International Journal of Architecture, Arts and Applications

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

The Percentage Result, as Well as a Critical Review of the Common Characteristics of Various Sustainable Building Material Selection Frameworks

There are various frameworks for selecting sustainable building materials around the globe. However, it is difficult to get literature that describes their common characteristics, so the purpose of this paper is to try to provide a general framework for architects, and designers based on the literature review only. After conducting a thorough and systematic literature review, the number of observations for each data point shown as a percentage frequency distribution, which typically represented using tables. The process of creating a percentage frequency distribution entails first determining the total number of sustainable building material selection categories (such as economic, environmental, technical, social, and so on) to be represented, then identifying sustainable building material items (subcategories) within each category based on different authors' ideas to be represented. Finally, a general framework for sustainable building material selection developed. Finally, the proposed framework, which based on the sustainable triple bottom line concept, includes three dimensions: different authors frequently select economics (72%), environment (54%), and social (36%). Alternatively, it convert into a percentage of a hundred, it will be 44.50%, 33.3%, and 22.2%, respectively. As a result, we can conclude that when a designer selects a material, it is better to consider the three critical dimensions that are economic, environmental, and social factors.

Sustainable Building Material, Framework, Ecological Dimension, Economical Dimension, Social Dimension

APA Style

Abdulkerim Kiflu, Nebyou Yonas. (2022). The Percentage Result, as Well as a Critical Review of the Common Characteristics of Various Sustainable Building Material Selection Frameworks. International Journal of Architecture, Arts and Applications, 8(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaaa.20220801.12

ACS Style

Abdulkerim Kiflu; Nebyou Yonas. The Percentage Result, as Well as a Critical Review of the Common Characteristics of Various Sustainable Building Material Selection Frameworks. Int. J. Archit. Arts Appl. 2022, 8(1), 8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaaa.20220801.12

AMA Style

Abdulkerim Kiflu, Nebyou Yonas. The Percentage Result, as Well as a Critical Review of the Common Characteristics of Various Sustainable Building Material Selection Frameworks. Int J Archit Arts Appl. 2022;8(1):8-16. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaaa.20220801.12

Copyright © 2022 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Edwards, B. (2001), Green Architecture, Architectural Design, Vol 71, No 4, Wiley Academy, Italy.
2. Bragança, L., Mateus, R., & Koukkari, H. (2010). Building Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability, 2 (7), 2010-2023. doi: 10.3390/su2072010.
3. Zainul Abidin, N. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34 (4), 421-426. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.011.
4. Marzouk, M.; Abdelhamid, M.; Elsheikh, M. 2010. Selecting building materials using system dynamics, in Proc. of the 6th International Engineering and Construction Conference (IECC’5), ASCE: Cairo, Egypt, 122-129.
5. Percentage Frequency Distribution - SAGE Research Methods. (2022). Retrieved 3 March 2022, from https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n372.xml
6. Esin, A. L. P. (1980), Properties of Materials for Design, METU Printing Office, Gaziantep.
7. Reilly, J. (1997). Selection of green building materials. Valhalla, NY: New York Medical College.
8. Pearce, R. A. (1998), “Sustainable Building Materials: A Primer”, US.
9. Mangonon, P. L. (1999), the Principles of Material Selection for Engineering Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 430-5.
10. Ashby, M. and Johnson, K. (2002), Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
11. Abeysundara, U., Babel, S., & Gheewala, S. (2009). A matrix in life cycle perspective for selecting sustainable materials for buildings in Sri Lanka. Building and Environment, 44 (5), 997-1004. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.005.
12. Zhou, C., Yin, G., & Hu, X. (2009). Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: Artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Materials & Design, 30 (4), 1209-1215. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.006.
13. Hossein, Z; Farah, H; Leila, M. 2012. Sustainability Assessment Criteria for Building Systems in Iran, Department of Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
14. Akadiri, P., & Olomolaiye, P. (2012). Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building materials selection. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19 (6), 666-687. doi: 10.1108/09699981211277568.
15. Mahmoudkelaye, S., Taghizade Azari, K., Pourvaziri, M., & Asadian, E. (2018). Sustainable material selection for building enclosure through ANP method. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 9, e00200. doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00200.
16. Ebrahim Aghazadeh, Hasan Yildirim & Sevda Aliparast, 2019, Materials Selection in the Construction Projects: Challenges, Criteria and Patterns.