Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates multi-criteria sustainability evaluation in architectural practices, highlighting integration gaps.
<ns5:p>Background The growing complexity of urban environments demands architectural practices that can address the environmental, economic, and social impacts of new construction projects. While the integration of digital tools and methods such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) enables the automation of environmental impact quantification, this approach remains limited to biophysical impacts and does not align with broader, multi-criteria sustainability frameworks. Currently, there is no standardised method for categorising which indicators can be automated using BIM and LCA tools. Addressing this gap requires integrated workflows, which are fundamentally outside typical BIM-LCA integration scope. Methods The present research investigates the role of BIM-LCA integration in supporting a norm-based, multi-criteria evaluation framework, using the New European Bauhaus (NEB) sustainability self-assessment tool as a case study. A systematic mapping and gap analysis has been performed to evaluate data dependencies and scope alignment among NEB sustainability indicators, LCA impact categories, and BIM data types. Results The analysis resulted in a triple taxonomy of indicators: 1) BIM-LCA Core (directly automatable), 2) BIM-LCA Informed (requiring integrated workflows), and 3) Beyond BIM-LCA which rely on parallel socio-economic or governance-based assessment methods. Conclusions The proposed taxonomy provides a strategic roadmap for integrating BIM–LCA workflows into multi-scale sustainability assessment, supporting practitioners in prioritising data requirements and informing tool developers about key interoperability challenges.</ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tosi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: