Piroozfar, P; Altan, H and Popovic-Larsen, O (2012) Design for sustainability: A comparative study of a customized modern method of construction versus conventional methods of construction. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(1), pp. 55-75. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Emergent methods of construction are believed to have achieved higher standards, thereby delivering improved building performance. Added to the higher living standards however, this sometimes proves to be very difficult to evaluate. In addition, the state-of-the-art strategies and methods applied elsewhere, if employed in the construction industry, might not prove as environmentally friendly as they might need to be. This has been used as our core discussion to evaluate new buildings against refurbishment with reference to environmental performance. This article investigates an offsite construction method offering customization against its conventional counterpart in a fairly controlled context. The comparison has been normalized to guarantee most realistic results. We start with a brief introduction to the two educational buildings, followed by a brief overview of customization strategy. We will then argue why the new building can be accounted for as a mass customizable system. The data was collected, collated and analysed, and the environmental impact of two buildings was measured using two different open-source applications. The result shows that despite the higher standards required by law, which in return increases the environmental impacts, the new school building is performing significantly better with a slightly lower environmental impact compared to the old building.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | carbon footprint; environmental impact; mass customization; modern methods of construction; off-site production; personalization; sustainability |
| Index terms: | construction industry, mass customization, off-site production, comparative study, school building, state of the art, environmental impact, building performance, strategy, construction method, environmental performance, customization, carbon footprint, environmentally friendly, modern methods of construction, educational building, guarantee |
| Subjects: | construction type, research dissemination and communication, research design and methodology, environmental impact, construction manufacturing, contract structure, sustainability assessment, manufacturing engineering, management, sustainable design, building construction, industry analysis, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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