Goh C S, R S (2013) The roles of sustainability assessment systems in delivering sustainable construction. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Sustainable development in construction has increasingly gained momentum over the years due to a growing public concern and enforcement of government policy. A variety of sustainability standards and systems have therefore emerged in the current construction industry to provide a means for assessment, ranging from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), National Australian Building Environmental Rating System (NABERS) to ISO14001. In Hong Kong, LEED and Building Environmental Assessment Method (BEAM Plus) are the mechanism preferred by practitioners for their sustainable buildings certification. This paper will review and examine the roles of the sustainability performance assessment standards in delivering sustainability in construction. Interviews were conducted to explore various viewpoints on sustainability rating systems from different stakeholders. Apart from serving as a guideline for practitioners, sustainability systems can help to gauge the sustainable performance of individual buildings by using transparent and objectively comprehensible metrics. Nevertheless, there is a lack of focus on the post occupancy evaluation and soft issues in the current sustainability assessment systems. By taking into consideration soft issues and those performance goals in operational management, a more holistic and comprehensive assessment approach can be provided for evaluating sustainable construction performance. The potential of the green building rating systems being abused for marketing purpose can also be reduced with a series of periodic assessments during the operational life cycle. These improved sustainability assessment systems can therefore help to reframe the expectations and the strategies of construction stakeholders in pursuing the true goals of sustainable development in construction.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability assessment system; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | sustainable construction, certification, sustainability standard, Hong Kong, building research, interview, sustainability assessment, sustainability performance, life cycle, environmental design, post-occupancy evaluation, sustainable development, building environmental assessment, BREEAM accreditation, strategy, practitioner, marketing, sustainability rating system, green building, sustainable building, beam, government policy, environmental assessment, construction industry, enforcement |
| Subjects: | public policy, sustainability and energy, environmental policy, evaluation methods, business, data collection methods, value management, practitioner, environmental impact, research management, industry analysis, administrative processes, sustainability assessment, management, design practice, structural engineering, sustainable construction, Geography, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Contract Administration, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Governance, Roles and Professions |
| 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