SUSTAINABILITY MODULE VALUESBASED DECISION MAKING Why Sustainability Population

SUSTAINABILITY MODULE: VALUESBASED DECISION MAKING

Why Sustainability? Population World population expected to exceed 9 million by 2050. Human Needs Food, Water, Health, Shelter, and Energy. Resource Consumption • • • Carbon emissions & climate change Air and water pollution Solid waste accumulation Deforestation Loss of Habitat and Biodiversity

What is Sustainable Development? “Development that meets the needs and Economy aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own Environment Society needs. ” World Commission on Environmental Development

How? Systems Thinking Collaboration • Stakeholders • Multidisciplinary Engineering Judgement • Values-based Decision Making • Assessing and Mitigating Risk

Systems Thinking A system is a collection of interrelated components working together towards some common objective. 5 Basic Elements • • • Purpose Boundary Components Linkages Performance Environment Inputs Outputs Boundary Interrelated Components

Systems Thinking Purpose - Explicitly defined objective(s) of the system. Boundary – Separates the system from the “outside world” Components – Operating parts of a system that give rise to system attributes. Linkages – Economic, Environmental, and Social effects of system on outside. Performance – Measures effectiveness of system based on system purpose.

Sustainability in Action

Pervious Pavement Benefits: • • Reduced storm water runoff Increased groundwater recharge Reduced pollutant transport Aesthetic Limitations: • Maintenance and Serviceability • Limited to gentle slopes (<5%) • Cannot be used in heavy loaded areas © SE Cement

Triple Glazed, Fiberglass Framed Windows Benefits: • • Improved thermal insulation Better resistance to condensation Noise reduction Energy Savings © SE Cement Limitations: • Greater cost • Extra weight, but supported by Fiberglass • Payback period 10 -20 years © Eco Brooklyn

Engineering Judgement Often there is no single answer to engineering problems. Engineers must be comfortable with applying sound judgement to subjective decisions. �Values-based Decision Making i. e. Multi-criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) �Assessing and Mitigating Risk i. e. Risk Register ��

Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix Analysis: 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria 3. Criteria Measures 6. Normalize Decision Matrix 5. Initial Decision Matrix 4. Criteria Weights

Simple MCDM Example Determine the preferred option for a bridge design using the MCDM method. The following design requires the choice of: 1. Primary Structural Material 2. Structural Support System 3. Number of Off-Ramps Design Domain

1. Determine Design Options A: Steel Bridge, 2 Columns, 2 Ramps B: Steel Bridge, 2 Columns, 4 Ramps C: Concrete Bridge, 3 Columns, 2 Ramps D: Timber Bridge, 2 Columns, 2 Ramps � These design options would typically be determined during the preliminary design phase. 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

2. Determine Design Criteria • • • Cost Safety Durability Traffic Flow Embodied Carbon Use of Local Labor & Materials 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria We will need to take inverse of these two criteria. 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

3. Determine Criteria Measures Cost Safety Durability Traffic Flow Embodied Carbon Use of Local Labor & Materials 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria 1/Net Present Worth ($) Acceptable, Good, Excellent Service Life (years) Vehicles/Hour Thousands of Tons of CO 2 Low, Average, High 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

4. Assign Weights to Criteria Weights • Criteria weights developed with stakeholder input. • The Σ must equal 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria Cost Safety Durability Traffic Flow Embodied Carbon Use of Local Labor & Materials 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 0. 2 0. 15 0. 1 Σ = 1. 0 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

5. Create Initial Decision Matrix Criteria Cost ($ Net Present Worth) 1/Cost Weight 0. 2 A B C D $5, 000 $6, 500, 000 $4, 500, 000 $7, 000 0. 0000002 1. 53846 E-07 2. 22222 E-07 1. 42857 E-07 Safety 0. 2 Good Excellent Good Durability (years) 0. 15 40 35 50 40 Traffic Flow (veh/hr) 0. 2 1000 2000 1000 75 85 80 10 0. 013333333 0. 011764706 0. 0125 0. 1 Low Average High Embodied Carbon (k. T of CO 2) 1/Embodied Carbon 0. 15 Use of Local Labour/Materials 0. 1 1. Design Options 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 2. Design Criteria 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

6. Normalize Decision Matrix • 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

Score: 0. 20 0. 43 0. 39 0. 30 6. Normalize Decision Matrix For each column, each entry is multiplied by criteria weights and then summed. Criteria 1/Cost Safety Durability Traffic Flow 1/Embodied Carbon Use of Local Labor/Materials Weight 0. 2 0. 15 A 0. 72 0. 00 0. 33 0. 00 0. 02 B 0. 14 1. 00 0. 00 C 1. 00 0. 01 D 0. 00 0. 33 0. 00 1. 00 0. 1 Score: 0. 00 0. 20 0. 00 0. 43 0. 38 0. 39 1. 00 0. 30 �B is the preferred option. 1. Design Options 2. Design Criteria 3. Criteria Measures 4. Criteria Weights 5. Initial Decision Matrix 6. Normalize Decision Matrix

Additional Comments on MCDM Analysis • MCDM is a decision support tool, not an absolute. • Understand that the analysis may be nuanced. • Objective scores should be supported with reasoning.

Case Study: Olympic Stadium → Constructed for 2012 London Olympic Games. → 80, 000 person capacity for the games. → Flexibility to transform into smaller capacity venue of 25, 000 after the games. Before-class Exercise: Create a table of criteria that planners of the stadium likely considered during the stadium design. Source: Olympic Delivery Authority

Case Study: MCDM Criteria

C 1. Safety C 2. Functionality C 1. 1 Structural safety against fire C 1. 2 Safety measures in construction process C 1. 3 Safety during maintenance and operation of stadium C 1. 4 Safety measures during deconstruction C 2. 1 C 2. 2 C 2. 3 C 2. 4 C 2. 5 C 2. 6 C 2. 7 C 2. 8 C 2. 9 Performance of building in use Constructability Quality of internal environment Durability Flexibility of Additions Ease of maintenance Auxiliary services Aesthetic Deconstructability

C 3. Society C 4. Environment C 3. 0 External mobility C 3. 1 Respect for urban environment C 3. 2 Social acceptance and engagement C 3. 3 Use of local labor C 3. 4 Improving social equity C 4. 1 Integration in natural environment C 4. 2 Environmental impact during construction C 4. 3 Waste management during operation C 4. 4 Impact of materials from demolition C 4. 5 Use of local materials C 4. 6 Freshwater use C 4. 7 Impact on biodiversity in area

C 5. Economy C 5. 1 Building construction cost C 5. 2 Construction duration C 5. 3 Maintenance Cost C 5. 4 Deconstruction cost What were your MCDM criteria? How can you implement this tool in Capstone?