Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Sustainability assessment of brick work for low-cost housing: A comparison T

between waste based bricks and burnt clay bricks
⁎
Saurabh N. Joglekara, Rhushikesh A. Kharkara, Sachin A. Mandavganea, , Bhaskar D. Kulkarnib
a
Chemical Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur 440010, India
b
National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Manufacturing of bricks, using clay or fly ash, is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions as
Sustainable construction material their manufacturing involves utilization of coal and cement. To overcome this limitation, alternative con-
Life cycle assessment struction materials are developed by author using industrial and agro wastes like cotton mill waste, recycled
Sustainability index paper mill waste, and rice husk ash. This work aims at performing a sustainability assessment of burnt clay bricks
Multicriteria decision
and bricks made of industrial and agro wastes used for brickwork in a low-cost house. The criteria considered for
Low cost housing
the assessment are economic, environmental, social, and technical aspects for manufacture of bricks and use of
different bricks for brickwork. For the evaluation of environmental criterion, a life cycle assessment (LCA) tool is
used. Overall sustainability index (SI) is calculated for alternatives based on the various criteria using MIVES
approach. The relative SIs of clay and fly ash bricks, were 0.25 and 0.26, respectively. Overall, bricks made of
industrial and agro wastes are found more sustainable with the highest SI for cotton waste bricks (0.94).
Sensitivity analysis also confirmed that brickwork from waste based bricks is more sustainable compared to
brickwork made from clay brick or fly ash brick.

1. Introduction Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2005).

Housing is one of the basic needs of every individual. The popula-
tion of India has been growing at a rapid rate; in particular, the urban
population has shown an exponential growth. According to Census
2011, 31.16% of the total population lives in the urban areas. A tech-
nical committee report to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation (MHUPA) estimated India’s urban housing shortage in 2012
at about 18.78 million households. The report also stated that nearly
one million households live in non serviceable kutcha houses, and over
half a million households in homeless conditions (Government of India
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, 2012). By the year
2022, this is projected to increase to 110 million units (urban and rural
areas combined), with about 96% of these pertaining to the econom-
ically weaker sections and the lower-income groups (National Housing
Bank, 2012). Thus, the Government of India faces a huge challenge to
meet the humongous demand of affordable low-cost housing units ca-
tering to a large group of population. A United nation's report on
housing indicates that an additional 3 billion people will need access to
housing. This translates into a demand for 96,150 new affordable units
every day. In urban areas worldwide, nearly 1 billion people live in
slum and this number is expected to double in the next 25 years (United
As much as 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas in
2015 and this is projected to increase up to 60% by 2030. This is par-
ticularly significant when considering that until the start of the 20th
century only one in 10 people lived in urban areas. In absolute terms,
more than 1 billion people were added to urban areas between 2000
and 2014. The United Nations estimates that more than 90% of future
urban population growth will be in low- and middle-income countries
(World Health Organization, 2016). According to The World Bank es-
timate, in 2014, about 24% of urban population in India resided in
slums (The World Bank Group, 2016).
This increasing demand has thus resulted in tremendous depletion
of natural resources such as sand, lime, water and fossil fuels. Globally,
building sector shares 40% of world energy consumption and accounts
for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Lemmet, 2009). This high
consumption of energy and resources during the construction, opera-
tion, and demolition phase of buildings is responsible for generation of
high green house gas emissions (Peng & Wu, 2015). Thus, there is an
urgent need for affordable and yet sustainable solutions to this problem,
which should be optimized in economic, environmental, and social
aspects.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mandavgane1@gmail.com (S.A. Mandavgane).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.025
Received 26 September 2017; Received in revised form 10 November 2017; Accepted 20 November 2017
Available online 23 November 2017
2210-6707/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.N. Joglekar et al.
1.1. Research significance
In this study, sustainability of brickwork for a model low-cost house
is assessed for bricks made of Industrial & Agro (I&A) wastes like flyash,
cotton mill waste, paper mill waste, rice husk ash and burnt clay bricks.
The study provides comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts
associated with production of clay bricks and fly ash bricks. In addition,
the study also provides analysis of bricks developed by authors from
I&A waste. Economic feasibility and social acceptability are the major
concerns along with environmental impacts for developed alternative
construction materials, which we believe are addressed in the study.
Results of this study enable direct comparison based on various criteria
between available alternatives.
Alternative construction materials are developed by authors using
industrial wastes such as paper mill waste (Raut, Sedmake, Dhunde,
Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane, 2012), cotton mill waste (Rajput,
Bhagade, Raut, Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane, 2012), and rice husk ash
(RHA) (S. Raut, Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane, 2013). The sustainability
assessment is performed only for the brickwork of the model house and
includes environmental, social, and techno-economical aspects for
manufacture and use of different bricks. A life cycle assessment (LCA)
tool is used to evaluate the total environmental impacts for brickwork,
and a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is used for comparing
available brick alternatives. This work evaluates the most sustainable
brick alternative for brickwork of a low-cost housing unit.
2. Construction materials & sustainability
2.1. Construction materials
Significant improvement in quality of housing has been observed
according to results of Census 2011, with increased proportion of po-
pulation moving away from traditional materials such as thatch, grass,
bamboo, mud for walls and roof. Use of burnt clay bricks is very
common in India. Almost 43.7% of households use burnt clay bricks as
a construction material (Ministry of Home Affairs GOI, n.d.). Along
with burnt clay bricks, fly ash bricks are extensively studied and in-
vestigated (Huang, Chiueh, & Lo, 2016; Lingling, Wei, Tao, & Nanru,
2005; Sumathi & Mohan, 2015). To promote use of flyash Ministry of
Environment and Forest issued a notification that mandates all con-
struction sites in radius of 100 km from a coal lignite based power
plants to use the fly ash for bricks and concrete (Ministry of
Environment and Forests, 2009). Apart from these, alternate construc-
tion materials using industrial (Raut, Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane,
2011) and agro waste (Madurwar, Mandavgane, & Ralegaonkar, 2014;
Madurwar, Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane, 2013) were developed by
author in recent past. These materials have characteristics and prop-
erties comparable to clay bricks and flyash bricks; however, the degree
of sustainability of these materials has never been studied before. The
sustainability of these construction materials should be evaluated based
on the economic, environmental, social, and technical parameters.
2.2. Sustainability in construction industry
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). The social, economic, and environmental in-
dicators of sustainable development are now drawing attention to the
construction sector (du Plessis, 2002; United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), 2003). From an economic perspective, investments
of about US$1000 billion were projected for the infrastructure sector in
India in the 12th five-year plan (2012–2017). The construction sector is
the second largest employer in the country following agriculture, em-
ploying 18 million people directly and 14 million indirectly (Mohideen,
2015). According to Twelfth five year plan of India, the sector further
397
Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406
demands infusion of at least six million people each year (Twelfth Five
Year Plan (2012–2017), 2013). By contrast, from an environmental
perspective, this sector is responsible for high-energy consumption,
solid waste generation, global greenhouse gas emissions, external and
internal pollution, environmental damage, and resource depletion.
The recent technological advances and increase in human popula-
tion have resulted in an extensive utilization of nonrenewable re-
sources, which have triggered the concept of sustainability in processes.
The construction industry, which leaves a significant environmental
and carbon footprint, is also looking for alternatives for sustainable
development.
To monitor and assess sustainability in the construction industry,
various programs are developed by government and research institutes.
USGBC’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) fo-
cuses on the entire development process of a building, from site selec-
tion to handing over. Canada’s Green Globe 2006, Japan’s
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency (CASBEE) 2006, Singapore’s Green Mark, China’s Green
Olympic Building Assessment System (GOBAS), Australia’s Building
Greenhouse Rating (ABGR) are some of the initiatives adopted for im-
proving sustainability in the construction industry by various countries
(Chong et al., 2009). Similarly, India’s TERI-GRIHA is a rating tool that
assesses the performance of a building against certain nationally ac-
ceptable benchmarks (TERI, 2007). The goals for setting up these sys-
tems include reducing carbon footprint, protecting ecology and en-
vironment, reducing water usage, energy efficiency, improvement in
resource efficiency, conserve resources of land and raw materials,
healthy indoor and outdoor environment, and eliminating en-
vironmentally harmful materials (Chong et al., 2009).
A life cycle assessment (LCA) study of different building materials
using three different impact categories was performed to deepen the
knowledge of energy and environmental specifications of building
materials and to provide guidelines for selection of materials in the
ecodesign of new buildings and rehabilitation of existing buildings. The
study proved that the impact of construction can be significantly re-
duced by using best techniques available and substitution of finite
natural resources with wastes (Zabalza Bribián, Valero Capilla, &
Aranda Usón, 2011). Evaluation of environmental impacts of major
construction materials such as wood, cement, steel, and ceramic was
performed by Lassio et al. (2016)(Lassio et al., 2016) for the Brazilian
construction sector. A comparative study by (Peng & Wu, 2015) showed
that CO2 emission during the construction phase of a building ac-
counted for 12.6% of total emissions of the life cycle. In most cases, the
material preferred during the construction phase may cause problems
during the demolition phase (Wu, Yuan, Zhang, & Bi, 2012). With the
increase in awareness about the environmental impacts of buildings,
various databases containing data for building materials have been
studied (Martínez-rocamora & Marrero, 2016). The Society of En-
vironmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) launched the life cycle initiative to ease
the use of LCA and supporting tools and data quality. As a result of this
initiative, the SETAC published a report on life cycle assessment of
buildings and construction zones, which emphasizes the difference
between the general approach of LCA and LCA in buildings (Buyle,
Braet, & Audenaert, 2013). A Technical committee “Sustainability of
construction works of The European Committee for Standardization
(CEN)” has been developing standards to assess the construction works
with regard to three aspects of sustainability (economical, ecological,
social) (European Commitee for Standardization, n.d.). As these
methods are relatively recent, very few studies were carried out using
these standards. Among the drawbacks of LCA in construction is the
difficulty in comparing the cases (buildings) due to its high specific
properties such as layout, comfort requirement, climate along with
widespread estimation of the lifespan. In addition, LCA does not ac-
count for the quality, structural, or aesthetic requirements, all of which
play an important role in environmental profile. So far, only a few
S.N. Joglekar et al.
studies have included economic and environmental aspects (Allacker,
2010; Verbeeck, 2007). Although new methodologies are developed
worldwide for sustainability in the construction sector, very few are
being actually implemented.
3. Present work
With the increasing demand for housing units in future being ob-
vious, natural resource depletion would be a critical issue to tackle. To
fulfill the increasing demand for housing units without causing much
effect on environment, we need to choose sustainable construction
materials. Being a resource-extensive process, building and construc-
tion work consume about 60% of raw materials extracted from the li-
thosphere (Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011).The construction sector of the
European Union accounts for 40% of the total environmental burden
(Khasreen, Banfill, & Menzies, 2009). To reduce such environmental
impacts, many European governments have formulated new policies
such as European Community’s Energy Performance Directive for
Buildings (EPBD) (Bowie & Jahn, 2002). In this work, bricks developed
using industrial wastes such as paper mill waste (Raut et al., 2012),
cotton waste (Rajput et al., 2012), and rice husk ash (Raut et al., 2013)
are compared with clay and fly ash bricks as walling materials for low-
cost housing model in terms of environmental, economic, social, and
technical aspects. To suggest the most sustainable construction material
for brickwork in the low-cost housing model, the sustainability index is
determined for all the alternatives. The sustainability index calculated
depends on the economic, environmental, social, and technical para-
meters pertaining to the brick alternatives.
4. Methodology
The decision-making process proposed in this paper is composed of
two parts: (1) assessing environmental impacts caused by various
construction materials (five types of bricks) for walling of low-cost
house model using LCA and (2) applying MCDA to find the most sus-
tainable brick alternative for low-cost housing model.
4.1. Life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive tool for evaluating
potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life, and in-
cludes steps such as raw material acquisition, manufacturing, proces-
sing, use and finally its disposal (Lassio et al., 2016).
LCA is a widely accepted methodology for assessment of any pro-
duct, processes, or systems by calculating environmental impacts
caused by materials and energy consumption. LCA is used to quantify
the inputs and outputs from raw materials’ extraction and manu-
facturing of the walls of low-cost house (i.e., cradle to gate) to assess the
overall environmental impacts of different construction materials
(Khasreen et al., 2009). LCA performed in early stages and informs the
designers of relative environmental impacts of the building materials
(Peng & Wu, 2015). Very few studies have been reported on the LCA
and socioeconomic assessment of bricks (P. Almeida, Dias, Arroja, &
Dias, 2010; Noll, 2015; Venta, 1998). LCA is carried out according to
ISO standard 14040:2006 in the present work (International
Organization for Standardisation, 2006).
4.2. Multicriteria decision analysis
Modelo Integrado de Valor para Estructuras Sostenibles (MIVES) is a
unique MCDA method. MIVES is based on identifying different criteria,
which are further divided into subcriteria. These criteria are quantified
using indicators. To quantify the indicators, MIVES uses the concept of
value function (Alarcon, Aguado, Manga, & Josa, 2011; Pons, De la
Fuente, & Aguado, 2016). MIVES gives the most sustainable alternative
based on assigned relative weight of chosen criteria. For this study, four
398
Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406
criteria were identified: economic, environmental, social, and technical.
The economic criterion was evaluated using raw material cost as an
indicator, the environmental criterion using results of LCA, the social
criterion by getting expert opinions, while the technical criterion was
evaluated based on properties of bricks. A sustainability index was
calculated based on the value functions of all four indicators and the
relative weights assigned to them. A detailed description about the
method is given in Section 7.
5. Low-cost housing model alternatives
To meet the need for sustainable construction materials, different
industrial wastes were used for developing alternate construction ma-
terials. The author has developed the following bricks from industrial
and agricultural waste.
1) Using recycled paper mill waste as raw material (PWB) (Raut
et al., 2012)
2) Using cotton mill waste and recycled paper mill waste mixture as
raw material (CWB) (Rajput et al., 2012)
3) Using recycled paper mill waste and rice husk ash mixture as raw
material (RHAB) (Raut et al., 2013)
The brickwork for low-cost housing considered in this study uses
various bricks alternatives. The results of utilizing bricks made of I&A
wastes for brickwork are compared with clay bricks.
Fig. 1 shows the plan for low-cost housing unit. All the parameters
such as number of bricks cement requirement are calculated with re-
ference to this plan. The unit has a carpet area of 26.28 m2. The size of
burnt clay brick and fly ash brick used is the standard
230 mm × 105 mm × 75 mm, whereas the size of other bricks made of
I&A wastes is 230 mm × 105 mm × 80 mm. Based on the volume of
brickwork and volume of one brick with mortar, the number of burnt
clay bricks and fly ash bricks is 7555 (including 5% wastage). Based on
the same calculation, the number of other bricks made of I &A wastes
required for the same volume of brickwork is 7133. A detail calculation
of number of bricks is provided in the supplementary datasheet Section
1.
6. Life cycle assessment of alternatives
A LCA of a residential house normally involves evaluating its whole
life cycle. This means including all the stages in the assessment such as
raw material supply, manufacture of construction products, the con-
struction process stage, use stage, demolition, and disposal or recycle.
LCA provides an overview of the environmental impacts in the different
stages of a residential house life cycle. Framework for LCA includes (1)
goal and scope, (2) life cycle inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment
method, and (4) interpretation.
6.1. Goal and scope
The aim of this study is to calculate environmental impacts caused
by construction of walls of a given low-cost housing model. The system
boundary includes the manufacture of bricks, cement production, water
use, sand usage, transportation of all these to the construction site,
construction of walls of low-cost house on-site, and curing of brickwork.
Fig. 2 shows the overall scope of the present work.
The system boundary excludes technological improvements such as
reuse or recycling of building waste, interior decoration, electrical
wiring, plumbing, furniture, person-hours, capital goods (i.e., vehicle
and machinery) in the temporary construction site. The cost and ma-
terials incurred for the construction of roof and plinth are assumed
same for all the alternatives. The health impacts resulting from utili-
zation of bricks made of I&A waste are not a part of this study.
Emissions released during the formation of agricultural residue are also
not within the scope of this study. Groundwater is used for manufacture
of bricks, construction and curing of the structure. The demolition
S.N. Joglekar et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

phase is not a part of this study. All the raw materials are assumed to
travel 50 km to reach the site of construction.

6.2. Functional unit

The functional unit is an important basis for life cycle assessment.

The functional unit used for this work is brickwork for one low-cost
housing unit. The construction process for all brick alternatives is the
same. As the housing units are low-cost housing units, the brickwork is
assumed to sustain for a period of 30 years.

6.3. Inventory analysis

Life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA) is the most resource-intensive

phase of an LCA. Quality, age, and region of origin of the data are very
important. The actual manufacturing data pertaining to fired clay
bricks and fly ash bricks are obtained through surveys and interviews of
local brick producers, and various government data sheets. For RHAB,
CWB and PWB, no real-time industrial data for production are available
as these are still at the experimental stage. Therefore, to calculate the
material and energy requirement for production of bricks on an in-
dustrial scale, process integration was performed based on the current
processes for production of bricks. All bricks made of I&A waste have
the same manufacturing processes and the only difference is their
composition. Other data for cement production, transportation, and
electricity production are obtained from Indian database. GaBi
Education software is used to model the LCA. Various LCA methods
were applied to find out the actual values presented. This study uses
two different LCIA methods chosen from those available in GaBi (1)
CML 2001 and (2) ReCiPe. Results of LCA are shown in Figs. 2–5.
Table 1 presents the various references for properties of bricks alter-
natives.
Table 2 presents the compositions of RHAB, CWB and PWB con-
sidered for comparison

6.4. Interpretations

Fig. 1. Map for low cost housing unit.
Our results imply that walling using CB has the most significant
impact on the environment (attributed to the use of coal for the firing
process), whereas bricks made of I&A wastes have a lesser impact on
the environment. Coal firing is the major source of all types of emis-
sions. In most cases, the coal used for firing is of low quality and con-
tains a high proportion of sulfur (Sunil Kumar, Parvathi, &
Rudramoorthy, 2016). FB also have significant impacts as they have
cement as the main ingredient. Cement causes about 0.83 kg·CO2 eq.
emissions per kg (Hammond & Jones, 2008). By contrast, bricks made

Fig. 2. Overall system boundaries of present work.

399
S.N. Joglekar et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

Table 1
Alternatives for brickwork.

Alternatives Material of wall Characteristics of materials Source of data for LCA

Alternative house 1 Clay bricks (CB)
Alternative house 2 Fly ash bricks (FB)
Alternative house 3 Cotton and paper waste bricks
(CWB)
Alternative house 4 Paper and RHA waste bricks
(RHAB)
Alternative house 5 Paper mill waste bricks (PWB)
(Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS), 1993)
(Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS), 2002)
(Rajput, Bhagade, Raut, Ralegaonkar, &
Mandavgane, 2012)
(Raut, Ralegaonkar, & Mandavgane, 2013)
(Raut, Sedmake, Dhunde, Ralegaonkar, &
Mandavgane, 2012)
(Administrative Staff College of India, 2011), survey
(BMTPC Government of India, n.d.; Branch MSME Development
Institute, 2010) Survey
Survey and process development
Survey and process development
Survey and process development

Table 2
Composition of ingredients (kg/m3) used for production of bricks made of I&A wastes
(Rajput et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2013).

Ingredient CWB RHAB PWB

Cement (kg/m3) 46.58 46.37 87.99

Water (kg/m3) 27.43 39.85 126.81
Cotton waste (kg/m3) 23.29 0 0
Recycle paper mill waste (kg/m3) 393.37 371.01 357.14
Rice husk ash (kg/m3) 0 46.37 0

of I&A wastes (RHAB,PWB and CWB) have a lesser impact owing to the
absence of firing process. One of the major observations from this study
is that three bricks made of I&A wastes (PWB,RHAB,CWB) have almost
the same environmental impacts. This is attributed to the similar
manufacturing processes adopted for these bricks; as a result, energy
consumption for their manufacture is similar. The cement composition
in brick production has a large share in overall emissions. Fig. 4. Fossil fuel depletion due to construction (kg fuel oil eq.).
Fig. 3 shows the highest global warming potential (kg·CO2 equiva-
lent) for the manufacture of clay bricks (CB). Manufacture of CBs is
responsible for the maximum GWP of brickwork, as their production
consumes a huge amount of thermal energy, which is primarily ob-
tained from coal. This also justifies the depletion of fossil fuels, as
shown in Fig. 4. Literature studies on LCA of CB have reported similar
results. In our study, the GWP of CB manufacturing is 0.171 kg·CO2
equivalent per brick, which is close to the value reported by Heluz
(2013), that is, 0.175 kg·CO2 equivalent (Heluz, 2013). The LCA of
Portuguese clay bricks also showed similar results with GWP of
0.195 kg·CO2 equivalent per brick (Almeida et al., 2010).
Cement consumption is the maximum contributor to GWP for FBs as
the amount of cement consumed is substantially more than its coun-
terparts. GWPs for CWB, PWB, and RHAB are similar as their manu-
facturing practices are similar.
Fig. 5 shows the acidification potential (AP) for the manufacturing

Fig. 5. Acidification potential of different bricks structures (kg SO2 eq.).

of different bricks. The manufacture of CB contributes substantially in

Fig. 3. Global warming potential (kg·CO2 equivalent).
the overall AP as the combustion of coal results in SO2 emissions that
primarily contribute to the acidification. In addition, combustion re-
sults in the formation of NOx that adds up to acidification. The con-
tribution of cement consumption is also significant for CB and FB.
Water depletion results refer to the use of water in the overall life cycle
of walls. Fly ash bricks require a large amount of water for curing
process, which results in the large water depletion in LCA.
Fig. 6 shows the water depletion for the entire process, which in-
cludes manufacture of bricks and brickwork. More amount of water is
required for curing of FB, resulting in high water depletion. Cement
content of CB is zero and other bricks made of I&A wastes have very less
quantity of cement; therefore, the same quantity of water is required for
curing of brickwork.

400
S.N. Joglekar et al.
Fig. 6. Water depletion (m3).
7. Multicriteria decision analysis
7.1. Criteria for sustainability
In our decision analysis, four criteria were identified, including
economic, environmental, social, and technical. These criteria had
several sub criteria, which were composed of indicators. The indicators
and weights vary based on the individual requirements. Based on the
individual requirements and consultation with experts, the specific in-
dicators were identified. The weights are assigned to the criteria, sub-
criteria and indicators using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as
shown in Table 3. Table 3 presents the criteria, subcriteria, and in-
dicators considered for decision analysis.
7.1.1. Economic criterion
The economic criterion has only one indicator: raw material cost.
This criterion evaluates the construction cost of the wall of house. Raw
material cost involves retail price of all the ingredients for the brick-
work, including cement, sand, and bricks. The cost for procurement and
erection of iron structure for construction is assumed to be similar for
all alternatives and not considered in raw material cost.
7.1.2. Environmental criterion
This criterion assesses environmental impacts and is divided into
two sub-criteria: pollution and resource use.
The resource use is quantified using five indicators: energy con-
sumption, water depletion, cement consumption, sand consumption,
and fossil fuel consumption. All these five indicators are quantified by
considering the mass balance of the entire manufacturing process of
brick and brickwork. The subcriteria pollution involves two indicators:
Table 3
Criteria, subcriteria, and indicators with relative weightages for sustainability assessment.
Criteria
Economic (VS1) 30%
Environmental (VS2) 25%
Social (VS3) 25%
Technical (VS4) 20%
Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406
global warming potential (GWP) and acidification potential (AP). These
indicators are obtained from LCA results.
7.1.3. Social criterion
It involves two subcriteria: compatibility and comfort. The com-
patibility criterion evaluates the adaptability of low-cost housing
technologies to the local culture. This subcriterion includes cultural
acceptance and skilled labor index as indicators. Cultural acceptance
deals with the perception of society toward the brick alternatives for
brickwork. To quantify these indicators, expert opinion is sought on
scale of 0–1 and an average value is considered. The expert members for
evaluation included construction contractors and individual person.
This opinion takes considers the skilled labor requirement and per-
ception of individuals. More number of skilled labors would increase
the overall cost of construction and hence is not desirable. The sub-
criterion comfort deals with thermal comfort of house. A low value of
thermal conductivity is more desirable as it would reduce the heat
transfer through walls.
Incorporation of social aspect into environmental LCA of products
termed as Social LCA (SLCA), has been gaining research interest in the
recent past. SLCA has found its application in varied areas like design,
industrial management, tourism, biofuels & public decision making
(Dong & Ng, 2015; Jørgensen, Bocq, Nazarkina, & Hauschild, 2008).
SLCA is still at infantile stage as there are many unresolved issues at
both life cycle inventory and social lifecycle impact assessment stages.
Also the linking of the inventory data to the functional unit is also one
of the challenges faced by SLCA. With no agreed methodology available
for selection of impact categories and computation of indicators, in-
tegrating the participatory approach in SLCA wherein the opinion of
stakeholders is considered for defining and evaluation of indicator is
suggested (Dong & Ng, 2015). SLCA, though does not provide the ul-
timate sustainable solution but assists in evaluation of development
activities of the processes or products (UNEP Setac Life Cycle Initiative,
2009).
7.1.4. Technical criterion
Technical criterion is related to the durability of the brickwork. The
indicators used for this criterion are compressive strength and bulk
density of the brick. A high compressive strength is desirable, as it
would provide the necessary strength for brickwork. A low density of
brick would decrease the overall weight of the brickwork. An added
advantage of using a low bulk density brick is its lower transportation
cost (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012).
7.2. Analysis
A working group comprising researchers from three Spanish uni-
versities and institutes (UPC, UPV, and Labein-Tecnalia) has developed
an approach called the “MIVES approach.” This is a decision-making
Subcriteria Impact category/indicators
Implementation cost (VC1) 100% Raw material cost (VI1) 100%
Water resource (VI2) 30%
Energy consumption (VI3) 20%
Fossil fuel consumption (VI4) 20%
Cement consumption (VI5) 15%
Sand consumption (VI6) 15%
GWP (VI7) 50%
AP (VI8) 50%
Cultural acceptance (VI9) 70%
Skilled labor (VI10) 30%
Comfort (VC5) 50% Thermal resistance (VI11) 100%
Compressive strength (VI12) 50%
Bulk density of bricks (VI13) 50%
401
S.N. Joglekar et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

Table 4
Detail values of subindicators.

Sr. No. Type of brick CB FB CWB RHAB PWB Reference

1 Raw Material Cost (Rs) 57500 68100 40500 50210 47643 Market values
2 Water depletion (m3) 416 558 412 427 410 Result of LCA
3 Energy requirement(MJ) 31624 554 392 400 393 Result of LCA
4 Fuel depletion (kg oil eq.) 2150 383 249 237 230 Result of LCA
5 Cement requirement (kg) 2000 2004.5 1542.5 1506 1539 Material balance
6 Sand requirement (kg) 11400 19332.8 4014.7 4014.7 4014.7 Material balance
7 GWP (kg·CO2 eq.) 5900 2480 1750 1740 1680 Result of LCA
8 AP (kg·SO2 eq.) 37.4 9.51 5.23 6.29 6.08 Result of LCA
9 Cultural acceptance (Pts) 1 0.8 0.25 0.3 0.15 Survey
10 Skilled labor (Pts) 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 Survey
11 Thermal conductivity (W/ 0.811 1.05 0.25 0.35 0.4 (Indian Standard Institution, 1978; Rajput et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2013;
mK) Raut, Mandavgane, & Ralegaonkar, 2014)
12 Compressive strength 3.1 3.12 23.64 15 9.6 (Indian Standard Institution, 1978; Rajput et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2012; Raut et al., 2013;
(MPa) Raut et al., 2014)
13 Bulk density (kg/m3) 1900 1550 598 588 790 (BMTPC Government of India, n.d.; Indian Standard Institution, 1978; Rajput et al., 2012;
Raut et al., 2013; Raut et al., 2014)

model initially applied to sustainability studies and industrial buildings. more important than gaining maximum satisfaction (Alarcon et al.,
This approach was initially applied in the field of sustainability and 2011). Hence a concave function is used for parameters such as cultural
industrial buildings. This approach expresses all indicators and criteria acceptance, skilled labor, conductivity, and compressive strength.
in a standard unit by which a comparison of all alternatives is made on A brick having low bulk density is preferred, as it would decrease
the same platform. This standardization is achieved using a scale of the total weight of the structure. Moreover, it would be easy to trans-
preference, or the degree to which a certain desired outcome is satisfied port (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012).
(Alarcon et al., 2011). This work uses this approach and incorporates The parameters, tendency, and shape of the value function for each
various economic, environmental, social, and technical factors for al- indicator are determined from international guidelines, scientific lit-
ternatives under consideration, with simplified life cycle assessment erature, LCA results, surveys, etc.
(LCA) considering all indexes. The analysis is only limited to brickwork In the next step, the value functions are calculated based on the
of a low-cost house, and all remaining parameters are constant for all general exponential Eq. (1).
the alternatives. The alternative materials and their characteristics are Pi
presented in Table 3. V = A + B⎡
⎢1 − e
−Ki (X ind − Xmin
Ci ) ⎤
⎥
The assessment methodology involves the following steps: ⎣ ⎦ (1)

1. Design and formulate a problem statement and recognize the
parameters affecting the system (Aguado, del Caño, de la Cruz,
Gómez, & Josa, 2012).
2. Present all parameters to be considered for assessment in hier-
archical format. Finding the maximum and minimum values of all
the parameters under consideration for alternatives. This includes
literature survey of all previous studies, published facts, and the
prescribed acceptable limits of a certain parameter.
3. Assigning proper weightage to every parameter based on the role of
In general, A = 0. The value of Pi decides the shape of curve
(concave, convex, linear, or S shaped), Xind is the value that generates
value function Vi, Ci establishes abscissa value for points where cur-
vature changes its direction, Ki defines response value to Ci, and B value
limits the function in range 0–1 obtained by Eq. (2). The sets of in-
dicator values [Vi(xi)] that are between 0 and 1, according to the sa-
tisfaction range, are generated by Eq. (1)
1
B= Pi

parameter in the entire system and the assessment. 1− e−Ki(Xmax − Xmin

Ci ) (2)
4. Define the tendency and shape of the curve, that is, the change in Table 4 presents the detailed values of all subindicators used for the
value function of the parameter for alternatives from minimum sa- analysis of sustainability index.
tisfaction to maximum satisfaction value.
5. Define the points corresponding to the minimum (Xmin, value 0) and
maximum (Xmax, value 1) satisfaction. Table 5
6. Define mathematical expression for value function. Values of C, K, and P.
7. Evaluating the SI based on value functions and relative weights of
Increasing function
the parameters.
Function C K P
A convex function is used when there is hardly any change in sa- Linear C ≈ Xmin ≈0 ≈1
tisfaction values for small changes in the point having minimum sa- Convex Xmin +
Xmax − Xmin
< C < Xmin <0.5 >1
2
tisfaction. This type of function is used when maximum satisfaction is Concave Xmin < C < Xmin +
Xmax − Xmin >0.5 <1
2
highly desired. In general, convex function is used for economic and S shaped Xmax − Xmin 4(Xmax − Xmin) 0.2/0.8 >1
Xmin + < C < Xmin +
environmental parameters to ensure the points are near the maximum 5 5

satisfaction value (Alarcon et al., 2011). Therefore, this function is used Decreasing function
Linear C ≈ Xmin ≈ A0 ≈1
for parameters such as raw material cost, water depletion, cement Convex Xmin − Xmax <0.5 >1
Xmax < C < Xmax +
usage, energy usage, fuel depletion, sand usage, GWP, AP, and bulk 2
Concave Xmin − Xmax >0.5 <1
density. Xmin −
2
< C < Xmin
A concave function is used when a small change in the point gen- S Shaped Xmax −
4(Xmax − Xmin)
< C < Xmax −
Xmax − Xmin 0.2/0.8 >1
5 5
erating minimum satisfaction is highly desired. Concave function is
used when moving away from the point of minimum satisfaction is

402
S.N. Joglekar et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

Table 6
Type of curve and C, K, and P values for indicators.

Criteria Subcriteria Indicator Xmax Xmin C K P Curve

Economic Cost Raw material cost 40500 68100 50000 0.1 2.3 DCx
Environmental Water depletion 410 558 450 0.1 2.3 DCx
Energy usage 392 31624 10000 0.1 2.3 DCx
Fuel depletion 230 2150 900 0.1 2.3 DCx
Cement usage 1506 2004.5 1600 0.1 2.3 DCx
Sand usage 4014 19332.8 8000 0.1 2.3 DCx
GWP 1680 5900 2500 0.1 2.3 DCx
AP 5.83 37.4 12 0.1 2.3 DCx
Social Cultural acceptance 1 0 0.4 0.8 0.8 ICv
Skilled labor 1 0 0.4 0.8 0.8 ICv
Comfort Conductivity 0.25 1.05 0.9 0.8 0.9 DCv
Technical Compressive strength 23.64 3.1 10 0.8 0.8 ICv
Bulk density 588 1900 1000 0.1 2.3 DCx

DCx, decreasing convex function; ICv, increasing concave function; DCv, decreasing concave function.

It is seen from Eq. (1) that the shape of value function is strongly
dependent on the values of C, K, and P. Table 5 shows the characteristic
values of C, K, and P for construction of different types of value func-
tion. If the shape of the value function is not clear, the values of C, K,
and P can be defined by individuals to obtain a set of function for same
indicator. A mean of value function for different measurements is cal-
culated. The C, K, and P values can be then estimated through a
minimum square approach (Alarcon et al., 2011). The C, K, and P va-
lues are assumed based on previous work (Hosseini, De La Fuente, &
Pons, 2016).
Table 6 shows the type of curves used for indicators and values of C,
K, and P.
DCx, decreasing convex function; ICv, increasing concave function;
DCv, decreasing concave function
to each level of Table 4. In this equation, the indicator value [Vi(xi)] has
previously been determined and the weights (λi) are assigned to de-
termine the sustainability value of each branch. For the multicriteria
case, the additive formula corresponding to Eq. (3) is applied to de-
termine the sustainability index (SI).
SI = ∑ λi × Vi (xi) (3)
The values of each subcriterion are tabulated in Table 8.
7.2.3. Value function of criteria
According to the weights assigned in Table 2, value functions for
criteria are calculated and tabulated (Table 9).

7.2.1. Calculation of value function

Because all the indicators have different values and units, based on
their literature values all indicators are scaled from 0 to 1, using Eq. (1),
where 0 reflects minimum satisfaction (Xmin) and 1 reflects maximum
satisfaction (Xmax). Values of Xmax and Xmin are indicated in Table 4.
Graph obtained by equation 1 is represented in Fig. 7.
Similarly, for all indicators value functions are calculated and ta-
bulated in Table 7.
7.2.2. Weighing and subcriteria evaluation
After the assessment of the sustainability value of the indicators for
each alternative technology, the formula presented in Eq. (3) is applied
Fig. 7. Value function for raw material cost.
8. Results & discussions
8.1. Sustainability index (SI)
Finally, based on the aforementioned criteria, value function, and
weights given in Table 2, SI for each alternative is calculated and ta-
bulated (Table 10).
Fig. 8 shows the overall SI for different bricks used for brickwork of
the model house. Brickwork made from CWB has the highest SI among
all alternatives. The SI of bricks made of I&A waste (CWB, PWB,RHAB)
is more than CB and FB owing to superior technical properties such as
compressive strength, bulk density, and cheaper rates. Although bricks
made of I&A wastes have similar environmental impacts, they are more
ecofriendly compared to CB. The sustainability index of the CB and FB
can be increased by designing a cheaper and ecofriendly manufacturing
process with increase in the technical parameters.
Fig. 8 also shows the contribution of various factors under con-
sideration in the sustainability index. As can be seen, the environmental
component for bricks made of I&A wastes like RHAB,CWB and PWB is
very high because of their lesser emissions. In addition, these bricks are
economically cheaper because of utilization of waste as raw material;
thereby these have a high degree of satisfaction. The social quotient for
CB is more than FB. Concerning the technical parameter, bricks made of
I&A wastes (like RHAB, PWB, CWB) have less bulk density, resulting in
low load on the RCC structure. In addition, compressive strength of
these bricks is significantly higher than CB and FB. All these factors
result in high scores for brickwork built from these bricks in the tech-
nical criterion. The ranking of bricks considering different parameters is
shown in Table 11
Overall, our results show that the brickwork made from CWB is the
most sustainable alternative for low-cost housing unit.

403
S.N. Joglekar et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406

Table 7
Value functions for indicators.

V.F. VI1 VI2 VI3 VI4 VI5 VI6 VI7 VI8 VI9 VI10 VI11 VI12 VI13
Alt.

CB 0.11 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.42 0.00 0.00
FB 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.05
CWB 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.84 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.52 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.98
RHAB 0.37 0.76 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.58 0.76 0.92 0.79 1.00
PWB 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.38 0.76 0.88 0.57 0.70

Alt. Alternatives, V.F. Value Function.

Table 8 8.2. Sensitivity analysis

Value function for subcriteria.
As the model appears to be dependent on the relative weights of the
V.F. VC1 VC2 VC3 VC4 VC5 VC6
Alt.
criteria, a sensitivity analysis is performed with respect to weights.
Fig. 9 shows the sensitivity analysis of sustainability index. It is ob-
CB 0.11 0.31 0.00 0.98 0.42 0.00 served from Fig. 9 that there is no appreciable change in overall SI of
FB 0.00 0.37 0.74 0.93 0.00 0.03 CWB. The overall ranking of bricks in terms of sustainability index
CWB 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.59 1.00 0.99
RHAB 0.37 0.93 0.98 0.63 0.92 0.90
appears to be constant for varied criteria weightage. The ranking of the
PWB 0.51 0.98 0.99 0.49 0.88 0.64 brick alternative is dependent on the four main criteria. It can be seen
that the rank of brick alternative is strongly dependent on the cost of
Alt. Alternatives, V.F. Value Function. brick along with its properties, its acceptability by society and emis-
sions during manufacturing and construction.
Table 9
Value functions for criteria.
9. Conclusion
V.F. VS1 VS2 VS3 VS4
Alt.
Waste generated from paper mill, cotton mill and ash of furnace
CB 0.11 0.16 0.70 0.00 using biomass like rice husk ash as fuel is a serious solid waste handling
FB 0.00 0.56 0.46 0.03
and disposal problem. This problem is converted to an opportunity by
CWB 1.00 0.97 0.80 0.99
RHAB 0.37 0.95 0.78 0.90 using the waste in making alternate construction material. Bricks made
PWB 0.51 0.99 0.68 0.64 of using waste utilize fewer natural resources and have employ mild
conditions in manufacturing process. Thus, it complies with the prin-
Alt. Alternatives, V.F. Value Function. ciple of green engineering in addition it is found to be more sustainable
compared to burnt bricks.
Table 10 This work presents LCA of five different brickwork alternatives for
SI for all alternatives. low-cost housing unit. LCA results showed that clay brick structure
Alternatives Sustainability Index
have more environmental impacts than bricks made of I&A wastes. Of
the different alternatives considered in this assessment, the brickwork
CB 0.25 made from CWB has the highest SI of 0.94. The bricks like RHAB, CWB
FB 0.26 and PWB have over three times the satisfaction value compared with CB
CWB 0.94
RHAB 0.72
and FB with respect to resource consumption and pollution caused. This
PWB 0.70 model enables decision makers to determine the most sustainable
construction material. The model is based on the MIVES methodology,
which is proven to be a suitable strategy for conducting multicriteria
decision processes for an integral sustainability analysis of each alter-
native. It is important to note that the results presented are subject to a
particular set of weightage assigned to the different criteria in this
study; however, decision makers can improve on the low-value in-
dicator for low sustainability index alternative. This methodology can
be used for different locations with diverse characteristics without
being limited by the present conjuncture.

Table 11
Ranking of alternatives for brickwork.

Parameters Ranking Economic Environment Social Technical

Rank 1 CWB CWB CWB CWB

Rank 2 PWB RHAB RHAB RHAB
Rank 3 RHAB PWB CB PWB
Rank 4 CB FB PWB FB
Rank 5 FB CB FB CB

Fig. 8. Contribution to SI.

404
S.N. Joglekar et al.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to SERB-Department of Science and
Technology, India for research funding (SB/S3/CE/077/2013). BDK
acknowledges the support from Indian National Science Academy.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.025.
References
Aguado, A., del Caño, A., de la Cruz, M. P., Gómez, D., & Josa, A. (2012). Sustainability
assessment of concrete structures within the spanish structural concrete code. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 268–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000419.
Alarcon, B., Aguado, A., Manga, R., & Josa, A. (2011). A value function for assessing
sustainability: Application to industrial buildings. Sustainability, 3(1), 35–50. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3010035.
Allacker, K. (2010). Sustainable building the development of an evaluation method.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. K.U. Leuvenhttp://doi.org/D/2010/7515/70.
Almeida, M. I., Dias, A. C., Arroja, L. M., & Dias, B. (2010). Life cycle assessment (cradle
to gate) of a Portuguese brick., Portugal SB10. Sustainable Building Affordable to All,
477–482.
Bowie, R., & Jahn, A. (2002). The new directive on the energy performance of buildings.
[Brussels].
Buyle, M., Braet, J., & Audenaert, A. (2013). Life cycle assessment in the construction
sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, 379–388. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001.
Chong, W. K., Kumar, S., Haas, C. T., Beheiry, S. M., Coplen, L., & Oey, M. (2009).
Understanding and interpreting baseline perceptions of sustainability in construction
among civil engineers in the United States. Journal of Management in Engineering,
25(3), 143–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:3(143).
Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A social life cycle assessment model for building con-
struction in Hong Kong. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8),
1166–1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5.
Eliche-Quesada, D., Martínez-Martínez, S., Pérez-Villarejo, L., Iglesias-Godino, F. J.,
Martínez-García, C., & Corpas-Iglesias, F. A. (2012). Valorization of biodiesel pro-
duction residues in making porous clay brick. In: Fuel Processing Technology, 103,
166–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.11.013.
European Commitee for Standardization. (n.d.). European Commitee for Standardization.
Retrieved February 17, 2017, from https://www.cen.eu/Pages/default.aspx.
Government of India Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2017). Report of
the technical group on urban housing shortage (TG-12) 2012–2017. [Retrieved from]
http://www.nbo.nic.in/Images/PDF/urban-housing-shortage.pdf.
Hammond, G., & Jones, C. (2008). Embodied energy and carbon in construction mate-
rials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Energy, 161(2), 87–98. [Retrieved
405
Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406
Fig. 9. Sustainability indexes of the four technologies with different requirement
weights. [economic (Ec), environmental (En).
from] http://www.ecocem.ie/downloads/Inventory_of_Carbon_and_Energy.pdf.
Heluz (2013). Environmental product declaration of bricks.
Hosseini, S. M. A., De La Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making
method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units
technologies: A case study in Bam, 2003. Sustainable Cities and Society, 20, 38–51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.012.
Huang, T. Y., Chiueh, P. T., & Lo, S. L. (2016). Life-cycle environmental and cost impacts
of reusing fly ash. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.001.
International Organization for Standardisation (2006). ISO 1440 Environmental manage-
ment-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. London: British Standards
Institution. [Retrieved from] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=
Search&q=intitle:ENVIRONMENTAL+MANAGEMENT+?+LIFE+CYCLE
+ASSESSMENT+?+PRINCIPLES+AND+FRAMEWORK#0.
Jørgensen, A., Bocq, A., Le, N. L., & Hauschild, M. (2008). Methodologies for social life
cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.11.367.
Khasreen, M. M., Banfill, P. F. G., & Menzies, G. F. (2009). Life-cycle assessment and the
environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability, i, 674–701. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/su1030674.
Lassio, J., De França, J., Santo, K. E., & Haddad, A. (2016). Case study: LCA methodology
applied to materials management in a brazilian residential construction site case
study: LCA methodology applied to materials management. Hindawi Publishing
Corporation Journal of Engineering.
Lemmet, S. (2009). Buildings and climate change. United Nations Environment Programme.
Lingling, X., Wei, G., Tao, W., & Nanru, Y. (2005). Study on fired bricks with replacing
clay by fly ash in high volume ratio. Construction and Building Materials, 19(3),
243–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.05.017.
Madurwar, M. V., Ralegaonkar, R. V., & Mandavgane, S. A. (2013). Application of agro-
waste for sustainable construction materials: A review. Construction and Building
Materials, 38(October), 872–878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.
011.
Madurwar, M. V., Mandavgane, S. A., & Ralegaonkar, R. V. (2014). Use of sugarcane
bagasse ash as brick material. Current Science, 107(6), 1044–1051. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00820.x.
Martínez-rocamora, A., & Marrero, M. (2016). LCA databases focused on construction
materials: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 565–573. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.243.
Ministry of Environment, & Forests (2009). MoEF Notification 2009. pdf. New Delhi.
[Retrieved from] http://dste.puducherry.gov.in/Flyash_notification2009.pdf.
Ministry of Home Affairs GOI. (n.d.). Office of the Registrar General & Census
Commissioner, India. Retrieved March 8, 2017, from http://censusindia.gov.in/
Census_And_You/housing.aspx.
Mohideen, P. K. (2015). An overview of construction sector in indian economy.
International Journal in Management and Social Science, 3(2), 452–467.
National Housing Bank (2012). Report on trend and progress of housing in India.
Noll, D. (2015). Socio-ecological impacts of brick kilns in the western ghats: a socio-metabolic
analysis of small-scale brick industries in the Mumbai. Ökologie: Institut für Soziale.
Peng, C., & Wu, X. (2015). Case study of carbon emissions from a building’s life cycle
based on BIM and Ecotect. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/954651.
Pons, O., De la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The use of MIVES as a sustainability
S.N. Joglekar et al.
assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications.
Sustainability, 8(5), 460. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8050460.
Rajput, D., Bhagade, S. S., Raut, S. P., Ralegaonkar, R. V., & Mandavgane, S. A. (2012).
Reuse of cotton and recycle paper mill waste as building material. Construction and
Building Materials, 34, 470–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.
035.
Raut, S. P., Ralegaonkar, R. V., & Mandavgane, S. A. (2011). Development of sustainable
construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: a review of waste-
create bricks. Construction and Building Materials, 25(10), 4037–4042. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.038.
Raut, S. P., Sedmake, R., Dhunde, S., Ralegaonkar, R. V., & Mandavgane, S. A. (2012).
Reuse of recycle paper mill waste in energy absorbing light weight bricks.
Construction and Building Materials, 27(1), 247–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.07.053.
Raut, S., Ralegaonkar, R., & Mandavgane, S. (2013). Utilization of recycle paper mill
residue and rice husk ash in production of light weight bricks. Archives of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering, 13(2), 269–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2012.12.
006.
UNEP Setac Life Cycle Initiative (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of pro-
ducts. United Nations Environment Programmehttp://doi.org/DTI/1164/PA.
Sumathi, A., & Mohan, K. S. R. (2015). Compressive strength of fly ash brick with addition
of lime, gypsum and quarry dust. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 7(1),
28–36.
Sunil Kumar, C. P., Parvathi, S., & Rudramoorthy, R. (2016). Impact categories through life
cycle assessment of coal-fired brick. Procedia technology, vol 24, Elsevier B.V.531–537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.091.
TERI (2007). Green rating for integrated habitat assessment. [Retrieved January 24 2017
from] http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&
id=73&t=Green_Rating_for_Integrated_Habitat_Assessment.
The World Bank Group (2016). Population living in slums (% of urban population). [Data.
Retrieved January 4 2017 from] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.
406
Sustainable Cities and Society 37 (2018) 396–406
SLUM.UR.ZS?view=map.
Twelfth Five Year Plan (2013). Twelfth five year plan (2012–2017), economic sectors, vol
IIGovernment of India (GOI), Planning Commission Government of India. [Retrieved
from] http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/planrel/12thplan/pdf/12fyp_vol2.
pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2003). Sustainable building and con-
struction: facts and figures. Sustainable Building and Construction.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2005). Financing urban shelter – global
report on human settlementsvol 53, UN-HABITAT – United Nations Human Settlements
Programme53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Venta, G. (1998). Life cycle analysis. Athena Sustainable Material Institutehttp://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF02978822.
Verbeeck, G. (2007). Optimisation of extremely low energy residential buildings. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuvenhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259107079880.
World Commission on Environment, & Development (1987). Report of the world com-
mission on environment and development: our common future acronyms and note on
terminology chairman â€TM s foreword. report of the world commission on environment
and development: our common future.
World Health Organization (2016). WHO | world health organization. [Retrieved January 4
2017 from] http://www.who.int/en/.
Wu, H. J., Yuan, Z. W., Zhang, L., & Bi, J. (2012). Life cycle energy consumption and CO2
emission of an office building in China. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
17(2), 105–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0342-2.
Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and
evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment,
46(5), 1133–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.
du Plessis, C. (2002). Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries- a dis-
cussion document. CSIR building and construction technology, vol 1Pretoria: CSIR
Building and Construction Technology. [Retrieved from] http://www.unep.or.jp/
ietc/Focus/Agenda 21 BOOK.pdf.