Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

BIM-based life cycle assessment: A systematic review on automation and

decision-making during design
Sara Parece a,* , Ricardo Resende a , Vasco Rato a
a
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centro de Investigação em Ciências da Informação, Tecnologias e Arquitetura, Lisboa, Portugal

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

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is essential to achieve a Net-Zero Carbon Built Environment and inform effective
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) mitigation strategies for environmental impacts throughout a building’s life cycle. However, collecting Life Cycle
Building Information Modelling (BIM) Inventory (LCI) data and the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) processes are complex and time-consuming.
Automation
BIM-LCA integration enables automated quantity-take-off, supporting faster evaluation of different design op­
Decision-Making
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
tions and decision-making. Consequently, research on BIM-LCA has grown significantly since 2013. However,
Multi-Objective Optimisation (MOO) previous literature reviews on BIM-LCA do not cover developments from the past three years, nor do they assess
Building Design how BIM-LCA supports decision-making or how decision-making methods can enhance its adoption and use,
particularly among non-LCA experts.
A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol to address this gap. A total of
115 research articles (2019–2024) were analysed according to design phases, BIM object LOD, LCA application,
data exchange and extraction methods, automation degree, and decision-making features, covering Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis, Multi-Objective Optimisation, and Sensitivity/Uncertainty analyses.
The findings highlight advancements in LCI automation. However, several challenges remain, including
manual BIM-LCA data mapping during LCIA and limited research on: BIM-LCA for renovation projects, dynamic
data exchange for OpenBIM, standardised LOD for different LCA applications, and local databases for budget-
based targets. Furthermore, few studies integrate LCA with economic and social indicators, and decision-
making methods are mainly absent from BIM-LCA tools.
This study outlines research directions to address these limitations and improve BIM-LCA automation and
decision-making. Future efforts will focus on gathering insights from industry stakeholders to establish priorities
for user-centred BIM-LCA development.

1. Introduction decarbonisation, innovation, and digital data management throughout

the building lifecycle, and integrate instruments and solutions to miti­
The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry is gate these issues [4].
responsible for approximately 40 % of global greenhouse gas (GHG) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a recognised method for evaluating
emissions, 50 % of all material consumption [1], and more than the environmental impacts associated with raw material acquisition,
one-third of all waste generation [2]. Moreover, the AEC sector is production methods, user behaviour and disposal or recycling. It covers
regarded as one of the least digitised industries. It relies heavily on the entire life cycle of a product, as defined in ISO 14040 and 14044
traditional practices and invests little in research and development, standards [5]. Unlike other industrial processes, which typically involve
which are all strong factors behind its slow productivity growth. a limited number of standardised elements with short lifespans, build­
Enhancing competitiveness and digitalisation, minimising GHG ings incorporate a wide variety of products with long lifespans and
emissions, reducing dependence on virgin resources, and tackling con­ unique characteristics. Furthermore, building construction occurs in
struction and demolition waste (CDW) are top priorities for European uncontrolled environments, under the influence of external factors and
policy [3]. Initiatives such as the Digital Europe Programme, the Cir­ multiple stakeholder decisions. As a result, performing a conventional
cular Economy Action Plan, and the Renovation Wave promote LCA in buildings can be complex and time-consuming. Practitioners face

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Parece), [email protected] (R. Resende), [email protected] (V. Rato).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113248
Received 10 March 2025; Received in revised form 13 May 2025; Accepted 31 May 2025
Available online 6 June 2025
0360-1323/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

many challenges in collecting Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, con­ categorising BIM-LCA integration and identifying their benefits and
ducting Life Cycle Impact Assessments (LCIA), and interpreting results challenges. However, limited attention is given to how BIM-LCA aids
[6]. As such, dedicated international and European standards by ISO/TC decision-making, enhances building performance, or integrates with
59/SC 17 [7–9] and CEN/TC 350 [10–12] have been proposed to guide other economic and environmental assessments. Specifically, there is a
Building LCA. need to address the following research questions: RQ1 - What obstacles
Building Information Modelling (BIM) combines geometric and se­ hinder decision-making in BIM-based LCA? RQ2 - What solutions have
mantic data regarding a built asset, effectively communicating and been developed to address these challenges? RQ3 - What challenges
maintaining spatial relationships, geographic information, material remain overlooked, and how can they be addressed?
specifications, and project timelines throughout the building lifecycle Additionally, further exploration is needed on how emerging tech­
[13,14]. This integration is beneficial for collecting LCI information, as nologies, such as Machine Learning (ML), Multi-Objective Optimisation
it automatically retrieves relevant data, reducing both time and labour. (MOO), and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), solve interoper­
As Building LCA becomes increasingly automated, it becomes quicker ability challenges, automate manual LCI and LCIA processes, predict
and easier to generate results for all design alternatives, thus supporting environmental impacts at early design, and find optimal design
decision-making. solutions.
Owing to these advantages, research on BIM-based LCA has grown To address these research questions and fill the identified gap, a
significantly over the past decade, more precisely since 2013 [15]. systematic literature review (SLR) on BIM-based LCA from the past five
However, these rapid advancements challenge researchers and practi­ years was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
tioners as they try to fully understand the progress, which may result in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. 115 relevant articles
the underutilisation of the benefits associated with BIM and LCA inte­ were selected for the content analysis, which was based on seven key
gration. Conducting a systematic literature review is therefore essential criteria: (a) building design phase, (b) Level of Development (LOD) of
to consolidate recent knowledge and promote its effective adoption. BIM objects, (c) LCA application, (d) data exchange, (e) data extraction,
Several literature reviews have categorised different BIM-LCA inte­ (f) automation degree, and (g) decision-making capabilities. Through
gration approaches, highlighting the challenges, advantages, and limi­ this approach, the study examines the current state of BIM-based LCA,
tations associated with each. For instance, Soust-Verdaguer et al. [16] consolidates recent advancements, and identifies future research di­
focused on how BIM can simplify data input and optimise the output of rections needed to achieve fully automated processes capable of sup­
BIM-based LCA tools. Other authors [17,18] classified BIM-LCA ac­ porting data-driven design decisions.
cording to the data exchange processes: 1) export BoQ into Excel, 2) The paper structure is as follows. After this introduction, Section 2
export BoQ into a dedicated LCA tool, 3) use LCA add-ons for BIM outlines the SLR methodology; Section 3 presents the results based on
software, 4) use visual programming languages (VPL), 5) use the IFC the recent literature using the aforementioned criteria; Section 4 dis­
format for data transfer, and 6) include LCA data in BIM objects, using a cusses the identified BIM-LCA challenges, current developments, and
library of BIM objects and materials with LCA data integrated as pa­ future research directions; and finally, Section 5 presents the
rameters. Safari et al. [19] classified them into conventional (i.e., uni­ conclusions.
directional data flow), static (i.e., using Globally Unique Identifiers
(GUIDs) assigned to each object within the IFC schema), and dynamic (i. 2. Materials and methods
e., BIM add-ons and dynamo scripts), and Obrecht et al. [20] based their
analysis on the automation degree (i.e., manual, semi-automated and The PRISMA 2020 protocol [31] provides a structured methodology
automated). for screening, assessing eligibility, and synthesising the SLR results. The
Furthermore, Mora et al. [21] highlighted the lack of integrated LCA Covidence web tool [32] was used to manage all references throughout
databases in BIM-based tools, discussing interoperability and automa­ the screening and eligibility process, supporting duplicate removal,
tion challenges. Teng et al. [22], Lu et al. [23] and Seyis [24] identified blinded screening by multiple reviewers and conflict resolution in
key barriers, such as inadequate BIM modelling, limited interopera­ alignment with PRISMA guidelines.
bility, lack of standardised LCA procedures and LCA data on building The keyword search focused on three main topics: (1) BIM, (2) LCA,
materials [24]. Tam et al. [15] analysed the interactive processes be­ and (3) Building Design, targeting article titles, abstracts, and keywords
tween BIM and LCA according to the ISO 14040, concluding that soft­ in two journal databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Table 1
ware integration at the LCI stage is poor.
Zheng et al. [25] assessed four typical BIM-LCA approaches, high­
Table 1
lighting the trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency, whereas Tam
Query keywords used in Scopus and WoS databases.
et al. [18] proposed a method to select the optimal BIM-LCA integration
approach for each design phase. Expanding the scope, Llatas et al. [26] Main Category Sub-Keywords (‘OR’ Boolean Limitations (‘AND’
(‘AND’ Boolean Operator) Boolean Operator)
and Berges-Alvarez et al. [27] explored the integration of BIM and Life
Operator)
Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), emphasising the need for data
harmonisation across LCA, Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social LCA. Life Cycle Assessment "life cycle assessment" OR "Life-Cycle Timeline 01/01/
Assessment" OR " Life Cycle 2019 to 30/11/
Additionally, Tan et al. [28] examined strategies to enhance the use of Sustainability Assessment" OR "life 2024
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and BIM in areas such as LCA, cycle environment* assessment" OR " Articles/Journals
retrofitting, supplier selection, and constructability. life cycle analysis" OR "life cycle English language
Although many literature reviews have addressed the topic of BIM- *environment* analysis" OR "lifecycle
assessment" OR " lifecycle analysis" OR
based LCA, they were all conducted prior to 2022. Only a few recent
LCA OR GWP OR " global warming
contributions, such as Huang et al. [29] and Chen et al. [30], included potential " OR " carbon footprint " OR "
developments from the last three years. Huang et al. [29] performed a embodied carbon "
systematic literature review on BIM-based LCA to assess embodied Building Information “building information model* " OR
carbon in early design, highlighting the need for development of Model "BIM”
Case Application "building design" OR "design stage*"
standardised methods that allow a continuous LCA through design. OR "building material*" OR
Similarly, Chen et al. [30], summarised the characteristics of commonly "construction material*" OR "new
used BIM software and energy performance tools, focusing on their ca­ construction" OR "renovation" OR
pabilities and limitations. "refurbishment" OR "existing
building" OR "retrofit"
Taken together, previous reviews have predominantly focused on

2
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

outlines the main topics and corresponding keywords used in the The fourth phase, Interpretation, involves analysing results to identify
research query. The results cover the period from 2019 to November key environmental impacts and areas for improvement.
2024. In the context of BIM-based Building LCA, products, waste, and
Only original articles from peer-reviewed journals were included in processes involved in the building’s life cycle are extracted from BIM
the review; review articles, grey literature, editorials, conference papers, models during the LCI phase. In the LCIA phase, characterised LCIA data
and articles not written in English were excluded from the selection. The for individual products is mapped to BIM objects and summed up to
decision to exclude conference proceedings was based on three practical assess the building’s environmental impact.
considerations: (1) Methodological consistency and depth: many con­ The Design Phase (CAT1), BIM Object Level of Development
ference papers lacked sufficient detail for robust content analysis, (LOD) (CAT2) and LCA Application (CAT3) are related to the Goal and
particularly in areas such as automation, data integration, and decision- Scope Definition phase, as they determine at which design phase the
support; (2) Avoiding duplication: a preliminary screening revealed that LCA will be performed, what is the purpose of the LCA, and the level of
over one-third of the conference papers retrieved using the Table 1 information needed in the BIM model. Data extraction (CAT4) and
research query were later published as journal articles with expanded Data exchange (CAT5) correspond to the LCI phase, which defines how
content and were therefore already included in the SLR. Others reused data is collected, structured, and transferred. The Automation Degree
BIM-LCA methods to assess different case studies with no further inno­ (CAT6) is associated with LCI and LCIA, as it assesses the data exchange
vation in automation or decision-making (see supplementary materials and mapping automation between these combined tools. Finally, Deci­
2, Appendix A: List of Conference Papers not included in the SLR); (3) sion-Making (CAT7) is linked to the Interpretation phase, which in­
Manageability: including conference proceedings would artificially in­ volves analysing results and integrating insights into decision-making.
crease the number of records, without adding substantial methodolog­ Other aspects of BIM-based LCA are also analysed, such as the databases
ical diversity or insight. and system boundaries used, case study characteristics, and additional
A total of 359 articles were identified through database search, and environmental, economic, and social indicators beyond LCA. The results
13 were found through citation searching, resulting in 241 articles after are recorded in spreadsheets (See supplementary materials 1- Appendix
removing duplicates. The duplicates were determined automatically by B: List of Articles Included in the SLR and Classification), and the cate­
the Covidence web tool. During the screening phase, 57 articles were gories are summarised in Fig. 2 and described in the following sections.
excluded based on title and abstract review, and eight were excluded
because the full text could not be accessed. In the eligibility phase, from 2.1. Design phase (CAT1)
the 176 analysed articles, 61 were excluded based on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria detailed in Table 2. Ultimately, 115 articles met the BIM-based LCA methods can be distinguished according to the
inclusion criteria and were retained for detailed content analysis building Design Phase (CAT 1) [33]. The first, early design, focuses on
(Supplementary material 1, Appendix B: Full List of Articles Included in early design assessments, in which parametric optimisation is typically
the SLR and Classification). The full selection process is illustrated in applied with simplified LCA methodologies [34–38]; during this phase,
Fig. 1. project decisions are the most impactful and least expensive to alter [6].
The content of the 115 articles was analysed based on seven key The second, detailed design, includes methods tailored for when
categories that characterise BIM-LCA methods, as identified in previous comprehensive building and material data is available. The third,
literature reviews [16,17,20,25], and shown in Fig. 2. These categories “construction design”, refers to “as-built” BIM models with all building
are related to different phases of BIM-based LCA and align with the ISO information. The fourth, continuous LCA, involves using techniques that
14040 and ISO 14044 LCA framework. According to these standards, enable continuous monitoring of LCA results throughout the design
LCA consists of four key phases. The first phase, Goal and Scope Defi­ process. This includes the ability to track project history and progres­
nition, establishes the purpose of the study, the reference study period, sively align LCA inputs and outputs as more detailed and accurate data
the functional unit, and the system boundaries. The second phase, LCI, become available at each design phase.
involves data collection and quantifying all inputs and outputs across a
product’s life cycle. The third phase, LCIA, translates inventory data into 2.2. BIM object LOD (CAT2)
environmental impact indicators, including classification, where emis­
sions are assigned to impact categories, and characterisation, where raw The design phase is directly related to the Level of Development, or
data is converted into impact indicators using equivalent factors, LOD (CAT2), of BIM objects, which is described by the American
following methodologies such as ILCD, EF 3.0, CML, ReCiPe, and TRACI. Institute of Architecture as "the minimum dimensional, spatial, quantita­
tive, qualitative, and other data included in a Model Element" and is divided
Table 2 into five levels, ranging from 100 to 500 [39]. Although the term LOD
Exclusion and Inclusion criteria for eligibility during full-text review. has been replaced by LOIN (Level of Information Needed) in ISO
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
19650–1 [40] and ISO 7817–1[41], the two approaches differ. While
LOD establishes predefined levels (e.g., 100, 200, 300), LOIN focuses on
BIM-based LCA methods or tools are BIM-based LCA methods or tools are
what information is required, when it is needed, and for what purpose,
identified. not identified
BIM-based LCA is performed during the BIM-based LCA is performed during the without relying on fixed levels. As most of the articles in this SLR still
design phase. (Studies that considered operational phase. refer to LOD, it has been adopted as the reference term.
both design and operational phases LOD 100 defines the preliminary layout, rough size, and object ge­
were also considered). ometry. In LOD 200, preliminary dimensions and materials are estab­
BIM-based LCA is used to evaluate a case BIM-based LCA is not used to evaluate a
study. case study
lished. In LOD 300, key materials and components are specified,
The LCA is performed on buildings. The LCA is performed on infrastructure including sizes, shapes, locations, wall layers, and structural elements.
projects, e.g., bridges, roads, and In LOD 400, material specifications, detailed shapes, and reinforcement
tunnels. in structural elements are defined with sufficient detail for fabrication.
Embodied impacts are considered. Only operational impacts are
Finally, LOD 500 establishes as-built product and material specifica­
considered.
ML, MCDA, or MOO are applied to aid _ tions. Each LOD may be further specified using intermediate levels be­
decision-making. tween the main thresholds (e.g., LOD 350).
Other indicators such as Life Cycle Cost, _ As a general rule, LOD progresses to meet the information re­
Design for Disassembly and quirements of each design phase [42]. The LOD should be aligned with
Adaptability are considered.
the goal and scope of the LCA, as well as with the design stage, and

3
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 1. Prisma diagram.

well-defined in the BIM Execution Plan (BEP). For instance, a lower LOD 100–300). In other cases, a LOD range (e.g., 200–300) may also indicate
may be sufficient for comparing early-stage design options, whereas a that BIM models (architectural, structural, MEP) are not developed
higher LOD is required when conducting LCA for compliance with green uniformly across all disciplines. For example, structural components
building certification schemes such as BREEAM or LEED. may reach a LOD of 300 at an early stage, while other elements, such as
Santos et al. [43] have suggested that LOD 300–350 is the reference walls or roofs, may remain at lower LOD.
point for accurate, detailed, and complete LCA calculations. By contrast,
LOD 200 is generally used for screening or simplified assessments, often 2.3. LCA application (CAT3)
supported by external databases containing typical pre-defined con­
struction solutions for building elements [44,45]. At this stage, practi­ The EeBGuide Handbook [16,26] established three types of LCA
tioners frequently rely on estimated material quantities and generic LCA application (CAT3) depending on the goal and scope of the assessment,
data, which introduces high levels of uncertainty and reduces the pre­ the practitioner’s experience, the data availability, and the building
cision of the results. This relationship between LOD and data quality is project’s state of development: Screening LCA, Simplified LCA, and
critical for decision-making, as it directly influences the level of confi­ Complete LCA. The Screening LCA involves simplified data input and is
dence in comparing design alternatives [46]. less precise, focusing on fewer impact categories and life cycle modules.
In this SLR, the articles were classified as follows: if LOD is not While a Simplified LCA requires greater expertise from the LCA practi­
explicitly stated, it is classified as “not specified”. Articles addressing tioner, it is less comprehensive than a Complete LCA, which considers all
continuous LCA across design phases often reported a range of LOD (e.g., life cycle modules and impact categories, commonly performed with

4
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 2. The Categories that define BIM-LCA integration and their relation to the four phases of the ISO 14040 series were used to analyse the selected articles.

Table 3
The relationship between LCA application categories, the type of LCA data, life cycle stages and impact categories.
LCA application (CAT3) LCA data Life cycle Stages (EN 15,978) LCA impact categories

Screening LCA Generic LCA data A1–3 (Product Stage) One or two indicators, e.g.,
B6 (Operational energy use) • Global Warming Potential (GWP)
B7 (Operational water use) • Energy use (MJ)
Simplified LCA Generic or average LCA data A1–3 (Product Stage) Reduced indicator set, e.g.,
B6 (Operational energy use) • GWP
B7 (Operational water use) • Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP)
C3–4 (Waste processing, Disposal of Waste) • Acidification potential (AP)
Completed LCA Specific LCA data EPDs A-D Cradle to Cradle Complete set, (e.g., EN 15978 + EN 15804+A2)
• GWP
• Ozone depletion (ODP)
• Photochemical ozone creation (POCP)
• AP
• Eutrophication (EP)
• Resource use
• Water Scarcity (…)

LCA software such as Simapro and GaBi [16]. Table 3 represents the type models, the Bill of Quantities (BoQ) is stored in an information
of LCA data, life cycle stages and impact categories used in each LCA container, which is then automatically or manually inserted into LCA
application. Fig. 3 illustrates the relationship between the Design Phase software.
(CAT1), BIM objects’ LOD (CAT2) and LCA Application (CAT3). In the Static Approach, the BIM model is exported as an Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC) file and imported into LCA software, poten­
tially benefiting from Information Delivery Specifications (IDS) and the
2.4. Data extraction (CAT4) Globalids. IDS ensures that IFC files meet predefined data requirements,
improving data consistency and simplifying model updates. IFC Glob­
Data extraction (CAT4) broadly defines how data is extracted from alids are Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) assigned to each object
the BIM models and outlines the data flow between BIM and LCA tools. within the IFC schema, and can be used to track and link building ele­
Safari et al. [19] identified three types of data extraction between the ments across different tools. When Globalids are preserved between IFC
BIM model and the LCA tools: conventional, static, and dynamic. In the versions, the LCA software can retain existing links between geometric
Conventional Approach, after the quantity take-offs (QtO) from BIM

5
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 3. The relationship between the design phase (CAT1), BIM objects’ LOD (CAT2) and LCA application (CAT 3).

and environmental data, avoiding the need to re-establish them during 2.5. Data exchange (CAT5)
BIM model updates [47]. Alternatively, this interoperability can also be
achieved through structured naming conventions—for example, by Data exchange (CAT5) defines the specific format and methods
linking construction classification codes (CCS) or descriptions to corre­ during data exchange between these combined tools. Previous studies
sponding entries in LCA databases. [16–18] have identified six types of data exchange processes: 1) export
In contrast, the Dynamic Approach aims to establish a bidirectional BoQ into Excel, 2) export BoQ into a dedicated LCA tool, 3) use LCA
data flow. When the BIM model is changed, LCA results are automati­ add-ons for BIM software, 4) use visual programming languages (VPL),
cally updated, supporting an iterative design process and enabling real- 5) use the IFC format of BIM models for data transfer, and 6) include LCA
time feedback within the BIM environment. data in BIM objects, using a library of BIM objects and materials that

Fig. 4. Breakdown of the 115 articles by design phase (CAT1), LOD of the BIM object (CAT2) and LCA application (CAT3).

6
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

already have LCA data integrated within their parameters. comparisons and decision-making.
The early design uncertainty is evident in the contrasting conclusions
2.6. Automation degree (CAT6) of the following studies. Hollberg et al. [48] traced the embodied GWP
throughout the design of an office building in Switzerland, concluding
Automation degree (CAT6) in BIM-LCA integration is classified that the embodied GWP measured during the early design can be twice
based on the level of manual intervention required. Two key aspects as high as that measured during the detailed design due to changes in the
define automation in this context: (1) During LCI – Automating extrac­ quantity and types of materials used. Meanwhile, Nawrocka et al. [46]
tion and data exchange between the BIM model and the LCA tool; (2) did the same comparison in a Danish context, finding that LOD 200
During LCIA – Automatically mapping building elements and materials models resulted in 14.7% lower GWP than LOD 400 models. These
to environmental impacts in the LCA databases. Works that achieved full differences in how LOD influences GWP results are conditioned by
automation in both LCI and LCIA were classified as Fully Automated. regional context, typical construction systems, and databases used —
Those where at least one phase was automated were categorised as KBOB in the Swiss case and Ökobaudat in the Danish case.
Semi-Automated, while studies relying entirely on manual processes Both studies suggested a single LCA tool throughout the design
were classified as manual. process to improve consistency and align early LCA results with as-built
buildings. Additionally, using predefined components, surface area-
2.7. Decision-Making support (CAT7) based calculations instead of volumetric models, and ML trained on
past projects could enhance accuracy.
Decision Support (CAT7) methods aid in evaluating trade-offs, In this sense, Ansah et al. [49] and Lee et al. [50] used predefined
optimising performance, and reducing uncertainty in building sustain­ Families and Types (F&T) and BIM templates for prefabricated compo­
ability assessments. It considers using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis nents. Cavalliere et al. [51] aligned types of LCA data to the BIM object
(MCDA), Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO), hybrid MCDA-MOO LOD as follows. For LOD 100, average LCA values, along with minimum
approaches, and Sensitivity/Uncertainty Analysis to enhance decision- and maximum GWP values, are used for building systems (e.g., enve­
making in BIM-LCA integration. For a more detailed discussion about lope, structure); for LOD 200, average LCA values, along with minimum
each decision support method, please refer to Section 3.7. and maximum GWP values, are used for construction assemblies (e.g.,
walls, columns); on LOD 300, specific LCA data (i.e., EPDs) is used for
3. Content analysis construction assemblies; for LOD 400 specific LCA data is used for ma­
terials. Similarly, Mohamed et al. [52] used average LCA data from the
3.1. Design phase (CAT1), BIM object LOD (CAT2) and LCA application ICE database for LOD 200 and EPDs for LOD 300. Palumbo et al. [53]
(CAT3) suggested that instead of relying on generic LCA data during LOD 100 to
200, EPD should be used with a Safety Factor (SF) and Range Factors
Among the 115 articles analysed, most conducted an LCA for a (minimum, maximum, average, and median values). The SF is the per­
specific design phase (Fig. 4). Approximately 26 % (30 articles) centage deviation between impact indicators’ minimum and maximum
addressed the early design, 58 % (67 articles) the detailed design, and 3 values within a type of product, for example, within contiguous
% (3 articles) the construction design. Meanwhile, 13 % (15 articles) compressive strength classes of a concrete structure.
proposed methods to perform a LCA continuously throughout the design On the other hand, Parece et al. [54] proposed different QTO
process. methods that align LCA data with the BIM object’s LOD. For early design
Fig. 4 illustrates the expected correlation between the design phase / LOD 200, a catalogue of building assemblies with material quantities
(CAT1), BIM object LOD (CAT2), and LCA application (CAT3). In early and average GWP values is stored externally. A construction classifica­
design, LOD 200 was the most used (27 %), followed by LOD 100–200 (7 tion system (CCS) code establishes a link between BIM element quan­
%) and LOD 100–300 (3 %). However, 63 % of the articles did not tities and materials in the database. The CCS is used to develop a
disclose the LOD. This may be attributed to poor reporting practices, hierarchic LCA database, where groups or building functions are
varying levels of awareness among researchers regarding the relevance composed of systems and systems of materials. Arvizu-Piña et al. [55]
of LOD in BIM-based LCA workflows, and the lack of standardised LOD/ proposed the same approach for exterior walls; the different materials
LOIN according to different LCA applications. Regarding the LCA options are retrieved from a Mexican database containing typical con­
application, 77 % of the studies conducted a Simplified LCA, while 23 % struction systems. Li et al. [33] used the CCS codes of building compo­
performed a Screening LCA during early design. nents to link them to predefined groups of materials in an external
During the detailed design, LOD 300 was the most used (30 %), database.
followed by LOD 200–300 (4 %), whereas 66 % of the articles did not Forth et al. [56] and Schneider-Marin et al. [57] proposed enriching
specify LOD. In this phase, 91 % performed a Simplified LCA, while 9 % the model with a knowledge database containing all the necessary in­
applied a Screening LCA. Additionally, LOD 400 is typically used during formation, such as the technical and environmental data required for the
the construction design, where 100 % of the articles performed a LCA during early design. Each material is linked to functional layers,
Simplified LCA. with an environmental impact assigned from the Ökobaudat database
None of the 115 papers performed a Complete LCA, which reflects the [58]. Experts then combine these materials to create generic building
difficulty of these analyses, particularly regarding data availability for components, specifying thickness ranges for the different layers. The
life cycle stages such as transportation, deconstruction, and end-of-life. same approach was used by Rezaei et al. [59]; first, materials were
Furthermore, it suggests that, in most cases, the effort required for a assessed for environmental impacts from the Ecoinvent database [60],
Complete LCA is deemed unnecessary, as a Simplified LCA is considered then construction assemblies were defined and linked to BIM objects.
sufficient to support the hypotheses tested in the articles. Soust-Verdaguer [61] proposed a correspondence between IfcBuil­
The methods developed for continuous LCA throughout the design dingElement classes and materials in the BCCA “Andalusian Construc­
process use a multi-level LOD approach, specifically LOD 100–300 and tion Cost Base” data structure for cost estimation to calculate the
100–400, depending on the design phases included; 33 % did not specify material quantities of each element. They concluded that this method
the LOD. This approach is more effective than using multiple BIM-based could estimate 89 % of the material volume from QtO and 60 % of the
LCA tools. First, data can be lost between software, leading to the need to overall impacts during early design. On the other hand, Hansen et al.
repeat the LCI and LCIA processes. Second, early analyses involve high [62] concluded that using predefined components in early design can
uncertainty with practitioners making non-standardized, iterative as­ underestimate the total impact by an average of 12 % compared to
sumptions that vary by user and software, complicating result detailed design results.

7
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

All the approaches mentioned above were developed as research- iterative and time-sensitive nature of the design process, unlike the
based tools and were validated through application to one or more dynamic approach.
case studies. To date, no BIM-LCA commercial software tool known to The most common Data Exchange (CAT 5) is Type 2, which involves
the authors implements any of these methods. exporting the BoQ to a dedicated LCA tool and is predominantly used
during the detailed design, as shown in Fig. 5. Type 2 is typically used to
combine BIM-LCA with other indicators and compare design solutions,
3.2. Data extraction (CAT4) and data exchange (CAT5) as shown in Fig. 6. This contrasts with earlier literature reviews
(2012–2020) [15,20], which identified Type 1—exporting the BoQ to
The conventional approach is the most used type of data extraction Excel—as the predominant approach for BIM-LCA integration. This shift
(CAT4), representing 42 % of the reviewed articles, followed by the suggests efforts to use more automated processes, as Type 1 generally
dynamic (39 %) and static approaches (15 %) (Fig. 5). In 4 % of the requires more manual work. However, some studies still rely on this
articles, the type of data extraction and exchange could not be identified. method [64,65]. Recent adaptations of Type 1 have evolved into
Both the conventional and static approaches are vulnerable to data methods that resemble the use of IFC GlobalIds in the static approach.
loss, inconsistency, and lack of interoperability, as they require the For instance, Carvalho et al. [66] and Soust-Verdaguer et al. [67] used
transfer of the BoQ between tools in varying formats [19]. These limi­ spreadsheets in which data were linked to the BIM model through
tations become particularly prominent when information is entered naming conventions, allowing materials and components to be modified
manually or when the semantic structure and naming conventions are within BIM and automatically update results in the spreadsheets. Power
not standardised or aligned across software platforms. Semantic in­ BI is also used to enhance the visualisation of results.
consistencies in BIM objects or IFC entities—such as variations in object The second most used method is Type 3 (Add-ons), frequently
classification, property sets, or naming conventions—can lead to the employed during the early and detailed design. Regarding continuous
misinterpretation or omission of critical data during import/export op­ LCA throughout the design, Type 4 (VPL scripts) and Type 3 (BIM add-
erations [63]. ons) are the most commonly adopted, as they support iterative work­
To address these challenges, it is essential to define the BIM Uses (e. flows and facilitate the tracking of design changes and project history.
g., LCA application), and corresponding information requirements and The preference for types 2 and 3 may be attributed to the user-
LOD in the BEP, before BIM model development begins. When using IFC friendly interface of commercial LCA tools, such as OneClick LCA and
for data exchange, the adoption of Information Delivery Manuals (IDM) Tally. Several authors [68–73] used OneClick LCA to assess the GWP and
and Model View Definitions (MVD) is recommended, as they ensure the other impact categories. For instance, Felicioni et al. [72] compared the
correct structuring of data according to the intended BIM Use without environmental impacts of reinforced concrete structures and
loss of important attributes such as materials or classification codes. cross-laminated timber using DesignStudio and OneClick LCA. Shibata
Additionally, IDS can be used to validate exported IFC files. As an et al. [74] combined Elmhurst Design SAP 10.2 for energy simulation
example, Santos et al. [63] developed an IDM and an MVD to ensure that with OneClick LCA for LCA and LCC to evaluate electric heating retrofit
IFC files include the specific data requirements and structure needed for options. However, several challenges were reported using OneClick LCA
LCA integration. including double counting in overlapping elements such as walls and
Moreover, the limitations of conventional and static approaches slabs, depending on the available QtO methods. The "Grouping elements
extend beyond interoperability issues; they also fail to capture the

Fig. 5. Bubble matrix expressing the relation of the design phase (CAT1) and data extraction (CAT4) and data exchange (CAT5).

8
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 6. Bubble matrix expressing the relation between the goals of the articles and data extraction (CAT4) and data exchange (CAT5) used.

as a whole" method is limited to predefined components within the Tally often leads to assumptions about choosing similar materials.
OneClick LCA database, while the "Breaking down family types into It is also important to note that OneClick LCA and Tally, as most
materials" disconnects family and type associations, potentially leading commercial tools, rely on different LCA databases and modelling as­
to double counting when materials are incorrectly assigned to compo­ sumptions, which lead to divergent results even when applied to the
nents [75]. same project. For instance, Dalla Mora et al. [79] compared the results of
Similar issues were reported with Autodesk Revit’s Tally add-on a masonry residential building assessed using both tools and found an
[76–78]. Authors reported that material identification and specifica­ average deviation of 22 % across impact categories.
tion in Tally are laborious and time-consuming, compounded by the Besides OneClick LCA, other dedicated LCA tools, such as Athena
limited availability of LCA data. The restricted number of materials in Impact Estimator [80], SimaPro [81,82] and Open LCA [83] were used.

Fig. 7. Breakdown of the 115 articles by BIM software and LCA software.

9
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

In these cases, BoQ and annual energy consumption data, calculated detailed and construction design, taking into account the information
using Autodesk Green Building Studio or DesignBuilder, were manually requirements, time and complexity, automation, and required user
inserted into the LCA software. expertise. However, stakeholder collaboration within the BIM environ­
On the other hand, many authors have focused on developing their ment is overlooked. Different BIM software are typically used across
own LCA tools. The most common types are Type 3 (Add-ons), Type 2 various building specialities, making add-ons and VPL scripts inefficient
(Dedicated LCA tools), and Type 4 (VPL scripts), as shown in Fig. 7. For when applied to different federated models. For instance, Autodesk
instance, Bowles et al. [84] developed the Hawkins\Brown Tool, an Tally is exclusive to Autodesk Revit, while DesignLCA is designed for
Autodesk Revit add-on that calculates material volumes and generates ArchiCAD [96]. In this scenario, using tools that allow open formats is
instant GWP visualisations alongside a web-based tool for improved essential to comparing aggregated results during the design process.
data management, similar to OneClick LCA. Nehasilová et al. [85]
developed ArchiCAD and Revit add-ons integrated with a web-based
interface to manage LCA data and a cost-estimating database from the 3.3. Automation degree (CAT6)
Czech Republic. Alwan et al. [86] developed a Python-based tool that
calculates embodied carbon, suggests low-carbon material re­ As shown in Fig. 8, only 2 % of the analysed articles implemented a
placements, and compares outcomes against RIBA 2030 Climate Chal­ fully automated LCA workflow, while 88 % adopted a semi-automated
lenge targets. Sobhkhiz et al. [87] integrated semantic web technologies approach, and another 7 % relied on manual processes. Regarding
with BIM and LCA to enhance data management and interoperability, LCI, all 115 studies performed a QTO from the model. The manual input
converting design, material, and supplier information into RDF format of BoQ into LCA tools has become less common (only 7 %), marking a
and developing ontologies for structured data integration. Jalaei et al. shift from findings in previous research (2012–2020) [20]. However,
[88] proposed a BIM-based procurement system integrating EPD data in this manual process is still necessary when using advanced LCA tools
order to verify low-carbon compliance targets. such as SimaPro and Athena Impact Estimator, as BIM models often do
Type 5 (IFC for data transfer) is the third most common method, not meet their specific data requirements, and the data is not structured
widely used in detailed and early design phases, but less prevalent in in a compatible format for automatic exchange. A potential solution to
continuous LCA. Deng et al. [89] developed an IFC-based LCA tool that this interoperability challenge is the approach proposed by Xu et al.
enables ArchiCAD, YJK, Revit, and Rebro models from different building [97], which developed a data transfer tool between the IFC file and
disciplines to perform LCA calculations using a collision detection al­ SimaPro.
gorithm, ensuring accurate deduction of overlapping quantities. During LCIA, mapping LCA data to BIM objects remains time-
Serrano-Baena et al. [90] proposed an IFC-based LCA for material consuming and ambiguous, with 77 % of studies still relying on
comparisons, linking IFC files to FIEBDC-BC3 databases [91] containing manual processes. No significant advancements have been made in
technical and environmental data. Forth et al. [92] combined the IFC automation and standardisation since previous literature reviews
format with the BIM Collaboration Format (BCF) and a knowledge (2019–2021) [15].
database, previously discussed in Section 3.1, to develop a Type 5 (IFC for data transfer) offers a potential solution by perma­
decision-support tool for non-LCA experts. The tool provides direct vi­ nently linking LCA data to building geometry through Global Ids. In
sual feedback through colour-coded IFC model viewers and heat maps, contrast, Type 6 (BIM libraries enriched with LCA and BIM data) embeds
allowing users to identify environmental hotspots, compare design pre-linked environmental data within BIM objects. However, both ap­
variants, and assess uncertainties during early design stages. proaches still require an initial manual mapping process for each BIM
In terms of scalability, these studies rely on region-specific LCA da­ object.
tabases (e.g., FIEBDC-BC3 for Spain, Ökobaudat for Germany) and are Standardised data structures and naming conventions have been
limited to embodied carbon, excluding operational emissions. used to streamline this process, as shown in Fig. 8. For example, One­
Type 4 (VPL scripts) are commonly used for parametric modelling Click LCA matches the Family and Type (F&T) and the material
and rapid assessment of material options (see Fig. 6). For instance, Hunt description to the LCA database, but the F&T has to be written coher­
et al. [93] proposed an Autodesk Dynamo tool to assess the embodied ently, in English and according to the guidelines provided on the website
GWP of structural models during early design, while Carvalho et al. [40] [75]. It also saves user preferences, i.e., the link between an LCA value
created a Dynamo script for LCA and LCC, simulating 18 design sce­ and an F&T is stored.
narios with different wall, roof, and floor combinations. Alvarez et al. Ansah et al. [49] and Awan et al. [36] previously mapped BIM model
[27] integrated Power BI into a Dynamo-based workflow capable of F&T and material descriptions to LCA databases in a spreadsheet.
calculating GWP and economic costs for various design options. Giaveno Soust-Verdaguer et al. [67] developed a BIM template focused on ma­
et al. [34] and Ansah et al. [49] developed Dynamo scripts to assess terials and pre-defined elements, organized by tags and codes. Ge et al.
multiple LCA impact categories using EPD and generic LCA data linked [98] created an Autodesk add-on to automatically assign LCA data to
via Excel. Beyond Dynamo, Alwan et al. [36] used Grasshopper and prefabricated building components using a naming convention. Alvarez
DesignBuilder to assess different material options, while Károlyfi et al. et al. [27] linked BIM objects with LCA and LCC databases using as­
[35] simulated 48 alternative steel frame warehouse designs based on sembly codes, while Parece et al. [54] used the SECCLasS CCS derived
Eurocode standards. from Uniclass, and Li et al. [33], the Standard for BIM Classification
Type 6, i.e., using a green BIM library with LCA data in objects and (GB/T 51269–2017). Additionally, Cang et al. [99] developed their own
materials parameters, is the least utilised method (3 %, 4 articles). Its code structure and Naneva et al. [100] applied the eBKP-H cost-planning
limited adoption is mainly due to the scarcity of BIM objects containing codes to connect BIM objects with LCA data.
LCA data and the lack of standardisation in data structuring, which Using a CCS or similar structured data approach enables machine-
could be resolved with product data templates. Santos et al. [43,94] and readable and transparent data exchange between BIM and LCA tools
Lee et al. [50] embedded EPD data within BIM objects, enabling instant thereby creating the foundation for Machine Learning (ML) techniques
economic and environmental impact calculations within the BIM envi­ to automate this process. Forth et al. [56] demonstrated this by applying
ronment. Llatas et al. [95] and Soust-Verdaguer et al. [44] expanded this Natural Language Processing (NLP) to automatically match IFC ele­
approach by creating BIM object libraries enriched with LCA, LCC, and ments with a knowledge database containing technical and environ­
S-LCA data, alongside a dynamic script to add this data into BIM objects, mental information. IFC elements are classified with the German cost
later extracted into a semantically enriched IFC. group schema, and cosine similarity is used to match vectorized textual
According to Zeng et al. [25], Type 4 (VPL scripts) is most effective descriptions. This allows classification at different levels—element,
for early design, while Type 3 (BIM add-ons) is the most suited for material category, and material option.

10
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 8. Breakdown of the 115 articles by Automation Degree (CAT6), 1) during LCI and 2) during LCIA.

3.4. Databases and system boundary which include both generic and manufacturer-specific EPDs. The ICE
(Inventory of Carbon and Energy) database is also frequently used (13
During the LCI and LCIA stages, construction materials, products, %, 15 articles) and provides average EPD data developed for the UK.
and processes are typically assigned environmental data sourced from A persistent challenge in Building LCA is the limited availability of
either generic LCI databases or EPD-based databases containing LCIA representative, context-specific environmental data for construction
results for specific building products. As shown in Fig. 9, the most widely materials. Current practices often depend on generic LCI databases that
used database is Ecoinvent (21 %, 25 articles) [83], a generic LCI fail to capture the regional variability and product specificity present in
database. This is followed by GaBi and Ökobaudat (13 %, 15 articles), third-party verified EPDs. Studies have shown that reliance on generic

Fig. 9. Breakdown of the 115 articles by LCA database and LCA Impact Categories.

11
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

databases leads to deviations exceeding ±50 % across several environ­ replacement (B4) (46 %). Only 38 % considered operational energy use
mental impact categories when compared to results based on EPDs (B6), while use phase (B1), refurbishment (B5), operational water use
[101]. (B7), and benefits occurring outside the system boundary (D) were
According to ConstructionLCA’s Guide to EPDs [102], over 13,000 rarely included. This is mainly due to data availability issues and high
verified EPDs in compliance with EN 15804 were available at the uncertainty in scenario assumptions, making these phases harder to
beginning of 2024. However, these EPDs predominantly cover finishing assess. As a result, these phases may be omitted due to the infeasibility of
products, such as cladding, flooring, and insulation materials [103]. obtaining reliable inventories.
Moreover, only a fraction of these EPDs are currently available in Regarding impact categories, 48 % only considered one impact
machine-readable formats, such as XML or JSON-LD [104,105], which category, predominantly GWP, while 52 % considered multiple impact
are essential for automation and integration in BIM-LCA workflows. categories. These results are consistent with the previous research
Although the use of EPDs in BIM-LCA studies has increased since the (2019–2021) [15,19]. The most commonly used LCIA methods include
publication of the ISO 21930 and EN 15804 [15], their availability and ReCiPe 2016, CML-IA (in accordance with EN 15804+A1), TRACI 2.1,
digital interoperability remain limited [15]. Recent European regulatory EF 3.0/ PEF (in accordance with EN 15804+A2), and GWP factors based
developments are expected to increase the EPD publication. The 2024 on IPCC guidelines. Additionally, Cheng et al. [107] proposed a custom
revision of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) introduces a LCIA method.
mandatory requirement for the disclosure of Global Warming Potential Due to variations in impact categories, characterisation factors, and
(GWP) for all construction products by 2026, and the revised Energy units of measurement, results obtained using different LCIA methods are
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) establishes the mandatory often not directly comparable [108]. For instance, CML-IA and TRACI
whole-life cycle GWP assessments for new buildings, starting in 2028 2.1 differ significantly in the definition and selection of impact cate­
[106]. gories. CML-IA includes categories such as acidification potential
According to the EN 15978 standard, the building life cycle is divided (expressed in kg SO₂ eq) and eutrophication potential (kg PO₄³⁻ eq),
into five main stages: product (A1–A3), construction (A4–A5), use while TRACI 2.1 covers smog formation potential (kg O₃ eq) and human
(B1–B5), and end-of-life (C1–C4), plus an additional stage (D) for ben­ health criteria pollutants (kg PM₂.₅ eq).
efits beyond the system boundary. As shown in Fig. 10, most articles Another essential distinction between LCIA methods is the level of
focused on the production phase (A1–A3) (94 %), followed by waste aggregation they offer. Some methods include only midpoint indicators,
processing and disposal (C3–C4) (60 %), transportation (A4) (51%), and which quantify impacts at a point midway along the cause-effect chain

Fig. 10. Breakdown of the 115 articles by building life cycle modules according to EN 15978.

12
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

(e.g., GWP). In contrast, others include endpoint indicators, which ex­ reused materials, each material had to be manually identified as reused
press damage to target areas such as human health, ecosystem quality, in the web tool. Dauletbek et al. [111] compared an existing building
or resource availability. Methods like ReCiPe 2016 provide both with renovation scenarios designed to meet Passive House and
midpoint and endpoint indicators and allow the aggregation of single low-energy building standards in China, highlighting that LCA databases
scores (i.e., translate multiple impact categories into a single value for lack sufficient data on material recycling and that interoperability issues
decision-making). In contrast, methods like CML-IA and TRACI 2.1 remain a significant challenge. Soust-Verdaguer et al. [112] argued that
provide only detailed midpoint-level results. the level of automation in BIM-LCA applications for renovation and
According to Meex et al. [41] and Kägi et al. [78], BIM-LCA users, retrofit projects remains low, and that available tools should better ac­
particularly those without expertise in LCA, prefer a single aggregated count for both existing and new building elements.
environmental impact score at the building level, as considering multi­ To address interoperability challenges, Fenz et al. [113] developed a
ple impact categories often makes decision-making more complex and web-based tool that processes IFC files of existing buildings to generate
less intuitive. multiple renovation scenarios. The tool automatically modifies IFC files
for each scenario, allowing for energy, LCA, and LCC analyses. First, it
identifies relevant building elements associated with each renovation
3.5. Case study application measure. For example, external façade insulation corresponds to Ifc­
Wall, IfcWallElementedCase, and IfcWallStandardCase. The tool then
As shown in Fig. 11, the most common case studies are multi- and groups elements, accordingly, enabling users to select entire component
single-family residential, office, and educational buildings, primarily groups or individual elements for renovation. Users can also specify
located in Europe, Asia, and South America. Among these, 83 % are new which layers of the existing building need to be removed or replaced,
construction, while only 14 % are renovation projects. after which the tool generates different material combinations for each
Despite growing interest in BIM-LCA integration for renovation and renovation measure. Furthermore, Kim et al. [114] employed point
refurbishment, many tools still struggle to fully incorporate the technical cloud data obtained from 3D laser scanning to generate BIM models that
complexities of such projects, leading to interoperability problems and accurately represent the as-built conditions. Subsequently, these models
time-consuming manual processes. In contrast to new construction, were enriched with LCA data to facilitate more precise and detailed LCA.
which focuses mainly on new materials and components, renovation Despite advances in research-based tools that integrate CDW quan­
projects must also consider existing structures, their conservation state tification and material recovery scenarios, such functionalities are not
and interventions. In addition, these processes involve the removal, available in commercial software such as OneClick LCA and Tally,
reuse and recycling of materials, as well as the production of waste and leading practitioners to rely on time-consuming manual processes.
the introduction of new materials, all of which must be adequately These tools cannot differentiate between existing and new elements
addressed in BIM-based LCA tools [109]. or account for the functional condition of existing components, both of
Some studies have explored BIM-LCA applications in renovation which are essential considerations in LCA. Additionally, they do not
projects. For instance, Forastiere et al. [69] analysed the economic and allow the definition of deconstruction strategies and simulation of
environmental impact of passive, active, and renewable energy retrofit multiple scenarios for component reuse and waste treatment.
strategies. Feng et al. [110] assessed embodied and operational impacts
across six different renovation and reconstruction scenarios for
single-family homes. Besana et al. [70] used OneClick LCA to evaluate
the embodied carbon of retrofit strategies, noting that to account for

Fig. 11. Breakdown of the 115 articles by type of building, project and continent.

13
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Fig. 12. Different indicators considered by the 115 articles divided into environmental, economic and social aspects.

3.6. LCA and other indicators (RMI), Total Material Requirement (TMR), GWP, and water footprint
using the AWARE (Available Water Remaining) method . Carvalho et al.
3.6.1. Environmental, economic and social indicators [118] assess SBTool PT-H criteria, a Portuguese green building certifi­
A total of 51 articles have expanded traditional LCA by incorporating cation, covering LCA, LCC, energy analysis, waste management, acces­
additional environmental, economic, and social indicators to enhance sibility, and thermal comfort.
sustainability assessments and decision-making (Fig. 6 and Fig. 12). For Other authors have focused on CDW management and deconstruc­
instance, Latas et al. [95], Soust-Verdaguer et al. [44] and tion strategies. Quiñones et al. [119] created an Autodesk Revit add-on
Soust-Verdaguer et al. [61] introduced the Sustainable Product Decla­ that automates the assessment of recycling vs. disposal options for CDW,
rations, which are similar to EPDs, but with the addition of LCC and enabling designers to quantify the environmental benefits of recycling
S-LCA data. S-LCA is measured using the metric "medium risk-hours without requiring extensive LCA expertise. Su et al. [120] integrated
equivalent units". This metric quantifies the number of working hours BIM, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and LCA to estimate and
associated with a medium level of social risk for a given impact cat­ analyse building CDW during the design. Kim et al. [121] developed a
egory—such as labour rights, health and safety, or fair wages [115]. BIM-based tool using node-edge graphs to analyse the relationships
They used a bottom-line library, which integrates data from the Spanish between building components, assigning a Deconstructability Assessment
BEDEC database, Ecoinvent, and the BCCA (Base de Costes de la Con­ Score (DAS). The tool also integrates LCA and LCC to evaluate envi­
strucción de Andalucía). Similarly, Boje et al. [116] calculated LCA and ronmental impacts and costs across the building’s life cycle, concluding
LCC, including waste disposal costs and carbon emission taxes, and that DfD strategies can reduce GEE emissions by up to 40 %. Guerriero
S-LCA to estimate working hours from an as-built model of an office et al. [122] introduced a digital platform that generates an as-built BIM
building. model from point-cloud scans, exporting it in IFC format. The platform
On the other hand, Sameer et al. [117] quantified Raw Material Input then builds material inventories and assigns end-of-life scenarios for

14
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

each material using the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF). Similarly, Gan climate conditions, and user behaviour. This often leads to significant
et al. [123] proposed an AI-enhanced approach using weakly supervised misestimations of environmental impacts, particularly in the context of
learning to automate BIM model generation from point clouds and buildings, given their long service life and the strong influence of oc­
calculate GWP. Sun et al. [124] assessed the GWP and reuse potential of cupancy patterns.
mass timber construction and concrete buildings. Dynamic LCA is a methodology capable of addressing these chal­
From an economic perspective, Zhang et al. [125] used the Carbon lenges by incorporating time-dependent variables that reflect temporal,
Emission Intensity (CEI), a metric that quantifies carbon emissions per social, technological, and economic changes [131]. For example, tem­
unit cost, expressed as the ratio between GWP (CO₂e) and LCC. CEI is perature increases driven by climate change can result in a rise of
used to assess the environmental impact relative to the cost throughout cooling energy demands while reducing heating needs, and the growing
the building life cycle. Lu et al. [126] developed an OpenBIM tool for share of renewable energy and hydropower in the electricity mix can
calculating Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC), which is the cost of significantly reduce a building’s carbon footprint over time.
reducing one additional ton of CO₂e. It evaluates the cost-effectiveness However, its application in the built environment remains limited,
of carbon reduction measures. particularly in the study of complex variables such as cultural behav­
Other authors measured the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), a metric iours and technological evolution. Only three articles explicitly consid­
within LCC that quantifies the cost to society of climate change-related ered dynamic LCA scenarios. For instance, Yang et al. [133] assessed 17
damage caused by one additional ton of CO₂e. It is based on the Marginal dynamic and static scenarios, considering temporal factors such as
Damage Cost (MDC) [127]. For instance, Heydari et al. [128] calculated outdoor and indoor temperatures, the heat transfer coefficient of glass
material costs, energy savings, and SCC using the Net Present Value curtain walls, elevator energy recovery efficiency, electric grid mix,
(NPV) method. Rostamiasl V et al. [129] performed an LCC considering recycling rates, and material replacement cycles. Their findings indicate
land acquisition, construction, design, SCC, operational costs, and resale that static scenarios can overestimate carbon emissions by up to 66.7 %.
value. Lu et al. [130] developed an Open-BIM tool to assess SCC at the Similarly, Jalaei et al. [134] performed static and dynamic LCA sce­
building design, incorporating both static and dynamic SCC models. The narios linked to climate projections and electric grid mix evolution,
static SCC represents the immediate economic impact of carbon emis­ based on the RCP 8.5 projections for 2020 to 2079, alongside expected
sions, while the dynamic SCC accounts for future climate scenarios, electricity grid emissions reduction. Similarly, Newberry et al. [135]
discount rates, and projected climate targets. extended this research by analysing electric grid mix scenarios to predict
changes in carbon intensity over time, including an optimistic scenario
3.6.2. Dynamic LCA that decreases from 102.93 kg CO₂e/kWh in 2022 to nearly zero by
A well-known limitation of traditional static LCA, recognised since 2080, a pessimistic scenario with a slower rate, and a net-zero scenario.
its introduction and discussed in the literature [131,132], is its inability
to account for temporal variations in factors such as the energy mix,

Fig. 13. Breakdown of the 115 articles by decision-making method.

15
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

3.7. Decision-Making support (CAT7) assigning relative importance to each criterion through expert input,
stakeholder consultation, or project-specific priorities [28]. MCDA is
Decisions made during a project significantly affect performance especially useful during the early design, where decisions are most im­
throughout the building life cycle. In section 3.6.1, it was shown that pactful, but data availability is often limited. It has low computational
several studies extend beyond environmental assessment and LCA by demand and, when combined with parametric design workflows, allows
also incorporating economic and social indicators. While this broader for rapid assessment of multiple alternatives (Table 4).
scope allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of sustainability, it Although MCDA offers clear benefits - such as structuring trade-offs
also increases the complexity of the decision-making process. As project and supporting preference-based decisions - its integration into BIM-LCA
objectives become more multidimensional—often involving conflicting remains limited, with only 11 out of 115 studies (9 %) adopting this
criteria in the short and medium term—the need to balance these approach (Fig. 13, Table 5).
diverse priorities becomes more demanding. Among the applications of MCDA in BIM-based LCA, Taher A. et al.
Different decision-making methods can be beneficial in navigating [136] proposed a framework that integrates BIM, LCA, energy analysis,
these multifaceted and often contradictory scenarios. As shown in and an MCDA method designated as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Fig. 13, 38 % of the articles analysed in this SLR employed some form of to select the best design alternative while considering cost, time, aes­
decision-support method—such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis thetics, material availability, energy efficiency, and impact categories
(MCDA), Multi-Objective Optimisation (MOO), hybrid approaches from LCA. The weighting of the criteria is determined using a pairwise
(MCDA + MOO), predictive models, or Uncertainty and Sensitivity comparison matrix, where experts rate the importance of each criterion
analyses—to identify the most suitable design option. Table 4 summa­ relative to others on a scale from 1 to 9. Similarly, Abdelaal et al. [137]
rises typical decision-support methods and design variable generation applied AHP to evaluate concrete structures by balancing embodied
strategies, aligning them with decision objectives, project phases, data carbon, energy, and economic costs. Additionally, Namaki et al. [138]
requirements, computational demand, and stakeholder involvement. evaluated three construction systems for a single-family house, consid­
Furthermore, Table 5 details the 24 studies that explicitly applied ering different LCA impact categories.
MCDA, MOO, or hybrid approaches, including the tools used, the case Other researchers employed the Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) method, which
study, independent and dependent variables (i.e., design variables and refines traditional AHP by incorporating fuzzy logic to address un­
criteria) considered. certainties and subjective judgments in decision-making. Filho et al.
MCDA is used to prioritise decision alternatives by aggregating [140] used FAHP to determine the best construction, painting, and
qualitative and quantitative criteria into a single evaluative score [166]. roofing materials for low-income housing, considering different LCA
The process involves defining alternatives (independent variables), impact categories, costs, and social factors and Figueiredo et al. [141]
identifying relevant evaluation criteria (dependent variables), and used it to determine different materials for ceilings, doors, floors, walls

Table 4
Types of decision-making methods matched to analysis objectives, design phases, data requirements, computational demand, and stakeholder involvement.
Decision Objective Description Typical Methods / Suited Design phases Data Type Computational Stakeholder References
Tools Required Demand Input

Prioritisation Rank predefined MCDA: All phases; Qualitative + Low to Medium Yes [136–146]
alternatives based on AHP, TOPSIS, particularly useful in Quantitative
preferences WSA, MIVES, early design for
Delphi (…) concept evaluation
Optimisation Find best trade-offs MOO: All phases, but early Quantitative only; Medium to High No [128,147–155]
between conflicting NSGA-II, HypE, design carries high qualitative data
objectives GAMS, BIP (…) uncertainty, so must be converted
decisions should be to numerical scales
made with caution
Optimisation þ Generate Pareto-optimal Hybrid: All phases; useful Idem, with Medium to High Optional [37,156–158]
Prioritisation solutions, then rank NSGA-II + TOPSIS, when both preference weights
based on preferences MOO + AHP, MOO performance and
+ WSA stakeholder input
matter
Performance Identify reference Random Forest, All Training data (e.g., Medium to High No [159]
benchmarking performance ranges (e. Regression trees, from parametric (training);
-Predictive g., max-min GWP for Support Vector simulation)
model each building element) Regression (…)
and variable impact
across alternatives
Design variables Generate many variants Grasshopper, Early Design (concept Geometric Low to Medium No [128,37,155,
generation – by varying design Dynamo, Design of exploration) parameters 152]
parametric* parameters Experiments
Design variables Use ML models to LSSVM, ANN All Training data (e.g., Medium to High No [156]
generation – approximate the from parametric (training); Low
ML/metamodels behaviour of design simulation) (application)
variables (instead of
running all simulations)
Sensitivity Understand which One-at-a-time All; especially early Quantitative Low to Medium No [73,77,107,124,
analysis variables most influence (OAT), Sobol, design and model (model input and 128,129,134,
outcomes regression-based validation output) 143,144,146,
methods 154,157,158,
160–165]
Uncertainty Assess how variation in Monte Carlo, fuzzy All; critical for early Quantitative Medium to High No ​
analysis inputs affects reliability logic, @RISK design and scenario
of results testing
*
Only articles that combine parametric modelling with a decision-making method.

16
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 5
Summary of the 26 articles that carried out an MCDA, MOO or a Predictive model, detailing the tools used, case study, the independent and dependent variables, and
design stage.
Decision support Article Decision support Tools Case study Independent Variables Dependent Variables Design
method phase

Multi-criteria [136] AHP SimaPro + Own tool Health Building Different types of roof slabs Cost, Time, Aesthetics, Detailed
analysis C# for AHP (research- for a hospital project Availability of material, design
(Prioritisation) stage) Energy Efficiency,
Environmental Impact and
LEED rating analysis
​ [137] AHP One-Click LCA and Industrial Type of structure (different Embodied GWP, Embodied Detailed
HBERT for LCA + Not Structural design types of concrete energy, Cost design
specified for AHP structures)
​ [138] AHP One-Click LCA + Single- Different materials for GWP, OD, AP, EP, DNRE, Detailed
Excel Residential structure, isolation and Social Cost of Carbon design
Building windows
​ [139] AHP Autodesk Tally + Not Single- Different materials for GWP, Cost, Thermal Detailed
specified for AHP Residential structure and walls Comfort, Cultural design
Building Acceptance, Schedule
​ [140] FAHP Autodesk Tally + Not Single- Cost, LCA impact categories, Detailed
specified for FAHP Residential Structure, Painting, Community Investment design
Building Roofing materials
​ [141] FAHP Own tool (add-on) for Multi-Residential Different materials for GWP, AP, EP, LCC and Fair Detailed
LCA + R Project for Building ceilings, doors, floors, Wage Potential design
Statistical Computing walls and windows
(open source)
​ [142] AHP-TOPSIS method Autodesk Tally + Not Educational Different Demolition Waste GWP, Energy consumption, Detailed
specified for AHP- Building scenarios with different Total cost, Landfill Cost design
TOPSIS CDW recycling rates saving
​ [143] Modelo Integrado de Own tool (add-on) for Multi-residential Different interior Initial rehabilitation cost, Detailed
Valor para una LCA and MIVES/ building rehabilitation scenarios Maintenance cost, design
Evaluación Sostenible Delphi renovation Demolition cost, Property
(MIVES) and Delphi (research-stage) added-value, Rehabilitation
process time, Embodied
Energy (EE), Embodied
Water (EW), Construction
Waste (CW), Operational
Energy (OE), Demolition
Waste (DW), Functionality
of the physical space,
Adequate spaces & storages,
Thermal comfort, Indoor air
quality, Lighting comfort,
Acoustic comfort, Aesthetic
& building beauty
​ [144] TOPSIS method Own tool (add-on) for Multi-Residential Different materials for Embodied GWP; Economic Detailed
LCA and TOPSIS Building Structure, Roofing, cost; S-LCA (working hours) design
(research-stage) External walls, Windows,
Doors, Internal walls,
Ceiling, Flooring
​ [145] The criteria and their Active House Protocol Single- Design options LCA impact categories, Early
importance are (commercial) Residential (Prefabricated timber Thermal comfort design
defined Active House building frame and X-LAM (cross-
Protocol. laminated timber)
technology
​ [146] Choosing by SimaPro + Not Education Different low-cost seismic Execution costs Detailed
advantages (CBA) specified for CBA building rehabilitation techniques Execution time design
renovation Level of modulation
Level of standardization
Level of industrialization
GWP, FPMF, Damage to
human health (HH)
Multi-objective [147] NSGA–II algorithm Own tool + Educational Building Envelop Roof, GWP, LCC Detailed
optimization DesignBuilder for LCA Building External Wall (EW), design
(Optimisation) and NSGA–II Renovation Window frame (W), Façade
(research-stage) Type (FT), Glazing
template (G), Window to
Wall (WWR), Building
Systems HVAC template-
(HVAC), Mechanical
Ventilation rate (MVR),
Cooling Operation
Schedule (COS), Heating
Operation Schedule (HOS),
Airtightness (A), Lighting
template (Li), External
Window Open (WO)
(continued on next page)

17
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 5 (continued )
Decision support Article Decision support Tools Case study Independent Variables Dependent Variables Design
method phase

​ [128] NSGA–II algorithm Own tool (Dynamo) Administrative Wall insulation thickness, Cooling and heating energy Early and
for LCA + Building Floor insulation thickness, consumption Detailed
JEPlus + EA for Windows height, Floor design
NSGA–II concrete thickness, Wall
(commercial) gypsum thickness
​ [148] Mathematical Autodesk Tally + Not Multi-Residential Walls, Windows, Lighting Annual energy consumption, Detailed
optimisation model - specified for GAMS Building system, Heating system, LCC design
GAMS (General Renovation Cooling system, Roof,
Algebraic Modelling Appliances, Solar Panels,
System) Wind turbines
​ [149] NSGA–II algorithm Athena Impact Multi-Residential Envelope Materials GWP, Operational energy, Detailed
Estimator + Building Embodied Energy design
Honeybee and
Ladybug + Script
using Pymoo (Python
library)
​ [150] NSGA–II algorithm Not specified Conceptual Site dimensions, Material Cost, Embodied GWP, Early
structural design types, Floor system, Maximized Free space design
Foundation type, Lateral
stability frame, Loads,
Ground conditions
​ [151] HypE genetic Own tool Multi-Residential External shell components Embodied energy, Detailed
algorithm (octopus (Grasshopper)+ Building (wall, ceiling, and renewable energy, and design
add-on for Octopus add-on window), urban grid power embodied cost
grasshopper) (Grasshopper) system and renewable
energy generation system.
​ [152] HypE genetic Athena Impact Multi-residential Material selection, Life-Cycle Energy (LCE), Detailed
algorithm Estimator building thicknesses for External LCC design
+ Octopus add-on walls, Floors and roofs,
(Grasshopper) window types
​ [153] Binary Integer Autodesk Tally + Building Exterior Walls, Floors, Life Cycle Energy Cost, Life Detailed
Programming (BIP) CPLEX for BIP envelope Ceilings, Windows, Doors Cycle Electricity Use, Life design
model (commercial) Cycle Fuel Use, Ease of
Instalment
​ [154] Multiple Linear IBM SPSS statistics Single- Building façade, Windows Annual energy consumption Detailed
Regression Analysis tool, @RISK Residential to wall ratio (WWR), design
(commercial) Building Insulation material and
Renovation thickness
​ [155] Grid search algorithm Own tool C# for LCA Multi-Residential Different materials and R-value and LCA Early
(hyperparameter and grid search Building Exterior thicknesses for each layer design
optimisation) Walls of the wall
Hybrid approach [156] LSSVM (meta-model) Autodesk Tally + Multi-Residential Early Design phase: Floor Embodied GWP All
MOOþMCDA + NSGA-II +TOPSIS Green Building Studio Building height, Building Operational GWP
(Optimisation + MATLAB orientation, Window-to-
+ wall ratio (WWR), Number
Prioritisation) of floors
Detailed Design phase:
Type of thermal insulating
material for external walls,
Type of external wall
structure, Type of thermal
insulating material for
internal walls, Type of
internal wall structure,
Type of thermal insulating
material for floors, Type of
window frame and glazing
Construction Design
phase: Finishing material
for external walls;
Finishing material for
internal walls; Type of
flooring; Type of roof tiles
​ [157] NSGA–II and Python Script using Building Façades Building façade material GWP, life cycle cost (LCC), Early
TOPSIS Pymoo library options and thickness and thermal transmittance design
(U-value)
​ [158] Multi-objective Autodesk Tally + Not Single Walls, floors, roofs LCC, Primary Energy Detailed
optimisation (Not specified for MOO Residential Demand (PED), GWP, and design
specified) and a Building Ozone Depletion Potential
the weighted sum (ODP)
approach (WSA)
​ [37] NSGA–II + SBM-I Bombyx + Honeybee Single- External walls, internal Embodied and operational Detailed
model (DEA) / Ladybug for LCA + Residential walls, floors, roofs, and GWP and surface energy design
Wallacei X add-add- Building windows flow
(continued on next page)

18
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 5 (continued )
Decision support Article Decision support Tools Case study Independent Variables Dependent Variables Design
method phase

on (Grasshopper)
NSGA–II
Performance [159] Random forest Autodesk Tally + Multi-Residential Façades, partitions, Acidification Potential (AP), Detailed
benchmarking algorithm Python script using rooftops, side walls Eutrophication Potential design
the Scikit-learn (EP), GWP, Smog Formation
library Potential (SFP), PED, Non-
Renewable Energy Demand
(NRED), Renewable Energy
Demand (RED), Mass

and windows considering LCA impact categories and Fair Wage optimal exterior wall cladding materials for residential buildings
Potential. considering operational and embodied carbon and energy, and Kanyil­
Other authors used hybrid MCDA methods—for instance, Han et al. maz et al. [150], to optimize conceptual structural design, balancing
[142] coupled the AHP and the TOPSIS. AHP was used to assign weights structural performance, cost, and embodied carbon.
to different sustainability indicators (GWP, energy consumption, total Abbassi et al. [151] used HypE genetic algorithm and the Octopus
cost, and landfill cost savings) based on their relative importance and add-on for Grasshopper to analyse the trade-off between embodied and
TOPSIS to prioritise the solutions and identify the best demolition waste operational energy. Similarly, Sandberg et al. [152] considering LCC
scenario based on its geometric distance from the ideal one. Zolfaghari and Life Cycle Energy (LCE).
et al. [143] combined the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Beyond EAs, other mathematical optimization techniques have been
Evaluations (MIVES) with the Delphi method. MIVES structured the applied. Najjar et al. [153] used Binary Integer Programming (BIP) to
assessment of economic, environmental, and social criteria through a identify optimal residential building envelope materials, minimizing
hierarchical decision tree and value functions, while Delphi was used to fuel and electricity costs while maximizing installation efficiency.
determine expert consensus on weightings. Soust-Verdaguer et al. [144] Tushar et al. [154] performed a Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
used the TOPSIS method to evaluate the economic cost, embodied GWP, using the IBM SPSS statistics tool to predict energy consumption based
and working hours of different material options for structural compo­ on different insulation materials and window-to-wall ratios. Further­
nents, building envelopes, partition walls, and finishes. Their study used more, Hassan et al. [155] implemented grid search hyperparameter
the Saaty scale for weight attribution. It included a Sensitivity analysis optimization, a brute-force technique that systematically tests different
to examine how variations in the weighting of environmental, economic, combinations of model configuration settings (hyperparameters) to find
and social dimensions influenced the results. Meanwhile, Vázquez-Rowe the best-performing one. This was used to determine optimal material
et al. [146] employed a Choosing by Advantages (CBA) method to combinations for exterior walls, balancing thermal resistance (R-value)
identify the best seismic retrofit techniques for a primary school, and LCA impact categories.
considering LCA impact categories, technical feasibility, and economic Other studies have integrated a hybrid approach combining MOO
costs, with Sensitivity analysis testing different methodological with MCDA. All points along the Pareto front generated by MOO are
assumptions. mathematically valid and non-dominated, meaning none is inherently
Another decision-making method is Multi-objective optimisation better than the others [168]. However, in practice, only one of these
(MOO), used to address problems involving multiple conflicting goals solutions is usually selected as the final decision. Often, the knee
and identify optimal solutions. In this SLR, 12 % (14 articles) use MOO point—which represents the best marginal balance between conflicting
or a Hybrid approach (MOO+MCDA) within the context of BIM-LCA objectives—can be a reasonable choice when no clear preferences are
(Fig. 13, Table 4). defined. When preferences are known, MCDA methods can be applied to
Unlike MCDA, which deals with problems that lack explicit objective rank and select the most appropriate non-dominated solution according
functions and instead prioritises/ranks a set of design alternatives based to the decision-maker’s priorities (e.g., assigning 70 % weight to cost
on weighted criteria, MOO requires all objectives to be formulated and 30 % to GWP).
mathematically. It is used to find one or more solutions that satisfy all Zou Y et al. [156] developed a hybrid optimization model to deter­
defined constraints while minimizing (or maximising) objective func­ mine the optimal trade-off between embodied and operational carbon
tions [155]. When improving one objective inevitably compromises across different design phases. The design variables were defined based
another, MOO generates a Pareto front of non-dominated solutions. on each design phase, and generated through orthogonal experiments,
These are all optimal solutions in the sense that none is better than the covering a range of possible values and variations. A Least Squares
others across all objectives; each represents a different trade-off between Support Vector Machine (LSSVM) model was then trained using the
competing criteria (i.e., objective functions)[155,147]. generated dataset to learn the relationship between design variables and
MOO methods vary based on variable types and the linearity of GWP at each design phase. This LSSVM model acted as a meta-model (or
objective functions. Common approaches include Evolutionary Algo­ surrogate model), providing an implicit function that approximates the
rithms (EAs) such as Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic behaviour of the design variables on GWP—thus replacing full simula­
Algorithms (GA). The most widely used GA is the Non-Dominated tions and enabling a faster and less computationally intensive MOO
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), introduced by Deb et al. in process. This model achieved a high accuracy with a coefficient of
2002 [167]. determination (R²) of 0.91 and 0.92 for embodied and operational im­
For instance, Heydari et al. [128] applied NSGA-II using the JEPlus + pacts respectively in early design. Slightly lower R² values were
EA tool for energy optimization, minimizing heating and cooling energy observed in detailed and construction design, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85.
demand. Sharif et al. [147] used an NSGA–II to find optimal renovation The model was trained and validated using an 80/20 data split and
scenarios considering budget constraints, energy consumption, LCC, and tested on unseen data, supporting reproducibility. The NSGA-II was then
different LCA impact categories. Similarly, Motaleibi et al. [148] iden­ applied to generate the Pareto front, and the TOPSIS method was
tified optimal retrofit strategies, such as the insulation of building en­ applied to rank the Pareto-optimal solutions and select the best trade-off
velope material components and mechanical and electrical equipment point between embodied and operational carbon. Similarly, Zong et al.
considering LCC and LCA. Atashbar et al. [149] used NSGA-II to find the [157] applied NSGA-II to optimise material thickness and combinations,

19
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

using TOPSIS to rank solutions. Mowafy et al. [37] combined parametric using EPDs with safety and range factors (min, max, average, median) to
design, NSGA-II, and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to select optimal improve the quality and representativeness of input data at the early
materials for walls, floors, roofs, and windows. Chen et al. [158] used stages [53].
MOO with the Weighted Sum Method, assigning different weights to Together, these methods reduce uncertainty in early-stage BIM-LCA
LCC, primary energy demand, GWP, and ozone depletion potential and lay the foundation for more consistent and traceable data integra­
based on expert surveys. tion across subsequent design stages.. However, establishing robust links
Furthermore, predictive models can also support decision-making; with external data sources depends on the adoption of consistent data
however, only one article adopted this approach. Martínez-Rocamora structures and semantic alignment, either based on the internal ontology
et al. [159] developed a method to generate environmental benchmarks of BIM authoring tools or the IFC schema, when models are exchanged.
for building typologies by simulating 240 combinations of façades, Despite these advances, further research is needed to establish a
partition walls, and roofs. A Random Forest (RF) regression model was standardised mapping between LODs and LCA applications, such as
used to predict GWP and other indicators, identify outliers, and evaluate Screening, Simplified, and Complete LCA. Additionally, understanding
the influence of each variable. The model achieved high accuracy (R² = the deviations in material quantities between design stages could inform
0.9999) and enabled the definition of minimum and maximum GWP the development of conversion factors, adjustment methods, or esti­
values for the typology analysed. The authors noted that the model was mation techniques to address missing or uncertain data during early
trained using the full dataset due to its limited size (with Out-Of-Bag design phases—particularly relevant for Screening LCA, as suggested by
samples used for validation), while acknowledging that this approach [46].
is less robust than using a separate test set. Future research could enhance early-stage LCA by training ML
On the other hand, Sensitivity and Uncertainty analyses enhance models on past projects to automatically apply typical assumptions
decision-making in LCA by quantifying the impact of design variables when assigning materials. Decision trees, gradient boosting (e.g.,
and reducing uncertainties related to model assumptions, input data, XGBoost), or support vector machines might effectively predict material
and practitioner expertise [160,161]. 16% of the articles applied choices based on building typology, geometry, and function. In more
sensitivity or uncertainty analysis. complex scenarios involving sequential decision-making, such as
Sensitivity analysis was primarily used to identify the most influen­ determining optimal material substitutions or refinement over time,
tial design variables [107,161]. For instance, Rostamiasl et al. [129] reinforcement learning (e.g., Deep Q-Networks or Proximal Policy
incorporated scenario and Sensitivity analyses to identify cost-sensitive Optimization) may help guide early design decisions by suggesting
parameters. Other studies employed Sensitivity and Uncertainty anal­ material improvements that reduce environmental impact and fill in
ysis to assess LCA result reliability, examining how BoQ variations missing or uncertain data over time.
impact environmental results [77,107,124,162,163]. For instance, Another ML-based approach involves training models to predict
Harter et al. [160] examined how uncertainties vary depending on the environmental impacts (e.g., GWP, embodied energy) directly from
LOD. Zhou Y et al. [161] and Gao et al. [164] used Monte Carlo simu­ simplified early-design inputs, such as overall geometry, number of
lations to assess uncertainty in material quantities and calculated the storeys and proposed construction systems, using neural networks or
probability distribution of total GHG emissions. regression-based models. However, as noted by Hollberg [48] such
methods depend on the availability of large datasets containing as-built
4. Discussing the existing gaps and future directions BIM models linked with LCA results. At that time, no such database
existed; now, there are some efforts to create an open-source database,
The above research findings assessed current research into inte­ for example, the Built Environment Carbon Database by BECD [169].
grating BIM and LCA. In this section, we analyse the challenges and gaps Additionally, BIM-LCA tools that support continuous monitoring of
in this field, discuss what previous research has addressed and, explore environmental impacts from early to construction design are gaining
potential future research directions to fill these gaps and respond to attention. These tools should be capable of storing and managing project
these research questions: RQ1 - What obstacles hinder the decision- history, generating structured datasets throughout the project lifecycle.
making in BIM-based LCA? RQ2 - What solutions have been devel­ These datasets could then be used to train ML models—such as recurrent
oped to address these challenges? RQ3 - What challenges remain over­ neural networks (RNNs) to model temporal dependencies, or graph
looked, and how can they be addressed? Table 6 provides a structured neural networks (GNNs) to capture relationships among building com­
overview, linking each challenge (RQ1) to existing solutions (RQ2) and ponents and typical material assemblies during early design. Further­
identifying further research needs (RQ3), organised into themes such as more, generative AI models (e.g., GANs or diffusion models) show great
early design, LCI/LCIA automation, LCA for building renovation, and potential in conceptual and early design phase by generating optimised
decision-support. building geometries and configurations optimised for environmental
performance. Such approaches could significantly improve the accuracy
4.1. LCA in early design and continuous LCA of LCA results across design stages, reduce uncertainty, and support
decision-making when data is incomplete or undefined.
Several studies have addressed the specific challenges of applying
LCA during early design stages, particularly the lack of material speci­ 4.2. Data extraction and exchange and automation degree
fications, the use of assumptions by practitioners, and the limited
availability of representative LCA data. To mitigate these issues, re­ There are multiple methods for BIM-LCA integration, each with ad­
searchers proposed strategies such as the use of predefined F&T for vantages and limitations, as highlighted in this and previous literature
prefabricated components [49,50], and the combination of absolute reviews. Prior to 2021, Type 1 (data export to spreadsheets) was the
quantities extracted from BIM models with relative material quantities most common approach. Manually editing the BoQ and manually
from external databases—following a logic similar to shoebox modelling inputting data into LCA software is becoming less frequent as the use of
in early energy simulations (e.g., using surface area instead of volume) knowledge databases to complement BIM data, compliance with ex­
[33,54,62]. change requirements and standardised information management within
Other solutions involve enriching BIM models with external knowl­ BIM models becomes standard practice. Type 2 (BoQ import into LCA
edge databases containing technical and LCA data or developing hier­ tools) and Type 3 (BIM add-ons) have gained popularity due to their
archical LCA databases that correspond to the LOD and include generic, user-friendly interfaces, particularly in commercial tools like OneClick
average, and specific LCA data, as well as minimum and maximum GWP LCA and Autodesk Tally.
values for each building assembly [51,52,54,56,57,59–61]. As well as, However, dedicated LCA tools with a Type 2 data exchange require

20
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 6
Summary of Challenges and Gaps (RQ1), Current developments (RQ2) and Development needs (RQ3).

(continued on next page)

21
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 6 (continued )

(continued on next page)

22
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Table 6 (continued )

the entire workflow to be repeated when the BIM model is updated, a particularly well-suited for learning from labelled datasets that link BIM
limitation that static and dynamic approaches could mitigate. Static components with environmental product data. For this approach to be
approach, through IFC Globalids can maintain a consistent link between effective, both BIM elements and LCA databases must be classified using
LCA data and specific elements or materials, reducing the need for a common system such as CCS. This would facilitate cross-referencing
manual updates; however, only 18% of the articles used IFC for data between datasets, minimise semantic discrepancies, and reduce errors
transfer (see Fig. 5 section 3.2). In contrast, dynamic integration offers associated with multilingual or inconsistent terminology.
an even more efficient workflow by automatically updating LCA results Additionally, integrating BIM and LCA through web-based semantic
in real-time as BIM models evolve, making it particularly beneficial for architectures—using technologies such as SPARQL queries, linked open
continuous LCA assessments throughout the design process. data, and domain ontologies—could provide further benefits (e.g., dy­
Despite its advantages, dynamic integration is currently limited to namic querying of external LCA repositories directly from BIM envi­
Type 3 (BIM add-ons), Type 4 (VPL scripts), and Type 6 (BIM object ronments [87].
libraries), all of which depend on proprietary software. While results can
be linked to BIM objects and exported to IFC, no open BIM tool supports 4.3. Renovation projects
full dynamic BIM-LCA integration, only static approaches. This raises a
key question: How can different project specialities—such as architec­ The integration of BIM and LCA in renovation projects remains
tural, structural, and MEP models developed in different authoring limited, accounting for only 14 % of the articles analysed in this SLR.
software—be assessed dynamically using a unified BIM-LCA approach? Renovation workflows introduce additional layers of complexity that
Regarding automation degree, researchers have developed add-ons, are not typically addressed by standard BIM-LCA tools. These include
VPL scripts, and knowledge databases to improve the LCI phase, the need to differentiate existing from new elements, account for the
avoiding manual editing and input of the BoQ into LCA software. current condition of existing materials, and model selective demolition
However, the LCIA phase—specifically the mapping between BIM ob­ and material recovery.
jects and environmental impact data—remains manual and prone to A critical aspect of LCA of renovation projects is the high level of
errors. Although structuring BIM models using Construction Classifica­ information required. BIM models typically need to reach LOD 400–500
tion Systems (CCS) and consistent naming conventions has helped to enable the identification of individual components, their physical
improve semantic alignment and interoperability, these approaches still condition, and potential end-of-life destination. When IFC is used as the
depend heavily on manual data verification and assignment. In this SLR, data exchange format, it should include standardised property sets —
two studies implemented ML to automate the mapping of BIM objects ideally aligned with data templates as defined in ISO 23387 -that cover
with LCA datasets using an NLP-based semantic model healing [56,92]. key renovation-related attributes such as the identification of existing
Future research should focus on developing and training ML models structures, material recoverability, disassembly potential, and reuse
capable of automatically classifying BIM elements and associated ma­ condition. As previously discussed, these should be complemented by
terials, using inputs such as CCS codes, object metadata (e.g., type, well-defined Information Delivery Manuals (IDMs) and Model View
function, dimensions), and geometric or parametric features. Supervised Definitions (MVDs).
learning algorithms—including Random Forests, Support Vector Ma­ Future research directions should explore Scan-to-BIM approaches,
chines (SVMs), and Gradient Boosting methods like XGBoost—are such as those proposed by Kim et al. [114]. The integration of machine

23
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

learning with point cloud data can automate the identification and promising direction is the use of meta-models or surrogate models to
classification of building elements, using models such as PointNet or 3D reduce MOO computation demand. Moreover, Reinforcement Learning
CNNs, and assess their condition through image-based CNNs or Bayesian can support sequential and adaptive decision-making in BIM-LCA, by
models [170]. Additionally, decision trees, graph neural networks, or learning to suggest design alternatives or improvements at both the
reinforcement learning could be employed to predict end-of-life sce­ component and building level, based on defined environmental or eco­
narios based on material degradation, and component nomic reward functions.
interdependencies. The combination of continuous LCA with dynamic BIM-LCA inte­
gration, and AI-enhanced MOO and MCDA offers a promising founda­
4.4. LCA and other indicators tion for automated workflow and iterative decision-making. In this
approach, continuous LCA enables the tracking of environmental im­
Regarding the use of LCA and other economic, environmental, and pacts throughout all design phases, while dynamic data extraction en­
social indicators, we conclude that few studies have integrated LCA with sures that updates in the BIM model are reflected in real time. Coupling
LCC and S-LCA. While LCA and LCC are widely applied to quantify these with AI-driven optimisation and decision-support methods allows
environmental and economic impacts, S-LCA, which assesses social as­ for real-time feedback, enabling designers to evaluate trade-offs and
pects such as working conditions and the well-being of stakeholders, select optimal solutions early and efficiently in the design process.
remains underexplored. On the other hand, the lack of benchmarks and context-specific
In parallel, some studies have started to explore how Circular reference values remains a key barrier to informed decision-making. It
Economy (CE) principles—such as Design for Disassembly (DfD) and is often unclear whether a building’s environmental performance is
Design for Adaptability (DfA)—can be integrated into BIM-based LCA acceptable or whether significant improvement is possible. One study
and LCC tools. For example, several tools have been developed to attempted to address this gap using parametric modelling and machine
quantify construction and demolition waste (CDW) and evaluate how learning to simulate a wide range of material combinations for each
different CDW management approaches influence both environmental building element [159]. A Random Forest regression model was trained
impacts and economic performance. However, only two studies have to learn the relationship between design variables and GWP, enabling
conducted a quantitative assessment of DfD or DfA interventions [121, the definition of minimum and maximum impact ranges (benchmarks)
122]. Further research is needed to use BIM-based LCA and LCC tools to for specific components.
analyse the potential environmental and economic savings associated Meanwhile, initiatives like the one by Röck et al. [172] have made
with implementing CE principles in construction design. This includes valuable contributions by providing embodied carbon benchmarks and a
integrating Sensitivity analysis and ML techniques to better understand dataset covering LCA results of different European buildings. Nonethe­
how DfD and DfA strategies influence life cycle impacts and support less, further efforts are needed to develop datasets that reflect regional
more informed decision-making. construction practices, climate conditions, energy grids, and material
On the other hand, most studies carried out a static LCA, which does supply chains. These improvements are essential to enhance the accu­
not take into account time-dependent factors affecting building perfor­ racy, comparability, and relevance of BIM-LCA results, and to ensure
mance, which can lead to an overestimation of the environmental that environmental targets are realistic and regionally aligned.
impact by up to 66.7 % [133]. Only four studies have explored dynamic
LCA methodologies that consider variations in the electricity grid mix, 5. Conclusion
fluctuations in outdoor and indoor temperatures due to climate changes,
heat transfer coefficients of glass curtain walls, energy recovery effi­ This research examined the current state of decision-making in BIM-
ciency of elevators, recycling rates, and material replacement cycles based LCA. A total of 115 research papers published between 2019 and
[132–135]. Dynamic LCA is likely to gain attention in the coming years. 2024 were analysed through a systematic literature review (SLR). The
More research is needed into dynamic parameters, processes and analysis identified key challenges related to automation and decision-
methodologies, considering the evolution of energy production, distri­ making in BIM-LCA, as well as corresponding future research needs,
bution and use, material flows, technological advances, waste treatment structured across four thematic areas: early design, LCI/LCIA automa­
and social factors. tion, LCA for building renovation, and decision-support.
The results indicate notable advancements in the integration of BIM
4.5. Decision-Making support and LCA compared to previous literature reviews, particularly in data
availability and uncertainty in early design, automation of LCI processes
MCDA and MOO integration into BIM-LCA remains rare, with only (e.g., BoQ export and import into LCA tools without the need for manual
21 % of studies applying one of these methods. In most cases, LCA is used input), and the development of hierarchical databases that align LOD
solely to report environmental impacts (79 %), and design alternatives variations, range, and safety factors to enable continuous LCA
are compared qualitatively, leaving decision-making to practitioner throughout the design process.
judgment. This is likely due to the lack of such functionalities in com­ However, manual data mapping between BIM and LCA remains a
mercial tools, the limited availability of integrated research-based so­ major limitation during the LCIA phase, despite ongoing efforts to
lutions and the computational demand, especially in MOO. improve interoperability and data structure through CCS and a naming
Sensitivity and Uncertainty analyses also play an important role in convention between the LCA and BIM data.
improving the robustness of LCA-based decision-making. These methods Decision-making methods such as Multi-objective Optimization
help identify critical design variables and assess how input variability in (MOO), Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), and Sensitivity/Un­
early design stages can affect final LCA outcomes. However, only 16 % of certainty analyses are rarely integrated into BIM-LCA tools, even though
the studies applied these analyses, which may reflect both the lack of they have the potential to improve stakeholder decision-making, espe­
support in commercial BIM-LCA tools and the methodological cially non-LCA experts—by supporting structured trade-off analysis
complexity of implementing them. An example of advanced imple­ between environmental, economic, and social indicators. Additionally,
mentation is the “PhD” version of SimaPro, which includes Monte Carlo the integration of LCA with LCC, S-LCA, and circular economy indicators
simulation capabilities to assess output variance and result robustness remains limited, and current BIM-LCA tools are not yet fully adapted to
[171]. the requirements of renovation and retrofit projects.
Future research should focus on simplifying and embedding MCDA, Future research should focus on advancing automation, stand­
MOO, and Sensitivity analysis into BIM-LCA tools, making them more ardisation, and AI-supported decision-making within BIM-LCA work­
accessible and practical for iterative design and optimisation. One flows. First, ML algorithms could be trained on past projects to recognise

24
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

typical material assumptions, assisting in material assignment and early- curation.

phase LCA calculations, while also minimising data ambiguity. ML
techniques should also be applied to classify BIM objects and map them
to expanding LCA databases using CCS, helping to automate currently Declaration of competing interest
manual processes. Establishing standards for LOD in screening, simpli­
fied, and complete LCA, and implementing dynamic data extraction The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
aligned with Open BIM principles, would further support interopera­ lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
bility and workflow efficiency. Sara Parece reports financial support was provided by Foundation
Moreover, combining continuous LCA with real-time data extraction, for Science and Technology. If there are other authors, they declare that
surrogate models, and AI-supported MOO and MCDA offers a promising they have no known competing financial interests or personal re­
foundation for iterative and informed decision-making. ML techniques lationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
such as reinforcement learning could be used to suggest design alter­ this paper.
natives at the component or building scale, based on defined environ­
mental or economic targets. Supplementary materials
Parametric design combined with ML could simulate a wide range of
material assemblies, supporting the benchmarking of material options Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
and defining minimum and maximum LCA impact values for each the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113248.
building element. These approaches depend on the availability of large-
scale, machine-readable datasets structured with LCA, LCC, and S-LCA Data availability
results—resources that could also support budget-based target setting
and ML-driven comparative analysis across building projects. The content analysis of the 115 articles is presented in Appendix B.
Further research is also needed to develop quantitative indicators for
assessing Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Design for Adaptability References
(DfA), as well as their contributions to environmental, economic, and
social impacts. Additionally, greater attention should be paid to dy­ [1] M. Herczeg, et al., Resource Efficiency in the Building sector: Final report to DG
Environment, European Commission, Rotterdam, 2014. May.
namic LCA modelling, which better reflects real-world variations across
[2] “Waste statistics - statistics explained.” Accessed: Feb. 14, 2025. [Online].
the building life cycle. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?
The results of this study provide insights for researchers and practi­ title=Waste_statistics.
tioners, offering a systematic overview of the current challenges and [3] A.K. Raturi, “Renewables 2019 global status report,” 2019.
[4] “Renovation wave.” Accessed: May 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://energy.
advancements in BIM-LCA integration. This study is part of a broader ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/renovatio
research effort, the second part of which explores how AEC professionals n-wave_en.
adopt BIM-LCA integration, how they make informed decisions based on [5] I. S. O. 14040 ISO-14040, Environmental Management–Life Cycle
Assessment–Principles and Framework, 2006.
its outputs, and their specific needs and challenges—ultimately to guide [6] J. Basbagill, F. Flager, M. Lepech, M. Fischer, Application of life-cycle assessment
future research and support the development of user-centred BIM-LCA to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts,
tools. Build Environ 60 (Feb. 2013) 81–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2012.11.009.
[7] International Organization for Standardization, “Sustainability in building
Credit authorship contribution statement construction — Sustainability indicators — Part 1: framework for the
development of indicators and a core set of indicators for buildings,” 2011.
[8] International Organization for Standardization, “Sustainability in buildings and
Sara Parece: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental product declarations of
Data curation, Conceptualization. Ricardo Resende: Writing – review construction products and services,” 2017.
& editing, Supervision, Data curation, Conceptualization. Vasco Rato: [9] International Organization for Standardization, “Sustainability in Building
Construction — Framework for Methods of Assessment of the Environmental
Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Supervision.
Performance of Construction Works — Part 1: Buildings,” 2010.
[10] European Committee for Standardization, “Sustainability of construction works
Funding — Assessment of environmental performance of buildings — Calculation
method,” 2011.
[11] European Committee for Standardization, “Sustainability of construction works
This research was supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e — Environmental product declarations — Core rules for the product category of
Tecnologia, I.P. under the MIT Portugal Program, with the project construction products,” 2019.
reference: PRT/BD/154,261/2022, and DOI identifier: https://doi.or [12] European Committee for Standardization, “Sustainability of construction works
— Sustainability assessment of buildings — Part 1: general framework,” 2010.
g/10.54499/PRT/BD/154261/2022, as well as by ISTAR projects: [13] B. Succar, Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery
UIDB/04,466/2020 and UIDP/04,466/2020. foundation for industry stakeholders, Autom Constr 18 (3) (2009) 357–375.
[14] N.B.I.M.S.P. Committee, “What is a BIM,” 2020.
[15] V.W. Tam, Y. Zhou, C. Illankoon, K.N. Le, A critical review on BIM and LCA
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the integration using the ISO 14040 framework, Build Environ 213 (Apr. 2022)
writing process 108865, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2022.108865.
[16] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, A. García-Martínez, Critical review of bim-based
LCA method to buildings, Energy Build 136 (Feb. 2017) 110–120, https://doi.
While preparing this work, the authors used Grammarly to correct org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2016.12.009.
the English grammar. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and [17] L. Wastiels, R. Decuypere, Identification and comparison of LCA-BIM integration
edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publi­ strategies, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 323 (1) (Aug. 2019) 012101, https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012101.
cation’s content.
[18] V.W. Tam, Y. Zhou, L. Shen, K.N. Le, Optimal BIM and LCA integration approach
for embodied environmental impact assessment, J Clean Prod 385 (2023),
CRediT authorship contribution statement https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135605.
[19] K. Safari, H. AzariJafari, Challenges and opportunities for integrating BIM and
LCA: methodological choices and framework development, Sustain Cities Soc 67
Sara Parece: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Su­ (Apr. 2021) 102728, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2021.102728.
pervision, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding [20] T.P. Obrecht, M. Röck, E. Hoxha, A. Passer, BIM and LCA Integration: a
acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ricardo systematic Literature review, Sustainability 12 (14) (Jul. 2020) 5534, https://doi.
org/10.3390/SU12145534. 2020, Vol. 12, Page 5534.
Resende: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Data [21] T.D. Mora, E. Bolzonello, C. Cavalliere, F. Peron, Key parameters featuring BIM-
curation. Vasco Rato: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Data LCA integration in buildings: a practical review of the current trends,

25
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Sustainability 12 (17) (Sep. 2020) 7182, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12177182. Environment 11 (2) (2022) 217–244, https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-09-2021-
2020, Vol. 12, Page 7182. 0157.
[22] Y. Teng, J. Xu, W. Pan, Y. Zhang, A systematic review of the integration of [46] N. Nawrocka, M. Machova, R.L. Jensen, K. Kanafani, H. Birgisdottir, E. Hoxha,
building information modeling into life cycle assessment, Build Environ 221 Influence of BIM’s level of detail on the environmental impact of buildings:
(Aug. 2022) 109260, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2022.109260. danish context, Build Environ 245 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[23] K. Lu, X. Jiang, J. Yu, V.W.Y. Tam, M. Skitmore, Integration of life cycle buildenv.2023.110875.
assessment and life cycle cost using building information modeling: a critical [47] “Information delivery specifications (IDS) - buildingSMART International.”
review, J Clean Prod 285 (Feb. 2021) 125438, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Accessed: May 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.buildingsmart.org/st
JCLEPRO.2020.125438. andards/bsi-standards/information-delivery-specifications-ids/.
[24] S. Seyis, Mixed method review for integrating building information modeling and [48] A. Hollberg, G. Genova, G. Habert, Evaluation of BIM-based LCA results for
life-cycle assessments, Build Environ 173 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. building design, Autom Constr 109 (Jan. 2020) 102972, https://doi.org/
buildenv.2020.106703. 10.1016/J.AUTCON.2019.102972.
[25] B. Zheng, M. Hussain, Y. Yang, A.P.C. Chan, and H.-L. Chi, “Trade-offs between [49] M.K. Ansah, X. Chen, H. Yang, L. Lu, P.T.I. Lam, Developing an automated BIM-
accuracy and efficiency in BIM-LCA integration,” Engineering, Construction and based life cycle assessment approach for modularly designed high-rise buildings,
Architectural Management, Jul. 2023, 10.1108/ECAM-03-2023-0270. Environ Impact Assess Rev 90 (Sep. 2021) 106618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[26] C. Llatas, B. Soust-Verdaguer, A. Passer, Implementing life cycle sustainability eiar.2021.106618.
assessment during design stages in building information modelling: from [50] S. Lee, S. Tae, H. Jang, C.U. Chae, Y. Bok, Development of building information
systematic literature review to a methodological approach, Build Environ 182 modeling template for environmental Impact assessment, Sustainability 13 (6)
(Sep. 2020) 107164, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2020.107164. (Mar. 2021) 3092, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063092.
[27] I. Berges-Alvarez, C. Muñoz Sanguinetti, S. Giraldi, L. Marín-Restrepo, [51] C. Cavalliere, G. Habert, G.R. Dell’Osso, A. Hollberg, Continuous BIM-based
Environmental and economic criteria in early phases of building design through assessment of embodied environmental impacts throughout the design process,
Building Information Modeling: a workflow exploration in developing countries, J Clean Prod 211 (Feb. 2019) 941–952, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Build Environ 226 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109718. JCLEPRO.2018.11.247.
[28] T. Tan, G. Mills, E. Papadonikolaki, Z. Liu, Combining multi-criteria decision [52] R. Ayman Mohamed, Z. Alwan, M. Salem, L. McIntyre, Automation of embodied
making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): a review, carbon calculation in digital built environment- tool utilizing UK LCI database,
Autom Constr 121 (Jan. 2021) 103451, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Energy Build 298 (Nov. 2023) 113528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
AUTCON.2020.103451. enbuild.2023.113528.
[29] B. Huang, H. Zhang, H. Ullah, Y. Lv, BIM-based embodied carbon evaluation [53] E. Palumbo, B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, and M. Traverso, “How to obtain
during building early-design stage: a systematic literature review, Environ Impact accurate environmental impacts at early design stages in BIM when using
Assess Rev 112 (Mar. 2025) 107768, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. environmental product declaration. A method to support decision-making,”
EIAR.2024.107768. Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, Page 6927, vol. 12, no. 17, p. 6927, Aug. 2020,
[30] Z. Chen, L. Chen, X. Zhou, L. Huang, M. Sandanayake, and P.S. Yap, “Recent 10.3390/SU12176927.
technological advancements in BIM and LCA integration for sustainable [54] S. Parece, R. Resende, V. Rato, A BIM-based tool for embodied carbon assessment
construction: a review,” Sustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 1340, vol. 16, no. 3, p. using a construction classification system, Developments in the Built
1340, Feb. 2024, 10.3390/SU16031340. Environment (May 2024) 100467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100467.
[31] M.J. Page, et al., The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting [55] V.A. Arvizu-Piña, J.F. Armendáriz López, A.A. García González, I.G. Barrera
systematic reviews, The BMJ 372 (Mar. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ. Alarcón, An open access online tool for LCA in building’s early design stage in the
N71. Latin American context. A screening LCA case study for a bioclimatic building,
[32] “Covidence - better systematic review management.” Accessed: Feb. 08, 2025. Energy Build 295 (Sep. 2023) 113269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[Online]. Available: https://www.covidence.org/. enbuild.2023.113269.
[33] Q. Li, et al., A BIM–LCA approach for the whole design process of green buildings [56] K. Forth, J. Abualdenien, A. Borrmann, Calculation of embodied GHG emissions
in the Chinese context, Sustainability (Switzerland) 15 (4) (2023), https://doi. in early building design stages using BIM and NLP-based semantic model healing,
org/10.3390/su15043629. Energy Build 284 (Apr. 2023) 112837, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[34] S. Giaveno, A. Osello, D. Garufi, D.S. Razo, Embodied carbon and Embodied enbuild.2023.112837.
energy scenarios in the built environment. Computational design meets EPDs, [57] P. Schneider-Marin, et al., EarlyData knowledge base for material decisions in
Sustainability 13 (21) (Oct. 2021) 11974, https://doi.org/10.3390/ building design, Advanced Engineering Informatics 54 (Oct. 2022) 101769,
SU132111974. 2021, Vol. 13, Page 11974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101769.
[35] K. Ajtayné Károlyfi, J. Szép, A parametric BIM framework to conceptual [58] “ÖKOBAUDAT.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.oe
structural design for assessing the embodied environmental impact, Sustainability kobaudat.de/en.html.
15 (15) (Aug. 2023) 11990, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU151511990. 2023, Vol. [59] F. Rezaei, C. Bulle, P. Lesage, Integrating building information modeling and life
15, Page 11990. cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages, Build Environ
[36] Z. Alwan, A. Nawarathna, R. Ayman, M. Zhu, Y. ElGhazi, Framework for 153 (Apr. 2019) 158–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2019.01.034.
parametric assessment of operational and embodied energy impacts utilising BIM, [60] “Database - ecoinvent.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ecoi
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (Oct. 2021) 102768, https://doi.org/ nvent.org/database/.
10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102768. [61] B. Soust-Verdaguer, I. Bernardino Galeana, C. Llatas, M.V. Montes, E. Hoxha,
[37] N. Mowafy, M. El Zayat, M. Marzouk, Parametric BIM-based life cycle assessment A. Passer, How to conduct consistent environmental, economic, and social
framework for optimal sustainable design, Journal of Building Engineering 75 assessment during the building design process. A BIM-based life cycle
(Sep. 2023) 106898, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106898. Sustainability Assessment method, Journal of Building Engineering 45 (Jan.
[38] A. Hollberg, J. Ruth, LCA in architectural design—A parametric approach, 2022) 103516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103516.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21 (7) (Jul. 2016) 943–960, [62] R.N. Hansen, E. Hoxha, F.N. Rasmussen, M.W. Ryberg, C.E. Andersen,
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-016-1065-1/FIGURES/10. H. Birgisdóttir, Enabling rapid prediction of quantities to accelerate LCA for
[39] AIA and (American Institute of Architects), E203-2013 Building Information decision support in the early building design, Journal of Building Engineering 76
Modeling and Digital Data Exhibit, AIA, Washington, DC, 2013. (Oct. 2023) 106974, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106974.
[40] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 19650-1:2018 - [63] R. Santos, A.A. Costa, J.D. Silvestre, L. Pyl, Integration of LCA and LCC analysis
Organization and Digitization of Information About Buildings and Civil within a BIM-based environment, Autom Constr 103 (Jul. 2019) 127–149,
Engineering works, Including Building Information Modelling (BIM) — https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2019.02.011.
Information management Using Building Information Modelling — Part 1: [64] M.N. Uddin, H.H. Wei, H.L. Chi, M. Ni, P. Elumalai, Building information
Concepts and Principles,” 2018, ISO. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/ modeling (BIM) incorporated green building analysis: an application of local
standard/68078.html. construction materials and sustainable practice in the built environment, Journal
[41] International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 7817-1:2024 - building of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation 6 (1) (Dec. 2021) 13, https://doi.org/
information modelling — Level of information need — Part 1: concepts and 10.1007/s41024-021-00106-5.
principles,” 2024, ISO. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/8 [65] N.B. Ansah, E. Adinyira, K. Agyekum, I. Aidoo, Optimising the material emissions
2914.html. of single-dwelling residential buildings using the dynamic life cycle iteration
[42] S. Su, Q. Wang, L. Han, J. Hong, Z. Liu, BIM-DLCA: an integrated dynamic protocols, Sci Afr 21 (Sep. 2023) e01803, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIAF.2023.
environmental impact assessment model for buildings, Build Environ 183 (Oct. E01803.
2020) 107218, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2020.107218. [66] J.P. Carvalho, L. Bragança, R. Mateus, Sustainable building design: analysing the
[43] R. Santos, A. Aguiar Costa, J.D. Silvestre, L. Pyl, Development of a BIM-based feasibility of BIM platforms to support practical building sustainability
environmental and economic Life cycle assessment tool, J Clean Prod 265 (Aug. assessment, Comput Ind 127 (May 2021) 103400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2020) 121705, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121705. compind.2021.103400.
[44] B. Soust-Verdaguer, J.A. Gutiérrez Moreno, C. Llatas, Utilization of an automatic [67] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, L. Moya, Comparative BIM-based Life Cycle
tool for building material selection by integrating life cycle sustainability assessment of Uruguayan timber and concrete-masonry single-family houses in
assessment in the early design stages in BIM, Sustainability 15 (3) (Jan. 2023) design stage, J Clean Prod 277 (Dec. 2020) 121958, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
2274, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032274. JCLEPRO.2020.121958.
[45] A. Kamari, B.M. Kotula, C.P.L. Schultz, A BIM-based LCA tool for sustainable [68] D.M.A. Morsi, W.S.E. Ismaeel, A. Ehab, A.A.E. Othman, BIM-based life cycle
building design during the early design stage, Smart and Sustainable Built assessment for different structural system scenarios of a residential building, Ain

26
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

Shams Engineering Journal 13 (6) (Nov. 2022) 101802, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Developments in the Built Environment 16 (Dec. 2023) 100263, https://doi.org/
j.asej.2022.101802. 10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100263.
[69] S. Forastiere, C. Piselli, B. Pioppi, C. Balocco, F. Sciurpi, A.L. Pisello, Towards [93] J. Hunt, C.A. Osorio-Sandoval, Assessing embodied carbon in structural models: a
achieving zero carbon targets in building retrofits: a multi-parameter building building information modelling-based approach, Buildings 13 (7) (Jun. 2023)
information modeling (BIM) approach applied to a case study of a thermal bath, 1679, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071679.
Energies (Basel) 16 (12) (Jun. 2023) 4757, https://doi.org/10.3390/ [94] R. Santos, A.A. Costa, J.D. Silvestre, T. Vandenbergh, L. Pyl, BIM-based life cycle
en16124757. assessment and life cycle costing of an office building in Western Europe, Build
[70] D. Besana, D. Tirelli, Reuse and retrofitting strategies for a net zero carbon Environ 169 (Feb. 2020) 106568, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
building in Milan: an analytic evaluation, Sustainability 14 (23) (Dec. 2022) BUILDENV.2019.106568.
16115, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316115. [95] C. LLatas, B. Soust-Verdaguer, A. Hollberg, E. Palumbo, R. Quiñones, BIM-based
[71] H. Mohamed, et al., Life cycle impact assessment methodology for building LCSA application in early design stages using IFC, Autom Constr 138 (Jun. 2022)
envelope retrofits using photovoltaic systems in Egypt, Civil Engineering and 104259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104259.
Architecture 12 (2) (2024) 850–865, https://doi.org/10.13189/ [96] Ł. Mazur, A. Olenchuk, Life cycle assessment and building information modeling
CEA.2024.120214. integrated approach: carbon footprint of masonry and timber-frame constructions
[72] L. Felicioni, J. Gaspari, J. Veselka, Z. Malík, A comparative cradle-to-grave life in single-Family houses, Sustainability 15 (21) (Oct. 2023) 15486, https://doi.
cycle approach for addressing construction design choices: an applicative case org/10.3390/SU152115486. 2023, Vol. 15, Page 15486.
study for a residential tower in Aalborg, Denmark, Energy Build 298 (2023), [97] J. Xu, Y. Teng, W. Pan, Y. Zhang, BIM-integrated LCA to automate embodied
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113557. carbon assessment of prefabricated buildings, J Clean Prod 374 (Nov. 2022)
[73] M.A. Bragadin, L. Guardigli, M. Calistri, A. Ferrante, Demolishing or renovating? 133894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133894.
Life cycle analysis in the design process for building renovation: the ProGETonE [98] S. Ge, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, Integration of BIM and LCA: a system to predict and
case, Sustainability (Switzerland) 15 (11) (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/ optimise embodied carbon for prefabricated buildings, HKIE Transactions 30 (3)
su15118614. (2024) 44–55, https://doi.org/10.33430/V30N3THIE-2022-0052.
[74] N. Shibata, F. Sierra, A. Hagras, Integration of LCA and LCCA through BIM for [99] Y. Cang, Z. Luo, L. Yang, B. Han, A new method for calculating the embodied
optimized decision-making when switching from gas to electricity services in carbon emissions from buildings in schematic design: taking ‘building element’ as
dwellings, Energy Build 288 (Jun. 2023) 113000, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. basic unit, Build Environ 185 (Nov. 2020) 107306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2023.113000. buildenv.2020.107306.
[75] M.S.S. Lima, S. Duarte, H. Exenberger, G. Fröch, M. Flora, Integrating BIM-LCA to [100] A. Naneva, M. Bonanomi, A. Hollberg, G. Habert, D. Hall, Integrated BIM-based
enhance sustainability assessments of constructions, Sustainability (Switzerland) LCA for the entire building process using an existing structure for cost estimation
16 (3) (Feb. 2024) 1172, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16031172/S1. in the Swiss context, Sustainability 12 (9) (May 2020) 3748, https://doi.org/
[76] L. Ma, R. Azari, M. Elnimeiri, A building information modeling-based life cycle 10.3390/SU12093748. 2020, Vol. 12, Page 3748.
assessment of the embodied carbon and environmental impacts of high-rise [101] S. Lasvaux, G. Habert, B. Peuportier, J. Chevalier, Comparison of generic and
building structures: a case study, Sustainability (Switzerland) 16 (2) (2024), product-specific Life Cycle Assessment databases: application to construction
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020569. materials used in building LCA studies, International Journal of Life Cycle
[77] Q. Tushar, M.A. Bhuiyan, G. Zhang, T. Maqsood, An integrated approach of BIM- Assessment 20 (11) (Nov. 2015) 1473–1490, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-
enabled LCA and energy simulation: the optimized solution towards sustainable 015-0938-Z/TABLES/6.
development, J Clean Prod 289 (Mar. 2021) 125622, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [102] “ConstructionLCA’s 2024 guide to EPD by jane anderson - Infogram.” Accessed:
jclepro.2020.125622. Apr. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://infogram.com/constructionlcas
[78] C. Raposo, F. Rodrigues, H. Rodrigues, BIM-based LCA assessment of seismic -2024-guide-to-epd-1h0n25y5vrkoz6p?live.
strengthening solutions for reinforced concrete precast industrial buildings, [103] B. Soust-Verdaguer, E. Palumbo, C. LLatas, A.V. Acevedo, E. Hoxha, A. Passer,
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 4 (1) (Dec. 2019) 1–10, https://doi.org/ Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) of construction products in Spain:
10.1007/S41062-019-0239-7/FIGURES/9. current status and future challenges, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 1078 (1)
[79] T. Dalla Mora, E. Bolzonello, F. Peron, A. Carbonari, Integration of LCA Tools in (Sep. 2022) 012128, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012128.
BIM Toward a Regenerative Design, PLEA, 2018. [104] J. Anderson, A. Rønning, Using standards to maximise the benefit of digitisation
[80] M. Abouhamad and M. Abu-Hamd, “Life cycle environmental assessment of light of construction product Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) to reduce
steel framed buildings with cement-based walls and floors,” Sustainability 2020, building life cycle impacts, in: E3S Web of Conferences 349, May 2022 10003,
Vol. 12, Page 10686, vol. 12, no. 24, p. 10686, Dec. 2020, 10.3390/SU12241 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234910003.
0686. [105] A. Aragón, M.G. Alberti, Limitations of machine-interpretability of digital EPDs
[81] M. Jafari, A. Khoshand, N. Sadeghi, P.A. Mirzanagh, A comparative LCA of used for a BIM-based sustainability assessment of construction assets, Journal of
external wall assemblies in context of Iranian market: considering embodied and Building Engineering 96 (Nov. 2024) 110418, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
operational energy through BIM application, Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 31 (5) JOBE.2024.110418.
(Jan. 2024) 7364–7379, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-023-31451-2/ [106] Eprs, “Revision of the Construction Products Regulation”.
FIGURES/8. [107] B. Cheng, K. Lu, J. Li, H. Chen, X. Luo, M. Shafique, Comprehensive assessment of
[82] E.M. Atienza, J.M.C. Ongpeng, Environmental impact and cost comparison of embodied environmental impacts of buildings using normalized environmental
different partition walls, Chem Eng Trans 94 (2022) 691–696, https://doi.org/ impact factors, J Clean Prod 334 (Feb. 2022) 130083, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
10.3303/CET2294115. JCLEPRO.2021.130083.
[83] M.K. Najjar, K. Figueiredo, A.C.J. Evangelista, A.W.A. Hammad, V.W.Y. Tam, [108] L. Laurin, H. Dhaliwal, Life cycle Environmental Impact Assessment.
A. Haddad, Life cycle assessment methodology integrated with BIM as a decision- Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies, Jan. 2024, pp. 118–126, https://doi.
making tool at early-stages of building design, International Journal of org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90386-8.00120-0.
Construction Management 22 (4) (2022) 541–555, https://doi.org/10.1080/ [109] S. Parece, R. Resende, V. Rato, Current trends and challenges in BIM–LCA
15623599.2019.1637098. integration. Swarm Intelligence Applications For the Cities of the Future, Jan.
[84] L. Bowles, J. Attwood-Harris, R. Khan-Fitzgerald, B. Robinson, Y. Schwartz, The 2025, pp. 187–217, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781032656786-11.
Hawkins\Brown emission reduction tool, The Journal of Architecture 26 (1) (Jan. [110] H. Feng, D.R. Liyanage, H. Karunathilake, R. Sadiq, K. Hewage, BIM-based life
2021) 32–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2021.1887648. cycle environmental performance assessment of single-family houses: renovation
[85] M. Nehasilová, et al., Rapid environmental assessment of buildings: linking and reconstruction strategies for aging building stock in British Columbia, J Clean
environmental and cost estimating databases, Sustainability (Switzerland) 14 Prod 250 (Mar. 2020) 119543, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
(17) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710928. JCLEPRO.2019.119543.
[86] Z. Alwan, B.I. Jones, IFC-based embodied carbon benchmarking for early design [111] A. Dauletbek, P. Zhou, BIM-based LCA as a comprehensive method for the
analysis, Autom Constr 142 (2022) 104505. refurbishment of existing dwellings considering environmental compatibility,
[87] S. Sobhkhiz, H. Taghaddos, M. Rezvani, A.M. Ramezanianpour, Utilization of energy efficiency, and profitability: a case study in China, Journal of Building
semantic web technologies to improve BIM-LCA applications, Autom Constr 130 Engineering 46 (Apr. 2022) 103852, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(Oct. 2021) 103842, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2021.103842. jobe.2021.103852.
[88] F. Jalaei, R. Masoudi, G. Guest, A framework for specifying low-carbon [112] B. Soust-Verdaguer, J.A. Gutiérrez, C. Llatas, Development of a plug-In to support
construction materials in government procurement: a case study for concrete in a sustainability assessment in the decision-making of a building envelope
new building investment, J Clean Prod 345 (Apr. 2022) 131056, https://doi.org/ refurbishment, Buildings 13 (6) (Jun. 2023) 1472, https://doi.org/10.3390/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131056. buildings13061472.
[89] X. Deng, K. Lu, Multi-level assessment for embodied carbon of buildings using [113] S. Fenz, G. Giannakis, J. Bergmayr, S. Iousef, RenoDSS – A BIM-based building
multi-source industry foundation classes, Journal of Building Engineering 72 renovation decision support system, Energy Build 288 (Jun. 2023) 112999,
(Aug. 2023) 106705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.112999.
[90] M.M. Serrano-Baena, C. Ruiz-Díaz, P.G. Boronat, P. Mercader-Moyano, [114] S. Kim, H. Kim, J. Lee, T. Hong, K. Jeong, An integrated assessment framework of
Optimising LCA in complex buildings with MLCAQ: a BIM-based methodology for economic, environmental, and Human health impacts using scan-to-BIM and life-
automated multi-criteria materials selection, Energy Build 294 (Sep. 2023) cycle assessment in existing buildings, Journal of Management in Engineering 39
113219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113219. (5) (Sep. 2023) 04023034, https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5600.
[91] “BC3 File - FIEBDC-3 database File format.” Accessed: Feb. 15, 2025. [Online]. [115] J. Sadhukhan, S. Sen, S. Gadkari, The mathematics of life cycle sustainability
Available: https://docs.fileformat.com/database/bc3/. assessment, J Clean Prod 309 (Aug. 2021) 127457, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[92] K. Forth, A. Hollberg, A. Borrmann, BIM4EarlyLCA: an interactive visualization JCLEPRO.2021.127457.
approach for early design support based on uncertain LCA results using open BIM,

27
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

[116] C. Boje, et al., A framework using BIM and digital twins in facilitating LCSA for [138] P. Namaki, B.S. Vegesna, S. Bigdellou, R. Chen, Q. Chen, An integrated building
buildings, Journal of Building Engineering 76 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. information modeling and life-cycle assessment approach to facilitate design
jobe.2023.107232. decisions on sustainable building projects in Canada, Sustainability 16 (11) (Jun.
[117] H. Sameer, S. Bringezu, Building information modelling application of material, 2024) 4718, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16114718. 2024, Vol. 16, Page 4718.
water, and climate footprint analysis, Building Research and Information 49 (6) [139] P.F. Bianchi, V. Yepes, P.C. Vitorio, M. Kripka, Study of alternatives for the design
(2021) 593–612, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2020.1864266. of sustainable low-income housing in Brazil, Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (9)
[118] J.P. Carvalho, L. Bragança, R. Mateus, Automating building sustainability (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094757.
assessment using building information modelling: a case study, Journal of [140] M.V.A.P.M. Filho, B.B.F. da Costa, M. Najjar, K.V. Figueiredo, M.B. de Mendonça,
Building Engineering 76 (Oct. 2023) 107228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A.N. Haddad, Sustainability assessment of a low-income building: a BIM-LCSA-
jobe.2023.107228. FAHP-based analysis, Buildings 12 (2) (Feb. 2022) 181, https://doi.org/10.3390/
[119] C. Llatas, R. Quiñones, N. Bizcocho, Environmental impact assessment of buildings12020181.
construction waste recycling versus disposal scenarios using an LCA-BIM tool [141] K. Figueiredo, R. Pierott, A.W.A. Hammad, A. Haddad, Sustainable material
during the design stage, Recycling 7 (6) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/ choice for construction projects: a Life cycle Sustainability Assessment framework
recycling7060082. based on BIM and Fuzzy-AHP, Build Environ 196 (Jun. 2021) 107805, https://
[120] S. Su, S. Li, J. Ju, Q. Wang, Z. Xu, A building information modeling-based tool for doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107805.
estimating building demolition waste and evaluating its environmental impacts, [142] D. Han, M. Kalantari, A. Rajabifard, The development of an integrated BIM-based
Waste Management 134 (2021) 159–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. visual demolition waste management planning system for sustainability-oriented
wasman.2021.07.025. decision-making, J Environ Manage 351 (Feb. 2024) 119856, https://doi.org/
[121] S. Kim, S.-A. Kim, A design support tool based on building information modeling 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2023.119856.
for design for deconstruction: a graph-based deconstructability assessment [143] S.M. Zolfaghari, O. Pons, J. Nikolic, Sustainability assessment model for mass
approach, J Clean Prod 383 (Jan. 2023) 135343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. housing’s interior rehabilitation and its validation to Ekbatan, Iran, Journal of
jclepro.2022.135343. Building Engineering 65 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105685.
[122] A. Guerriero, F. Busio, M. Saidani, C. Boje, N. Mack, Combining building [144] B. Soust-Verdaguer, J.A. Gutiérrez Moreno, D. Cagigas, E. Hoxha, C. Llatas,
information model and life cycle assessment for defining circular economy Supporting sustainability assessment of building element materials using a BIM-
strategies, Sustainability 16 (11) (May 2024) 4561, https://doi.org/10.3390/ plug-in for multi-criteria decision-making, Journal of Building Engineering 97
SU16114561. 2024, Vol. 16, Page 4561. (Nov. 2024) 110818, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2024.110818.
[123] V.J.L. Gan, K. Li, M. Li, L.B.E. Halfian, 3D reconstruction of building information [145] N. Di Santo, L.Guante Henriquez, G. Dotelli, M. Imperadori, Holistic approach for
models with weakly-supervised learning for carbon emission modelling in the assessing buildings’ Environmental impact and user comfort from early design: a
built environment, Appl Energy 377 (Jan. 2025) 124695, https://doi.org/ method combining life cycle assessment, BIM, and active house protocol,
10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.124695. Buildings 13 (5) (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051315.
[124] Q. Sun, Q. Huang, Z. Duan, A. Zhang, Recycling potential comparison of mass [146] I. Vázquez-Rowe, C. Córdova-Arias, X. Brioso, S. Santa-Cruz, A method to include
timber constructions and concrete buildings: a case study in China, Sustainability life cycle assessment results in choosing by advantage (Cba) multicriteria decision
(Switzerland) 14 (10) (May 2022) 6174, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14106174/ analysis. A case study for seismic retrofit in peruvian primary schools,
S1. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (15) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/
[125] Y. Zhang, X. Jiang, C. Cui, M. Skitmore, BIM-based approach for the integrated su13158139.
assessment of life cycle carbon emission intensity and life cycle costs, Build [147] S.A. Sharif, A. Hammad, Simulation-based Multi-Objective optimization of
Environ 226 (Dec. 2022) 109691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. institutional building renovation considering energy consumption, life-cycle cost
buildenv.2022.109691. and life-cycle assessment, Journal of Building Engineering 21 (Jan. 2019)
[126] K. Lu, X. Deng, OpenBIM driven marginal abatement cost of low-carbon measures 429–445, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2018.11.006.
in building design, Appl Energy 377 (Jan. 2025) 124477, https://doi.org/ [148] M. Motalebi, A. Rashidi, M.M. Nasiri, Optimization and BIM-based lifecycle
10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124477. assessment integration for energy efficiency retrofit of buildings, Journal of
[127] R.S.J. Tol, The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment Building Engineering 49 (May 2022) 104022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
of the uncertainties, Energy Policy 33 (16) (Nov. 2005) 2064–2074, https://doi. jobe.2022.104022.
org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2004.04.002. [149] H. Atashbar, E. Noorzai, Optimization of exterior wall cladding materials for
[128] M. Heydari, G. Heravi, A BIM-based framework for optimization and assessment residential buildings using the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
of buildings’ cost and carbon emissions, Journal of Building Engineering 79 (Nov. (NSGAII) based on the integration of building information modeling (BIM) and
2023) 107762, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107762. life cycle assessment (LCA) for energy consumption: a case study, Sustainability
[129] V. Rostamiasl, A. Jrade, Integrating building information modeling (BIM) and life 15 (21) (Nov. 2023) 15647, https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115647.
cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to evaluate the economic benefits of designing aging- [150] A. Kanyilmaz, P.R.N. Tichell, D. Loiacono, A genetic algorithm tool for conceptual
In-place homes at the conceptual stage, Sustainability 16 (13) (Jul. 2024) 5743, structural design with cost and embodied carbon optimization, Eng Appl Artif
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16135743. 2024, Vol. 16, Page 5743. Intell 112 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104711.
[130] K. Lu, X. Deng, OpenBIM-based assessment for social cost of carbon through [151] S. Abbasi, E. Noorzai, The BIM-based multi-optimization approach in order to
building life cycle, Sustain Cities Soc 99 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. determine the trade-off between embodied and operation energy focused on
scs.2023.104871. renewable energy use, J Clean Prod 281 (Jan. 2021) 125359, https://doi.org/
[131] K. Slavkovic, A. Stephan, Dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings and building 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.125359.
stocks – A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 212 (Apr. 2025) [152] M. Sandberg, J. Mukkavaara, F. Shadram, T. Olofsson, Multidisciplinary
115262, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2024.115262. optimization of life-cycle energy and cost using a BIM-based master model,
[132] X. Su, Y. Huang, C. Chen, Z. Xu, S. Tian, L. Peng, A dynamic life cycle assessment Sustainability 11 (1) (Jan. 2019) 286, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010286.
model for long-term carbon emissions prediction of buildings: a passive building [153] M. Najjar, K. Figueiredo, M. Palumbo, A. Haddad, Integration of BIM and LCA:
as case study, Sustain Cities Soc 96 (Sep. 2023) 104636, https://doi.org/10.1016/ evaluating the environmental impacts of building materials at an early stage of
J.SCS.2023.104636. designing a typical office building, Journal of Building Engineering 14 (Nov.
[133] T. Yang, Y. Dong, B. Tang, Z. Xu, Developing a dynamic life cycle assessment 2017) 115–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2017.10.005.
framework for buildings through integrating building information modeling and [154] Q. Tushar, G. Zhang, M.A. Bhuiyan, S. Navaratnam, F. Giustozzi, L. Hou, Retrofit
building energy modeling program, Science of The Total Environment 946 (Oct. of building façade using precast sandwich panel: an integrated thermal and
2024) 174284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174284. environmental assessment on BIM-based LCA, Buildings 12 (12) (Nov. 2022)
[134] F. Jalaei, G. Guest, A. Gaur, J. Zhang, Exploring the effects that a non-stationary 2098, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122098.
climate and dynamic electricity grid mix has on whole building life cycle [155] S.R. Hassan, N.A. Megahed, O.M. Abo Eleinen, A.M. Hassan, Toward a national
assessment: a multi-city comparison, Sustain Cities Soc 61 (2020), https://doi. life cycle assessment tool: generative design for early decision support, Energy
org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102294. Build 267 (Jul. 2022) 112144, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[135] P. Newberry, P. Harper, J. Norman, Carbon assessment of building shell options ENBUILD.2022.112144.
for eco self-build community housing through the integration of building energy [156] Y. Zhou, V.W. Tam, K.N. Le, Developing a multi-objective optimization model for
modelling and life cycle analysis tools, Journal of Building Engineering 70 (Jul. improving building’s environmental performance over the whole design process,
2023) 106356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106356. Build Environ 246 (Dec. 2023) 110996, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[136] A.H. Taher, E.E. Elbeltagi, Integrating building information modeling with value BUILDENV.2023.110996.
engineering to facilitate the selection of building design alternatives considering [157] C. Zong, M. Margesin, J. Staudt, F. Deghim, W. Lang, Decision-making under
sustainability, International Journal of Construction Management 23 (11) (2023) uncertainty in the early phase of building façade design based on multi-objective
1886–1901, https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.2021465. stochastic optimization, Build Environ 226 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[137] M.A. Abdelaal, S.M. Seif, M.M. El-Tafesh, N. Bahnas, M.M. Elserafy, E. buildenv.2022.109729.
S. Bakhoum, Sustainable assessment of concrete structures using BIM–LCA–AHP [158] Y. Chen, S. Gallardo, A multi-objective optimization method for the design of a
integrated approach, Environ Dev Sustain (Aug. 2023) 1–20, https://doi.org/ sustainable house in Ecuador by assessing LCC and LCEI, Sustainability 16 (1)
10.1007/S10668-023-03701-3/FIGURES/7. (Dec. 2023) 168, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16010168. 2024, Vol. 16, Page 168.

28
S. Parece et al. Building and Environment 282 (2025) 113248

[159] A. Martínez-Rocamora, C. Rivera-Gómez, C. Galán-Marín, M. Marrero, [166] G.M. Zanghelini, E. Cherubini, S.R. Soares, How Multi-criteria decision analysis
Environmental benchmarking of building typologies through BIM-based (MCDA) is aiding Life cycle assessment (LCA) in results interpretation, J Clean
combinatorial case studies, Autom Constr 132 (Dec. 2021) 103980, https://doi. Prod 172 (Jan. 2018) 609–622, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103980. JCLEPRO.2017.10.230.
[160] H. Harter, M.M. Singh, P. Schneider-Marin, W. Lang, P. Geyer, Uncertainty [167] K. Deb, A. Pratap, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,
analysis of life cycle energy assessment in early stages of design, Energy Build 208 ieeexplore.ieee.orgK Deb, A Pratap,S Agarwal, T MeyarivanIEEE transactions on
(Feb. 2020) 109635, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2019.109635. evolutionary computation, 2002•ieeexplore.ieee.org 6 (2) (2002) 2002. Accessed:
[161] Y. Zhou, V.W. Tam, K.N. Le, Sensitivity analysis of design variables in life-cycle Jan. 23, 2025. [Online]Available, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/documen
environmental impacts of buildings, Journal of Building Engineering 65 (Apr. t/996017/.
2023) 105749, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.105749. [168] K. Guo, L. Zhang, Multi-objective optimization for improved project management:
[162] X.J. Li, J. yu Lai, C. yun Ma, C. Wang, Using BIM to research carbon footprint current status and future directions, Autom Constr 139 (Jul. 2022) 104256,
during the materialization phase of prefabricated concrete buildings: a China https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2022.104256.
study, J Clean Prod 279 (Jan. 2021) 123454, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. [169] Built Environment Carbon Database. Accessed: Jun. 09, 2025. [Online].
JCLEPRO.2020.123454. Available: https://www.becd.co.uk/.
[163] Z. Szalay, et al., Development of a life cycle net zero carbon compact house [170] E. Noroozinejad, A. Hajirasouli, G.M. Morrison, M. Kagioglou, J. Patil, M.
concept, Energy Reports 8 (Nov. 2022) 12987–13013, https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Kalantari, Automatic scan-to-BIM—the impact of semantic segmentation
EGYR.2022.09.197. accuracy, Buildings 15(7) 1126, 10.3390/BUILDINGS15071126.
[164] Y. Gao, J. Wang, T.W. Yiu, Multi-information integration-based life cycle analysis [171] G. Guignone, J.L. Calmon, D. Vieira, A. Bravo, BIM and LCA integration
of greenhouse gas emissions for prefabricated construction: a case study of methodologies: a critical analysis and proposed guidelines, Journal of Building
Shenzhen, Environ Impact Assess Rev 104 (Jan. 2024) 107330, https://doi.org/ Engineering 73 (Aug. 2023) 106780, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
10.1016/J.EIAR.2023.107330. JOBE.2023.106780.
[165] P. Schneider-Marin, H. Harter, K. Tkachuk, W. Lang, Uncertainty analysis of [172] M. Röck et al., “Towards embodied carbon benchmarks for buildings in Europe -
embedded energy and greenhouse gas emissions using BIM in early design stages, #2 setting the baseline: a bottom-up approach,” Mar. 2022. 10.5281/ZENODO.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (7) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ 5895051.
su12072633.

29