Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Tourism in Sensitive Areas: Bibliometric Characterisation and Content Analysis of Specialised Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on Application Potential of Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage-Hybrid Ground Source Heat Pump in Taiwan—Taking Experiments in Tainan as Examples
Previous Article in Journal
Eco-Labeling and Retailer Pricing Strategies: The U.K. Haddock Market
Previous Article in Special Issue
Houses Based on Wood as an Ecological and Sustainable Housing Alternative—Case Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Measuring the Sustainability of Construction Projects throughout Their Lifecycle: A Taiwan Lesson

1
Department of Construction Engineering, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung 41349, Taiwan
2
Department of Construction Management, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu 30012, Taiwan
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Hua University, Hsinchu 30012, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(5), 1523; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523
Submission received: 7 April 2018 / Revised: 2 May 2018 / Accepted: 8 May 2018 / Published: 11 May 2018

Abstract

:
Researchers have proposed many industrial or national sustainability evaluation indicator systems during the past decade, although there has not yet been a project-level sustainability evaluation system for the evaluation and execution monitoring of the sustainability status for a construction project. Without such an evaluation system, it will be difficult for the planners to plan the sustainable project objectives, for the contractors to select the sustainable execution alternatives, and for the facility managers to operate sustainable constructed facilities. To meet the abovementioned requirements, this paper presents an effort conducted in Taiwan to propose a Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (CPSAS) considering three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic, based on the theoretical backgrounds from the literature and former successful sustainable projects. The proposed CPSAS comprises four levels: Level 1, 3 main pillars; Level 2, 8 categories; Level 3, 19 sub-categories; and Level 4, 31 indicators. Different selections of indicators for application in different project phases are suggested according to the prioritization via questionnaire surveys. A procedure for sustainable project management with the proposed CPSAS is suggested to the project management team. Finally, three green building projects and two civil infrastructure construction projects of Taiwan were tested to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed CPSAS. It is concluded that the proposed CPSAS is useful for construction stakeholders to achieve sustainability more effectively during the execution of a construction project.

1. Introduction

The construction industry has been labelled a non-sustainable industry due to its high energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but low productivity. Statistics show that the building industry consumes 40% of energy and emits almost 40% of CO2 in the USA and other developed countries [1,2], while wasting 57% (compared to 26% in other industries) of its resource inputs during the production process [3]. Paradoxically, the poor performance offers the construction industry a unique opportunity to play the key role in reducing negative environmental impacts, thereby improving global sustainability [4].
Previous researchers have offered different approaches to improve the sustainability of the construction industry, including green innovation of construction methods [5,6,7], promotion of green building technologies [8,9], development of warm mix asphalt technology that reduces energy consumption and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases and other hazardous compounds [10,11,12], reuse waste materials (e.g., burning coal in power plants) to reduce environmental impacts [13,14], and implementation of techniques and initiatives for GHG emission elimination [15,16]. As most of the above-mentioned efforts have focused on improvements derived from the technology or process levels, and affecting only single or multiple activities in a construction project, their improvements or impacts on the overall project were quite limited. On the other hand, some other researchers have established different industrial or national indicator systems to evaluate the sustainability of the construction sector of a country [17,18,19,20]. Although such types of sustainability evaluation systems are more comprehensive in assessing the sustainability of the construction industry, they are, however, less useful for developing effective strategies to improve the sustainability of a construction project.
Considering the drawbacks of the above two categories, another category of approach that focuses on the project level has been proposed. Labuschagne and Brent [21,22] have proposed a staged project Life Cycle Management (LCM) framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of a new product during the innovation project lifecycle. Although it focuses only on the environmental impacts of a product, such an evaluation framework provides a promising alternative for sustainability monitoring and the improvement of a construction project.
Based on Labuschagne and Brent’s concept, the current research proposes a comprehensive project-wise sustainability evaluation framework for a construction project; it provides the project engineers and managers with a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring the sustainability of construction activities throughout the project lifecycle so that effective strategies for sustainability improvement can be more efficiently identified and planned.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the previous sustainability evaluation systems related to this research are reviewed first, then the methodology of current research is described in details; this is followed by presentation of the proposed CPSAS. The case studies of five real-world construction projects are demonstrated after presenting the proposed CPSAS; this is followed by the suggested procedure for management of sustainable construction projects. Finally, findings of the research are concluded and future directions after this research are recommended.

2. Review of Relevant Sustainability Evaluation Systems

The primary concept of sustainability was first proposed in early 1980s. The term sustainable development’ was employed in the report to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) [23]. The currently widely adopted three pillars (Economic, Social, and Environmental) of sustainability were promulgated in the early 1990s’s [24]. Such a three-pillar framework for the assessment of sustainability was adopted by most current national-level sustainability evaluation systems [17,18,20] discussed previously. In regard to improving the sustainability of construction engineering, especially from the viewpoint of project execution, the relevant works in the literature are reviewed below.
The concept of “sustainable construction” was found in literature of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction in Tampa, Florida, US in 1994 [25]. Hill and Bowen [25] proposed a detailed list of principles and conceptual framework for attaining sustainable construction in terms of four pillars: social, economic, biophysical (relevant to environmental) and technical perspectives. Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López [26] proposed a method to identify sustainability indicators for construction project management. In their report, a case application of the proposed method was simulated for the infrastructure projects in Spain, which resulted in a list of 30 macro-indicators for assessing the sustainability of an infrastructure project. The methodology proposed by Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López is quite general, so it can be applied to other types of construction projects. Two other similar works for the identification of sustainability indicators of construction projects, but using different approaches, were conducted by Shen et al. [27] and Huang and Hsu [20], respectively. Shen et al. [27] collected the feasibility study reports of 87 construction projects from China to identify 34 attributes (indicators) related to the sustainability of four types of construction projects. Huang and Hsu [20] identified 30 sustainability indicators of construction engineering from important research literature and government regulations.
Most of the above works, except for the first one by Hill and Bowen [25], adopted the three-pillar perspective, i.e., environmental, social and economic sustainability of construction project. However, several important issues should be taken into account to develop an appropriate sustainability evaluation system for a construction project, as pointed out by different researchers: (1) a more comprehensive angle of sustainability, including product (i.e., the constructed structures in construction project), process (the management process), organization, key stakeholders (project manager and team members) [28], and economic concerns [29,30]; (2) the number of indicators should be not too many for practical and cost-effective implementation [26]. Several researchers have suggested very similar numbers of indicators that are close to 30 [20,26,27], indicating that an indicator system with around 30 indicators is more practical and cost-effective for project implementation; (3) lifecycle concern: the indicator system should not only emphasize the construction project lifecycle (i.e., feasibility study, planning, procurement, construction, and turnover), but also the facility lifecycle (i.e., operation, maintenance, and demolition) [25,26,28]; and most importantly (4) project focus: the indicators should be relevant to the project operations and tasks for management effectiveness since the construction objectives need to be accomplished via project execution [28].
A general methodology was proposed by Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López [26] to identify the sustainability indicators in construction project management: (1) Review of documentation; (2) Compilation of information through surveys with project stakeholders; (3) Compilation of information through interviews with domain experts; (4) Brainstorming by the project participants; (5) Comparison with other areas and other existing tools; (6) Analysis by checklists related to similar previous projects; and (7) Using diagramming techniques to show the relationship between the system elements and their causality. The two most adopted approaches for developing such kinds of indicator systems are [28]: (1) documentation and literature review: identifying the candidate indicators by reviewing previous literature and legislation documents; and (2) expert survey: conducting questionnaire or interview surveys, or holding focus group meetings, to collect opinions from different stakeholders to determine which indicators should be included. The current research adopts both of these approaches by reviewing the literature to identify candidate indicators first, and then verifying and refining the candidate indicators by expert judgment, via focus groups, interviews and/or questionnaire surveys.

3. Development of Sustainability Evaluation System for Construction Projects

Based on a literature review [25,26,27,28], a research methodology for the current study was planned to identify the relevant sustainability indicators for the evaluation and monitoring of construction projects.

3.1. Research Methodology and Procedure

The research procedure adopted in the current research is depicted in Figure 1; it includes the following steps and methods:
(1)
Identifying candidate sustainability indicators (SIs): candidate indicators for sustainability assessment are identified through reviews of scientific–technical references and legislation (e.g., national sustainability white paper, government regulations, etc.), and the sustainable construction project case reports published by government agencies. Chang [17] proposed a national sustainable development evaluation indicator system based on the policies and regulations of the Taiwan government, including 23 social indicators and 59 environmental indicators. In investigating the definitions of the 82 indicators proposed by Chang, 39 indicators are related to the construction industry. Hsu [19] developed a national level sustainability indicator system for the construction industry of Taiwan based on a review of the published scientific and technical references in the relevant literature. Hsu’s indicator system is comprised of 29 environmental indicators, 27 social indicators, and 11 economic indicators. Although all of the 67 indicators proposed by Hsu are relevant to construction engineering, most of them are measured from the viewpoint of the government agency rather than that of the project manager. They need to be redefined to fit the requirement for application in a construction project. Finally, 57 candidate indicators belonging to 20 categories were identified as candidate sustainability indicators (SIs) for further analysis.
(2)
Pre-screening and prioritizing preliminary SIs for applicable lifecycle stages through domain expert interviews: semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with five domain experts (including a government officer from the River Management Bureau, an architect with a significant amount of green building design experience, a consultant engineer with ecological construction method design and supervision experience, a professional construction manager from one of the major consulting firm, and a site engineer of a general contractor for a green building project) to determine the applicable stages in a project lifecycle based on the four criteria mentioned previously in the literature review: (1) as comprehensive as possible: applicable to different project types and involving important stakeholders; (2) practical to implement: with an indicator number near 30; (3) lifecycle concern: covering all phases of the project lifecycle; and (4) project focus: should be relevant to project management processes or techniques. The interviews were conducted every week for nearly three months until a consensus was reached. The expert interviews finally concluded that 31 preliminary sustainability indicators out of the 57 initial candidate indicators may be applicable to the eight different project stages: (1) Initialization (I); (2) Design and planning (D&P); (3) Construction (C); (4) Monitoring and control (M&C); (5) Completion and turnover (TO); (6) Operation (O); (7) Maintenance (M); and (8) Demolition (D).
(3)
Testing with historical sustainable projects: a checklist analysis method adopted from Rodríguez-López [26] was conducted through 12 historical projects to test whether the required information for the selected 31 preliminary SIs could be acquired from real world projects. The historical sustainable construction projects were collected from two public sources: (1) eight green building cases from Taiwan Green Building Council [31]; (2) four ecological construction project cases from the Public Construction Council [32] (refer to Table 1 for the details of the 12 sustainable cases).
The testing results show that all 31 preliminary SIs identified by expert interviews in Step (2) were found to be applicable at least in four out of the 12 cases. The five preliminary SIs with the least applicable historical sustainable construction projects are: (1) E3c1 (Usage of Vertical Green Planting), 83.3% (10/12) applicable; (2) S1a1 (Improvement of Average Occupation Area), 33.3% (4/12) applicable; (3) S1a2 (Improvement of Infrastructure), 66.7% (8/12) applicable; (4) S1a3 (Certified Green Building), 83.3% (8/12) applicable; and (5) S1b1 (Prevention of Disaster), 41.7% (5/12) applicable. Although these five indicators are not applicable to all cases due to specific project characteristics, they are generally useful for sustainability assessment. As a result, all 31 preliminary SIs are considered applicable for the sustainability assessment of construction projects.
(4)
Prioritization of selected preliminary SIs through a questionnaire survey: in order to assess the acceptance of the proposed CPSAS from the industry, a questionnaire survey was conducted with 45 experienced industrial practitioners (with previous participation in at least one sustainable construction project, including the owners, the consultants or designers, the general contractors, the suppliers and sub-contractors) of the published historical sustainable construction projects [31,32]. The questionnaire was designed to assess their agreement with the SIs in the eight stages of a project lifecycle. The statistics on the questionnaire returns are summarized in Table 2. Finally 38 effective responses were received, the overall return rate for the questionnaire survey is 84%. The results of the questionnaire survey are shown in Table 3. The profile information of the respondents including their professional positions and seniority of practical experience is depicted in Figure 2. The inter-rater reliability scores [33] for each group of respondents are listed in the fifth column of Table 2 to show the reliability of the survey results. The percentage statistics of survey results for the questionnaire are provided as the supplementary materials of the paper.
(5)
Case study demonstration: two types of construction projects (including three green building projects and two ecological civil infrastructure construction projects) were selected for testing with the established CPSAS to demonstrate its applicability. The applications of CPSAS in sustainable construction project management are also addressed and discussed with the case demonstrations.

3.2. Proposed Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (CPSAS)

The resulting SIs for assessing the sustainability of a construction project, namely the Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (CPSAS), is illustrated in Figure 3. The framework of CPSAS comprises four levels: (1) Level-1: Sustainability Pillars (SP): 3 pillars of sustainability are defined: environmental sustainability (E), social sustainability (S), and economic sustainability (EC); (2) Level-2: Sustainability Categories (SC): total of 8 sustainability categories belonging to the 3 pillars are defined; (3) Level-3: Sustainability Sub-Categories (Sub-SC): total of 19 sustainability sub-categories are identified for the eight sustainability categories; (4) Level-4: Sustainability Indicators (SI): total of 31 sustainability indicators are identified. The detailed definitions for the 31 SIs are shown in Table 3. Based on the agreement percentage (%) depicted in Table 3, the SIs with different importance suggested to be adopted for different stages of the project lifecycle are shown in Table 4.
With the proposed CPSAS, the overall Project Sustainability Index (PSI) can be calculated for a specific construction project. According to CPSAS defined in Table 3 and Figure 3, there are two types of indicators: (1) Quantitative indicators: measured by the percentage (%) of values or quantities (No.) of the indicators; and (2) Non-quantitative indicators: measured by ‘Yes or No (Y/N)’ of the outcome of the indicators. The two indicator types are aggregated in PSI using the following equation:
P S I = i = 1 m P S I n q ( i ) + j = 1 n P S I q ( j ) m + n × 100 % ,
where PSI is the Project Sustainability Index in percentage (%); m is the number of qualitative (non-quantitative) indicators; PSInq(i) is the evaluated result of the ith qualitative indicator; n is the number of quantitative indicators; PSIq(j) is the evaluated result of the jth qualitative indicator.
The non-quantitative, PSInq(i), and quantitative, PSIq(j), sustainability indicators in Equation (1) are further defined in the following:
● Non-quantitative Sustainability Indicators (PSInq)
In CPSAS, there are 12 indicators of PSInq. The results of the 12 PSInq indicators are either ‘Pass’ (noted as ‘Y’ in Figure 3) or ‘Fail’ (noted as ‘N’ in Figure 3). When an indicator satisfies the defined requirements, it is assessed as ‘Y’ with the PSInq value of ‘1′; otherwise, it is assessed as ‘N’ with PSInq value of ‘0′. For example, ‘E1d2—Usage of Green Energy (UGE)’ requires the use of any kind of renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, or co-generation electricity) utilized in the project. If any is in place, it is assessed as ‘Y’ (PSInq = 1).
● Quantitative Sustainability Indicators (PSIq)
There are 19 quantitative indicators of PSIq in the proposed CPSAS. Among these, 6 are assessed in percentage (%) and 13 are assessed in numbers. Most of the percentage indicators are ratios of two parameters collected from the project; the numeric (No.) indicators are counted in integer numbers. Thresholds are defined for different PSIq indicators. For example, for ‘EC1a1—Ratio of Local Employment (RLE)’, the threshold value may be set as 20% to encourage the creation of jobs for the local community by the project contractor. If the RLE is ≥20%, it is assessed as ‘Y’ (PSIq = 1); otherwise, it is assessed as ‘N’ (PSIq = 0). Similarly, an example of the numeric indicators for ‘S1a3—Certified Green Building (CGB)’, the threshold value required by the local regulation for the EEWH Green Building Certification System [34] in Taiwan requires at least four quantified items to be certified as ‘Green Building’.
Finally, the overall PSI of the project is calculated using Equation (1). The Level of Project Sustainability (LPS) in this research is determined arbitrarily using the following rules:
(1)
If PSI < 50%, the project is determined as ‘Low-Sustainability;
(2)
If 50% ≤ PSI < 76%, the project is determined as ‘Bronze Sustainability;
(3)
If 76% ≤ PSI < 86%, the project is determined as ‘Silver Sustainability’;
(4)
If PSI ≥ 86%, the project is determined as ‘Gold Sustainability’.
It is noted that the criteria of LPS provide project stakeholders an overall figure of the project sustainability. It can be altered and tuned more appropriately by the project manager or the project owner after several practical applications of the proposed CPSAS.

3.3. Determining Indicator Criteria

The criteria of the Sustainability Indicators (SIs) in Table 3 will affect the overall Project Sustainability Index (PSI) and further determine the Level of Project Sustainability (LPS). As a result, it is very important to select appropriate ‘Pass’ or ‘Fail’ criterion for each SI. As discussed previously, some criteria are ‘hard’ requirements regulated by the local sustainability related regulations, e.g., the ‘S1a3—Certified Green Building (CGB)’ is regulated by the EEWH Green Building Code of Taiwan [34], the ‘E2e2—Usage of Green Labeled Product (GLP)’ is regulated by the Public Construction Commission (PCC) of Taiwan [32]. The other criteria are ‘soft’ requirements that can be determined by the project stakeholders according to their expectations or intentions to achieve the project sustainability. For example, the ‘E3a1—Ratio of Planting Area (RPA)’ of environmental pillar will improve the biodiversity and living quality in the long term; the ‘EC1a1—Ratio of Local Employment (RLE)’ of economic pillar will create jobs for local community and will improve social relationship between the facility owner and the local residents in the long term. The criteria of both abovementioned indicators can be set up by the project owner for their long term goals.

4. Demonstrated Case Studies

In this section, five construction projects, including three green building projects and two civil infrastructure construction projects, were selected for testing the proposed CPSAS to demonstrate its applicability.

4.1. Background of Selected Case Projects

The background information on the five selected real world cases are described in Table 5. The sustainability assessments were tested for different project stages according to the information available for each project during the time the research was conducted. Two (Case I and II) projects were assessed for the Plan and Design (P&D) stage; one (Case III) project was assessed for Construction (C) stage; one (Case IV) project was assessed for Turnover (TO) stage; and one (Case V) project was assessed for Operation (O) stage.

4.2. Assessment of Sustainability Indicators

The Sustainability Indicators (SIs) of the proposed CPSAS were assessed according to the definitions of the SIs in Table 3. The first step in assessing the SIs was to determine the criterion of ‘Pass’ for each indicator in the CPSAS. In the case study, the criteria were mainly determined according to the local regulations. For example, the Public Construction Commission (PCC) of Taiwan requires ‘E2e2—Usage of Green Labeled Product (GLP)’ to be at least 10% for a sustainable public construction project; thus, the criterion of ‘Pass’ criterion of E2e2 was ‘≥10%’. Similarly, the certified green building according EEWH standard requires at least four qualified items, so the ‘Pass’ criterion for ‘S1a3—Certified Green Building (CGB)’ was set as ‘≥4’. The other criteria for the rest indicators are shown in the fifth column of Table 6. The results of the assessment for the SIs of the six demonstrated cases are depicted in Column 6–10 of Table 6. The original values for the numeric indicators (PSIq) are represented in the parentheses, and the assessed results are shown in front of the parentheses. There are some assessed indicators shown as ‘N/A’, which means the indicators are not applicable for the case due to the project characteristics. For example, the ‘S1a1—Improvement of Average Occupation Area (AOA)’ and ‘S1a3—Certified Green Building (CGB)’ are not applicable for the river renovation project type of Case IV and the highway project type of Case V. Similarly, the ‘S2a1—Measure of Conserving Cultural Monument (CCM)’ and the ‘S4a2—Fair Sharing of Benefits (FSB)’ are not applicable for the river renovation project type of Case IV. All applicable indicators were assessed and given resultant values in Table 6.

4.3. Project Sustainability Index (PSI) Calculation

The PSI for each demonstrated case was calculated according to Equation (1). The calculation results are summarized in Table 7. It is noted from Table 7 that the overall project PSIs range from 71% to 92%. Case I is ranked as ‘Bronze’ level; Cases III and IV are ranked as ‘Silver’ level; and Cases II and V are both ranked ‘Gold’ level for their sustainability.

4.4. Suggested Procedure for Sustainable Project Management

The proposed CPSAS not only provides an overall PSI, as shown in Table 6, but also provides the direction for improving the sustainability for project management. For example, Case I is assessed as the least sustainable project among the five demonstrated cases. From Table 5, it is noted that many SIs are poor in sustainability performance, e.g., ‘E2a2—Usage of Low Air Pollution Method (LAP)’, ‘E2d1—Measure of Noise Reduction (MNR)’, ‘E3a1—Ratio of Planting Area (RPA)’, ‘E3c1—Usage of Vertical Green Planting (VGP)’, and ‘S4a2—Fair Sharing of Benefits (FSB)’. Most of these indicators can be improved during the ‘Plan & Design’ stage (when the assessment takes place). Thus, the project team is guided to plan the actions for sustainability improvement.
Nevertheless, the proposed CPSAS provides the project management team with a suggested list of assessment indicators for monitoring the project sustainability during each stage of a project lifecycle. Such project management initiatives can be triggered by a ‘Stage-gate’ procedure, as suggested in Figure 4.
In the procedure of Figure 4, the ‘Stage-gate’ is set at the end of each project stage, where the PSI for the stage is assessed by the project management team. If the PSI is not satisfied, improvement actions should be planned and implemented according to the SI assessment results obtained from CPSAS; otherwise, the project is allowed to proceed to the next stage. Finally, the project sustainability performance report can be generated as a lesson learned for future projects at the end of the project.

5. Conclusions and Recommendation

The construction industry has been criticized as a non-sustainable industry due to its low productivity but high resource consumption. However, there has not yet been an effective tool to monitor and achieve the expected sustainability for construction projects from stakeholders’ viewpoints. In this paper, a Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (namely CPSAS) is proposed to provide the engineers and the manager with a tool to monitor and control the process sustainability of a construction project. The proposed CPSAS comprises four levels: Level 1, 3 main pillars; Level 2, 8 categories; Level 3, 19 sub-categories; and Level 4, 31 indicators. Five demonstrated cases, including three building projects and two civil construction projects, were selected to test the feasibility of the proposed CPSAS. A procedure for sustainable project management with the proposed CPSAS is also suggested to the project management team.
Although the study was conducted through surveys based on the literature, historical sustainable construction projects and the domain experts in Taiwan, the proposed model can be tailored to fit the need of sustainability in the other countries or areas. Table 4 offers the project management team the selection set of sustainability indicators to meet requirements of different project phases. Table 6 provides the project stakeholders with a tool to set up thresholds of sustainability indicators that determine the levels of sustainability expected by different project participants. Finally, Figure 4 is offered as a guide for the implementation of sustainable construction project management. The project stakeholders (especially, the project owners and managers) have to determine the thresholds for the ‘Pass or Fail’ criteria according to their expectations and requirements on project sustainability. Moreover, the Level of Project Sustainability (LPS), which provides a compass to monitor the overall project sustainability should be adjusted with more experiences collected from practical implementations. With such a tool, the project management team is better equipped to achieve a more sustainable construction project. It is concluded that the proposed CPSAS is useful for construction stakeholders to effectively monitor the sustainability of the construction activities during the project lifecycle so that the project team is able to plan strategies to manage the project in order to achieve effective construction sustainability.
The proposed CPSAS has been tested with five sustainable projects; however, more and different types of sustainable projects need to be considered for comprehensive verification. The research team plans to implement the proposed CPSAS in a land development project located in Hsinchu City in North Taiwan. Other specialized construction projects also need to be tested, such as industrial construction projects, ocean construction projects, etc.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1523/s1.

Author Contributions

The conceptualization of the research, the initial research methodology, and funding collection were originated by Wen-der Yu. Shao-tsai Cheng further planned detailed research methodology (including the questionnaire design). Wei-cheng Ho and Yu-hao Chang, who were graduate students of Yu and Cheng, implemented the research methodology and conducted questionnaire survey. Ho and Chang were also in charge of data collection and the initial analysis of survey results. The statistical analysis and validation was conducted by Cheng. The paper was mainly written and organized by Yu, who was also in charge of the administration of the research project.

Acknowledgments

This research project was partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under project No. MOST 103-2621-M-216-004. Sincere appreciations are given to the sponsor by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Berardi, U. Building energy consumption in US, EU, and BRIC countries. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. USGBC. Green Building: Benefits to Health, the Environment and the Bottom Line. In Statement of the U.S. Green Building Council before the Senate Committee of Environment and Public Works, May 05, 2007; Healthy Schools Network, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; Available online: http://www.lafarge-na.com/BD&C%20White%20Paper%2006.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).
  3. Teicholz, P. Labor Productivity Declines in the Construction Industry: Causes and Remedies (a Second Look). AECbytes. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Teicholz/publication/259105147_AECBytes_Viewpoint-v0/links/02e7e529fbdefa7956000000/AECBytes-Viewpoint-v0 (accessed on 10 October 2017).
  4. Yu, W.D.; Chang, Y.H.; Liu, D.G. A Generic Eco-Innovation Model to Improve Building Sustainability. In Proceedings of the Innovation for Sustainability 2014, Porto, Portugal, 10–11 July 2014; pp. 165-1–165-12. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yu, W.D.; Cheng, S.T.; Miao, C.M.; Perng, G.Y. Green innovation of green roof technology—A case study. Mater. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2017, 48, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. OECD. Eco-Innovation in Industry: Enabling Green Growth. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/eco-innovationinindustryenablinggreengrowth.htm (accessed on 1 January 2018).
  7. Vijayaraghavan, K. Green roofs: A critical review on the role of components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 740–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lin, H.T. GHG emission reduction performance of state-of-the-art green buildings: Review of two case studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 484–493. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yau, J.T.; Hsiao, L.H. Industry Analysis and Management Strategy for Green Building Materials. J. Archit. Spec. Issue Technol. 2008, 66, 35–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. Carmen Rubio, M.; Martínez, G.; Baena, L.; Moreno-Navarro, F. Warm mix asphalt: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 24, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Woszuk, A.; Franus, W. A review of the application of zeolite materials in Warm Mix Asphalt technologies. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tutu, K.A.; Tuffour, Y.A. Warm-Mix Asphalt and Pavement Sustainability: A Review. Sci. Res. 2016, 6, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Markiv, T.; Sobol, K.; Franus, M.; Franus, W. Mechanical and durability properties of concretes incorporating natural zeolite. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2016, 16, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Woszuk, A.; Franus, W. Properties of the Warm Mix Asphalt involving clinoptilolite and Na-P1 zeolite additives. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mao, C.; Shen, Q.P.; Shen, L.Y.; Tang, L.N. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, W.; Gao, Q.X.; Cao, G.L.; Ma, Z.Y.; Zang, W.D.; Chao, Q.C. Effect of urban symbiosis development in China on GHG emissions reduction. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2016, 7, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chang, I.C. Application of Factor Analysis in Establishing the National Sustainable Development Evaluation Indicator System for Taiwan. Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan, 2000. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen, Y.K. The Establishment of Assessment Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development and Its Application in Taiwan. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Resource Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, 2007. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  19. Hsu, W.T. Establishment of National Level Sustainability Indicator System for Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Taiwan, 2011. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, R.Y.; Hsu, W.T. On the Development of an appraisal indicator system for assessing the sustainability of construction engineering in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Environmental, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 14 December 2011; (In Chinese). Available online: http://www.tasder.org.tw/action.html (accessed on 10 May 2018). (In Chinese).
  21. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C. Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: Aligning project management methodologies with the principles of sustainable development. In Proceedings of the 2004 PMSA International Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa, 10–12 May 2004; pp. 104–115. [Google Scholar]
  22. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C. Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: The need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Project Manag. 2005, 23, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wikipedia, Brundtland Commission. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission (accessed on 1 January 2018).
  24. Munasinghe, M. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill, R.C.; Bowen, P. Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1997, 15, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fernández-Sánchez, G.; Rodríguez-López, F. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management—Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shen, L.Y.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, L.; Ji, Y.B. Project feasibility study: The key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marcelino-Sádaba, S.; González-Jaen, L.F.; Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. Using project management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marques, R.C.; Ferreira da Cruz, N.; Simões, P.; Ferreira, S.F.; Pereira, M.C.; De Jaeger, S. Economic viability of packaging waste recycling systems: A comparison between Belgium and Portugal, Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 85, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Simões, P.; Marques, R.C. On the economic performance of the waste sector. A literature review. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 106, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Taiwan Green Building Council, Green Building Case Study. Available online: http://www.taiwangbc.org.tw/en/modules/news/article.php?storyid=20 (accessed on January 2018). (In Chinese).
  32. Public Construction Council, Ecological Construction Project Cases. Sustainable Public Construction Portal. Available online: http://eem.pcc.gov.tw/node (accessed on 15 January 2016). (In Chinese)
  33. Rosenberg, R.S.; Van Hout, S. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine Inter-scorer Reliability Program: Sleep Stage Scoring. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2013, 9, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. EEWH, EEWH Green Building Certification System. Taiwan Architecture and Building Center. Available online: http://gb.tabc.org.tw/ (accessed on 1 January 2018). (In Chinese).
Figure 1. Research procedure. SI: sustainability indicator.
Figure 1. Research procedure. SI: sustainability indicator.
Sustainability 10 01523 g001
Figure 2. Profile information for the respondents of questionnaire survey.
Figure 2. Profile information for the respondents of questionnaire survey.
Sustainability 10 01523 g002
Figure 3. Framework of Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (CPSAS).
Figure 3. Framework of Construction Project Sustainability Assessing System (CPSAS).
Sustainability 10 01523 g003
Figure 4. Suggested management procedure for attaining sustainable project with the proposed CPSAS.
Figure 4. Suggested management procedure for attaining sustainable project with the proposed CPSAS.
Sustainability 10 01523 g004
Table 1. Information on 12 tested sustainable construction projects.
Table 1. Information on 12 tested sustainable construction projects.
No.Sustainable Project TypeProject NameLocationContent of SustainabilityReference
1Green buildingSoshi High-rise Residential Building ProjectTaipei CityEEWH * Certified[31]
2Green buildingPeitou Library BuildingTaipei CityEEWH Diamond Certified[31]
3Green buildingDelta Electronics, Inc. South Science Park FactoryTainan CityEEWH Gold Certified[31]
4Green buildingNeihu Elementary SchoolNantou CountyEEWH Certified[31]
5Green buildingYidzai Elementary SchoolTainan CountyEEWH Certified[31]
6Green buildingResidential Hall of ITRI, Liuo-Jia DistrictTainan CityEEWH Diamond Certified[31]
7Green buildingWorld Game Arena of 2009 in KaohsiungKaohsiung CityEEWH Gold Certified[31]
8Green buildingTamsui Sewage Treatment PlatNew Taipei CityEEWH Gold Certified[32]
9Ecological methodTsou-Ten-Ken River renovation project of Taichung CountyTaichung CityGreen construction method[32]
10Ecological methodLao-Jiey River renovation project of Taoyuan CityTaoyuan CityGreen construction method[32]
11Ecological methodNational Highway No. 6 Construction ProjectNantou CountyEnergy and carbon emission reduction[32]
12Ecological methodThe 7-Star Tang Coast Construction ProjectHualien CountyGreen construction method[32]
Note: * EEWH is the Green Building Certification System of Taiwan [31].
Table 2. Statistics on the questionnaire distribution and collection.
Table 2. Statistics on the questionnaire distribution and collection.
Domain ExpertsNo. of SurveysNo. of Valid Returns%Inter-Rater Reliability
Owners15960%0.230
Architect/Engineer1515100%0.117
Contractors151493%0.214
Overall453884%0.180
Table 3. Results of questionnaire survey for the applicability of sustainability indicators in the project lifecycle.
Table 3. Results of questionnaire survey for the applicability of sustainability indicators in the project lifecycle.
SP *SC *Sub-SC *SI *Definition of IndicatorsAbbr.UnitApplicable Project Phases **
IP&DCM&CTOOMD
EE1E1aE1a1Project Development Area RatioDAR%92%100%32%29%21%16%0%0%
E1bE1b1Ratio of Borrowed SoilRBS%16%82%68%32%0%0%8%0%
E1b2Ratio of Concrete UsageRCU%8%95%87%68%8%0%11%3%
E1cE1c1Measure of Water SavingMWSNo.39%89%84%45%16%58%42%3%
E1c2Measure of Water RecycleMWRNo.34%82%87%53%21%55%55%3%
E1dE1d1Measure of Energy SavingMESNo.24%76%71%39%24%55%37%3%
E1d2Usage of Green EnergyUGEY/N32%55%34%18%16%34%16%3%
E2E2aE2a1Measure of Air Pollution PreventionAPPNo.16%45%76%32%13%55%42%13%
E2a2Usage of Low Air Pollution MethodLAPNo.11%66%79%42%13%0%8%5%
E2bE2b1Measure of Water Pollution ReductionWPRNo.21%66%79%45%18%42%13%37%
E2cE2c1Measure of Solid Waste ReductionSWRNo.16%42%68%42%16%32%24%37%
E2dE2d1Measure of Noise ReductionMNRNo.11%61%82%53%13%11%18%16%
E2eE2e1Alternative for ToxicantAFTNo.13%66%58%21%5%21%11%5%
E2e2Usage of Green Labeled ProductGLP%21%87%79%50%24%37%21%3%
E2fE2f1Low GHG Emission MethodLGMNo.13%71%76%37%5%76%34%45%
E3E3aE3a1Ratio of Planting AreaRPA%29%95%92%45%26%32%39%0%
E3a2Establishment of HabitationEOHY/N50%76%61%47%29%32%26%24%
E3bE3b1Avoid Bio-sensitive AreaABAY/N55%63%42%34%24%24%18%18%
E3b2Avoid Disaster-sensitive AreaADAY/N55%61%42%34%26%21%18%16%
E3cE3c1Usage of Vertical Green PlantingVGPY/N16%61%50%13%8%8%11%0%
SS1S1aS1a1Improvement of Average Occupation AreaAOAY/N42%76%21%8%13%37%13%0%
S1a2Improvement of InfrastructureIOIY/N39%76%24%8%42%32%37%3%
S1a3Certified Green BuildingCGBNo.61%71%55%42%55%68%11%0%
S1bS1b1Prevention of DisasterPODY/N61%71%68%29%21%24%18%5%
S1b2Protection of Stakeholders SafetyPSSY/N71%76%76%68%50%61%34%24%
S2S2aS2a1Measure of Conserving Cultural MonumentCCMY/N42%55%42%24%13%50%58%55%
S3S3aS3a1Free Access for the DisabledFADNo.26%84%68%39%32%58%26%8%
S4S4aS4a1Participation of Local ResidentsPLRY/N39%66%55%29%34%53%26%18%
S4a2Fair Sharing of BenefitsFSBY/N53%55%32%18%18%21%13%16%
ECEC1EC1aEC1a1Ratio of Local EmploymentRLE%16%18%61%18%0%13%50%24%
EC1a2Self-Liquidation RatioSLR%55%84%11%24%11%71%8%0%
* Note: Sustainability Pillars (SP): Environmental (E), Social (S), Economic (EC), Sustainability Categories (SC); Sustainability Sub-Categories (Sub-SC); ** Project Phases: I—Initialization; P&D—Plan and Design; C—Construction; M&C—Monitoring and Control; TO—Turnover; O—Operation; M—Maintenance; D—Demolition.
Table 4. Suggested SIs for different stages of project lifecycle.
Table 4. Suggested SIs for different stages of project lifecycle.
SPSCSub-SCSIAbbr.Applicable Project Phases
IP&DCM&CTOOMD
EE1E1aE1a1DAR
E1bE1b1RBS
E1b2RCU
E1cE1c1MWS
E1c2MWR
E1dE1d1MES
E1d2UGE
E2E2aE2a1APP
E2a2LAP
E2bE2b1WPR
E2cE2c1SWR
E2dE2d1MNR
E2eE2e1AFT
E2e2GLP
E2fE2f1LGM
E3E3aE3a1RPA
E3a2EOH
E3bE3b1ABA
E3b2ADA
E3cE3c1VGP
SS1S1aS1a1AOA
S1a2IOI
S1a3CGB
S1bS1b1POD
S1b2PSS
S2S2aS2a1CCM
S3S3aS3a1FAD
S4S4aS4a1PLR
S4a2FSB
ECEC1EC1aEC1a1RLE
EC1a2SLR
No. of Relevant SIs3031312925292713
Note: (1) Legend: ●—Very important; ◎—Important; ○—Medium; △—Minor. (2) Abbreviations refers to Table 3.
Table 5. Suggested SIs for different stages of project lifecycle.
Table 5. Suggested SIs for different stages of project lifecycle.
No.CharacteristicsDemonstrated Cases
IIIIIIIVV
1Project NameR&D Building of NTHUHigh-rise Residential BuildingSang-Hsin Township HallSha-lun Dam Renovation of Da-Han RiverNational Highway No. 6
2LocationHsinchuNew TaipeiYi-lanTaichungNantou
3TypeBuildingBuildingBuildingCivilCivil
4Area/Length6435 m2
(6-story)
52,277 m2
(32 + 8-story)
2576 m2
(2-story)
98 m37.6 km
5Primary Green ContentEEWH Green BuildingEEWH Green BuildingEEWH Green BuildingEcological Construction MethodEcological Construction Method
6Assessment StagePlan and DesignPlan and DesignConstructionTurnoverOperation
Table 6. Results of SI assessment for the five demonstrated cases.
Table 6. Results of SI assessment for the five demonstrated cases.
SPSCSub-SCSICriterionDemonstrated Cases
IIIIIIIVV
EE1E1aE1a1≥60%Y(100%)Y(80%)N(20%)Y(93%)Y(100%)
E1bE1b1≤50%Y(0%)Y(0%)Y(0%)--
E1b2≤40%Y(40%)Y(20%)Y(20%)--
E1cE1c1≥1Y(3)Y(2)Y(2)N/AY(0)
E1c2≥1Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)N/AN(0)
E1dE1d1≥1Y(4)Y(4)Y(3)Y(2)Y(1)
E1d2Y/NYNYYY
E2E2aE2a1≥1Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)Y(2)
E2a2≥1N(0)N(0)N(0)Y(1)-
E2bE2b1≥1Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)N(0)N(0)
E2cE2c1≥1Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)Y(1)
E2dE2d1≥1N(0)N(0)N(0)N(0)Y(1)
E2eE2e1≥1Y(1)Y(1)Y(2)-Y(2)
E2e2≥10%Y(60%)Y(80%)Y(70%)Y(14%)Y(70%)
E2fE2f1≥1Y(2)Y(1)Y(1)-Y(2)
E3E3aE3a1≥40%N(30%)Y(60%)Y(20%)N(35%)Y(85%)
E3a2Y/NYYYYY
E3bE3b1Y/NYYYYY
E3b2Y/NYYYYY
E3cE3c1Y/NNYY--
SS1S1aS1a1Y/NYYYN/AN/A
S1a2Y/NYYYYY
S1a3≥4Y(8)Y(6)Y(6)N/AN/A
S1bS1b1Y/NYYYYY
S1b2Y/NYYYYY
S2S2aS2a1Y/NNYNN/AY
S3S3aS3a1≥1Y(3)Y(3)Y(3)N/AN/A
S4S4aS4a1Y/NNYYYY
S4a2Y/NNYNN/AY
ECEC1EC1aEC1a1≥20%Y(40%)Y(50%)Y(60%)-Y(60%)
EC1a2≥50%N(30%)Y(100%)N(0%)N(0%)Y(50%)
Note: (1) Legend: ‘Y’—Pass the pre-defined criterion; ‘N’—Fail to pass the criterion. (2) Abbreviations refers to Table 3.
Table 7. Overall Project Sustainability Index (PSI) for demonstrated case projects.
Table 7. Overall Project Sustainability Index (PSI) for demonstrated case projects.
Demonstrated CaseIIIIIIIVV
No. of Relevant Sustainability Indicators3131312529
No. of indicators applicable3131311926
No. of ‘Pass’ indicators2328251524
Overall Project PSI74.2%90.3%80.6%78.9%92.3%
Sustainability RankBronzeGoldSilverSilverGold

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, W.-d.; Cheng, S.-t.; Ho, W.-c.; Chang, Y.-h. Measuring the Sustainability of Construction Projects throughout Their Lifecycle: A Taiwan Lesson. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523

AMA Style

Yu W-d, Cheng S-t, Ho W-c, Chang Y-h. Measuring the Sustainability of Construction Projects throughout Their Lifecycle: A Taiwan Lesson. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5):1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Wen-der, Shao-tsai Cheng, Wei-cheng Ho, and Yu-hao Chang. 2018. "Measuring the Sustainability of Construction Projects throughout Their Lifecycle: A Taiwan Lesson" Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop