User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools: Evaluation of a Survey of BEES Users.
User Preferences for Life-Cycle Decision Support Tools:
Evaluation of a Survey of BEES Users.
(1416 K)
Hofstetter, P.; Lippiatt, B. C.; Bare, J. C.; Rushing,
A. S.
NISTIR 6874; 162 p. July 2002.
Sponsor:
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Available from:
: National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
Telephone:
1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000;
Fax: 703-605-6900; Rush
Service (Telephone Orders Only) 800-553-6847;
Website:
http://www.ntis.gov
Order number: PB2002-105724
Keywords:
building products; green buildings; decision support
systems; life cycle assessment; life cycle impact
assessment; software; life-cycle costing; user
preferences
Abstract:
In the 1990's, a number of software-based decision
support tools were developed that consider the life
cycle performance of products and services. BEES 2.0
(Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
is one such tool. It measures the life-cycle
environmental and economic performance of 65 different
building products. Considerable research effort has been
dedicated to improving methods to assess and weight
environmental impacts and costs over the life cycle.
However, virtually no information is available on what
type of information users of these tools really want and
use. To fill this gap, users of BEES 2.0 that downloaded
the software before July 2001 were asked by email to
participate in an Internet-based survey. Five hundred
sixty-six partially or fully completed surveys are used
to evaluate: why they downloaded BEE 2.0; whether they
applied the tool to a real-world decision; what type of
building products need to be added; how much time they
spent using BEES; what level of analysis they are most
interested in; which degrees of transparency,
complexity, and uncertainty analysis users want; what
type of result presentation they would prefer; whether
they used the weighting options, which one they used and
if not, why; how they determined their own weighting
factors and whether they are influenced by temporal and
spatial considerations; and how environmental and
economic information should be combined. Responses to
these questions are presented for the full sample and by
cross-tabulating with other responses. Categorical data
analysis has been used to better understand who answered
what and why. These results will be used to further
develop BEES. Although the survey was geared towards
users of one specific tool (BEES 2.0), many results may
apply as well to other tools. Therefore, suggestions are
made that tool developers and researchers may want to
consider when they make choices and assumptions about
their interface between tool and users.
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899