APPLICATION OF DEA FOR INCREASING THE GREENESS OF NEW

CONSTRUCTIONS
G.S.Vyasa*, D.S.varmab,K.N.Jhac
a
Department of CE,Faculty of technical education,College Of Engineering Pune,Pune,411005,India
b
Department of Civil Engineering,PG student,College Of Engineering Pune,Pune,411005,India
c
Department of CE, Faculty of Technical educationIndian Institute Of Technology,Delhi,India

Abstract-Green building is also known as green construction or sustainable building is the practice of creating structures and
using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource efficient throughout a buildings life-cycle; from sitting to
design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition. The purpose of this work is to prioritize the greenness
factors by using AHP and find their efficiencies by DEA. AHP is a multiple criteria decision-making tool that has been used in
almost all the applications related with decision-making. The factors are taken from the different green building rating systems in
India. The built environment has a profound impact on our natural environment, economy, health and productivity. The results
are taken from the valid responses of 25 experts in the relating field. Data envelopment analysis helps in finding the efficiency of
the factors which are selected based on the cost factor. For the DEA process we used EMS 1.3 software for finding the
efficiencies of the factors.

Keywords: green buildings,AHP,sustainable buildings,rating systems,DEA, EMS.

1. INTRODUCTION

Today more than 80% of human life is spent in the concrete jungle, either in homes, offices, restaurants, or theaters. We are
gripped by the cements clutters everywhere we go. May be this is the reason for the increasing progress rate of this industry. The
construction industry is gaining momentum every passing day. Every going day we see new improvements in the field. Every day
we read and hear about new construction venture promising a dream house, or ideal office or showroom setup with utmost luxury
and comfort. The latest in the list is the eco-friendly construction; popularly and subjectively know as green building construction.
Green building is the revolutionary development practice centered upon the mission of creating buildings which apply an
increased efficiency of resources such as energy, water and materials. In turn, green building reduces building impacts on human
health and the environment by implementing improved site location, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal
encompassing the complete life cycle of building because they are using the recycled materials and using materials that are eco-
friendly throughout. Natural building is a similar concept, which usually operates on a smaller scale and tends to focus on the use
of locally available natural materials. The Related concepts of sustainable development and sustainability are integral to green
building. Practitioners of green building often seek to achieve not only ecological but aesthetic harmony between a structure and
its surrounding natural and built environment , although the appearance and style of sustainable buildings is not necessary
distinguishable from their sustainable counterparts. The built environment has a profound impact on our natural environment,
economy, health and productivity. Breakthroughs in building science, technology and operations are now available to designers,
builders, operators and owners who want to build green and maximize both economic and environmental performance. Natural
building is a similar concept, which usually operates on a smaller scale and tends to focus on the use of locally available natural
materials. The Related concepts of sustainable development and sustainability are integral to green building. Practitioners of green
building often seek to achieve not only ecological but aesthetic harmony between a structure and its surrounding natural and built
environment , although the appearance and style of sustainable buildings is not necessary distinguishable from their sustainable
counterparts. Generally, green buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and non-toxic, with high-quality spaces
and high-recycled content materials.

2. CONCEPT OF GREEN BUILDINGS IN INDIA

Following the formation of the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) in 2001, the membership quickly realised that one of the
priorities for the sustainable building industry was to have a system to define and measure green buildings. Since the CII-Godrej
GBC achieved the prestigious LEED rating for its own centre at Hyderabad in 2003, the Green Building Movement has gained
tremendous momentum. The Platinum rating awarded for this building sparked off considerable enthusiasm in the country. Today
a variety of LEED rated green building projects are coming up in the country residential complexes, exhibition centres,
hospitals, educational institutions, laboratories, IT parks, airports, government buildings and corporate offices.

A green building may cost more up front, but saves through lower operating costs over the life of the building. The green building
approach applies a project life cycle cost analysis for determining the appropriate up-front expenditure. . Some benefits, such as
improving occupant health, comfort, productivity, reducing pollution and landfill waste are not easily quantified. For this reason,
consider setting aside a small portion of the building budget to cover differential costs associated with less tangible green building
benefits or to cover the cost of researching and analyzing green building options. Even with a tight budget, many green building
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 919423964848
E-mail address: gayatrivyas1@gmail.com.
1
measures can be incorporated with minimal or zero increased up-front costs and they can yield enormous savings (Environmental
Building News, 1999).

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

The research adopted Hierarchy design strategy that involves a pair wise comparison of elements. These approaches include
fieldwork approach (pilot study, survey), questionnaire, interviews structured and unstructured.

To determine the initial set of variables that would inform the qualitative interview guide, the factors of different green building
rating systems in India are considered.

The review focused greenness factors that can be achieved in limited funds for new construction building, the data is collected by

- Unstructured (informal) interviews by visiting the green buildings already constructed.

- Structured interviews (questionnaire) with the expert person in this field.

- Observation of the situation of the residential buildings from different aspects.

The information generated in this pre-test investigation informed the conversational guide and interview process. In addition, it
informed the decision to determine the main factors that should be concentrated. The overall approach of the research assumed
conducting interviews structured and non-structured within focus group to identify the factors that should be involved in the
questionnaire and to define weighting for each of them. The focus group includes; fresh graduate architects, designers,
consultants, members of IGBC.

3.2. Data collection procedure

Individual and group interviews that were employed in this research are considered as a convenient way to collect data from
several people. This method allows each person to respond to question, then asking questions, exchanging comments according to
her/his experiences and points of view. The interviews used the AHP form of questionnaire. A 30 questionnaire were circulated
and in which 25 valid responses are considered. In addition, the researcher could refine the questionnaire as participants had the
right to alter the factors. This method of data collection is useful in explaining results and examining what people think, how they
think and why they think that way as the researcher met the recipients face to face and discussed the factors with them. The
interviews took place wherever and whenever suitable for the participant, after she or he agreed to be interviewed personally.
During the interviewing process, the researcher established clear roles of answering with the respondents.

20

15

10
Working experience
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Respondents

Fig.1 Graph showing working experience of the respondents

4. Analytical Hierarchy Process

Analytic Hierarchy Process is a multiple criteria decision-making tool. This is an Eigen value approach to the pair-wise
comparisons. It also provides a methodology to calibrate the numeric scale for the measurement of quantitative as well as
qualitative performances. The scale ranges from 1/9 for least valued than, to 1 for equal and to 9 for absolutely more important
than covering the entire spectrum of the comparison. Some key and basic steps involve d in this methodology are:

Step 1: Determine the objective and the evaluation attributes. Develop a hierarchical structure with goal or objective at
the top level, the criteria at the second level and sub-criteria at the third level.
Step 2: Determine the relative importance of different attributes with respect to goal.

2
 2.1: Construct a pair-wise comparison matrix using a scale of relative importance. The judgements are entered using
fundamental scale of AHP (Saaty 1980, 2000) Compare each element in the corresponding level and calibrate
them on the numerical scale. This requires n (n-1)/2 comparisons, where n is the number of elements with the
considerations that diagonal elements are equal or1and the other elements will simply be the reciprocals of the
earlier comparisons.
2.2: Find relative normalised weight of each attribute by calculating geometric mean of rows of the comparison
matrix and normalising the geometric means of rows in the comparison matrix.
2.3: Determine maximum Eigen value max.
2.4: Calculate consistency index CI= (max M) / (M-1). Smaller the value of CI, the smaller is the deviation from
the consistency.
2.5: Consistency ratio is calculated by using formula CR = CI/RI. Random Index (RI) is obtained from Saatys RI
table. CR should be less than or equal to 0.1(CR0.1).

Greenness factors Goal

Criteria

Site selection Efficient use Energy Materials Indoor

of water performance environment

Preserve and Water efficient Recycled Indoor air

protect land land scaping materials quality
scape
Rapidly
Water use renewable Low voc paints
Soil reduction materials
conservation
Controllability of
Storm Use of systems and
Conservation water lighting
regional
of natural usage materials
habitat
Thermal
Utilization comfort
Percentage of of fly ash in
pervious land building Day light space
structures
Increased
ventilation
Sub- criteria

Fig.2: Hierarchical structure

4.2 Results of Analytical Hierarchy Process

The greenness factors selected are site selection, efficient use of water, materials used for construction, energy performance and
indoor air quality and the other sub criteria factors are preserve and protection of landscape, soil conservation, conservation of
natural habitat, percentage of pervious land, water efficient landscaping, water use reduction, storm water usage, recycled
materials, rapidly renewable materials, use of regional materials, utilization of fly ash, Indoor air quality, low voc paints,
controllability of systems and lighting, thermal comfort, day light space, increased ventilation.

Greenness factors

Energy
Site Efficient use of water performance Materials
Indoor environment
selection
Fig.3: Greenness factors

3
The greenness factors are ranked by using the mentioned AHP process and the results are shown on the Fig.4

The consistency ratio obtained is 0.06 which is less than 0.1. Hence the condition is satisfied.

Greeness factors

Site selection; 10%

Indoor environment; 20%

Efficient use of water; 24%

Materials; 14%

Energy performance; 32%

Fig.4: Results of Greeness factors

The weights of the greenness factors obtained are:

Table1: Weights of greenness factors

Factors Weights

Site selection 0.524897

Efficient use of water 1.248436

Energy performance 1.7005

Materials 0.739682

Indoor environment 1.069882

All these results are obtained by keeping in mind of the limited funds factor

The sub factors of the site selection are preserve and protect landscape, soil conservation, conservation of natural habitat,
percentage of pervious land.

Site selection

Preserve and protect Soil conservation Conservation of natural Percentage of pervious

landscape habitat land

Fig.5: Site selection sub factors

4
The consistency ratio obtained by applying AHP to the sub factors of the site selection is 0.003 which is less than 0.1. The results
are shown in the Fig.6

Site selection

Preserve and protect land scape; 9%

Soil conservation; 14%

Percentage of pervious land; 55%

Conservation of natural habitit; 21%

Fig.6: Results of Site selection sub factors

The weights of sub factors of the site selection are

Table 2: Weights of site selection sub factors

Factors Weights

Preserve and protect landscape

0.471083
Soil conservation
0.721419
Conservation of natural habitat
1.062411
Percentage of pervious land
2.757215

The sub factors of the efficient use of water are water efficient landscaping, storm water usage, water use reduction.

Efficient use of water

Water efficient landscaping Strom water usage Water use reduction

Fig.7: Efficient use of water sub factors

The consistency ratio is 0.07 the results are shown in Fig.8

5
 Efficient use of water

Water efficent landscaping; 11%

Storm nwater usage; 39%

Water use reduction; 51%

Fig.8: Results of Efficient use of water sub factors

The weights obtained are:

Table 3Weights of efficient use of water sub factors

Factors Weights

Water efficient landscaping

0.314913
Water use reduction 1.524486
Storm water usage 1.166244

The sub factors of the materials are recycled materials, rapidly renewable materials, use of regional materials, utilization of fly
ash.

Materials

Recycled materials Rapidly renewable Use of Regional Utilization of fly ash

materials materials

Fig.9 Materials sub factors

6
The consistenceny ratio obtained is 0.05 which is less than 0.1. The results are show in Fig.10

Materials

Recycled materials; 11%

Utilization of fly ash in building structures; 33%

Rapidly renewable amterials; 15%

Use of regional materilas; 41%

Fig.10: Results of materail sub factots

The Weights of the materail sub factors are

Table 4: Weight of materials sub factors

Factors Weights
Recycled materials 0.443613
Rapidly renewable materials 0.705766
Use of regional materials 1.397635
Utilization of fly ash in building structures 1.525685

The subfactors of the indoor environment are indoor air quality, low voc paints, controllabilty of systems and lightings, thermal
comfort, daylight space, increased ventilation

Indoor environment

Indoor air quality Low voc paints Controllability Thermal comfort Day light space Increased
of systems and ventilation
lighting

Fig.11: Indoor environment sub factors

The consistency ratio obtained is 0.07. The results are shown in Fig.12.

7
 Indoor environment

Indoor air qality; 12%

Increased ventilation; 19%
Low voc paints; 14%
Day light space; 13%

Controllability of systems and lighting; 20%

Thermal comfort; 22%

Fig.12: Results of Indoor environment sub factors

The weights obtained are

Table 5: Weights of indoor environment sub factors

Factors Weights
Indoor air quality 1.147578
Low voc paints 0.770301
Controllability of systems & lighting 1.702347
Thermal comfort 1.817364
Day light space 0.769864
Increased ventilation 1.347376

5. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology

DEA is used for measurement of efficiency amongst the data available. DEA is nonparametric method of measuring the efficiency
of decision making units (DMUs) (Ray, 2004). In DEA, efficiency is defined as a weighted sum of outputs to a weighted sum of
inputs. DEA only gives relative efficiencies - efficiencies relative to the data considered. Efficient frontier encompasses the given
input and output data. An efficiency measure quantifies in one way or another the distance to the efficient frontier. All efficiencies
are restricted to lie between zero and one (i.e. between 0% and 100%). In calculating the numerical value for the efficiency of a
particular Decision Making Units (DMU) weights are chosen so as maximize its efficiency, thereby presenting the DMU in the
best possible light.[26]

Steps for application of DEA for efficiency score determination

(a) Decide the decision making units (DMUs)

(b) Selection of input/output variables for DEA and running DEA model
(c) Selection of appropriate DEA model
(d) Running DEA model and determining efficiency scores for factors.

5.2 Application of DEA in present study

5.2.1 Selection of variables for DEA[21]

8
For the selection of decision making units the main criteria is limited fund factor. We should able to get more greenness points
with spending fewer amounts. The factors that are selected are shown in the table 6. The reasons for the inclusion of the factors
are also provided in the table 6. The other factors affecting the greenness are also included in the table 6. The variables decided to
be used in DEA are: (i) Cost involved in each factor, (ii) Area of the site, (iii) Maintenance cost of each factor.

Table 6: List of variables used in DEA

Sl. No. The possible variable Whether considered Remarks/ reasons for exclusion
for DEA analysis
1 Energy performance Yes In this if we invest the possible points obtained
can easily increased
2 Water use reduction Yes Amount required is less and most of the cost is
included in the pre requisite
3 Strom water usage Yes For efficient water use
4 Water efficient landscaping Yes Amount required is less and most of the cost is
included in the pre requisite
5 Thermal comfort Yes It can be done during the design stage which
includes less cost
6 Controllability of lights Yes It is related to the energy performance factor
7 Increased ventilation Yes It is done at the design phase with which more
sun light is allowed
8 Low voc paints Yes In this the cost involved is less and the health of
the occupant is related to this
9 Use of regional materials Yes This helps in cutting down the building materials
cost
10 Utilization of fly ash Yes This helps in saving money during the
construction of walls
11 Rapidly renewable materials Yes These are eco friendly materials and very cost
effective
12 Alternative transportation No It depends on the locality of the site

13 Alternative transportation No This factor involves more cost

(low emitting and fuel
efficient)

14 Green power No This is not possible when we consider limited

funds

15 Out door air delivery No It involves more cost

management

16 Brown field redevelopment No We are considering limited funds

In the table 6 the columns 1 shows the DMUs selected and the column 2,3 and 4 shows the input variables and the column 5
shows the output variables.

5.2.2 DEA model selection

After selection of the input/output variables it is necessary to determine the returns to scale experienced by the DMUs under
investigation. According to Ozbek et al. (2010a), DEA models can be mainly classified into the model experiencing constant
returns to scale CCR formulation (Charnes-Cooper- Rhodes) or the model experie ncing variable returns to scale
BCC formulation (Banker-Charnes-Cooper).We use the model CCR, constant returns to scale, output increases by the same
proportional change of each proportional increase in the input.

5.3 Efficiency Measurement System (EMS)[19]

9
Efficiency Measurement System (EMS) is software which computes Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) efficiency measures.
EMS is used for the determination of efficiency scores of the greenness factors. The output of the DEA model includes efficiency
scores and benchmarks.

5.3.1 Preparing the input and output data

The first and probably most difficult step in an efficiency evaluation is to decide which input and output data should be included.
EMS accepts data in MS Excel or in text format.

Using MS Excel files :

EMS accepts Excel 97 (and older) files (*.xls). The input output data should be collected in one worksheet. Dont use formulas in
this sheet, it should only contain the pure data and nothing else. EMS needs the following data format:
The name of the worksheet must be Data.
The first line contains the input/output names. First inputs, then outputs.
Input names contain the string {I}.
Output names contain the string {O}.
The first column contains the DMU names

The prepared excel sheet is shown in Fig 5.1

Fig 13: Excel sheet for EMS

In the fig 13 the first column shows the DMUs and the second, third and fourth shows the input variables and the fifth column
shows the output variables.

5.3.2 Steps for running the EMS 1.3 software

1. Preparing the excel sheet as per the EMS criteria.
2. Load the data in the EMS software.
3. Run the DEA model.
4. Save the results.

5.4 Output of the DEA model

The following table 7 shows the result of the DEA model.
10
 Table 7: Results of DEA model

S.No. DMU Efficiency score Ranking based on efficiency score Benchmarks

(3) (4)
(1) (2) (5)
1 Energy performance 325.00% 1 2
2 Water use reduction 100.00% 5 4
3 Strom water usage 50.00% 7 2 (0.20) 4 (0.30)
4 Water efficient landscaping 127.47% 4 6
5 Thermal comfort 100.00% 6 2 (0.08) 4 (0.42)
6 Controllability of lights 25.00% 9 2 (0.01) 4 (0.24)
7 Increased ventilation 50.00% 8 4 (0.25)
8 Low voc paints 15.38% 10 1 (0.15)
9 Rapidly renewable materials 11.76% 11 1 (0.06) 2 (0.01) 4 (
10 Use of regional materials 200.00% 3 0
11 Utilization of fly ash 200.00% 2 0

The output of the DEA model includes efficiency scores, and benchmarks. These are shown in the columns 3 and 5 of table 7. The
factors scores 100% and above are termed efficient factors and the remaining as inefficient.
The efficiency scores have been used for ranking the bridges for factors. The factors with the maximum efficiency score are given
the maximum priority. The ranks established on the basis of efficiency scores in columns 4 of table 7.
Out of the 11 factors the factors 1, 2,4,5,10,11. Factors are found to be efficient while the remaining are found to be inefficient.
The DEA gives the relative efficiency, i.e. the ratio of weighted output to the weighted input. It is necessary to assign weights to
input and output variables. These weights are chosen and optimized by the DEA program so as to provide an equal chance to
every input and output variable. Most referenced factors (DMUs) are the efficient factors (with efficiency score of 100), the values
of which are used to determine and optimize the weights by the inefficient factors. The relative weights are also given for the
referenced factors. Benchmarks (column 5 of Table 7) are the output of the DEA analysis. Benchmarks for inefficient (DMU)
factors indicate the referenced factors (DMUs) with corresponding intensities (weights) in brackets (see column 5 of Table 7). For
example, the factor at S. No. 3 (Strom water usage) is an inefficient factor, having a score of 50. This factor (DMU) has two
efficient factors at S. Nos. 2, 4 as benchmarks with intensities (weights) of 0.20, 0.30, respectively. This has been shown as 2
(0.20) 4 (0.30) in column 5 of Table 7.
For efficient factors (DMU), benchmarks indicate the number of inefficient factors (DMUs) which have chosen the efficient
bridge as the benchmark. For example: factor at S. No. 5 is an efficient bridge which has been chosen as a benchmark by four
inefficient factors, namely the factors at S. No. 3, 5, 6. 7. The efficient factors should be selected first for investing as they can
show maximum greenness in a given maintenance cost, area, and cost. The most referenced factors (DMUs) are Energy
performance, Water use reduction, Water efficient landscaping, Thermal comfort, Use of regional materials, Utilization of flyash.

11
 6. CONCLUSION

Analytical hierarchy process helps in finding the weights of each factor. It helps in analyzing complex decisions. In this project by
the AHP process we get conclusion that energy performance with weight 1.7005 is more important than the other factors. In the
site selection sub factors preserve and protect landscape with weight 0.377273 is more important. From the efficient water use the
sub factor water use reduction with weight 0.570716 is more important. In the material sub factors use of regional material is
preferred with weight 1.725. From the Indoor environment sub factor thermal comfort with weight 1.702 is more important.

Data envelopment analysis helps in finding the efficiency of the factors which are selected based on the cost factor. The model
selected for this project is the CCR model in this model output increases by the same proportional change of each proportional
increase in the input. For the DEA process we used EMS 1.3 software for finding the efficiencies of the factors. Energy
performance is most efficient factor with efficiency score of 325%.

The factors proposed for consideration before constructing a new building are 1. Energy performance, 2. Utilization of fly ash, 3.
Use of regional materials, 4.Water efficient landscaping, 5.Thermal comfort, 6.Water use reduction. When a building satisfies all
the pre requisites of the LEED then they should consider these factors to get more green points and can get a green rated building.
All the factors proposed here are very economical when compared to the other parameters

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the key actors who participated in the survey, and grateful to my faculty
who helped all this way in writing the paper.

REFERENCES

1. Ali, Al Nsairat Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries Case of Jordan 2009
2. 2.Azadeh et al. - 2011 Expert Systems with Applications Integration of analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis for
assessment and optimization of personnel productivity in a large industrial banks.
3. Bhatt, Macwan, Ph - 2012 Global Weights of Parameters for Sustainable Buildings from Consultants Perspectives in Indian Context
4. Cole - 2005 Building environmental assessment methods redefining intentions and roles.
5. Chang - 2012 Develop a ranking algorithm for the green building project
6. Aull-Hyde, R., Erdogan, S., and Duke, J. M. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP.
7. Cole, R. J. (1998). Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods.
8. Cook, T., Falchi, P., and Mariano, R. (1984). An urban allocation model combining time series and analytic hierarchical methods.
9. Dewick, P., and Miozzo, M. (2002). Sustainable technologies and the innovation-regulation paradox.
10. Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable constructionThe role of environmental assessment tools.
11. Du Plessis, C. (1999). Sustainable development dialogue between developed and developing worlds. Build and development needs.
12. Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA).http://www. grihaindia.org(July 21, 2011).
13. Kibert, C. J. (2005). Sustainable construction: Green building design and delivery, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
14. Lee, G. K. L., and Chan, E. H. W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals..
15. Lee, I., and Tiong, R. (2007). Examining the role of building envelopes towards achieving sustainable buildings. Int. Conf. Whole Life Urban
Sustainability and Its Assessment, Glasgow, U.K.
16. Lee, W. L., Chau, C. K., Yik, F. W. H., Burnett, J., and Tse, M. S. (2002). On the study of the credit-weighting scale in a building environmental
assessment scheme..
17. Nelms, C., Russell, A. D., and Lence, B. J. (2005). Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies for building projects.
18. Pavlikakis, G. E., and Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2003). A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem
management.
19. Scheel (2000) EMS Efficiency Measurement System User s Manual
20. Pavlikakis, G. E., and Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2003). A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem
management.
21. Sanjay sampath wakchaure , and K.N.Jha (2011). Prioritization of bridges for maintenance planning using data envelopment analysis.
22. Ozbek, M.E., de la Garza, J.M., and Triantis, K. (2009). Data envelopment analysis as a decision-making tool for transportation professionals . Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 135(11), 822-831.
23. Jian, M. and Yang, D. (2008). Operating efficiency analysis of listed companies of China's airlines industry based on the DEA model . Proceedings of the
Eighth International Conference of Chinese Logistics and Transportation Professionals 330, 1
24. Lin, C-L. and Huang, H-M (2010). Improved baseline productivity analysis technique. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
136(3) 367-376
25. Horta, I. M., Camanho, A.S., Da Costa, J.M. (2010) Performance assessment of construction companies integrating key performance indicators
and data envelopment analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 581-594
26. Ray (2004) Data Envelopment Analysis Theory and Techniques for Economics and Operations Research

12