Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 01 September 2013, At: 08:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20
Broadening project participation through a modifiedbuilding sustainability assessmentEwelina Kaatz a , David Root a & Paul Bowen aa Department of Construction Economics and Management, University of Cape Town, PrivateBag, 7701, Rondebosch, South AfricaPublished online: 03 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Ewelina Kaatz , David Root & Paul Bowen (2005) Broadening project participation through a modifiedbuilding sustainability assessment, Building Research & Information, 33:5, 441-454, DOI: 10.1080/09613210500219113
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210500219113
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Broadening project participation through amodi¢ed building sustainabilityassessment
Ewelina Kaatz,DavidRoot and Paul Bowen
Department of Construction Economics andManagement,University of CapeTown,Private Bag,7701Rondebosch,South Africa
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
Building assessment tools are used as a means to assess and encourage the adoption of sustainability-led thinking and
practice in the delivery of buildings. However, the established tools focus primarily on the aspects of green or
sustainable building (i.e. building as an end-product), rarely exploring the contributions towards sustainable product
delivery (i.e. the building process). However, some principles of sustainable development are best implemented within
the process rather than by being embedded in the product. By addressing the issues of equity via participation
through stakeholder-oriented sustainability assessment, building assessment tools could be used to enhance
significantly the overall sustainability of project delivery in the construction sector. A theoretical justification is
advocated for implementing a participatory approach that is underpinning the development of a specification for a
building sustainability assessment model currently under development. The barriers to participation in the
construction process are considered as well as the need to develop innovative mechanisms to broaden membership of
the construction project team. The philosophical approaches and resultant practices drawn from Environmental
Assessment and the Process Protocol are presented as examples of potential solutions for incorporating stakeholder
participation in a modified building assessment process.
Keywords: building assessment, building performance, Environmental Assessment, Process Protocol, service delivery,
social equity, social responsibility, stakeholder participation, sustainable development
On utilise des outils d’evaluation des batiments pour favoriser d’une part une reflexion orientee sur la durabilite en matiere
de construction de batiments et d’autre part l’adoption de pratiques durables en matiere de livraison de batiments. Ces
outils sont toutefois axes, pour l’essentiel, sur les aspects des batiments dits verts ou durables (c’est-a-dire des
batiments en tant que produit final) mais explorent rarement les contributions a la livraison de produits durables
(c’est-a-dire le processus de construction). Toutefois, certains principes de developpement durable sont mieux mis en
œuvre au niveau de ce processus qu’a celui de leur integration dans le produit. En traitant des questions d’equite via la
participation au travers de l’evaluation de la durabilite axee sur les intervenants, ces outils d’evaluation des batiments
pourraient servir a ameliorer de facon significative la durabilite globale de la livraison de projets dans le secteur de la
construction. L’auteur plaide la cause d’une justification theorique de la mise en œuvre d’une approche participative
qui sous-tend l’elaboration de specifications relatives a un modele d’evaluation de la durabilite des constructions,
actuellement en cours de developpement. Les obstacles a la participation au processus de construction sont egalement
examines dans cet article ainsi que la necessite de developper des mecanismes novateurs pour elargir la composition
des equipes de projets de construction. Les approches philosophiques et les pratiques resultantes nees de l’Evaluation
environnementale et du Protocole des processus sont presentees ici a titre d’exemples de solutions possibles en vue
d’integrer la participation des intervenants dans un processus modifie d’evaluation de la construction.
Mots-cles: evaluation de la construction, performance des batiments, Evaluation environnementale, Protocole de
processus, livraison de services, equite sociale, responsabilite sociale, participation des intervenants,
developpement durable
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2005) 33(5), 441–454
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2005 Taylor & Francishttp: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210500219113
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
IntroductionIncreasingly, building assessment tools are being usedas a means to assess and encourage sustainability prac-tice in the delivery of buildings. Arguably, sustainabil-ity of any initiative or project can be meaningfullyfostered only if it is based on effective participation.Hence, the issue of stakeholder participation inthe process of building sustainability appraisal, andthrough it in the actual building process, poses asignificant challenge for existing building assessmentsystems.
Participation is effective if it allows the views, percep-tions, interests, values, and needs of interested andaffected parties (stakeholders) to be integrated intoproject decision-making (Davis-Case et al., 1992;World Bank, 1999). The commonly recognized thebenefits and contributions of participation to imple-menting sustainability within projects include the pro-motion of equity and fairness; distribution of power;empowerment and capacity building; integration ofstakeholder knowledge; better understanding ofcontextual issues; greater commitment to projectgoals; as well as enhanced process legitimacy throughtransparency and credibility of the decision-making(Barraclough, 1990; Paavola and Adger, 2002).
Whilst participation is widely seen as providingbenefits particularly where stakeholders are concernedabout the impact of projects on social process (e.g. inthe health and education sectors), it has been lesspopular in the delivery of infrastructure projects andbuildings. There, participation has been curtailed bythe conceptualization of construction as primarily atechnical process (Seymour and Rooke, 1995) whereparticipation by other stakeholders is limited by theperceived need to develop technical solutions. Conse-quently, project teams have traditionally been drawnfrom the building and construction professions.
Furthermore, whilst social processes are readily seen asrepresenting ongoing activities (e.g. supply of socialservices), by definition, a building or constructionproject embodies the sense of specific start and endpoints (Project Management Institute, 1996). There-fore it is inevitable that as project management hascome to be the dominant paradigm for organizinginfrastructure delivery, the building and constructionprofessions have focused on the immediacy andimmediate impact of their actions without necessarilyaccommodating the long-term perspective necessaryfor implementing sustainability.
A number of recent initiatives aimed at enhancing theperformance of buildings delivered by the UK construc-tion sector have recognized the value and necessityof wider stakeholder participation. This results fromthe realization that designers, managers and end-users evaluate buildings differently (Zimmerman and
Martin, 2001). Two of these, namely, the Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) (Cooper, 2001) and theDesign Quality Indicators (DQI) (Gann et al., 2003),are used in this paper as examples of current bestpractice to discuss some of the issues surroundingparticipation.
POE specifically focuses on the identification of factorsfor success in building performance (Bordass et al.,2001). It is based on the premise that the actual per-formance of buildings often differs from the originaldesign intentions. POE indicates that building perform-ance cannot be evaluated solely in technical terms (e.g.a building’s structural stability or its resource consump-tion). It is also necessary to take into account themanagement effort and user satisfaction. Thesefactors may be determined by the issues of a building’sfunctionality and its ability to create stimulating socialenvironments. Inevitably, POE needs to include theviews of facility managers and building owners/end-users.
DQI captures perceptions of design quality embodied inbuildings and provides feedback towards the measure-ment of performance in construction. In DQI, buildingusers are invited to express their views of the desireddesign quality of construction products (Gann et al.,2003). In this way, the process recognizes the value ofsubjective and often intangible perceptions of qualityexperienced or expected by end-users.
Both POE and DQI promote the practice of obtainingfeedback from construction clients as a means ofimproving the quality of produced buildings. Thissuggests that client and user participation, or at leastproactive consultation in informing a design brief aswell as in evaluating a design, is an imperative forimproving the products of the construction industry.
Furthermore, when addressing the issue of total qualityof construction projects, Winch et al. (1998) point outits two key determinants: the entire process of servicedelivery (as construction is a service industry) andclient satisfaction. A gap analysis model for totalproject quality, proposed by the authors, places aclient at the centre of the project managementprocess. The performance gap between a client’s expec-tations and the actual project outcomes can be mini-mized by a close involvement of the client in theprocess and enhanced communication. Arguably, aclient’s satisfaction with the project outcomes is alsoaffected by the level of transparency of the constructionprocess to the client (Winch et al., 1998). This meansthat when striving for any improvement in the qualityof construction projects, a broadened stakeholderinvolvement in the actual building process is inevitable.This, in turn, requires that measures to facilitate suchparticipation need to be provided within a buildingproject set-up.
Kaatz et al.
442
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
The ability to promote more inclusive stakeholderparticipation and its facilitation in the buildingprocess has therefore important implications for build-ing assessment, particularly in the case of assessing andadvancing sustainability in the project delivery process.This is a key requirement if building assessment toolsshould help enhance the quality of constructionprojects. The mechanisms by which this can be imple-mented are therefore critical to the sustainability ofprojects and the applicability of these tools.
Towards sustainability throughparticipationParticipatory approaches shape public perception ofthe possible costs related to environmental risk andthe willingness to pay (Toth, 2001), which oftenfavours a responsible course of action over individualinterests. Public participation also mobilizes culturalvalues and traditional wisdom in the transition to asustainable development path (Nishioka, 1999).Toth argues that perspectives on environmental andsocial problems and management strategies differbetween developed and developing countries. There-fore, it is important to identify and accommodatelocalized and culturally bounded perceptions andinterpretations of global environmental risks andtheir local repercussions. This can only be achievedthrough participation.
Participation is especially pertinent for issues of sus-tainability, which is a contested concept (Kasemiret al., 2003) in that it is context-specific by definition.Thus, parties in a development process may selectdefinitions that reflect their own values (Keeping,2000). Consequently, both dialogue between theseparties and the transparency of the decision-makingare vital objectives in building consensus, requiringeach party’s participation in the process.
Arguably, sustainability is fundamentally aboutfostering participation through communication anddialogue (i.e. exchange of ideas, opinions and infor-mation), commitment (grounded in mutual respectand shared responsibilities) and cooperation (i.e.working to achieve common and mutual benefits)(The Global Development Research Centre, n.d.).Participation by itself does not guarantee sustain-ability or sustainable outcomes. Yet, it does providea basis to understand the expectations of differentstakeholders, which is a necessary precursor to recon-ciling the diverse range of ideas and expectationsthat surround projects. Ultimately, all developmentsinvolving multiple stakeholders are compromises.Participation can provide legitimacy to those compro-mises by making transparent the decision-makingprocess, particularly in the areas of equity andfairness.
Attaining equity and fairnessThe Brundtland Report emphasizes the concern forsocial equity between generations (i.e. intergenerationalequity) and within generations (i.e. intragenerationalequity) (World Council on Environment and Develop-ment, 1987). In both, actions are dictated by theethical stance of what is ‘acceptable in terms of the dis-tribution of well-being, sacrifice and risks between richand poor, the present and the future, and humans andnon-humans’ (Dresner, 2002, p. 121).
Intragenerational equity concerns using resources inways that increase equity and social justice, and thedistribution of power and influence within societythrough effective local participation in decision-making (World Council on Environment and Develop-ment, 1987; Vanclay and Bronstain, 1995). Raynerand Malone (2001) argue that broad participation inthe local (or project-level) decision-making producesmore pragmatic and negotiated outcomes comparedwith national (or sectoral) decision-making andglobal debates, which are generally influenced by effi-ciency considerations.
Equity issues are therefore often addressed throughparticipation processes by ‘involving the peopleaffected by the change in the decision making aboutthe change’ (Davis-Case et al., 1992, p. 2) as well asin the process itself (Toth, 2001). Participatoryapproaches in planning and decision-making are justi-fied by the need to pursue the principles of fairness,justice, and social learning to complement efficiencyand technical competence (Hamam, 1999). The keychallenge is to achieve all these principles simul-taneously. Yet, it remains unclear whether participa-tory approaches in development projects enhance theconsideration of equity concerns or simply bring fair-ness and transparency issues to the fore by directlyinvolving stakeholders (Toth, 2001).
Participatory approaches to decision-making can facili-tate the evolution of stakeholder perceptions anddevelop shared values through dialogue-based learning(Meppem and Gill, 1998). This key premise underliesmany efforts to secure effective stakeholder partici-pation in building projects, and through them sustain-ability in the built environment and constructionsector. However, this needs to recognize that initiallystakeholder perceptions and values may not inthemselves be aligned with the principles of sustainabledevelopment (Baker, 2004). Brager and de Dear (2004)use the example of air-conditioning as a solution that israrely sustainable, but they argue that building users inthe US have become addicted to it. Without dialogue-based learning and the ability to question stakeholders’assumptions, participation can just as easily become ameans of promoting conservative design solutionsand buildings that are less sustainable. Participation
Broadening project participation
443
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
offers the potential for stakeholders to modify theirvalues.
Value of participationThe built environment affects how people feel andperform (Talbot, 2003). Poorly designed buildings oflow quality require higher consumption of materialsand energy to build and operate, and may have detri-mental effects on human health and safety. The builtenvironment may also reinforce consumptive lifestyles(Van Wyk, 2004). Hence, by erecting and shaping thebuilt environment, the construction industry to a greatdegree determines a society’s style and quality of life.
The sustainability agenda for construction is drivenby the paradigm shift from viewing the constructionsector as transforming nature to that of transformingsociety. Sustainability is attained by improving thequality of life and the relationships between all livingthings, communities and the natural and built environ-ments (Birkeland, 2002). Perhaps the most significantchallenge facing the construction industry is toacknowledge and accept the scope of actions requiredto shift its development onto a sustainable path.
The construction industry has responded to thechallenge of embracing the principles of sustainability,primarily through meeting its environmental responsi-bilities (Uher, 1999). It seems that the social, culturaland economic dimensions of sustainable constructionare more difficult to tackle and operationalize in con-struction because they provide often intangible andunquantifiable benefits, such as personal fulfilmentand the sense of ownership and control (Grindley,1972). Yet addressing these benefits is necessary toreinforce the efforts and commitment of the construc-tion sector towards environmental sustainability.
Construction offers vast opportunities for humandevelopment and for exercising one’s control over theimmediate living environment through the mechanismsof stakeholder engagement. Grindley (1972, p. 19),illustrates the vital role that the construction sectorcan play in enhancing the quality of life:
Is housing an object merely for consumption and/or investment, and is owner-building just anothermeans to attain those ends? No one can give asimple answer to that question; yet our researchsuggests that a man who builds his house gainssomething more than a shelter and equity. If thisis true . . . it should be encouraged because it rep-resents . . . the basic human desire to exercisecontrol over the making of one’s environment –which may be especially important both to thosewho have relatively fewer economic options in lifeand to those who wish greater personal fulfilment.
Enhancing the quality of life has different implicationsin various socio-economic contexts. In the developingworld this may require creating an opportunity fora direct owner/end-user involvement in decision-making during the preconstruction stages of a buildingproject cycle, as well as in the actual constructionworks. Consequently, such stakeholders would beable to influence decisions regarding the design andproduction of buildings. More importantly, theywould gain valuable practical skills and training,which could help them improve their own economicsituation (i.e. by raising their employment opportu-nity/attractiveness).
The Lyndoch EcoVillage Development in South Africaprovides an excellent working example of implement-ing these ideals. Lyndoch EcoVillage is the first ‘ecolo-gically designed socially mixed intentional communityin South Africa’ (Swilling and Annecke, 2004, p. 3).The key goals of this development include the follow-ing (Sustainability Institute, n.d.):
. establishment of a socially and economically viablemixed community, which is centred around alearning precinct
. practical and working example of an ecologicallydesigned urban system that uses local replicabletechnologies
. financially viable property development, includingboth construction, sale and ongoing maintenanceand operations
The development comprises the construction of aprimary school for 475 children drawn mainly fromthe families of local farm workers, a pre-school for40 children and a large multipurpose communityhall. In addition, offices and classrooms will be builtfor the Sustainability Institute (a non-profit Trustbased at Lynedoch), and 30 residences that provideaccommodation for participants in Sustainability Insti-tute programmes. Lynedoch EcoVillage also includes45 new residential sites, 15 of which will be purchasedby government subsidy buyers and the rest sold at acommercial rate. Moreover, commercial space foroffices and small manufacturers and crafters is pro-vided (Swilling and Annecke, 2004).
The Lynedoch development pursues integrated sustain-able development that connects social, economic andecological objectives, which is especially evident inthe design and construction strategies. The communityhas implemented a Code of Conduct, prepared by theLynedoch Home Owners Association (LHOA), thatarticulates how the inhabitants want to live inLynedoch (Swilling and Annecke, 2004). The subsidybuyers, most of whom need to build their ownhouses, have been prepared for the design and
Kaatz et al.
444
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
construction process through a series of workshops(Sustainability Institute, 2004). Therefore, throughtheir direct involvement in the planning, design andconstruction processes, the community has been ableto realize its vision of the EcoVillage in a proactivemanner.
Another example of the EcoVillage programme isfound in Johannesburg (Sugrue, 2004). Whilst this pro-gramme is focused at the urban scale in terms of com-munity development, part of it is concerned with thedelivery of sustainable housing for the poor. Withinthis process building professionals sit alongside laymembers of the community to discuss options anddesign choices for both essential infrastructure andhouse design. In doing so the local community:
take on the ideas and concepts of sustainabledevelopment when the case is presented forbetter health, greater economic benefits and anassessment of the values system in which (they)live.
(Sugrue, 2004, p. 32)
In developed countries, buildings are more ‘mission-critical’ (Leaman and Bordass, 2001, p. 130) and sta-keholder participation in the building process serves aslightly different purpose. There, building design ismore often influenced by society’s lifestyles, businesspractices or location preferences (Leaman andBordass, 2001). Through their involvement in build-ing planning and design, stakeholders may developawareness about the factors (and their interdepen-dencies) that determine building performance.Hence, they are more prepared to articulate theirpreferences and requirements concerning theexpected quality of dwellings, which subsequentlyresults in the production of buildings that are fit-for-purpose.
Arguably, the implementation of a participatoryapproach in the building process is validated not onlyin terms of satisfying the aspects of equity and fairness,but also by the necessity to develop critical awarenesswithin the society about responsible lifestyles andchoices. A more inclusive participation of stakeholdersin the building process shifts the emphasis from devel-oping social responsibility within the constructionsector towards exercising individual responsibility infostering sustainability.
However, broadening the membership of a projectteam by involving the client and other interested andaffected parties, often referred to as ‘people outsidethe project’ (Newcombe, 2003, p. 843), in project plan-ning and decision-making faces a number of barriersthat arise out of current construction practice.
Factors inhibiting sustainabilityThe construction industry is commonly characterizedas technically and organizationally fragmented (Egan,1998). This fragmentation is a key factor preventinga tangible transition to sustainable construction(Sheath et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2000). The allocationof responsibilities between the different building pro-fessions and their sequential intervention in the build-ing process have led to a further specialization andinefficiency in the coordination and communicationbetween the project roles (Lee et al., 2000; Turin,2003). Moreover, the prevailing informal and unstruc-tured nature of the learning process, resulting from theconstant reforming and dissolution of project teams,acts as a barrier for improving performance withinthe sector.
Under existing industry structures, participants havedifferent perceptions of the building process objectivesand purpose (Turin, 2003), which leads to conflictingconceptual frameworks within the building process(Groak, 1992; Gann et al., 2003). The resultant com-plexity of the process has meant that ownership andcontrol of the process has resided with the constructionprofessionals. Typically, these professionals pursuetheir own agenda during the building process at theexpense of other stakeholders, such as building end-users and construction workers. What was historicallya social process has become a technical process withthe emphasis on production, to the extent that buildingprojects are now synonymous with the actual construc-tion works (Cooper et al., 1998). How then can theindustry then exercise its wider societal responsibility?
Moving towards a processview of thebuilding projectThe technical focus of the building project divertsattention from the actual building process takingplace to the physical aspects of a building product.As a result the pre- and post-construction activitieshave been sidelined and often accelerated to reach thesite production stage or to move onto the nextproject. Thus, many procurement systems are drivenby the product view to optimize cost, time andquality (Cooper et al., 1998). Yet, this view holdsonly a limited capacity for any performance improve-ment in a building process necessary to deliver pro-ducts of desired quality or fitness for purpose.
The construction industry has recognized the con-straints of the status quo (e.g. Egan, 1998) and ismoving toward focusing more on the project deliveryprocess rather than on the physical product. The indus-try’s need and desire to become an innovative, modern,competitive, efficient and responsive (Gilham, 1998) isan important driver in developing a new modus oper-andi in the construction sector that promotes processthinking (Cooper et al., 1998; Turin, 2003).
Broadening project participation
445
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Adopting a process view in construction requires a newway of thinking, a change of culture and workingpractices. By focusing on information exchange andthe transfer of knowledge, this new approach mayimprove the efficiency and effectiveness of the buildingprocess. Since a project’s success relies upon the rightpeople having the right information at the right time;proactive resourcing of stakeholder views shouldensure that appropriate participants are consultedearly in the process. This approach serves the purposesof identification, definition and evaluation of clientrequirements in order to identify suitable solutions(Cooper et al., 1998).
The process view of building production popularizes amore integrated mode of construction, which requireseffective communication between building participantsand their early involvement in the building process tohelp mitigate the effects of fragmentation.
The value of implementing a process view in cons-truction can also be observed in both POE andPerformance-Based Buildings (PBB). POE can be con-sidered as ‘a final step of a cyclical design process’(Zimmerman and Martin, 2001, p. 169). It providesbuilding designers with information about existing per-formance gaps between the actual status quo and theintended design. This information can be fed-forwardinto the briefing of new buildings. POE also servesother stakeholders (e.g. building owners, managersand end-users) as a management aid by providing feed-back from the measurement of building performance(Bordass et al., 2001; Cooper, 2001). The evaluationof building performance that takes place in POEs notonly entails technical assessments and measurements,but also addresses the experience and perceptions ofbuilding occupiers/users. Thus, it considers social,cultural and organizational (positive and negative)impacts of buildings. POE promotes ongoing com-munication and cooperation between design andconstruction teams, facility managers and the clients/users (Whyte and Gann, 2001). This is necessary fordeveloping ‘better mutual understanding’ betweenbuilding providers and users (Bordass et al., 2001,p. 151) that can produce more desirable and efficientbuildings.
PBB, which is defined as ‘the practice of thinking andworking in terms of ends rather than means’ (Gibson,1982, p. 4), also encourages a broader stakeholderinvolvement in the building process in order to estab-lish a required level of potential building performance.The performance-based approach to building describesthe quality of building performance in terms of meet-ing occupants’ needs and requirements, as well as theeffectiveness, efficiency, and broader socio-economicand environmental implications associated with build-ing production and operation (Foliente, 2000). Oneof the principal benefits of PBB is improving
communication between various participants, such asdevelopers, end-users, planners, designers, engineers,suppliers, constructors and facility managers. This isdue to clear specification of the process objectives atthe start of the building process and to the ease of asses-sing the inputs of all stakeholders in the establishmentof the desired end-result. Hence, the skills andknowledge of participants are used more efficientlythroughout the building process (Meacham et al.,2001; Templemans-Plat and Hermans, 2001). PBBprovides opportunities to empower building clients,end-users and other stakeholders by inviting them tostate their objectives and goals that are subsequentlyimplemented by the building professionals.
Both POE and PBB indicate how a more inclusive sta-keholder involvement can contribute to the delivery ofhigh-quality buildings. Hence, the quality of the builtenvironment is not only dependent on the technicalproficiency of building providers, but also it requiresa close cooperation and communication between theinternal and external building stakeholders so thatthe needs and requirements of the construction clientscan be effectively addressed. This argument is alsoevidenced in the Design Quality Indicator (DQI),which focuses on the ‘quality of social processes’ thatcontribute to the production of the quality embodiedin buildings (Gann et al., 2003, p. 319).
‘Buildings are the result of industrial and social pro-cesses’ (Groak, 1992, p. 121), yet the building and con-struction professions are still struggling to discover andappreciate the social context of their work (Dooley andFridley, 1998). Broader and more effective stakeholderparticipation provides opportunities to integrate socialcomplexity and diverse viewpoints of interested partiesinto the building process, reconciling social and techni-cal dimensions of the project. This is an importantcomponent of the sustainability agenda, which is stea-dily becoming a mainstream concern.
Rethinking construction: transformationtowards sustainabilityThe industry’s commitment to the principles and valuesof sustainable development, evidenced in Agenda 21 onSustainable Construction (International Council forResearch and Innovation in Building and Construction,1999), brings about the challenge for a socially respon-sible construction sector. Building stakeholders maynot recognize that the adoption of the sustainabilityagenda both implies and reflects a major transform-ation of the sector. For instance, the broadening ofsocietal values and interests, which underpin sustain-able construction, confronts the motives and valuesthat have previously driven growth and development,and defined industrial success (Gilham, 1998). Theconstruction industry has already acknowledged that
Kaatz et al.
446
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
‘people and relationships are key to a sustainablesuccess’ (Flanagan et al., 1998, p. 9). Deepened rela-tionships with and between employees, customers, sup-pliers, investors and the community are seen assolutions that can help the industry to integrate,cooperate and build trust (Flanagan et al., 1998).These relationships can enable organizations toanticipate, innovate and adapt fast enough to meetthe changing demands placed upon them. Conse-quently, greater emphasis is being given to partnerships(Vetter et al., 2000), shared ownership, shared risksand benefits within the sector (Gilham, 1998).
This necessitates a revision, in the concept and prac-tice, of participation in the building process; redefiningthe construction project so that it focuses on the socialprocess taking place and its benefits to the constructionindustry and wider society. This redefinition of projectstakeholders will have to encompass both the insideand outside people, whose roles in decision-makingneed to be rediscovered.
Implementing partnership and stakeholderapproaches throughparticipationPartnering is characterized by stakeholders agreeing tocommit to a series of principles. This is only achievedif stakeholders can develop mutual objectives basedon the established project/process values, to reconciledifferent or conflicting worldviews (e.g. between build-ing designers and producers). These project values are‘negotiated and shared guiding principles to which allstakeholders subscribe’ (Thomson et al., 2003, p. 337).
As the traditional approach to the building processprovides little opportunity for the construction teamto be involved in the design process, there is almostno room for knowledge sharing, relationship buildingand the development of trust between parties (Walkerand Hampson, 2003). Yet, the involvement of all sta-keholders in the early stages of the process is impera-tive for the development of shared values. This is noteasy, particularly on construction projects where stake-holders come from different backgrounds and seekdifferent objectives. However, they must still collabor-ate to attain a common project vision around a set ofproject values. Innovative procurement paths provideways to overcome this problem, although an appropri-ate management style and approach is often moreimportant than the choice of procurement method(Walker and Hampson, 2003).
This school of thought is evident in the practice of‘re-integrating the design process’ (Lotspeich et al.,2003). In integrated design, process stakeholders arebrought together at the earliest practical point in theproject in order to develop and execute a commonproject vision. These meetings create a communication
space, where stakeholders develop not only mutualunderstanding, but also mutual trust. Integrateddesign clarifies client goals, design options and sol-utions, which allows for achieving the intended build-ing performance. More importantly, the design teamcan function in real-time rather than follow the usuallinear design process with sequential interventionsfrom an architect and an engineer (Lotspeich et al.,2003).
In his professional practice, the architect Sim Van derRyn has established key components of an integrateddesign process (Lotspeich et al., 2003). These includethe analysis of a decision–organization model withina typical building process with the participation of aclient. The model shows key players and their relation-ships. Subsequently, Van der Ryn examines the valuesets of different players in terms of the relative import-ance of three main project attributes: performance,cost and schedule. This information helps identifydecision-approvers, -takers, -shapers and -influencers.Having understood how the design would be con-ducted along a typical process path, it becomes possibleto redesign it, based on common project values redis-covered or/and redeveloped by the stakeholders. Theinitial product of integrated design is a design briefwith plans, principles and objectives that shouldguide the design and construction processes (Lotspeichet al., 2003).
Hence, in order to deliver a successful project, theproject and stakeholders objectives should be inte-grated. As the project evolves its objectives shouldcontinue to fit stakeholders’ interests (Morris, 1994).Culture, next to power, constitutes a potent agent inshaping participation. It is expressed through theideology or shared values of the project participants.Culture can be seen as a force for cooperationbetween stakeholders (Newcombe, 2003). This indi-cates how important it is to incorporate the needs ofstakeholders into the projects objectives and to estab-lish project values early in the building process.
According to Robinson (2004, p. 381), sustainabilitycan be thought of as ‘a process or approach of commu-nity-based thinking’. This emphasizes the need formeaningful involvement by all building stakeholdersto advance sustainability through construction. Thereis an evident demand for ‘tools for thinking’ that canprovide design and construction professionals, build-ing clients and users with opportunities to expresstheir multiple viewpoints (Gann et al., 2003, p. 330).These tools would allow these stakeholders to verifytheir diverse perceptions and perspectives when chal-lenged with framing problems in the context of sustain-ability. Such tools not only help induce cultural changein construction, but also address the problem of frag-mentation (Gann et al., 2003). Building assessmenttools have a central role to play in this endeavour.
Broadening project participation
447
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Using building assessment tools forenhancing participationBuilding environmental assessment tools emerged inthe early 1990s as a way of evaluating building per-formance across a broad range of environmental con-siderations (Hill et al., 2002). They are a response togrowing societal concerns over the adverse environ-mental impacts of the industry’s activities. Most ofthe well-established building environmental assess-ment methods measure improvements in the environ-mental performance of buildings relative to typicalpractice (Cole, 1999). However, the more recentlydeveloped sustainable building assessment tools alsoassess socio-economic building issues and evaluatebuilding performance against pre-set targets.
In application, building assessment tools are potentinstruments of communicating product informationto potential clients and relevant decision-makers.They also provide the means for highlighting priorityissues and identifying desired levels of building per-formance – crucial information for any design team.Most importantly, building assessment tools helpinform all building stakeholders (e.g. the projectteam) about the benefits of environmentally consciouschoices. Therefore, the tools are important agents ofchange and provide significant educational andempowering opportunities to their users. Theyimplicitly seek to change attitudes and practices thatmight prevent from the pursuit of sustainable pathsof development.
The current trend of research into sustainable con-struction largely focuses on achieving better environ-mental performance of buildings through technicalinnovation and improved efficiencies of buildingmaterials and components (Uher, 1999). However,the key challenge facing the construction/propertyindustry lies in the ability to operationalize the prin-ciples of sustainable development (e.g. the inter- andintragenerational equity, and the carrying capacity ofthe supporting natural environment). Building assess-ment tools can assist in this if more emphasis isplaced on the development/design of a value-addingprocess of building assessment.
Implementing sustainable development at global,regional and local levels involves innovation, changesin behaviour patterns, stakeholder perception, pro-cedures and technologies (Devine-Wright et al.,2001). Building assessment tools have an importantrole to play in integrating the premises of sustainabilityinto construction practice, as they provide a means ofaddressing these issues. However, this will only bepossible when these tools effectively influence thedecision-making processes occurring at every leveland stage of the building process (i.e. planning,design, construction, operation and deconstruction).
The opportunities for more direct stakeholder involve-ment in the assessment process have been explored insustainable building assessment tools such as Sustain-able Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) and SustainableProject Appraisal Routine (SPeAR). These tools arecharacterized by a broader scope of building assess-ment (i.e. covering social and economic issues inaddition to the environmental ones), and their recog-nition of stakeholder participation as a necessarycomponent in setting the assessment context.
It is apparent that the established building assessmenttools focus primarily on the aspects of green or evensustainable building (i.e. building as an end-product),but the contributions towards a sustainable productdelivery (i.e. a building process) are rarely explored.SBAT and SPeAR encourage integrated design byinvolving the design team and the client/end-users intarget setting. However, the broader benefits of inte-grated collaborative design are not explicitly addressedby these tools.
Effective implementation of the sustainable construc-tion agenda requires that the principles of sustainabledevelopment are reflected in building processes. Byaddressing the issues of equity and participationthrough stakeholder-orientated sustainability assess-ment, building assessment tools could significantlyenhance the overall sustainability of project delivery.
As this paper has illustrated, there are obvious benefitsof applying a participatory approach in buildingassessment. Stakeholders provide valuable input intothe process of identifying significant issues to beassessed, setting targets and, most importantly, estab-lishing project values. Empowerment through partici-pation and knowledge exchange is another significantspin-off. Moreover, catering for stakeholder partici-pation can make building assessment more context-sensitive, effective and practical. In fact, it isimperative that building assessment tools facilitatechanges in building practice and in market demandthrough the progressive empowerment and capacitybuilding of project stakeholders.
The issues raised in the above presented discussionform premises upon which a modified approach tothe practice of building assessment is being developedin South Africa. The following sections present keyaspects and features that will characterize a proposedmodel of building sustainability assessment for theSouth African built environment.
Proposing a building sustainabilityassessment model for theSouthAfrican built environmentThe conditions for ensuring inclusive participation insustainability appraisals and harnessing the associated
Kaatz et al.
448
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
capacity building opportunities are addressed in a speci-fication for a building sustainability assessment model.The research focuses on process-related aspects of thebuilding assessment model in order to optimize itsdesired functionalities. These include integration, trans-parency and accessibility, and collaborative learningand so allow for an assessment tool that is more effec-tive and context-relevant.
The proposed model distinguishes itself from existingbuilding assessment tools in the following ways:
. Sustainability principles and objectives are infusedin the assessment framework in addition to theassessment process. The tool promotes equity andpreservation of the carrying capacity of thenatural environment.
. Collective learning and capacity building isachieved through stakeholder participation, whichalso strengthens the assessment outcome.
. Assessment methodology is goal-oriented andcontext-specific. Although all participants definethe assessment context, guidance is provided togive due consideration to relevant regional andglobal issues. Through the establishment of pro-ject values, the tool will reinforce local prioritieswithout losing focus on the long-term developmen-tal goals of the construction industry.
. Scoping procedure draws the assessment efforts tothe most significant issues identified by the stake-holders. The comprehensiveness of building assess-ment is determined by the specific requirements ofeach assessment situation.
. New categorization of assessment areas drawsattention to the issues of greatest concern forproject stakeholders (i.e. moving away from tra-ditional division into environmental, social andeconomic areas). Presentation and communicationof project goals and assessment results help show-case the efforts of a developer and project teamtowards sustainable construction practice andbuilding.
. Emphasis is placed on the development of sustain-ability indicators that refer to thresholds and timeframes. Moreover, the assessment is based onmeasuring distance to desired end-points and theidentification of limiting factors in short- andlong-term perspectives.
. Transparency of the assessment is enhancedthrough the use of process mapping. The assess-ment process is synchronized with project andbuilding life cycles for greater effectiveness.
It is intended that the building sustainability assess-ment model will embrace the socio-cultural, economic,biophysical, technical and process-orientated dimen-sions of a building development. Its scope shouldencompass all stages of the building process, fromfeasibility to deconstruction. At the same time, itshould be robust enough to assess effectively new andexisting building developments of different types (e.g.residential, educational or commercial) in terms oftheir sustainability.
The main assumption underlying all sustainabilityassessments is the need to focus on a limited numberof issues, identified as the most significant in a particu-lar assessment context, without compromising on thecomprehensiveness of the method. The use of ascoping procedure to narrow the scope of buildingassessment to the most significant issues will help high-light and effectively address problems that are relevantin the context of the developing world.
Further, it is crucial that any new assessment model isproactive and goal-oriented. This means that the modelwill have to identify the opportunities for improvementand optimization of a building product and processwhile eliminating any potential adverse impacts. Asscoping is intended to be a participatory and consen-sus-based exercise involving all major stakeholders(i.e. clients, designers, architects, engineers, contrac-tors, subcontractors, end-users, and any other inter-ested and affected parties), it will provide a forum forestablishing a clear vision and goals for each assess-ment situation.
Establishing project values and vision that representinterests and values shared by all involved stake-holders and support the principles of sustainabledevelopment will be a key function of the assessmentprocess. This will encourage stakeholder commitmentand support during the entire building assessmentprocess, and so ensure its effectiveness. Most import-antly, the proposed model will need to promoteknowledge exchange and capacity building amongall stakeholders through their participation in theprocess.
During the process of developing the specificationfor the modified building assessment model, lessonswill be drawn from Environmental Assessment (EA)and the Process Protocol (PP). The philosophicalapproaches and practical solutions of EA and PP havebeen useful in the incorporation of a participatoryapproach into the assessment process. The extensiveexperience of public participation in environmentalassessment provides a significant source of participationpractices, tools and workshop techniques that can bereadily applied in building assessment. The PP providesa means of describing the construction project andprocess in an accessible form for all stakeholders.
Broadening project participation
449
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
It also informs the effective assignment of responsibil-ities without recourse to the historical roles of particularprofessionals, and identifies the key decisions that needto be made and when they need to be made during theprocess.
Using Environmental Assessment toenhance the building assessment processThe aim of EA is to introduce an effective and systema-tic consideration of biophysical, social and economicissues into all important decision-making stages(Bisset, 1996). The key challenge is to deliver aprocess that reflects the different values sets that areat play in a given project context (Mulvihill andJacobs, 1998). EA is therefore inherently participatory(Post et al., 1998).
EA can provide mechanisms for stakeholder definitionand identification, which is a crucial but often proble-matic component of participation. Susskind (1983)maintains that the key success is to shift the focusfrom the number of participants involved to the cat-egories of interests to be considered. However, thisrequires defining in advance interests with a legitimatestake and finding ways of injecting new participantsinto an ongoing assessment process.
The scoping procedure, which constitutes an integ-ral part of environmental assessment, reduces theamount of data collection and analysis by identifyingthe key issues and variables of the project assessmentand implementation (Noble, 2000). Implementing thescoping process into building assessment will improvethe methodology’s effectiveness by identifying poten-tial conflicts and opportunities, and significant ass-essment issues. Moreover, it will produce a frameworkof building assessment addressing the issue of assess-ment philosophy, methodology and its content(Mulvihill and Jacobs, 1998).
The interpretation and translation of information intoeffective decision-making that takes place throughoutan assessment process occurs through the filter ofvalues (Cole, 2004). As the values and perspectivesthat people hold are shaped during a discourse inwhich they engage, EA fosters greater personal andsocial responsibility and has the capacity to increasethe importance of long-term environmental consi-derations in decision-making (Wilkins, 2003). Theprocess of selecting and defining indicators providesan explicit expression of the participants’ values andis a subjective process that involves negotiationamongst the participants. The resulting sustainabilitytargets represent detailed and measurable units ofsustainability objectives at the level of a buildingsystem and the system’s single components (Persson,2002). In building assessment, similar objectives need
to be established according to the interests ofall stakeholders and specific project conditions.This allows for the optimization of the overallefficiency of building performance and the project’ssustainability.
EA is a powerful tool for collective learning in theenvironmental assessment process. Initially, the roleof public participation focused on obtaining infor-mation about public concerns and educating thepublic about the proposed project. However, its appli-cation has evolved into a system for producing knowl-edge, as it offers a forum for different stakeholders todeliberate and exchange their views of the goals, andtheir knowledge on the impacts of a proposed devel-opment (Saarikoski, 2000). However, recent develop-ments in the field of impact assessment and projectappraisal in the Netherlands promote even moreproactive role of public participation in policymaking. In the co-design process, discussed byEnserink and Monnikhof (2003), the public isinvolved in the early stages of policy development,particularly in the process of problem definition andformulation and evaluation of alternatives. In thisway stakeholder concerns and issues can inform theestablishment of objectives, mean and ends relevantto the problem. These concerns should be sub-sequently translated into requirements for theproject and criteria for the evaluation of alternatives.The key implication of this approach to stakeholderparticipation is that ‘the role of participants wouldshift from that of affective objecting party to that ofco-designer and problem solver’ (Enserink and Mon-nikhof (2003, p. 340).
By learning from EA, building assessment can similarlybecome a vehicle for stakeholder capacity building byproviding participants with a platform to exchangeinformation and produce knowledge through dialogueand mediation. Robinson (2004, p. 381) writes about‘co-produced understanding of possibilities and pre-ferred outcomes’ as lying at the heart of sustainability.Arguably, the sustainability of construction initiatives(building projects) can be only achieved throughsocial processes during which expert judgement canbe merged with the values, preferences, and beliefs ofinterested and affected parties (Robinson, 2004). Ifadopted in construction, the concept of co-design(Enserink and Monnikhof, 2003) can significantlyenhance the quality of stakeholder involvement in thebuilding process. It becomes apparent that fosteringsustainability in construction does not only requireaddressing environmental, social and economic issuesduring building design, construction and operation.This needs to be complemented by practical changesin the way the building process is managed. The PP,briefly discussed in the following section, offers newinsights into the facilitation of stakeholder involvementin the building project.
Kaatz et al.
450
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Using theProcess Protocol to enhance thebuilding assessment processThe PP is a generic process map for design and con-struction, which provides a framework for carryingout any construction project (Kashyap et al., 2003).It is essentially a common set of definitions, documen-tation and procedures that provides the basis to allow awide range of organizations involved in a constructionproject to work together seamlessly (Lee et al., 2000).
The PP was developed to provide a common set ofunderstandings and identify the generic activities per-formed in the construction process without reflectingthe interests of particular industry groups (Cooperet al., 1998). It further provides useful insights intothe requirements of a building assessment tool to corre-spond to different patterns of the building process,where procurement paths may vary and where theroles and responsibilities of particular stakeholdersmay differ. These include the coordination of activitiesand tasks, allocation of responsibilities, and definitionof the formats of input and output information packages.
There are a number of advantages to adopting the PPin the construction industry (Lee et al., 2000). PPprovides a whole project view recognizing the interde-pendency of activities that occur throughout theproject, and focuses on the identification, definitionand evaluation of a client’s requirements. It alsoencourages a team environment, and appropriate andtimely communication and decision-making, byenabling the coordination of the participants andactivities in construction projects and identifyingtheir responsibilities (Lee et al., 2000).
Following the practice of establishing multifunctionalproject teams in the manufacturing industry, the PPintroduces the concept of the Activity Zone. Thismeans that process participants are described interms of the activities that need to be undertaken inorder to achieve a successful project and processexecution (Kagioglou et al., 2000). Proactive resour-cing of information from key stakeholders duringphase reviews ensures that crucial design and pro-duction information is gathered early in the process.Working in multifunctional teams can also foster ateam environment and encourage appropriate andtimely communication and decision-making (Cooperet al., 1998). The PP groups project stakeholders intonine Activity Zones: Development Management;Project Management; Resource Management; DesignManagement; Production Management; FacilitiesManagement; Health and Safety Statutory and LegalManagement; Process Management; and Change Man-agement (Kagioglou et al., 1998).
Transparency and clear communication of infor-mation throughout the assessment process is the key
to a successful and a meaningful outcome. Alignmentwith the PP can make the information received frombuilding assessment more relevant and suitable to alldecision-makers in the construction sector, by present-ing it in a familiar language. Similarly, it can make theconstruction process accessible by presenting theprocess in a language that is independent of the techni-cal terminology of the industry. Adequate quality ofinformation provided in time can significantlyimprove the decision-making process (i.e. allow forincorporation of sustainability considerations),driving the development of construction sector onto asustainable path. Moreover, providing a common setof definitions and procedures for the proposed modelcan help achieve a higher degree of consistencybetween assessments (Cooper et al., 1998).
The proposed model will be mapped against the PPusing process mapping to facilitate the presentationof the assessment methodology and the interfacesbetween the methodology and construction process.This will assist stakeholders in understanding wherethey fit into the process and what is required of them,and improve the communication process.
ConclusionsThe theoretical justification for a modified sustainablebuilding assessment was presented. The importance ofparticipation to deliver sustainable solutions has beenargued, but difficulties in incorporating participationinto the construction project process were identified.Evidence is used to identify that there is a clear needto broaden the definition of the project and theproject team to assist the construction industry tomove more effectively towards sustainability. Usingthe examples of DQI and POE, it is shown that thisis not only a plausible way forward, but also a necess-ary one. Furthermore, this is a direction that individualinitiatives are already following in their attempts toenhance value on construction projects.
More inclusive stakeholder participation in the build-ing process is a vital step to ensure that sustainabilityfostered in construction occurs in a wider socialcontext and not only in terms of technical interven-tions. The very act of participation grounds theprocess and project in the local context in order thatthey both effectively reflect local needs and socio-cultural, economic and biophysical contexts. Arguably,stakeholder participation in the building process couldbe facilitated by any sustainable building assessmenttool, as they provide an opportunity for the empower-ment of professional and lay stakeholders through theirdirect experience in sustainability orientated decision-making. However, the effectiveness of operationalizingparticipation in building assessment (e.g. developingappropriate and accessible tools and techniques that
Broadening project participation
451
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
can be applied in practice) will always depend on thecontext in which they will be used. Nevertheless,lessons can be learned and inspiration drawn fromexisting approaches such as those embodied in EAand PP. These can be used to develop powerful newtools and practices to communicate the sustainabilityagenda through collaborative learning and knowledgetransfer.
The development of a new model for sustainable build-ing assessment incorporating these practices, which theauthors are currently undertaking, provides a frame-work for transforming the industry’s and society’sconcept of the construction project in a way thataddresses social, economic and environmental aspectsof development in an integrated manner. In thisrespect, the proposed model would serve less as atool for assessing sustainability and more as a meansfor enhancing sustainability throughout the buildingprocess and a product’s life cycle. It may therefore benecessary to move away from the terminology of build-ing assessment and talk of enhancement models,reflecting a shift from measuring to one of proactiveimprovement – one that enhances not only the build-ing product, but also the building act.
AcknowledgementsThe proposed building sustainability assessment modelis being developed at the Department of ConstructionEconomics and Management, University of CapeTown (UCT). Research was possible thanks tofunding obtained from the National Research Foun-dation (NRF) of South Africa.
ReferencesBaker, N. (2004) Understanding expectations, in R.C. Cole
and R. Lorch (eds): Buildings, Culture and Environment;Informing Local and Global Practices, Blackwell, Oxford,pp. 127–129.
Barraclough, S. (1990) Popular Participation. Paper presented ata regional workshop on Participatory Forest Projects, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia.
Birkeland, J. (2002) Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook ofIntegrated Ecological Solutions, Earthscan, London.
Bisset, R. (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment: Issues,Trends and Practice, Environment Economics Unit, UnitedNations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Bordass, B., Leaman, A. and Ruyssevelt, P. (2001) Assessingbuilding performance in use. 5: Conclusions and impli-cations, Building Research & Information, 29(2), 144–157.
Brager, G.S. and de Dear, R.J. (2004) Historical and culturalinfluences on comfort expectations, in R.J. Cole andR. Lorch (eds):Buildings, Culture and Environment; Inform-ing Local and Global Practices, Blackwell, Oxford,pp. 177–201.
Cole, R.J. (1999) Building environmental assessment methods:clarifying intentions, Building Research & Information,27(4/5), 230–246.
Cole, R.J. (2004) Changing context for environmental knowl-edge, Building Research & Information, 32(2), 91–109.
Cooper, I. (2001) Post-Occupancy Evaluation – where are you?,Building Research & Information, 29(2), 158–163.
Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. andSheath, D. (1998) The development of a generic design andconstruction process, in European Conference, ProductData Technology (PDT) Days, Building Research Establish-ment, March 1998, Watford, UK.
Davis-Case, D., Granholm, H. and Voipio V. (eds) (1992) Plan-ning and Management of Participatory Forest Projects(Atampurge): 2 (available at: http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/kmi/fad/Mallya.htm).
Devine-Wright, P., Fleming, P.D. and Chadwick, H. (2001) Roleof social capital in advancing regional sustainable develop-ment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(2),161–167.
Dooley, J.H. and Fridley, J.L. (1998) Stakeholder influence ondesign of aquatic habitats. Paper presented at the 1998ASAE Annual Meeting, 12–16 July, Orlando, FL, US (avail-able at: http://www.elwdsystems.com/pdf/dooley_fridley.pdf) (accessed on 19 May 2004).
Dresner, S. (2002) The Principles of Sustainability, Earthscan,London.
Egan, Sir J. (Construction Task Force) (1998) Rethinking Con-struction, DETR, London.
Enserink, B. and Monnikhof, R.A.H. (2003) Information man-agement for public participation in co-design processes:evaluation of a Dutch example. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 46(3), 315–344.
Flanagan, R., Ingram, I. and Marsh, L. (1998) A Bridge to theFuture: Profitable Construction for Tomorrow’s Industryand its Customers, Thomas Telford RCF, London.
Foliente, G.C. (2000) Developments in performance-based build-ing codes and standards, Forest Products Journal, 50(7/8),12–20.
Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J. and Whyte, J.K. (2003) Design QualityIndicator as a tool for thinking, Building Research & Infor-mation, 31(5), 318–333.
Gibson, E.J. (1982) Working with the Performance Approach inBuilding. Report No. 64, International Council for Researchand Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam.
Gilham, A. (1998) Strategies for change – understanding sustain-able development from a construction industry perspective,in Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress, Con-struction and the Environment, 7–12 June, Gavle, Sweden.
Grindley, W.C. (1972) Owner–builders: survivors with a future,in J.F.C. Turner and R. Fichter (eds): Freedom to Build:Dweller Control of the Housing Process, Part 1: Autonomyin Housing: Cases and Issues, The Macmillan Company,New York, pp. 3–21.
Groak, S. (1992) The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in theDesign and Production of Buildings, E&FN Spon, London.
Hamam, R. (1999) Towards sustainability via participation?Environmental evaluation and land use planning in theGarden Route, South Africa. Unpublished MSc dissertation,UCT.
Hill, R.C., Pienaar, J., Bowen, P.A., Kusel, K. and Kuiper, S.(2002) The transition to sustainability in the planning, con-struction, and management of the built environment inSouth Africa, International Journal of Environmental Tech-nology and Management, 2(1–3), 200–224.
International Council for Research and Innovation in Buildingand Construction (CIB) (1999) Agenda 21 on SustainableConstruction. Publication No. 237 (available at: http://www.cibworld.nl/pages/begin/AG21.html) (accessed on16 April 2004).
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. andSheath, D. (1998) Final Report: Generic Design and Con-struction Process Protocol, University of Salford, Salford.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G. and Sexton, M., (2000)Rethinking construction: the generic design and constructionproject protocol, Engineering, Construction and Architec-tural Management, 7(2), 141–153.
Kaatz et al.
452
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C.C. and Jager, J. (2003) Citizen partici-pation in sustainability assessments, in B. Kasemir, J. Jager,C.C. Jaeger and M.T. Gardner (eds): Public Participationin Sustainability Science: A Handbook, Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–36.
Kashyap, M., Khalfan, M.M. and Zainul-Abidin, N. (2003) Aproposal for achieving sustainability in construction projectsthrough concurrent engineering, in Proceedings of COBRA2003, Conference organized by RICS Foudnation, Universityof Wolverhampton, UK, pp. 127–138.
Keeping, M. (2000) What About Demand? Do Investors Want‘Sustainable Buildings’? The Cutting Edge 2000, RICSResearch Foundation, London (available at: http://www/rics-foundation.org/publish/document.aspx?did¼1955) (accessed27 May 2004).
Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (2001) Assessing the buildings per-formance in use, 4. The Probe occupant surveys and theirimplications. Building Research & Information, 29(2),129–143.
Lee, A., Cooper, R. and Aouad, G. (2000) A methodology fordesigning performance measures for the UK constructionindustry, in Bizarre Fruit 2000 Conference, 9–10 March,University of Salford, Salford, UK, pp. 30–41.
Lotspeich, C., Rumsey, P. and Van der Ryn, S. (2003) Renovatingthe design and construction process for sustainablesuccess, in Environmental DesignþConstruction (availableat: http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP_Features_Item/0,4120,90744,00.html)(accessed on 2 May 2005).
Meacham, B., Boewn, R., Traw, J. and Moore, A. (2001)Performance-based building regulation: current situationand future needs. Building Research & Information, 33(2),91–106.
Meppem, T. and Gill, R. (1998) Planning for sustainability as aleaning concept. Ecological Economics, 26(2), 121–137.
Morris, P.G.W. (1994) The Management of Projects, ThomasTelford, London.
Mulvihill, P.R. and Jacobs, P. (1998) Using scoping and a designprocess. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18,351–369.
Newcombe, R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a sta-keholder mapping approach. Construction Management andEconomics, 21, 841–848.
Nishioka, S. (1999) Fairness and local environmental concerns inclimate policy, in F.L. Toth (ed.): Fair Weather? Equity Con-cerns in Climate Change, Earthscan, London, pp. 133–144.
Noble, B.F. (2000) Strengthening EIA through adaptive manage-ment: a systems perspective. Environmental Impact Assess-ment Review, 20, 97–111.
Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002) Knowledge and participationfor sustainability? Science and justice in adaptation toclimate change, in Proceedings of the Berlin Conference onHuman Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 6–7December 2002 (available at: http://www.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2002/proceedings/bc_2002_paavola.pdf)(accessed on 11 May 2004).
Persson, U. (2002) Managing sustainable construction – a steer-ing model for the building process, in Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Sustainable Building, Oslo,Norway, 23–25 September. CD-ROM, paper no. 056,abstract p. 287.
Post, R., Kolhoff, A. and Velthuyse, B. (1998) Towards inte-gration of assessments, in New Experiences on EIA in theNetherlands: Process, Methodology, Case Studies, MER,Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment, pp.27–33.
Project Management Institute (1996) A Guide to the ProjectManagement Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), PMI,Newtown Square, PA.
Rayner, S. and Malone, E.L. (2001) Climate change, poverty andintragenerational equity: the national level. InternationalJournal of Global Environmental Issues, 1(2), 175–202.
Robinson, J. (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on theidea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics,48, 369–384.
Saarikoski, H. (2000) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) ascollaborative learning process. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 20, 681–700.
Seymour, D.A. and Rooke, J. (1995) The culture of the industryand the culture of research. Construction Management andEconomics, 13(6), 511–523.
Sheath, D., Woolley, H., Cooper, R., Hinks, J. and Aouad, G.(1996) A process for change – the development of ageneric design and construction process protocol for theUK construction industry, in Proceedings of the InternationalConstruction Information Technology Conference(InCIT’96), Institution of Engineers, Sydney, April.
Sugrue, A. (2004) People, livelihoods and values is the basis onwhich sustainable communities are built, in Proceedings ofthe Sustainable Building Africa 2004 Conference (SB04),13–18 September 2004, Stellenbosch, South Africa.CD-ROM, paper no. 068.
Susskind, L.E. (1983) The uses of negotiation and mediationin environmental impact assessment, in F.A. Rossiniand A.L. Porter (eds): Integrated Impact Assessment.Social Impact Assessment Series No. 8., Westview Press,Boulder, CO, pp. 154–169.
Sustainability Institute (2004) Lynedoch gears up for homebuilding. Newsletter, 18 September (available at: http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.net) (accessed on 2 May2005).
Sustainability Institute (n.d.) Lynedoch EcoVillage: Goalsand Key Features (available at: http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.net).
Swilling, M. and Annecke, E. (2004) Building sustainable SouthAfrican communities: learning from the Lynedoch case, inProceedings of the Sustainable Building Africa 2004 Confer-ence (SB04), 13–18 September 2004, Stellenbosch, SouthAfrica. CD-ROM, paper no. 025.
Talbot, R. (2003) Sustainability and the Built Environment:Capacity Building in Scottish Local Government. Work-ing Paper, Thirdwave Scotland, Edinburgh (availableat: http://www.thirdwave.org.uk/supportdocs/capbldg.pdf) (accessed on 26 April 2004).
Templemans-Plat, H. and Hermans, M. (2001) EconomicBenefits of the Application of the Performance Concept inBuilding: Development of a Framework, CIB General Sec-retariat, Rotterdam.
The Global Development Research Centre (GDRC) (n.d.) TheSeven Triads of Sustainability: Participation (available at:http://www.gdrc.org/sustdev/triads/triad1.html) (accessedon 15 May 2004).
Thomson, D.S., Austin, S.A., Devine-Wright, H. and Mills, G.R.(2003) Managing value and quality in design. BuildingResearch & Information, 31(5), 334–345.
Toth, F.L. (2001) Decision analysis for climate change:development, equity and sustainability concerns. Inter-national Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 1(2),223–240.
Turin, D.A. (2003) Building as a process. Building Research &Information, 32(2), 182–187.
Uher, T.E. (1999) Absolute indicators of sustainable con-struction, in Proceedings of COBRA 1999, conference orga-nized by RICS Foundation, University of Salford, UK,pp. 243–253.
Van Wyk, L. (2004) A Review of the South African ConstructionIndustry, Part 2: Sustainable Construction Activities, CSIRBoutek, Pretoria.
Vanclay, F. and Bronstain, D.A. (1995) Environmental sustain-ability, in F. Vanclay and D.A. Bronstein (eds): Envi-ronmental and Social Impact Assessment, John Wiley,Chichester, pp. 303–322.
Vetter, A., Weston, R. and Martin, S. (2000) On Being a GoodNeighbour, Moving Towards Sustainable Construction.
Broadening project participation
453
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Carillion Building Special Projects and The Natural StepTM
(available at: http://www.naturalstep.org.uk/downld.html)(accessed on 28 May 2004).
Walker, D. and Hampson, K. (2003) Developing cross-teamrelationships, in D. Walker and K. Hampson (eds): Procure-ment Strategies: A Relationship-based Approach, Blackwell,Oxford, pp. 169–200.
Whyte, J. and Gann, D.M. (2001) Closing the loop betweendesign and use: post-occupancy evaluation. BuildingResearch & Information, 29(9), pp. 460–462.
Wilkins, H. (2003) The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as atool for sustainable development. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 23, 401–414.
Winch, G., Usmani, A. and Edkins, A. (1998) Towards totalproject quality: a gap analysis approach. ConstructionManagement and Economics, 16, 193–207.
World Bank (1999) Public Consultation in the EA Process: AStrategic Approach. Environmental Assessment SourcebookUpdate No. 26, Environment Department, World Bank,Washington, DC.
World Council on Environment and Development (WCED)(1987) Our Common Future – Brundtland Report, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Zimmerman, A. and Martin, M. (2001) Post-Occupancy Evalu-ation: benefits and barriers. Building Research & Infor-mation, 29(2), 168–174.
Kaatz et al.
454
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
46 0
1 Se
ptem
ber
2013
