2008), “Workload assessment in building construction related activities in India”,
Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 754-765.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), “An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to
theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 407-425.

Mousavi-Nasab, S.H. and Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2018), “A new multi-criteria decision making approach
for sustainable material selection problem: a critical study on rank reversal problem”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, pp. 466-484.
Nassar, K., Thabet, W. and Beliveau, Y. (2003), “A procedure for multi-criteria selection of building
assemblies”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 543-560.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F. and Sonnemann, G. (2009), “Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of
recent developments based on LCA”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Palliyaguru, R., Karunasena, G. and Ang, S. (2018), “Review on sustainable building design and
construction in the rural context: the case of building Ampara, Sri Lanka”, in Leal Filho, W.,
Rogers, J. and Iyer-Raniga, U. (Eds) Sustainable Development Research in the Asia-Pacific Region,
World Sustainability Series, Springer, Cham, pp. 493-507.
Pappu, A., Saxena, M. and Asolekar, S.R. (2007), “Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling
potential in building materials”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 2311-2320.
Poinot, T., Laracy, M.E., Aponte, C., Jennings, H.M., Ochsendorf, J.A. and Olivetti, E.A. (2018),
“Beneficial use of boiler ash in alkali-activated bricks”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 128, pp. 1-10.
Ramaswamy, K.P. and Kalidindi, S.N. (2009), “Waste in Indian building construction projects”,
Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction
(IGLC-17), Taiwan, July 15-17.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2008), “Selection of a reverse logistics project for end-of-life
computers: ANP and goal programing approach”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46 No. 17, pp. 4849-4870.
Rezaei, J. (2015), “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method”, Omega, Vol. 53, pp. 49-57.
San-José, J.T., Garrucho, I., Losada, R. and Cuadrado, J. (2007), “A proposal for environmental indicators
towards industrial building sustainable assessment”, The International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Selles, H. (2013), “The relative impact of countries on global natural resource consumption and
ecological degradation”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
Sengupta, N. (2008), “Use of cost-effective construction technologies in India to mitigate climate
change”, Current Science, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 38-43.
Sevkli, M. (2010), “An application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 12, pp. 3393-3405.
Simão, L.E., Gonçalves, M.B. and Rodriguez, C.M.T. (2016), “An approach to assess logistics and Hybrid MCDM
ecological supply chain performance using postponement strategies”, Ecological Indicators, approaches
Vol. 63, pp. 398-408.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. and Dikshit, A.K. (2009), “An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 189-212.
Spence, R. and Mulligan, H. (1995), “Sustainable development and the construction industry”,
Habitat International, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 279-292.
Spiegel, R. and Meadows, D. (2010), Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and
Specification, John Wiley and Sons.
Styhre, A. (2008), “The aesthetics of rock construction work: the beauty of sprayed concrete,
rock reinforcement and roof bolting”, Culture and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 401-410.
Tathagat, D. and Dod, R.D. (2015), “The inception and evolution of EIA and environmental clearance
process – laying emphasis on sustainable development and construction”, International Journal
of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 22-28.
Tian, G., Zhang, H., Feng, Y., Wang, D., Peng, Y. and Jia, H. (2018), “Green decoration materials
selection under interior environment characteristics: a grey-correlation based hybrid MCDM

method”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 81, pp. 682-692.
Umar, U.A., Tukur, H., Khamidi, M. and Alkali, A.U. (2013), “Impact of environmental assessment of
green building materials on sustainable rating system”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 689,
Trans Tech Publications, pp. 398-402.
Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. (2009), “Sustainable materials for low carbon buildings”, International
Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F. and Zhao, J.H. (2009), “Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid
in sustainable energy decision-making”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13
No. 9, pp. 2263-2278.
WCED (1987), “Our common future”, report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, World Commission on Environment and Development.
Wu, J., Zhu, Q., Chu, J., An, Q. and Liang, L. (2016), “A DEA-based approach for allocation of emission
reduction tasks”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 18, pp. 5618-5633.
Zeydan, M. and Çolpan, C. (2009), “A new decision support system for performance measurement using
combined Fuzzy TOPSIS/DEA approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47
No. 15, pp. 4327-4349.
Zhang, H., Peng, Y., Tian, G., Wang, D. and Xie, P. (2017), “Green material selection for sustainability: a
hybrid MCDM approach”, PloS One, Vol. 12 No. 5, available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0177578
Zhang, X., Platten, A. and Shen, L. (2011), “Green property development practice in China: costs and
barriers”, Building and Environment, Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 2153-2160.
Zhao, R., Su, H., Chen, X. and Yu, Y. (2016), “Commercially available materials selection in sustainable
design: an integrated multi-attribute decision making approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Zuo, J. and Zhao, Z.Y. (2014), “Green building research – current status and future agenda: a review”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 30, pp. 271-281.
Further reading
Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M. and Ignatius, J. (2012), “A state-of the-art survey of
TOPSIS applications”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 17, pp. 13051-13069.
Bruntland, G.H. (1987), “The Bruntland Report: our common future”, World Commission on
Environment and Development.
JAMR Dixit, S., Mandal, S.N., Sawhney, A. and Singh, S. (2017), “Area of linkage between lean construction
and sustainability in Indian construction industry”, International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 623-636.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C. and Rentala, S. (2012), “Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 479-489.
Florez, L. and Castro-Lacouture, D. (2013), “Optimization model for sustainable materials selection
using objective and subjective factors”, Materials and Design, Vol. 46, pp. 310-321.
Jain, H. and Shrivastava, S. (2016), “Accounting of water footprint in substructure in a typical
multistorey concrete building”, The 7th International Conference on Sustainable Built
Environment, Earl’s Regency Hotel, Kandy, December 16–18.
Kahraman, C., Beskese, A. and Kaya, I. (2010), “Selection among ERP outsourcing alternatives using a
Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 547-566.
Khemiri, R., Elbedoui-Maktouf, K., Grabot, B. and Zouari, B. (2017), “A Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-
making approach for managing performance and risk in integrated procurement–production
planning”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 18, pp. 5305-5329.
Knudstrup, M.-A. and Brunsgaard, C. (2009), “Approaches to the design of sustainable housing with
low CO2 emission in Denmark”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 2007-2015.
Kuo, R.J. and Lin, Y.J. (2012), “Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment
analysis”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 2852-2863.
Li, S., Wu, H. and Ding, Z. (2018), “Identifying sustainable wood sources for the construction industry: a
case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K. and Noorul Haq, A. (2014), “Pressure analysis for green supply chain
management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 188-202.
Özler, C., KocakoÇ, I.D. and ŞehirlioĢlu, A.K. (2008), “Using analytic hierarchy process to determine
process economics in multivariate loss functions”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 1121-1135.
Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2003), “Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials
and technologies”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 129-137.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J. and Tavasszy, L. (2016), “A supplier selection life cycle approach
integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 577-588.
Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A. and Sabaghi, M. (2015), “Application of Fuzzy VIKOR for
evaluation of green supply chain management practices”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 49, pp. 188-203.
Wang, S.Q., Tiong, R.L., Ting, S.K. and Ashley, D. (1999), “Political risks: analysis of key contract
clauses in China’s BOT project”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125
No. 3, pp. 190-197.
Yayla, A.Y., Oztekin, A., Gumus, A.T. and Gunasekaran, A. (2015), “A hybrid data analytic
methodology for 3PL transportation provider evaluation using Fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 20, pp. 6097-6113.
Yoon, K.P. and Hwang, C.L. (1995), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, January 17,
Social Science, SAGE Publications, 83pp.
Corresponding author
Kaliyan Mathiyazhagan can be contacted at: madii1984@yahoo.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

2018 # JAMR at Materials Selection in Construction Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 # JAMR at Materials Selection in Construction Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Advances in Management Research

A sustainable assessment model for material selection in construction industries

Downloaded on: 04 December 2018, At: 03:03 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Industrial Engineering,

1.1 Research objectives

reuse capability of the material

The research objectives are presented below:

Material alternatives for bricks Material type

Brick 1 (B1) Common burnt clay bricks

Industry type Total Percentage

Commercial buildings 34 27.2

Energy efficiency (EC1) Burnt clay fly

Capture of the Expert’s

Determination of the ideal

5.1 Phase I: finalization of criteria and alternatives (building materials)

5.2 Phase II: calculation of criteria weights using BWM

5.3 Phase III: ranking the alternatives using Fuzzy TOPSIS

Where, J is for positive criteria, J′ is for negative criteria.

6.2 Data collection

7.1 Finalization of criteria and alternatives (materials)

sent to the companies.

7.2 Calculation of criteria weights using the BWM

Linguistic variables Corresponding Fuzzy numbers

Very low (VL) (0, 0, 2)

BO Environment (E) Economic (EC) Social (S)

BO EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7

OW Worst criterion: EC7

7.3 Ranking the alternatives using Fuzzy TOPSIS

8. Results and discussions

Table X. To highlight sustainability in construction industries, the three pillars, environment,

Main criteria Weights ξ* Consistency ratio

Environment (E) 0.6922 2.0022 0.5367 Table IX.

Main Weights main Weights Global

Environment 0.6922 E1 0.283 0.19589 1 0.3859

Table XII. B1 0.235637 0.176343 0.428037 3

8.1 Managerial implications

environment and other perspectives of sustainability. To achieve this awareness of

9. Conclusions and future scope

9.1 Limitations and future scope

Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1067-1079.

and Environmental Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 247-259.

theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 407-425.

selection under interior environment characteristics: a grey-correlation based hybrid MCDM

You might also like