Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a widely adopted approach for evaluating the environmental impacts of products throughout their entire life cycle. This study assessed the environmental performance of concrete by examining the stages of raw material extraction, manufacturing, construction, and end‐of‐life disposal or recycling. The objective was to identify critical environmental hotspots and develop strategies for reducing the carbon footprint of concrete while promoting sustainable construction practices. An integrated framework combining Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM‐MICMAC) and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS‐SEM) was employed to investigate the interrelationships among key environmental impact factors. ISM‐MICMAC analysis identified material substitution as the most influential driver (driving power = 7) with low dependence, highlighting the importance of alternative cementitious materials in mitigating environmental impacts. Conversely, air and noise pollution exhibited high driving and dependence characteristics, indicating their strong interaction with the environmental performance system. The PLS‐SEM results further confirmed that energy consumption during production and material substitution exert significant positive effects on the overall environmental impact, while air and noise pollution also contributed substantially to environmental performance. The structural model demonstrated satisfactory explanatory capability, with the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) indicating that a substantial proportion of environmental outcomes was captured by the proposed framework. The integration of ISM‐MICMAC and PLS‐SEM provides a robust and reliable decision‐support approach for prioritizing sustainability interventions. Overall, the findings emphasize that improving energy efficiency and adopting sustainable material substitution strategies are essential for reducing the environmental impacts of concrete and advancing low‐carbon construction practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ukpata et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: