Identifying the capacity needs of built environment professionals to deliver environmentally sustainable buildings: A scientometric review

Afful, A E; Ayarkwa, J; Acquah, G K K; Ossei Assibey, A A D and Osei-Asibey, D (2024) Identifying the capacity needs of built environment professionals to deliver environmentally sustainable buildings: A scientometric review. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(5), pp. 1464-1490. ISSN 1726-0531

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the capacity needs of building professionals to deliver environmentally sustainable buildings (ESBs) globally, from a unique systems approach. Through a review of extant literature, this study contributes to knowledge of the global delivery of ESBs by identifying research trends and gaps that can be tackled in future research, and current hotspots in capacity building (CB) research within the built environment (BE). The adopted systems approach to CB postulates that the construction industry is systemized in nature, and thus, CB solutions within the industry should be approached from a systems approach. Design/methodology/approach: A literature search was conducted using the Scopus search engine, augmented by Google Scholar and Web of Science, to produce 54 relevant articles for analysis. The scientometric analysis was undertaken with the use of VOSViewer to better understand the broad literature on CB in the construction industry which would not have been possible with traditional data analysis. The content analysis allowed, for a systematic review of selected articles, to reveal key themes in this study. Findings: Through a content analysis, four levels of CB were identified within the construction industry; individual level, organizational level, industry level and state level. Nine sub-capacities were subsumed under the four identified levels adopted from Potter and Brough (2004), including but not limited to Performance capacity, Workload capacity, Supervisory capacity, Industry Role capacity and Systems capacity. Under each sub-capacity, key questions were posed to aid identify the capacity needs of BE professionals. A framework for identifying capacity needs in the BE is proposed. Practical implications: The findings of this study serve as a useful reference for practitioners and policymakers to assess their level of commitment to CB efforts for ESB delivery. The findings of this study have revealed that building the capacities of BE professionals to deliver ESBs should be addressed as part of a broader framework, interdependent on the other levels of CB in the systemic construction industry. Originality/value: As a review study identifying capacity needs for BE professionals to deliver ESBs, this study enhances knowledge of CB within the construction industry.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: capacity building; capacity gap; capacity needs; professional; environmentally sustainable building; green building
Index terms: capacity building, capacity gap, green building, science, data analysis, building professional, sustainable building, methodology, commitment, workload, systematic literature review, construction industry, built environment, practitioner, content analysis
Subjects: psychology, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, design practice, research evaluation and metrics, social and economic development, research methods, specialized education, data analysis and analytics, profession, practitioner, management, sustainable construction
Topics: Research Practice, Human Resources, Education, Organizational Design, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here