Panagiotakopoulos, P D and Jowitt, P W (2004) Representing and assessing sustainability in construction. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The construction industry has recently started to face the challenge of operating in a more sustainable way. This paper presents a methodology based on System Theory and Mind Mapping that is appropriate to study the case of sustainability in a construction project. Results drawn from a case study that develops a sustainability reporting tool for a property development company are used to examine the methodology. The implications of the methodology and the case study in developing a Sustainability Management System for the company are finally shown.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | mind mapping; property development; sustainability; systems theory |
| Index terms: | property development, construction industry, systems theory, construction project, methodology, mapping, sustainability reporting tool, face, sustainability management, case study |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, environmental engineering, economic development, sustainability assessment, theoretical framing, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, production management, psychology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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