Amarachukwu Nnadozie, N and Wilkinson, S (2021) Building code amendment and building resilience: Perspective of building code users in New Zealand. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(4), pp. 643-659. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
The process followed in amending building code creates problems for code users within the building industry. These problems include the need and frequency of changes made to building code, access to updated documents, method of communication, amendment interval and amendment pathway. This study aims to explore the viewpoints of building code users regarding building code amendments in New Zealand. Using a closed-ended questionnaire survey, this paper examined the New Zealand building code amendments by evaluating the views of experienced and relevant stakeholders within the research area. A high proportion (50.90%) of the survey participants agreed to a three-years building code amendment cycle, as against the current biannual Amendment practiced in New Zealand. from the study affirmed the necessity for building code amendment and the support for free amended building code documents to the public and other building standards. The study concludes with strong support to the use of intensive research and learning gained from disasters in building code amendment in New Zealand. Implementing the code users opinions encourages disaster resilience through effective application of the building code requirements in design and construction. The contribution from this study offered a unique insight into the perspectives of building code users on building code amendment in New Zealand and ways of incorporating the findings in the building code later updates to improve disaster resilience in the built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building code; disaster resilience; urban environments; earthquakes; compliance; seismic engineering; surveys; construction standards; New Zealand |
| Index terms: | New Zealand, compliance, construction standard, survey, disaster resilience, seismic engineering, questionnaire, documents, design and construction, built environment, earthquake, building industry, urban environment, building code |
| Subjects: | professional development, Geography, health safety and environment, structural engineering, environmental hazards, infrastructure and transport systems, regulatory law, industry analysis, climate science, urban sustainability, data collection methods, standards, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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