Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 90Recycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceSustainable Building Design and AssessmentConstruction Management and Sustainability

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost prediction model for building deconstruction in urban areas

Tatiya, Amol, Zhao, Dong, Syal, Matt, Berghorn, George H., LaMore, Rex·2018·Journal of Cleaner Production

Abstract

Abstract Many U.S. cities have suffered economic decline and contain widespread residential, commercial, and industrial property abandonment. Such abandonment results in negative economic, social, and environmental consequences in urban areas. Demolition and landfilling are prevalent methods to remove these abandonments while generating large amounts of construction and demolition (CD however, this concern is problematic because current cost prediction methods for deconstruction are insufficiently accurate. To address this problem, the authors have developed a novel cost prediction model using case-based reasoning, an artificial intelligence based technique. The paper elaborates on the model development and demonstrates the model application through a real world deconstruction case in the state of Michigan. Results indicate the accuracy of the new prediction model is greater than 95% and show a lower net cost of deconstruction than demolition. Findings suggest an additional option of design for deconstruction for green buildings in the construction industry. Findings implicate a broader construct of sustainable urban transformation where a full supply chain of deconstructed materials emerges.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.084

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Behnan, 2014, Lansing gets $6M to fight blight, Lansing State J.
  2. Guy, 2001, Building deconstruction assessment tool. Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, Technol. Econ. Policy, 125

Cited by

See all 90

Metadata

Authors
Tatiya, A., Zhao, D., Syal, M., Berghorn, G. H., & LaMore, R.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, Dong
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
195
Pages
1572-1580
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2744742808
Cited by
90
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Housing Endowment of the National Association of Home Builders
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Construction Management and Sustainability
Keywords
building deconstruction, cost prediction model, case-based reasoning, construction and demolition waste, property abandonment, material reuse and recycling, design for deconstruction, sustainable construction, sustainable urban transformation, urban economic decline

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.