Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainability of

industrialised building systems: A bibliographic review and analysis of
case studies
Rafael E. López-Guerrero a, Sergio Vera a, b, c, Manuel Carpio a, b, d, *
a
Department of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna, 4860, Santiago,
Chile
b
UC Energy Research Center, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna, 4860, Santiago, Chile
c
Center for Sustainable Urban Development, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
d
Centro Nacional de Excelencia para la Industria de la Madera (CENAMAD), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

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

Keywords: The building construction has a significant impact on sustainability worldwide. However, industrialised building
Benchmarking systems (IBS) might reduce these impacts compared to traditional building systems (TBS). Previous literature
Building reviews have analysed IBS’s sustainability, based primarily on environmental aspects and through qualitative
Industrialised building system
indicators, disregarding a detailed quantitative comparison between both technologies and nor considering
Traditional building system
economic and social sustainability indicators. To fill this gap, this paper aims to evaluate vis-à-vis IBS’s sus­
Life cycle assessment
Sustainability tainability in relation to TBS, based on the quantitative and qualitative indicators studied in the literature. Thus,
an exhaustive bibliographic review of IBS and TBS case studies was conducted. In total, 67 scientific papers were
selected (papers, book chapters and reports), containing 86 case studies. Major findings indicated that IBS are
more sustainable in almost all studied values – except construction costs. Nevertheless, this advantage depends
on material design, prefabrication levels, transportation, work management and each author’s methodological
approaches. These factors are discussed to explain the reasons for IBS′ sustainability. Furthermore, main con­
clusions indicate that sustainability assessments have been unbalanced in literature, with few analyses of eco­
nomic and social performance, and some indicators have been poorly studied (e.g., water and acidification
potential), so their results are not yet representative. Similarly, reusability, prefabrication levels and the social
indicators of IBS were insufficiently analysed in the reviewed case studies. Finally, the current review highlights
IBS sustainability indicators that have been less studied in order to motivate new investigations in the broader
field, exposing the IBS sustainability outlook and other research gaps.

this sector faces essential opportunities to reduce such impacts [6],

transforming current models of buildings’ design, management, con­
1. Introduction
struction, and operation from a whole-life-cycle perspective and
following global and local sustainable development objectives in each
The construction industry consumes 40% of material resources, 60%
region [7].
of minerals extracted from the lithosphere, 25% of water, 35% of en­
Several investigations have been conducted to maintain or increase
ergy, and 12% of soil worldwide. In addition, it generates over 25% of
industry productivity and efficiency while simultaneously increasing
solid wastes and 38% of greenhouse gases (GHG) worldwide [1–3]. In
sustainability [8,9]. These studies have considered industrialised
2016, Europe generated 374 million tonnes of construction and demo­
building systems (IBS) an important strategy, recognising their contri­
lition waste [4]. These construction industry effects may increase sub­
butions to sustainability in three areas – social, economic, and envi­
stantially due to population growth pushes the need for new
ronmental [10–12]. IBS have been defined as systems in which –
infrastructure. For example, demand for new buildings is expected to
contrary to traditional building systems (TBS) – standardised
double to more than 415 billion m2 by 2050 [5]. Despite this context,

* Corresponding author. Department of Construction Engineering and Management, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida
Vicuña Mackenna, 4860, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail address: manuel.carpio@ing.puc.cl (M. Carpio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.112034
Received 10 July 2021; Received in revised form 2 December 2021; Accepted 21 December 2021
Available online 13 January 2022
1364-0321/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Abbreviations
AP Acidification potential
BIM Building information modelling
CE Circular economy
EC Embodied carbon
EEI Embedded environmental impacts
EF Eco-toxicity effect
EP Eutrophication potential
GHG Greenhouse gases
GPS Global Position system
GPW Global warming potential
IBS Industrialised building system
IoT Internet of thigs
IO Input-output
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LC Lean construction
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCC Life cycle cost
components are manufactured in a controlled environment (on- or
off-site), transported and assembled with minimal additional site work
[13,14].
IBS’ sustainability-related benefits include the reduction of: waste
[15,16]; energy consumption and carbon emissions [17–20]; air and soil
pollution [21–24]; noise and dust emissions [25,26]; water consumption
[27,28]; construction time [29,30]; and accident rates [31]. Further­
more, IBS enhance productivity [32,33]. These benefits have been
demonstrated or discussed in quantitative research analyses such as
partial or total life cycle analysis (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCC),
and qualitative evaluations (e.g., literature reviews and surveys).
Literature reviews related to IBS and sustainability have explored
their relationship qualitatively. Furthermore, a very limited group of
studies have discussed IBS sustainability based on quantitative in­
dicators. For instance, Teng et al. analysed IBS performance versus TBS
based on operational carbon (OC) and embedded carbon (EC), con­
trasting different case studies in the literature, based on LCA [19]. The
authors highlighted relative mean reductions of 15.6% and 3.2% for EC
and OC, respectively [19]. On the other hand, Jaillon and Poon quali­
tatively investigated the benefits and barriers of IBS disassembly design,
examining case studies in China [34]. They have underscored the need
to simultaneously evaluate other environmental indicators under LCA
perspective, including economic cost analysis [34]. However, such study
has been limited to IBS made of concrete. Kamali and Hewage conducted
a bibliographic review of modular IBS sustainability’s performance
versus TBS, highlighting a lack of studies in the LCA context that have
also evaluated social and economic elements [22]. However, they
limited their discussion to modular IBS. Similarly, Boafo et al. conducted
state-of-the-art research on modular IBS, based on a specific case study
analysis [35]. They discussed IBS types according to their taxonomy and
described the results of thermal, seismic, acoustic, energy and emissions
performance, but they did not compare detailed case studies from the
literature [35].
Other IBS reviews not focused on sustainability have found that
sustainability is the most mentioned keyword in studies between 2008
and 2018 [36]. In contrast, according to their bibliometric analysis,
Hosseini et al. reported that this relationship received little attention
between 1975 and 2017 [37]. Meanwhile, a recent review by Wuni and
Shen concluded that sustainability is one of the main drivers of IBS, as
well as one of the most independent drivers of successful implementa­
tion, underlining that such drivers should be prioritised in IBS-related
public policies [38]. Other reviews have recently been developed with
specific scopes, such as IBS sustainability incidence factors for
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
MCDM Multi-criteria decision-making
nOE Non-operational energy
nOC Non-operational carbon
nOP Non-operational performance
OC Operational carbon
ODP Ozone depletion potential
OEI Other environmental indicators
OSI Other social indicators
P–B Process-based
POFP Photochemical oxidant formation
PR Prefabrication rate
RD Resource depletion
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
SP Smog potential
TBS Traditional building system
W Water
WbT Waterborne toxicity
WSS Waterborne suspended substance
residential uses [39] or modular IBS advances and challenges in
multi-floor buildings [40]. Similarly, Jin et al. conducted a qualitative
review of IBS environmental performance, especially in
post-construction stages, carbon emissions and energy consumption
[41]. They also discussed future trends and knowledge gaps in such
areas but focused on environmental sustainability. Finally, in terms of
IBS sustainability – specifically in operational performance – other au­
thors’ literature reviews have emphasised that IBS’ benefits in opera­
tional energy/carbon are more visible in buildings retrofitting [42].
Previous literature reviews have reported IBS′ benefits and advan­
tages over TBS, based predominantly on qualitative analyses, but little
research has discussed specific case studies from the evaluated literature
versus TBS. Moreover, different indicators of environmental, economic
and social sustainability have not been evaluated simultaneously [22].
Thus, the state-of-the-art lacks of a comprehensive evaluation of all
sustainability aspects across all IBS types, including quantitative case
studies. Accordingly, despite the preponderance of research reporting
IBS′ sustainability benefits, the extent of these benefits in relation to TBS
– and the factors they depend upon – remains unclear. Therefore, the
current study paper aims to identify the relationship between IBS and
sustainability, based on a direct comparison of case studies in IBS and
referencing TBS. This research sought to answer two questions: How
sustainable are IBS compared to TBS? and, if IBS are more sustainable
than TBS, what factors determine this advantage? An exhaustive
bibliographic literature review was conducted to answer these ques­
tions, focused on a comparison of case studies involving both IBS and
TBS, regarding building construction’s main sustainability indicators.
This review’s specific objectives are to:
• analyse and discuss the relative environmental sustainability per­
formance of IBS and TBS based on non-operational carbon, non-
operational energy, material consumption, waste and several socio-
environmental indicators (e.g. water, acidification potential and
eutrophication potential);
• analyse and discuss the relative economic sustainability performance
of IBS and TBS focused on costs, construction times and productivity;
• analyse and discuss the social sustainability performance of IBS
considering human health indicators (e.g., carcinogenic elements,
non-carcinogenic elements and particulate matter), accident rates
and noise disturbances;
• discuss the review’s results, answer the study’s research questions
and describe research gaps to address future studies.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
1.1. Prefabrication levels
IBS can be classified according to the prefabrication level or pre­
fabrication rate (PR) at which they are manufactured. This bibliography
presents two basic ways of characterising an IBS: (i) using percentages of
precast elements versus non-prefabricated elements [19,43] or (ii) using
taxonomic descriptions [22,44,45]. Under the second characterisation,
the proposed taxonomy by Gibb [46] has been the most commonly
accepted in the literature due to its clear qualitative definition, pro­
posing four levels [44]:
• Level 1: components and sub-assembly
• Level 2: non-volumetric or panelised assembly
• Level 3: volumetric assembly
• Level 4: modular building
However, in addition to this taxonomy, other similar proposals
classify IBS [45,47,48]. Some of these alternatives include a ‘hybrid
level’ as another category [49]. A recent discussion [50] merged this
level with Level 3 by Gibb [46], given that volumetric assembly can
accompany or be finished by independent prefabricated panels (e.g.
volumetric baths finished with panels), giving rise to the following four
levels, with different subcategories and from the lowest to the highest PR
[50]:
• Level 1: components and sub-assembly
• Level 2: panelised systems
• Level 3: semi-volumetric construction
• Level 4: fully volumetric construction
Meanwhile, to simplify the analysis of the relationships between PR
and IBS sustainability, and because of its numerical approach, the cat­
egorisation adopted by Teng et al. [19] according to prefabrication
volumes was used in the current investigation as follows (Appendix 1):
• low PR: ≤ 25%
• average PR: 26–50%
• high PR (including modular IBS): ≥51%
1.2. Research scope and boundaries
The scope of this study was analysing and comparing non-
operational performance indicators (nOP), including aspects such as
maintenance stages (e.g., raw material extraction, manufacturing,
transportation, replacement, maintenance and renovation) and final
disposal. These widespread impacts are increasingly relevant, in abso­
lute and relative terms, regarding operational phases’ increasing effi­
ciency [51,52]. However, although operational performance has been
little explored in IBS [41], recent reviews have already begun to analyse
this scope [19,42].
Moreover, the current review screened only scientific documents
that aimed to analyse IBS and reference TBS within the same analysis.
This decision aimed to reduce probable errors when comparing IBS
performance with TBS in other studies. The indicators evaluated were
those available in the selected literature.
It is worthy to mention that comparative case study selection be­
tween IBS and TBS included buildings’ prefabrication, such that pre­
fabricated structural systems studies were also included. When an
investigation compared one IBS with different TBS, the results from the
most conservative case were selected. Only the same building uses were
analysed (e.g. residential versus residential) since such comparisons
were more representative and impartial [53].
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
2. Materials and methods
2.1. General methodology
A systematised bibliographic review was conducted mainly through
scientific publication databases in engineering and building construc­
tion. Based on the work of Jin et al., successive steps were developed
[41]. Fig. 1 summarises these phases, which are described in detail
below.
2.2. Databases and keywords
The scientific databases used in this review were Web of Science,
Scopus, Engineering Village, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar. These
databases were used in accordance with civil engineering research
purposes since no single database contains all publications in a specific
research area. Google Scholar was used to include technical reports, as
well as to validate and track cited works [54]. Keywords were selected
from two categories related to the two proposed study scopes: (A) IBS;
and (B) sustainability. Keywords within each category were related
through the “OR” relationship, and categories were related through the
“AND” relationship. Category A comprised terms that usually describe
IBS within the literature [28]. The following search formula was used:
“off-site construction” OR “offsite construction” OR “prefabricated
construction” OR “industrialised building system” OR “panelised con­
struction” OR “modular construction” OR “precast”. Category B
comprised terms commonly used in the literature to characterise sus­
tainability performance. The following search formula was: “sustain­
ability” OR “sustainable” OR “green” OR “carbon emissions” OR
“greenhouse gas” OR “building performance” OR “social” OR “cost” OR
“productivity".
2.3. Bibliographic scope
The shortlisted documents comprised journal or proceedings papers,
book chapters and official reports. Since the field of IBS sustainability
studies is relatively novel, a temporary research cut-off was set to 2008
onwards, based on a finding that a greater number of relevant docu­
ments were published beginning in this year [36]. Moreover, the
‘snowball’ technique was also used to find additional publications from
the reference lists of already-selected publications [55]. Thus, publica­
tions before 2008 that were cited in other documents, or works not
included in the searched document types, and were considered impor­
tant references were also preselected.
2.4. Screening
As Fig. 1 summarised, the results in each database were organised by
relevance. This step was followed by a review of titles and abstracts to
identify and download relevant documents. Documents that met any of
the following five eligibility criteria were preselected: (i) a comparative
study of IBS with TBS in any sustainability indicator; (ii) a comparative
study between different IBS; (iii) an IBS sustainability performance
discussion study; (iv) an analysis of a sustainability indicator based on a
case study; and (v) IBS literature reviews. These procedures were
applied in February 2021.
2.5. Analysis techniques
A content analysis technique was used to analyse the selected doc­
uments. This approach allows for an objective, systematic, qualitative
and quantitative analysis of bibliographic information with a large
volume of data, based on their categorisation using explicit coding rules
[56,57]. This technique has been widely used in other literature reviews
[58–60]. For this purpose, coding and grouping categories were created
using several Excel sheets. Firstly, the basic information of every
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed methodological scheme, adapted from Jin et al. [41].
document was organised (research content, objectives, methodology
etc.). Then, the information was classified under common qualitative
categories of analysis, based on the ‘sustainability causes’ of the assessed
technologies, and common quantitative information was collected (e.g.
energy consumption). Further, the Excel sheets were divided into sus­
tainability categories and indicators (e.g., water and energy). Then,
quantitative values were calculated from the documents for quantitative
and qualitative cross-checking.
3. Results
This section presents general qualitative and quantitative results
from the current study’s literature review. General bibliometric results
were synthesised, and then the results were related to environmental,
economic and social sustainability. The latter categorised results are
provided as relations in percentages, with positive percentages
describing better performance for IBS in reference to TBS and vice versa
for negative percentages.
3.1. General bibliometric results
Once the second pre-selection of relevant documents was completed,
260 documents were obtained. After applying the final selection and
‘snowball’ technique, a total of 67 documents were finally selected for
comparative analysis. Other pertinent studies (due to their descriptions
in their titles or abstracts) were not included in the current study’s
analysis due to access or language limitations or due to a lack of relevant
information in their presented outcomes.
The 67 selected documents provided 86 case studies for this final
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
review. These cases were distributed across 19 countries, with more than
one-third (35.8%) in China, followed by Malaysia with 11 publications
and the United States with five publications, while most of included
countries contributed only with one publication each (Fig. 2a). This
research covers publications from 2006 to February 2021, with an
increasing trend in publication dates over time (Fig. 2b). In 2019 was
registered the highest number of documents that corresponded to 14.9%
of the total documents.
Fig. 3 describes case studies’ distribution across sustainability as­
pects, showing the volume of environmental and economic evaluations,
and finding very few evaluations on economic-social relationships.
3.2. Environmental performance
The environmental performance of civil construction is a require­
ment that has gained strength in recent decades [11], similarly to IBS.
The present analysis focused on a case study comparison using pre­
dominant quantitative indicators in the literature, as described below.
3.2.1. Non-operational carbon
Since the current international goals to mitigate the effects of global
warming, carbon emission has been the most-studied indicator in the
building sector, including IBS. nOC refers to carbon embedded in all life
cycle phases except B1 (Appendix 3). Among the 86 case studies
reviewed, 54 (62.8%) analysed this indicator. Of these nOC-focused
cases, 37% analysed nOC in absolute carbon (kg or tonne of CO2) and
63% analysed carbon equivalents (kg or tonne of CO2eq) (Appendix 1)
since other GHGs were considered [62,63] and, therefore, represented
global warming potential (GWP) indicators.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 2. (a) Case studies by country and (b) case studies by year.
Fig. 3. Case studies’ percentage distribution according to sustainability aspects.
Note: The total sum is not 100% since some authors analysed more than one sus­
tainability aspect. Adapted from Carvajal-Arango et al. [61].
Most case studies focused on IBS for envelopes or modular IBS
(88.8%). Of these IBS-focused cases, 40.7% evaluated modular IBS, and
the remainder compared different IBS modalities with various PRs
(Appendix 1). The remaining cases (11.2%) analysed prefabricated
structural systems (cases 38 [64], 41 [65], 42 [65], 43 [66], 44 [67] and
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
53 [68]). Generally, most of case studies reviewed often suggested better
IBS performance in nOC emissions, with a positive percentage average of
14.85% (Fig. 4). A similar result was reported by Teng et al. [19], with
15.6% in 21 case studies (of which 19 were included in the present
study).
Three methods were normally used in embedded energy (EE) and EC
quantifications, although they were used to estimate other impacts in
LCA [69], namely: process-based (P–B), input-output (IO) and hybrid
methods. The P–B method is a robust methodology based on standards
series ISO 14040 and 14044 (2006). It is a bottom-up method developed
to assess the environmental impact of goods and services, according to
their production processes [70]. The IO method is calculated based on
materials’ flow in an economic structure in order to determine the pri­
mary energy required to produce a specific product or service [71]. The
hybrid method attempts to combine the advantages of the P–B method’s
precision and the IO method’s extended system boundary [69]. The
results suggested a higher concentration of the P–B method because
among the 53 case studies, 87%, 3.7% and 9.3% used P–B, IO and a
hybrid method, respectively. Meanwhile, different approaches, software
or databases were used to quantify impacts. Among the software used
were SimaPro (cases 4, 9–12, 26, 38, 49 and 51), Athena (cases 6, 7, 27
and 53), and Gabi (case 37) (Appendix 1). Some publications used the
Ecoinvent database, the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) [72] or
multiple databases in one study (e.g. cases 9 and 10).
Considering life cycle phases according to European Standard EN
15978 [73] (Appendix 3), the results showed a significant partial ana­
lyses concentration. Regarding the 53 case studies, 71.4% (38 cases)
corresponded with initial phases or cradle-to-site evaluations (phases A1
to A5). Of these 38 cases, six did not address all these phases, omitting
phases A1 and A2 (cases 1, 3 and 8), phases A3 (case 8), and phases A4
and A5 (cases 21, 22 and 45) (Appendix 1). Considering all cases, 29.6%
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 4. Comparative carbon performance ratio between an IBS and its benchmark TBS. Note: The y-axis depicts CO2 and CO2eq.
covered at least one phase after building construction. The most com­
plete cases were 5, 32, 50 and 86 [74,75] and cases 18, 24 and 48 [76] –
all with EC quantification in maintenance and demolition (B2 and C1).
The case studies materially focused on wood (42.6%), concrete
(46.3%) and steel (11.1%). A trend was observed towards less dispersion
of results on concrete IBS (Fig. 4), and in these cases, IBS obtained
unfavourable results (cases 42 and 43) due to greater steel structure use,
similarly to case 33 (Fig. 4).
Regarding PR, of 54 case studies, 47 could be classified on the
adopted scale, all structural element cases were unclassified and one
case study was not classified either because of a lack of sufficient in­
formation (case 2). Of these cases, 17% had low PR, 21.3% had medium
PR and 61.7% had high PR. Differences in nOCs between IBS and TBS, at
each PR level, stood at 2.1% for the low level, 11.9% for the medium
level and 17.4% for the high level – probably demonstrating that a
higher PR yielded greater benefits.
Among the case studies with the greatest comparative differences,
case 2 – at 156% – excelled mainly in wood use because it considered
emissions absorbed before resource extraction [23]. In contrast, case 42
presents an nOC of − 72.2% due to a greater quantity of galvanised and
reinforced steel sheets in precast column [65]. Similarly, case 49 ob­
tained a performance of − 49.4% for steel IBS. However, the authors
analysed steel reusability, highlighting that up to 81.3% of EE could be
saved if such a strategy were adopted at the end of life cycle [17], in
agreement with case 51, which also studied steel recyclability and other
inert materials [77].
In absolute terms, Appendix 2 presents the normalised results of the
53 reviewed cases – both for CO2 and CO2eq. CO2 values varied from
26.74 kgCO2/m2 (case 1) [78] in a low-rise residential wood IBS eval­
uated only in stages A3–A5 (without evaluating extraction or raw ma­
terials’ manufacture) to 852 kgCO2/m2 (case 48) for a steel IBS
evaluated across its whole life cycle or cradle-to-grave [76]. GWP values
ranged from − 253.11 kgCO2-Eq/m2 (case 2) [23] for a low-rise resi­
dential wood IBS whose calculations estimated wood’s CO2 absorption
prior to extraction to 864 kgCO2-Eq/m2 (case 49) [17] for a modular
steel IBS with a medium-sized residence [17]. However, note that case
46 – with 25,360.47 kgCO2-Eq/m2 for a concrete IBS used in a low-rise
administrative building – was outside the ranges reported by other au­
thors [18]. Therefore, if this case is not considered, on average, the mean
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
CO2eq values of the analysed cases were 285.79 kgCO2-Eq/m2 for IBS
and 343.05 kgCO2-Eq/m2 for TBS. In EC cases, the averages were 371.99
kgCO2/m2 for IBS and 444.85 kgCO2/m2 for TBS. These values are
within the range reported by other authors [18,79], describing the great
variability in results, depending on methodologies and scopes across
studies.
3.2.2. Non-operational energy
In addition to EC, nOE is one of the most evaluated indicators in
construction. Of 86 case studies, 25.6% included nOE in their analyses.
Of these nOE-focused studies, only 4.5% corresponded to structural IBS
(case 43), and 95.5% corresponded to envelope systems. However, the
overall analysis showed there is a predominance in cases with IBS with
better nOE emissions performance, averaging 12.6% (Fig. 5).
Among the methods used, 77.3% of case studies used the P–B
method, 9.1% used the IO method and 13.6% used the hybrid method
(Appendix 1). Like carbon quantification, method and database use
varied by study. Likewise, some authors combined national databases
with imported databases, as in case 57 [80], which used ICE [72] along
with databases from India.
In their life cycle phases, 68.2% of cases analysed initial phases or
cradle-to-site evaluations, and the remaining cases considered a post-
construction phase (Appendix 1). Materially, 45.5% of cases focused
on wood IBS, 27.3% on concrete IBS and 22.7% on steel IBS. One case
(case 57) focused on gypsum panels reinforced with fibreglass (GFRG)
IBS, compared to masonry in India [80].
Of the cases focusing on PR, 90.9% could be classified on the adopted
scale. Of these cases, 25% had a medium PR and 75% had a high PR
(Appendix 1). Averaging the difference between IBS and TBS in each PR,
savings of 8.6% were obtained for IBS with a medium PR and 10.1% for
IBS with a high PR.
Mostly, results varied between − 49.4% for steel modular IBS
compared to in-situ concrete TBS (case 49) [17] and 56.6% (case 54) for
a steel modular IBS compared to a masonry TBS [81]. Interestingly, the
cases that differed most in their results analysed the same material in the
same country but used different methods; furthermore, this significant
difference was due to an omitted phase A1 in case 54 (a raw material
EE); A1 in the phase with the most embedded impacts [18]. Again, these
results highlighted differences between each methodological approach.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 5. The comparative non-operational energy (nOE) performance ratio between IBS and their reference TBS.
In absolute terms, Appendix 2 presents the normalised results of 20
IBS cases and their TBS base cases. These results varied between 14.4 Gj/
m2 for case 49 and 0.086 Gj/m2 for case 54. These results were also
within the ranges reported by other authors [18,79,82].
3.2.3. Material consumption
One possible advantage of manufacturing construction elements in
factory environments – and, therefore, of IBS – is material optimisation,
reducing the building material consumption [12,83,84]. Of 86 studies,
30.2% quantitatively analysed materials. These results trended towards
savings in various materials (Fig. 6), totalling an average of 21.45%
savings with 43 materials or components offering better performance
and 22 materials with worse performance than their reference TBS. Such
averages varied, depending on material or component types – for
example, concrete averaged savings of 15.23%, steel 19.35% and
formwork 68.47%. By contrast, seven cases presented accumulated
Fig. 6. The comparative material consumption performance ratio between IBS and their reference TBS.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
numbers of whole building materials for their IBS and TBS base, aver­
aging savings of 42.01%.
The greatest savings were found in the following cases: (i) case 26,
with 100% for formwork, as expected, due to its non-use in IBS after
leaving a plant ready for on-site assembly [85]; (ii) case 31, where sig­
nificant savings were obtained through concrete (94.67%) because this
percentile represents in-situ concrete (discarding precast concrete); and
(iii) case 37, with an important reduction in wood (96.98%) by avoiding
formworks in IBS with high PRs (90%).
Conversely, the worst IBS performances corresponded with the
following cases: (i) case 14, since a modular wooden IBS was compared
with a TBS using a concrete structure; and (ii) case 51, which found an
important negative difference in thermal insulation since its IBS
required a higher quantity of insulation. Another important difference
occurred in case 11, with a − 100% difference in the use of double walls
in a modular wooden IBS; these walls were internal joints between two
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
prefabricated modules, generating a greater amount of material than the
TBS reference [27]. This modular IBS characteristic also affected case 4,
since a larger wooden structure was required to provide rigidity during
transport and installation [86].
For PRs, 21 cases were classified into the adopted scale, six cases had
low PRs, six had medium PRs (28.5% each) and nine had high PRs
(42.8%). Of these cases, average savings stood at 6.75%, 31.75% and
22.46% for low, medium, and high PRs, respectively.
3.2.4. Waste
Waste reduction throughout buildings’ life cycle was one of the
greatest comparative advantages of IBS over TBS. Fig. 7 depicts a gen­
eral average reduction of 60.9%. According to Jaillon et al. (case 69),
waste reduction of up to 52% is possible with the use of precasting in a
TBS, mainly due to a reduction of formwork, packaging, finishing work,
masonry work, scaffolding and concrete work [87]. Of 86 case studies,
30.2% quantitatively and qualitatively analysed waste reduction, with
savings ranging between 11.2% (case 11) and 100% (cases 60a, 63a and
68c). For case 11, the aforementioned characteristic of double walls
influenced waste performance [27]. For cases 60a, 63a and 68c, no
concrete IBS finishes were needed [88,89]. Notably, in these cases, re­
searchers considered IBS’ avoidance of plastering as waste reduction;
thus, 100% waste reduction was reported.
However, note that evaluation methods varied from case to case
(Appendix 1), including quantitative (54.3%), qualitative (28.3%) and
hybrid approaches (17.4%). Quantitative methods comprised P–B and
Fig. 7. The comparative waste performance ratio between IBS and their reference TBS. Note: Case numbers with letters represent different types of waste analysed in
the same study.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
hybrid methods. Qualitative methods were based on surveys with the
builders responsible for projects, coupled with field observations and
bibliography analyses. Mixed methods were based on all the qualitative
approaches mentioned, plus quantitative analyses of recordings. The
reduction averages stood at 61.5%, 72.06% and 40.5% for quantitative,
qualitative and mixed approaches, respectively.
Regarding their PRs, 17 of 26 analysed studies could be classified. Of
these classified studies, 74.2% had high PRs and 25.8% had medium
PRs. The average reduction was 46.3% and 64.9% for medium and high
PRs, respectively.
In absolute terms, an important variation was observed in wastes
generated per unit area (kg/m2), from 0.03 kg/m2 for the mortar used in
a high-rise residential building in a concrete IBS in China (case 27) [28]
to 2490 kg/m2 for a whole school building in Spain (case 24) [76]
(Appendix 2).
3.2.5. Water
Buildings are responsible for consuming 12% of worldwide fresh­
water [90]. Moreover, water embedded in materials and processes’
construction increases the water consumption [91]. Water reduction has
been among IBS’ advantages reported in the literature [25,92]. However,
according to Moradibistouni et al. and Burgués et al., the relationship
between industrialisation and such savings remains unclear due to the
lack of sufficiently detailed data [92,93]. Thus, despite its importance,
this indicator has received little quantitative evaluation (Fig. 8a). Of 86
cases, 10.5% quantified water consumption at some life cycle stage. The
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 8. Comparative performance ratios with (a) water, (b) human health indicators and (c) other environmental indicators between IBS and their reference TBS.
average comparative reduction in consumption was 11.19%. Relative
values varied from − 18.71% (case 11) to 44.26% (case 5).
Case 11 included a negative result due to increased electricity use in
a modular wooden IBS (more water required in generating plant) in the
United States that was evaluated cradle-to-site [27]. In contrast, a
favourable result in case 5 also involved a wooden IBS, though located in
Spain and analysed cradle-to-grave [74]. Cao et al. obtained a concrete
IBS reduction of 22.48%, mainly due to curing concrete with water
vapour in precast elements [28]. However, consumption can also
depend on life cycle stages or analysed elements. For example, according
to the comparative results of case 25, savings of 7.95% were achieved in
the construction stage – specifically in the use of machinery and
equipment in a concrete IBS [70]. Water consumption has been gener­
ally used in construction in preparing and curing concrete. Therefore,
these activities’ management is fundamental to progress in this regard
[91]. Although more efficiency is expected from industrial plants, such
improvements are not always possible [93].
3.2.6. Other environmental indicators
When whole LCAs are performed, based on ISO 14040/14044 stan­
dards series, some other socio-environmental impact parameters are
usually evaluated and compared, as mentioned above. In 86 studies,
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
nine environmental indicators were evaluated, comprising: acidification
potential (AP; kgSO2eq or Kmol H+), eutrophication potential (EP;
kgNeq), ozone depletion potential (ODP; kgCFC11eq), smog potential
(SP; kgO3eq or NOx-eq), ecotoxicity effect (EF; mg or kg 2.4-D-eq),
photochemical smog (POFP; kgC2H4-eq), waterborne toxicities (WbT;
kgPb-eq), waterborne suspended (WSS; kg) and resource depletion (RD;
endpoint characterisation). To better understand some of these in­
dicators, see the work of Kamali et al. [24]. Some indicators were
evaluated in different units, depending on the method used.
Few studies evaluated these impacts (Fig. 8c), and even fewer dis­
cussed the differences between IBS and TBS for each indicator; there­
fore, drawing solid conclusions from impact reduction averages across
several of these indicators was impossible (since some were evaluated by
a single author). However, of nine indicators, eight had positive aver­
ages and only one had a negative average of − 58.43% (POFP), mainly
due to case 36 involving greater transport distances, increasing hydro­
carbon, CO and SO2 emissions from fuel [94]. However, the authors
indicated these elements were less important on a global scale and had a
greater impact on a local or regional scale [94]. The indicators most
evaluated were AP and EP, with nine and six case studies, respectively
and savings averaging 17.66% and 6.27%. For EPs, despite a savings
positive trend, some authors reported greater impacts in IBS due to the
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
greater use of electricity [27]. However, these authors reported that the
indicator with the greatest positive difference was ODP, at 69.1%,
mainly due to the production and crude refining oil necessary for ve­
hicles that transport workers and materials to a workplace in a TBS [27].
3.3. Social performance
Unlike the environmental aspects of sustainability during life cycle
building construction, the economic and especially social factors lacked
robust methods or indicators for their quantification in IBS [22,95].
These two recent references are among the few proposals that have
developed methodologies for evaluating social aspects. Thus, few
comparative studies have evaluated social aspects, although these as­
pects have been perceived as preponderant to IBS′ sustainability benefits
[59]. However, these aspects have been constantly discussed in the
literature qualitatively comparing IBS and TBS. The most emphasised
social indicator was workers’ health and safety during construction [36,
96,97], principally as a consequence of cleaner and safer work envi­
ronments. For example, accident rates were reduced due to less or no use
of scaffolding, as well as fewer activities, less work at heights and fewer
workers on-site [38,98]. For example, Jaillon and Poon, in their
comparative analysis with a TBS, showed a decreased accident rate of
63% with an average of 22 accidents per 1000 workers [29]. Similarly,
cases 54 and 55 were quantitatively evaluated with risk reductions of
25% and 40% compared to their TBS [81].
Other social indicators – specifically risks to human health – have
been quantified within some comparative LCAs, as Fig. 8b shows.
Among these indicators are emissions of carcinogens (Car), non-
carcinogenic matter (Ncar), particulate matter (PM; PM2.5eq), health
damage (HD) and human toxicity potential (HTP) [27,28,64,94]. Case
11 and case 38, for example, achieved 26.67% and 17.55% savings in
Car and Ncar emissions, respectively [27], and 10.47% and 42.09%
savings were achieved for the same indicators in case 38 [64]. These
savings were related to materials reductions, fuels and electricity used in
construction processes [99]. Similarly, Cao et al. [28] reported a 6.61%
reduction in HD when using concrete IBS in China. In contrast, case 36
reported a negative performance of an HTP in an IBS (− 24.42%), mainly
due to higher uses of fuel in transportation [94].
Separately, PM2.5eq emissions have been recognised as an important
issue associated with the construction industry [100]. Some authors
reported that 32.1% of air pollutants in cities came from construction (as
cited in Ref. [25]). This problem has been associated with respiratory
diseases among both exposed workers and surrounding communities.
Due to work in controlled environments or construction time savings,
IBS generated advantages in PM2.5eq emissions for cases 38 [64] and 51
[77], which reported reductions of 35.4% and 3.95%, respectively.
Similarly, case 37 [28] reported a lower reduction in dust emissions
(2.37%), probably due to a higher quantity of concrete in its IBS despite
a significant decrease in other materials. Contrary to these results, cases
6 and 7 showed increased PM2.5eq emissions, both of 28.93% [24] for a
modular, wooden IBS versus a TBS of the same material.
Noise reduction has also been qualitatively discussed as IBS advan­
tage [68]. Noise is a relevant construction-generated problem, affecting
workers and surrounding neighbourhoods. Some authors confirmed that
35% of construction workers experience significant noise levels for half
of their workday [101]. However, according to the qualitative analysis
of IBS and TBS [25], IBS can obtain average decreases of 33.89% and
20.47% for dust and noise pollution, respectively, coinciding with pos­
itive qualitative results for IBS reported by Jaillon and Poon [29]. A
quantitative noise measurement study found that a modular IBS emits
68–72 dB on average versus 70–78 dB for a TBS in case 55, involving a
school; moreover, case 54 noted an average 59–70 dB for an IBS versus
69–73 dB for its baseline TBS in a single-family home [81]. The reasons
for this decrease were again less IBS work on-site. In general, time
construction savings (see Section 3.4.2) also reduced nuisances, such as
noise and dust, as well as vehicular congestion and
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
transportation-related issues – which can be reduced by up to 70% in
modular IBS [33,102,103].
In assessing different IBS types, a comparative study of social per­
formance between proposed on-site industrialisation and an IBS with an
off-site factory (a conventional IBS), the former yielded better results for
noise reduction in carpentry works, steel and concrete finishing, not
exceeding the threshold 85 dBA recommended in China [26]. Similarly,
a comparison between a modular IBS and a semi-prefabricated IBS in
Singapore revealed that the former obtained better performance when
social criteria – such as health and safety or technology development –
were taken accounted for; however, it obtained lower overall perfor­
mance than semi-prefabricated alternatives (yet better than its TBS
counterpart) due to local job sources, requiring foreign specialised la­
bour [95]. Meanwhile, some studies have proven IBS’ benefits for sus­
tainable social housing [104]. However, these benefits align with the
findings of [95] about the possible difficulties in finding a local speci­
alised workforce, which can generate social problems when imple­
menting IBS.
Some authors reported difficulties regarding the social acceptance of
an IBS based, on longstanding problems of quality, safety issues, tech­
nical levels, high prices, simplistic designs and resultant unemployment
[105–107]. However, IBS have gradually gained recognition as a more
eco-efficient methodology, alongside the other benefits discussed in this
study [108]. For example, interest in IBS has been slowly growing
among Chinese consumers [107].
3.4. Economic performance
Economic factors remain the most important aspects of decision-
making when adopting a new construction technology [109]. The cur­
rent research focused on comparisons between three indicators con­
trasted in the IBS and TBS literature: cost, time and workforce
productivity – the first two of which are the most important indicators in
economic buildings’ performance and, in turn, are directly related to
productivity performance [110].
3.4.1. Cost performance
One of the greatest reported barriers to IBS implementation is its
higher initial cost [16,29,33,108,109,111–115]. This aspect has been
widely discussed in countries such as China [109,112,114,115] and
Malaysia [14,113] since the balance of costs and benefits is rather unclear
in the literature, considering other aspects of economic sustainability,
such as productivity and labour costs, construction time and indirect
costs. This uncertainty is somewhat evident in Fig. 9a, which depicts
important differences between IBS and TBS economic studies. However,
these differences cannot be subjected to an objective comparison since
each country, region or economy is dissimilar and, moreover, studies’
comparisons use different system boundaries (since not all studies
contrast total costs). The studies in Fig. 9a showed a slight tendency to­
wards economic cost overruns when using an IBS (an average of − 0.3%).
Differences ranged between 63.5% savings for IBS (case 55) and − 72.1%
savings for TBS (case 76b). Generally, of the 25 cases analysed, 72%
predominantly focused on structures or concrete envelopes, 12% on steel,
12% on wood and one case on GFRG and concrete structures (4%).
In cases 54 and 55, savings of 40.6% and 63.5% were achieved in total
construction costs (including materials, equipment, labour and design
associated with each construction method) for a modular house and
school (IBS) in Australia [81]. This difference resulted from the high cost
of the concrete used in TBS. In contrast, for case 76 in China, an increased
range of 26.3%–72.1% for eight high-rise residential buidings’ versus
their respective TBS cases corresponded mainly to prefabricated manu­
facture elements and on-site assembly, with negligible IBS design costs
[109]. According to these authors, the increase in PRs positively corre­
lated with costs [109], contrary to Shahzad et al., who showed that PRs
increased in commercial buildings, turning into economic savings [116].
Notably, when comparing studies such as the works of Hammad et al.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 9. (A) The comparative cost ratio, (b) construction time and (c) labour productivity between IBS and TBS. Note: Case numbers with letters represent different
IBS analysed in the same study.
[81] and Hong et al. [109], even when costs were normalised per m2 and
the boundary systems were the same, the differences between the out­
comes of both were notable due to the specific methodology, region,
technology, and economy in each study, as well as building use and
materiality.
By contrast, cases 78 and 79 represent a modular and a semi-precast
IBS, respectively (both steel and concrete), and both compare with a
reinforced concrete and masonry TBS in Singapore [117]. In these cases,
the modular IBS was 15.9% more expensive and the semi-prefabricated
IBS was 2.5% cheaper, aligning with the findings of Hong et al. [109]
regarding increased costs when PRs increase. The authors attributed this
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
increase to the still immature market for modular IBS in the country and
due to higher expenses for assembly and vertical transport on-site [117].
In case 84, 17.3% savings were achieved in panelised versus traditional
façades, due to fewer scaffoldings and cranes used for vertical transport
[118]. In case 57, with GFRG – a building system recognised for its
environmental qualities − 25% of construction costs were saved in an
Indian social housing project [80]. This reduction was achieved due to a
lower structure weight and a need for fewer finishes. In cases 82 and 83,
both quantitative studies on housing in Chile, a wood IBS achieved
savings of 13.5% while a concrete IBS led to a 13.4% cost overrun when
thermal insulation was considered, though both cases only considered
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
rough work costs [98]. Thus, despite the scarcity of IBS analysis using
steel, concrete and wood, as Fig. 9a shows, concrete involves less certain
economic performance, although some researchers have agreed that
precast concrete leads to economic construction savings (e.g. Ref. [10]).
3.4.2. Construction time
Construction time is one of the main recognised advantages of IBS
[29]. This advantage can financially translate into lower overhead costs
and lower interest on loan payments [14,97]. Moreover, this benefit can
be verified through almost unanimous savings in 16 of 17 comparative
case studies in the current review (Fig. 9b). Of these case, 41.2% used
predominantly concrete structures, 41.2% used wood, 11.7% used steel
and one case study analysed various materials (case 67 [53]). Compar­
ative savings ranged from 15% in case 85 to 76% in case 67, averaging
45.2% (Fig. 9b).
Among the main causes of construction time reduction was the
weather because it does not affect the operation of the manufacturing
plant [119], and simultaneously facilitates a concentration in work and
skills-based projects [93]. Likewise, short construction times resulted
from automated procedures to produce IBS elements [81] or simulta­
neous works on foundations, modules and prefabricated elements in
modular IBS [120]. Nevertheless, construction time did not necessarily
decrease with a higher PR, as shown by the IBS analysed in case 15, in
which a panelised IBS (15b), a hybrid IBS (15a) and a modular IBS (15c)
with respective PRs of 60%, 80% and 95% achieved construction time
savings of 50%, 64% and 28.5% [93]. However, Shahzad et al. obtained
contrasting results, demonstrating greater construction time reductions
through higher PRs [116].
Exceptionally, case 58 obtained a construction time difference of zero
because precast concrete was adopted taken after a contract was awar­
ded, and the preparation of the project’s IBS components was, therefore,
delayed [10]. Nonetheless, the work was completed within the contract’s
stipulated timeframe, which also suggested time-saving [10].
3.4.3. Labour performance productivity
The construction industry has been recognised as one of the world’s
least productive and least efficient industries [38]. World construction
productivity has only achieved a marginal increase of 1% per year over
the last two decades [121] despite the technological and management
advances in the last decades. Thus, increasing productivity is a priority
for the sector. However, like time savings, IBS have been consistently
recognised for their superior productivity [122,123]. This variable was
understood in the current analysis according to work hours per con­
struction unit or the number of workers required per task. It represents
an economic benefit for all IBS stakeholders since less work is required
to reach the same construction quality standards (or higher) with higher
labour productivity [33,98]. This benefit was unanimously achieved
across nine case studies analysed (Figs. 9c), 66.6% of which used con­
crete while 23% used various materials, averaging productivity of
54.2% compared to TBS base cases.
In case 73, 70.1% fewer workers were needed to make concrete
formwork in an IBS [124], and in case 58, an IBS used less labour due to
the elimination of large elements, such as columns and beams, while TBS
were labour-intensive for superstructure work [10]. Meanwhile, in case
85, fewer workers were needed onsite, since most of the project’s
components were produced in an IBS factory [29]. Similarly, a modular
IBS also obtained an important yield of up to 40% for case 71 [120]. In
cases 82 and 83, savings were high because only rough work perfor­
mance was compared [98]. However, despite these benefits, produc­
tivity could depend on precast elements’ size [31]. IBS productivity was
found to perform better only when installed panels exceeded 90 ft2, and
TBS were found to be more productive with smaller sizes [31].
3.5. Overall performance
In general, 22 indicators were compared between IBS and TBS. Of 14
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
environmental indicators, 13 were positive (92.8%) and only POFP
obtained a negative result. However, this result was the product of only
two case studies. Of the three economic indicators analysed, two were
positive, and direct cost was the only indicator that achieved lower
comparative performance in analysed cases. Of the five social indicators
included in LCA, three were negative – PM in five case studies and HPT
in only one case study (Fig. 10).
4. Discussion
The present study collected qualitative and quantitative information
from case studies that compared different types of IBS versus TBS ref­
erences across various sustainability indicators. Accordingly, the envi­
ronmental, economic and social aspects that yielded comparative data in
the literature were studied. This review attempted to answer two
questions: does IBSs are more sustainable than TBS in non-operational
stages? And, if indeed they are more sustainable in this regard, what
factors determine this advantage?
In response to the first question, within the boundaries of the current
research, IBS can be said to offer better sustainability in most of the
studied indicators. However, some indicators were evaluated by one or
very few studies (Fig. 10) and, therefore, they might not be represen­
tative. Further studies that consider these indicators are needed.
Generally, the higher initial costs of an IBS could be among the main
barriers to IBS′ widespread implementation because, for example, con­
struction companies must invest in equipment and production plants, as
well as specialised labour [40,109,125]. However, payback time of such
investements is obtained in few years. Some studies indicated that in five
to seven years, a modular IBS can offset such expenses as long as at least
1500 modules are produced per year [33]. Thus, other barriers – such as
social acceptance – require parallel mitigation strategies to drive the
production chain and encourage such investments, providing feedback
on IBS′ competitive social and economic performance. As highlighted
above, this acceptance is increasing in some regions (e.g. China) and will
continue to grow as IBS benefits are promoted to consumers and all
stakeholders in production chains and marketing. In this sense, policies
providing subsidies or economic incentives to adopt an IBS in Malaysia
[126] and China [107] have improved IBS’ implementation in the
industry.
Comparative IBS studies must include more detail on direct and in­
direct costs, such as monetary benefits due to shorter deadlines and
higher productivity, since the extent to which projects are completed
within the scope of their initial budgets illustrates better economic
performance, and TBS do not usually meet this requirement [38]. The
scarcity of studies that have related economic and social aspects, dis­
cussing feedback between their advantages, is also worth to be high­
lighted because the distribution of economic costs and benefits in
sustainable construction must be equitable for all parties without
harming local economies [127]. Additionally, some important social
aspects have been insufficiently or not at all discussed or quantified in
comparative evaluations, including traffic and community disturbances,
local employment sources, discrimination, forced or child labour and
public commitments to sustainability aspects [68,95]. Further research
in these regards is important to establish IBS’ sustainability.
According to this review’s analysed documents, regarding variables
that instil IBS with a sustainability advantage, different factors could
influence whether an IBS is more advantageous than a TBS. These
various factors can be grouped into six categories: (a) materiality design,
(b) prefabrication rates, (c) transportation, (d) techniques and machin­
ery, (e) work management and (f) evaluation methodology.
4.1. Materiality design
The materiality design category refers to how building systems’
material composition is designed, by type and quantity, as well as this
design’s impact, mainly related to life cycle phases A1 and A3 (Appendix
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
Fig. 10. Average savings achieved for all evaluated indicators (OEI indicates other environmental indicators and/N indicates the number of studies analysed by indicator).
3). This feature affects IBS and the TBS with which they are compared,
and it is greatly relevant since LCA studies showed that building mate­
rials determine 80–97% of structures’ total embedded environmental
impacts (EEI) [70,71,85,128,129]. Note that comparisons between IBS
and TBS using a certain material do not indicate the total building
composition of a material; however, in this paper, construction systems
were generalised based on the three main materials used in the reviewed
literature: wood, steel and concrete. Nonetheless, IBS cannot be inferred
to necessarily contain less material in their design than TBS since the
results varied and, in some studies, these quantities were not explicit.
This review’s analysed cases showed that EEI amounts depend on
relationships with other materials in a system and not necessarily on a
material’s predominance. For example, the results indicated that wood
IBS have fewer impacts compared to masonry TBS (e.g. cases 9 and 10)
or other steel or concrete IBS, although this advantage was not always
achieved [17,130]. Aye et al. found that the impacts of a wood IBS case
(envelopes) increased due to a steel structure [17]. By contrast, Iddon
and Firth found that a wood IBS generated greater impacts due to dif­
ferences in insulation materials and gypsum [130]. With concrete,
excluding some structural IBS, positive EEI results almost unanimously
achieved better performance. This improvement could have resulted
from the use efficiency of concrete and steel commonly reported for IBS
[20,85]. However, significant variability was observed in economic
performance among concrete IBS. Moreover, for steel IBS, few studies
were available, and EEI performance was similar or lower than TBS –
although this disadvantage could be mitigated with steel reusability
[17]. Still, few studies evaluated reusability in-depth with wood, steel or
other materials. In this regard, importantly, reuse presents an excellent
opportunity to mitigate such impacts on buildings, aligning circular
economy (CE) proposals as a viable mitigation option [84]. Other rele­
vant aspects that have been little explored in the literature are wood
carbon sequestration and cement carbonation [23,129], as well as the
use of alternative materials in IBS – such as in case 57 [80] – recycled
materials [131] or biomaterials [132,133].
Understanding materials’ performance throughout the life cycle is
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
essential to improve IBS sustainability since the possibilities of each,
coupled with the heterogeneity of a whole building’s composition (in an
IBS or a TBS) can determine the sustainability of such a choice. Likewise,
note that the particularities of each analysed system – including the
amount of materials demanded in different climates, structural design
and use and building size – also influenced this analysis, and such
conditions depend on each project and location, such that always
ensuring IBS materials’ superior sustainability to a TBS difficult.
4.2. Prefabrication rates
PRs can influence an IBS’s final sustainability performance. How­
ever, few studies have examined PRs despite prefabrication’s inherence
to IBS and PR’s efficiency in classifying IBS types [44].
Uncertainty persists in the literature regarding PRs’ relationship with
sustainability, and some authors have reported higher EEIs with higher
PRs [20,43,134] while others have claimed otherwise [63,70,76,85].
The former group of authors quantitatively analysed case studies with
different percentages of precast concrete IBS, while the second group
conducted mostly a qualitative analysis of IBS or simulated higher PRs
through sensitivity analysis, excepting Dong et al., whose work was
based on a specific quantitative analysis of concrete IBS [85]. Note,
importantly, that these studies analyse such a relationship with GHG
emissions in IBS for different PRs; however, such relationships could
differ for various environmental indicators, such as the case studied by
Wang et al. [135] – in which, despite higher GHG emissions, higher PRs
entailed considerably less water use during the process. However, some
authors have argued that higher PRs are not necessarily positive for
different performance aspects [44]. Other studies indicated that PRs
increased economic costs [109,136], contrary to authors who found a
positive correlation between high PRs and better performance in costs
and construction time [116]. However, studies that simultaneously
evaluate several indicators are scarce in the literature, and although the
results showed that average higher savings in IBS normally corre­
sponded with high PRs, more complete studies are still necessary to
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
provide more robust and reliable results.
Finally, and important, comparative evaluations between a modular
IBS (high PR) and other types of IBS with lower PRs (low or medium
PRs) are scarce, with very few studies having adopted this focus [117,
137]. Likewise, PR analyses on materials other than concrete are very
scarce. Thus, several knowledge gaps persist, and further research ad­
vances remain necessary to relate PRs to IBS’ sustainability
performance.
4.3. Techniques and machinery
The techniques and machinery category refers to how construction
elements are manufactured in a factory or on-site, and its impacts are
related to life cycle stages A3 and A5. These stages typically entail low
representativeness of EEI performance [76]. However, they constitute
one of the main distinctions between IBS and TBS, so their character­
istics ultimately differentiate between both methodologies [62,85,138].
Thus, positive IBS performance may results from less electricity use by
controlled works in an industrial plant [20,62,70], more efficient use of
formwork, generating greater safety for workers [28,85], more efficient
concrete curing (with steam) [28], more efficient cranes used on-site
[139] or more efficient fuels (e.g. diesel) and machinery use [43,76,
77,94]. However, such results are not always positive for IBS, and dis­
advantages may result from increased electricity use [27], higher energy
consumption in concrete manufacturing [20] or modular construction
[24].
Each construction system, as well as its available technologies, fuel
types or even energy type matrix used in the region of analysis [140]
entails particularities that influence the performance of these con­
struction stages so that affirming that IBS are always more efficient and
sustainable in their use of techniques and machinery is impossible.
However, the reviewed evidence reflected overall benefits compared to
TBS. Additionally, and importantly, this category is also affected by
construction management [63].
4.4. Transportation
The impacts in the transportation category are associated with life
cycle phases A2, A4 and C2. IBS transport types and distances must be
highlighted since, in different investigations, their impacts were ulti­
mately greater in relation to TBS [70,82,109,141,142] due to distances
between factories and worksites, the transportation of large and heavy
elements or industrial plants’ relative locations. However, such results
also depended on each case study. For Mao et al., the lack of waste
transport from a production plant generated better results (after most of
the factory materials had been recycled without waste) [70]. Mean­
while, for Cao et al., a decrease in concrete trucks improved IBS per­
formance [28]. For Kawecki (case 3), because manufacturing materials
were not weighed, transport was the key differentiating factor between a
modular IBS and a TBS, given a more convenient distance for TBS use
[142]. The sensitivity analysis of transport distances showed that this
factor decisively determines IBS or TBS sustainability and is, therefore,
fundamental to decision-making [129]. By contrast, for Quale et al.,
worker transport resulted in an IBS’s negative performance [27],
aligning with the findings of Kamali et al. on the use of private loco­
motion systems [24]. However, few authors have considered worker
transport. For modular IBS versus IBS with lower PRs, studies reported a
greater advantage and transport savings for IBS with lower PRs since
they occupied transportation spaces more efficiently [137].
The literature has shown a direct relationship between transport
distances, raw materials’ availability and the effectiveness of reducing
IBS EEI. Therefore, the distances managed between the different life
cycle phases and technology modalities used for transportation must be
considered.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
4.5. Construction management
Although the relationship between management strategies and sus­
tainability performance was not evaluated, some authors pointed out its
relevance during design and construction phases of buildings with an
IBS [28,76]. Work management, through strategic planning, can be
essential to improve waste reduction, unnecessary transport or machi­
nery’s inactivity [27,89]. Likewise, other authors highlighted manage­
ment’s importance to improve industrial processes’ standardisation
[20], while still other authors emphasised that quality control can
reduce energy use between 4% and 14% throughout an IBS life cycle
[134]. In the analysed studies, some authors mentioned the importance
of lean construction (LC) methodology to reduce IBS waste and material
consumption [62,70]. Other authors proved LC’s effectiveness in opti­
mising productivity [32,143] or even reducing energy consumption and
CO2 emissions [61,144]. Accordingly, some studies evaluated specific
LC management techniques to improve sustainability performance in
IBS, reporting time reductions of up to 10.7% in assembling pre­
fabricated modules and consequent energy savings [145]. However,
quantitative and qualitative analyses have seldom evaluated LC’s rela­
tionship simultaneously with other sustainability aspects. Still, LC ap­
plications could be fundamental to IBS′ sustainability performance –
especially in developing countries, which are characterised by old work
habits and low quality standards [146].
4.6. Evaluation methodologies
Although the evaluation methodologies category is not inherent to
IBS, the methods and databases used could be decisive in reported
outcomes, as was verified by Teng et al. [147]. For example, the use of
the hybrid method, compared to P–B, was shown to produce more
complete results because it quantified upstream consumption in the
production chain [134,148,149]. However, this method was used very
little in the analysed case studies, which reflected a preference for the
P–B method. Meanwhile, each author established their own boundary
system, as well as their own assumptions, based on the available data
and resources or a specific location and objectives set, which makes an
objective comparison between different studies’ outcomes difficult.
Some studies, especially those not conducted under LCA and that
focused on economic and social aspects (Appendix 1), were based on
analyses of interviews with specialists or individuals responsible for
construction projects. This aspect also meant that their subjectivity
possibly influenced their data interpretation, either quantitatively or
qualitatively.
Finally, quantitative methodological frameworks are scarce – espe­
cially those that include social and economic aspects simultaneously –
despite their relevance [59,95]. For example, according to Rahman
et al., social work costs represent up to 400% of certain projects’ total
costs and are not quantified since they cannot be estimated using con­
ventional methods [150]. Finally, note that local aspects are always
decisive in sustainability evaluations, and many advances are still
lacking in the development of methodologies that allow comparisons of
performance results between IBS.
5. Conclusions
This paper presented a compared the sustainability performance of
IBSs to TBSs vis-à-vis based on different qualitative and quantitative
indicators through a systematised bibliographic review of case studies’
analyses. Previous literature reviews have studied IBS′ sustainability
advantages, but usually without compare vis-à-vis IBS’s sustainability
indicators in relation to TBS, or by focusing on specific indicators (e.g.
environmental). Thus, the presentation, discussion and analysis of
quantitative indicators metrics were lacking in the literature. Moreover,
this paper set out to simultaneously gather, discuss and compare aspects
of IBS′ social, economic and environmental sustainability. The review’s
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
main research conclusions are the followings:
• According to the case studies analysed, IBS tend to be more sus­
tainable than TBS due to most indicators obtained positive results.
However, more studies are needed to provide representative results
for some indicators. The main indicator that contradicts this
conclusion is higher costs. Nonetheless, insufficient evidence is
available to conclude that IBS are always more expensive. Mean­
while, new technologies can be expected to be more cost-effective as
their implementation becomes widespread and their other social or
environmental benefits become known or consolidated.
• Comparative evaluations of IBS cases versus TBS cases vis-à-vis
environmental, economic and social aspects are unbalanced. An
important number of investigations have examined environmental
sustainability, representing 86% of the reviewed studies, followed by
economic factors at 33.7% and, finally, social parameters at 16.3%
(Fig. 3). Likewise, within these environmental aspects, evaluations of
GHG emissions stand out (Fig. 10). This trend has resulted from
current world concerns about reducing global warming, a priority
shared by most countries; however, other equally relevant impact
indicators should not be neglected.
• IBS′ balance between economic and social performance has not been
properly studied. Cost-benefit analyses adapted to the socio-
economic realities of each region and different types of building
uses are necessary to strengthen the literature’s existing discussion of
such sustainability aspects. Special emphasis should be placed on
several social performance parameters whose importance is not yet
reflected in the literature – such as traffic and community distur­
bances, local employment sources, discrimination, forced or child
labour and public commitments to sustainability aspects.
• Finally, the absolute values of some environmental indicators merit
attention. nOC values vary from 26.74 to 852 kgCO2/m2; meanwhile,
GWP values range from − 253.11 to 864 kgCO2Eq/m2. nOE results
vary between 0.086 and 14.4 Gj/m2. Waste values vary from 0.03 to
2490 kg/m2. This significant variability is due to the different
boundary systems evaluated by each case study, the materiality of
each IBS and TBS, the work management of each case study, tech­
niques and machinery, transport distances, methods, building use
and prefabrication levels. Thus, comparisons among these results
and other studies should carefully limit such variables, seeking a
more objective discussion.
5.1. Outlook
This paper has highlighted some research gaps. Among these gaps
are reusability analyses of both constructive elements and complete
modules (modular IBSs) and their influence throughout the life cycle.
Such analysis could significantly extend IBS materials’ EEI. Reusability
is a key factor in diminishing the building sector’s environmental im­
pacts, and it has been suggested as the best way to avoid raw material
consumption [17]. Future research should focus on measuring IBS′
reusability benefits. Additionally, this focus would align with currently
proposed CE strategies. Likewise, an analysis of IBS design for disas­
sembly studies would complement reuse possibilities.
Another research opportunity lies in a comparative evaluation of
sustainability performance between IBS with different PRs – especially
using materials other than concrete, such as steel. Steel has been eval­
uated less than other materials and still offers high reusability rates
compared to other materials. In order to promote efficient IBS imple­
mentation while fitting with regional technology and local capabilities is
crucial to understanding the benefits of different PRs and IBS types.
Future research should study and compare such scope, assessing IBS
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
implementations in local economies, social vulnerabilities and envi­
ronmental priorities for each location’s specific features.
Regarding the impacts associated with life cycle phases, complete
LCAs (cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle) have been studied very little.
However, whole-impact evaluations would better expose the advantages
of each constructive method, similarly promoting a CE perspective in the
building sector. The same research gap also highlights a lack of evalu­
ation of socio-environmental indicators (such as water, AP, EP, ODP and
PM). Moreover, these gaps in the literature also highlight the scarce
analyses of social indicators referred to impacts in human health
(Fig. 8b), which are normally under-evaluated in building LCA studies.
Therefore, more comparative investigations between TBS and IBS are
recommended in this regard.
Different methods, tools and technologies to quantify impacts have
seldom been explored in comparative case studies. Among these ap­
proaches are IO and hybrid methods, tools such as building information
modelling (BIM), and other technologies – such as the internet of things
(IoT), virtual reality, RFID, GPS and 3D printing. Although these tech­
nologies have already been implemented in IBS studies [150–155], they
are still seldom used in comparative evaluations between IBS and TBS.
IBS has captured more and more interest in recent years, and un­
derstanding its advantages and challenges is crucial to improve world­
wide implementation – especially when compared directly with TBS in
terms of sustainability, which is one of the building sector’s main goals
to face climate change, resource depletion, waste generation, social
disturbances, etc. The results of the current review will contribute to a
better understanding of the extent to which IBS can help dimishing these
and other building-sector impacts.
The geographic, political, social, economic and cultural context of
each country or region could affect the spread and magnitude of indus­
trialisation. Therefore, the social, economic, and environmental benefits
of IBS would depend on these contextual factors. Moreover, the quanti­
tative and comparative outcomes of TBS and IBS are valuable for public
policy and stakeholders interested in visualising and discussing indus­
trialised construction benefits. Similarly, findings from this review can
encourage new researchers who seek to deepen the knowledge of any
less-analysed indicator or pursue future studies on the gaps highlighted.
Credit author statement
Rafael E. López-Guerrero: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi­
gation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis. Sergio
Vera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review
& editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition. Manuel Carpio: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Agency for Research and
Development (ANID)/Scholarship Program/DOCTORADO BECAS
CHILE/2020–21201032 (Rafael E. López-Guerrero), ANID BASAL
FB210015 CENAMAD, ANID FONDECYT 1201052 (Manuel Carpio),
ANID FONDECYT 1181610 and Center for Sustainable Urban Develop­
ment (CEDEUS) through the project CONICYT/FONDAP/15110020
(Sergio Vera).
R.E. López-Guerrero et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034

Appendix 1. All case studies analysed. Reported indicators: GPW (global warming potential) or CO2 -eq, Wt (water), Ws (waste), Cs (costs), T
(construction time) and P (productivity). Legend: W – wood, C – concrete, S – steel, GFRG – fibreglass-reinforced gypsum, N – no, Y – yes, NA –
assessed by the author(s) but not analysed in this review. Note that when case number or LCA codes appear, they indicate that a case study
analysed only this stage or case [156–173]

16
R.E. López-Guerrero et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034

. (continued).

17
R.E. López-Guerrero et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034

Appendix 2. All normalised results for non-operational carbon, non-operational energy and waste. Note: Red numbers indicate that a unit has
changed

18
R.E. López-Guerrero et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034

Appendix 3. Life cycle phases, according to European standard EN 15978 [73]

References [17] Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P. Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy
Build 2012;47:159–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049.
[1] Yeheyis M, Hewage K, Alam MS, Eskicioglu C, Sadiq R. An overview of
[18] Tavares V, Lacerda N, Freire F. Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the ‘Moby’ case study. J Clean Prod
approach to sustainability. Clean Technol Environ Policy Feb. 2013;15(1):81–91.
2019;212:1044–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.028.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6.
[19] Teng Y, Li K, Pan W, Ng T. Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through
[2] Hossain MU, Ng ST. Critical consideration of buildings’ environmental impact
prefabrication: evidence from and gaps in empirical studies. Build Environ 2018;
assessment towards adoption of circular economy: an analytical review. J Clean
132:125–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.026.
Prod Dec. 2018;205:763–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.120.
[20] Du Q, Bao T, Li Y, Huang Y, Shao L. Impact of prefabrication technology on the
[3] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Global status report for
cradle-to-site CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Clean Technol Environ
buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission. Nairobi: Efficient and
Policy 2019:1499–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01723-y.
Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; 2020 [Online]. Available: https
[21] Tumminia G, Guarino F, Longo S, Ferraro M, Cellura M, Antonucci V. Life cycle
://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34572/GSR_ES.pdf?seq
energy performances and environmental impacts of a prefabricated building
uence=3&isAllowed=y.
module. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;92:272–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[4] Eurostat, “Eurostat - Data Explorer,”. Generation of waste by waste category,
rser.2018.04.059.
hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity. 2019. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europ
[22] Kamali M, Hewage K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical
a.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasgen&lang=en. [Accessed 28 October 2020].
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1171–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[5] GABC. Global roadmap towards low-ghg and resilient buildings. 2016 [Online].
rser.2016.05.031.
Available: https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/GABC_Global_Roa
[23] Švajlenka J, Kozlovská M, Spišáková M. The benefits of modern method of
dmap_Website.pdf.
construction based on wood in the context of sustainability. Int J Environ Sci
[6] UNEP-SBCI. Buildings and climate change summary for decision-makers
Technol 2017;14(8):1591–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1282-6.
sustainable buildings & climate initiative. 2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.
[24] Kamali M, Hewage K, Sadiq R. Conventional versus modular construction
tge.ca. [Accessed 20 May 2019].
methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy Build
[7] Soares N, et al. A review on current advances in the energy and environmental
2019;204(109479). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479.
performance of buildings towards a more sustainable built environment. Renew
[25] Shen K, Cheng C, Li X, Zhang Z. Environmental cost-benefit analysis of
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;77:845–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prefabricated public housing in Beijing. Sustainability 2019;11(1). https://doi.
rser.2017.04.027.
org/10.3390/su11010207.
[8] Abdellatif M, Al-Shamma’ A. Review of sustainability in buildings. Sustain Cities
[26] Li L, Li Z, Li X, Zhang S, Luo X. A new framework of industrialized construction in
Soc 2015;14:171–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.09.002.
China: towards on-site industrialization. J Clean Prod 2020;244(118469).
[9] Olawumi TO, Chan DWM. A scientometric review of global research on
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118469.
sustainability and sustainable development. J Clean Prod J 2018;183:231–50.
[27] Quale J, Eckelman MJ, Williams KW, Sloditskie G, Zimmerman JB. Construction
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162.
matters comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional
[10] Azmi N, Bari A, Abdullah A, Yusuff R, Ismail N, Jaapar A. Environmental
homes in the United States. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(2):243–53. https://doi.org/
awareness and benefits of industrialized building systems (IBS). Procedia-Social
10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x.
Behav. Sci. 2012;50:16–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.044.
[28] Cao X, Li X, Zhu Y, Zhang Z. A comparative study of environmental performance
[11] Marjaba GE, Chidiac SE. Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings e
between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J Clean Prod
Critical review. Build Environ 2016;101:116–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2015;109:131–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.120.
buildenv.2016.03.002.
[29] Jaillon L, Poon CS. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in
[12] Kamali M, Hewage K. Development of performance criteria for sustainability
dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Construct Manag Econ 2008;
evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J Clean Prod
26(9):953–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802259043.
2017;142:3592–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108.
[30] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Bergin R. Application of modular construction in high-
[13] Hamdy A, Abdelkader M, Stait M, Samy S. Defining the characteristics of
rise buildings. J Architect Eng 2012;18(2):148–54. https://doi.org/10.1061/
prefabricated architecture as an alternative sustainable construction approach
(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000057.
defining the characteristics of prefabricated architecture as an alternative
[31] Nadi E. Construction labor productivity benchmarking: a comparison between
sustainable construction approach. 2018.
on-site construction and prefabrication. Marquette University; 2019.
[14] Yunus R, Yang J. Sustainability criteria for industrialised building systems (IBS)
[32] Goh M, Goh YM. Lean production theory-based simulation of modular
in Malaysia. Procedia Eng 2011;14:1590–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
construction processes. Autom ConStruct 2019;101(February):227–44. https://
proeng.2011.07.200.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.017.
[15] Li Z, Shen GQ, Alshawi M. Measuring the impact of prefabrication on construction
[33] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Sustainability and process benefits of modular
waste reduction: an empirical study in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;91:
construction. In: CIB World congress; 2010. p. 38–51.
27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.013.
[34] Jaillon L, Poon CS. Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a review and
[16] Lu W, Yuan H. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes
case studies in Hong Kong. Autom ConStruct 2014;39:195–202. https://doi.org/
of offshore prefabrication construction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:
10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.006.
804–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.048.
[35] Boafo FE, Kim J, Kim J. Performance of modular prefabricated architecture : case
study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 2016;8(558):1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060558.

19
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
[36] Jin R, Gao S, Cheshmehzangi A, Aboagye-Nimo E. A holistic review of off-site
construction literature published between 2008 and 2018. J Clean Prod 2018;
202:1202–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.195.
[37] Hosseini MR, Martek I, Zavadskas EK, Aibinu AA, Arashpour M, Chileshe N.
Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: a Scientometric analysis.
Autom ConStruct 2018;87(December 2017):235–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.12.002.
[38] Wuni IY, Shen QP. Holistic review and conceptual framework for the drivers of off
site construction: a total interpretive structural modelling approach. Buidings
2019;9:117. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9050117.
[39] Kedir F, Hall D. Assessing the environmental implications of industrialized
housing: a systematic literature review. In: Modular and offsite construction
(MOC); 2019. p. 314–24. https://doi.org/10.29173/mocs109. Summit.
[40] Ferdous W, Bai Y, Duc Ngo T, Manalo A, Mendis P. New advancements,
challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings-A state-of-the-art
review. Eng Struct J 2019;183:883–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.01.061.
[41] Jin R, Hong J, Zuo J. Environmental performance of off-site constructed facilities:
a critical review. Energy Build 2017;207:2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2019.109567.
[42] Yu S, Liu Y, Wang D, Bahaj AS, Wu Y, Liu J. Review of thermal and environmental
performance of prefabricated buildings: implications to emission reductions in
China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;137:110472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110472.
[43] Li X, Lai J, Ma C, Wang C. Using BIM to research carbon footprint during the
materialization phase of prefabricated concrete buildings: a China study. J Clean
Prod 2021;279(123454). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123454.
[44] Lu W, Chen K, Xue F, Pan W. Searching for an optimal level of prefabrication in
construction: an analytical framework. J Clean Prod 2018;201:236–45. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.319.
[45] Azman MNA, Ahamad MSS, Wan Husin WM. Comparative study on
prefabrication construction process. Int. Surv. Res. J. 2012;2(1):45–58.
[46] Gibb AGF. Pre-assembly in construction - a review of recent and current industry
and research initiatives on pre-assembly in construction. In: Construction in
construction research & innovation strategy panel CRISP consultancy commission
00/19; 2001. p. 81.
[47] Steinhardt DA, Manley K, Miller W. Predicting Australian builders ’ intentions to
use prefabrication. 2014 [Online]. Available: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/81179/.
[48] Sierra L, Zamora JL. Balconies, analysis of constructive technology current state
and foresight of new industrial development. In: Structures and architecture:
concepts, Applications and challenges; 2013. p. 636–43.
[49] Abosaod H, Underwood J, Umit I, Barony S. A classification system for
representation of off-site manufacturing concepts through virtual prototyping,”
in. 9th Int. Detail Des. Archit. Conf. 2010:267–78.
[50] Correia Lopes G, Vicente R, Azenha M, Ferreira TM. A systematic review of
Prefabricated Enclosure Wall Panel Systems: focus on technology driven for
performance requirements. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;40:688–703. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.027. Jul.
[51] Kneifel J, Rear EO, Webb D, Fallon CO. An exploration of the relationship
between improvements in energy efficiency and life-cycle energy and carbon
emissions using the BIRDS low-energy residential database. Energy Build 2018;
160:19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.030.
[52] Röck M, et al. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – the hidden challenge for
effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 2020;258:114107. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.
[53] Kadir MRA, Lee WP, Jaafar MS, Sapuan SM, Ali AAA. Construction performance
comparison between conventional and industrialised building systems in
Malaysia. Struct Surv 2006;24(5):412–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-
2013-0093.
[54] Hong Y, Chan DWM, Asce M, Chan APC, Yeung JFY. Critical analysis of
partnering research trend in construction journals. J Manag Eng 2011;28(April):
82–95. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000084.
[55] Wohlin C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a
replication in software engineering. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268.
[56] Marconi M, Lakatos E. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 5ft Editio. Sao
Paulo: EDITORA ATLAS; 2003.
[57] Crowley PB, Delfico J. Content analysis: a methodology for structuring and
analyzing written material. 1996. Washington, D.C.
[58] Steinhardt DA, Manley K. Adoption of prefabricated housing-the role of country
context. Sustain Cities Soc 2016;22:126–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2016.02.008.
[59] Hu X, Chong H-Y, Wang X. Sustainability perceptions of off-site manufacturing
stakeholders in Australia. J Clean Prod 2019;227:346–54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.258.
[60] Xiahou X, Yuan J, Liu Y, Tang Y, Li Q. Exploring the driving factors of
construction industrialization development in China. Int J Environ Res Publ
Health 2018;15:3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030442.
[61] Carvajal-Arango D, et al. Relationships between lean and sustainable
construction: positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during
construction phase. J Clean Prod 2019;234:1322–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.05.216.
[62] Ji Y, Li K, Liu G, Shrestha A, Jing J. Comparing greenhouse gas emissions of
precast in-situ and conventional construction methods. J Clean Prod 2018;173:
124–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.143.
20
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
[63] Sandanayake M, Luo W, Zhang G. Direct and indirect impact assessment in off-
site construction-A case study in China. Sustain Cities Soc J 2019;48. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101520.
[64] Wang J, Densley D, May M, Wang Y. Life cycle impact comparison of different
concrete floor slabs considering uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J Clean Prod
2018;189:374–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.094.
[65] Jiang B, Li H, Dong L, Wang Y, Tao Y. Cradle-to-site carbon emissions assessment
of Prefabricated Rebar Cages for high-rise buildings in China. Sustain Times 2018;
11:1. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010042.
[66] Lu Z-H, Omar W-M-SW. Environmental impact assessment of tall building
structural design with precast and conventional building system on embodied
energy and carbon emission. In: International symposium on green and
sustainable technology (Isgst2019), vol. 2157; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.5126574.
[67] Ghayeb HH, Razak HA, Sulong NHR. Evaluation of the CO2 emissions of an
innovative composite precast concrete structure building frame. J Clean Prod
2020;242:118567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118567.
[68] Usefi N, Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Ronagh H, Samali B. Structural performance and
sustainability assessment of hybrid-cold formed modular steel frame. J Build Eng
2021;34(101895). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101895.
[69] Azari R, Abbasabadi N. Embodied energy of buildings: a review of data, methods,
challenges, and research trends. Energy Build 2018;168:225–35. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.003.
[70] Mao C, Shen Q, Shen L, Tang L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions
between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two case
studies of residential projects. Energy Build 2013;66:165–76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
[71] Wan Omar WMS, Doh JH, Panuwatwanich K, Miller D. Assessment of the
embodied carbon in precast concrete wall panels using a hybrid life cycle
assessment approach in Malaysia. Sustain Cities Soc 2014;10:101–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.06.002.
[72] Hammond G, Jones C, Lowrie EF, Tse P. A BSRIA guide embodied carbon the
inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). 2011.
[73] BRE Global. BRE global methodology for the environmental assessment of
buildings using EN 15978: 2011. 2018.
[74] Wadel G. La sostenibilidad en la arquitectura industrializada. La construcción
modular ligera aplicada a la vivienda. Universidad Politecnica de Cataluña; 2009.
[75] Wang H, Zhang Y, Gao W, Kuroki S. Life cycle environmental and cost
performance of prefabricated buildings. Sustain Times 2020;12(7). https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12072609.
[76] Pons O, Wadel G. Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in
Catalonia. Habitat Int 2011;35:553–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2011.03.005.
[77] Vitale P, Spagnuolo A, Lubritto C, Arena U. Environmental performances of
residential buildings with a structure in cold formed steel or reinforced concrete.
J Clean Prod 2018;189:839–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.088.
[78] Li HX, Esfahani M, Naseri Gul Mehrdad, Yu H, Mah D, Al-Hussein M. Carbon
footprint of panelized construction: an empirical and comparative study. In:
Construction research congress 2014 ©ASCE; 2014. p. 494–503.
[79] Omar WMSW. A hybrid life cycle assessment of embodied energy and carbon
emissions from conventional and industrialised building systems in Malaysia.
Energy Build 2018;167:253–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.045.
[80] Cherian P, Palaniappan S, Menon D, Anumolu MP. Comparative study of
embodied energy of affordable houses made using GFRG and conventional
building technologies in India. Energy Build 2020;223:110138. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110138.
[81] Hammad WA, Akbarnezhad A, Wu P, Wang X, Haddad A. Building information
modelling-based framework to contrast conventional and modular construction
methods through selected sustainability factors. J Clean Prod 2019;228:1264–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.150.
[82] Abey ST, Anand KB. Embodied energy comparison of prefabricated and
conventional building construction. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2019. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40030-019-00394-8.
[83] Rostami R, Hasanuddin L, Seyed R. Meysam Khoshnava Rostami,
“Industrialization and sustainable construction a case study of Malaysia. Asian J
Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci 2013;15(2):433–40.
[84] Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL, Colling M. Strategies for
applying the circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings 2018;8(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8090125.
[85] Hong Dong Y, Jaillon L, Chu P, Poon C. Comparing carbon emissions of precast
and cast-in-situ construction methods-A case study of high-rise private building.
Construct Build Mater J 2015;99:39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.08.145.
[86] Kim D. Preliminary life cycle analysis of modular and conventioinal housing in
benton harbor. michigan: University of Michigan; 2008.
[87] Jaillon L, Poon CS, Chiang YH. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using
prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag 2009;29(1):
309–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015.
[88] Tam VWY, Hao JJL. Prefabrication as a mean of minimizing construction waste
on site. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014;14(2):113–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15623599.2014.899129.
[89] Tam VWY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Ng WCY, Kong H. Towards adoption of
prefabrication in construction. Build Environ 2007;42(10):3642–54. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003.
[90] Antink R, Arrigan C, Bonetti M, Westaway R. Greening the building supply chain.
Geneva: UNEP; 2014 [Online]. Available: https://sustainable-fire-engineering.su
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
stainable-design.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/UNEP-SBCI_Greening-Build
ing-Supply-Chain_2014.pdf.
[91] Crawford RH, Pullen S. Life cycle water analysis of a residential building and its
occupants. Build Res Inf 2011;36(6):589–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2011.584212.
[92] Moradibistouni M, Vale B, Isaacs N. Evaluating sustainability of prefabrication
methods in comparison with traditional methods. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.
2019;131:228–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04293-6_23.
[93] Burgess JC, Buckett NR, Page IC. Prefabrication impacts in the New Zealand
construction industry. 2013 [Online]. Available: http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_sh
ow_download.php?id=2935644f1d998595f3a2d8f5e8167dd08a42a179.
[Accessed 1 August 2019].
[94] Sandanayake M, Zhang G, Setunge S, Li CQ. Environmental emissions in building
construction – two case studies of conventional and pre-fabricated construction
methods in Australia. 2016.
[95] Liu S, Qian S. Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: theoretical
framework and impact assessment approach. J Clean Prod 2019;213:792–807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.200.
[96] Li Z, Shen GQ, Xue X. Critical review of the research on the management of
prefabricated construction. Habitat Int 2014;43:240–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.habitatint.2014.04.001.
[97] Chen Y, Okudan GE, Riley DR. Sustainable performance criteria for construction
method selection in concrete buildings. Autom ConStruct 2010;19:235–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004.
[98] Construye2025. Acompañamiento proyecto construcción industrializada.
Santiago [Online]. Available: https://construye2025.cl/download/179/estudios/
4813/estudio-acompanamiento-proyecto-construccion-industrializada.pdf; 2018.
[99] Sharaai AH, Mahmood NZ, Sulaiman AH. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
using TRACI methodology: an analysis of potential impact on potable water
production. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010;4(9):4313–22.
[100] Zhengdao C, Zhao Y, Xu X. Investigation of dust exposure and control practices in
the construction industry : implications for cleaner production. J Clean Prod
2019;227:810–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.174.
[101] Li X, Song Z, Wang T, Zheng Y, Ning X. Health impacts of construction noise on
workers: a quantitative assessment model based on exposure measurement.
J Clean Prod 2016;135:721–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.100.
[102] Ahn YH, Kim K. Development Sustainability in modular design and construction :
a case study of ‘ the Stack. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2014;5(4):
37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2014.985758.
[103] Hamid ZA, Kamar KAM, Alshawi M. Industrialised building system (IBS): strategy,
people and process. Kuala Lumpur: Construction Research Institute of Malaysia
(CREAM); 2011.
[104] Wallbaum H, Ostermeyer Y, Salzer C, Zea Escamilla E, Escamilla EZ. Indicator
based sustainability assessment tool for affordable housing construction
technologies. Ecol Indicat 2012;18:353–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2011.12.005.
[105] Laili Jabar I, Ismail F, Rashid A, Aziz A. Public Participation: enhancing public
perception towards IBS implementation. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015;168:
61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.210.
[106] Wu G, et al. Factors influencing the application of prefabricated construction in
China: from perspectives of technology promotion and cleaner production.
J Clean Prod 2019;219:753–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.110.
[107] Wang Y, Li H, Wu Z. Attitude of the Chinese public toward off-site construction: a
text mining study. J Clean Prod 2019;238:117926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.117926.
[108] Pons O. “Assessing the sustainability of prefabricated buildings,” eco-efficient
constr. Build. Mater. Life cycle assess. (LCA), eco-labelling case stud. 2013.
p. 434–56. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857097729.3.434.
[109] Hong J, Shen GQ, Li Z, Zhang B, Zhang W. Barriers to promoting prefabricated
construction in China: a costebenefit analysis. J Clean Prod 2018;172:649–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.171.
[110] Pasquire C, Gary EC. Leaner construction through off-site manufacturing. In: 11th
annual conference. International Group for Lean Construction; 2002. p. 263–6.
[111] Mao C, Xie F, Hou L, Wu P, Wang J, Wang X. Cost analysis for sustainable off-site
construction based on a multiple-case study in China. Habitat Int 2016;57:
215–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.08.002.
[112] Jin Q, Xu C, Xiaoxi L. Research on factors affecting the life-circle cost of
prefabricated building in China. In: International Conference on Construction and
real estate management 2018; 2018. p. 106–13.
[113] Shamsuddin SM, Zakaria R, Hashim N, Mohamad N. A framework of initiatives
for successful application of life cycle costing (LCC) in industrialised building
system (IBS) in Malaysian construction industry. In: 6th international conference
of Euro Asia civil engineering forum (EACEF 2017), vol. 138; 2017. p. 9. https://
doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201713805002.
[114] Qi Y, Chang S, Ji Y, Qi K. BIM-based incremental cost analysis method of
prefabricated buildings in China. Sustainability 2018;10(4293):1–21. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10114293.
[115] Mao C, Shen Q, Asce M, Pan W, Ye K. Major barriers to off-site construction : the
developer ’ s perspective in China. J Manag Eng 2015;31(3):1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000246.
[116] Shahzad W, Mbachu J, Domingo N. Prefab content versus cost and time savings in
construction projects: a regression analysis. In: 4th New Zealand built
environment research symposium; 2014. p. 1–17.
[117] Liu S, Qian S. Towards sustainability-oriented decision making: model
development and its validation via a comparative case study on building
construction methods. Sustain Dev 2019:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1946.
21
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
[118] Bhattacharjee P, Pishdad-Bozorgi Suchismita, Ram G. Adoption of pre-fabrication
in construction to achieve sustainability goals: an empirical study. In:
Construction research congress 2016; 2016. p. 2039–49. https://doi.org/
10.1061/9780784479827.203.
[119] Hammad AWA, Akbarnezhad A. Modular vs conventional construction: a multi-
criteria framework approach. In: ISARC 2017 - Proceedings of the 34th
international Symposium on Automation and Robotics in construction; 2017.
p. 214–20. https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc2017/0029. Isarc.
[120] Liew KH. Manifestos for sustainable development: sustainable modular steel-
precast concrete building construction system for dwellings in Singapore. Sustain.
Dev. Res. Asia-Pacific Reg. 2018:477–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
73293-0_28.
[121] Institute McKinsey Global. Reinventing construction: a route to higher
productivity. New York. 2017 [Online]. Available: https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Operations/Our Insights/Reinvent
ing construction through a productivity revolution/MGI-Reinventing-Construct
ion-Executive-summary.pdf.
[122] Yin X, Liu H, Chen Y, Al-hussein M. Building information modelling for off-site
construction: review and future directions. Autom ConStruct 2019;101:72–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.010.
[123] Liu K, Shoujian Z. Assessment of sustainable development capacity of
prefabricated residential building supply chain. In: International Conference on
Construction and real estate management ICCREM; 2018. p. 45–58.
[124] Abdullah AH, Hassan M, Mohd B. Comparing the sustainability aspects of
construction between conventional and IBS formwork systems. In: “ International
engineering convention; 2009. p. 188–204.
[125] Nawi MNM, Noordin A, Tamrin N, Nifa FAA, Lin CK. An ecological study on
enhancing the Malaysian construction ecosystem: readiness implementation
factors in industrialised building system (IBS) projects. Ekoloji 2019;28(107):
545–52.
[126] Kamar KAM, Zuhairi AH, Mohd KG, Egbu C, Mohammed A. Collaboration
initiative on green construction and sustainability through industrialized
buildings systems (IBS) in the Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Sustain.
Constr. Eng. Technol. 2010;1:119–27 [Online]. Available: https://publisher.uth
m.edu.my/ojs/index.php/IJSCET/article/view/56. [Accessed 29 July 2019].
[127] Mazzuana S, Zakaria R, Fikri S, Shamsuddin SM, Zakaria R, Mohamed SF.
Economic attributes in industrialised building system in Malaysia. Procedia - Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2013;105:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.009.
[128] Monahan J, Powell JC. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework. Energy Build 2011;43(1):179–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.09.005.
[129] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional
and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy Build 2014;82:
194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034.
[130] Iddon CR, Firth SK. Embodied and operational energy for new-build housing: a
case study of construction methods in the UK. Energy Build Dec. 2013;67:479–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2013.08.041.
[131] Zhang C, Hu M, Yang X, Amati A, Tukker A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emission
and cost analysis of prefabricated concrete building façade elements. J Ind Ecol
2020;24(5):1016–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12991.
[132] Peñaloza D, Erlandsson M, Falk A. Exploring the climate impact effects of
increased use of bio-based materials in buildings. Construct Build Mater J 2016;
125:219–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.041.
[133] Kubba S. Green building materials and products. In: Handbook of green building
Design and construction; 2017. p. 257–351.
[134] Hong J, Shen GQ, Mao C, Li Z, Li K. Life-cycle energy analysis of prefabricated
building components: an input-output-based hybrid model. J Clean Prod 2016;
112(2016):2198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.030.
[135] Wang S. The influence of the prefabricated rate on the environmental
performance of buildings in a life cycle perspective. KTH Royal Institute Of
Technology; 2020.
[136] Chenyu L, Chen J. Study on influence of prefabricated rate on the cost of
prefabricated building. In: International Conference on Construction and real
estate management ICCREM; 2019. p. 554–61.
[137] Lopez D, Froese TM. Analysis of costs and benefits of panelized and modular
prefabricated homes. Procedia Eng 2016;145:1291–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.04.166.
[138] Al-Hussein M, Manrique JD, Mah D. North ridge CO2 analysis report comparison
comparison between modular and on-site construction. 2009 [Online]. Available:
https://www.modular.org/IMAGES/foundation/NorthRidgeCO2Report.pdf.
[139] Jia Wen T, Chin Siong H, Noor ZZ. Assessment of embodied energy and global
warming potential of building construction using life cycle analysis approach:
case studies of residential buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. Energy Build 2015;93
(2015):295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.002.
[140] Marceau ML, Bushi L, Meil JK, Bowick M. Life cycle assessment for sustainable
design of precast concrete commercial buildings in Canada. In: 1st international
specialty conference on sustaining public infrastructure; 2012. p. 1–12. 2.
[141] Tam VWY, Fung IWH, Sing MCP, Ogunlana SO. Best practice of prefabrication
implementation in the Hong Kong public and private sectors. J Clean Prod 2015;
109:216–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.045.
[142] Kawecki LR. Environmental performance of modular fabrication: calculating the
carbon footprint of energy used in the construction of a modular home. Arizona
State University; 2010.
R.E. López-Guerrero et al.
[143] Innella F, Arashpour M, Bai Y. Lean methodologies and techniques for modular
construction: chronological and critical review. J Construct Eng Manag 2019;145
(12):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001712.
[144] Lavocat Eduardo G, Picchi FA. The relationship between lean construction and
sustainability. Ambient. Construído 2018;18(1):91–109. https://doi.org/
10.1590/s1678-86212018000100211.
[145] Kong L, Li H, Luo H, Ding L, Zhang X. Sustainable performance of just-in-time
(JIT) management in time-dependent batch delivery scheduling of precast
construction. J Clean Prod 2018;193:684–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.037.
[146] Bui N, Merschbrock C, Munkvold BE. A review of building information modelling
for construction in developing countries. In: Procedia engineering, vol. 164; 2016.
p. 487–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.649. Jan.
[147] Teng Y, Pan W, Li K. Comparing life cycle assessment databases for estimating
carbon emissions of prefabricated buildings. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784481301.036.
[148] Zhu H, Hong J, Shen GQ, Mao C, Zhang H, Li Z. The exploration of the life-cycle
energy saving potential for using prefabrication in residential buildings in China.
Energy Build 2017;166:561–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.12.045.
[149] Chastas P, Theodosiou T, Bikas D. Embodied energy in residential buildings-
towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review. Build Environ 2016;
105:267–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.040.
[150] Rahman S, Vanier D, Newton LA. MIIP report: social cost considerations for
municipal infrastructure. 2005. https://doi.org/10.4224/20377011.
[151] Joshi S, et al. Implementing Virtual Reality technology for safety training in the
precast/prestressed concrete industry. Appl Ergon 2021;90(103286):11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103286.
[152] Zhao Y, Cao C, Liu Z, Mu E. Intelligent control method of hoisting prefabricated
components based on internet-of-things. Sensors 2021;21(980):1–17. https://doi.
org/10.3390/s21030980.
[153] Turner C, Oyekan J, Stergioulas LK. Distributed manufacturing: a new digital
framework for sustainable modular construction. Sustainability 2021;13:1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031515.
[154] Ding Z, Liu S, Luo L, Liao L. A building information modeling-based carbon
emission measurement system for prefabricated residential buildings during the
materialization phase. J Clean Prod 2020;264(121728). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.121728.
[155] Weng Y, et al. Comparative economic, environmental and productivity
assessment of a concrete bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a
precast approach. J Clean Prod 2020;261(121245). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.121245.
[156] Paya-Marin MA, Lim J, Sengupta B. Life-cycle energy analysis of a modular/off-
site building school. Am J Civ Eng Architect 2013;1(3):59–63. https://doi.org/
10.12691/ajcea-1-3-2.
[157] Bukoski JJ, Chaiwiwatworakul P, Gheewala SH. The life cycle assessment of an in
energy-positive peri-urban residence a tropical regime. J Ind Ecol 2016:1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12494. vol. 00, no. 0.
[158] Ryklová P, Mančík Š, Lupíšek A. Environmental benefits of timber-concrete
prefabricated construction system for apartment buildings – a simplified
comparative LCA study. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/
012083.
22
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 157 (2022) 112034
[159] Pervez H, Ali Y, Petrillo A. A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from conventional and modular construction : a case of developing
country. J Clean Prod 2021;294:126210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126210.
[160] Hao JL, et al. Carbon emission reduction in prefabrication construction during
materialization stage: a BIM-based life-cycle assessment approach. Sci Total
Environ 2020;723:137870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137870.
[161] Wong FY-H, Tang Y. Comparative embodied carbon analysis of the volumetric
prefabrication elements and in-situ elements in residential building development
of Hong Kong. In: The Asian Conference on sustainability, vol. 62; 2012. p. 161–6.
Energy & the Environment.
[162] Jeong J, et al. An integrated evaluation of productivity, cost and CO2 emission
between prefabricated and conventional columns. J Clean Prod 2017;142:
2393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.035.
[163] Xu Q, Sun L. Application analysis of prefabricated buildings under green
construction. In: International Conference on Construction and real estate
management ICCREM; 2019. p. 35–41.
[164] Ibrahim SH, et al. Embodied energy and CO2 analysis of industrialised building
system ( IBS ) and conventional building system. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm.
Sci. 2018;2(2):259–66.
[165] Zhang X, Zhang X. Comparison and sensitivity analysis of embodied carbon
emissions and costs associated with rural house construction in China to identify
sustainable structural forms. J Clean Prod 2021;293(126190). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126190.
[166] Hao J, Chen Z, Zhang Z, Gisela L. Quantifying construction waste reduction
through the application of prefabrication: a case study in Anhui, China. Environ
Sci Pollut Res 2020;24(17).
[167] Begum RA, Satari SK, Pereira JJ. Waste generation and recycling: comparison of
conventional and industrialized building systems. Am J Environ Sci 2010;6(4):
383–8. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2010.383.388.
[168] Lachimpadi SK, et al. Construction waste minimisation comparing conventional
and precast construction (Mixed System and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings:
a Malaysia case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;68:96–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.08.011.
[169] Jiang Y, Zhao D, Wang D, Xing Y. Sustainable performance of buildings through
modular prefabrication in the construction phase: a comparative study.
Sustainability 2019;11(5658):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205658.
[170] Ramli MZ, Hanipah MH, Zawawi MH, Zaihafiz M, Abidin Z. Cost comparison on
industrialized building system (IBS) and conventional method for school
construction project. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2016;3(4):95–101.
[171] Zhang S, Pan Y, Li N, Sun Q. A comparative study of the direct costs between
prefabricated housing system and the traditional construction technology- A case
study of precast concrete wall panel. In: Proceedings of the 18th international
Symposium on Advancement of construction Management and real estate; 2014.
p. 349–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44916-1-35.
[172] Liping L. Empirical study on economic analysis of construction of green
prefabricated concrete structure system. In: E3S Web of conferences, vol. 165;
2020. p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016504038.
[173] Wang S, Zhang H, Wang C, Wu Y. Cost analysis between prefabricated buildings
and traditional buildings. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/768/5/
052090.