Siew, R Y J; Balatbat, M C A and Carmichael, D G (2013) A review of building/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2(2), pp. 106-139. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Buildings/infrastructure are recognised to have a significant impact on the environment and the community, and hence there is pressure on industry practitioners to incorporate environmental and social considerations in addition to the traditional cost, time and quality. The development of sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) to assist in the management of/infrastructure projects is pivotal in informing on progress in sustainability practices. However, the rapid growth of SRTs in the last decade, with different criteria and methodology, has created complications for stakeholders. The paper provides a comprehensive review of tools to guide practitioners, property investors, policy makers and developers towards making informed choices in/infrastructure projects. Comparative analyses, benefits and limitations of these tools are discussed in the paper. Some of the findings from the analysis of SRTs include: an emphasis on environmental issues; scoring which does not account for uncertainty or variability in assessors perceptions; lack of published reasoning behind the allocation of scores; inadequate definition of scales to permit differentiation among projects; and the existence of non-scientific benchmarks. The paper departs from earlier reviews to include a discussion on infrastructure SRTs, life cycle tools, and issues broader than the environment. Changes and additions, subsequent to earlier reviews, have been made to SRTs, making the updated review provided here useful.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; infrastructure; rating tools; reporting; sustainability criteria; sustainability indicators; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, variability, sustainability reporting tool, life cycle, investor, infrastructure sustainability, differentiation, methodology, practitioner, reporting tool, sustainable development, comparative analysis, reasoning, environmental issue, sustainability indicator |
| Subjects: | organization, value management, practitioner, environmental issues, data analysis and analytics, research methods, sustainability assessment, health safety and environment, sociology, sustainable engineering, cognitive psychology, data management, statistical analysis, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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