buildings

Article
BIM- and GIS-Based Life-Cycle-Assessment Framework
for Enhancing Eco Efficiency and Sustainability in the
Construction Sector
Muhammad Umer Zubair 1, *, Mubashir Ali 2 , Muhammad Arsalan Khan 3 , Adil Khan 2 ,
Muhammad Usman Hassan 2 and Waqas Arshad Tanoli 1

1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University (KFU),
P.O. Box 380, Al-Hofuf 31982, Saudi Arabia; wtanoli@kfu.edu.sa
2 NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE),
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan;
mubashiraliabbasi984@gmail.com (M.A.); adilkhannarejo@gmail.com (A.K.);
usman.hassan@nice.nust.edu.pk (M.U.H.)
3 Department of Civil Engineering, International Islamic University (IIU), Islamabad 44000, Pakistan;
arsalan.khan@iiu.edu.pk
* Correspondence: mzubair@kfu.edu.sa

Abstract: The world is progressing towards sustainable, eco-friendly, recyclable materials to enhance
the circular economy and mitigate the issues of carbon footprint, overburdened landfills, and waste
of natural resources. As increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a major contributor towards
climate change and given that the construction industry is one of the major producers of GHG
emissions, it is crucial to meticulously quantify and lower its emissions, especially in the context
of developing countries. This research presents a novel framework by combining advanced tools
i.e., building information modeling (BIM), life-cycle assessment (LCA), geographic information
systems (GISs), and quantification of embodied emissions to optimize construction’s design, material-
selection, operations, maintenance, and waste-management processes. The effectiveness of the
proposed approach has been demonstrated with the help of a real-world case study in Islamabad,
Citation: Zubair, M.U.; Ali, M.; Pakistan. A building model has been generated using BIM, and a comprehensive LCA has been
Khan, M.A.; Khan, A.; Hassan, M.U.;
conducted. Additionally, GIS tools have been utilized to identify the locations and accessibility of
Tanoli, W.A. BIM- and GIS-Based
available-waste-management facilities. Based on this data, embodied emissions related to handling
Life-Cycle-Assessment Framework
and transportation of waste material to disposal facilities have been computed using mathematical
for Enhancing Eco Efficiency and
analyses. Furthermore, targeted mitigation strategies have been proposed and an optimized route
Sustainability in the Construction
Sector. Buildings 2024, 14, 360.
has been designed using GIS-based route-optimization tools along the suggested facility centers in
https://doi.org/10.3390/ the Islamabad region. The case study has been reassessed with alleviation strategies, and the results
buildings14020360 show that 29.35% of the materialization stage, 16.04% of the operational stage, and 21.14% of the end-
of-life-phase GHG emissions can be effectively reduced. Hence, pre-evaluating the environmental
Academic Editor: Amos Darko
degradation caused by construction projects throughout their life cycle might offer an opportunity to
Received: 11 December 2023 comprehend and reduce prospective environmental impacts.
Revised: 15 January 2024
Accepted: 18 January 2024 Keywords: building information modelling (BIM); life-cycle assessment; site-suitability analysis;
Published: 29 January 2024 carbon emissions; construction and demolition waste; greenhouse gases

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article The construction sector is one of the paramount sources of environmental depreda-
distributed under the terms and tion owing to the manufacturing of construction materials and direct or indirect energy
conditions of the Creative Commons use throughout the construction, operation, and end-of-life phases. Over 39% of annual
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// worldwide carbon emissions are caused by the construction industry [1,2]. European
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Union-member countries account for 50% of global-warming emissions [3]. Annual pro-
4.0/). duction on the European continent is close to 890 million tons [4], while China alone almost

Buildings 2024, 14, 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020360 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 360 2 of 18

produces 1.13 billion tons of construction waste [5]. Furthermore, Pakistan’s extensive
construction projects have an impact on 34% of the country’s natural energy resources
and 67.5% of the ecology [6]. There is a lack of a holistic approach that promotes a cir-
cular economy and lowers energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
waste production, particularly in developing nations [7]. It is apparent, from global policy
initiatives and the increasing number of publications on the subject of reducing waste
generation and ecological effects, that the world is moving towards sustainable, recyclable,
economical, and environmentally friendly approaches to strengthen the circular economy
and to alleviate the issues of surging waste generation, GHG emissions, overburdened
landfills, and degradation of natural resources [8–11]. Therefore, a sustainable and ecologi-
cally sound framework should be adopted to utilize and integrate innovative construction
materials, advanced methods, modern designs, and digital technologies that will revamp
the environment.
Rising environmental degradation poses a critical threat and has gained significant
attention around the globe. Approaches available in the literature, i.e., utilizing the life-cycle
assessment (LCA), a procedure that is used to systematically evaluate a project or product’s
inputs, outputs, and potential environmental effect [12], has been used often to evaluate
the impact of buildings on the environment. LCA has provided promising results for
formulating mitigation strategies. Kamari et al. assessed phases of the life cycle of buildings
to identify the phase with the highest environmental impact at the design stage [13].
Norman et al. studied the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of highly and low-
populated buildings to demonstrate the effects of urban density [14]. Schenk et al. compared
the ecological impacts of wooden buildings versus concrete and steel-framed buildings
utilizing the LCA [15]. Furthermore, various other types of buildings were also analyzed
using LCA [16]. In addition to LCA, modern tools have emerged with advancements in
technology that promise to enhance and optimize the sustainability of the construction
industry. Building information modeling (BIM) has been systematically explored in recent
years for sustainability assessments [17,18]. BIM is a digital representation of an actual
structure that works as an integrated database platform for diverse data acquired from
various disciplines. Additionally, it has the innate ability to generate and manage the data
necessary for a variety of building assessments [19–21].
In recent studies, there has been a significant amount of research on the integration of
BIM and LCA of buildings. The limitations of the traditional LCA methods, which include
time consumption, expenses, and manual-data-entry requirements, can be minimized
using BIM-based LCA [11,21,22]. Moreover, mathematical analyses that take a variety of
GHG emission parameters into account, can be utilized in order to accurately quantify
construction and demolition’s (CDW) GHG emissions [23]. The proposed integration of
mathematical equations with a BIM-based LCA approach can aid in precise identification
of the GHG emissions and can offer crucial strategies for minimizing the major damage
to the ecosystem caused by the disposal of CDW. Meanwhile, the embedded impacts of
buildings can also be significantly reduced by optimizing transportation and end-of-life-
phase approaches [24]. Geographic information systems (GISs) can be employed to use
geographic data for identifying the locations of waste-treatment facilities and landfills. This
data can further be used to develop optimized waste-transportation routes [25]. Therefore,
there is still space to integrate and implement the above-mentioned advanced tools and
develop an approach to enhance the eco efficiency and sustainability of the construction
sector, specifically in the context of developing countries.
This paper proposes an innovative approach to integrate BIM, LCA, reduce GHG
emissions through quantification with mathematical analyses, and using GIS to develop an
estimation and evaluation approach containing all life-cycle phases, i.e., construction phase,
operation phase, and end-of-life phase. The aim is to identify all the critical parameters
and processes that cause the deterioration of the environment and propose appropriate
strategies to ameliorate the critical materials and processes for reducing ecological degrada-
tion. The effectiveness and efficiency of the developed approach is illustrated through a
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 3 of 18

real-world case study from Pakistan. Mitigation strategies including optimized design, use
of sustainable materials, waste-management facilities, etc., to reduce environmental depre-
dations have been proposed and implemented in the case study to validate the approach.
A re-evaluation of all phases with improved materials and processes has been conducted
to compare the impacts. Moreover, the proposed approach also paves the way for de-
signers and construction managers to conduct a pre-evaluation of environmental damage
caused by materials, processes, and waste that enables the construction of sustainable and
eco-friendly structures.

2. Literature Review
LCA focuses primarily on social and environmental impacts [26], and it is frequently
used in sectors like automotive design, production of equipment, and designing consumer
goods [27]. LCA has been implemented in the construction industry since the 1980s [28],
and in the 1990s it was further standardized with multiple workshops and research and
handbook publications [29,30] often to assess the environmental effects of a specific building
over the course of its lifetime, which generally contains the extraction of raw materials,
industrial production, construction, execution, maintenance, restoration, substitution, and
demolition [31]. Architects and designers can also gather information on which approach
is optimal by comparing the environmental impact of numerous choices and making
the changes in designs accordingly. For instance, structural designers can choose more
sustainable materials with lower carbon footprints rather than selecting materials that
produce high carbon emissions [32,33]. Each LCA database is specific to a particular area of
study [34]. Despite the outcome being less reliable and significantly subjective, it is simpler
to make conclusions from. Hence, LCA has been rapidly growing in the construction sector
around the globe [35–38].
GHG emissions of buildings can be broken down into two main categories: embodied
GHG emissions and operating GHG emissions. The primary sources of embodied GHG
emissions are the extraction of raw materials, production and transportation of building
materials and components, on-site construction activities, demolition, and landfill emis-
sions [39]. Daily energy use ultimately produces the operating GHG emissions, i.e., heating,
lighting, air conditioning, and water supply [40]. The evaluation of building GHG emis-
sions in the past mostly focused on energy consumption in operation [41], and embodied
GHG emissions were seldom taken into account [42].
Building information modelling (BIM) is defined as a set of frameworks, procedures,
and technological advancements that create a systematic way to preserve critical project
data and structure design information in digital form throughout the life cycle of a build-
ing [43]. Environmental-performance assessments and sustainability-improving activities
can be carried out precisely and successfully using BIM, since it enables multidisciplinary
information to be integrated inside a single model. Over the past few years, the concept of
“green BIM” has gained enormous popularity in the architecture and construction industry.
Green BIM is the use of BIM tools to accomplish sustainability or enhanced building perfor-
mance [44]. Regardless of increasing knowledge and understanding of BIM, and its ability
for environmental sustainability, the rate of adoption of BIM in green construction projects
is still quite low, and its full potential has not yet been explored [45].
BIM has the capability to streamline the implementation of comprehensive LCA for
various categories of buildings [40]. Using BIM, Shadram et al. developed an approach
for assessing the embodied energy of materials [46]. Similarly, Han et al. developed a
methodology for optimizing building systems with the goal of reducing life-cycle costs
while taking into account energy consumption analyses only [47]. BIM-enabled LCA offers
a great opportunity to accelerate the process of collecting life-cycle inventory data while
also enhancing the simulation accuracy of the LCA research for the particular building.
However, there is still a need for improvement and harmonization of the current BIM and
LCA technologies [48].
 also enhancing the simulation accuracy of the LCA research for the particular building.
However, there is still a need for improvement and harmonization of the current BIM and
LCA technologies [48].
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 GIS is used in numerous sectors, including urban planning, transportation,4 ofresource 18
management, forestry, managing natural disasters, ecological modeling, and engineering.
Developing nations are becoming increasingly concerned with inadequate waste manage-
GIS is used
ment. Hence, in numerous sectors,
the development including
of essential urban planning,
infrastructure and transportation,
instruments on resource
the basis of
management, forestry, managing natural disasters, ecological modeling,
an effective management framework is necessary for proper waste management [49]. Var- and engineering.
Developing nations are becoming increasingly concerned with inadequate waste manage-
ious GIS-based tools such as ArcGIS network analysis have been developed that are being
ment. Hence, the development of essential infrastructure and instruments on the basis of an
used in themanagement
effective solid-waste-management sector and
framework is necessary provide
for proper network-based-analyses
waste management [49]. Various capabil-
ities encompassing
GIS-based tools suchroutes, travel
as ArcGIS directions,
network analysisnearby
have beenfacilities, andthat
developed service-area analyses
are being used
[50]. These tools allow users to model a variety of realistic network circumstances,
in the solid-waste-management sector and provide network-based-analyses capabilities such as
turn limitations, speed
encompassing routes, restrictions, height
travel directions, constraints,
nearby and
facilities, andtraffic patterns
service-area at various
analyses [50].times
These
of the tools allow users to model a variety of realistic network circumstances, such as turn
day.
limitations, speed restrictions, height constraints, and traffic patterns at various times of
the day.
3. Methodology
3. In order to evaluate and optimize the environmental impact caused by a building or
Methodology
any structure
In orderduring different
to evaluate phasesthe
and optimize of environmental
its life cycle, aimpact
comprehensive
caused by a framework
building or that
incorporates various tools and methods including BIM, LCA, disposal
any structure during different phases of its life cycle, a comprehensive framework of GHG that
quantifi-
cation, and GIS-based
incorporates routeand
various tools optimization has been
methods including proposed
BIM, in this
LCA, disposal ofresearch. The frame-
GHG quantifica-
tion,isand
work thenGIS-based
validated route
in optimization
the followinghassections
been proposed in this
with the research.
help The framework
of a real-time case study
is then validated in the following sections with the help of a real-time
that primarily focuses on operationalizing the framework and reducing the GHG’ case study thatemis-
primarily focuses on operationalizing the framework and reducing the GHG’
sions contributed to by the construction sector. The integration of different tools, technol- emissions
contributed to by the construction sector. The integration of different tools, technologies
ogies and methods not only streamlines the evaluation process but also promotes the
and methods not only streamlines the evaluation process but also promotes the timely
timely adoption
adoption of sustainable
of sustainable strategies
strategies and methodologies.
and methodologies. The framework
The framework of the pro-
of the proposed
posed model is illustrated
model is illustrated in Figure 1.in Figure 1.

Figure
Figure 1. Proposedframework.
1. Proposed framework.

Making a BIM model with functional and physical features is the basic requirement
Making a BIM model with functional and physical features is the basic requirement
for evaluating the overall efficiency performance of a building. Therefore, the foremost
forstep
evaluating the overall
in the proposed efficiency
framework is toperformance of adeveloping
obtain data for building. an
Therefore,
accurate the foremost
3D BIM
step in the proposed framework is to obtain data for developing an accurate
model of the building. Additionally, the availability and accessibility of waste-management 3D BIM
model of the
facilities building.
in the vicinityAdditionally,
is also identified.the The
availability
developedandBIMaccessibility
model and allof the
waste-manage-
related
ment facilitiesserves
information in theasvicinity is the
a base for also identified.
impact The developed
assessment, analysis, andBIM model and
amelioration all of
stages the re-
the proposed framework.
lated information serves as a base for the impact assessment, analysis, and amelioration
stages of Although any modelling
the proposed framework.software capable of BIM integration can be used for mod-
elling purposes, however, in this research, Autodesk Revit-2023 has been preferred owing to
Although any modelling software capable of BIM integration can be used for model-
its in-built capabilities for developing an efficient estimating model and resolving interface
ling purposes, however, in this research, Autodesk Revit-2023 has been preferred owing
issues. For reliable LCA findings, consistent modeling with standard naming practices in
to its
the in-built
material capabilities for crucial.
database is also developingRevit an efficient
platform estimating
serves model
the purpose as itand resolving in-
incorporates
complete building data, including walls, floors, roofs, structures, windows, doors, etc.,
 terface issues. For reliable LCA findings, consistent modeling with standard naming prac-
tices
terfaceinissues.
the material database
For reliable LCAisfindings,
also crucial. Revit platform
consistent modelingserves
with the purpose
standard as it incor-
naming prac-
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 porates
tices complete
in the building
material databasedata, including
is also walls,
crucial. Revitfloors, roofs,
platform structures,
serves windows,
the purpose 5 ofit18doors,
as incor-
etc., andcomplete
porates also provides vastdata,
building modification
including options
walls, using
floors,3D objects
roofs, referredwindows,
structures, to as “families.”
doors,
Furthermore, the procedure has been illustrated in Figure 2.
etc., and also provides vast modification options using 3D objects referred to as “families.”
and also provides vast modification options using 3D objects referred to as “families.”
Furthermore, the procedure has been illustrated in Figure 2.
Furthermore, the procedure has been illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Procedure for developing 3D BIM model in Revit.

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Procedurefor
Procedure fordeveloping
developing 3D
3DBIM
BIMmodel
modelinin
Revit.
Revit.
Considering all life-cycle stages, i.e., from the creation of materials through to the
Considering all life-cycle stages, i.e., from the creation of materials through to the
end-of-life phase of
Considering a building’sstages,
lifespan, the LCA strives to thoroughly analyze the envi-
end-of-life phaseall
of life-cycle i.e.,the
a building’s lifespan, from
LCAthe creation
strives of materials
to thoroughly through
analyze the en-to the
ronmental
end-of-life impact
phase
vironmental
of
of a of
impact
a building
building’s structure.
a buildinglifespan,
structure.the
During
LCA the
During
the
strivesdesign process,
to thoroughly
design
special
analyze
process, special
emphasis
the envi-
emphasis
must be
ronmental attributed
impact to
of areducing
building the embodied
structure. impacts,
During the including
design structural,
process, architectural,
special
must be attributed to reducing the embodied impacts, including structural, architectural, emphasis
mechanical,
must and
andelectrical
be attributed
mechanical, components.
to reducing
electrical The
the embodied
components. Thestages incorporated
impacts,
stages includingin
incorporated in LCAareareshown
structural,
LCA shown inin Fig-
architectural,
ureFigure
3 below.
3 below.
mechanical, and electrical components. The stages incorporated in LCA are shown in Fig-
ure 3 below.

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Stagesincluded
Stages included in
in life-cycle
life-cycle assessments.
assessments.
Figure 3.InStages
the 3Dincluded
BIM model in life-cycle assessments.
of a building, the building components are categorized and
In the 3D BIM model of a building, the building components are categorized and
ranked in accordance with suggested levels. Figure 2 provides details on data integration
ranked
and in accordance
Inprocessing
the 3D BIM with
model
inside the suggested levels.
of a environment.
BIM building, theFigure
building
Moreover, 2 provides
componentsdetailsare
the environmental on categorized
data
effectsintegration
are and
and processing
ranked
evaluated inside
in accordance
during the
thewith BIM environment.
suggested
impact-assessment stageMoreover,
levels. Figure
of the 2proposedthe environmental
provides details onwhile
framework effects
data are eval-
integration
taking
uated
andinto during
processing the
account allinsideimpact-assessment
construction
the BIM phases stage of
and materials,
environment. the proposed
with anthe
Moreover, framework
emphasis while
on carboneffects
environmental taking
emissions. into
are eval-
account
uated allfundamental
The during
four construction phases
phases
the impact-assessment of and materials,
the LCA technique,
stage withproposed
of the anaim
i.e., emphasis
and on carbon
scope,
framework inventory,emissions.
while impact The
taking into
assessment,
four fundamental and interpretation,
phases of the are
LCA incorporated
technique, to evaluate
i.e., aim andthe
account all construction phases and materials, with an emphasis on carbon emissions. The environmental
scope, inventory, impacts.
impact as-
The purpose,
sessment, audiences,
and interpretation, and system
areLCA limits
incorporated are first identified
toi.e.,
evaluate for definition
the scope,
environmental of the aim and
impacts.
four fundamental phases of the technique, aim and inventory, impactThe as-
scope. The second step in assessing the inventory is gathering information on all pertinent
purpose,
sessment, audiences,
and and
interpretation, system
are limits are
incorporated first
to identified
evaluate thefor definition
environmental of the
impacts.aim The
and
energy and mass flow inputs and outputs as well as emissions to the air, water, and land for
scope. Theaudiences,
purpose, second step andin assessing
system the inventory
limits is gathering
are firstsystem’s
identified forinformation
definition ontheall pertinent
each stage of the operation. Calculating a building material and energyof intake andaim and
energy
output is a part of this step. Third, based on the inventory analysis, the impact assessment land
scope. and
The mass
second flow
step inputs
in and
assessing outputs
the as
inventory well isas emissions
gathering to the
information air, water,
on all and
pertinent
forassesses
eachand
energy stagemassof the
possible flowoperation.
inputs and
environmental Calculating
outputs
effects, and asa building
thenwell system’s
as emissions
impacts are arrangedmaterial
to the and
air,
in an energy
water,
orderly andintake
man- land
and
for output
ner
eachin stage
theirisrespective
aofpart of this step.Calculating
phases.
the operation. Third,
For based
this purpose, onthe
a buildingthelife-cycle
inventory
system’s analysis,
impact-assessment
material and the impact
(LCIA)
energy assess-
intake
ment
and assesses
method
output is apossible
includedpartinoftheenvironmental
thisEco-invent
step. Third, effects,
database,
based on and
which
the then
is aimpacts
life-cycle
inventory are arranged
inventory
analysis, in an orderly
therepository
impact assess-
based
manner
ment on
assessesvarious
in their types of
respective
possible sustainability-assessment
phases. For
environmental this and
effects, methodologies
purpose, [51],
the life-cycle
then impacts has been employed.
impact-assessment
are arranged in an orderly
manner in their respective phases. For this purpose, the life-cycle impact-assessment
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 6 of 18

The existing life-cycle-assessment studies have been mainly focused on operational-phase

impacts, neglecting the significant impact of embodied GHG emissions, particularly CO2
emissions. However, in this study, the carbon emissions have been assessed in terms of
tonsCO2 , considering all materials and phases in the overall lifespan of the building. Lastly,
the interpretation phase includes scenarios and input-data variability to improve construc-
tion performance, and it provides clear findings that are in line with the study objectives.
Moreover, in order to incorporate the environmental impact during the end-of-life
phase of a building, CO2 emitted during the transportation of construction and demolition
waste (CDW) to appropriate waste facilities was considered in the embodied emissions
calculations. Construction materials are usually classified as recyclable and non-recyclable,
with recyclable components undergoing recycling and non-recyclable components going
to landfills. Proper handling of waste material is ensured by providing various types
of waste-management facilities including classification centers, second material store,
recycling plants, and landfill sites. Hence, location and accessibility of various waste-
management facilities impact the CDW transportation and handling of emissions. In
order to measure the disposal emissions of CDW, an efficient approach is required as the
majority of current methods utilized to extract CDW information have proven to be time
consuming, inaccurate, and difficult [52]. Hence, a method of quantifying the emissions
with mathematical formulae based on a number of factors has been used. Factors used
for the embodied emissions calculations were sourced from Bok et al. [53] and Turner
et al. [54]. The formulas used to calculate the source’s separated CDW’s CO2 emissions,
including transportation emissions and CDW handling emissions at each disposal facility,
are provided below.
ECO2 = ETr + EH (1)
Transportation and handling of emissions are added to determine the overall CO2
emissions, as seen in the formulae above. Here, ETr is the CDW transportation emissions
and EH is the CDW handling emissions. Formula for transportation emissions’ calculation
that helps estimate the environmental impact of waste transportation based on distances
and transportation modes for various waste types is provided below [55].

J J J
Etr = ∑K K K
k=1 ∑j=1 Qcr,k × ed,j × Dcr + ∑k=1 ∑j=1 Qsl,k × ed,j × Dsl ∑k=1 ∑j=1 Qbs,k ×
J (2)
ed,j × Dbs + ∑Kk=1 ∑j=1 Qsc,k × ed,j × Dsc

where Qbs,k : quantity of mixed-waste k from building site to collection center (tons),
Qsc,k : quantity of source-separated waste k from collection center to SMS (tons), Qcr,k :
quantity of source-separated waste k from SMS to recycling plant (tons), Qsl,k : quantity of
source-separated waste k from collection center to landfill (tons), ed,j : CO2 emissions for
transportation mode j per unit (tons/tons-km), Dbs : distance from building site to collection
center (km), Dsc : distance from collection center to SMS (km), Dcr : distance from SMS to
recycling plant (km), Dsl : distance from collection center to landfill site (km).
Similarly, the formula used to calculate the handling emissions is as below [56].
k
Eh = ∑k=1 Qsl,k × Pl,k (3)

where Qsl,k is source–waste quantity transported to landfill, and Pl,k is landfill-emission

factor. This focuses on physical emissions from disposal rather than chemical biogenic CO2 .
The impact-assessment stage in the proposed framework is followed by the analysis
and amelioration stages. In the analysis stage, the phases and factors with the highest
environmental impact are identified. These factors are then marginalized by incorporating
various alternatives and emission-reduction strategies in the amelioration stage. Thereafter,
a re-evaluation of environmental impact is conducted considering all phases of a building’s
lifespan again. Finally, GIS technology is utilized to create an optimized route for efficient
CDW transportation to primary waste facilities, i.e., the classification center, second material
 various alternatives and emission-reduction strategies in the amelioration stage. Thereaf-
various alternatives and
ter, a re-evaluation emission-reduction
of environmental impactstrategies
is conductedin the amelioration
considering all stage.
phasesThereaf-
of a
ter, a re-evaluation of environmental impact is conducted considering
building’s lifespan again. Finally, GIS technology is utilized to create an optimized all phases
routeof a
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 7 of 18
building’s
for efficientlifespan again. Finally,toGIS
CDW transportation technology
primary is utilized
waste facilities, to the
i.e., create an optimized
classification route
center,
for efficient
second CDWstore,
material transportation to primary
recycling plant, wastesite.
and landfill facilities, i.e., the
The spatial classification
geodatabase center,
for this
second material
study has store, recycling
been developed using the plant, and landfill
commercial site. TheArcGIS,
GIS platform spatialenabling
geodatabase for this
advanced
store, recycling plant, and landfill site. The spatial geodatabase for this study has been
modeling
study and analysis
has been options
developed usingforthe
waste collection. Furthermore, an ArcGIS network an-
developed using the commercial GIScommercial GIS
platform ArcGIS, platform
enablingArcGIS,
advanced enabling
modeling advanced
and
alyst
modelingmodelling
and package
analysis has been
options forused to
waste perform vehicle
collection. routing,
Furthermore, as
anshown
ArcGIS
analysis options for waste collection. Furthermore, an ArcGIS network analyst modelling in Figure
network 4. an-
alyst modelling package has been used to perform vehicle routing,
package has been used to perform vehicle routing, as shown in Figure 4. as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Procedure applied for designing the optimized route.

Figure
Figure
4. Case Procedure
4.4.Study:
Procedure applied for
applied
BIM-Based for designing
designingthe
Life-Cycle theoptimized
optimized
Analysis route.
route. Apartments at
of Faculty
NUST, Islamabad
4. Case Study: BIM-Based Life-Cycle Analysis of Faculty Apartments at NUST, Islamabad
4. Case
In Study: BIM-Based Life-Cycle Analysis operability
of Faculty Apartments at
In order to demonstrate
order to demonstrate the
the practicality
practicality and
and operability of
of the
the proposed
proposed framework,
framework,
NUST, Islamabad
a detailed case study has been formulated and presented in this section. The faculty apart-
a detailed case study has been formulated and presented in this section. The faculty
ment Inbuilding,
apartmentorder towith
building, four floors
demonstrate
with four thewith
floors two apartments
practicality
with on each
and operability
two apartments floor, and
of the
on each a total
proposed
floor, and area of 540
framework,
a total area of
am 2, located
540 in study
m2 , located
detailed case National
hasUniversity
in Nationalbeen of of
Sciences
formulated
University and
andTechnology
and presented
Sciences in this(NUST),
Technology (NUST),Islamabad,
section. The facultyhas
Islamabad, apart-
has
been building,
ment taken as awith
case-study building.
four floors with two apartments on each floor, and a total area of 540
m2, located in National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, has
been BIM
4.1. BIM
taken Model
Model
as a ofcase-study
Building building.
Using the
the Autodesk
Autodesk RevitRevitapplication,
application,a adetailed
detailed3D3Dmodel
model of of
thethe
building
building waswas
created
cre-
as
ateda case
as a study.
case The
study.
4.1. BIM Model of Building elements
The elements of the
of building
the building model
model were
were grouped
grouped into
into families
families that
enable systematic
systematicand andprecise
preciseestimations.
estimations. Furthermore,
Furthermore, each
each element
element of building
the building
Using the Autodesk Revit application, a detailed 3D model of of
thethe
building was was
cre-
was specified after conducting an in-depth analysis of available
specified after conducting an in-depth analysis of available 2D drawing plans and 2D drawing plans and
appli-
ated as
applicable
a case study. The elements of the building model were grouped into families that
cable codescodes and specifications.
and specifications. All theAll the physical
physical and functional
and functional characteristics
characteristics of the
of the build-
enable
building systematic and precise estimations. Furthermore, each element of the building was
ing were were included
included in theindatabase
the database according
according tospecifications
to the the specifications of building.
of the the building.
The The
no-
specified
nomenclatureafter conducting
was an in-depth analysis of available 2D drawing plans and appli-
menclature was setset
in in such
such a away
waythatthatlife-cycle
life-cycleassessment
assessmentcould
couldeasily
easilybe be conducted.
conducted.
cable
The codes
3D BIM and
modelspecifications.
is illustrated All
in
The 3D BIM model is illustrated in Figure 5.
the
Figurephysical
5. and functional characteristics of the build-
ing were included in the database according to the specifications of the building. The no-
menclature was set in such a way that life-cycle assessment could easily be conducted.
The 3D BIM model is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. BIM model of building.

4.2. Impact Assessment of Building

After the development of a functional 3D BIM model of a building, the next step was
to perform life-cycle assessment of the building in order to determine the environmental
impact during different phases of a building’s lifespan. The data was extracted directly
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 8 of 18

from the BIM and then normalized for further usage in the cloud version of One Click LCA.
The created database included all the elements of the building along with their critical
information. The automation in database formation significantly reduced the effort and
time by quantifying the materials digitally.
Moreover, the database of all materials, like cement, concrete, bricks, wood, steel,
glass, and ceramics, was utilized to conduct material mapping from the inventory. For
this purpose, Ecoinvent and Gabi databases were effectively utilized. Each material in the
database was employed according to the specifications of the case-study building. The
prevalent construction practices in Pakistan include vast utilization of cement, concrete,
steel, bricks, etc., for grey structures while wood, glass, paints, ceramics, etc., are widely
used for interior- and exterior-preparation purposes. Overall, the traditional materials and
building specifications are not energy efficient during materialization as well as operational
phases [57]. In addition to the material database, other essential data such as water usage,
electrical appliances, etc., were inserted in the model to evaluate the impact of the overall
operational phase of the building. After the incorporation of all relevant data in the model,
the results were obtained in detail for each of the materials during different phases of the
lifecycle and were further classified into their respective categories. Life-cycle assessment
provided results in terms of mass classifications of each component of the building along
with their family-based classification. Table 1 shows that the standard slabs, beams, exterior
walls, and columns contribute highest in terms of their mass in the building. Emissions of
various resource types have been illustrated in Table 2, which reveals that electricity and
water usage, being part of the operational and materialization stages, contribute the most
towards CO2 emissions compared to other materials used in the building.

Table 1. Classification of building components according to mass.

Item Value Unit Percentage %

Standard slabs 2,400,000 kg 77.21%
Beam 160,000 kg 5.14%
Column 71,000 kg 2.3%
Stairs 14,000 kg 0.47%
Exterior walls 360,000 kg 11.74%
Exterior windows 52,000 kg 1.69%
Exterior doors and grilles 45,000 kg 1.44%

Table 2. Emissions of various resource types.

Item Value Unit Percentage %

Electricity 1,400,000 kg CO2 e 56.56%
Water 630,000 kg CO2 e 24.77%
Ready-mix concrete for structures
96,000 kg CO2 e 3.78%
(beams, columns)
Paints, coatings, and lacquers 85,000 kg CO2 e 3.34%
Regular glass panes 79,000 kg CO2 e 3.12%
Concrete masonry units (CMU) 62,000 kg CO2 e 2.46%
Refrigerant fluids 61,000 kg CO2 e 2.4%
Aluminium-framed glass doors 50,000 kg CO2 e 1.99%
Aluminium-frame windows 30,000 kg CO2 e 1.18%
Other resource types 9900 kg CO2 e 0.39%
Total 2,502,900

After assigning the materials along with the necessary datasets, the impact of the
apartment building was assessed over the span of 50 years. According to the LCA results
presented in Table 3, the case-study building generates 2503 tonCO2 during the construction
and operational stages of the building lifecycle. These results were broken down into the
materials used during the construction or materialization stages and the energy usage
 Other resource types 9900 kg CO2e 0.39%
Total 2,502,900

After assigning the materials along with the necessary datasets, the impact of the
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 apartment building was assessed over the span of 50 years. According to the LCA results 9 of 18
presented in Table 3, the case-study building generates 2503 tonCO2 during the construc-
tion and operational stages of the building lifecycle. These results were broken down into
the materials
throughout theused during operational
building’s the construction
stage.orItmaterialization
is evident that stages
the useand the energy usage
of less-eco-friendly
throughout the building’s operational stage. It is evident that the use
materials and appliances have a major share in the overall emissions of the of less-eco-friendly
building.
materials and appliances have a major share in the overall emissions of the building.
Table 3. Emissions during materialization and operational stages.
Table 3. Emissions during materialization and operational stages.
Life-Cycle Stage Result Category Carbon Emission (tonCO2 e)
Life-Cycle Stage Result Category Carbon Emission (tonCO2e)
Materialization stage Materials usage 402
Materialization stage Materials usage 402
Operational stage Energy usage 2101
Operational stage Energy usage 2101
Total carbon emissions 2503
Total carbon emissions 2503

The
Thelocation
locationof
ofwaste-management
waste-managementfacilities
facilitiesand
andthe
thetransportation
transportationroute routeisiscritical
criticalin
in
determining
determiningthe thedisposal
disposalemissions.
emissions.TheThe
case-study building
case-study is located
building in Islamabad
is located which
in Islamabad
currently does notdoes
which currently have allhave
not the facilities for waste
all the facilities formanagement, i.e., a classification
waste management, center,
i.e., a classification
second material store, and recycling plant. Therefore, the non-availability of
center, second material store, and recycling plant. Therefore, the non-availability of these these facilities
leads to the
facilities dumping
leads to the of all construction–demolition
dumping waste into the
of all construction–demolition wastelandfill site.landfill
into the Hence,site.
for
this case study, the Rawalpindi waste-management-company (RWMC)
Hence, for this case study, the Rawalpindi waste-management-company (RWMC) landfill landfill was taken
into
wasaccount.
taken intoTheaccount.
distance The
between the construction
distance between thesite and the landfill
construction is around
site and 36.3 kmis
the landfill
as depicted below in Figure 6.
around 36.3 km as depicted below in Figure 6.

Figure6.6.Route
Figure Routeselection.
selection.

Thedisposal
The disposalofofGHG
GHGemissions
emissionsalso
alsohas
hasa acrucial
crucialimpact
impact onon the
the environmental
environmental deg-
degra-
radation.
dation. ForFor
thethe quantification
quantification of of disposal
disposal transportation
transportation and
and handlingemissions,
handling emissions,mathe-
math-
ematical
matical formulae
formulae based
based on aonnumber
a number of factors
of factors was used,
was used, as mentioned
as mentioned in Section
in Section 3. Eleven3.
Eleven
types oftypes
CDWs ofwere
CDWs were considered
considered for assessing
for assessing the impacts.
the impacts. Firstly, Firstly,
relevantrelevant infor-
information
mation
from thefrom the developed
developed 3D BIM
3D BIM model model
was was extracted
extracted and the respective
and the respective quantitiesquantities
of differentof
different types of CDWs were estimated after applying the respective
types of CDWs were estimated after applying the respective change factors, as shown inchange factors, as
Table 4. It is evident from Table 4 that concrete, bricks, steel, cement, and ceramic tiles
contribute most of the waste material after demolition.
After the quantification of different categories of CDW, the next step was to determine
the environmental impact during the end-of-life phase of the case-study building. Table 5
shows the results of disposal emissions, which are produced due to the transportation
of waste quantities from the building’s location to a landfill site situated 36.3 km away.
Based on the observations in the study area, it was determined that diesel freight trucks
are generally used for the transportation of material. Hence, the emission factor for
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 10 of 18

transportation-emissions calculations in Table 5 were selected accordingly. It is evident from

the table that major contributors of transportation emissions are the principal construction
materials including concrete, bricks, cement, steel, and tiles, thereby emphasizing the need
for optimal design and use of sustainable materials in the construction industry. Similarly,
Table 6 displays the quantity of emissions at landfill resulting from the handling of waste.

Table 4. Quantities of waste materials.

Calculated Quantities (ton)

S.No Material Resource Data (1) Units Density (ton/m3 ) (2) Change Factor (3)
(1) × (2) × (3)
1 Concrete 864 m3 2.42 1.1 2299.968
2 Brick 986 m3 1.9 1.2 2248.080
3 Cement 404.25 m3 2 1.2 970.200
4 Lime 1.25 m3 3.3 1.2 4.950
5 Steel 1138.23 T - 1.1 1252.053
6 Ceramic tile 328.2 m3 2.7 1.1 974.754
7 Paint 291.18 kg - 1.1 0.320
8 Plastic 12.5 m3 1.6 1.1 22
9 Wood 15.43 T - 1.15 17.744
10 Paper 244 kg - 1.15 0.280
11 Plaster 64.1 m3 0.9 1.2 69.228

Table 5. CO2 disposal emissions from transportation.

Calculated Emission Factor Transportation Emission

S.No Material Resource Distance (km) (3)
Quantities (ton) (1) (ton/ton-km) (2) (tonCO2 e) (1) × (2) × (3)
1 Concrete 2299.968 0.000168 36.3 14.026
2 Brick 2248.08 0.000168 36.3 13.709
3 Cement 970.2 0.000168 36.3 5.916
4 Lime 4.95 0.000168 36.3 0.031
5 Steel 1252.053 0.000168 36.3 7.635
6 Ceramic tile 974.754 0.000168 36.3 5.944
7 Paint 0.3201 0.000168 36.3 0.0019
8 Plastic 22 0.000168 36.3 0.1341
9 Wood 17.7445 0.000168 36.3 0.1082
10 Paper 0.2806 0.000168 36.3 0.0017
11 Plaster 69.228 0.000168 36.3 0.4222
Total 47.9308

Table 6. CO2 landfill emission from handling waste.

Calculated Quantities Handling Emission Factors Landfill Emissions

S.No Material Resource
(ton) (1) (ton/ton) (2) (tonCO2 e) (1) × (2)
1 Concrete 2299.968 0.13 298.996
2 Brick 2248.08 0.03 67.442
3 Cement 970.2 0.02 19.404
4 Lime 4.95 0.02 0.099
5 Steel 1252.053 0.03 37.562
6 Ceramic tile 974.754 0.018 17.545
7 Paint 0.320 2.25 0.720
8 Plastic 22 0.02 0.44
9 Wood 17.744 0.05 0.887
10 Paper 0.280 2.25 0.63135
11 Plaster 69.228 0.02 1.384
Total 445.113
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 11 of 18

The overall end-of-life-phase emissions which are the sum of transportation emissions
in Table 5, and handling emissions at landfill site in Table 6, are equal to 493.043 tonCO2 .
The overall results of the LCA and embodied emission quantification are summarized
in Table 7, indicating total emissions of 2996 tonCO2 throughout the lifespan of the case-
study building.

Table 7. Total emissions for the case-study building.

Life-Cycle Stage Result Category Carbon Emission (tonCO2 e)

Materialization stage Materials usage 402
Operational stage Energy usage 2101
End-of-life stage CDW transportation and disposal 493
Total carbon emissions 2996

4.3. Analyses of Results

As evident from Table 7 above, the results of the life-cycle assessment show the impact
of each element on the environment and elaborate that the operational phase was the most
critical in the degradation of ecology by contributing about 2101 tonsCO2 . The results
implicate that the design as well as the materials utilized in the case-study building were not
optimally sustainable in terms of environmental impacts. The estimated carbon-emission
values for different stages of a building provide an opportunity to engineers and architects
to mitigate the environmental impacts by improving the design and material efficiency. The
results also indicate that a number of materials including steel, concrete, cement, bricks,
and ceramic tiles, were the most critical materials influencing CO2 emissions and were
barriers to sustainable buildings. Inefficient design and utilization of inefficient materials
also led to high energy consumption during operational stage and were paramount factors
in intensifying emissions. The primary energy-use functions during building operation
included air conditioning, space heating, water heating, and other household electrical
appliances. In addition to this, the disposal emission levels produced were also high due to
the non-availability of major waste-management facilities in the surrounding region. The
three phases, i.e., construction, operation, and end-of-life phase, collectively had a high
carbon footprint that not only damages the environment but also abates the sustainability
of the construction sector. The total amount of CO2 emissions from the construction and
operation phase was 2503 tonsCO2 , and the total amount of CO2 emissions from the end-of-
life phase, including primarily transportation and disposal of CDW, was 493.043 tonsCO2 .
In order to lessen the environmental effect of building structures, optimization should
be completed in the direction of a carefully selected material class, which lowers the number
of structural elements. Along with the examination of their suppliers, additional focus
should be placed on the kinds of materials which are linked to transportation routes and
unit indicators of the environmental effect of materials [58]. The country’s engineering and
construction industry is experiencing a smart transition, driven by the rising use of green
and sustainable materials to promote low-carbon building design. Therefore, employment
of sustainable construction practices and materials with a lower carbon footprint should be
prioritized [57,59]. Moreover, the disposal-process emissions are also high owing to the
dearth of waste facilities in the study area. Since there has already been a large rise in CDW
due to growing urbanization and industrialization, the availability of waste-management
facilities, including a classification center, second material store, and recycling plant, is
the current necessity. Comprehensive waste facilities in Islamabad will particularly be
beneficial for the construction industry by directly reducing the burden on landfills and
also enabling the recycling of CDW. For the establishment of these facility centers, the
most feasible sites with optimized access would be required to limit the transportation
and handling of emissions. In order to resolve this issue, the optimized location and
route of waste facilities should be planned using an advanced GIS platform containing all
the existing essential information of the region. Implementation of the above mitigation
 Buildings 2024, 14, 360 12 of 18

strategies would lessen the overall CO2 emissions and stimulate the eco efficiency and
sustainability of the construction sector.

4.4. Re-Evaluation of the Improved Model including Route Optimization

As mentioned above, a number of mitigation strategies including optimization of
building design, utilization of eco-friendly materials and optimal disposal of CDW, can be
employed to cut-down the carbon footprint of the case-study building in particular and the
overall construction sector in general.
For the case study, the optimal path for effectively disposing of the construction and
demolition waste was determined using the network analyst tool provided in ArcGIS,
while taking into account all necessary factors. These factors included the locations of
sites, the road system, slope, water bodies, built area, and boundaries of administrative
areas. In order to achieve reduced disposal route CO2 emissions, the two key criteria used
to evaluate the route-optimization model were economic costs along with environmental
safety and sustainability. The financial and ecological impacts associated with the design of
the waste facilities in the Islamabad region were considered as the foundation parameters
for the optimal-route model. Fuel consumption and placement of centers at a safe distance
from residential areas made the model a more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective
system. The most important requirement for lowering fuel usage was for the shortest
distance with the least degradation of the environment. Moreover, the built-area analysis
of Islamabad and Rawalpindi region, as illustrated in Figure 7a, helped to identify the
most suitable locations for proposed waste-management facilities. Based on density data,
Figure 7a shows the most suitable sites in green color and the least suitable locations in
red color, whereas Figure 7b highlights the optimized route from case study building to
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW various waste-management facility centers proposed in Islamabad Capital Territory13 of 19 (ICT)

region. The distances between the facility centers are presented in Table 8.

(a) (b)
FigureFigure
7. (a) Built-area analyses;
7. (a) Built-area (b) design
analyses; of theof
(b) design optimized route route
the optimized including all theall
including facility centers.
the facility centers.

TableTable 8. Distance
8. Distance between
between different
different waste-management-facility
waste-management-facility centers.
centers.

Distances (km) CS
Distances (km) CCCS SMS
CC RP
SMS RP LS LS
CS - CS 22.62- 22.62- - - - - -
CC 22.62CC - 22.62 1.20
- 1.20- - - -
SMS - SMS 1.20 - 1.20- -1.60 1.60 - -
RP - - 1.60 - -
RP - - 1.60 - -
LS - 2.00 - - -
LS - 2.00 - - -

Applying
Applying the mitigation
the mitigation strategies
strategies discussed
discussed aboveabove and implementing
and implementing the distance
the distance
between the facility centers presented in Table 8, a re-evaluation of the whole
between the facility centers presented in Table 8, a re-evaluation of the whole framework framework
was conducted. The impact of the case-study building was re-assessed over the span of span
was conducted. The impact of the case-study building was re-assessed over the 50 of
years after assigning the materials and necessary datasets with mitigation strategies. The The
50 years after assigning the materials and necessary datasets with mitigation strategies.
design was optimized by employing sustainable design practices such as optimization of
building envelop and insulation, having energy-efficient appliances, etc. [57], and replac-
ing materials with a high carbon footprint with sustainable materials to re-assess the im-
pact of building for a 50-year life span. The new sustainable design was compared with
the current design to quantify the percentage of reduction in CO2 during different life
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 13 of 18

design was optimized by employing sustainable design practices such as optimization of

building envelop and insulation, having energy-efficient appliances, etc. [57], and replacing
materials with a high carbon footprint with sustainable materials to re-assess the impact
of building for a 50-year life span. The new sustainable design was compared with the
current design to quantify the percentage of reduction in CO2 during different life phases,
i.e., construction, operational, and end of life, of the case-study building. By conducting
the re-evaluation, the effectiveness and efficiency of all the proposed mitigation strategies
were evaluated. Emissions of various resource types after re-evaluation by implementing
the mitigation strategies are mentioned in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Emissions from various resource types after re-evaluation.

Item Value Unit Percentage %

Electricity 1,100,000 kg CO2 e 53.38%
Water 630,000 kg CO2 e 31.19%
Ready-mix concrete for structures (beams, columns) 74,000 kg CO2 e 3.68%
Paints, coatings, and lacquers 51,000 kg CO2 e 2.54%
Ready-mix concrete for external walls and floors 46,000 kg CO2 e 2.27%
Concrete masonry units (CMU) 44,000 kg CO2 e 2.2%
Aluminum frame windows 41,000 kg CO2 e 2.06%
Refrigerant fluids 34,000 kg CO2 e 1.7%
Ready-mix concrete for foundations and internal walls 28,000 kg CO2 e 1.4%
Total 2,048,000

After design optimization and replacement of high-carbon-footprint material with

the sustainable materials, results of the LCA were re-evaluated, as shown in Table 10. The
results show that the apartment building produces construction and operational carbon
emissions of 2048 tonsCO2 e, indicating a decrease in the emissions in both the material-
ization and operational stages of the building. Furthermore, CO2 emissions occurred due
to the transportation of waste from construction sites to various waste facilities, and even-
tually to the landfill site, are shown in Table 11. Finally, the results of handling emissions
after re-evaluation are shown in Table 12.

Table 10. Emission from materialization and operational stage after re-evaluation in tonCO2 e.

Life-Cycle Stage Result Category Carbon Emission (tonCO2 e)

Materialization stage Materials usage 284
Operational stage Energy usage 1764
Total carbon emissions 2048

Table 11. CO2 transportation emissions after re-evaluation.

Transportation
Qbs,k ed,j CO2 Dbs Qsc;k Dsc Qcr;k Dcr Qsl;k Dsl
Emission
2299.968 0.000168 22.62 459.994 1.2 459.994 1.6 1839.974 2 9.575
2248.08 0.000168 22.62 449.616 1.2 449.616 1.6 1798.464 2 9.359
970.2 0.000168 22.62 194.04 1.2 194.04 1.6 776.16 2 4.039
4.95 0.000168 22.62 0.99 1.2 0.99 1.6 3.96 2 0.021
1252.053 0.000168 22.62 250.411 1.2 250.411 1.6 1001.642 2 5.212
974.754 0.000168 22.62 194.951 1.2 194.951 1.6 779.804 2 4.058
0.3201 0.000168 22.62 0.0641 1.2 0.0641 1.6 0.2561 2 0.002
22 0.000168 22.62 4.4 1.2 4.4 1.6 17.6 2 0.092
17.7445 0.000168 22.62 3.549 1.2 3.549 1.6 14.1956 2 0.074
0.2806 0.000168 22.62 0.0562 1.2 0.0562 1.6 0.225 2 0.001
69.228 0.000168 22.62 13.846 1.2 13.846 1.6 55.383 2 0.288
Total 32.721
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 14 of 18

Table 12. CO2 Handling emissions after re-evaluation.

Handling Emission Factors

Material Resource Calculated Quantities (ton) (1) Landfill Emissions (ton) (1) × (2)
(ton/ton) (2)
Concrete 1839.974 0.13 239.197
Brick 1798.464 0.03 53.954
Cement 776.16 0.02 15.523
Lime 3.96 0.02 0.0792
Steel 1001.642 0.03 30.049
Ceramic tile 779.803 0.018 14.036
Paint 0.2561 2.25 0.576
Plastic 17.6 0.02 0.3521
Wood 14.196 0.05 0.7097
Paper 0.225 2.25 0.5051
Plaster 55.383 0.02 1.1075
Total 356.089

According to the re-evaluation results presented above, the materialization- and

operational-stage carbon emissions were 284 and 1764 tonCO2, respectively, whereas the
total amount of CDW transportation and handling emissions were 388.81 tonCO2 . The
overall re-evaluation results are summarized in Table 13, showing the total emissions
of 2437 tonCO2 in comparison to the current situation’s emissions of 2996 tonCO2 . It is
evident that by optimizing the design and utilizing eco-friendly materials, a reduction of
emissions by 29.35% and 16.04% can be achieved in the materialization and operational
stages, respectively. Moreover, end-of-life-phase emissions can be reduced by up to 21.14%
by ensuring availability and optimal accessibility of waste facilities within the boundaries
of Islamabad Capital Territory.

Table 13. Total emissions after re-evaluation for the case-study building.

Life-Cycle Stage Result Category Carbon Emission (tonCO2 e)

Materialization stage Materials usage 284
Operational stage Energy usage 1764
End-of-life stage CDW transportation and disposal 389
Total carbon emissions 2437

5. Conclusions
This study developed an integration of the BIM, LCA, GIS, and mathematical cal-
culation of the embodied disposal-process GHG emissions to optimize the construction
design, material-selection, operations, maintenance, and waste-management processes.
The proposed framework provided significant advantages, including the development of a
3D BIM model that enables direct generation of material data and reduces the laborious task
of manual data processing and the associated possibility for inaccuracies. Through BIM, the
features and design aspects of the building were represented digitally, thereby providing
more precise and comprehensive information than the conventional estimating techniques.
A detailed evaluation of the lifecycle performance of buildings was achieved by incorporat-
ing the entire lifecycle assessment into the proposed technique. In-depth analyses and the
identification of unsustainable practices and materials were achieved using the automated
generation of more comprehensive and comparable LCA data. To ensure the development
of targeted emission-reduction strategies, it was also crucial to estimate CDW data precisely
and to quantify CDW disposal-process GHG emissions, which were integrated into the
framework using mathematical formulae calculations. Furthermore, optimized routes
along the facility centers for minimizing CDW’s handling and transportation emissions,
enhancing the recycling of waste, and lowering of the burden on the landfills were designed
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 15 of 18

using GIS-based route-optimization tools. The whole framework was critically validated
with the help of a case study in order to demonstrate the practicality of the framework.
A four-storey faculty apartment building located in Islamabad, Pakistan, was consid-
ered as a case-study building. After the development of a functional 3D BIM model of
the building, life-cycle assessment of the building was conducted in order to determine
the environmental impact during different phases of the building’s lifespan. The results
of the life-cycle assessment showed the impact of each element on the environment and
elaborated that the operational phase was the most critical in the degradation of ecology
by contributing about 2101 tonsCO2 . The results indicated that the design, as well as
the materials utilized in the case-study building, were not optimally sustainable in terms
of environmental impacts. Moreover, the results specified that a number of materials,
including steel, concrete, cement, bricks, and ceramic tiles, were the most critical materials
influencing CO2 emissions and were barriers to sustainable buildings. Inefficient design
and utilization of inefficient materials also led to high energy consumption during the
operational stage, and they were paramount factors in intensifying emissions. In addition
to this, the disposal-process emissions produced were also high due to the unavailability
of major waste-management facilities in the Islamabad region. The total amount of CO2
emissions from the construction and operation phase was 2503 tonsCO2 , and the total
amount of CO2 emissions from the end-of-life phase, including primarily transportation
and disposal of CDW was 493.043 tonsCO2 .
A number of mitigation strategies, including optimization of building design, utiliza-
tion of eco-friendly materials and optimal disposal of CDW, were evaluated to cut-down the
carbon footprint of the case-study building in particular and the overall construction sector
in general. The impacts of the case-study apartments were re-assessed over the span of
50 years after assigning the materials and necessary datasets with mitigation strategies. The
design was optimized by employing sustainable design practices and replacing materials
with a high carbon footprint with sustainable materials. The new sustainable design was
compared with the current design to quantify the percentage reduction in CO2 during dif-
ferent life phases, i.e., construction, operational, and end of life of the case-study building.
The results indicated that by optimizing the design and utilizing eco-friendly materials, a
29.35% and 16.04% reduction can be achieved in materialization and operational GHG emis-
sions, respectively. In order to achieve reduced disposal-process CO2 emissions, the two
key criteria used to evaluate the GIS-based route-optimization model were economic costs
along with environmental safety and sustainability. The financial and ecological impacts
associated with the design of the waste facilities in the Islamabad region were considered as
the foundation parameters for the optimal-route model. The optimization results indicated
a reduction of 21.14% in the end-of-life-stage emissions. Hence, it is apparent that the
proposed framework enhances eco efficiency and sustainability in the construction sector by
reducing the GHG emissions of buildings. Furthermore, pre-evaluating the environmental
degradation caused by construction projects at the design stage might offer an opportunity
to comprehend and reduce prospective environmental impacts.

6. Recommendations
The proposed framework, integrating BIM, LCA, GIS, and the mathematical calcula-
tion of disposal-process GHG emissions, provides multiple directions for future research.
The framework can be further extended by incorporating other sustainable design method-
ologies, databases, and software for more improvement in sustainability and environmental
safety. Secondly, the proposed framework is more focused on the calculation and reduction
of CO2 emissions; however, in future research, other pollutants can also be evaluated for
further enhancement of eco efficiency. Thirdly, this study presented CDW disposal strate-
gies that were environmentally friendly. However, additional handling considerations,
such as financial advantages, might also be considered. Thus, future research might focus
on a CDW cost–benefit analysis including an evaluation of the trade-offs between the
environment and the economy.
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 16 of 18

Author Contributions: M.U.Z. conceived the idea for this research and its implementation, took the
lead in writing the manuscript, and also acquired funding. M.A. and A.K. conducted the literature
review and performed the analysis and also worked on writing the manuscript. M.A.K. contributed
to the final version and worked on the analysis. M.U.H. prepared figures and tables and contributed
to writing the manuscript. W.A.T. supervised and commented on the manuscript, edited, and
contributed to the final version, along with resource and funding acquisition. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Grad-
uate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Project No. GRANT5606).
The APC was funded by the same “Project No. GRANT5606”.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency
for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Project No.
GRANT5606). The authors extend their appreciation for the financial support that has made this
study possible.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

LCA Life-Cycle Assessment

GIS Geographic Information System
GHG Green House Gases
BIM Building Information Modeling
CDW Construction and Demolition Waste
LCI Life-Cycle Inventories
CS Construction Site
CC Classification Center
SMS Second Material Store
RP Recycling Plant
LS Landfill Site
ICT Islamabad Capital territory
RWMC Rawalpindi waste-management-company

References
1. Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Lam, P.T.I. Developing an Automated BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment Approach for
Modularly Designed High-Rise Buildings. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 90, 106618. [CrossRef]
2. Radhi, H.; Sharples, S. Global Warming Implications of Facade Parameters: A Life Cycle Assessment of Residential Buildings in
Bahrain. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 99–108. [CrossRef]
3. Dimoudi, A.; Tompa, C. Energy and Environmental Indicators Related to Construction of Office Buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2008, 53, 86–95. [CrossRef]
4. Villoria Sáez, P.; Del Río Merino, M.; Porras-Amores, C. Estimation of Construction and Demolition Waste Volume Generation in
New Residential Buildings in Spain. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 30, 137–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Lu, W.; Webster, C.; Peng, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X. Estimating and Calibrating the Amount of Building-Related Construction and
Demolition Waste in Urban China. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2017, 17, 13–24. [CrossRef]
6. Chen, D.; Deng, X.; Jin, G.; Samie, A.; Li, Z. Land-Use-Change Induced Dynamics of Carbon Stocks of the Terrestrial Ecosystem in
Pakistan. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2017, 101, 13–20. [CrossRef]
7. Joensuu, T.; Edelman, H.; Saari, A. Circular Economy Practices in the Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124215.
[CrossRef]
8. Mak, T.M.W.; Yu, I.K.M.; Wang, L.; Hsu, S.C.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Li, C.N.; Yeung, T.L.Y.; Zhang, R.; Poon, C.S. Extended Theory of
Planned Behaviour for Promoting Construction Waste Recycling in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2019, 83, 161–170. [CrossRef]
9. Bao, Z.; Lu, W. Developing Efficient Circularity for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Fast Emerging Economies:
Lessons Learned from Shenzhen, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138264. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Zuo, J. Considering Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts and Society’s Willingness for Optimizing
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Fee: An Empirical Study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1004–1014.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 17 of 18

11. Peng, C. Calculation of a Building’s Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Based on Ecotect and Building Information Modeling. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 112, 453–465. [CrossRef]
12. Chang, D.; Lee, C.K.M.; Chen, C.H. Review of Life Cycle Assessment towards Sustainable Product Development. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 83, 48–60. [CrossRef]
13. Kamari, A.; Kotula, B.M.; Schultz, C.P.L. A BIM-Based LCA Tool for Sustainable Building Design during the Early Design Stage.
Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022, 11, 217–244. [CrossRef]
14. Norman, J.; MacLean, H.L.; Kennedy, C.A. Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2006, 132, 10–21. [CrossRef]
15. Schenk, D.; Amiri, A. Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Residential Wooden Buildings versus Concrete and Steel Buildings: A Review.
Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 975071. [CrossRef]
16. Sharma, A.; Saxena, A.; Sethi, M.; Shree, V. Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15,
871–875. [CrossRef]
17. Carvalho, J.P.; Bragança, L.; Mateus, R. A Systematic Review of the Role of BIM in Building Sustainability Assessment Methods.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4444. [CrossRef]
18. Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Lam, P.T.I. A Review and Outlook for Integrated BIM Application in Green Building
Assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101576. [CrossRef]
19. Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Informetric Analysis and Review of Literature on the Role of BIM in Sustainable
Construction. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 221–234. [CrossRef]
20. Andriamamonjy, A.; Saelens, D.; Klein, R. A Combined Scientometric and Conventional Literature Review to Grasp the Entire
BIM Knowledge and Its Integration with Energy Simulation. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 513–527. [CrossRef]
21. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Critical Review of Bim-Based LCA Method to Buildings. Energy Build. 2017,
136, 110–120. [CrossRef]
22. Shibata, N.; Sierra, F.; Hagras, A. Integration of LCA and LCCA through BIM for Optimized Decision-Making When Switching
from Gas to Electricity Services in Dwellings. Energy Build. 2023, 288, 113000. [CrossRef]
23. Xu, J.; Shi, Y.; Xie, Y.; Zhao, S. A BIM-Based Construction and Demolition Waste Information Management System for Greenhouse
Gas Quantification and Reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 308–324. [CrossRef]
24. Chau, C.K.; Yik, F.W.H.; Hui, W.K.; Liu, H.C.; Yu, H.K. Environmental Impacts of Building Materials and Building Services
Components for Commercial Buildings in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1840–1851. [CrossRef]
25. Su, S.; Li, S.; Ju, J.; Wang, Q.; Xu, Z. A Building Information Modeling-Based Tool for Estimating Building Demolition Waste and
Evaluating Its Environmental Impacts. Waste Manag. 2021, 134, 159–169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Sureau, S.; Neugebauer, S.; Achten, W.M.J. Different Paths in Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA)—A Classification of
Type II Impact Pathway Approaches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 382–393. [CrossRef]
27. De Kleine, R.D.; Keoleian, G.A.; Kelly, J.C. Optimal Replacement of Residential Air Conditioning Equipment to Minimize Energy,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Consumer Cost in the US. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3144–3153. [CrossRef]
28. Bekker, P.C.F. A Life-Cycle Approach in Building. Build. Environ. 1982, 17, 55–61. [CrossRef]
29. Jensen, A.A.; Elkington, J.; Christiansen, K.; Hoffmann, L.; Moller, B.T.; Schmidt, A.; van Dijk, F. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—A
Guide to Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
30. Heijungs, R.; Guinée, J.; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R.M.; Haes, H.A.; Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Ansems, A.M.M.; Eggels, P.G.; van
Duin, R.; Goede, H.P. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide and Backgrounds (Part 1); Leiden University: Leiden,
The Netherlands, 1992.
31. Sedláková, A.; Vilčeková, S.; Burák, D.; Tomková, Ž.; Moňoková, A.; Doroudiani, S. Environmental Impacts Assessment for
Conversion of an Old Mill Building into a Modern Apartment Building through Reconstruction. Build. Environ. 2020, 172, 106734.
[CrossRef]
32. Anand, C.K.; Amor, B. Recent Developments, Future Challenges and New Research Directions in LCA of Buildings: A Critical
Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 408–416. [CrossRef]
33. Pan, D.; Yu, X.; Zhou, Y. Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Carbon Footprint Analysis and Frontier Decarbonization Pathways of District
Buildings in Subtropical Guangzhou, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 416, 137921. [CrossRef]
34. Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. LCA Databases Focused on Construction Materials: A Review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 565–573. [CrossRef]
35. Kofoworola, O.F.; Gheewala, S.H. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Commercial Office Building in Thailand. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 498–511. [CrossRef]
36. Cuéllar-Franca, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Environmental Impacts of the UK Residential Sector: Life Cycle Assessment of Houses. Build.
Environ. 2012, 54, 86–99. [CrossRef]
37. Ortiz-Rodríguez, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Two Dwellings: One in Spain, a Developed Country,
and One in Colombia, a Country under Development. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 2435–2443. [CrossRef]
38. Ortiz, O.; Bonnet, C.; Bruno, J.C.; Castells, F. Sustainability Based on LCM of Residential Dwellings: A Case Study in Catalonia,
Spain. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 584–594. [CrossRef]
39. Wan Omar, W.M.S.; Doh, J.H.; Panuwatwanich, K. Variations in Embodied Energy and Carbon Emission Intensities of Construction
Materials. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014, 49, 31–48. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 360 18 of 18

40. Roh, S.; Tae, S. An Integrated Assessment System for Managing Life Cycle CO2 Emissions of a Building. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2017, 73, 265–275. [CrossRef]
41. Rasmussen, F.N.; Malmqvist, T.; Moncaster, A.; Wiberg, A.H.; Birgisdóttir, H. Analysing Methodological Choices in Calculations
of Embodied Energy and GHG Emissions from Buildings. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 1487–1498. [CrossRef]
42. Röck, M.; Saade, M.R.M.; Balouktsi, M.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Birgisdottir, H.; Frischknecht, R.; Habert, G.; Lützkendorf, T.; Passer, A.
Embodied GHG Emissions of Buildings—The Hidden Challenge for Effective Climate Change Mitigation. Appl. Energy 2020, 258,
114107. [CrossRef]
43. Cerovsek, T. A Review and Outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A Multi-Standpoint Framework for Technological
Development. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 224–244. [CrossRef]
44. Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.M. Green-Building Information Modelling (Green-BIM) Assessment Framework for Evaluating
Sustainability Performance of Building Projects: A Case of Nigeria. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2021, 17, 458–477. [CrossRef]
45. Cao, Y.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Aziz, N.M. Green Building Construction: A Systematic Review of BIM Utilization. Buildings 2022,
12, 1205. [CrossRef]
46. Shadram, F.; Johansson, T.D.; Lu, W.; Schade, J.; Olofsson, T. An Integrated BIM-Based Framework for Minimizing Embodied
Energy during Building Design. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 592–604. [CrossRef]
47. Han, G.; Srebric, J.; Enache-Pommer, E. Variability of Optimal Solutions for Building Components Based on Comprehensive Life
Cycle Cost Analysis. Energy Build. 2014, 79, 223–231. [CrossRef]
48. Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Wu, J.; Zhao, B. Building-Information-Modeling Enabled Life Cycle Assessment, a Case Study on Carbon
Footprint Accounting for a Residential Building in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 729–743. [CrossRef]
49. Verma, S.; Bawane, O.P. GIS as an Effective Tool in Waste Management—A Case Study of Allahabad City India. Sustain. Agric.
Food Environ. Res. 2023, 11, 2023. [CrossRef]
50. Desai, S.N.; Shah, M.; Zaveri, P. Route Optimisation for Solid Waste Management Using ArcGIS Network Analyst: A Review. Int.
J. Eng. Technol. Sci. Res. IJETSR 2018, 5, 137–140.
51. Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I):
Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218–1230. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, Z.; Li, H.; Yang, X. Vision-Based Robotic System for on-Site Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting and Recycling.
J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101769. [CrossRef]
53. Bok, Y.J.; Tae, S.H.; Kim, R.Y. Analysis of CO2 Emission in the Waste Disposal Process Based on Computation of Construction
Waste. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1025–1026, 1079–1082. [CrossRef]
54. Turner, D.A.; Williams, I.D.; Kemp, S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Recycling of Source-Segregated Waste Materials.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 186–197. [CrossRef]
55. Xu, J.; Qiu, R.; Lv, C. Carbon Emission Allowance Allocation with Cap and Trade Mechanism in Air Passenger Transport. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 131, 308–320. [CrossRef]
56. Santamouris, M. Passive and Low Energy Cooling for the Built Environment. Int. J. Vent. 2011, 10, 99–100. [CrossRef]
57. National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA). National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy; NEECA:
Islamabad, Pakistan, 2023.
58. Wałach, D. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Environmental Impact of Concrete Structures. Sustainability 2020, 13, 204. [CrossRef]
59. Kurian, R.; Kulkarni, K.S.; Ramani, P.V.; Meena, C.S.; Kumar, A.; Cozzolino, R. Estimation of Carbon Footprint of Residential
Building in Warm Humid Climate of India through BIM. Energies 2021, 14, 4237. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.