Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Berges-Alvarez, I.;
Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Marrero, M.
A Systematic Review of BIM-Based
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
for Buildings. Sustainability 2024,16,
11070. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su162411070
Academic Editor: Antonio Caggiano
Received: 23 October 2024
Revised: 5 December 2024
Accepted: 12 December 2024
Published: 17 December 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Systematic Review
A Systematic Review of BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment for Buildings
Ileana Berges-Alvarez 1, Alejandro Martínez-Rocamora 1, * and Madelyn Marrero 2
1
ArDiTec Research Group, Department of Architectural Constructions II, Higher Technical School of Building
Engineering, University of Seville, Av. Reina Mercedes 4-a, 41012 Seville, Spain; iberges@us.es
2IUACC—University Institute of Architecture and Construction Sciences, University of Seville, Av. Reina
Mercedes 4-b, 41012 Seville, Spain; madelyn@us.es
*Correspondence: rocamora@us.es
Abstract: The construction industry has enormous impacts on the three dimensions of sustainability:
environmental, economic, and social. To mitigate these impacts, several researchers have explored a
variety of methods that link Building Information Modeling (BIM) with methodologies for a holistic
evaluation of sustainability, such as Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). However, the
complete integration of BIM-LCSA still remains unresolved, with a series of challenges that must
be overcome. Consequently, the aim of this article is to identify the advances and challenges of
BIM-LCSA integration focused on buildings through a literature review of the existing solutions
presented by researchers worldwide. The PRISMA 2020 protocol is used. A total of 135 articles
published between 2010–2023 are reviewed for bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, an exhaustive
analysis of the case studies is carried out, by taking into account the structure proposed by ISO
14040. The authors identify a gap in the literature mainly regarding the full integration of the three
dimensions with BIM that facilitates a simultaneous on-the-air assessment, in addition to the lack of
a standardized LCSA method of calculation.
Keywords: building information modeling; life cycle sustainability assessment; life cycle assessment;
life cycle cost; social life cycle assessment
1. Introduction
Climate change is one of the most critical challenges that our planet is currently facing.
Between 30 and 40% of the environmental impact caused by human activity is commonly
attributed to the built environment [
1
,
2
]. For this reason, mitigating the environmental
impact of buildings by promoting more sustainable construction methods has become a
priority [3].
To that end, the weight of impacts over the entire life cycle of the building (BLC) can
be qualified and quantified through indicators. These are evaluated through calculation
methods, with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) being considered
as a reference by the international community [
4
]. To cover the three dimensions of sus-
tainability, the EN 15643 [
5
] standard establishes the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
(LCSA), which integrates methods for the environmental (LCA), economic (LCC), and
social (S-LCA) aspects [
6
–
9
]. The LCA approach is regulated by ISO 14040, ISO 14044, and
EN 15978 [
10
–
12
] and considers all material and energy flows throughout the life cycle
of a product or service. LCC evaluates the full Life Cycle Cost flows (costs and incomes)
of a project or component and can be found in the ISO 15686-5 and EN 16627 [
13
–
15
].
Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), less commonly used in the construction sector, is
described in EN 16309 [
16
] and is strongly related to health and safety in the workers’
environment [
2
]. There are still barriers that prevent their wider use, mostly because they
are time-consuming and require large amounts of data [
17
]. However, the most significant
drawback is the high complexity of evaluating the three dimensions simultaneously [2].
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411070 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 2 of 25
While calculation models were being developed to estimate the impacts of buildings,
such as the ecological footprint or carbon footprint estimation models for buildings [
18
,
19
],
technology has advanced significantly with the introduction of new tools for the man-
agement of large amounts of information linked to the building and its materials. Many
of these tools are based on the Building Information Modeling (BIM) methodology [
1
],
which allows collaborative design, construction, and management in a virtual environment
through a digital model containing information on the entire BLC [
20
]. In other words,
BIM can be considered as a digital representation of parametric objects enriched with infor-
mation from different specialties. This provides feedback from early stages of the project,
improving the decision-making process and increasing its efficiency in every development
stage [
21
,
22
]. The European Directive on public procurement (Directive 2014/25/UE) [
23
]
establishes that the 28 member states of the European Union can encourage, specify, or
enforce the use of BIM in construction and architectural projects executed with public funds.
This is already compulsory in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland,
and Norway [24].
Over the years, numerous studies have been published linking BIM to the field of
sustainability. In this regard, BIM is considered a possible solution to LCSA, since it allows
acceleration of the process and reduced data processing efforts and also facilitates the
calculation and visualization of impacts throughout the whole BLC [
4
,
6
,
25
,
26
]. However,
a full integration of BIM and LCSA has not yet been achieved. Previous literature re-
views have highlighted notable achievements in terms of breakthroughs, research gaps,
and lines of future research. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done, as it has been
identified that most of them focus on the integration of BIM with specific methodologies
such as LCA
[4,21,27–40],
LCC [
41
], the combination of both LCA and LCC (hereafter
LCA+LCC)
[3,42],
or with certifications (LEED, BREEM, etc.). Even though the sustainable
development goals enacted by different public policies at a global level have begun to
pay more attention to social indicators, their link to BIM remains scarce [
6
]. As for liter-
ature reviews, most of them lack a holistic approach. Some authors [
4
,
21
,
28
,
37
,
39
] have
focused their research on BIM–LCA integration. Lu et al. [
41
] investigated case studies
that addressed the BIM–LCC linkage. Others, such as Obrecht et al. [
3
] and Lu et al. [
42
]
went a step further and reviewed the link between BIM–LCA+LCC. Some works focused
on BIM–LCSA [
43
–
45
] have recently emerged, and although they have made valuable
contributions, these are focused on bibliometric data, overly generic and superficial, or
limited to only a single discipline and stage of the BLC. Santos et al. [
43
] developed an
exhaustive informetric analysis of the literature on the role of BIM in sustainable construc-
tion, addressing the three dimensions and their combinations. Llatas et al. [
6
] conducted
a systematic literature review (SLR) of the integration of BIM–LCSA into the building
design process including 26 publications on methodological aspects and 36 on integration
techniques, not all of them related to buildings. Onososen et al. [
44
] examined BIM-based
LCSA studies limiting their field of application to structures. As will be reported here,
97 new articles on this matter have been published since 2018 to this day, representing more
than 85% of the studies considered in this review. For that reason, an update with a critical
approach that explores all the advances provided by such research is considered pertinent.
The application of BIM–LCSA is still in its infancy, but it does offer immense poten-
tial [
44
]. In view of the above, a critical review of the current literature is conducted with
the aim of detecting and understanding the current state, gaps, and challenges of the inte-
gration of BIM–LCSA in the building sector. The present work identifies the most frequent
omissions and errors in this type of evaluation, providing clarity and a guide for further
advances in order to help researchers to address the existing gaps in this research field.
This review contains two parallel assessments of the literature: a bibliometric anal-
ysis applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) 2020 protocol (Supplementary Materials), and an informetric analysis following
the ISO 14040 and 14044 structure for LCA studies. The PRISMA 2020 protocol is a well-
accepted method that has been applied in various review studies [
21
,
46
] and consists of
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 3 of 25
eleven steps that can be summarized into four main stages [
47
]: identification, screening,
eligibility assessment, and synthesis of the results. These allow exploration of the literature
and quantification of the existing research according to its subject, year of publication,
journal’s name, geographical distribution, authors’ names, and keywords. Regarding the
ISO 14040 and 14044 structure for conducting LCA, the assessment consists of four steps:
(1) definition of the goal and scope (G+S); (2) life cycle inventory (LCI); (3) life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA); and (4) interpretation of the results. This analysis structure has been
applied in several review studies, such as those conducted by [
21
,
27
,
30
,
48
], and its stan-
dardization allows us to establish comparisons among case studies. The aforementioned
four steps are applied to the present study as follows:
1.
Goal and scope: The objectives and scopes defined for each case study were reviewed.
The analysis included the identification of the system boundaries, that is, the actions
or elements that form part of each stage of the life cycle defined according to the
EN 15978 standard, as well as the duration of the service life of the construction,
the functional unit (FU), and general information regarding the case study: location,
typology, and scale. FU is a term defined by ISO 14044 [
11
] that refers to the reference
unit for the various assessments and is defined using the unit elements included in
the system boundaries [33,49].
2.
Life cycle inventory: The LCI addresses the collection of information on the various
impact categories and the databases used. At this stage, three types of integration
approaches of LCA, LCC, and S-LCA with BIM are identified that have been employed
by the different researchers. The tools used and the Level of Development (LOD) of
the model are also analyzed.
3.
Life cycle impact assessment: This section identifies the different methods, categories,
and impacts used by researchers to assess the sustainability of the case study.
4.
Interpretation of the results: Finally, the methods for visualizing the results of the
previous sections are interpreted.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2describes the methodology used. Section 3
shows the main results of the bibliometric analysis and the informetric analysis of the
literature, as well as the results of the review according to the ISO framework. Finally, the
results are discussed in Section 4, while the main conclusions are presented in Section 5.
2. Methodology
The research method is based on that proposed by Safari et al. [
21
] and Cao et al. [
46
].
A summary of the applied method can be found in Figure 1, organized into three main
stages: definition of the scope, limited to articles on the integration of the three pillars of
sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) with BIM; review of the literature,
consisting of a systematic literature review divided into two different analyses: biblio-
metric (applying the PRISMA 2020 Protocol) and informetric (based on the ISO 14040
and 14044 structure); and finally, the assessment and reporting of results based on the
established criteria and categorization. This process is more thoroughly described in the
following subsections.
2.1. Definition of the Scope
In order to achieve the aim of this review, one main and three specific research ques-
tions are posed whose eventual answers could allow us to identify the key points of data
collection from the existing literature on this topic.
Main Question (Q): What are the main challenges, gaps, and future lines of research of
BIM–LCSA integration?
Q1. What is the current state of the literature and how has it evolved?
Q2. What information is included and omitted when integrating environmental,
economic, and social sustainability assessments of buildings into BIM?
Q3. What BIM–LCSA (LCA, LCC, or S-LCA) integration approaches have been developed?
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 4 of 25
Sustainability2024,16,xFORPEERREVIEW4of25
Figure1.Summaryschemeofthereviewscope,methodology,andcriteria.
2.1.DefinitionoftheScope
Inordertoachievetheaimofthisreview,onemainandthreespecificresearchques-
tionsareposedwhoseeventualanswerscouldallowustoidentifythekeypointsofdata
collectionfromtheexistingliteratureonthistopic.
MainQuestion(Q):Whatarethemainchallenges,gaps,andfuturelinesofresearch
ofBIM–LCSAintegration?
Q1.Whatisthecurrentstateoftheliteratureandhowhasitevolved?
Q2.Whatinformationisincludedandomiedwhenintegratingenvironmental,eco-
nomic,andsocialsustainabilityassessmentsofbuildingsintoBIM?
Q3.WhatBIM–LCSA(LCA,LCC,orS-LCA)integrationapproacheshavebeende-
veloped?
2.2.ReviewoftheLiterature
AsdescribedintheIntroduction,thePRISMA2020protocol[21,46]consistsoffour
mainstages[47]:identification,screening,eligibilityassessment,andsynthesisofthere-
sults,whosespecificapplicationtothepresentreviewisdescribedasfollows:
Identification.Inordertoensureadequatecoverageoftheexistingliterature,Scopus
andWebofScience(WoS)wereemployed.Thetimelimitwasdefinedasstretchingfrom
2010to2023.Theidentificationprocessconsistedmainlyofsearchingforkeywordsindi-
viduallyandincombinationinthetitle,keywords,andabstractusingtheBooleanopera-
tions“OR”or“AN D ”, suchas(“BIM”OR“BuildingInformationModeling”OR“Building
InformationModeling”)AND[(“LCA”OR“LifeCycleAssessment”)OR(“LCC”OR“Life
CycleCost”)OR(“S-LCA”OR“SocialLifeCycleAssessment”)OR(“LCSA”OR“LifeCy-
cleSustainabilityAssessment”)](seeTableA1inAppendixA).Byapplyingthesecriteria
forthesearch,1055publicationswereidentified.
Screening.Asafirstfilter,papersthatwerenotpublishedinEnglishwereexcluded,
aswerethosethathadnotbeenpeerreviewed.Ofthe1042pre-selectedarticles,824were
accessed.Inasecondfilter,duplicatearticlesfromthetwodatabasesconsultedwereex-
cluded,therebyremoving305articlesandleavingatotalof519.
Eligibilityassessment.Theinformationofthetitle,keywords,andabstractwasin-
dependentlyreviewed.Asthefocusofthisreviewistobekeptontheintegrationofthe
assessmentofthethreepillarsofsustainabilityinBIMfortheevaluationofthesustainable
performanceofbuildings,articlesonotherareasofstudysuchasurbanplanningand
roadandcivilinfrastructureswereexcluded,aswerethosethatreferredsolelytoBIM,
LCC,LCA,orS-LCA.Havingappliedthiscriterion,198articleswereeliminated.
Figure 1. Summary scheme of the review scope, methodology, and criteria.
2.2. Review of the Literature
As described in the Introduction, the PRISMA 2020 protocol [
21
,
46
] consists of four
main stages [
47
]: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and synthesis of the
results, whose specific application to the present review is described as follows:
Identification. In order to ensure adequate coverage of the existing literature, Scopus
and Web of Science (WoS) were employed. The time limit was defined as stretching
from 2010 to 2023. The identification process consisted mainly of searching for keywords
individually and in combination in the title, keywords, and abstract using the Boolean
operations “OR” or “AND”, such as (“BIM” OR “Building Information Modeling” OR
“Building Information Modeling”) AND [(“LCA” OR “Life Cycle Assessment”) OR (“LCC”
OR “Life Cycle Cost”) OR (“S-LCA” OR “Social Life Cycle Assessment”) OR (“LCSA” OR
“Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment”)] (see Table A1 in Appendix A). By applying these
criteria for the search, 1055 publications were identified.
Screening. As a first filter, papers that were not published in English were excluded,
as were those that had not been peer reviewed. Of the 1042 pre-selected articles, 824 were
accessed. In a second filter, duplicate articles from the two databases consulted were
excluded, thereby removing 305 articles and leaving a total of 519.
Eligibility assessment. The information of the title, keywords, and abstract was
independently reviewed. As the focus of this review is to be kept on the integration of the
assessment of the three pillars of sustainability in BIM for the evaluation of the sustainable
performance of buildings, articles on other areas of study such as urban planning and road
and civil infrastructures were excluded, as were those that referred solely to BIM, LCC,
LCA, or S-LCA. Having applied this criterion, 198 articles were eliminated.
Synthesis of the results. An exhaustive analysis of the articles considered relevant was
conducted through the reading of the complete document, resulting in a total of 135 articles
considered to be truly relevant. The review articles (22) were separated for an independent
analysis, thereby leaving 113 papers within the original research group.
A PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the systematic literature review (SLR) process
can be found in Figure A1. This SLR was also registered in the Open Science Framework,
and it can be consulted through the following link: https://osf.io/nq8hv/ (accessed on
4 December 2024).
2.3. Analysis and Reporting of Results
The present study strives to answer the three research questions from Section 3.1 by
conducting a bibliometric analysis of the literature (Q1) and an informetric analysis of
results according to the ISO 14040 structure (Q2 and Q3).
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 5 of 25
According to Qui et al. [
50
], there are three ways of quantitatively analyzing scientific
literature: bibliometric, scientometric, and informetric analysis. Bibliometric analysis is
based on the quantitative analysis of papers, such as the number of publications per year.
Scientometrics quantifies the scientist’s achievements, such as citation analysis. Finally,
informetrics focuses on all information, not just explicit information, and hence enables
gaps in the knowledge to be identified and trends to be predicted.
At this stage, to answer Q1, the bibliometric analysis covers the following: (I) the
year of publication, (II) the name of the journal, (III) the geographical distribution, (IV) the
names of the authors, and (V) the keywords.
Despite the three-dimensions techniques (LCA, LCC, and S-LCA) following different
guide and standards, they have the same methodological base in the ISO 14040 [
10
]. For
this, the case studies are analyzed and categorized following the structure proposed by that
standard, as defined in the Section 1.
3. Results
3.1. Bibliometric Analysis (Q1)
In order to answer Q1, the bibliometric data of the articles reviewed in the SLR are
presented. As shown in Figure 2(I), the number of scientific publications on the subject
has registered a linear growth: 70% of the articles were published in the last four years.
In terms of integration, BIM–LCA leads this field with 65% of SLR publications, followed
by BIM integration with LCA+LCC with 15%, BIM–LCC with 11%, and BIM–LCSA with
9%. It should be borne in mind that, within this fourth category, 75% were published
between 2022 and 2023, and the remaining percentage between 2019 and 2022. To date, no
publications have been found on the BIM–S-LCA line.
Sustainability2024,16,xFORPEERREVIEW5of25
Synthesisoftheresults.Anexhaustiveanalysisofthearticlesconsideredrelevant
wasconductedthroughthereadingofthecompletedocument,resultinginatotalof135
articlesconsideredtobetrulyrelevant.Thereviewarticles(22)wereseparatedforanin-
dependentanalysis,therebyleaving113paperswithintheoriginalresearchgroup.
APRISMAflowdiagramsummarizingthesystematicliteraturereview(SLR)process
canbefoundinFigureA1.ThisSLRwasalsoregisteredintheOpenScienceFramework,
anditcanbeconsultedthroughthefollowinglink:hps://osf.io/nq8hv/(accessedon4
December2024).
2.3.AnalysisandReportingofResults
ThepresentstudystrivestoanswerthethreeresearchquestionsfromSection3.1by
conductingabibliometricanalysisoftheliterature(Q1)andaninformetricanalysisof
resultsaccordingtotheISO14040structure(Q2andQ3).
AccordingtoQuietal.[50],therearethreewaysofquantitativelyanalyzingscientific
literature:bibliometric,scientometric,andinformetricanalysis.Bibliometricanalysisis
basedonthequantitativeanalysisofpapers,suchasthenumberofpublicationsperyear.
Scientometricsquantifiesthescientist’sachievements,suchascitationanalysis.Finally,
informetricsfocusesonallinformation,notjustexplicitinformation,andhenceenables
gapsintheknowledgetobeidentifiedandtrendstobepredicted.
Atthisstage,toanswerQ1,thebibliometricanalysiscoversthefollowing:(I)theyear
ofpublication,(II)thenameofthejournal,(III)thegeographicaldistribution,(IV)the
namesoftheauthors,and(V)thekeywords.
Despitethethree-dimensionstechniques(LCA,LCC,andS-LCA)followingdifferent
guideandstandards,theyhavethesamemethodologicalbaseintheISO14040[10].For
this,thecasestudiesareanalyzedandcategorizedfollowingthestructureproposedby
thatstandard,asdefinedintheSection1.
3.Results
3.1.BibliometricAnalysis(Q1)
InordertoanswerQ1,thebibliometricdataofthearticlesreviewedintheSLRare
presented.AsshowninFigure2(I),thenumberofscientificpublicationsonthesubject
hasregisteredalineargrowth:70%ofthearticleswerepublishedinthelastfouryears.In
termsofintegration,BIM–LCAleadsthisfieldwith65%ofSLRpublications,followedby
BIMintegrationwithLCA+LCCwith15%,BIM–LCCwith11%,andBIM–LCSAwith9%.
Itshouldbeborneinmindthat,withinthisfourthcategory,75%werepublishedbetween
2022and2023,andtheremainingpercentagebetween2019and2022.Todate,nopubli-
cationshavebeenfoundontheBIM–S-LCAline.
Figure2.(I)Yearofpublicationpersourcetypeandintegrationtype.Thegraylinerepresentsthe
combinedtendencyofallthepublications.
Figure 2. (I) Year of publication per source type and integration type. The gray line represents the
combined tendency of all the publications.
The publication of the analyzed work is distributed across forty-one scientific journals
(II), of which Sustainability has published the most articles on this topic (24), followed by
Journal of Cleaner Production (19), Building and Environment (13), Automation in Construction
and Journal of Building Engineering (10), Energy and Buildings (8), and Buildings (6), among
others. Of these journals, the first publications were found in Building and Environment (1)
and Energy and Buildings (1) in 2013. Between 2014 and 2017, publications were discontinu-
ous, with most of them belonging to Energy and Buildings (2), Journal of Building Engineering
(2), and Journal of Cleaner Production (4). As for 2018, relevant research was published con-
tinuously in most journals. Between 2018 and 2021, Journal of Cleaner Production published
an average of three articles per year, decreasing in 2021–2023. Sustainability recorded a
peak of 11 publications in 2020, decreasing to 5, 2, and 3 between 2023 and 2023. During
2018–2023, Automation in Construction and Building and Environment published an average
of 10 and 12 papers, respectively. After a few years with no publications, Journal of Building
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 6 of 25
Engineering and Buildings rebounded between 2022 and 2023, with an average of 2–4 articles
per year. (III) The geographical distribution shows that out of a total of 44 countries, China
is the country with the highest number of publications (136), followed by Brazil (46), Spain
(38), Australia (36), and the United Kingdom (34), among others. (IV) As for the authors, the
most active in the field were identified as C. Llatas; B. Soust-Verdaguer; V. Tam; A. Hollberg;
A. Haddad; A. Passer; F. Jalaei; and K. Figueiredo. Finally, (V) for the identification of the
keywords, a list was made and grouped in terms of similarity. For example, BIM, Building
Information Modelling, and Building Information Modeling were unified, as were LCA
and Life Cycle Assessment, and also LCC, Life Cycle Cost, and Life Cycle Costing, among
others. As a result, the six most frequently used keywords in this topic are as follows:
Building Information Modeling (119), Life Cycle Assessment (86), sustainability (21), Life
Cycle Cost (20), environmental impact (11), and Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (11).
3.2. Informetric Analysis of Results According to ISO 14040 Structure (Q2 and Q3)
3.2.1. Goal and Scope
According to EN 15978 [
12
], the scope of the system is established through the “prin-
ciple of modularity”; that is, the processes that affect the behavior of the building during
its life cycle must be included within the corresponding modules. These are organized
into four stages: product, construction, use, and end-of-life; these modules cover the en-
vironmental impacts and aspects related to the processes and operations that take place
within the boundary of the building system itself. To these, a further module can be added,
module D, which covers the benefits related to exported energy and secondary materials,
fuels, or secondary products resulting from the reuse, recycling, and recovery of energy
that take place beyond the boundaries of the system. The stages of a building project
consist of the basic design and the execution or detailed design [
51
]. Several studies agree
that the early phases of design are crucial because these decisions generate the greatest
impacts on the BLC [
52
,
53
]. Furthermore, as the project progresses, the possibility of mak-
ing modifications decreases and the cost of making changes in the design increases [
52
].
Some researchers [
6
,
39
] state that, for the sustainability of a construction to be effective,
environmental, social, and economic aspects must be integrated simultaneously in the
early design phases. This aligns with the findings of the SLR, where 86% of studies assess
impacts in the design stages (see Figure 3a and Table A2).
Regarding the characteristics of the case studies, 50% analyze low-rise buildings
(
1–4 floors
), 27% mid-rise (from 5 to 10 floors) buildings, and 17% high-rise buildings (more
than 10 floors). With respect to the use of the building, more than half of the case studies
are residential buildings (57%) (see Figure 3b).
With respect to BIM–LCSA integration, only nine case studies of those included in this
review implement the LCSA methodology [
6
–
9
,
51
,
54
–
57
]. There are indeed other publi-
cations that consider social criteria; however, they fail to apply the S-LCA methodology
and/or simply mention social criteria [
58
–
61
]. From the review, two paths for the imple-
mentation of the LCSA can be identified as unified and bifurcated, the latter of which Boje
et al. [
9
] referred to as “conventional LCSA”. Within the first group [
6
,
7
,
55
], the authors
merged system boundaries and FUs. However, this cannot always be performed, due
to the differences and incompatibilities of the scopes and indicators to be considered by
each methodology. For this reason, Filho et al. [
8
] and Boje et al. [
9
] assessed the three
dimensions separately and then brought them together for a comprehensive assessment.
Functional unit
Of the articles reviewed, 27% do not disclose the FU employed, while among those
that do, the majority of cases (15%) take the entire building as a reference unit (see Figure 3c
and Table A2 for a summary). Other authors have chosen to limit it to a part of the building,
for example, 1 m
2
of non-structural external shell, 1 m
3
per component, or by taking the
entire envelope or set of exterior walls as a unit. These cases seek to compare different
construction solutions in design stages. Several studies determine the FU at the element
level: “according to each element”, 1 m
2
of the element, and 100 m
2
of the element, while
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 7 of 25
others consider the interior area/volume of the building as the FU, for example, 1 m
2
of
gross floor/built/heated area.
Every building is formed of diverse components, each of which has a different FU [
21
].
A number of studies on building components use an FU differing from that of the element,
thus failing to describe the functionality of the element or justify its choice. As suggested
by Obrecht et al. [
3
], the FU should provide information on what is being evaluated, its
quantity, and its period of evaluation, and this should be established according to the
standards in order to prevent any misinterpretation of the results.
Sustainability2024,16,xFORPEERREVIEW7of25
and/orsimplymentionsocialcriteria[58–61].Fromthereview,twopathsfortheimple-
mentationoftheLCSAcanbeidentifiedasunifiedandbifurcated,thelaerofwhichBoje
etal.[9]referredtoas“conventionalLCSA”.Withinthefirstgroup[6,7,55],theauthors
mergedsystemboundariesandFUs.However,thiscannotalwaysbeperformed,dueto
thedifferencesandincompatibilitiesofthescopesandindicatorstobeconsideredbyeach
methodology.Forthisreason,Filhoetal.[8]andBojeetal.[9]assessedthethreedimen-
sionsseparatelyandthenbroughtthemtogetherforacomprehensiveassessment.
Figure3.SummaryofthedefinitionsoftheobjectiveandscopebythedifferentarticlesoftheSLR
aregroupper(a)stageofapplication;(b)buildingtypology;(c)functionalunit;(d)lifespaninyears;
(e)buildinglifecyclephase;and(f)levelofdevelopment.
Figure 3. Summary of the definitions of the objective and scope by the different articles of the SLR
are group per (a) stage of application; (b) building typology; (c) functional unit; (d) lifespan in years;
(e) building life cycle phase; and (f) level of development.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 8 of 25
Lifespan
In a longitudinal sense, the BLC begins with the transformation of the land for its
construction and ends at the conclusion of the demolition work. The operation phase
starts at the end of construction, with the building ready for occupancy. The duration
of this phase varies significantly depending on variables such as the use and intensity,
the construction quality, and the building operation and maintenance [
62
]. As soon as
the building is no longer habitable or undergoes a renovation or remodeling in such a
way that its behavior changes from the original, its service life ends, and the building is
thereafter considered as a new construction. Despite being considered a critical factor when
conducting an LCSA (or any of the methodologies therein) [
41
], 33% of the cases studied
fail to indicate the duration of its service life. Of the remaining percentage, half of the
articles employ a service life of between 50 and 60 years, most of which are residential or
office buildings (see Figure 3d and Table A2 for a summary). It is worth noting that the
lifespan considered depends on the type of use profile (e.g., residential, office, industrial,
etc.), the type of structure (steel, reinforced concrete, or wood), and the country’s building
code specifications, and this aspect strongly affects the analysis of the BLC.
Several authors evaluate the case studies considering different years of use. For
example, Yi-Kai et al. [
63
] and Veselka et al. [
64
] consider a service life of 30, 50, and
100 years. Santos et al. [
65
] use a lifespan of 50 and 60 years, and Bertín et al. [
66
] establish it
between 20 and 50 years. Throughout the literature, it was observed that a large proportion
of the articles fail to disaggregate the service life of the construction elements used in
the building. Each component of the construction, each material, has a different lifespan,
and therefore, the periods in which they must be maintained or replaced also differ, as
well as their associated impacts. Hence, for a comprehensive assessment from a life cycle
perspective, it is important to identify and specify the activities to be performed for each
building element during the BLC, such as maintenance actions and their periodicity, and
replacement actions, replacement rates, and the estimated lifespan for each material. Not
including these aspects in the analysis leads to underestimation of the impact of buildings
during their use phase.
System boundaries
From the SLR, it was found that, of the 113 cases analyzed, 70 are limited to certain
components of the building, mostly architectural components (70%), followed by structural
components (47%), and then installations in the form of Heating, Ventilating, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) (4%). All phases of the BLC are evenly evaluated in the reviewed
studies, except for phase D (see Figure 3e). Within each module, transport is perceived as
one of the frequently ignored impacts due to a lack of information. The same occurs with
the evaluation of the operational water impact.
3.2.2. Life Cycle Inventory
The LCI is the core of LCA. Worldwide, databases have been developed with infor-
mation on the consumption of materials and energy for building systems and products
throughout their entire life cycle, or for a part thereof. These inventories can be specific to a
certain region/country, or they can be global, in addition to containing data from various
sectors (generic) or focusing on a single sector (specific) [
52
]. From the SLR, the use of a
variety of databases is identified (see Table A3). Most of the articles use generic environ-
mental databases, such as Ecoinvent (28), GaBi (15), ICE (8), and Athena (6), something that
is expected given their suitability for conducting an LCA of buildings [
67
]. In relation to
the economic evaluation, data from the local market or provided by the contractor are used.
RSmeans is the most frequent cost database used, followed by CYPE, the Brazilian Cost
and Index Research System, and ACCD, among others. For the social dimension, there
is a significant lack of selection [
6
,
43
]. Authors have therefore resorted to using existing
information in the literature, standards, the local market, and local databases such as ACA,
BCIRS, SHDB, and PSILCA. However, the stages and indicators are limited and focus on
those related to construction workers.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 9 of 25
The use of local databases enables the results to approximate the reality of the site. It
could be said that this is a common habit when it comes to conducting economic evaluations.
However, this is not always possible in environmental assessments due to the lack of local
information in LCA databases. For example, Ecoinvent contains data mostly localized for
countries in central Europe, and the same occurs with GaBi, localized for North America.
For this reason, various countries have chosen to adapt generic databases to their context.
For example, Berges-Alvarez et al. [
52
] use the local-specific database Abaco-Chile. This
database adapts the environmental data of Ecoinvent 3.0 to the Chilean energy matrix and
interconnects it with economic and social costs for stages A1–A5. Veselka et al. [
64
], among
others [
58
,
68
–
72
], make use of the German Ökobaudat database which is based on GaBi
and information from the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD).
Given the long duration required to collect the data [
6
,
52
], certain research projects
have generated their own databases where they collect information from the three di-
mensions. Such is the case of Llatas et al. [
6
,
51
] and Soust-Verdaguer et al. [
7
,
55
]. These
researchers create a Triple Bottom Line database: a database containing environmental
information from Ecoinvent, combined with social (working hours) and economic informa-
tion extracted from the local and specific databases for various stages of the BLC, indicators,
construction products, and materials.
Level of development
The American Institute of Architects develop a five-level classification (100, 200, 300,
400, and 500) with the minimum requirements required by BIM models. These define the
level of geometric detail of the object and the information content [
27
]. For example, with
an LOD of 100, the object is displayed graphically in a general way, while with an LOD
of 200, the information remains basic but more detailed (dimensions, quantities, location,
and orientation). With an LOD of 300, the model reaches a certain level of maturity and
describes and adds detailed information on size and shape. In an LOD of 400, in addition,
the information is more coordinated and includes connections and installations. Finally, in
an LOD of 500, the model is the same as the constructed building.
The LOD can limit the inputs and outputs of LCA. An LCA with an LOD of 100 is
considered a screening where only general information is employed. A simplified LCA
needs an LOD of 100 and up to an LOD of 400, while for a detailed LCA an LOD of 400 or
higher is required, where the information is detailed [
13
,
21
,
73
]. Some authors [
26
,
70
,
74
,
75
]
study the relationship between variation in LODs and LCA outcomes. The findings suggest
that as the LOD of the model increases, the rate of deviation of the LCA results decreases.
Despite the fact that the publications analyzed aim to propose or apply an integration
between BIM and LCSA (LCC, LCA, or S-LCA), 58% of the publications fail to declare the
LOD of the model and 17% use an LOD of 300 (see Figure 3f). Certain researchers, such as
Bertin et al. [
66
], adapt the distinct LODs to their needs and propose a 600 and 700 LOD
that includes use and deconstruction information.
3.2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The LCIA decides how to represent the results and impacts upon which the analysis is
focused. In this phase, the concept of an indicator emerges, which attempts to synthesize
information from diverse sources into a single result comparable to those of other studies.
From the literature, it is known that the most commonly used LCA methods are CML,
TRACI, CED, IMPACT 2002, ReciPe, and IPCC. These are characterized by largely being
multi-criterion since they express the results of different impacts, which allows more
detailed information to be obtained but implies a more complex process of analysis. This
complexity has been identified as one of the main barriers to the implementation of this
building assessment process [
76
]. In their evaluation, the majority of studies include the
environmental impacts of GWP, acidification, ozone depletion, eutrophication, carbon
emission, abiotic depletion, primary energy, embodied carbon, non-renewable energy, and
smog formation potential.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 10 of 25
In the case of LCC, more than 60% of the studies fail to mention the method used.
Of the 40% who do, 84% use Net Present Value (NPV) to consider the time value of
money, while the rest apply methods such as the Cost Index Method and the Cost Optimal
Methodology. On the negative side, Lu et al. [
42
] point out that NPV cannot be applied to
compare alternatives with different durations. Of the indicators, the most frequently used
are the costs of construction, maintenance, operation, materials, demolition, initialization,
energy, labor, machinery, replacement, disposal, life cycle, and acquisition and installation.
The discount rate ranges from 0.78 to 8%, depending on the local economy.
As for S-LCA, none of the studies mention the method employed to measure impacts.
Given the small number of cases that apply this methodology, the evaluation of the indica-
tors also takes into consideration those articles that refer to social indicators, even though it
is not applied in the end. At first, a list of the categories and indicators mentioned by the
publications, but not evaluated in many cases, is generated. These are then filtered and
grouped by similarity to give greater order. The following categories can be highlighted:
acoustics (acoustic comfort, acoustic performance, and acoustic quality); lighting (natural
lighting, lighting comfort, views, and visible transmission); thermal (thermal comfort), air
(indoor air quality); materials (low-e materials); space and movement (adequate space and
storage, aesthetics and beauty of the building, design and architectural issues, function-
ality of physical space, and system control); productivity (working conditions and health
and safety), working hours (wages and productivity); and community (labor rights and
decent work, governance, human rights, community, individual and collective identity,
socio-economic impacts, and cultural heritage). The uniqueness of the S-LCA category lies
in the fact that not all indicators can be evaluated quantitatively. Hence, studies such as that
of Zolfaghari et al. [
59
] apply the Multi-Criteria Decision-making Model (MCDM) based
on questionnaire methods, such as the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment
and Delphi for their valuation.
Integration processes and calculations
Over the years, various approaches have been proposed to integrate the BIM methodol-
ogy and the calculation methods studied. For further clarification, several researchers have
created different categorizations that differ not only in the way data are collected and used,
but also in the degree of automation and interoperability between the tools [
3
,
4
,
21
,
40
,
43
,
77
].
For this analysis, the authors rely on the classification proposed by Santos et al. [
13
] and
on the tags by Obrecht et al. [
3
]. These researchers classify the existing approaches into
three types: conventional, static, and dynamic. The conventional approach uses programs
outside the BIM flow to arrive at an LCA, while the production of the data needed for the
analysis is carried out manually. The static approach uses the output data generated by
the BIM model as an input to the LCA database to obtain the project impacts. Meanwhile,
the dynamic approach includes the information provided by an LCA database within the
BIM model. The main advantage of the latter approach is that it automatically updates
the results when the project is modified, thus taking advantage of the full potential of
BIM tools, while the other approaches require re-exporting the information and linking
it back to external databases, in addition to needing additional licenses for the external
software involved. The advance towards a dynamic approach becomes of paramount
importance when seeking to reduce calculation costs and allow professionals to carry out
LCSA without expertise.
a. Conventional approach
As shown in Figure 4, 32% of the studies opt for the conventional method. Many
studies gather the information of the different impacts and the quantities extracted from
the BIM model in an Excel spreadsheet where they perform the LCA, LCC, or LCA+LCC
assessment [
58
,
61
,
63
,
73
,
78
–
87
]. For example, Hao et al. [
88
] use the GGJ2013 and GCL2013
software to obtain material quantification data, send them to an Excel file, and perform
the LCA for a prefabricated construction. Other studies choose to manually input data
extracted from a BIM model into LCA or LCC tools for impact calculation [
72
,
76
,
89
–
98
].
Among these, Rezaei et al. [
75
] use the model’s output data in Revit, Ecoinvent’s database,
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 11 of 25
and perform the LCA in OpenLCA. Others perform a combination of the two methods:
they calculate the impacts of one category in a spreadsheet and evaluate another category
using a tool [17,99,100]. It can therefore be observed that, in conventional approaches, the
manual activity for information entry is high, which leads to an increase in human error,
loss of information, and uncertainty in the results.
Sustainability2024,16,xFORPEERREVIEW11of25
databasewithintheBIMmodel.Themainadvantageofthelaerapproachisthatitauto-
maticallyupdatestheresultswhentheprojectismodified,thustakingadvantageofthe
fullpotentialofBIMtools,whiletheotherapproachesrequirere-exportingtheinfor-
mationandlinkingitbacktoexternaldatabases,inadditiontoneedingadditionallicenses
fortheexternalsoftwareinvolved.Theadvancetowardsadynamicapproachbecomesof
paramountimportancewhenseekingtoreducecalculationcostsandallowprofessionals
tocarryoutLCSAwithoutexpertise.
a. Conventionalapproach
AsshowninFigure4,32%ofthestudiesoptfortheconventionalmethod.Many
studiesgathertheinformationofthedifferentimpactsandthequantitiesextractedfrom
theBIMmodelinanExcelspreadsheetwheretheyperformtheLCA,LCC,orLCA+LCC
assessment[58,61,63,73,78–87].Forexample,Haoetal.[88]usetheGGJ2013andGCL2013
softwaretoobtainmaterialquantificationdata,sendthemtoanExcelfile,andperform
theLCAforaprefabricatedconstruction.Otherstudieschoosetomanuallyinputdata
extractedfromaBIMmodelintoLCAorLCCtoolsforimpactcalculation[72,76,89–98].
Amongthese,Rezaeietal.[75]usethemodel’soutputdatainRevit,Ecoinvent’sdatabase,
andperformtheLCAinOpenLCA.Othersperformacombinationofthetwomethods:
theycalculatetheimpactsofonecategoryinaspreadsheetandevaluateanothercategory
usingatool[17,99,100].Itcanthereforebeobservedthat,inconventionalapproaches,the
manualactivityforinformationentryishigh,whichleadstoanincreaseinhumanerror,
lossofinformation,anduncertaintyintheresults.
Figure4.Integrationapproachesandsoftwareusedintheresearchreviewed.
b. Staticapproach
Thestaticorsemi-automaticmethodwasfoundtobethemostcommonlyused(47%).
Authors,suchasCrippaetal.[82],obtainthecarbonfootprintofwallsbytakingthein-
formationontheamountofmaterialthatmakesupeachelementoftheprojectfromthe
TCPO13databaseandenteringitintoSimapro8forthecalculationoftheunitGWPof
thematerials.Then,ArchiCAD19isusedformodeling,theunitvaluesobtainedareen-
teredand,bymeansofanExcelspreadsheet,thetotalembodiedcarbonvalueforeach
componentisextracted.
Figure 4. Integration approaches and software used in the research reviewed.
b. Static approach
The static or semi-automatic method was found to be the most commonly used (47%).
Authors, such as Crippa et al. [
82
], obtain the carbon footprint of walls by taking the
information on the amount of material that makes up each element of the project from
the TCPO 13 database and entering it into Simapro 8 for the calculation of the unit GWP
of the materials. Then, ArchiCAD19 is used for modeling, the unit values obtained are
entered and, by means of an Excel spreadsheet, the total embodied carbon value for each
component is extracted.
In other studies, such as those by Najjar et al. [
101
,
102
], among others [
8
,
54
,
103
–
108
],
a model is created in Revit, and the environmental information of the materials is obtained
using the Tally plugin. Kehily and Underwood [
93
] collect quantification information from
a BIM model and export it to a spreadsheet with LCC data for varied materials. In the same
vein, research that has focused on the integration of LCC with LCA [
79
], uses BIM models
to obtain quantity information and export it to a spreadsheet where they perform the LCA
and LCC analyses. In these examples, the workflow differs from the conventional approach,
as the data on quantities from the BIM model are directly connected to an external database
on LCC, LCA or S-LCA in order to determine the projects’ impacts, not having to make
those calculations manually.
Several authors choose to semi-automate their methodologies using programming
languages, such as Dynamo, Rhinoceros, Visual Basic, and C# [26,66,69,109–127]. Abanda
et al. [
128
] automate the calculation of embodied energy and CO
2
emissions by aligning the
results with the UK Measurement Rules using Revit, Navisworks 2015, and Excel. Berges-
Alvarez et al. [
52
] propose and test a workflow that integrates environmental and economic
criteria early in the building design process, by using Autodesk Revit 2022, Dynamo 2.12,
Excel, and PowerBI.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 12 of 25
Some research uses the open format of information exchange, such as gbXML (green
building XML) and IFC (Industry Foundation Classes), to enrich the data of the model objects
and improve the interoperability between BIM tools
[9,56,57,66,68,71,103,111–113,123,129–133].
For example, Theißen et al. [
71
] use IFC as an open exchange format between Autodesk
Revit, liNear, and Ökobaudat 2020 to evaluate the LCA of building installations. Finally,
Su et al. [
134
] export the Autodesk Revit model in gbXML format to perform the energy
simulation in Green Building Studio.
c. Dynamic approach
The third approach, that of the dynamic method, is characterized by including in-
formation for the LCSA within the BIM model. Despite being the least used (23%), its
application has been gaining popularity in recent years. Unlike previous methodologies,
this one enables changes and updates to the data to be made instantaneously, without
having to leave the modeling environment [
60
,
109
,
134
–
144
]. To this end, several authors
have chosen to start by linking databases to the BIM model through templates [139,145].
For example, Jalaei et al. [
146
] create an external database with available sustainability
materials in the market that connects to the BIM model through a library of elements in
Revit (a library of families with information related to green materials). As a first step, it
is necessary to generate a 3D model and implement the library families. Then, a plugin
is programmed in C# that includes a Decision Support System (DSS) to help the designer
in making decisions with sustainable criteria, energy analysis (from simulation tools)
and in performing LCC calculations. The DSS uses conceptual design, decision-making
parameters and selection heuristics to list material alternatives. It then asks the user to
weigh sustainability attributes. The list of recommended materials for each element is
modified automatically as materials are selected for the design component. The plugin
exports the enriched model in gbXML format to the Green Building Studio tool where the
calculations are performed and the results are presented.
Hollberg et al. [
25
] develop an integration between the Revit material library and the
Swiss KBOB database 2016. To this end, the information on the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) and Primary Energy impacts is collected in an Excel sheet that is subsequently linked
to the model manually by considering the Identities of the elements. Then, a template is
generated with the information and applied to the model to obtain the quantities. Finally,
the impacts are calculated using Dynamo and exported to Excel and BIM software for
color-coded visualization.
Santos et al. [
13
] identify the information required for the analysis of LCA and LCC,
which leads to the development of an information delivery manual and a model view
definition (IDM/MVD). A simplified and comprehensive BIM–LCA+LCC framework is
proposed. In later work [
65
,
147
], a tool named BIMEELCA is developed using the Appli-
cation Programming Interface (API) of Revit 2019, C#, Windows presentation foundation,
and Excel. With the use of this tool, designers can visualize the impacts in the 3D model of
the different elements for various stages of the BLC in real time.
Soust-Verdaguer et al. [
7
,
55
,
56
] and Llatas et al. [
6
,
51
] propose a simplified BIM–LCSA
integration. For its application, a plugin for Revit named BIM3LCA is developed first
in Dynamo and then in the Revit API with the C# programming language, which works
together with other software such as Excel, Window Forms, and the IFC interchange format.
The tool enables the environmental (GWP), economic (cost), and social (working hours)
impacts not only to be visualized for separate phases of the BLC in real time in the BIM
model, but also to be exported to Excel if desired.
Authors, such as Zheng et al. [
48
], develop and apply a conventional, static, and dy-
namic method to compare the potentialities and limitations of each method. The advantage
of the dynamic approach over the other two is that its application requires no training on
the part of professionals since everything is calculated automatically.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 13 of 25
3.2.4. Interpretation of Results
Lastly, in the interpretation stage, the results of the previous stages are summarized
and discussed for decision-making based on the objective and scope of each study [
30
].
The review highlights a problem regarding the evaluation of the different dimensions as
a whole. For this reason, several MCDM methods have been proposed to classify the
available alternatives according to the preferences of the owner and the project team, and
hence assign differing degrees of importance to the various criteria. Research, such as that
of Jalaei et al. [
146
], seeks to evaluate the components of a building through environmental
indicators (CO
2
emissions, annual energy, and life cycle energy), social indicators (indoor
environmental comfort, low-emissivity materials, natural lighting, and views, among
others), and economic indicators (energy cost and life cycle cost) and apply a DSS method
to make it easier for project agents to make their choice. Similarly, Figueiredo et al. [
54
] and
Filho et al. [
8
] apply an MCDM called Fuzzy-AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), which
helps to aggregate and rank the impacts of each scenario into a sustainability index. Alireza
et al. [
61
] evaluate the sustainability of various materials during the BLC and classify
the alternatives using TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution), which establishes geometry principles in the search for the best alternative: the
one with the shortest distance between the ideal solution and the greatest distance from the
worst solution.
4. Discussion
4.1. Answers to Research Questions
From the SLR, the following answers can be given to each Q:
For Q1, the results show that even though 76% of the case studies use BIM to evalu-
ate a single dimension of building sustainability, either environmental or economic, the
integration of BIM–LCA has been decreasing and BIM–LCC is often no longer studied
as something independent but as part of BIM–LCA+LCC, as also evidenced by Santos
et al. [
43
]. In some cases, the social approach begins to be timidly mentioned, but no
publications have been found on the BIM–S-LCA line. It has been noted that the use of
the term BIM–LCSA has been steadily increasing and there is a growing trend towards
its integration.
In order to answer Q2, the authors reviewed case studies that addressed BIM–LCA,
BIM–LCC, BIM–LCA+LCC, and BIM–LCSA focused on buildings. Regarding the def-
initions of the G+S, it was learned that 86% of the articles carry out the evaluation in
design stages and, of these, 62% do so in the early stages. However, there are few studies
that verify the veracity of the results in advanced stages of design or construction and
post-construction. Despite the fact that all cases follow the BLC stages from the ISO 14040
standard, it was found that many articles do not include all the stages. The most commonly
explored modules include the product-related module (A1–A3) and the operation module
(B1–B7), while only twelve studies evaluate module D. In certain cases, all modules are
addressed, but certain sub-stages, such as transport and water use, are omitted.
Other essential aspects omitted by most publications that have an influence on the
results are the service life and the FU, most studies fail to indicate them by element.
A further limitation involves the bias of BIM models. Despite the fact that buildings
are made up of several areas of specialization, most works evaluate the building partially,
being limited to certain architectural and/or structural components. A small number of
articles evaluate installations but solely focus on HVAC systems. Few publications study
the impacts of construction holistically. Another aspect of the model is the LOD and its
connection with the design phases. Like the various levels of detail in LCA, a certain
maturity level in BIM models becomes helpful for the application of LCSA. Despite the
importance this carries, 58% of the studies did not specify the model’s LOD.
In response to Q3, of the three ways of integration discussed in this article, almost
half of the case studies (47%) opted for the semi-automatic method, which indicates a
transition process between this and the dynamic method, since the use of the conventional
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 14 of 25
method is decreasing and the use of the dynamic one is increasing. Within the BIM flow,
there are several tools available to researchers. In a similar way to the reviews by Safari
et al. [
21
] and Guignone et al. [
27
], our review identifies: Autodesk Revit as the most widely
used BIM software for modeling and quantification; Microsoft Excel as container and
information manager; C# and Dynamo programming languages for plugin development
and automation; and Green Building Studio for energy simulations.
4.2. Discussion
The assertion of previous studies [
6
,
43
,
44
] that BIM–LCSA cases are still scarce can
be reinforced. It is known that, to conduct an LCSA, it is necessary to previously define
certain limits of the system, which include describing the assumptions that delimit the
evaluation transversally and longitudinally. However, it has been noted that many of the
studies provide no such details.
As for the service life and the FU, it is important to mention that each construction
element has a specific service life, and its durability depends, among other things, on the
maintenance provided. Regarding the definition of the FU, this is one of the major difficul-
ties faced by researchers, especially when considering more than one LCA methodology,
due to the differences and incompatibilities between the scopes and indicators in terms
of the unit in which they are expressed. For this reason, some studies that consider the
three dimensions [
9
] evaluate LCA independently. Others, such as Llatas et al. [
6
] and
Soust-Verdaguer et al. [
6
,
7
], add the impact categories of LCC and S-LCA to the impact
categories of LCA.
In terms of the BIM model, authors such as Santos et al. [
13
] and Soust-Verdaguer
et al. [
4
] recommend a minimum LOD of 300 to perform a full LCA or LCSA. It is considered
appropriate to standardize the relationship between the LODs and the Level of Information
of the model and the evolution of the application of the methods (e.g., simplified, detailed,
and screened LCA).
Furthermore, of the LCI and LCIA, the databases for LCA are usually generic and
not local, due to the lack of local databases or EPDs. In the case of LCC and S-LCA, the
information used is site-specific. In LCC, the values are usually provided directly by the
contractor or extracted from the reference values of the local market. As mentioned by
Figueiredo et al. [
54
], Llatas et al. [
6
], Santos et al. [
43
], and Ononosen et al. [
44
], there is
a significant lack of information and databases on social indicators, which hinders their
inclusion in the evaluation. This may be because the only clear indicators for S-LCA are
labor risk and working hours; the rest are mentioned superficially. Another limitation is
found in the lack of databases that include information from all three dimensions simulta-
neously, which renders the process even longer and more complicated. Existing databases
should be strengthened with environmental, economic, and social information with the
collaboration of manufacturers to also include them in BIM models and local regulations.
To provide a solution to the communication of results given the lack of standardization
for the assessment of the different dimensions as a whole, certain studies have begun to
include sensitivity analyses and methods to support decision-making based on multiple
criteria, such as TOPSIS, Fuzzy-AHP, and DSS.
On the other hand, despite the potential offered by the dynamic method, there are still
certain limitations. One of the most prevalent is the lack of automation, interoperability,
and integration between tools. Although attempts have been made to solve this using
OpenBIM formats such as IFC and gbXML, several studies have reported problems. For
example, Kim et. [
148
] point out that geometric information breaks when the IFC created
in Revit is transferred to IES Virtual Environment/Impact. Zanni et al. [
123
] point to the
loss of information when using open exchange formats. Another identified limitation is
the problem of quantifying the components of installations. A further point that is seldom
discussed concerns the process of collaboration between the various specialists, their way
of working on the model, and the flow of information exchange between them. Therefore,
it is considered relevant to continue researching in dynamic work methodologies and tools
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 15 of 25
that are applicable and scalable to projects of various characteristics that can be integrated
into the project workflow.
It could be stated that all the articles agree on the potential of BIM in assessing the
sustainability of constructions.
5. Conclusions
In this study, an SLR was conducted of the articles that apply BIM–LCSA or any of its
components focused on buildings. It was noted that studies tend to include at least two
of the three dimensions of sustainability simultaneously, with the social dimension being
excluded in most cases. This is mainly due to the difficulty of homogenizing the three
calculation methods, because of the incompatibility and differences between the system
boundaries, FUs, indicators used in each method, and ways of interpretating the results.
Databases on social impact associated to building components or BIM objects through fair
market labeling become necessary, as has already occurred with environmental impact
data and EPDs. Further research could also link direct social impact indicator projects,
such as health and safety risks for the execution of building components represented by
BIM objects.
Just 9 papers out of 113 performed a holistic evaluation, which means that the concept
of LCSA is not that common and still remains an open question. A clear calculation method
should be established that considers all three dimensions and allows multiple indicators
to be evaluated throughout the BLC. Regarding its linkage with BIM, few studies take
advantage of the potential of BIM to evaluate the complete BLC and its different disciplines,
leaving aside mainly mechanical, electrical and plumbing installations. It is considered
important to develop a standard that relates the evolution of the model’s LOD to the LCSA,
as well as to continue developing dynamic work methodologies to improve interoperability
and facilitate automated, real-time results.
A real change is required in the architecture, engineering, and construction sector,
with greater control of the sustainability of buildings, to achieve the global objective of
reducing the impact of buildings through the use of collaborative work methodologies.
This review highlights the limitations of BIM–LCSA integration and evidences the need for
further research and refinement to address the sustainability assessment of buildings, both
simultaneously and holistically. The use of the ISO 14040 structure and the categorization
established for the reviewed studies in the informetric analysis can be applied to other
areas, such as civil engineering, the manufacturing industry, or the development of urban
systems. However, the details within each category established in this study must be
specifically defined for each of these areas.
Linking sustainability needs to be simple for the end user (engineers, builders, and
architects, among others). Therefore, solutions must be designed to require no expert
knowledge from professionals, as this will be the path to easily apply them in a significant
quantity of projects. Thus, the simultaneous evaluation of the three pillars of sustainability
can become the definitive trigger for the use of BIM in the building sector as, in addition to
the reduction in inconsistencies between plans, avoiding delays and execution mistakes on
site, the cost of modeling would be more easily amortized bearing in mind that efficient
holistic integrations of LCSA into BIM that employ a unified structure loaded into the model
and automatically reacting to changes in design would avoid the necessity of specialized
personnel on LCA and S-LCA.
In order to be able to compare results between projects, regions, or countries, it is
necessary to unify methods with specific criteria, homogenizing the configuration of the
studies. Thus, the determination of reference values or benchmarks would become feasible,
which would eventually allow us to enter into a continuous improvement process for future
architectural projects.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 16 of 25
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.
mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su162411070/s1, Table S1: PRISMA checklist. Reference [
149
] is cited in
the Supplementary Material.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.B.-A.,
A.M.-R.
and M.M.; methodology, I.B.-A.,
A.M.-R.
and M.M.; formal analysis, I.B.-A.; investigation, I.B.-A., A.M.-R. and M.M.; writing—original
draft preparation, I.B.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.M.-R. and M.M.; visualization, I.B.-A.;
supervision, A.M.-R. and M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded with the IUACC 2023 Research Internationalization Grants of the
VII Research and Transfer Plan of the University of Seville.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The search string and results of the Scopus and WoS databases.
Search Engines Search String Results
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“BIM” OR “Building Information Modeling” OR “Building
Information Modeling” AND “LCA” OR “Life Cycle Assessment” AND
“LCC” OR “Life Cycle Cost” AND “S-LCA” OR “Social Life Cycle Assessment”
AND “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment” OR “LCSA”)
448
AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR
LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)
WoS
TS = ((“BIM” OR “Building Information Modeling” OR “Building Information
Modeling”) AND (“LCA” OR “Life Cycle Assessment”) AND (“LCC” OR
“Life Cycle Cost”) AND (“S-LCA” OR “Social Life Cycle Assessment”) AND
(“LSCA” or “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment”))
607
Document Types: Articles or Proceedings or Review Articles
Search Keywords
“BIM,” “Building Information Modeling,” “Building Information Modeling,”
“LCA,” “Life Cycle Assessment,” “LCC,” “Life Cycle Cost,” “S-LCA,” “Social
Life Cycle Assessment,” “LCSA,” “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment”
Sustainability2024,16,xFORPEERREVIEW17of25
FigureA1.PRISMAflowdiagram.
Tab leA2.DefinitionsoftheobjectiveandscopebythedifferentarticlesoftheSLR.
CriterionVal ue References
(a)Stageof
Application
Earlystage[6,7,9,48,51,52,54,55,58,60,61,63,65,66,69,71,72,76,78–85,89–92,100,102–106,109–121,130–132,135–
138,141,144,146,148,150–159]
Endofdesign[93,134,145]
Entiredesignprocess[1,13,25,26,56,70,75,133,139]
Design(unspecified
stage)[17,64,73,74,86,87,94,95,99,101,107,123,124,140,142]
Afterconstruction[68,110,125,143]
Unspecifiedstage[8,57,59,88,96,97,108,122,126,128,147,160]
(b)Building
Typology
Residential[1,7,8,13,17,26,51,54–59,63,65,68,69,74–76,78,81,83,86,87,89,91,94–97,99,101,103–107,109–111,113,115–
119,123,128,130–134,136,138,142–145,148,151,154,156,158,160]
Office[9,25,60,61,64,65,71,72,79,80,88,92,102,120,124,125,135,140,146,147,150,153,157]
School[70,90,100,124,126,134,141,152,159]
Notype[6,48,52,66,82,93,103,110,137,151]
Commercial[116,155]
Cultural[85,122]
Hospital[84,121]
Industrial[108]
Mixed-use[139]
(c)Func-
tionalUnit
Nofunctionalunit[7,9,59,60,64,68,69,76,84,89,93,104–107,110,111,113,117,118,123,124,131,132,135,141,143,146,150,156,159]
Wholebuilding[6,25,26,54,63,66,74,80,86,87,92,96,99,102,114,134,153]
Accordingtoeachele-
ment[51,56,65,72,78,79,110,121,142,145,147,152,154,155]
1m
2
ofelement[1,13,52,61,71,82,100,103,112,126,138,139]
1m
2
ofgrossfloorarea[17,48,57,85,86,91,97,101,122,136,140,148]
1m
2
ofbuiltarea[8,70,75,90,95,108,119,130,158,160]
1m
2
ofheatedarea[58,73,116,125,144]
1kgperelement[81,128,137]
100m
2
element[120]
1m
2
netusableareafor
exoskeleton[133]
1m
2
ofnon-structuralex-
ternalshell[151]
1m
3
ofeachmaterial[55]
1m
3
ofnon-structural
shell[109]
1m
3
percomponent[88]
Buildingenvelope[83]
Figure A1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 17 of 25
Table A2. Definitions of the objective and scope by the different articles of the SLR.
Criterion Value References
(a) Stage of Application
Early stage
[6,7,9,48,51,52,54,55,58,60,61,63,65,66,69,71,72,76,78–85,89–
92,100,102–106,109–121,130–132,135–
138,141,144,146,148,150–159]
End of design [93,134,145]
Entire design process [1,13,25,26,56,70,75,133,139]
Design (unspecified stage) [17,64,73,74,86,87,94,95,99,101,107,123,124,140,142]
After construction [68,110,125,143]
Unspecified stage [8,57,59,88,96,97,108,122,126,128,147,160]
(b) Building Typology
Residential
[1,7,8,13,17,26,51,54–59,63,65,68,69,74–
76,78,81,83,86,87,89,91,94–97,99,101,103–107,109–
111,113,115–119,123,128,130–134,136,138,142–
145,148,151,154,156,158,160]
Office [9,25,60,61,64,65,71,72,79,80,88,92,102,120,124,125,135,140,
146,147,150,153,157]
School [70,90,100,124,126,134,141,152,159]
No type [6,48,52,66,82,93,103,110,137,151]
Commercial [116,155]
Cultural [85,122]
Hospital [84,121]
Industrial [108]
Mixed-use [139]
(c) Functional Unit
No functional unit [7,9,59,60,64,68,69,76,84,89,93,104–107,110,111,113,117,118,
123,124,131,132,135,141,143,146,150,156,159]
Whole building [6,25,26,54,63,66,74,80,86,87,92,96,99,102,114,134,153]
According to each element [51,56,65,72,78,79,110,121,142,145,147,152,154,155]
1 m2of element [1,13,52,61,71,82,100,103,112,126,138,139]
1 m2of gross floor area [17,48,57,85,86,91,97,101,122,136,140,148]
1 m2of built area [8,70,75,90,95,108,119,130,158,160]
1 m2of heated area [58,73,116,125,144]
1 kg per element [81,128,137]
100 m2element [120]
1 m
2
net usable area for exoskeleton
[133]
1 m
2
of non-structural external shell
[151]
1 m3of each material [55]
1 m3of non-structural shell [109]
1 m3per component [88]
Building envelope [83]
Unit cost [157]
Whole external wall [94]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 18 of 25
Table A2. Cont.
Criterion Value References
(d) Lifespan
No
[1,8,9,25,48,56,59–61,64,68,72,75,76,78–83,86,87,89–97,99–
104,106,107,109–113,115,120–122,124,128,130–133,135–
137,140–144,146–148,150–152,155,156,159,160]
20 [159]
30 [93]
40 [79,109,126,145,151,153,154]
45 [130]
50
[9,51,55,58,59,61,63–66,70–72,74,80,84–86,90,94–
96,102,104,107,108,110,112,115,119,122,133–
135,141,147,150,152,157,158]
60 [13,26,48,54,64,73,75,78,83,87,99,103,106,117,120,121,125,
144]
70 [88]
75 [97,155]
80 [150,160]
100 [1,63,65]
(e) Building Life
Cycle Phase
A1–A3
[1,6–9,13,17,25,26,48,51,52,54–59,61,64–66,69–76,78,80–
88,90–92,94–97,99,102–108,110,112,113,115–
117,119,121,122,125,126,130–
140,142,144,147,154,157,158,160]
A4–A5
[1,6–8,13,17,48,51,54–57,59,61,65,70,73–75,79,80,83,84,86–
88,90,92–97,99,100,103,104,106–108,110,112,113,115,117–
119,121,124,126,127,130,131,133–
135,137,142,146,147,150,152,153,155,157,158,160]
B1–B7
[1,6–9,13,17,26,54,57–59,61,63–65,70–76,78–80,83–
85,87,90,92,94,96,97,99–104,106–108,110–113,115–
127,130,131,134,135,139,141,142,144,146–148,150,152–
155,157–160]
C1–C4
[1,6–8,13,25,26,51,54,55,57–59,61,64,65,70–75,80,83–
87,92,94–97,99,100,102–104,106–108,110,112–115,117,119–
122,124–127,130,131,133,134,139,140,142–
144,147,150,152,153,155,157,158,160]
D [1,13,64,65,70,103,107,113,115,144,147,158]
No [60,68,89,109,128,145,151,156]
(f) Level of Development
No
[1,8,9,25,48,56,59–61,64,68,72,75,76,78–83,86–97,99–
104,106,107,109–113,115,120–122,124,128,130–133,135–
137,140–144,146–148,150–152,155,156,159,160]
100 [26,52,69,70,84,123,139,153]
200 [7,51,55,58,63,65,69,70,84,105,108,119,123,138,139,153]
300 [13,17,26,51,57,69,71,73,74,83–
85,114,116,119,125,126,134,145,154,157]
350 [70]
400 [6,54,84,158]
500 [117]
600 [66]
700 [66]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 19 of 25
Table A3. Summary of the databases used by the different articles of the SLR.
Database Reference
LCA
Ecoinvent [4,9,13,17,48,57,65,70,73–
75,81,82,87,92,94,96,109,114,115,121,125,133,147,151,156,158,160]
GaBi [1,8,54,91,102–105,107,140,142,143,147,151,160]
ICE [61,78,97,111,116,132,151,160]
Athena [76,89,99,120,127,155]
LCC
Local market or provided by the contractor [9,61,70,79,82,86,100,107,128,135,141,147,150,153,157,159]
RSmeans [57,87,130,146]
CYPE [65,112]
Brazilian Cost and Index Research System [8,152]
Andalusia Construction Cost Database [56,113]
Literature [57]
S-LCA
Standards [61]
Local market [54]
ACA [56]
BCIRS [8]
SHDB [57]
PSILCA [9]
References
1.
Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Rivera-Gómez, C.; Galán-Marín, C.; Marrero, M. Environmental Benchmarking of Building Typologies
through BIM-Based Combinatorial Case Studies. Autom. Constr. 2021,132, 103980. [CrossRef]
2.
Marrero, M.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Alba-Rodríguez, D.; Lucas-Ruiz, V. Holistic Assessment of the
Economic, Environmental, and Social Impact of Building Construction. Application to Housing Construction in Andalusia. J.
Clean. Prod. 2024,434, 140170. [CrossRef]
3.
Obrecht, T.P.; Röck, M.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. BIM and LCA Integration: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020,
12, 5534. [CrossRef]
4.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Critical Review of Bim-Based LCA Method to Buildings. Energy Build. 2017,
136, 110–120. [CrossRef]
5.
EN 15643-1:2021; Sustainability of Construction Works—Sustainability Assessment of Buildings, Part 1; General Framework. BSI:
London, UK, 2021.
6. Llatas, C.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Passer, A. Implementing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment during Design Stages in Building
Information Modelling: From Systematic Literature Review to a Methodological Approach. Build. Environ. 2020,182, 107164.
[CrossRef]
7.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Gutiérrez, J.A.; Llatas, C. Development of a Plug-In to Support Sustainability Assessment in the Decision-
Making of a Building Envelope Refurbishment. Buildings 2023,13, 1472. [CrossRef]
8.
Filho, M.V.A.P.M.; da Costa, B.B.F.; Najjar, M.; Figueiredo, K.V.; de Mendonça, M.B.; Haddad, A.N. Sustainability Assessment of a
Low-Income Building: A BIM-LCSA-FAHP-Based Analysis. Buildings 2022,12, 181. [CrossRef]
9.
Boje, C.; Hahn Menacho, Á.J.; Marvuglia, A.; Benetto, E.; Kubicki, S.; Schaubroeck, T.; Navarrete Gutiérrez, T. A Framework
Using BIM and Digital Twins in Facilitating LCSA for Buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2023,76, 107232. [CrossRef]
10.
ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006.
11.
ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006.
12.
EN 15978:2012; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation
Method. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
13.
Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Integration of LCA and LCC Analysis within a BIM-Based Environment. Autom.
Constr. 2019,103, 127–149. [CrossRef]
14. ISO 15686:2017; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
15.
EN 16627:2015; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Economic Performance of Buildings—Calculation Methods.
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 20 of 25
16.
EN 16309:2015; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Social Performance of Buildings—Calculation Methodology.
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
17.
Nehasilová, M.; Lupíšek, A.; Coufalová, P.L.; Kupsa, T.; Veselka, J.; Vlasatá, B.; Železná, J.; Kunová, P.; Volf, M. Rapid En-
vironmental Assessment of Buildings: Linking Environmental and Cost Estimating Databases. Sustainability 2022,14, 10928.
[CrossRef]
18.
Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M.; Ramírez-De-Arellano, A. Methodology for Determining the Ecological Footprint of the Construc-
tion of Residential Buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol. Indic. 2013,25, 239–249. [CrossRef]
19.
Fenner, A.E.; Kibert, C.J.; Woo, J.; Morque, S.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Lu, X. The Carbon Footprint of Buildings: A Review of
Methodologies and Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,94, 1142–1152. [CrossRef]
20.
BuildingSMART Spain. ¿Quées BIM? Available online: https://www.buildingsmart.es/bim/qu%C3%A9-es/ (accessed on 2 July 2024).
21.
Safari, K.; AzariJafari, H. Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating BIM and LCA: Methodological Choices and Framework
Development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021,67, 102728. [CrossRef]
22.
Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Azhar, S.; Efimova, O.; Raahemifar, K. Building Information
Modelling (BIM) Uptake: Clear Benefits, Understanding Its Implementation, Risks and Challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017,75, 1046–1053. [CrossRef]
23. European Parliament. Directive 2014/25/UE; European Parliament: Strasbourg, France, 2014; pp. 1–132.
24.
European Commission. European Construction Sector Observatory Building Information Modelling in the EU Construction Sector; Trend
Paper Series; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
25.
Hollberg, A.; Genova, G.; Habert, G. Evaluation of BIM-Based LCA Results for Building Design. Autom. Constr. 2020,109, 102972.
[CrossRef]
26.
Cavalliere, C.; Habert, G.; Dell’Osso, G.R.; Hollberg, A. Continuous BIM-Based Assessment of Embodied Environmental Impacts
throughout the Design Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,211, 941–952. [CrossRef]
27.
Guignone, G.; Calmon, J.L.; Vieira, D.; Bravo, A. BIM and LCA Integration Methodologies: A Critical Analysis and Proposed
Guidelines. J. Build. Eng. 2023,73, 106780. [CrossRef]
28.
Tam, V.W.; Zhou, Y.; Shen, L.; Le, K.N. Optimal BIM and LCA Integration Approach for Embodied Environmental Impact
Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2023,385, 135605. [CrossRef]
29.
Fonseca Arenas, N.; Shafique, M. Recent Progress on BIM-Based Sustainable Buildings: State of the Art Review. Dev. Built Environ.
2023,15, 100176. [CrossRef]
30.
Tam, V.W.; Zhou, Y.; Illankoon, C.; Le, K.N. A Critical Review on BIM and LCA Integration Using the ISO 14040 Framework.
Build. Environ. 2022,213, 108865. [CrossRef]
31.
Teng, Y.; Xu, J.; Pan, W.; Zhang, Y. A Systematic Review of the Integration of Building Information Modeling into Life Cycle
Assessment. Build. Environ. 2022,221, 109260. [CrossRef]
32.
Xue, K.; Uzzal Hossain, M.; Liu, M.; Ma, M.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, M.; Chen, X.; Cao, G. BIM Integrated LCA for Promoting Circular
Economy towards Sustainable Construction: An Analytical Review. Sustainability 2021,13, 1310. [CrossRef]
33.
Mora, T.D.; Bolzonello, E.; Cavalliere, C.; Peron, F. Key Parameters Featuring BIM-LCA Integration in Buildings: A Practical
Review of the Current Trends. Sustainability 2020,12, 7182. [CrossRef]
34.
Akbarieh, A.; Jayasinghe, L.B.; Waldmann, D.; Teferle, F.N. BIM-Based End-of-Lifecycle Decision Making and Digital Deconstruc-
tion: Literature Review. Sustainability 2020,12, 2670. [CrossRef]
35.
Crippa, J.; Araujo, A.M.F.; Bem, D.; Ugaya, C.M.L.; Scheer, S. A Systematic Review of BIM Usage for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020,10, 603–618. [CrossRef]
36.
Seyis, S. Mixed Method Review for Integrating Building Information Modeling and Life-Cycle Assessments. Build. Environ. 2020,
173, 106703. [CrossRef]
37.
Durão, V.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Mateus, R.; Santos, R.; de Brito, J. Current Opportunities and Challenges in the Incorporation
of the LCA Method in BIM. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2020,14, 336–349. [CrossRef]
38.
Muller, M.F.; Esmanioto, F.; Huber, N.; Loures, E.R.; Canciglieri, O. A Systematic Literature Review of Interoperability in the
Green Building Information Modeling Lifecycle. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,223, 397–412. [CrossRef]
39.
Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X.; Lee, C.-Y. A Mixed Review of the Adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Sustainability. J.
Clean. Prod. 2017,142, 4114–4126. [CrossRef]
40.
Obrecht, T.P.; Röck, M.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. The Challenge of Integrating Life Cycle Assessment in the Building Design
Process—A Systematic Literature Review of BIM-LCA Workflows. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020,588, 032024. [CrossRef]
41.
Lu, K.; Deng, X.; Jiang, X.; Cheng, B.; Tam, V.W.Y. A Review on Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Buildings Based on Building
Information Modeling. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2023,29, 268–288. [CrossRef]
42.
Lu, K.; Jiang, X.; Yu, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Skitmore, M. Integration of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Using Building
Information Modeling: A Critical Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,285, 125438. [CrossRef]
43.
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]
44.
Onososen, A.; Musonda, I.; Tjebane, M.M. Drivers of BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Buildings: An Interpretive
Structural Modelling Approach. Sustainability 2022,14, 11052. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 21 of 25
45.
Onososen, A.; Musonda, I. Barriers to BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Buildings: An Interpretive Structural
Modelling Approach. Buildings 2022,12, 324. [CrossRef]
46.
Cao, Y.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Aziz, N.M. Building Information Modeling (BIM) Capabilities in the Operation and Maintenance
Phase of Green Buildings: A Systematic Review. Buildings 2022,12, 830. [CrossRef]
47.
Ullah, F. A Beginner’s Guide to Developing Review-Based Conceptual Frameworks in the Built Environment. Architecture 2021,1,
5–24. [CrossRef]
48.
Zheng, B.; Hussain, M.; Yang, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Chi, H.L. Trade-Offs between Accuracy and Efficiency in BIM-LCA Integration.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023. [CrossRef]
49.
Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. A validation study of a semi-automatic BIM-LCA tool. In Proceedings of the
2 Congresso Português de Building Information Modelling, Lisbon, Portugal, 17–18 May 2018; pp. 251–260.
50.
Qui, J.; Zhao, R.; Yang, S.; Ke, D. Informetrics: Theory, Methods and Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 978-981-10-4031-3.
51.
Llatas, C.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Hollberg, A.; Palumbo, E.; Quiñones, R. BIM-Based LCSA Application in Early Design Stages
Using IFC. Autom. Constr. 2022,138, 104259. [CrossRef]
52.
Berges-Alvarez, I.; Muñoz Sanguinetti, C.; Giraldi, S.; Marín-Restrepo, L. Environmental and Economic Criteria in Early Phases of
Building Design through Building Information Modeling: A Workflow Exploration in Developing Countries. Build. Environ. 2022,
226, 109718. [CrossRef]
53.
Meex, E.; Hollberg, A.; Knapen, E.; Hildebrand, L.; Verbeeck, G. Requirements for Applying LCA-Based Environmental Impact
Assessment Tools in the Early Stages of Building Design. Build. Environ. 2018,133, 228–236. [CrossRef]
54.
Figueiredo, K.; Pierott, R.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Haddad, A. Sustainable Material Choice for Construction Projects: A Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment Framework Based on BIM and Fuzzy-AHP. Build. Environ. 2021,196, 107805. [CrossRef]
55.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Gutiérrez Moreno, J.A.; Llatas, C. Utilization of an Automatic Tool for Building Material Selection by
Integrating Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the Early Design Stages in BIM. Sustainability 2023,15, 2274. [CrossRef]
56.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Bernardino Galeana, I.; Llatas, C.; Montes, M.V.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. How to Conduct Consistent
Environmental, Economic, and Social Assessment during the Building Design Process. A BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment Method. J. Build. Eng. 2022,45, 103516. [CrossRef]
57.
Salehabadi, Z.M.; Ruparathna, R. User-Centric Sustainability Assessment of Single Family Detached Homes (SFDH): A BIM-Based
Methodological Framework. J. Build. Eng. 2022,50, 104139. [CrossRef]
58.
Di Santo, N.; Guante Henriquez, L.; Dotelli, G.; Imperadori, M. Holistic Approach for Assessing Buildings’ Environmental Impact
and User Comfort from Early Design: A Method Combining Life Cycle Assessment, BIM, and Active House Protocol. Buildings
2023,13, 1315. [CrossRef]
59.
Zolfaghari, S.M.; Pons, O.; Nikolic, J. Sustainability Assessment Model for Mass Housing’s Interior Rehabilitation and Its
Validation to Ekbatan, Iran. J. Build. Eng. 2023,65, 105685. [CrossRef]
60.
Fazeli, A.; Jalaei, F.; Khanzadi, M.; Banihashemi, S. BIM-Integrated TOPSIS-Fuzzy Framework to Optimize Selection of Sustainable
Building Components. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022,22, 1240–1259. [CrossRef]
61.
Alireza, A.F.F.; Rashidi, T.H.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Waller, S.T. BIM-Enabled Sustainability Assessment of Material Supply Decisions.
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017,24, 668–695. [CrossRef]
62. Maslesa, E.; Jensen, P.A.; Birkved, M. Indicators for Quantifying Environmental Building Performance: A Systematic Literature
Review. J. Build. Eng. 2018,19, 552–560. [CrossRef]
63.
Juan, Y.K.; Hsing, N.P. BIM-Based Approach to Simulate Building Adaptive Performance and Life Cycle Costs for an Open
Building Design. Appl. Sci. 2017,7, 837. [CrossRef]
64.
Veselka, J.; Nehasilová, M.; Dvoˇráková, K.; Ryklová, P.; Volf, M.; Ružiˇcka, J.; Lupíšek, A. Recommendations for Developing a BIM
for the Purpose of LCA in Green Building Certifications. Sustainability 2020,12, 6151. [CrossRef]
65.
Santos, R.; Aguiar Costa, A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Development of a BIM-Based Environmental and Economic Life Cycle
Assessment Tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,265, 121705. [CrossRef]
66.
Bertin, I.; Mesnil, R.; Jaeger, J.M.; Feraille, A.; Le Roy, R. A BIM-Based Framework and Databank for Reusing Load-Bearing
Structural Elements. Sustainability 2020,12, 3147. [CrossRef]
67.
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]
68.
Fenz, S.; Giannakis, G.; Bergmayr, J.; Iousef, S. RenoDSS—A BIM-Based Building Renovation Decision Support System. Energy.
Build. 2023,288, 112999. [CrossRef]
69.
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]
70.
Li, Q.; Yang, W.; Kohler, N.; Yang, L.; Li, J.; Sun, Z.; Yu, H.; Liu, L.; Ren, J. A BIM–LCA Approach for the Whole Design Process of
Green Buildings in the Chinese Context. Sustainability 2023,15, 3629. [CrossRef]
71.
Theißen, S.; Höper, J.; Drzymalla, J.; Wimmer, R.; Markova, S.; Meins-Becker, A.; Lambertz, M. Using Open BIM and IFC to Enable
a Comprehensive Consideration of Building Services within a Whole-Building LCA. Sustainability 2020,12, 5644. [CrossRef]
72.
Schneider-Marin, P.; Harter, H.; Tkachuk, K.; Lang, W. Uncertainty Analysis of Embedded Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Using BIM in Early Design Stages. Sustainability 2020,12, 2633. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 22 of 25
73.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; Moya, L. Comparative BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Uruguayan Timber and Concrete-
Masonry Single-Family Houses in Design Stage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,277, 121958. [CrossRef]
74.
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]
75.
Rezaei, F.; Bulle, C.; Lesage, P. Integrating Building Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment in the Early and Detailed
Building Design Stages. Build. Environ. 2019,153, 158–167. [CrossRef]
76.
Basbagill, J.; Flager, F.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Early Stage Building Design for Reduced
Embodied Environmental Impacts. Build. Environ. 2013,60, 81–92. [CrossRef]
77. Antón, L.Á.; Díaz, J. Integration of Life Cycle Assessment in a BIM Environment. Procedia Eng. 2014,85, 26–32. [CrossRef]
78.
Iddon, C.R.; Firth, S.K. Embodied and Operational Energy for New-Build Housing: A Case Study of Construction Methods in the
UK. Energy Build. 2013,67, 479–488. [CrossRef]
79.
Shin, Y.S.; Cho, K. BIM Application to Select Appropriate Design Alternative with Consideration of LCA and LCCA. Math. Probl.
Eng. 2015,2015, 281640. [CrossRef]
80.
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]
81.
Lu, Y.; Le, V.H.; Song, X. Beyond Boundaries: A Global Use of Life Cycle Inventories for Construction Materials. J. Clean. Prod.
2017,156, 876–887. [CrossRef]
82.
Crippa, J.; Boeing, L.C.; Caparelli, A.P.A.; da Costa, M.; Scheer, S.; Araujo, A.M.F.; Bem, D. A BIM–LCA Integration Technique to
Embodied Carbon Estimation Applied on Wall Systems in Brazil. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018,8, 491–503. [CrossRef]
83.
Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A.; Gómez de Cózar, J.C. BIM-Based LCA Method to Analyze Envelope
Alternatives of Single-Family Houses: Case Study in Uruguay. J. Archit. Eng. 2018,24. [CrossRef]
84.
Lu, K.; Jiang, X.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Li, M.; Wang, H.; Xia, B.; Chen, Q. Development of a Carbon Emissions Analysis Framework Using
Building Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment for the Construction of Hospital Projects. Sustainability 2019,11, 6274.
[CrossRef]
85.
Cheng, B.; Lu, K.; Li, J.; Chen, H.; Luo, X.; Shafique, M. Comprehensive Assessment of Embodied Environmental Impacts of
Buildings Using Normalized Environmental Impact Factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022,334, 130083. [CrossRef]
86.
Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Lam, P.T.I. An Integrated Life Cycle Assessment of Different Façade Systems for a Typical
Residential Building in Ghana. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020,53, 101974. [CrossRef]
87.
Zhu, S.; Feng, H. Is Energy-Efficient Building Sustainable? A Case Study on Individual Housing in Canada under BCESC Energy
Updates. Build. Environ. 2023,239, 110452. [CrossRef]
88.
Hao, J.L.; Cheng, B.; Lu, W.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; Bu, W.; Guo, Z. Carbon Emission Reduction in Prefabrication Construction during
Materialization Stage: A BIM-Based Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020,723, 137870. [CrossRef]
89.
Jrade, A.; Jalaei, F. Integrating Building Information Modelling with Sustainability to Design Building Projects at the Conceptual
Stage. Build. Simul. 2013,6, 429–444. [CrossRef]
90.
Li, X.J.; Lai, J.-Y.; Ma, C.Y.; Wang, C. Using BIM to Research Carbon Footprint during the Materialization Phase of Prefabricated
Concrete Buildings: A China Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,279, 123454. [CrossRef]
91.
Kylili, A.; Georgali, P.Z.; Christou, P.; Fokaides, P. An Integrated Building Information Modeling (BIM)-Based Lifecycle-Oriented
Framework for Sustainable Building Design. Constr. Innov. 2022,24. [CrossRef]
92.
Najjar, M.K.; Figueiredo, K.; Evangelista, A.C.J.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Haddad, A. Life Cycle Assessment Methodology
Integrated with BIM as a Decision-Making Tool at Early-Stages of Building Design. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022,22, 541–555.
[CrossRef]
93. Kehily, D.; Underwood, J. Embedding Life Cycle Costing in 5D BIM. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2017,22, 145–167.
94.
Cavalliere, C.; Dell’Osso, G.R.; Pierucci, A.; Iannone, F. Life Cycle Assessment Data Structure for Building Information Modelling.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018,199, 193–204. [CrossRef]
95.
Li, X.-J.; Xie, W.-J.; Xu, L.; Li, L.-L.; Jim, C.Y.; Wei, T.-B. Holistic Life-Cycle Accounting of Carbon Emissions of Prefabricated
Buildings Using LCA and BIM. Energy Build. 2022,266, 112136. [CrossRef]
96.
Feng, H.; Liyanage, D.R.; Karunathilake, H.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. BIM-Based Life Cycle Environmental Performance Assessment
of Single-Family Houses: Renovation and Reconstruction Strategies for Aging Building Stock in British Columbia. J. Clean. Prod.
2020,250, 119543. [CrossRef]
97.
Alotaibi, B.S.; Khan, S.A.; Abuhussain, M.A.; Al-Tamimi, N.; Elnaklah, R.; Kamal, M.A. Life Cycle Assessment of Embodied
Carbon and Strategies for Decarbonization of a High-Rise Residential Building. Buildings 2022,12, 1203. [CrossRef]
98.
Najjar, M.; Figueiredo, K.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Haddad, A. Integrated Optimization with Building Information Modeling and Life
Cycle Assessment for Generating Energy Efficient Buildings. Appl. Energy 2019,250, 1366–1382. [CrossRef]
99.
Feng, H.; Kassem, M.; Greenwood, D.; Doukari, O. Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment at the Design Stage: A BIM-Based
Framework Using Environmental Product Declaration. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023,41, 109–142. [CrossRef]
100.
Puˇcko, Z.; Mauˇcec, D.; Šuman, N. Energy and Cost Analysis of Building Envelope Components Using BIM: A Systematic
Approach. Energies 2020,13, 2643. [CrossRef]
101.
Najjar, M.K.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Di Gregorio, L.T.; Evangelista, A.C.J.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Haddad, A. Integrating Parametric Analysis
with Building Information Modeling to Improve Energy Performance of Construction Projects. Energies 2019,12, 1515. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 23 of 25
102.
Najjar, M.; Figueiredo, K.; Palumbo, M.; Haddad, A. Integration of BIM and LCA: Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of
Building Materials at an Early Stage of Designing a Typical Office Building. J. Build. Eng. 2017,14, 115–126. [CrossRef]
103.
Carvalho, J.P.; Alecrim, I.; Bragança, L.; Mateus, R. Integrating BIM-Based LCA and Building Sustainability Assessment.
Sustainability 2020,12, 7468. [CrossRef]
104.
Asare, K.A.B.; Ruikar, K.D.; Zanni, M.; Soetanto, R. BIM-Based LCA and Energy Analysis for Optimised Sustainable Building
Design in Ghana. SN Appl. Sci. 2020,2, 1855. [CrossRef]
105.
Sobhkhiz, S.; Taghaddos, H.; Rezvani, M.; Ramezanianpour, A.M. Utilization of Semantic Web Technologies to Improve BIM-LCA
Applications. Autom. Constr. 2021,130, 103842. [CrossRef]
106.
Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Zhang, G.; Maqsood, T. An Integrated Approach of BIM-Enabled LCA and Energy Simulation: The
Optimized Solution towards Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,289, 125622. [CrossRef]
107.
Motalebi, M.; Rashidi, A.; Nasiri, M.M. Optimization and BIM-Based Lifecycle Assessment Integration for Energy Efficiency
Retrofit of Buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2022,49, 104022. [CrossRef]
108.
Raposo, C.; Rodrigues, F.; Rodrigues, H. BIM-Based LCA Assessment of Seismic Strengthening Solutions for Reinforced Concrete
Precast Industrial Buildings. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2019,4, 51. [CrossRef]
109.
Bueno, C.; Pereira, L.M.; Fabricio, M.M. Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental-Based Choices at the Early Design Stages: An
Application Using Building Information Modelling. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018,14, 332–346. [CrossRef]
110.
Marzouk, M.; Azab, S.; Metawie, M. Framework for Sustainable Low-Income Housing Projects Using Building Information
Modeling. J. Environ. Inform. 2016,28, 25–38. [CrossRef]
111.
Sandberg, M.; Mukkavaara, J.; Shadram, F.; Olofsson, T. Multidisciplinary Optimization of Life-Cycle Energy and Cost Using a
BIM-Based Master Model. Sustainability 2019,11, 286. [CrossRef]
112.
Carvalho, J.P.; Villaschi, F.S.; Bragança, L. Assessing Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Impacts of Building Construction
Solutions with BIM. Sustainability 2021,13, 8914. [CrossRef]
113.
Bernardino-Galeana, I.; Llatas, C.; Montes, M.V.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Canivell, J.; Meda, P.Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Sustainability.
Proposal of an IFC Structure to Implement LCC During the Design Stage of Buildings. In Critical Thinking in the Sustainable
Rehabilitation and Risk Management of the Built Environment; Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 404–426.
114.
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]
115.
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]
116.
Alwan, Z.; Nawarathna, A.; Ayman, R.; Zhu, M.; ElGhazi, Y. Framework for Parametric Assessment of Operational and Embodied
Energy Impacts Utilising BIM. J. Build. Eng. 2021,42, 102768. [CrossRef]
117.
Chen, C.; Zhao, Z.; Xiao, J.; Tiong, R. A Conceptual Framework for Estimating Building Embodied Carbon Based on Digital Twin
Technology and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2021,13, 13875. [CrossRef]
118.
Llatas, C.; Quiñones, R.; Bizcocho, N. Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Waste Recycling versus Disposal
Scenarios Using an LCA-BIM Tool during the Design Stage. Recycling 2022,7, 82. [CrossRef]
119.
Arvizu-Piña, V.A.; Armendáriz López, J.F.; García González, A.A.; Barrera Alarcón, I.G. An Open Access Online Tool for LCA in
Building’s Early Design Stage in the Latin American Context. A Screening LCA Case Study for a Bioclimatic Building. Energy
Build. 2023,295, 113269. [CrossRef]
120.
Asgari, S.; Haghir, S.; Noorzai, E. Reducing Energy Consumption in Operation and Demolition Phases by Integrating Multi-
Objective Optimization with LCA and BIM. Energy Effic. 2023,16, 54. [CrossRef]
121.
Taher, A.H.; Elbeltagi, E.E. Integrating Building Information Modeling with Value Engineering to Facilitate the Selection of
Building Design Alternatives Considering Sustainability. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023,23, 1886–1901. [CrossRef]
122.
Cheng, B.; Li, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yang, M.; Chen, D. A BIM-LCA Approach for Estimating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Large-Scale Public Buildings: A Case Study. Sustainability 2020,12, 685. [CrossRef]
123.
Zanni, M.; Sharpe, T.; Lammers, P.; Arnold, L.; Pickard, J. Developing a Methodology for Integration of Whole Life Costs into
BIM Processes to Assist Design Decision Making. Buildings 2019,9, 114. [CrossRef]
124.
Saridaki, M.; Psarra, M.; Haugbølle, K. Implementing Life-Cycle Costing: Data Integration between Design Models and Cost
Calculations. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2019,24, 14–32.
125.
Kiamili, C.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G. Detailed Assessment of Embodied Carbon of HVAC Systems for a New Office Building
Based on BIM. Sustainability 2020,12, 3372. [CrossRef]
126.
Le, H.T.T.; Likhitruangsilp, V.; Yabuki, N. A BIM-Integrated Relational Database Management System for Evaluating Building
Life-Cycle Costs. Eng. J. 2020,24, 75–86. [CrossRef]
127.
Marzouk, M.; Abdelkader, E.M.; Al-Gahtani, K. Building Information Modeling-Based Model for Calculating Direct and Indirect
Emissions in Construction Projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,152, 351–363. [CrossRef]
128.
Abanda, F.H.; Oti, A.H.; Tah, J.H.M. Integrating BIM and New Rules of Measurement for Embodied Energy and CO2 Assessment.
J. Build. Eng. 2017,12, 288–305. [CrossRef]
129.
Kim, K.; Kim, H.; Kim, W.; Kim, C.; Kim, J.; Yu, J. Integration of IFC Objects and Facility Management Work Information Using
Semantic Web. Autom. Constr. 2018,87, 173–187. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 24 of 25
130.
Rad, M.A.H.; Jalaei, F.; Golpour, A.; Varzande, S.S.H.; Guest, G. BIM-Based Approach to Conduct Life Cycle Cost Analysis of
Resilient Buildings at the Conceptual Stage. Autom. Constr. 2021,123, 103480. [CrossRef]
131.
Xu, J.; Teng, Y.; Pan, W.; Zhang, Y. BIM-Integrated LCA to Automate Embodied Carbon Assessment of Prefabricated Buildings. J.
Clean. Prod. 2022,374, 133894. [CrossRef]
132.
Alwan, Z.; Ilhan Jones, B. IFC-Based Embodied Carbon Benchmarking for Early Design Analysis. Autom. Constr. 2022,142, 104505.
[CrossRef]
133.
Bragadin, M.A.; Guardigli, L.; Calistri, M.; Ferrante, A. Demolishing or Renovating? Life Cycle Analysis in the Design Process for
Building Renovation: The ProGETonE Case. Sustainability 2023,15, 8614. [CrossRef]
134.
Su, S.; Wang, Q.; Han, L.; Hong, J.; Liu, Z. BIM-DLCA: An Integrated Dynamic Environmental Impact Assessment Model for
Buildings. Build. Environ. 2020,183, 107218. [CrossRef]
135.
Liu, S.; Meng, X.; Tam, C. Building Information Modeling Based Building Design Optimization for Sustainability. Energy Build.
2015,105, 139–153. [CrossRef]
136.
Eleftheriadis, S.; Duffour, P.; Mumovic, D. BIM-Embedded Life Cycle Carbon Assessment of RC Buildings Using Optimised
Structural Design Alternatives. Energy Build. 2018,173, 587–600. [CrossRef]
137.
Nizam, R.S.; Zhang, C.; Tian, L. A BIM Based Tool for Assessing Embodied Energy for Buildings. Energy Build. 2018,170, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
138.
Röck, M.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G.; Passer, A. LCA and BIM: Integrated Assessment and Visualization of Building Elements’
Embodied Impacts for Design Guidance in Early Stages. Procedia CIRP 2018,69, 218–223. [CrossRef]
139.
Naneva, A.; Bonanomi, M.; Hollberg, A.; Habert, G.; Hall, D. Integrated BIM-Based LCA for the Entire Building Process Using an
Existing Structure for Cost Estimation in the Swiss Context. Sustainability 2020,12, 3748. [CrossRef]
140.
Mostert, C.; Sameer, H.; Glanz, D.; Bringezu, S. Climate and Resource Footprint Assessment and Visualization of Recycled
Concrete for Circular Economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,174, 105767. [CrossRef]
141.
Zhuang, D.; Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, C.; Jin, X.; Zhou, X.; Shi, X. A Performance Data Integrated BIM Framework for Building
Life-Cycle Energy Efficiency and Environmental Optimization Design. Autom. Constr. 2021,127, 103712. [CrossRef]
142.
Sameer, H.; Bringezu, S. Building Information Modelling Application of Material, Water, and Climate Footprint Analysis. Build.
Res. Inf. 2021,49, 593–612. [CrossRef]
143.
Wang, J.; Wei, J.; Liu, Z.; Huang, C.; Du, X. Life Cycle Assessment of Building Demolition Waste Based on Building Information
Modeling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022,178, 106095. [CrossRef]
144.
Mowafy, N.; El Zayat, M.; Marzouk, M. Parametric BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Optimal Sustainable Design.
J. Build. Eng. 2023,75, 106898. [CrossRef]
145.
Lee, S.; Tae, S.; Roh, S.; Kim, T. Green Template for Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings Based on Building Information Modeling:
Focus on Embodied Environmental Impact. Sustainability 2015,7, 16498–16512. [CrossRef]
146.
Jalaei, F.; Jrade, A.; Nassiri, M. Integrating Decision Support System (DSS) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) to Optimize
the Selection of Sustainable Building Components. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2015,20, 399–420.
147.
Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Vandenbergh, T.; Pyl, L. BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of an
Office Building in Western Europe. Build. Environ. 2020,169, 106568. [CrossRef]
148.
Kim, K.P.; Park, K.S. Delivering Value for Money with BIM-Embedded Housing Refurbishment. Facilities 2018,36, 657–675.
[CrossRef]
149.
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021,372, n71.
[CrossRef]
150.
Marzouk, M.; Azab, S.; Metawie, M. BIM-Based Approach for Optimizing Life Cycle Costs of Sustainable Buildings. J. Clean.
Prod. 2018,188, 217–226. [CrossRef]
151.
Bueno, C.; Fabricio, M.M. Comparative Analysis between a Complete LCA Study and Results from a BIM-LCA Plug-In. Autom.
Constr. 2018,90, 188–200. [CrossRef]
152.
AbouHamad, M.; Abu-Hamd, M. Framework for Construction System Selection Based on Life Cycle Cost and Sustainability
Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,241, 118397. [CrossRef]
153.
Lee, J.; Yang, H.; Lim, J.; Hong, T.; Kim, J.; Jeong, K. BIM-Based Preliminary Estimation Method Considering the Life Cycle Cost
for Decision-Making in the Early Design Phase. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2020,19, 384–399. [CrossRef]
154.
Lee, S.; Tae, S.; Jang, H.; Chae, C.U.; Bok, Y. Development of Building Information Modeling Template for Environmental Impact
Assessment. Sustainability 2021,13, 3092. [CrossRef]
155.
Jalaei, F.; Zoghi, M.; Khoshand, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impact Assessment to Manage and Optimize Construction Waste
Using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021,21, 784–801. [CrossRef]
156.
Kamari, A.; Paari, A.; Torvund, H.Ø. Bim-Enabled Virtual Reality (VR) for Sustainability Life Cycle and Cost Assessment.
Sustainability 2021,13, 249. [CrossRef]
157.
Zhang, Y.; Jiang, X.; Cui, C.; Skitmore, M. BIM-Based Approach for the Integrated Assessment of Life Cycle Carbon Emission
Intensity and Life Cycle Costs. Build. Environ. 2022,226, 109691. [CrossRef]
158.
Morsi, D.M.A.; Ismaeel, W.S.E.; Ehab, A.; Othman, A.A.E. BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment for Different Structural System
Scenarios of a Residential Building. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022,13, 101802. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 11070 25 of 25
159.
Altaf, M.; Alalaoul, W.S.; Musarat, M.A.; Abdelaziz, A.A.; Thaheem, M.J. Optimisation of Energy and Life Cycle Costs via
Building Envelope: A BIM Approaches. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023,26, 7105–7128. [CrossRef]
160.
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.
Content uploaded by Alejandro Martínez Rocamora
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alejandro Martínez Rocamora on Dec 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
