Ismael, D and Shealy, T (2024) Reframing sustainability rating systems to emphasize interconnected benefits increases sustainable design practices among engineers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(8): 04024086, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Engineering design and construction teams commonly use decision tools, such as rating systems, to manage the complexity of infrastructure projects. However, these systems often focus predominantly on environmental dimensions, potentially overlooking the holistic economic and social aspects of sustainability. This can hinder decision-makers from recognizing the benefits, thereby inadvertently impeding optimal sustainability performance. This research explores a potential solution: reframing the goals of credits on rating systems to explicitly highlight the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and financial dimensions. The aim was to amplify engineers' motivation towards higher levels of sustainability performance. The study examined the effect of the goal-framed credits by comparing the sustainability scores between engineering professionals (n=42) who used the original Envision system and the reframed version when evaluating a case project. The control group participants averaged a score of 95.4 Envision points (37%), while the intervention group averaged 121.8 Envision points (48%). The reframed credits significantly increased engineering professionals' sustainability goal setting. Emphasizing financial and social objectives on credits from the Envision rating system, rather than solely focusing on the existing environmental goals, had a favorable influence on professionals' sustainable design choices. This reframing, by emphasizing the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and financial dimensions of each decision, appears to amplify the awareness, motivation, and selection of higher levels of sustainability achievement, thereby increasing their perceived value and leading to a shift in sustainability-oriented decision-making. The findings suggest that reframing rating systems to better emphasize the interconnectedness of the environmental, social, and financial dimensions of each decision can serve to help engineering teams set higher goals for sustainable performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | choice architecture; decision-making; envision rating system; goal framing; sustainable infrastructure design |
| Index terms: | social aspect, complexity, sustainability rating system, decision-making, motivation, framing, sustainable design, dimension, infrastructure project, engineering design, sustainability performance, construction team, engineer |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, systems engineering, decision analysis, sociology, design process, sustainability assessment, conceptual models, health monitoring assessment and metrics, project delivery, psychology, profession |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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