Fig 1.
Life cycle of a building product and integration of main categories in DPP.
Fig 2.
Structure of the DPP4.0 prototype template (displayed with Eclipse AASX Package Explorer).
Fig 3.
Integration of AAS and DPP4.0.
Overview of the developed AAS for concrete elements and its relationship to the DPP4.0.
Fig 4.
Detailed presentation of an example attribute (displayed with Eclipse AASX Package Explorer).
Fig 5.
Translated version of a DPP-mockup presented to participants, including information on the material, CO2-emissions, waste generation, material strength and shear resistance. One DPP for a recycled aggregate concrete element with high environmental impact and reduced structural performance (above), and one DPP for a natural aggregate concrete element with reduced environmental impact and high structural performance (below) represents the real data. Only one DPP was presented at a time.
Table 1.
Results of the four ANOVAs for the effects of Material, Environmental Impact and Structural Performance on the four dependent variables Perceived Environmental Value (PEV), Perceived Functional Risk (PFR), Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Product Preference (PP), presented with Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) in brackets below.
Fig 6.
Results of the psychological study on the DPP consumer perception.
Figure A shows mean scores for Perceived Environmental Value for recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and natural aggregate concrete (NAC) dependent on the environmental impact averaged over structural performance; Figure B shows mean scores for Perceived Functional Risk for RAC and NAC dependent on the structural performance averaged over environmental impact; Figure C shows Willingness To Pay for RAC and NAC dependent on the environmental impact and the structural performance; Figure D shows mean scores for Product Preference for RAC and NAC dependent on the environmental impact and the structural performance. Brackets indicate confidence intervals, calculated based on the pooled mean square errors following the method described by [87].
Fig 7.
Selected results of the comparison between the case with and without DPP presentation.
Mean scores for Perceived Environmental Value (left), Perceived Functional Risk (middle) and Willingness To Pay (right) for the recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) element presented with a Digital Product Pass (DPP) or without. Brackets indicate confidence intervals, calculated based on the pooled mean square errors following the method described by [87].