Perspective of construction building professionals on low-carbon materials in Malaysia

Omar, M R; Ayob, A; Zakaria, M H; Rahim, N S A; Mokhtar, H; Rani, H A and Rahman, F A (2023) Perspective of construction building professionals on low-carbon materials in Malaysia. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 28(2), pp. 139-162. ISSN 1823-6499

Abstract

Low-carbon (LC) materials and alternative technology must overcome various institutional policy and market constraints to gain greater acceptance in the construction sector. The primary impediments that must be addressed to build a viable and sustainable local construction sector are awareness and knowledge. To analyse the perspective on LC materials in the northern states of Malaysia, 93 companies were surveyed via their construction building professionals (CBPs) on awareness, usage frequency, user experience, drivers for material selection and barriers to LC material adoption in projects. To establish an understanding of CBPs and LC materials, survey data were analysed using semi-structured qualitative-quantitative approaches and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), influenced by basic theory. 79.57% valid responses indicate that most participants had a low degree of awareness, with 95% confidence that there is no difference in the score levels of the overall viewpoints between architects, civil engineers and structural engineers. While unfired bricks (16.2%) are commonly and widely employed in construction projects, structural insulated panels (40.9%) are the most favourable LC materials for future projects. Client requirements, regulatory requirements and expectations of a shorter completion time are the most important factors driving CBPs to select LC materials, accounting for 44.6%, 37.8% and 37.8%, respectively. According to the CBPs, the main constraint factor to market acceptability is the “Lack of sustainable material information” (44.9%). The proposed recommendations include “Training on designing a building with LC material”, “Clear regulation on limiting carbon emission in a project” and “Increase demonstration of projects and case studies” at a rate ranging from 36.5% to 43.2% to improve client and CBPs acceptance of LC materials for a more sustainable building sector.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: professional practice; Malaysia; low carbon construction; climate change; sustainable construction; questionaire survey
Index terms: completion time, regulation, low-carbon construction, sustainable building, structural engineer, construction project, climate change, professional practice, user experience, accounting, sustainable material, construction sector, sustainable construction, alternative technology, survey, civil engineer, architect, client requirements, social science, building professional, package, case study, carbon emission, Malaysia
Subjects: economic analysis, contractual arrangements, sustainability and energy, climate science, sustainable materials, user-centered design, data collection methods, profession, political science, industry analysis, project controls, professional development, sustainable construction, production management, Geography, theoretical framing, factor and component analysis
Topics: Design Practice, Time Control, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Information Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Sustainability, Procurement
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