D'Incognito, M; Costantino, N and Migliaccio, G C (2015) Actors and barriers to the adoption of LCC and LCA techniques in the built environment. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(2), pp. 202-216. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the existing barriers to the slow adoption of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in construction, and the main responsible actors. Design/methodology/approach - The research design is based on a two-phase approach. First, the existing literature was studied through a multiple-step content analysis (CA) approach, which combined unsupervised concept mapping with computer aided CA. Using a relational CA approach, statistical-based analysis tools were initially used to identify the relationships between actors and barriers. Later, a Delphi study was administered to a panel of experts, to triangulate, validate, and refine the initial results. Findings - The study revealed that organizational culture is the most relevant barrier, and that clients and professionals are the actors that predominantly influence the adoption of LCC and LCA in projects. Technical and financial barriers, such as the lack and quality of input data and the high costs of implementation are also deemed relevant. Research limitations/implications - The CA was performed by a single rater on a sample that included 50 papers in English language. Future research may focus on enlarging the sample, extending it to other languages, and linking the source (or the expert) to their professional context to evaluate geographical differences in barriers. Originality/value - The adopted approach gives new insights on the relationships behind the rejection of LCA and LCC suggesting that solutions at the organizational level may be more effective than technical ones.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | content analysis; sustainability; organizational culture; LCA; LCC; life cycle management |
| Index terms: | built environment, methodology, concept mapping, organizational culture, implementation, costing, Delphi method, life cycle management, life cycle, research design, life cycle assessment, content analysis |
| Subjects: | value management, environmental impact, research design and methodology, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, accounting and finance, research methods, infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Risk Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Cost Management, Research Practice, Project Management |
| 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