Blanco, J (2016) Beyond the checklist: An approach to understand practitioner experience during sustainable design process. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(4), pp. 266-278. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Sustainable design is a major trend in diverse disciplines related to the built environment. However, practitioners often find difficult to fully incorporate sustainability criteria during the design process and in its final outcome. Moreover, the adoption of industry-conceived sustainability guidelines tends to be perceived as a restriction or 'checklist exercise', which does not positively impact design activity. The aim of this study is to analyze the practitioner experience during sustainable design process, particularly in relation to the impact of sustainability guidelines (known as sustainability rating systems, SRS) in design decisions from real case projects. This study has been conducted by collecting data for real projects located in Melbourne, Australia, during 2010-2013, employing a hybrid methodology that brings together embedded research, retrospective protocols and linkography to assess the impact of SRS in such processes. It proposes a theoretical approach to assess sustainable design process by quantifying the impact of SRS during design decisions.Sustainable design is a major trend in diverse disciplines related to the built environment. However, practitioners often find difficult to fully incorporate sustainability criteria during the design process and in its final outcome. Moreover, the adoption of industry-conceived sustainability guidelines tends to be perceived as a restriction or 'checklist exercise', which does not positively impact design activity. The aim of this study is to analyze the practitioner experience during sustainable design process, particularly in relation to the impact of sustainability guidelines (known as sustainability rating systems, SRS) in design decisions from real case projects. This study has been conducted by collecting data for real projects located in Melbourne, Australia, during 2010-2013, employing a hybrid methodology that brings together embedded research, retrospective protocols and linkography to assess the impact of SRS in such processes. It proposes a theoretical approach to assess sustainable design process by quantifying the impact of SRS during design decisions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural design; embedded research; design processes; linkography; sustainability rating systems; protocol studies; sustainable design; building construction; architectural engineering; product design; sustainability |
| Index terms: | building construction, embedded research, protocol study, Australia, design process, product design, sustainable design, exercise, architectural design, design decision, methodology, architectural engineering, practitioner, built environment, sustainability rating system |
| Subjects: | practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, design methods, innovation and technology management, design process, qualitative and interpretive research, Geography, research methods, design practice, sustainability assessment, infrastructure and transport systems, building construction |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| 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