Tran, C N N; Pham, P T; Tran, T T M; Tam, V W Y and Illankoon, I M C S (2025) A practical approach to promoting sustainable development in the construction industry through the use of the LOTUS-Vietnamese green-building assessment tool. International Journal of Construction Management, 25(11), pp. 1288-1299. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
In the context of global climate change mitigation, building design optimization is crucial for effective and efficient resource management throughout a project's life cycle. This study addresses the challenge of assessing green building levels using a Vietnamese perspective. A survey of over 220 participants, including investors, consultants, contractors, and other stakeholders, was conducted to identify factors influencing green building assessments. Data analysis, employing SPSS software, explored 57 factors encompassing life-cycle economic optimization, energy and water conservation, material selection, project management, and strategic market benefits. The findings highlight effective energy management as a key determinant shaping sustainable building approaches and assessments. These results offer valuable insights for life cycle cost assessments and environmental impact evaluations during project implementation. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of project developers prioritizing factors that influence the achievement of green building goals based on LOTUS green building rating standards in Vietnam. The predicted results demonstrate that governments should enforce legislation and establish clear green construction regulations to promote environmentally friendly growth, and that construction companies should use environmentally friendly materials and practices in their projects. This research contributes to the knowledge base for scholars, designers, and sustainability experts by systematically identifying factors that influence green building assessments under LOTUS standards.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | green building rating systems; life-cycle assessment; life-cycle cost; life-cycle energy consumption; life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions; lotus |
| Index terms: | project management, energy management, resource management, determinant, implementation, construction industry, energy consumption, designer, life cycle, prioritizing, building design, environmentally friendly, environmentally friendly material, investor, global climate change, environmental impact, green building, regulation, mitigation, sustainable building, life cycle cost, survey, construction company, gas emission, sustainable development, data analysis, legislation, knowledge base, water conservation, Vietnam, building assessment |
| Subjects: | profession, risk assessment, data collection methods, control systems, value management, sustainability and energy, building materials, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, design practice, project management theory and practice, sociology, decision analysis, political science, environmental health, information systems, industry analysis, organization, climate science, environmental impact, architectural design, contractual arrangements, legal systems, research methods, sustainable construction, financial risk, health safety and environment, sustainable design, Geography, asset management, occupational health |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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