Siew, R Y J (2016) Assessing the readiness of sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) for an age-friendly built environment. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 21(2), pp. 122-136. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose Population ageing is expected to have an increasing impact on the economy and society. In particular, it creates a myriad of challenges for stakeholders in the construction and property sectors. The design of the built environment would now need to consider the requirements of the older population in the community. This paper aims to provide a study on the readiness of mainstream sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) in helping to create an age-friendly built environment. Design/methodology/approach First, a list of criteria representing the needs of the older community in the built environment is developed based on a rigorous literature survey and is validated with five focus groups. Then, using this list, SRTs are assessed for their age-friendly readiness. Findings The findings from this study show that not only are there variations across different SRTs but also a majority do not emphasize enough on age-friendly criteria. Research limitations/implications It is suggested that mainstream SRTs should consider allocating mandatory credits for age-friendly criteria. This would definitely encourage property developers and town planners to consider and plan for the needs of the older population. Originality/value This paper is original as none of the prior studies have considered assessing the readiness of SRTs in creating an age-friendly built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; built environment; cost; age-friendly criteria; sustainability reporting tools |
| Index terms: | age-friendly criteria, town planner, sustainability reporting tool, built environment, focus group, society, survey, population, variation, methodology |
| Subjects: | demography, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, research methods, sustainability assessment, urban design, contractual condition, data collection methods, profession |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| 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