Durability, adaptability and energy conservation (DAEC) assessment tool

Langford, David; MacLeod, Iain; Dimitrijević, Branka; Maver, Tom

doi:10.1504/ijetm.2002.000783

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These are criteria related to the site and equipment: quality of infrastructure (Cerón-Palma et al , 2013; Newell et al , 2013), security of the site (Sinou and Kyvelou, 2006), quality of facilities (Sinou and Kyvelou, 2006; Cerón-Palma et al , 2013) and land use (Shen et al , 2010). Considering health and comfort issues, the following are considered: the aesthetic quality (Langford et al , 2002), thermal comfort (Halme et al , 2004; Sahely et al , 2005; Cerón-Palma et al , 2013), indoor air quality (Lee et al , 2002) and daylight and exposure to sunlight (Shen et al , 2007). Job opportunities include the following: direct employment (Shen et al , 2007) and indirect employment (Shen et al , 2010).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While considering stakeholders' relationship, empowerment and participation (Halme et al , 2004), communication to the public (Shen et al , 2007) and public engagement (Clark and Wokaun, 2003; Sahely et al , 2005; Sharifi and Murayama, 2013) feature prominently. In the architectural issues, there is cultural heritage preservation (Langford et al , 2002; Ugwu and Haupt, 2007), architectural heritage considerations (Ding, 2005) and architectural functionality and flexibility considerations (Zavrl et al , 2009).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fair wage potential as a tool for social assessment in building projects

Vitorio

Kripka

2020

ECAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe fair wage potential (FWP) is a social assessment method that can serve as an important measure to estimate the related social impacts along a product's life cycle; however, it does not admit a direct relation to the functional unit. This research presents the weighted fair wage potential (WFWP) method that relates the functional unit to the FWP. It is a simplified method to connect the material inventory to social data. This study aims to develop an approach to assess and choose the best construction typology for buildings based on the social sustainability of workers involved in the sectors.Design/methodology/approachThe study is presented in phases. Phase 1 selected and identified two Brazilian house projects, which were considered for the following processes: extraction of raw materials, manufacture of building materials and housing construction. Phase 2 assembled the social life cycle inventories and executed them using the social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The inventory of materials followed the functional unit: “1.0 m² of the built housing”, and the social inventory observed data extracted from the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD). The study considered the stakeholder category “worker” and analysed the impact subcategory “fair salary”. The study also divided the social data into categories: worker gender, worker race/colour, worker union and worker formality to analyse the impact of subcategories: “equal opportunities/discrimination”, “freedom of association and collective bargaining” and “social benefits/social security”. Phase 3 compared the projects according to the results from the SLCA. The FWP considers the wage paid at supply chain sectors, and the WFWP relates the functional unit to the social data.FindingsThe results proved that the wages paid by the construction supply chain are fair. However, there are differences between the FWP of male and female workers, white and non-white workers, unionised and non-unionised workers and formal and informal workers. The study of the actual Brazilian minimum wage indicated that the FWP is sensitive to the reference wage to which the analysed wages paid are related. Considering the WFWP, the constructive typology employed in Project B can generate increased positive social impacts than Project A. The proposed study provides excellent results, and it can be adapted to different data to assess the social conditions of other countries and sectors.Research limitations/implicationsThere is not enough primary data available for the variables real wages and real working time; for this reason, these variables received secondary data. Another limitation is the data used for the year range, since Brazilian microdata do not include years before 2002 and years beyond 2015.Originality/valueThe WFWP differs from the existing social sustainability studies because it relates the material information to social data; also, it defines the best option among the analysed alternatives, taking into consideration social sustainability, which enables the project design to go beyond technical aspects. The constructive typology and materials take into account the social sustainability of the construction supply chain, generating more sustainable projects and improving the circumstances of affected stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fair wage potential as a tool for social assessment in building projects

Vitorio

Kripka

2020

ECAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Earth Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the first IPCC report on climate change also highlighted the issue of sustainable development, and may have contributed to interest in building adaptation as a way to conserve resources and respond to climate change issues. In fact, the research by (Langford et al, 2002), which commenced in the late 1990s considered the subject of adaptability alongside the durability and energy conservation of buildings. But it is possible that the Open Building movement is a key influence on the development of building adaptability.…”

Section: Trends and Future Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Langford et al (2002) mentions different changes for same use or different use; others make reference to adaptive reusechange of a disused building for a different purpose, e.g., disused factory into a residential building (Bullen, 2007;Bullen and Love, 2011;Langston, 2012). Additional dimensions identified by various researchers are summarised in Table I (Arge, 2005;Kelly et al, 2011;Pinder et al, 2011;Fuster et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the developments in building adaptability

Heidrich

Kamara

Maltese

et al. 2017

IJBPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a critical review of developments in the adaptability of buildings. Its purpose is to determine the current ‘state-of-the-art’, describe current thinking and trends in research and practice, and identify issues and gaps that further research can address. It provides a basis for a scientific and practical understanding of the interdependencies across different design criterion. The paper increases the awareness of architects, engineers, clients and users on the importance of adaptability and its role in lowering impacts over the lifecycle of buildings as part of the infrastructure system.\ud This paper draws mainly from the literature as its source of evidence. These were identified from established databases and search engines (e.g. Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar) using key words such as adaptability, adaptable, adaptation, and flexibility. Over 80 sources including books, journal papers, conference proceedings, research reports and doctoral theses covering the period 1990 to 2017 were reviewed and categorised. An inductive approach was used to critically review and categorise these publications and develop a framework for analysis.\ud The concept of adaptability includes many dimensions which can broadly fall into two categories: changes to buildings and user adaptations to buildings. However, previous research has mostly focused on the former, with many attempts to identify building attributes that facilitate adaptability, and some considerations for its assessment. Key areas that have not been adequately addressed and which require further research include: user/occupant adaptations, cost, benefits and implications of various adaptability measures, and the development of a standardised assessment methodology that could aid in decision making in the design stage of buildings.\ud The adaptability strategies considered in this review focused mainly on building components and systems, and did not include the contribution of intelligent and smart/biological systems. The coverage is further limited in scope due to the period considered (1990-2017) and the exclusion of terms such as “retrofit” and “refurbishment” from the review. However, the findings provide a solid basis for further research in the areas identified above. It identifies research issues and gaps in knowledge between the defined needs and current state-of-the-art on adaptive building for both research and practice.\ud This paper is a review of research into a highly topical subject, given the acknowledged need to adapt buildings over their lifecycle to environmental, economic or social changes. It provides further insights on the dimensions of adaptability and identifies areas for further research that will contribute to the development of robust tools for the assessment of building adaptability, which will enhance the decision-making process of building design and the development of a more sustainable built environment

show abstract

“…Over the course of their lifetime, they are adapted to incorporate new performance requirements, cope with the changing needs of owners and users and the pressing challenges that climate change may bring (Thompson et al, 2014). The importance of adaptability is also acknowledged in other disciplines such as ecology, where adaptive capacity is seen as "essential for maintaining the resilience of social-ecological systems and for coping with environmental change" (Fazey et al, 2007, p. 375).The adaptability of buildings is therefore a key lifecycle consideration and is a very important strategy for the sustainable design and construction of buildings (Langford et al, 2002;Webster, 2007;Gosling et al, 2013). The more adaptable buildings are, the better they will maximise their social and economic value (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking stock on building adaptability research and practice

Kamara

Dejaco

2017

IJBPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking stock on building adaptability research and practice Buildings are a key part of the built environment and they have a significant impact on the economic, social and environmental sustainability of a society. These include: their contribution to the wealth of nations, providing space for economic and social/family activities, defining the culture and heritage of a society, and impacting the natural environment through the use of materials and energy in their construction, operation and use, and the emission of CO 2 and other harmful gases to the environment.Buildings are generally fixed assets with a lifespan of around 25/30 years but which can last for hundreds of years. Over the course of their lifetime, they are adapted to incorporate new performance requirements, cope with the changing needs of owners and users and the pressing challenges that climate change may bring (Thompson et al., 2014). The importance of adaptability is also acknowledged in other disciplines such as ecology, where adaptive capacity is seen as "essential for maintaining the resilience of social-ecological systems and for coping with environmental change" (Fazey et al., 2007, p. 375).The adaptability of buildings is therefore a key lifecycle consideration and is a very important strategy for the sustainable design and construction of buildings (Langford et al., 2002;Webster, 2007;Gosling et al., 2013). The more adaptable buildings are, the better they will maximise their social and economic value (e.g. through extended useful life) and the less their impact on the environment through less consumption of resources to create new buildings. However, like all lifecycle issues, there is usually a trade-off with the initial capital cost of construction and the need for informed decision-making at the design stage is crucial to understand the costs and benefits of such measures (Thompson et al., 2014).The consideration of lifecycle issues in the design and creation of buildings is now well established and various techniques such as whole life costing, designing for facilities management, etc. have been developed to assist with lifecycle analysis. Likewise, adaptability also needs to be considered early on in the design process for new buildings, and at the point when changes to an existing building are proposed. The availability of appropriate tools and techniques that will allow relevant stakeholders to make informed decisions about the adaptive capacity of new and existing buildings will make an invaluable contribution to the creation of more adaptable buildings.This special issue on building adaptability is an attempt to take stock on current research and practice in the adaptability of buildings. It comprises of eight papers and a book review, which draw mainly from research in the UK, but also from Australia, Iraq, Italy and Hong Kong. With respect to building sectors, it includes heritage buildings, retail, civic, social care and sport (Olympic construction).The first paper by Heidrich et al. is a literature review of developments i...

show abstract

Durability, adaptability and energy conservation (DAEC) assessment tool

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Fair wage potential as a tool for social assessment in building projects

Fair wage potential as a tool for social assessment in building projects

A critical review of the developments in building adaptability

Taking stock on building adaptability research and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About