Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/103151
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Building and Real Estate-
dc.creatorKong, Men_US
dc.creatorLee, Men_US
dc.creatorKang, Hen_US
dc.creatorHong, Ten_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-11T00:31:55Z-
dc.date.available2023-12-11T00:31:55Z-
dc.identifier.issn1364-0321en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/103151-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden_US
dc.rights© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.rights© 2021. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Kong, M., Lee, M., Kang, H., & Hong, T. (2021). Development of a framework for evaluating the contents and usability of the building life cycle assessment tool. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111475 is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111475.en_US
dc.subjectBuilding LCA toolen_US
dc.subjectContent evaluationen_US
dc.subjectImprovement strategyen_US
dc.subjectSatisfaction-Importance analysisen_US
dc.subjectSeverity-Priority analysisen_US
dc.subjectUsability evaluationen_US
dc.titleDevelopment of a framework for evaluating the contents and usability of the building life cycle assessment toolen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume150en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rser.2021.111475en_US
dcterms.abstractOver the past decades, various tools that can perform building life cycle assessment (LCA) as well as life cycle cost (LCC) or CO2 analysis, have been developed. Even though these developed tools should be effectively evaluated and improved to encourage the continuous use of such tools, no research has been conducted on this matter. In this regard, this study sought to propose a framework for evaluating a building LCA tool from both the developer's and user's perspectives. In the developer evaluation process, experts evaluate if the design and implementation status (i.e., content status) are appropriate, and determine the design and implementation problems (i.e., content problems) based on six evaluation criteria, through content evaluation. In the user evaluation process, the users and evaluators determine the usability problems based on six usability attributes, through usability evaluation. The developer and user evaluation results are then interpreted through Satisfaction-Importance (S–I) analysis and Severity-Priority (S–P) analysis to prioritize the area of improvement and to determine the improvement strategy. To verify the proposed framework, a case study was conducted on an actual building LCA tool. The evaluation results showed that the problems corresponding to the assessment method and result should be preferentially improved in terms of content, while those corresponding to learnability, efficiency, and errors should be preferentially improved in terms of usability. Therefore, it is expected that the utilization of the proposed framework can effectively evaluate and improve various conventional building LCA tools in a reasonable way.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRenewable and sustainable energy reviews, Oct. 2021, v. 150, 111475en_US
dcterms.isPartOfRenewable and sustainable energy reviewsen_US
dcterms.issued2021-10-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85109833442-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-0690en_US
dc.identifier.artn111475en_US
dc.description.validate202312 bcch-
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberBRE-0038-
dc.description.fundingSourceOthersen_US
dc.description.fundingTextNational Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)en_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS54608985-
dc.description.oaCategoryGreen (AAM)en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Lee_Development_Framework_Evaluating.pdfPre-Published version5.04 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

112
Last Week
1
Last month
Citations as of Nov 30, 2025

Downloads

200
Citations as of Nov 30, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

9
Citations as of Dec 19, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

9
Citations as of Dec 18, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.