A Methodological Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Construction Projects Incorporating TBL and Decoupling Principles

: The triple bottom line (TBL) principle encompasses the idea of continued economic and social well-being with minimal or reduced environmental pressure. However, in construction projects, the integration of social, economic, and environmental dimensions from the TBL perspective remains challenging. Green building rating tools/schemes, such as Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA), Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment (BREEAM), and their criteria, which serve as a yardstick in ensuring sustainability based practices and outcomes, are also left wanting. These green building rating tools/schemes not only fail to comprehensively evaluate the three dimensions (social, economic, and environment) and interaction therewith, but also lack in capturing a life cycle approach towards sustainability. Therefore, this study intends to address the aforementioned challenges. The ﬁrst part of this study presents the concept of sustainable construction as a system of well-being decoupling and impact decoupling. Findings in the ﬁrst part of this study provide a rationale for developing a methodological framework that not only encapsulates a TBL based life cycle approach to sustainability assessment in construction, but also evaluates interactions among social and economic well-being, and environmental pressure. In methodological framework development, two decoupling indices were developed, namely, the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI K ) and phase impact decoupling index (PIDI K ). PWBDI K and PIDI K support the evaluation of interdependence among social and economic well-being, and the environmental pressure associated with construction projects in different life cycle phases. The calculation underpinning the proposed framework was illustrated using three hypothetical cases by adopting criteria from GRIHA Precertiﬁcation and GRIHA v.2019 schemes. The results of these cases depict how the interactions among different dimensions (social, economic, and environment) vary as they move from one phase to another phase in a life cycle. The methodological framework developed in this study can be tailored to suit the sustainability assessment requirements for different phases and typologies of construction in the future. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.


Introduction
Sustainability considerations in the building and construction (B&C) sector are becoming more important due to increasing international pressure to address the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a universal framework for sustainable development that revolves around people, planet, and prosperity [1]. The building and construction sector impacts all three dimensions of sustainability; namely, social, environmental, and economic, also known as the triple bottom line (TBL). Social impact by creating spaces to the life cycle of a building. A framework that focuses on a life cycle cum TBL based sustainability approach and, at the same time, ensuring the transition from linear (less sustainable) to circular (more sustainable) systems is critical. Therefore, this research focuses on developing TBL based sustainability assessment framework cutting across different life cycle phases, simultaneously evaluating the transition of linear systems to circular systems using scores obtained from TBL based sustainability assessment at each phase of construction.
The objectives of the current study are as follows: 1.
To identify different TBL based sustainability, i.e., social, economic, and environmental, assessment parameters and indicators for the different life cycle phases of a construction.

2.
To propose a methodological framework and classification system by integrating TBL based life cycle sustainability parameters and decoupling indices.
Following this introduction, Section 2 critical reviews the current literature on the interaction among different aspects of sustainability, current sustainability assessment frameworks and presents a comparison of ten rating tools from the TBL perspective. In Section 3, the research method is presented. This section offers analysis of the extracted TBL based life cycle sustainability assessment parameters and presents the methodological framework for calculating TBL scores for life cycle phases and decoupling indices. Section 4 focuses on the hypothetical cases, taking GRIHA criteria to illustrate the calculation procedure of decoupling indices developed in the framework. Section 5 provides the conclusion related to this research.

Rethinking Sustainability as a System of Well-Being Decoupling and Impact Decoupling
Construction is critical to the sustainable development framework, as it affects three dimensions of sustainability: social well-being, economic well-being, and environmental pressure [18][19][20]. Construction has traditionally operated as a "take, make, waste" process, taking raw material from nature, using it in construction and then either abandoning the facility after use or dumping the debris into a landfill. This approach to construction is known as the linear approach to construction. Critical evaluation of current construction processes reveals that they are high on the consumption of resources and pollution creation [21,22]. The net result of this is the increasing scarcity of construction materials and reduction in available natural resources at an alarming rate. Growing concern for the environment, especially in the last few decades, has resulted in several agreements and efforts to define a framework for sustainable development, with an emphasis on concepts such as reduce, recycle, and reuse; more use of green buildings; renewable energy; zero waste; and other such related concepts.
Construction, especially in developing countries, is modelled on a linear approach [23]. The linear approach to construction is characterized by an increase in demand for extracting virgin materials for production and the subsequent construction, operation and maintenance of a project. However, even during/after the construction, operation and maintenance of a project, it continues to impact other aspects of sustainability, i.e., the economic and social. On the economic side, focus is usually on the increase in production profits. With increased production profits, further investment in the economy leads to better job opportunities. In addition, with better job opportunities and economic activities, the socioeconomic gap decreases.
On the contrary, this linear approach further intensifies the extraction of virgin materials and, as a result, sustaining economic and social well-being in the long run is not certain. In a linear approach, social well-being and its improvement are largely dependent on the use of resources from nature and, with an ever increasing population, the use of resources is bound to increase and, as a result, environmental pressure will increase. Economic wellbeing and growth are also associated with the ever increasing use of resources, resulting Sustainability 2022, 14, 197 4 of 52 in environmental degradation. If continued in the same way, these impacts will lead to disruptions in ecosystem services that are vital to social well-being [14].
To ensure sustainability in the longer run, the vision should not be only aimed at minimizing resource use/resource optimization as this may result in slowing down economic growth [24]. The new systems that enable resource optimization, reduce environmental impacts, and provide alternative economic returns and the social well-being of stakeholders associated with construction, need to be developed [25].
Seeing the nature of the resource intensive construction industry, developing tools for estimating well-being decoupling and impact decoupling and incorporating them in sustainable assessment has become critical to realize the true picture of sustainability ( Figure 1). In other words, construction needs assessment models to ensure the decoupling of social and economic well-being from environmental pressures created in different phases of a construction.
certain. In a linear approach, social well-being and its improvement are largely dependent on the use of resources from nature and, with an ever increasing population, the use of resources is bound to increase and, as a result, environmental pressure will increase. Economic well-being and growth are also associated with the ever increasing use of resources, resulting in environmental degradation. If continued in the same way, these impacts will lead to disruptions in ecosystem services that are vital to social well-being [14].
To ensure sustainability in the longer run, the vision should not be only aimed at minimizing resource use/resource optimization as this may result in slowing down economic growth [24]. The new systems that enable resource optimization, reduce environmental impacts, and provide alternative economic returns and the social well-being of stakeholders associated with construction, need to be developed [25].
Seeing the nature of the resource intensive construction industry, developing tools for estimating well-being decoupling and impact decoupling and incorporating them in sustainable assessment has become critical to realize the true picture of sustainability (Figure 1). In other words, construction needs assessment models to ensure the decoupling of social and economic well-being from environmental pressures created in different phases of a construction.

Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
To assess the extent of sustainability compliance, a framework encapsulating sustainability assessment principles and sustainability procedures is required. According to Sala et al., (2015) [8], a framework for sustainability assessment should be based on certain principles, such as: guiding vision (progress towards the goal of delivering well-being should be within planetary limits and ensured for current as well as future generations), essential considerations (incorporating social, economic and environment components and their interactions), adequate scope (progress towards sustainable development should adopt certain timeline, to address both short and long term effects, and it should also capture local as well as global effects), framework and indicators (based on a certain conceptual framework that is to be linked with identified core indicators and reliable data), transparency (the transparency of data and data sources for indicators should be considered), effective communication (clearly communicating with a wide audience and the proper dissemination of results), continuity and capacity (should be continuously monitored and scored), and broad participation (it should encourage legitimacy and Schematic diagram representing TBL cum decoupling model of sustainability in construction.

Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
To assess the extent of sustainability compliance, a framework encapsulating sustainability assessment principles and sustainability procedures is required. According to Sala et al., (2015) [8], a framework for sustainability assessment should be based on certain principles, such as: guiding vision (progress towards the goal of delivering well-being should be within planetary limits and ensured for current as well as future generations), essential considerations (incorporating social, economic and environment components and their interactions), adequate scope (progress towards sustainable development should adopt certain timeline, to address both short and long term effects, and it should also capture local as well as global effects), framework and indicators (based on a certain conceptual framework that is to be linked with identified core indicators and reliable data), transparency (the transparency of data and data sources for indicators should be considered), effective communication (clearly communicating with a wide audience and the proper dissemination of results), continuity and capacity (should be continuously monitored and scored), and broad participation (it should encourage legitimacy and relevance by the way of interaction among stakeholders right from the initial stages of the project).
The construction industry, too, has a long history of developing and using such sustainability assessment frameworks [26,27]. Green building councils of different countries are actively involved in developing such frameworks for sustainability assessment schemes. Typically, assessment schemes have been devised using a yardstick for delivering Sustainability 2022, 14,197 5 of 52 sustainability outcomes through constructed facilities. GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India), Green Star (Australia), BCA Green Mark (Singapore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan), BREEAM (UK), Green Globes (Canada), GBI (Malaysia), GSAS (Gulf countries), and others are some of the prevalent assessment tools/schemes. As already mentioned, green rating tools/schemes include a set of parameters and indicators to assess the level of sustainability [7]. Illankoon et al. (2017) [28], after reviewing and comparing eight international green building tools, established seven key criteria in these rating tools as follows: site, energy, water, indoor environment quality, materials, waste and pollution, and management. Other than these key criteria, criteria such as triple bottom line (TBL) reporting, education and awareness, the economic aspects of various costs, sustainable design and planning, and stakeholder engagement can be used to develop new rating tools in the future, as these are missing from the rating tools but illustrated in literature [28].

Critique of Current Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Construction
Often, the terms green and sustainable construction are used synonymously, but they do have slightly different meanings. As per the US EPA, green building is also referred to as green construction, a structure with an application of processes that are environmentally friendly and resource efficient throughout their life cycle, i.e., during planning, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and end of life phases. However, a sustainable building or construction is not only about environmental protection and promoting resource optimization, but should also encompass social well-being factors-such as: (1) security, safety, satisfaction, comfort, and human contributions such as skills, health, knowledge, and motivation [29,30]; (2) people's social-cultural spiritual needs [31]; and (3) education and skill development, equality, health and safety, community engagement and benefits [32]-and economic sustainability parameters, such as: (1) monetary gains to the stakeholders from the project [33]; (2) growth, efficiency and stability [34]; and (3) employment and economic opportunities [35]. A sustainability framework in construction should be based on the fact that construction activities should be socially, economically, and environmentally safe [28].
Critical evaluation of ten rating tools/schemes reveals that most of them deliver a single rating to construction projects after evaluating them against a predetermined set of sustainability parameters that are mostly dominated by environmental parameters. Most of these rating tools/schemes are biased towards evaluating environmental sustainability, whereas economic and social aspects are partially neglected [28]. Though most of the rating tools/schemes consider social dimensions by allocating 25% of the credit points on average, economic sustainability is rarely evaluated. The DGNB (Germany) rating system gives substantial weightage to economic sustainability by allocating 30% of the credit points, in comparison to other tools (Table 1). The rationale for focusing more on environmental sustainability is that once environmental sustainability criteria are satisfied then social and economic aspects will be taken care of [36]. Moreover, some of the researchers claim that most rating tools/schemes fail to capture a TBL based perspective on sustainability [10]. The lack of consideration of social and economic dimensions in building performance during its life cycle leads to a deviation from the true meaning of sustainability. Most of the assessment tools and respective criteria (credits) are concerned with the design, construction, and operation and maintenance phases of a project; conception and demolition/decommissioning are not explicitly considered [37].
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is defined as the evaluation of environmental, social, and economic negative impacts and benefits that occur through decisionmaking processes, towards more sustainable projects/products throughout the life cycle of projects/products [38] (Equation (1)). where, Soc-LCA = f (social assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility study, design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life); Eco-LCA = f (economic assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility study, design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life); and Env-LCA = f (environment assessment parameters, conceptual planning and feasibility study, design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life) Life cycle sustainability assessment/management is missing from such tools/schemes. In a review paper, Wulf et al. (2019) [39] found that, in recent years, with respect to LCSA, the focus has been more on case studies and less on developing methodological frameworks. Sala et al. (2013) [40], in their study, advocate the development of a methodology that adopts a holistic approach and has the capacity to address general or complex system theory. Critical topics that need to be addressed in developing an LCSA based methodological framework should include the development of quantitative and practical indicators for Soc-LCA, approaches to assess the scenarios from a life cycle perspective, standardizing methods to include uncertainties, synergies, and tradeoffs between different dimensions of sustainability [41,42]. Although the literature shows TBL perspectives have been gradually adopted, in-depth investigation of environmental, economic, and social holistically is still missing [4].
Any kind of sustainable assessment and management of construction requires close coordination and interactions among internal and external stakeholders that are associated with the construction project life cycle phases, otherwise, the assessment becomes too theoretical [43][44][45].
Another aspect that is critical for LCSA is decoupling analysis. "Decoupling" as a term was first advanced by the OECD in 2001; it highlights the concept of continued socio-economic growth with diminishing environmental impacts. Decoupling and its evaluation, which is at the core of the sustainability framework [14], is missing from such rating tools/schemes, though the underlining principles of sustainability assessment overlap with decoupling. Central to the UN SDGs/Agenda 2030, decoupling serves as a foundation for materializing the overarching framework of sustainable development; without decoupling the UN SDGs will not be achievable [46]. Current research challenging existing LCSA frameworks call for (1) adopting a holistic approach towards understanding the dynamic interactions between different dimensions of sustainability, (2) shifting from multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary approaches, (3) capability of moving forward through visions and goals, (4) continuous social learning for the stakeholders, and (5) probabilistic approach for dealing with uncertainties [8].
Based on the above critiques, at present, the current rating tools/schemes for supporting sustainability outcomes are left wanting, as they do not deal with all the aspects of Sustainability 2022, 14, 197 7 of 52 TBL and interactions thereof. Moreover, real world, i.e., industry practices, have also not presented as a way forward in supporting TBL based sustainability outcomes. Hence, the current study puts forward a methodological LCSA framework that focuses on TBL based sustainability outcomes and, at the same time, ensures the transition from less sustainable (coupled) systems to more sustainable (decoupled) systems.

Research Method
This research is designed in three parts, as shown in Figure 2. In part 1, the study commences with a review of the current green/sustainability rating tools/schemes from the TBL perspective by examining each of the assessment parameters of these rating tools/schemes and classifying them under environment, social or economic categories. It presents a critique of current sustainability assessment frameworks in construction and then establishes the need for the present study.

Extraction of Life Cycle Based TBL Sustainability Assessment Parameters
TBL based sustainability parameters and their potential indicators were extracted from previous works. Sustainability parameters and their indicators are prerequisites for any sustainability assessment, as they are critical for setting/translating into sustainability targets [8] (Sala et al., 2015). Based on this argument, the sustainability assessment parameters for different construction phases, along with their description and potential indica- In part 2, the extraction, integration, and identification of potential TBL based sustainability assessment parameters from different sources, cutting across different life cycle Sustainability 2022, 14, 197 8 of 52 phases (conceptual planning and feasibility, design and engineering, construction, operation and maintenance, end of life) of a construction project, are presented. In addition, a new methodological framework for the LCSA of construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling principles, is presented in this part. This part also presents the key steps involved in computing TBL scores and decoupling indices for different phases, and a classification system for mapping construction projects using computed TBL scores and decoupling indices.
In part 3, the application of the proposed methodological framework using the sustainability assessment criteria of GRIHA Precertification and GRIHA v.2019 schemes are presented, and calculations are shown for computing decoupling indices (well-being and impact decoupling indices) using three hypothetical cases, followed by conclusions and limitations of this research.

Extraction of Life Cycle Based TBL Sustainability Assessment Parameters
TBL based sustainability parameters and their potential indicators were extracted from previous works. Sustainability parameters and their indicators are prerequisites for any sustainability assessment, as they are critical for setting/translating into sustainability targets [8] (Sala et al., 2015). Based on this argument, the sustainability assessment parameters for different construction phases, along with their description and potential indicators, were identified through a sequential literature review (SLR). A similar approach was used by Stanitsas et al. (2020) [47], to identify the sustainability indicators for the management of construction projects. These identified parameters are knowingly put at a higher level with fewer details about their indicators, as there can be numerous potential indicators under each of the sustainability assessment parameters. The selection of indicators depends on various factors based on regional context, and may not be globally accepted. Tables 2-4 present the holistic view of TBL based sustainability assessment parameters that are relevant to different phases of a construction project. This set of identified parameters form the rationale for developing an integrated framework and classification system for sustainable construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling principles.    Measuring level of collaboration in the supply chain, i.e., collaboration index [105][106][107][108][109][110] Targeted incentives Strategies for incentivizing to increase worker's motivation and improving work productivity Adopting a framework for targeted incentive schemes during different project phases [111][112][113] Ability to pay and affordability Cost bearing ability of users during construction, operation, and maintenance of a project Adopting framework to evaluate/facilitate the cost reduction of the constructed facility [47,114] Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 2. Design and Engineering)

Parameters Description Indicators References
Design for quality of service Design with considerations and promoting resource efficiency by adopting principle shift from linearity to circularity in construction Adopting design principles such as: functionality and usability, durability and reliability, design for maintenance consideration, flexibility and adaptability for future changes, design for assembly and disassembly (DfD), design for extended life, and reuse/remanufacturing/recycling, specifying reclaimed/recycled materials, and others [6,23,115] Life cycle costing for alternative designs Estimate the costing of the entire life cycle of the construction project, which includes acquisition cost, facility management (operational) cost, and disposal cost Adopting framework that assists in different design/specifications alternatives with different cash flows over life cycle of construction project [70,116,117] Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 3. Construction)

Parameters Description Indicators References
Cost, quality, and schedule management Ensure reduction in the cost of poor quality work and avoid time-cost overruns in building/construction projects Adopting a framework for performance management in construction projects [118][119][120][121][122] Innovation and productivity Enhance growth through innovation and productivity in building/construction projects Adopting a framework for promoting innovation and productivity in construction processes [123][124][125] Economic Sustainability Parameters (Phase 4. Operation and Maintenance)

Operational costs
Estimating operational and maintenance cost of built nvironment Adopting models for predicting life cycle costing that includes the cost for periodic inspections, facility's operational cost, preventive maintenance cost, replacement and repairs cost, and reactive maintenance cost [126][127][128] Risk management and long term asset value Ensure resilience of the built assets by managing risks proactively Adopting a framework for built asset management with indicators such as responsible building operations, maintenance of built assets, managing environmental risks, analysing potential risks, and preparation for climate action [128,129]

Parameters Description Indicators References
Design with safe, healthy, and circular building materials Promoting the use of materials that can be salvaged and reused aimed at sustainable consumption and production Adopting/implementing framework for assessing the trends in the stocks of natural resources, emissions, and discharges in the environment resulting from economic activities; accounting of environmental preservation cost and conservation cost [37,68,70,[143][144][145] Design for harmony between nature and the built environment Design with considerations such as access to nature, biophilic benefit to people, occupants' access to nature outdoors, and encouraging biodiversity within site footprints and surroundings Adopting assessment framework for assessing the value of habitat that includes estimating the quantity and quality of biodiversity gained or lost, comparing pre-and postconstruction phases [68,[146][147][148] Design for protecting and improving health

A Methodological Framework for Calculating TBL Scores and Decoupling Indices for Life Cycle Phases
Methodological frameworks provide the structure to guide users by using stages or a step by step approach. They help in improving the consistency, robustness, and reporting of the activity, the quality of the research, the standardization of approaches, and maximizing the trustworthiness of the results [177]. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed LCSA framework in six steps.

Parameters Description Indicators References
Material flow balance C&D waste generated during demolition/decommissioning phase Adopting a framework for acounting of masses arising in demolition/dismantling process, maintaining inventory of massess incurred, estimationg the distance, and others [90,173,174] Life cycle assessment of material flows Environmental impacts/risks because of output flows, waste generated, emissions, and others Adopting a framework for estimating/preventinng environmental impact arising from demolition of the constructed facility [90,175] Hazardous substance remediation Hazardous substances generated during demolition/decommissioning phase Adopting hazardous substance remediation guidelines and accounting of hazardous substances separately [90,176]

A Methodological Framework for Calculating TBL Scores and Decoupling Indices for Life Cycle Phases
Methodological frameworks provide the structure to guide users by using stages or a step by step approach. They help in improving the consistency, robustness, and reporting of the activity, the quality of the research, the standardization of approaches, and maximizing the trustworthiness of the results [177]. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed LCSA framework in six steps.

Identification of Potential Sustainability Parameters/Indicators for Life Cycle Phases of Construction and Weight Determination for Assessment Phases, Categories, and Parameters
Based on common consensus, the assessment parameters and corresponding indicators for construction phases are to be identified using suitable multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. After finalizing assessment parameters and corresponding indicators (Tables 2-4), the weights that are to be allocated for project phases (Wk, k = 1 i.e., Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study, k = 2 i.e., Design and Engineering, k = 3 i.e., Construction, k = 4 i.e., Operation and Maintenance, and k = 5 i.e., End of life), assessment categories (Wl, l = 1 i.e., social, l = 2 i.e., economic, l = 3 i.e., environment), and assessment parameters (Wm, m = 1…. n, where n is a number of assessment parameters). Yu et al. (2018) [13] follow a similar approach in their study.

Benchmark/Baseline Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
Setting a benchmark score or target score under each of the sustainability assessment parameters (Table 1) is a key feature in most sustainability assessment rating tools/schemes. A benchmark/baseline score is a product of the phase weight (Wk), category weight (Wl) and parameter weight (Wm) (Equation (2)).

Identification of Potential Sustainability Parameters/Indicators for Life Cycle Phases of Construction and Weight Determination for Assessment Phases, Categories, and Parameters
Based on common consensus, the assessment parameters and corresponding indicators for construction phases are to be identified using suitable multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques. After finalizing assessment parameters and corresponding indicators (Tables 2-4), the weights that are to be allocated for project phases (W k , k = 1 i.e., Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study, k = 2 i.e., Design and Engineering, k = 3 i.e., Construction, k = 4 i.e., Operation and Maintenance, and k = 5 i.e., End of life), assessment categories (W l , l = 1 i.e., social, l = 2 i.e., economic, l = 3 i.e., environment), and assessment parameters (W m , m = 1 . . . . n, where n is a number of assessment parameters). Yu et al. (2018) [13] follow a similar approach in their study.

Benchmark/Baseline Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
Setting a benchmark score or target score under each of the sustainability assessment parameters (Table 1) is a key feature in most sustainability assessment rating tools/schemes. A benchmark/baseline score is a product of the phase weight (W k ), category weight (W l ) and parameter weight (W m ) (Equation (2)). (2) Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score (3) where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score (3) where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
roject in a particular asion (2)) is the maximum It may be noted that other present method has been le methodology. core matrix; each cell repability pillar.
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep- Cumulative Benchmark Sustainability Score (CBSS)

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (P nor ) = Performance assessment score/Performance benchmark score where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Conceptual Planning and Feasibility Study Design and Engineering Construction Operation and Maintenance End of Life Life Cycle TBL Score (LCTS)
Benchmark/Baseline score = * * ∑ =1 Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a common unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (social) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular assessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell represents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.
Similarly, Table 5 represents the benchmark or baseline score matrix. In simple words, each cell represents the maximum performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Computation of Normalized Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assess-ment
In sustainability assessment, the rationale underpinning the normalization of scores is to transform the measurement of different assessment parameters/indicators to a com-mon unit, and to ease out the inclusion for aggregate sustainability assessment scores. For example, if the benchmark (maximum) score/credit points for an assessment category (so-cial) is 24 and, during the assessment process, a project obtains 15 credit points out of 24 maximum available points, then the normalized social score is (15/24 = 0.625) (Equation (3)).
Normalized performance score (Pnor) = Performance assessment score /Performance benchmark score (3) where, Performance assessment score is the score obtained by a project in a particular as-sessment parameter and Performance benchmark score (Equation (2)) is the maximum score that can be obtained in a particular assessment parameter. It may be noted that other approaches towards normalization can also be adopted and the present method has been used in the absence of more definitive and universally acceptable methodology.
Similarly, Table 6 represents the normalized performance score matrix; each cell rep-resents performance under the corresponding phase and sustainability pillar.

Chain Numbers of Performance Score Matrix of Sustainability Assessment
The chain number method is commonly employed in econometric analysis, in which value of any given period is related to its immediate predecessor value (values expressed as against preceding value = 100 or 1) [178]. Similarly, chain numbers for social well-being, environmental well-being, and environmental pressure (1-normalized environmental score) (Equation (4)) can be calculated by using a simple aggregative method, representing the sustainability performance of a particular phase of construction with respect to the preceding phase of construction. For example, in Table 9, Case-1, if the normalized social score in the preconstruction phase, as expressed, is 15/24 = 0.625 and the normalized social score in the construction phase, as expressed, is (14/24 = 0.583) then the chain index (SOPn) for the preconstruction and construction phases will be (0.625/0.625 = 1) and (0.583/0.625 = 0.93), respectively (Equation (5)).
Environmental pressure = 1 − Normalized environment score (4) Chain Index = Normalized performance score of current phase/Normalized performance score of base phase

Computation of Phase Well-Being Decoupling Index and Phase Impact Decoupling Index
Examining the importance of decoupling analysis in sustainability assessment and based on decoupling theory, this step involves the development of two decoupling indices, namely: (1) phase well-being decoupling index (2) phase impact decoupling index. The phase well-being decoupling index estimates if there is an increase in social well-being corresponding to the environmental pressure (1-normalized environmental score) for different phases (Equation (6)). The phase impact decoupling index estimates if there is an increase in economic performance corresponding to the environmental pressure (1-normalized environmental score) for different phases (Equation (7)).
Phase well-being decoupling index of stage K (PWBDI K ) = SOPn/ENPn Phase impact decoupling index of stage K (PIDI K ) = ECPn/ENPn where, SOPn is the chain index of the normalized social performance score of one phase to the next phase; ECPn is the chain index of the normalized economic performance score of one phase to the next phase; ENPn is the chain index of the normalized environmental pressure score of one phase to the next phase; PWBDI K is the ratio of the change in social well-being performance to the change in environmental pressure upon moving from one phase to the next phase; PIDI K is the ratio of the change in social well-being performance to the change in environmental pressure upon moving from one phase to the next phase. Table 7 Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the state of sustainability (ideal, permitted, and prohibited) that arise from different combinations of PWBDI K and PIDI K , as given in Table 7. Decrease in economic well-being is less than the decrease in environmental pressure

Applicability of Proposed Methodological Framework
This section presents the details of applying a TBL based sustainability assessment criteria, as given in Table 8, for three hypothetical cases and the related computations for the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDIK) and phase impact decoupling index (PI-DIK), as given in Table 9. The criteria chosen in the present formulation are based on the GRIHA Precertification scheme and GRIHA v.2019, a justification for which is also included for completeness.
Apart from the authors' regional context and understanding of the industry, some of the other important reasons for selecting the GRIHA's criteria for use in the proposed framework are explained in the following paragraphs: 1. According to the latest report of IPCC (2021) [180], we are already on a trajectory towards a 1.2 degrees Centigrade increase and we must act immediately to meet the 1.5 degrees Centigrade target, highlighting the urgency of this issue. The solutions are clear but the willingness to implement solutions is still lacking. These solutions should focus on long term outcomes and impacts, focusing on inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air, and better health. 2. At present, more than 50% of the population live in cities and this is expected to grow to 70% by 2050. The urban population of India (17.7% of the world's population) has been rising sharply over the past decades and is projected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050 [181]. Rapid urbanization aimed at economic growth in developing regions of the world (mostly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia) creates unprecedented challenges on environmental and socio-economic fronts. As stated by the GRIHA Council, "as

Applicability of Proposed Methodological Framework
This section presents the details of applying a TBL based sustainability assessment criteria, as given in Table 8, for three hypothetical cases and the related computations for the phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI K ) and phase impact decoupling index (PIDI K ), as given in Table 9. The criteria chosen in the present formulation are based on the GRIHA Precertification scheme and GRIHA v.2019, a justification for which is also included for completeness.    Acceptable region Prohibited region Acceptable region # "*" in the different columns refers to the rating as per GRIHA. For example, "***" is three star which is given as "***".
Apart from the authors' regional context and understanding of the industry, some of the other important reasons for selecting the GRIHA's criteria for use in the proposed framework are explained in the following paragraphs:

1.
According to the latest report of IPCC (2021) [180], we are already on a trajectory towards a 1.2 degrees Centigrade increase and we must act immediately to meet the 1.5 degrees Centigrade target, highlighting the urgency of this issue. The solutions are clear but the willingness to implement solutions is still lacking. These solutions should focus on long term outcomes and impacts, focusing on inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air, and better health.

2.
At present, more than 50% of the population live in cities and this is expected to grow to 70% by 2050. The urban population of India (17.7% of the world's population) has been rising sharply over the past decades and is projected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050 [181]. Rapid urbanization aimed at economic growth in developing regions of the world (mostly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia) creates unprecedented challenges on environmental and socio-economic fronts. As stated by the GRIHA Council, "as per international commitments, India plans to reduce its energy intensity by 33%-35% by 2030 [182]. Green building design, construction and operation will play a critical role as they are synonymous to both sustainable construction and assured high performance". 3.
Further, the GRIHA Council also stated that, "GRIHA-with its commitment towards Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) has been instrumental in recent years for good practices and innovative solution for enhancing resource efficiency in the building sector. GRIHA's large scale adoption will have enormous potential in addressing challenges". However, like any other assessment tools/schemes, GRIHA, too, has scope for improvement in its assessment framework (as discussed in Section 2.2.1). The endeavor to create large scale impact by proposing a new assessment framework with modifications in the existing assessment framework and mapping projects using well-being and impact decoupling indices (Figure 3) will be instrumental in progressing towards true sense of sustainability. 4.
The GRIHA rating tool has separate schemes for assessing the sustainability performance of the preconstruction (planning, feasibility, design and engineering) and construction (new construction) phases. Though the assessment parameters are defined from a TBL perspective, the weights allocated to different dimensions are not transparent, and are not based on a clear logical set of parameters.

5.
In addition, to test the proposed life cycle assessment framework incorporating TBL and decoupling indices (phase well-being and impact well-being), TBL based sustainability scores for at least two phases are required. As GRIHA allows the same projects to be rated against its Pre-certification and New-Construction schemes, providing the TBL based assessment scores for the same project in different life cycle phases. This presents a good opportunity for testing the proposed framework with slight modifications in the assessment scores obtained by the projects in their different life cycle phases.
The GRIHA Precertification scheme represents the sustainability assessment of preconstruction phase, i.e., conceptual planning and feasibility study and design and engineering, clubbed together. The GRIHA v.2019 scheme represents the sustainability assessment of the construction phase. The benchmark scores for the different assessment criteria (Table 8) in these schemes have been developed based on the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) (GRIHA v.2019 Abridged Manual, 2019) [70]. Table 8 also shows the assumed performance score for three hypothetical cases in the preconstruction and construction phases. As mentioned above, the computations using these assumed values for the different indices, as defined in Equations (6) and (7), have been shown in Table 9.

Conclusions
Construction assessment schemes and tools have been widely criticized for ignoring the life cycle assessment of social and economic dimensions in their sustainability frameworks. Moreover, decoupling and its assessment, which is acknowledged as a core of sustainability frameworks, is also not captured by any of these sustainability assessment tools/schemes. This study is an attempt to answer the above limitations of current sustainability assessment tools/schemes by developing a methodological framework for the life cycle sustainability assessment of construction, incorporating TBL and decoupling principles. The main conclusions/findings from this study can be summarized as follows:

1.
Construction, especially in the developing world, still operates on take, make, waste (linear/coupled) systems. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) frameworks that ensure continued economic and social well-being, but with reduced environmental pressures, are missing, i.e., decoupled systems have a clear role to play.

2.
Comparative analysis of GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India), Green Star (Australia), BCA Green Mark (Singapore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan), BREEAM (UK), Green Globes (Canada), BEAM Plus (Hong Kong), and GSAS (Gulf countries) from a TBL perspective shows that most of these assessment tools are biased towards environmental sustainability evaluation and have allocated 69 percent of total credit points, on average. Although most of these assessment tools try to evaluate social sustainability by allocating 25 percent of the total credit points, on average, economic sustainability has been mostly neglected in the sustainability assessment.

3.
Only the DGNB (Germany) system was observed to have a balance in their approach for allocating credit points across the three dimensions of sustainability. It allocated 30, 30, and 40 percent of total credit points towards evaluating social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability, respectively (Table 1). However, irrespective of initial weights across TBL dimensions, these rating tools provide classification systems based on an aggregate scoring system (except CASBEE) and, therefore, they lack in evaluating interactions among different pillars of sustainability.

4.
Credit criteria, such as: ethical considerations, a system of environmental-economic accounting, targeted incentives, long term value to the society, design for harmony with nature and the built environment, and design for tackling climate change, are some of the key criteria that are not explicitly included in rating tools/schemes but are found in the literature. For optimized sustainability evaluation, these criteria should be included in the current sustainability rating tools/schemes (Tables 2-4).

5.
DGNB (Germany) is the only rating tool that has a sustainability assessment scheme for rating the decommissioning/deconstruction phase of a building project (pilot mode). Considering the importance of the decommissioning phase in the building life cycle, TBL based sustainability assessment criteria for the decommissioning phase needs to be considered. Green building councils (GBCs) should focus on developing assessment schemes/tools and respective criteria for the decommissioning phase, taking account of the regional context. 6.
The current study proposes a methodological framework for calculating life cycle based TBL scores and decoupling indices. Two decoupling indices are proposed, i.e., phase well-being decoupling index (PWBDI K ) (Equation (6) and phase impact decoupling index (PIDI K ) (Equation (7), for supporting TBL-based life cycle assessment. These developed decoupling indices specifically estimate the interdependence of human well-being, economic growth, and environmental pressure associated with construction projects. Construction projects in their different life cycle phases can be mapped using computed PWBDI K and PIDI K by referring to Table 7 and Figure 4 of this study. 7.
The sustainability assessment criteria from the GRIHA Precertification and GRIHA v.2019 schemes, representing assessment criteria of pre-construction and construction phase, respectively, were used to illustrate the calculations in the proposed LCSA framework. For three hypothetical cases, PWBDI K and PIDI K were computed representing projects moving from the preconstruction phase to the construction phase. It was highlighted that for case-1 and case-3, their GRIHA rating (***) was maintained after sustainability evaluation of the preconstruction and construction phases. It can be seen from Tables 8 and 9 that the performance of case-2 changed from (****) to (**) when moving from the preconstruction phase to the construction phase. This can be taken to be an example of how the proposed framework can be used to ensure that projects do not lose track when moving from one phase to another. 8.
The PWBDI value for case-1 indicates that there is a decrease in social well-being with an increase in environmental pressure, and the PIDI value for case-1 indicates that there is an increase in economic well-being that exceeds the increase in environmental pressure. The PWBDI value for case-2 indicates that there is a decrease in social well-being with an increase in environmental pressure and the PIDI value for case-2 indicates that there is a decrease in economic well-being with an increase in environmental pressure. The PWBDI value for case-3 indicates that there is an increase in social well-being that exceeds the increase in environmental pressure and the PIDI value for case-3 indicates that there is a decrease in economic well-being with an increase in environmental pressure (Tables 7 and 9). However, based on aggregate scores, different scenarios are possible and, moreover, when these projects move from one phase to another phase, they can behave differently, irrespective of their base phase performance, as illustrated by the PWBDI and PIDI for GRIHA cases. For a better understanding of the proposed PWBDI/PIDI approach an illustrative example has been included in Appendix C.
The proposed methodological framework not only encapsulates a TBL based life cycle sustainability approach in construction, but also ensures a monitoring mechanism for the same using decoupling indices. Given the fact that the parameters involved in the operation and decommissioning phases could be quite different from those in the preconstruction and construction phases (as illustrated in Tables 2-4), the present study is confined to the preconstruction and construction phases only. It is agreed that scores derived from a "real" project would be more valuable and convincing. However, in the absence of such (real) data, the present study only presents the methodological framework and includes a "proof of concept" verification or validation on the basis of assumed (but "reasonable") values. The authors continue to strive to collect/access real data in their future works.

Data Availability Statement:
No such data was used. All data used was publicly available from green building websites.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Methodology for Detailed Division of Credits from TBL Consideration in Different Rating Tools/Schemes
Ten well-established rating tools/schemes representing different regions of the world for studying their approach to the TBL concept of sustainability were selected, namely, GRIHA (India), LEED-IGBC (India), Green Star (Australia), BCA Green Mark (Singapore), DGNB (Germany), CASBEE (Japan), BREEAM (UK), Green Globes (Canada), GBI (Malaysia), GSAS (Gulf countries). There are different types of schemes developed by these rating agencies to rate different typologies of construction projects. Keeping in mind the criticality and scale of adoption, only schemes that certify non-residential (newconstructions) under these rating agencies were chosen for critical evaluation in this study. And, a comparison based on weights of TBL (social, economic, and environment) among these tools is presented Table 1 of the manuscript.
The following text outlines the method adopted in this study for evaluating a comprehensive performance of projects on the basis of scores obtained on the social, economic, and environmental fronts.

1.
The classification of the credit points for an individual parameter into social, economic, or environmental dimension was carried out using a subjective judgement based on available literature. This has been explained in Section 2.2.1 and Tables 2-4. of the manuscript. The user/technical manuals for each of these mentioned schemes were also referred.

2.
However, in cases when a parameters/indicator was judged to belong to more than one dimension, the credits assigned to that particular category were divided equally between/among the different dimensions of sustainability the parameter contributes. For example, in the DGNB classification system, under the category of Technical Quality, "Ease of cleaning building components" is one of the assessment parameters.
Where the detailed description for this parameter at Criteria "Ease of cleaning building components"|DGNB System (dgnb-system.de), says "The issue of how a building structure can be cleaned has a significant effect on the costs and environmental impact of a building during its use. Surfaces that can be easily cleaned require less cleaning agents and result in lower cleaning costs". Now, this parameter was qualitatively judged to belong to both-the economic and environmental heads, and therefore the allocated credit (1.66) for this parameter was equally assigned to the economic and environmental heads (i.e., it was taken to be 0.83 and 0.83 for further computations in both these heads).

3.
In the case of DGNB (Germany), which declares a total of six categories -environment, economic, socio-culture, technical quality, process quality, and site quality. The document also mentions the respective parameters under each of these categories. Now, for the purpose of the present study, whereas the parameters for the first three were adopted as such, the parameters for the latter three were assigned to the former three using qualitative judgement.

4.
Some of the assessment parameters/indicators under these rating tools/schemes are given as prerequisite. For example, In Part 3-"Resource Stewardship" of Green Mark (Singapore), water efficient fittings are listed as a prerequisite. The schemes expect compliance with respect to these as a minimum, and do not award any points for that in their scoring scheme. This approach has been adopted in the present study also and such parameters have been excluded from award of any credit points under these schemes.

Social Economic Environment
Sustainable Site Planning-12% Classification of different certification levels as per Green Globes rating for New Construction.

85-100% 4 Globes
Demonstrates national leadership and excellence in the practice of energy, water, and environmental efficiency to reduce environmental impacts.

70-84% 3 Globes
Demonstrates leadership in applying best practices regarding energy, water, and environmental efficiency.

55-69% 2 Globes
Demonstrates excellent progress in the reduction of environmental impacts and use of environmental efficiency practices.

85-100% 4 Globes
Demonstrates national leadership and excellence in the practice of energy, water, and environmental efficiency to reduce environmental impacts.

70-84% 3 Globes
Demonstrates leadership in applying best practices regarding energy, water, and environmental efficiency.

Parameters Further Explanation
Stakeholders' consultation and engagement • Expectations of the owner, designer, and public early in the project i.e., community relationship and involvement • Informing stakeholders about the project constraints like budget, schedule, location, size, design, and construction standards i.e., well-defined project scope and limitations • Ensure participation of final users in design for understanding and anticipating their needs i.e., social apprehension of their needs-social design • Establish partnering strategies for resolving interpersonal conflicts among project stakeholders • The minimized project caused nuisances and disruptions like dust, noise, traffic, and others • Provisions for public safety like barricading, signboards, and others • Protecting local heritage (natural and cultural) from project's negative impact • Empowering of young people, women, disadvantaged with better job opportunities, the creation of green jobs, and the conditions needed to create them i.e., sustainable employment • Awareness training for social and environmental sustainability and education/training for skill development • Concern for users' safety, health, productivity, privacy, and security Accessibility of built facility through rail/road/public transit systems, universal accessibility through disabled-friendly features GRIHA rating for both the projects would be "****" based on aggregate score of 80. Project 1 scored low on economic assessment (20%) but still achieved "****" while Project 2 scored low on social assessment (37.5%) and still achieved "****". To judge whether both the Project 1 and Project 2 are equally sustainable or one is more/less compared to other is critical. Hence, taking a simple 'arithmetic sum' of three scores and having that sum clear a pre-determined benchmark leaves a possibility of extremely low scores in one (or even two) dimension(s) and still qualifying for a high rating. This inherent lacuna is addressed by defining and adopting the PWBDI and PIDI approach as illustrated in following tables.
GRIHA scores in pre-construction phase. As SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PWBDI < 1; It indicates that as the project-1 moves from pre-construction to construction phase, increase in social well-being is coupled with increasing environmental pressure PIDI -PROJECT 1 1.29 Remark -PROJECT 1 As ECPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PIDI > 1; It indicates that as the project-1 moves from pre-construction to construction phase, increase in economic well-being exceeds the increase in environmental pressure PWBDI -PROJECT 2 0.83

Remark -PROJECT 2
As SOPn > 1, ENPn > 1 and PWBDI < 1; It indicates that as the project-2 moves from pre-construction to construction phase, increase in social well-being is coupled with increasing environmental pressure PIDI -PROJECT 2 0.44

Remark -PROJECT 2
As ECPn < 1, ENPn > 1 and PIDI < 1; It indicates that as the project-2 moves from pre-construction to construction phase, economic well-being decreases with increase in environmental pressure Description GRIHA Rating Based on Aggregate Score (Pre-Construction → Construction)

Interpretation Based on PWBDI/PIDI Approach (PWBDI, PIDI)
Project-1 **** → **** (0.79, 1.29) Project-2 **** → **** (0.83, 0.44) Non-desirable state, which could not have been detected by mere aggregate scoring as offered by these rating tools/schemes It may be noted that based on aggregate scores different scenarios are possible and moreover when these projects move from one phase to other phase, they can behave differently irrespective of their base phase performance as illustrated by PWBDI and PIDI for the above two projects.