Poorisat, T.; Aigwi, I. E.; Doan, D. T. and GhaffarianHoseini, A. (2026) Integrating energy efficiency, water efficiency and indoor environmental quality towards advancing sustainable building designs and practices in New Zealand: Stakeholders' perspectives. Construction Innovation, 26(9), pp. 79-114. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – Sustainable building designs and practices (SBDPs) are increasingly recognised worldwide for their potential to enhance environmental sustainability, reduce resource consumption and improve occupant well-being. In New Zealand, however, the integration of energy efficiency (EE), water efficiency (WE) and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) remains a critical but underexplored area. This study aims to investigate the combined benefits, challenges and recommendations associated with integrating EE, WE and IEQ in advancing SBDPs within the New Zealand context. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 43 experts engaged in sustainable building initiatives. Thematic analysis was used to explore stakeholder perspectives on the benefits, challenges and recommendations associated with EE, WE and IEQ integration. Findings – The findings reveal that EE is widely regarded as a fundamental driver of sustainable buildings, but cost concerns, weak regulations, and market-driven priorities constrain its implementation. WE is frequently overlooked, despite its potential to support water conservation, owing to perceptions of resource abundance, limited policy support and financial barriers. IEQ is increasingly valued for its role in promoting occupant health, comfort and productivity, but regulatory and awareness gaps remain significant. Originality/value – This study provides one of the first holistic assessments of EE, WE and IEQ integration in SBDPs in New Zealand. By framing New Zealand as a testbed for countries with high renewable potential, abundant water resources and weak regulatory enforcement, the research advances academic discourse while delivering actionable insights for policymakers, practitioners and investors to promote meaningful sustainability transitions in the built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy efficiency; indoor environmental quality; sustainable building designs; sustainable development goals; water efficiency |
| Index terms: | interview, water conservation, framing, practitioner, thematic analysis, regulation, well-being, sustainable building, sustainable building design, integration, methodology, environmental sustainability, New Zealand, energy efficiency, efficiency, investor, productivity, water resource, indoor environmental quality, sustainable development goal, comfort, built environment, resource consumption, enforcement, implementation |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, conceptual models, environmental resource management, practitioner, occupational health, health safety and environment, Geography, sustainable design, sustainable construction, research methods, energy systems, sustainability and energy, data collection methods, mental health and wellbeing, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental health, political science, environmental engineering, organizational analysis, occupational health and safety management, sociology, methods and analysis, management, performance management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Geographical Context, Health and Safety |
| 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