Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T18:28:22.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS APPLIED TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Tianming Xu ,
Wei Liu  and
Zicheng Zhu
Tianming Xu*
Affiliation:
King's Collage London
Wei Liu
Affiliation:
King's Collage London
Zicheng Zhu
Affiliation:
Sartorius Ltd
*
Xu, Tianming, King's Collage London, United Kingdom, tianming.xu@kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sustainability is an issue concerned with social, economic and environmental problems. The primary aim of sustainability is to fulfil the needs of the present society without compromising potential needs of future generations. Product design has a significant impact on sustainability, and a sensible decision-making process that considers trade-offs at early design stage is critical to the success of product design that addresses environmental sustainability issues. This study aims to identify and review the decision-making process for environmentally sustainable design. A comprehensive literature review has been performed to establish the trends over the past two decades. The decision-making process for sustainable design has been summarised, and the frequently-used decision-making methods, such as ANP/AHP, TOPSIS, and BWM, have been identified and discussed. A framework for the selection of Multi-criteria Decision-making (MCDM) methods has been developed to aid researchers to select appropriate MCDM methods in sustainable design. In addition, future research opportunities have also been identified.

Keywords

Decision makingEvaluationSustainabilitySustainable designMulti-criteria
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2725 - 2734
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ajukumar, V. N., & Gandhi, O. P. (2013). Evaluation of green maintenance initiatives in design and development of mechanical systems using an integrated approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 34–46. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, S. S., Paksoy, T., Torgul, B., & Kaur, R. (2020). Reverse logistics optimization of an industrial air conditioner manufacturing company for designing sustainable supply chain: a fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach. Wireless Networks, 26(8), 5759–5782. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11276-019-02246-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azapagic, A., & Clift, R. (1999). The application of life cycle assessment to process optimisation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 23(10), 1509–1526. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0098-1354(99)00308-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baglivo, C., Congedo, P. M., & Fazio, A. (2014). Multi-criteria optimization analysis of external walls according to ITACA protocol for zero energy buildings in the mediterranean climate. Building and Environment, 82, 467–480. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.09.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management science, 17(4), B-141–B-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, K., Mondal, S., & Mukherjee, K. (2017). Analysis of product design characteristics for remanufacturing using Fuzzy AHP and Axiomatic Design. Journal of Engineering Design, 28(5), 338–368. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1316014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. Y. (2016). Feedback-Based Eco-Design for Integrating the Recency, Frequency, and Monetary Value of Eco-Efficiency into Sustainability Management. Systems, 4(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/systems4030030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. K., Nies, L. F., & Ramani, K. (2008). A framework for the integration of environmental and business aspects toward sustainable product development. Journal of Engineering Design, 19(5), 431–446. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544820701749116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cong, L., Zhao, F., & Sutherland, J. W. (2019). A Design Method to Improve End-of-Use Product Value Recovery for Circular Economy. Journal of Mechanical Design, 141(4). https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4041574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darbari, J. D., Kannan, D., Agarwal, V., & Jha, P. C. (2019). Fuzzy criteria programming approach for optimising the TBL performance of closed loop supply chain network design problem. Annals of Operations Research, 273(1-2), 693–738. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2701-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaney, E., Liu, W., Zhu, Z., Xu, Y., & Dai, J. S. (2022). The investigation of environmental sustainability within product design: a critical review. Design Science, 8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2022.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, H. B., Kassem, M., Greenwood, D., & Doukari, O. Whole building life cycle assessment at the design stage: a BIM-based framework using environmental product declaration. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-06-2021-0091Google Scholar
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., . . . Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manage, 91(1), 1–21. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL battelle institute. Geneva research centre.Google Scholar
Girubha, R. J., & Vinodh, S. (2012). Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Materials & Design, 37, 478–486. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.01.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, W., Wang, C., Dai, S. F., Wei, L. R., & Chiang, I. R. (2021). Optimal strategies for reverse logistics network construction: A multi-criteria decision method for Chinese iron and steel industry. Resources Policy, 74. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, M. F., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S., & Omar, B. (2012, Jan 13-15). An integrated MA-AHP approach for selecting the highest sustainability index of a new product. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Asia-Pacific-Business-Innovation-and-Technology-Management-Society, Pattaya, THAILAND.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoose, A., Yepes, V., & Kripka, M. (2021). Selection of Production Mix in the Agricultural Machinery Industry Considering Sustainability in Decision Making. Sustainability, 13(16). https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13169110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, M., Chambost, V., & Stuart, P. (2009, Jun 07-12). Choice of a Sustainable Forest Biorefinery Product Platform Using an MCDM Method. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on the Foundations of Computer-Aided Process Design (FOCAPD), Breckenridge, CO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B. X., Kjaerulf, F., Turner, S., Cohen, L., Donnelly, P. D., Muggah, R., MacGregor, . . ., S, L.. (2016). Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. Journal of public health policy, 37(1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liechty, J. C., Mabey, C. S., Mattson, C. A., Salmon, J. L., & Weaver, J. M. (2022). Trade-Off Characterization Between Social and Environmental Impacts Using Agent-Based Models and Life-Cycle Assessment. Paper presented at the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounis, Z., & Daigle, L. (2013). Multi-objective and probabilistic decision-making approaches to sustainable design and management of highway bridge decks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(4), 364–383. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2012.657652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J. F., Kremer, G. E. O., & Ray, C. D. (2018). A comprehensive end-of-life strategy decision making approach to handle uncertainty in the product design stage. Research in Engineering Design, 29(3), 469–487. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0277-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maghsoodi, A. I., Mosavat, M., Hafezalkotob, A., & Hafezalkotob, A. (2019). Hybrid hierarchical fuzzy group decision-making based on information axioms and BWM: Prototype design selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 788–804. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eie.2018.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, S., Gonzalez, C., Hospitaler, A., & Albero, V. (2019). Sustainability Assessment of Constructive Solutions for Urban Spain: A Multi-Objective Combinatorial Optimization Problem. Sustainability, 11(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, C. A., Lofthouse, V., Bhamra, T., & Asme. (2015, Aug 02-05). Exploring decision tradeoffs in sustainable design. Paper presented at the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, C. A., Pack, A. T., Lofthouse, V., & Bhamra, T. (2019). Using a Product's Sustainability Space as a Design Exploration Tool. Design Science, 5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2018.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messac, A., Ismail-Yahaya, A., & Mattson, C. A. (2003). The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 25, 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihelcic, J. R., Paterson, K. G., Phillips, L. D., Zhang, Q., Watkins, D. W., Barkdoll, B. D., Hokanson, . . ., R, D.. (2008). Educating engineers in the sustainable futures model with a global perspective. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25(4), 255–263. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286600802002981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niero, M., & Kalbar, P. P. (2019). Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: A proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 140, 305–312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palacio, A., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Lozano, S. (2018). A Decision-making model to design a sustainable container depot logistic network: the case of the port of Valencia. Transport, 33(1), 119–130. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2015.1107621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, H. H., Lee, E., Gea, H. C., & Asme. (2013, Aug 04-07). Decision making tool in life cycle assessment for packaging sustainability. Paper presented at the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences / Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), Portland, OR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, Y. H., Wang, S. W., Pan, J. Q., Liu, Z. F., Zhang, H. C., & Society, I. C. (2006, May 08-11). Environmental impact assessment method based synthesis weight. Paper presented at the 14th IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (ISEE)/7th Electronics Recycling Summit, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Remery, M., Mascle, C., & Agard, B. (2012). A new method for evaluating the best product end-of-life strategy during the early design phase. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(6), 419–441. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.605061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 53, 49–57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaei, J., Papakonstantinou, A., Tavasszy, L., Pesch, U., & Kana, A. (2019). Sustainable product-package design in a food supply chain: A multi-criteria life cycle approach. Packaging Technology and Science, 32(2), 85–101. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pts.2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, M., Papetti, A., Marconi, M., & Germani, M. (2019). A multi-criteria index to support ecodesign implementation in manufacturing products: benefits and limits in real case studies. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 12(6), 376–389. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1575926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical models for decision support (pp. 109–121): Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks: RWS publications.Google Scholar
Sabaghi, M., Mascle, C., & Baptiste, P. (2016). Evaluation of products at design phase for an efficient disassembly at end-of-life. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 177–186. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaharuzaman, M. A., Sapuan, S. M., Mansor, M. R., & Zuhri, M. Y. M. (2019). Decision Support Strategy in Selecting Natural Fiber Materials for Automotive Side-Door Impact Beam Composites. Journal of Renewable Materials, 7(10), 997–1010. https://dx.doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2019.07529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukla, O. J., Jangid, V., Siddh, M. M., Soni, G., & Kumar, R. (2017, Feb 03-05). Evaluating key factors of sustainable manufacturing in Indian automobile industries using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Paper presented at the International Conference on Advances in Mechanical, Industrial, Automation and Management Systems (AMIAMS), Allahabad, INDIA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, G. D., Zhang, H. H., Zhou, M. C., & Li, Z. W. (2018). AHP, Gray Correlation, and TOPSIS Combined Approach to Green Performance Evaluation of Design Alternatives. Ieee Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems, 48(7), 1093–1105. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.2016.2640179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. J., Chan, H. K., Lee, C. K. M., & Li, D. (2015). A hierarchical model for eco-design of consumer electronic products. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(1), 48–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.876685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, S. L., & Wu, C. F. (2021). Green-Extension Design-A New Strategy to Reduce the Environmental Pressure from the Existing Consumer Electronics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18). https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, H., & Solvang, W. D. (2017). A carbon-constrained stochastic optimization model with augmented multi-criteria scenario-based risk-averse solution for reverse logistics network design under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1248–1267. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Dong, W. F., Jin, Z. F., Li, X. Y., & Ren, Y. Q. (2020). An integrated environmental and cost assessment method based on LCA and LCC for automobile interior and exterior trim design scheme optimization. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(3), 633–645. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01691-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Z. C., Liu, W., Ye, S. H., & Batista, L. (2022). Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 817–832. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar