.

Promoting Green Building by Investigating

Sustainability Concepts in Building Projects with

Regard to Economic, Environment, Social, and

Technical Goals

اريع تشجيع البناء األخضر عن طريق بحث مفاهيم االستدامة في مشوالتقنية البناء بالنظر إلى القضايا االقتصادية, البيئية, االجتماعية,

Ehsan yousef Rizqa

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Adnan Enshassi

Distinguished Prof. of Construction Engineering and Management

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master

of Science in Environmental Sciences

July/2016

زةــغ –ةــالميــــــة اإلســـــــــامعـالج

شئون البحث العلمي والدراسات العليا

كليــــــة الهندســــــــــــــــة

قسم الهندســة المدنيـــــــــة

إدارة المشروعات الهندسية

The Islamic University–Gaza

Research and Postgraduate Affairs

Faculty of Engineering

Civil Engineering Department

Construction Project Management

`

I

Abstract

Purpose: Sustainable construction is broadly taken to signify the responsibility of the

construction industry for the efficient use of natural resources, minimization of any negative

impact on the environment, minimization of energy consumption, improve indoor environmental

quality, and satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life. In achieving this

aim, four objectives have been outlined which includes investigating awareness level of

sustainability concept principles, identifying benefits level of sustainable buildings, identifying

barriers to implementing sustainable buildings, and integrating sustainability concepts in

building project life cycle regarding to economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

Design/methodology/approach: A quantitative and qualitative method was used in the research

including questionnaire and case study. The questionnaire analyzed by using the quantitative

data analysis techniques through the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) IBM version

20. With regard to the case study, a green school in the West Bank was studied to investigate to

what extent were sustainability concepts integrated in the school building life cycle.

Findings: Results revealed that the respondents have good awareness regarding 'Reduce energy

consumption' and 'Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all project life

cycle' principles. The green building benefits that got top ranking is: 'Enhance occupant comfort

and health', and 'Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity

of the ecosystem at local and global levels'. The top barrier that face implementing sustainability

concepts in Gaza Strip was 'Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with

traditional building', and 'Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional

construction methods practiced and building materials used'. Regarding the case study, findings

indicated that integrating sustainability concepts in all building project lifecycle can be achieved

by minimizing resource consumption; protecting the natural environment; using renewable and

recyclable resources; and improving indoor environmental quality.

Theoretical and practical implications of the research: More effort are needed to overcome

"Change resistance culture" in Gaza Strip. Designers should use solar energy system to reduce

energy consumption and enhance using sustainable and friendly environment materials.

Originality/ value: This study will add to the current knowledge of sustainable buildings. It is

provide a framework to integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle.

`

II

ملخص البحــث

يؤخذ البناء المستدام على نطاق واسع للداللة على مسؤولية صناعة البناء والتشييد تجاه االستخدام الفعال للموارد الغرضالطبيعية )األرض, المياه, الطاقة, المواد(, تقليل األثر السلبي لعملية البناء على البيئة, الحد من استهالك الطاقة, االستفادة

حسين جودة البيئة الداخلية للمباني )الهواء, الحرارة, الراحة البصرية والصوتية(, وكذلك تلبية المثلى من إمكانات الموقع, توبناء على ذلك, كان الغرض من هذا البحث تشجيع المباني الخضراء عن طريق . االحتياجات البشرية وتحسين نوعية الحياة

إلى القضايا االقتصادية, البيئية, االجتماعية, والتقنية. وقد تم بحث مفاهيم االستدامة في مشاريع البناء في قطاع غزة بالنظر ذلك من خالل تحقيق أربعة أهداف رئيسية تشمل تقييم مستوى وعي الفئة المستهدفة لمبادئ البناء المستدام, تحديد الفوائد

تدام في قطاع غزة, ودمج مفاهيم األكثر قيمة للمباني المستدامة )الخضراء(, تحديد الحواجز التي تعيق تطبيق البناء المس االستدامة )االقتصادية, البيئية, االجتماعية, والتقنية( في جميع مراحل دورة حياة المشروع.

االستبانة تم تحليل . تخدام استبانه ودراسة حالةتم اعتماد البحث الكمي و الكيفي في هذا البحث, وذلك باسمنهجية البحث: . بالنسبة لدراسة الحالة, تم تناول مدرسة IBM 20 (SPSS) مغزى وذلك باستخدام برنامج كميًا الستنباط نتائج ذات

خضراء في الضفة الغربية كحالة لمبنى مستدام, وذلك لتحديد مدى تطبيق مفاهيم االستدامة في جميع مراحل بناء المدرسة.

بادئ البناء المستدام عال, ولكن هناك نقص في استغالل : أشارت النتائج بأن مستوى وعي الفئة المستهدفة بالنسبة لمالنتائجهذه المعرفة في عملية البناء. أظهرت النتائج أيضا أن الفئة المستهدفة لديها معرفة جيدة ببند "خفض استهالك الطاقة" و

ني المستدامة, "تعزيز النهج ألتشاركي من خالل إشراك أصحاب المصلحة في جميع مراحل البناء". فيما يخص فوائد المباكانت الفوائد األكثر قيمة من وجهة نظر المستجيبين هي: " توفير الراحة للمقيمين في المبنى والحفاظ على صحتهم" و" تحسين .جودة حياة اإلنسان مع الحفاظ على النظام البيئي في المستوى المحلي والعالمي المطلوب" و كذلك "خفض استهالك الطاقة"

هرت نتائج الدراسة, وجود حواجز تعرقل بشكل كبير تطبيق البناء المستدام في قطاع غزة. أبرز هذه من ناحية أخرى, أظالعوائق هي: "ارتفاع تكاليف تنفيذ المباني المستدامة مقارنة بالمباني التقليدية", "عدم رغبة العاملين في صناعة اإلنشاءات في

فيما يتعلق بدراسة الحالة, أظهرت النتائج بأن دمج مفاهيم االستدامة . ستخدمةتغيير أساليب البناء التقليدية ومواد البناء الم)االقتصادية, البيئية, االجتماعية, التقنية( في جميع مراحل دورة حياة المشروع يمكن أن تتحقق من خالل تقليل استهالك

المتاحة, حماية البيئة الطبيعية, خلق بيئة صحية الموارد الطبيعية )الماء, الطاقة, المواد, األراضي(, تعظيم استخدام الموارد ونظيفة, استخدام الموارد المتجددة والمعاد تدويرها, و تحسين جودة البيئة الداخلية )الهواء, الحرارة, الراحة البصرية والسمعية(.

هناك حاجة إلى مزيد من الجهد للتغلب على ثقافة "رفض تغيير طرق البناء التقليدية" التي :للبحث والعملية النظرية اآلثارتسيطر على األطراف المشاركة في عملية البناء في قطاع غزة. من الضروري تثقيف وتدريب المشاركين في عملية البناء

لندوات, و ورش العمل. يجب على المصممين استخدام على طرق البناء المستدامة من خالل المؤتمرات, الدورات التدريبية, اأنظمة الطاقة الشمسية, و تحقيق العزل الحراري الجيد, مقاومة الرطوبة, التحسين السمعي, وتحقيق التهوية الجيدة. كذلك

.يجب على المخططين تشجيع استخدام مواد البناء المستدامة والصديقة للبيئة وتجنب استخدام المواد السامة

الدراسة إطار توفر هذه: يعد هذا البحث إضافة للدراسات الموجودة عن البناء المستدام )األخضر( حول العالم. أصالة البحثعمل لدمج مفاهيم االستدامة )البيئية, االقتصادية, االجتماعية, التقنية( في جميع مراحل دورة حياة المشروع. هذه الدراسة يمكن

.ناء المستدام )األخضر( في قطاع غزةأن تكون وثيقة مرجعية للب

`

III

Dedication Firstly, this research is lovingly dedicated to my beloved Father Dr. Yousef Rizqa and

my beloved Mother who have been my constant source of inspiration. They have given

me the guide and discipline to tackle any difficulty in this life with enthusiasm and

determination. Without their prayers, love, encouragement and support, this work would

not have been made possible. Their constant love has sustained me throughout my life. I

also dedicate this thesis to my beloved husband Dr. Sari Abusharar for his unlimited

support and continuous encouragement to me. Also, I dedicate this effort to the most

beautiful gift from Allah, my kids "Waleed" and "Kenda". Because i see the world from

their eyes and their love. I hope that i made what makes them proud of me.

And without any doubt, I dedicate this thesis to my beloved brothers, sisters, best real

friends, as well as the entire special people who have supported me throughout the

process of carrying out this work. Their love and encouragement have had a great impact

in giving me the power to complete this work.

I also dedicate my work to my dear friend "Najwa Al Jamal" for her encouragement and

support.

I also dedicate my work to myself because I have kept trying to learn new things as well

as I have been keen on fidelity and accuracy in achievement my thesis.

Ehsan Yousef Rizqa

`

IV

Acknowledgements First of all, I am grateful to Allah the Almighty for all blessings in this life and for

giving me power and ability that were necessary to achieve this goal. All thanks and

praise belongs to Allah “Al-hamdulillah”.

I would like to express my very great appreciation to my research supervisor Prof. Dr.

Adnan Enshassi, Distinguished Professor of Construction Engineering and Management

for his patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques of this research

work. It is really a great pride to be one of his students and to have the opportunity to be

under his supervision.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my husband Dr. Sari Abusharar,

Assistant Professor at the College of Associate professor in the University of Palestine,

Gaza, for his valuable and constructive advices and assistance during the preparing of

this research. Special thanks to A'aed Al Rabii, M.Sc. in Statistics, for his help in the

statistical arbitration of the questionnaire and his support in the statistical analysis. I

thank him for his willingness to dedicate to me much of his time so generously.

My sincere thanks also extended to all my friends and colleagues for their appreciated

participation in distribution and collection of the questionnaire and also contribution in

supporting and encouraging me. Furthermore, I am grateful to all those who participated

in the response to the questionnaire and all experts that cooperated with me.

`

V

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... I

II ................................................................................................................................... البحــث ملخص

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... III

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ IV

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... IX

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ XIV

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... XVII

List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................. XIV

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Gaza Strip situation ................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Problem statement ................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research aim .......................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Research objectives ................................................................................................. 5

1.6 Key research questions ............................................................................................ 5

1.7 Research hypotheses ............................................................................................... 6

1.8 Delimitations of the study ........................................................................................ 7

1.9 Research design .................................................................................................................... 8

1.10 Contribution to knowledge ................................................................................................. 9

1.11 Structure of the thesis ......................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2 Literature review .......................................................................................... 12

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Sustainable Construction Definition ......................................................................... 15

2.3 Sustainable Construction Concept ............................................................................ 16

2.4 Sustainable Building Approach ................................................................................ 18

2.5 Principles of Sustainable Building ............................................................................ 19

2.6 Sustainable Development ........................................................................................ 22

2.7 Sustainability Awareness of Developed and Developing Countries regarding

Sustainability Issues .................................................................................................... 23

`

VI

2.7.1 Importance of Raising the Awarenessregard to Sustainable Buildings in Developing

Countries……………………………………………………………………….. ............... 23

2.7.2 Sustainable Building Awareness in Developed Countries…………………….... ...... 25

2.7.3 Sustainable Building Awareness in Developing Countries…………………..…... .... 27

2.8 Sustainability Assessment Systems Tools Used All over the World ............................. 32

2.9 Approaches to Building Sustainability ...................................................................... 32

2.9.1 Sustainability Indicators of a Building Project…………………………..…….. ....... 32

2.9.2 Managing and Assessing Building Sustainability………………………….…… ...... 36

2.9.3 Sustainable Building Rating and Certification……………………………….…… ... 39

2.10 A framework for the Attainment of Sustainable Construction .................................... 42

2.11 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 49

2.12 Green Building Definition ..................................................................................... 50

2.13 Green Building Concept ........................................................................................ 50

2.14 "Green building" and "Sustainable construction: How They Differ and Why It Matters ?

................................................................................................................................. 52

2.15 Importance of Green Buildings .............................................................................. 53

2.16 Benefits of Green Buildings .................................................................................. 54

2.17 Motivating Factors for Green Buildings .................................................................. 57

2.18 Requirements to Achieve Green Construction .......................................................... 58

2.19 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 61

2.20 Barriers Towards Sustainable Construction ............................................................. 62

2.20.1 Cultural Barriers………………………………………………………….…. ......... 62

2.20.2 Financial Barriers…………………………………………………………..…. ....... 63

2.20.3 Capacity/Professional Barriers………………………………………………….. .... 64

2.20.4 Steering Barriers………………………………………………………..…. ............ 66

2.21 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 69

2.22 Sustainability Dimensions that should be Involved when Integrate sustainability concepts

in all building project life cycle ..................................................................................... 70

2.22.1 Social Sustainability………………………………………………………… ......... 70

2.22.2 Economic Sustainability………………………………………………………… .... 72

2.22.3 Environmental Sustainability…………………………………………..……….. .... 74

`

VII

2.22.4 Technical Sustainability……………………………………………………... ......... 76

2.23 Integrate the Sustainability Concepts in All Construction Levels and Paradigm with

Regard to Economic, Environment, Social, and Technical goals. ....................................... 77

2.24 Indicators of Sustainability Integration Process ........................................................ 85

2.25 The Objectives that should be considered when integrate sustainability concepts in all

Project Life Cycle……………………………………………………………………………. 87

2.25.1 Resource conservation…………………………………………………………....... 87

2.25.2 Cost Efficiency……………………………………………………….…. ............... 88

2.25.3 Design for Human Adaptation……………………………………….…. ............... 88

2.26 Sustainable Technology Characteristics .................................................................. 89

2.26.1 Minimizing Consumption…………………………………………….… ............... 89

2.26.2 Maintaining Human Satisfaction………………………………………….............. 89

2.26.3 Minimizing Negative Environmental Impacts………………………….…….. ....... 90

Chapter 3 Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 99

3.1 Research Aim and Objectives .................................................................................. 99

3.2 Research Framework .............................................................................................. 99

3.2.1 First step: Theme Identification (Problem definition)……………………. .............. 99

3.2.2 Second step: Literature Review……………………………………………….. ...... 100

3.2.3 Third step: Pilot Study……………………………………………………. ............ 100

3.2.4 Fourth step: The Main Survey………………………………………………. ......... 100

3.2.5 Fifth step: Results and Discussion…………………………………………… ........ 101

3.2.6 Sixth step: Case study………………………………………….………… ............. 101

3.2.7 Seventh step: Conclusion and Recommendations…………………………. ........... 101

3.3 Research Location ................................................................................................ 101

3.4 Research Strategy………………………………. ..................................................... 103

3.5 Rationale of Using the Research Method ................................................................ 103

3.6 Target population, sampling of the questionnaire, and data collection ......................... 105

3.7 Questionnaire design and development ................................................................... 106

3.8 Face validity ........................................................................................................ 108

3.9 Pretesting the questionnaire ................................................................................... 110

3.10 Pilot study ......................................................................................................... 113

`

VIII

3.10.1 Statistical validity of the questionnaire……………………………………… ....... 115

3.10.2 Reliability test……………………………………………………………. ........... 116

3.11 Final amendment to the questionnaire ................................................................... 117

3.12 Quantitative data analysis .................................................................................... 126

3.13 Measurements .................................................................................................... 126

3.13.1 Cross-tabulation analysis…………………………………………………….. ...... 127

3.13.2 Relative Importance Index (RII) ……………………………………………… .... 127

3.13.3 Normal distribution…………………………………………………….... ............ 128

3.13.4 Homogeneity of variances (Homoscedasticity)……………………..…. ............. 128

3.14 Summery .......................................................................................................... 129

Chapter 4 Case study ............................................................................................................... 131

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 131

4.2 Case study........................................................................................................... 131

4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 172

4.3.1Theoretical benefits…………………………………………………………… ....... 172

4.3.2 Practical benefit…………………………………………………………… ............ 173

4.4 The extent of achieving sustainability concepts in Aqaba school ................................ 174

4.5 Limitation of the case study................................................................................... 174

Chapter 5 Results and discussion of the questionnaire ........................................................ 176

5.1 Respondents profiles ............................................................................................ 176

5.2.1 Environment concept…………………………………………………………… .... 180

5.2.2 Economic concept……………………………………………………………......... 183

5.2.3 Social concept…………………………………………………………….. ............ 185

5.2.4 Technical concept…………………………………………………………… ......... 187

5.2.5 Summary of awareness issue regarding sustainability buildings principles ............ 189

5.2 Summary of awareness issue regarding sustainability buildings principles .................. 176

5.3 Benefits of sustainable buildings ............................................................................ 191

5.3.1 Environmental benefits…………………………………………………………… .. 193

5.3.2 Economic benefits…………………………………………………………… ........ 195

5.3.3 Social benefits……………………………………………………………. ............. 197

`

IX

5.3.4 Ethical benefits…………………………………………………………… ............. 199

5.3.5 Summary of sustainability buildings benefits…………………………………... .... 200

5.4 Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings .................................... 201

5.4.1 Cultural barriers……………………………………………………….…… ........... 204

5.4.2 Financial barriers…………………………………………………………. ............ 206

5.4.3 Capacity/Professional Barriers…………………………………………….. ........... 207

5.4.4 Steering barriers………………………………………………………….. ............. 208

5.4.5 Summary to barriers of sustainable buildings……………………………… .......... 209

5.5 Test of research hypotheses ................................................................................... 211

5.5.1 Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and

benefits of sustainable buildings……………………………………………..…. ............ 212

5.5.2 Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and

barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings……………….… ............ 213

5.5.3 Correlation between benefits of sustainable buildings principles and Barriers that face

implementing sustainable buildings…………………………………………….. ............ 214

Chapter 6 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................... 225

6.1 Summary of the research....................................................................................... 225

6.2 Conclusions of the research objectives, questions, and hypotheses ............................. 225

6.2.1 Outcomes related to objective one…………………………….…………. ............. 226

6.2.2 Outcomes related to objective two………………………….……………. ............. 230

6.2.3 Outcomes related to objective three………………………………………. ............ 234

6.2.4 Outcomes related to objective four………………………………………. ............. 238

6.2.5 Outcomes related to objective five…………………………….………….............. 243

6.3 Research benefits to knowledge and construction industry ........................................ 245

References ................................................................................................................................. 247

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 267

Appendix A: Questionnaire (English) .................................................................................... 268

Appendix B: Questionnaire (Arabic) ..................................................................................... 275

`

X

List of Tables

Table (2.1): Different interpretations of sustainable construction………………………............. 15

Table (2.2): Principles of sustainable building………………………………………….............. 20

Table (2.3): Summary of various sustainability assessment tools………………………………. 33

Table (2.4): A framework to achieve sustainable building adopting to each phase of

construction process……………………………………………………………………………… 44

Table (2.5): Principles of sustainable building adopting to their references……………………. 46

Table (2.6): Differences between green and sustainable construction….……….………………. 53

Table (2.7): Benefits of green buildings according to their references…………………….......... 59

Table (2.8): Barriers that face sustainable buildings…………………………..………………… 67

Table (2.9): Integrate the sustainability concepts in all construction levels and paradigm with

regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals…………………………………...

80

Table (2.10): Integrate the sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle……………. 91

Table (3.1): Research methods for previous studies…………………………………………….. 103

Table (3.2): The used quantifiers for the rating scale (the five-point likert scale) in each of the

second, third, fourth and fifth field of the questionnaire…………………………………………

107

Table (3.3): Results of face validity……………………………………………………………... 108

Table (3.4): Results of pre-testing the questionnaire…………………………………………… 111

Table (3.5): Structure validity of the questionnaire……………………………………………... 116

Table (3.6): Half Split coefficient method………………………………………………………. 117

Table (3.7): Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for reliability (Cα)………………………………….. 117

Table (3.8): A summery illustrates how items were obtained for each field in the

questionnaire………………………………………………………………………………………

119

Table (3.9): List of items of sustainable building principles…………………………………….. 120

Table (3.10): List of items of sustainable building benefits……………………………………... 122

`

XI

Table (3.11): List of items of sustainable building barriers…………………...…………............ 124

Table (3.12): Skewness and Kurtosis results……………………………………………………. 128

Table (4.1): The background of the case study participants…………………………………….. 131

Table (4.2): Aqaba school background…………………………………………………………... 132

Table (4.3): Case study framework………………………………………………………............ 134

Table (4.4): Case study questions ……………………………………………………………….. 136

Table (4.5): The extent of integrating sustainability concepts in Aqaba school building life

cycle………………………………………………………………………………………............. 174

Table (5.1): Respondents profile…………………………………………………………............ 177

Table (5.2): Awareness level regard to sustainable (green) building principles…………............ 179

Table (5.3): Respondents awareness according to sustainable construction categories…............. 190

Table (5.4): Benefits of sustainable (green) buildings…………………………………………... 192

Table (5.5): The average of sustainable building benefits according to their categories………... 201

Table (5.6): Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings…………………….. 202

Table (5.8): The average of barriers of sustainable building according to their categories……... 211

Table (5.9): Correlation coefficient between awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles and benefits of sustainable buildings………………………………………………….. 213

Table (5.10): Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and

sustainable buildings barriers…………………………………….................................................. 214

Table (5.11): Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and

benefits of sustainable buildings……………….………………………………….…................... 215

Table (5.12): Results of Sample Independent t-test regarding the gender of the

respondents…………………………………………………………………………….…............. 216

Table (5.13): One way ANOVA results regarding educational qualification of the

respondents……………………………………………………………………………………….. 218

Table (5.14): Results of Scheffe test for multiple comparisons due to educational qualification

of the respondents for the field of the “Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building 218

`

XII

principle”…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Table (5.15): One way ANOVA results regarding age of the respondents……………………… 219

Table (5.16): One way ANOVA results regarding specialization of the respondents…………… 220

Table (5.17): One way ANOVA results regarding respondents nature of the work place............. 220

Table (5.18): One way ANOVA results regarding years of experience of the respondents……... 221

Table (5.19): One way ANOVA results regarding nature of current field- present job of the

respondents……………………………………………………………………………………….. 222

Table (5.20): One way ANOVA results regarding nature of years of experience in sustainable

building field of the respondents…………………………………………………………………. 223

Table (6.1): Case study framework………………………………………………………............. 239

Table (C1): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field;

second field: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building principles…......................

281

Table (C2): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field;

third field: Benefits of sustainable (green building)……………………………………………...

283

Table (C3): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field;

fourth field: Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green building)………………………

284

`

XIII

List of Figures

Figure (1.1): Hypotheses model……………………............................................................... 6

Figure (2.1): A generic model for building performance analysis…………………………... 38

Figure (2.2): The integrated LCA of the building stages……………………………………. 40

Figure (2.3): Benefits of Green Buildings …………………………………………………... 56

Figure (2.4): Shift from traditional to sustainable design and construction ………………… 79

Figure (2.5): Framework of sustainability Indicators ……………………………………….. 86

Figure (3.1): Framework of the research methodology……………………………………… 102

Figure (5.1): RII of statements (Aw1 to Aw10)……………………………………………... 183

Figure (5.2): RII of statements (Aw11 to Aw20)……………………………………………. 185

Figure (5.3): RII of statements (Aw21 to Aw33)……………………………………………. 187

Figure (5.4): RII of statements (Aw34 to Aw38)……………………………………………. 188

Figure (5.5): Average RII of environment, economic, social and technical principles

concepts……………………………………………………………………………………….

190

Figure (5.6): RII of environment sustainable buildings benefits (Be1 to Be9)……………… 195

Figure (5.7): RII of economic sustainable buildings benefits (Be11 to Be16)………………. 197

Figure (5.8): RII of social sustainable buildings benefits (Be17 to Be23)…………………... 198

Figure (5.9): RII of ethical sustainable buildings benefits (Be24 to Be25)…………………. 199

Figure (5.10): Average RII of sustainable buildings benefits types…………………………. 201

Figure (5.11): RII of sustainable buildings cultural barriers (Ba1 to Ba8) …………………. 206

Figure (5.12): RII of sustainable buildings financial barriers (Ba9 to Ba16)……………….. 207

Figure (5.13): RII of sustainable buildings Capacity/Professional barriers (Ba17 to Ba26)... 208

Figure (5.14): RII of sustainable buildings steering barriers (Ba27 to Ba29)……………….. 209

Figure (5.15): Average RII of barriers of sustainable buildings regard to their types……………….. 211

Figure (5.16): Hypotheses model……………………………………………………………. 212

`

XIV

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation The interpretation of Abbreviation

ABGR Australian Building Greenhouse Rating

ASTM The American Society of Testing and Material

BASIX Building and Sustainability Index

BEAM Building Environmental Assessment Method.

BIM Building Information Model/ Modeling/ Management

BREEAM BRE Environmental Assessment Method

BRZ Building Rating System

BSA Building Sustainability Assessment

CASBEE Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency

CEPAS Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme

aspects are also integrated into all CEPAS categories and indicators

CIB International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and

Construction

DF Degree of Freedom

EGBC Emirates Green Building Council

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Programme

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GBI Green Building Index

GB Green Building

GIS Geographic Information System

GOBAS Green Olympic Building Assessment System

`

XV

LCA Life-Cycle Assessment Systems

LCI Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis

LEED Leadership In Energy And Environmental Design

N Sample Size

RII Relative Importance Index

SD Sustainable Development

SP Sustainable Project

AR Appraisal Routine

SPSS Statistical Package for The Social Sciences

UAE United Arab Emirates

UN United Nation

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNRWA United Nation Relief and Works Agency

UPC Urban Planning Council

US United States

USA United States of America

USAID United States Agency for International Development

`

XVI

Chapter 1

Introduction

`

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter is aimed to give an introductory overview of the study that has been made.

The problem statement was presented according to the challenges that face sustainable

(green) buildings in Gaza Strip and also the study was justified. Also, this chapter

included aim, objectives, key research questions, and hypothesis. In addition, research

delimitations, research design, research limitations, and research contribution to

knowledge as well as the outline of the thesis were included in this chapter.

1.1 Background

Sustainability in the construction sector has been a key theme globally for close to two

decades now (Dania, Larsen and Yao, 2013; Goh and Rowlinson, 2013). Sustainable

construction is broadly taken to signify the responsibility of the construction industry for

the efficient use of natural resources, minimization of any negative impact on the

environment as well as satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of

life (Ali and Nsairat, 2009;Yami and Price, 2006). Sustainable urban development has to

achieve three goals of sustainability which are economic, social, and environmental in

order to be well implemented (Wennersten and Frostell, 2014; Bragança, Mateus, and

Koukkari, 2010). The construction industry, worldwide, consumes a large proportion of

natural resources and energy, hence it potentially has an important role in sustainability.

The construction industry faces urgent pressure as regards environmental management

and sustainability in many countries. It has a significant impact on the environment,

affecting as it does such aspects as air, water, noise, light and land pollution in the

process of urban development. It consumes enormous natural resources and energy,

produces a large amount of waste and contributes significant amounts of toxic air

emissions (Al Ghusainand Wang, 2014; Hendrickson and Horvath, 2000). Developing

countries are often faced with challenges and priorities that are different from those of

more advanced countries. These include, but are not limited to huge infrastructure and

housing deficit, weak institutions of Government, rapidly rising population, skills

`

2

shortage, social inequity and relative unstable political climate (Dania et al., 2013). The

following goals can be found in several building sustainability assessment methods:

optimization of site potential, preservation of regional and cultural identity,

minimization of energy consumption, protection and conservation of water resources,

use of environmentally friendly materials and products, a healthy and convenient indoor

climate, and optimized operational and maintenance practices (Braganca et al., 2010).

Achieving sustainability of a building requires a shift in decision making throughout the

entire life cycle of a building including its design, construction, operation, and disposal.

Starting with the building owners, many parties involved in the creation of the built

environment have become to realize that the only way to fully achieve the principles of

sustainability is to work towards it as a team. A typical list of participants in the building

industry includes the client (owner), designer (architects and engineers), constructors

(builders), public officials, and the public (Celik, 2013).

1.2 Gaza Strip situation

The Gaza Strip is a narrow land area located in the Southeastern Mediterranean sea, with

a length of about 41 km and a width ranging from 6 to 12 km. There are approximately

1.6 million inhabitants living in the Gaza Strip in an area comprising 360 km2, which

makes it one of the most densely populated areas in the world (Muhaisen and Ahlbäck,

2012). Gaza Strip is a theatre of conflict for decades. Civilian population in Gaza Strip

are suffering from damaged electricity, water and sewage systems, fragile infrastructure,

deteriorating ecosystem and limited resources. Sustainable construction provides

opportunities to address and alleviate several challenges and needs currently experienced

in Gaza, including the increasing housing demand, limited availability of construction

materials, insufficient energy and water provision, limited resources, inadequate

sanitation, as well as severe unemployment (Muhaisen and Ahlbäck, 2012).

Sustainability is a major concept underlying a variety of efforts to ensure a good quality

of life for future generations (Wang, 2014).

Muhaisen and Ahlbäck (2012) revealed that applying different sustainable construction

methods, materials, technologies and applications in Gaza is often feasible and can

`

3

contribute to considerable improvements in materials, energy and water efficiency in

buildings. Innovative solutions with potentials in Gaza include increasing the use of

local and recycled construction materials in buildings where possible; increasing

energy‐efficiency of buildings through improved insulation, energy‐ efficient appliances

and architectural design, and by adopting renewable energy sources; as well as

increasing water efficiency through the use of rainwater, desalination and grey water

recycling. According to Al Ghoul (2013), sustainable construction can also facilitate the

creation of new employment opportunities for green jobs in the construction sector in

Gaza. Introducing new methods, practices and technologies can generate jobs for

architects, engineers and construction workers, while also boosting employment in

utility provision and other related sectors. In order to optimize the employment impact

of a transition towards sustainable construction, measures should be taken to further

develop skills at all levels of education and training related to sustainable construction,

improve working conditions and occupational safety and health in the sector, engage in

social dialogue and raise public awareness, as well as employ value‐chain development

and promote start‐up businesses and small and medium‐ sized enterprises in the

construction sector in Gaza.

1.3 Problem statement

Buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account for an

important portion of the greenhouse gas emissions (Yi-Kai, Peng and Jie, 2010).

Building sector accounts for 30–40% of global energy use (UNEP, 2007). Buildings not

only use resources such as energy and raw materials but they also generate waste and

potentially harmful atmospheric emissions (Alnaser, Flanagan and Alnaser, 2008).

Lippiatt (1999) argued that construction damages the fragile environment because of

adverse impacts of construction, this impacts include resource depletion, biological

diversity losses due to raw material extraction, landfill problems due to waste

generation, adverse human health due to poor indoor air quality, global warming, acid

rain, and smog due to emissions generated by building product manufacture and

transport that consumes energy.

`

4

Gaza Strip is suffering from a weak and deteriorating ecosystem because of the very

limited natural resources, deteriorating economic situation, and escalating population

growth, in addition Gaza Strip is a theatre of conflict for decades. With the growing

evidence that construction sector has a massive effect on the environment, it has become

necessary to take immediate action to avoid dangerous consequences for future

generations (Taleb and Sharples, 2011). Spurred by the ever-rising needs for

infrastructure and leisure, construction activities are changing land forms quickly.

Natural resources are being depleted at a rate faster than their replenishment, hence

giving rise to an outcry for sustainable development (Lam, Chan, Poon, Chau and Chun

2010).

Sustainable development that delivers basic environmental, social and economic

services to all residences of a community without threatening the viability of natural,

built and social systems upon which the delivery of those systems depends (Idris and

Ismail, 2011; Yami and Price, 2006). According to Hill and Bowen (1997), the term

described the responsibility of the construction sector in attaining 'sustainability'. This is

through reduction in energy, material and water usage, reduction of wastes, careful

consideration of land use, air quality and indoor environment (Pearce, Ahn and

Hanmiglobal, 2012).A green building uses an average of 30% less energy than

conventional building (Nwokoro, 2011). Material waste generated during construction is

reduced or recycled. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of

natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or rainwater harvesting

system is installed to ensure wiser use (Nwokoro and Onukwube, 2011). Carter and

Fortune (2007) supported the concept of sustainable construction as an approach to

building which promotes the attainment of goals associated with the triple bottom line:

Economic sustainability: increasing profitability by making more efficient use

of resources, including labor, materials, water and energy.

Environmental sustainability: preventing harmful and potentially irreversible

effects on the environment by careful use of natural resources, minimizing waste,

protecting and where possible enhancing the environment.

`

5

Social sustainability: responding to the needs of the people at whatever stage of

involvement in the construction process (from commissioning to demolition),

providing high customer satisfaction and working closely with clients, suppliers,

employees and local communities.

1.4 Research aim

This research aimed at promoting green buildings by investigating sustainability

concepts in building projects life cycle in Gaza Strip with regard to economic,

environment, social, and technical goals in order to ensure efficient use of natural

resources, minimization of any negative impact on the environment as well as

satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life.

1.5 Research objectives

1. To investigate awareness level of sustainability concept principles with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals in building projects.

2. To identify and rate benefits level of sustainable construction (green buildings).

3. To identify and rate barriers to implementing sustainable buildings.

4. To integrate sustainability concepts in building project life cycle with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

1.6 Key research questions

RQ 1: What is the level of awareness of professional engineers regarding

sustainability buildings principles ?

RQ 2: Are the benefits of sustainable buildings valuable from the standpoint of the

professionals engineers in Gaza Strip?

RQ 3: Are sustainable buildings barriers affecting the implementation of

sustainable (green) buildings projects in Gaza Strip?

RQ 4: How can professionals engineers integrate sustainability concepts in all

building project life cycle?

RQ 5: What is the effect of awareness level of building professionals on increasing

the value of sustainable building benefits in Gaza Strip?

`

6

RQ 6: What is the effect of awareness level of building professionals on the

reduction of sustainable building barriers in Gaza Strip?

RQ 7: What is the effect of value of sustainable building benefits on the reduction

of sustainable building barriers in Gaza Strip?

RQ 8: Are there differences in the answers of respondents depending on the

demographic data of the respondents?

1.7 Research hypotheses

According to figure (1.1), the study contains five hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05, between

awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and benefits of sustainable

buildings.

H2: There is an inverse relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05, between

awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and sustainable buildings

barriers

H3: There is an inverse relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 between

benefits of sustainable buildings principles and barriers that face implementing

sustainable building

H4: There is a statistically significant differences attributed to the demographic data

of the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the

subject of sustainability (green) buildings in Gaza Strip.

Figure (1.1) Hypotheses model

`

7

1.8 Delimitations of the study

The study covers the following central aspects:

Knowledge: the study focused on promoting sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza

Strip. It aimed to investigate sustainability concepts in building projects life cycle in

Gaza Strip with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals by

identifying basic factors (awareness level regarding sustainable (green) building

principles, benefits of sustainable buildings, and barriers that face implementing

sustainable (green) buildings) in order to ensure efficient use of natural resources,

minimization of any negative impact on the environment as well as satisfaction of

human needs and improvement of the quality of life. According to that, Intensive

literature review was conducted to review the previous studies made in this field and

dealt with these factors.

Approach and instrument: The research approach was a quantitative and qualitative

survey research to measure objectives (descriptive survey and analytical survey).

The research technique was shaped as a questionnaire and case study. The

questionnaire aimed to meet the first three research objectives, however, the case

study aimed to meet the fourth objective to cover the main questions of the study,

and to collect all the necessary data that can support the results and discussion, as

well as the recommendations in the research.

Geographical: The research was carried out in Gaza Strip, which consists of five

governorates: the Northern governorate, Gaza governorate, the Dair Al Balah

governorate, Khan Younis governorate and Rafah governorate.

Population and Sample: research population includes civil, architects, and electrical

engineers in the construction field in Gaza Strip. Fifty four copies of the

questionnaire were distributed to experts in sustainability field in Gaza Strip. This

number of questionnaires was chosen according to the number of experts in this

field in Gaza Strip as well as the easy access to them. Purposive sample was chosen

as the type of sample. The purposive sampling technique is a type of non-

`

8

probability sampling that is most effective when there is a limited number of people

that have expertise in the area being researched.

Time: The questionnaire survey (distribution and collection) was conducted in 2015

(November). It was terminated in a period of one month.

1.9 Research design

To fulfill research objectives the following tasks were done:

It was initiated to identify the problem, establish aim, objectives, hypothesis and key

research questions, and develop research plan/strategy by deciding on the research

approach and deciding on the research technique.

Intensive literature review was conducted to review the previous studies made in

this field. It was performed by reading and note-taking from different sources.

Based on the extensive literature reviews, a questionnaire was designed.

Face validity was conducted by experts in sustainable buildings field as well as

experts in statistics to see whether the questionnaire in this study appears to be a

valid or not.

Pre-testing the questionnaire was done in two phases to make sure that the

questionnaire is going to deliver the right data and to ensure the quality of the

collected data. Each phase of the pre-testing has been tested with 5 experts in the

green building field in Gaza Strip.

A pilot study was conducted by distributing 15 copies of the questionnaire to

respondents from the target group in order to measure statistical validity and

reliability of the questionnaire.

After pilot study, the questionnaire was adopted and was distributed to the whole

sample.

The collected data have been analyzed quantitatively by Statistical Package for

Social Science (SPSS) IBM version (20).

Findings were concluded and appropriate graphical representations and tables were

obtained to understand and analyze the questions of the questionnaire.

`

9

A case study was developed by studying to what extent sustainability concepts were

achieved in "Aqaba" school in Nablus in the West Bank.

Recommendations were suggested through the conclusion of the research.

1.10 Contribution to knowledge

The research will add to existing knowledge on all over the world. The findings of this

research can motivate applying green concepts in building projects in Gaza Strip, as well

as find innovative solutions to overcome sustainability buildings barriers. It is the first

study in Gaza Strip that make comprehensively case study about green building in all its

lifecycle. It could be used as a comparative guide for future sustainability development

and broadening understanding to increase knowledge of green buildings and create a

creative working environment.

1.11 Structure of the thesis

The thesis write-up is divided into six chapters to create a flow. The structure of the

thesis is therefore summarized as following:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter explains the background of the research. It provides the introduction to

guide the reader into the research topic. The problem statement and justification of the

study, research aim, objectives, questions, hypothesis, research delimitations, research

design, research limitations, and research contribution to knowledge as well as the

outline of the thesis are included in this chapter.

Chapter 2: Literature review

This chapter investigates Awareness level regarding sustainable (green) building

principles, benefits of sustainable buildings, barriers that face implementing sustainable

(green) buildings, and how to integrate sustainability concepts in building project life

cycle with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

`

10

Chapter 3: Research methodology

This chapter presents the detailed research design and methodology. The chapter also

explains the technique used in the analysis and issues related to data collection.

Chapter 4: Case study

This chapter present a case study that was applied in a green school in Nablus. The

results of this case study showed how can sustainability concepts be integrated in all

building project lifecycle.

Chapter 5: Results and discussions

The findings are shown and discussed in chapter five. After results were analyzed, they

are presented, discussed and linked with the previous studies in this chapter.

Chapter 6: Conclusion and recommendations

According to the final results, recommendations and conclusion of the research is

discussed in chapter six.

References

Appendices

`

11

Chapter 2

Literature review

`

12

Chapter 2

Literature review

2.1 Introduction

The pursuit of sustainable construction in many countries as an effort to enhance the

environmental, social and economic aspects puts the build environment and the

construction industry high in their agenda (Saleh, 2015). The construction sector is

complex and is characterized by a culture and organizational environment that

differentiate it from many other industrial sectors (Rezgui, Wilson and Li, 2010).

Buildings and structures enabled mankind to meet their social needs for shelter, to meet

economic needs for investment and to satisfy corporate objectives. It changes people’s

lifestyle, improves people’s standard of living and modernized a community. The

construction industry is regarded as an essential and highly visible contributor to the

process of growth of one country. Nevertheless, the adverse impacts on the environment

lead to a growing realization and acceptance throughout the world that there is a need for

a more responsible approach to the environment (Abidin and Jabbar, 2015).

In fact, buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account for

an important portion of the greenhouse gas emissions (Dania et al., 2013). With the

growing evidence that the phenomena of global warming and climate change are caused

by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it has become necessary to take immediate

action to avoid dangerous consequences for future generations (Taleb and Sharples,

2011). Buildings not only use resources such as energy and raw materials but they also

generate waste and potentially harmful atmospheric emissions (Alnaser et al., 2008).

Lippiatt (1999) argued that construction damages the fragile environment because of

adverse impacts of construction, this impacts include resource depletion, biological

diversity losses due to raw material extraction, landfill problems due to waste generation,

adverse human health due to poor indoor air quality, global warming, acid rain, and smog

due to emissions generated by building product manufacture and transport that consumes

energy. Ijigah, Jimoh, Aruleba and Ade (2013) and Zolfagharian (2012) conducted a

`

13

field survey in Nigeria and Malaysia respectively, and both of them concluded that

adverse impacts to the environment from the construction industry had lead to a growing

realization that there is a need for a more sustainable responsible approach to the current

practices. Shafii (2006) stated that buildings, infrastructure and the environment are part

of our living environment thus affecting our living conditions, social well-being and

health. Hence, it is important to explore environmentally and economically sound design

and development techniques for buildings and infrastructure for them to be sustainable,

healthy and affordable, and also which encourage innovation in construction. Due to that

matter the governments of a lot of countries introduces the “Sustainable Concept” in

construction could be applied to maintain the ecosystem (Bragança et al., 2010). A

strategy for sustainable construction is a significant milestone on the road to a more

socially and environmentally responsible. It creates a framework within which the

industry can make a strong contribution to the better future (Abidin and Al Jabbar, 2015).

Sustainable construction is seen as a way for the construction industry to contribute to the

effort to achieve sustainable development (Saleh, 2015; Abidin, 2010).

Williams and Dair (2007) concluded that building sustainably has many merits but

applying this concept is not easy as it requires changes to the old ways. Delivering

sustainable construction requires action from all engaged in constructing and maintaining

the structure or building including those providing design, consulting and construction

services. Sustainability requires the engagement of every single constituent of the

“building” product supply chain, from concept design to operation (Rezgui et al., 2010).

To increase the consideration to sustainability, the construction practitioners must be

willing to change their behavior in exploring new territory and willing to adopt new

products, ideas and practices (Ofori, Briffett, Gang and Ranasinghe, 2000). Because of the

merits and the growing interest on building sustainably, the race is now on for researchers

and construction practitioners worldwide to put their best foot forward and initiate actions

to reduce the negative impacts of development and sharpen their competitive edge. As

global interest on sustainability has steadily blooming (Abidin, 2010). It has a strong

“tacit” dimension. It can be nurtured (shared, enhanced, and transferred) through

`

14

discussion forums, story telling, or simple knowledge enrichment techniques such as

annotation. In fact, sustainability goals can only be achieved if shared and value-added

relevant resources of knowledge and expertise inform construction activities (Abidin and

Al Jabbar, 2015).

Rezgui et al. (2010) discussed awareness raising, stakeholders engagement, technical

requirements, and adoption and diffusion factors related to the platform through a filed

survey, comprised of questionnaire and interviews in UK and concluded that existing

knowledge on sustainability is multi-disciplinary (i.e. concerns various specialties,

including architecture, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electricity, plumbing). It

involves architectural and engineering sciences applied to the lifecycle of a building

project from concept design to demolition. Sustainability knowledge is available in the

form of, and embedded in, text documents, spreadsheets, drawings, promoting

sustainability awareness through energy engaged virtual communities images, video, and

in some cases, relational databases (e.g. product libraries). Sustainable construction can be

called as green construction that being adopted sustainability into construction industry

(Abidin, 2009). Besides that, the aim of sustainable construction goal is to minimize the

environment impact of a building over period of its lifetime and also provide

comfortability and safety to its occupants without discounting economic viability.

Furthermore, sustainable construction aims to balance between the needs of buildings for

shelter, business operations and infrastructure in order to achieve the quality of life

without neglecting on protecting natural resources and ecosystems. As mentioned

previously, sustainable construction is viewed as an approach for construction industry to

contribute to the effort to attain sustainable development (Bragança et al., 2010).

Alnaser et al. (2008) conducted afield survey in Bahrain comprised of a case study and

concluded that, as economy and population continue to expand, designers and builders

face a unique challenge to meet demands for new and renovated facilities that are

accessible, secure, healthy, and productive while minimizing their impact on the

environment. So , it is significant for decision makers to seek to implement the sustainable

construction which eliminates the negative impact on the construction industry (Bragança

`

15

et al., 2010). Overall, the construction industry is one of the biggest contributors to

pollution and waste through its lifecycle (Horvath, 2004). About 40% of the world's

resource and energy use is linked to the construction and maintenance of buildings. Over

30% of conventional buildings have poor indoor air quality and we spend about 90% of

our time indoors. These issues can be addressed by the Green building approach, which is

more sustainable than current practices (UNEP, 2007).

2.2 Sustainable Construction Definition

The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction

(CIB) defined sustainable construction as ‘the sustainable production, use, maintenance,

demolition, and reuse of buildings and constructions or their components’ (CIB, 2004, p.

02). Du Plessis, CIB and UNEP-IETC. (2002) defined sustainable construction as ‘a

holistic process aiming to restore and maintain harmony between the natural and the built

environments, and create settlements that affirm human dignity and encourage economic

equity’. This definition takes sustainability further than just reducing negative impact, by

introducing the idea of restoring the environment, as well as highlighting the social and

economic aspects of sustainability, explicitly defining what the goals for these aspects

are.Table 2.1 chronicles different interpretations ascribed to sustainable construction from

different and diverse sources.

Table (2.1): Different interpretations of sustainable construction

Source Interpretation of sustainable construction

Abidin and Al

Jabbar (2015)

Maintaining a balance between the human need for buildings (as shelter and business

operations) and infrastructure (quality of well-being), and preserving natural resources

and ecosystems for the current and future generations.

Pearce et al.

(2012)

Reduction in energy, material and water usage, reduction of wastes, careful

consideration of land use, air quality and indoor environment.

Augenbroe and

Pearce (2010)

Defined in a methodological framework, consisting of three main axes: System

(boundary), Process (actor), and Aspect (sustainability).

Du Plessis

(2007)

An integrative and holistic process of construction which aims to restore harmony

between the natural and the built environment.

Shelbourn et al.

(2006)

Activities that incorporated the three pillars of suitability - social, economic and

environmentally biased issues.

Bossink (2002) Key global issues that encompassed environmental assessment of buildings,

environmental design methods, urban sustainability and deconstruction.

`

16

Source Interpretation of sustainable construction

DETR (2000)

The construction industry: being more profitable and competitive; delivering greater

satisfaction, wellbeing and value; respecting/treating stakeholders more fairly;

enhancing/protecting natural environment; minimizing resource consumption.

Lanting (1998) A way of building which aims at reducing (negative) health and environmental impacts

caused by the construction process or by buildings or by the built environment.

Kibert (1994) The creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on the

prudent use of resources and ecological principles.

However, the most comprehensive definition was given by Du Plessis (2007), this

research will adopt Shelbourn et al. (2006) definition because its more familiar to this

study.

2.3 Sustainable Construction Concept

Construction’ and ‘sustainable’ are both highly comple concepts, and as a result there is

an ongoing debate about their scope and meaning. Placing these two terms together to

form a third further magnifies the interpretative dilemma. It is not possible simply to

define sustainable construction’ as ‘construction that is sustainable’ without first asking:

sustainable for whom and sustainable in what way (Du Plessis, 2007). According to Hill

and Bowen (1997), sustainable construction described the responsibility of the

construction sector in attaining ‘sustainability’. This is through reduction in energy,

material and water usage, reduction of wastes, careful consideration of land use, air

quality and indoor environment (Pearce et al., 2012).The concept of sustainable

construction governs three main pillars: environmental protection, social well-being and

economic prosperity (Abidin, 2010). Environmental protection concerns the built

environment and the natural environment. The built environment refers to the activities

within the construction project itself, which may, if not handled effectively, have a serious

adverse impact on the environment. Environmental sustainability is concerned with the

extraction of natural resources (Lop, Zain, Kamar, Salleh and Hamdan, 2012).

According to Sourani and Sohail (2011); Abidin (2010), and Hill and Bowen (1997),

sustainable construction, in general, refers to the application of the principles of

sustainable development to the construction industry. Sustainable construction

encompasses several dimensions which, at least, involve the following:

`

17

a) Social dimension: focusing on issues such as health and safety, security,

satisfaction, comfort involvement of stakeholders, equality ,knowledge, motivation

and diversity in the workplace and creating employment opportunities.

b) Economic dimension: focusing on issues such as whole life costing, support of

local economies and financial. monetary gains from the project for the benefits of

the clients, construction players, public and the government affordability for

intended beneficiaries.

c) Environmental dimension: focusing on issues such as reducing energy and water

consumption, using renewable resources and minimizing pollution.

d) Technical dimension: focusing in issues such as structure durability, quality,

attractiveness, adaptability, and Improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal,

visual and acoustic quality) Abidin and Pasquire, 2005; Ashley, Blackwood, Butler,

Jowitt and Smith, 2003; Williams, 2000; Hill and Bowen, 1997)

Some publications have mentioned other dimensions of sustainability such as cultural

sustainability (CIB, 1999; Ofori, 1998), community sustainability and managerial

sustainability (Ofori, 1998). Sustainable construction seeks for proper management of all

aspects of building design, construction, operations and use which can dramatically

reduce the overall cost of a building throughout its life, without necessarily costing more

at the design and building stages when strategically planned. Additionally, sustainable

construction improves the performance of building projects at every stage, both in

financial and environmental (Shafii, Ali, and Othman, 2006). Sustainable construction

ethos require a ‘cradle to grave’ appraisal of project, which involves managing the

serviceability of project during its life-time and eventual deconstruction’ focus on the

economic aspect of sustainability (Djokoto, Dadzie and Ohemeng-Ababio, 2014; Wyatt,

1994). To pursue sustainable construction, the industry is expected to evolve its processes

of creating the built environment (The built environment refers to the activities within the

construction project itself, which may, if not handled effectively, have a serious adverse

impact on the environment). It requires continuous innovations, interventions and

interdependency at various levels of society (Dania et al., 2013).

`

18

2.4 Sustainable Building Approach

Sustainable building approach is considered as a way for the building industry to move

towards achieving sustainable development taking into account environmental, socio and

economic issues (Akadiri, Chinyio and Olomolaiye, 2012). It is also a way to portray the

industry’s responsibility towards protecting the environment (Abidin, 2010; Shen, Tam,

Tam and Ji, 2010; Ofori, 1998). The practice of sustainable building refers to various

methods in the process of implementing building projects that involve less harm to the

environment, prevention of waste production (Ruggieri et al., 2009), increased reuse of

waste in the production of building material, waste management, beneficial to the society,

and profitable to the company (Asokan, Osmani and Price, 2009; Tam, 2009).

Hill and Bowen (1997) stated that sustainable building starts at the planning stage of a

building and continues throughout its life to its eventual deconstruction and recycling of

resources to reduce the waste stream associated with demolition (Akadiri et al., 2012).

Hussin, Abdul Rahman and Memon (2013) conducted a survey in Malaysia and

concluded that the best approach toward sustainable construction should involve

commitment to:

a) Economic sustainability: increasing profitability by making more efficient use of

resources, including labor, materials, water and energy.

b) Environmental sustainability: preventing harmful and potential irreversible effects

on the environment by careful use of natural resources, minimizing waste,

protecting and where possible enhancing the environment.

c) Social sustainability: responding to the needs of people at whatever stage of

involvement in the construction process (from commissioning to demolition),

providing high customer satisfaction and working closely with clients, suppliers,

employees and local communities.

Wang (2014) conducted an interviews through his research in China and concluded that,

the pre-construction stage is crucial to the selection of appropriate design and materials to

reduce pollution. Wong, Li, Huang, Luo and Li (2013) developed a virtual prototyping

`

19

design tool, to assist in the design of low-carbon construction, aiming to reduce the energy

consumption of buildings. Life cycle assessment was used in sustainable building design

(Ortiz, Pasqualino, Diez and Castells, 2010), in order to achieve long-term sustainable

performance of the building products. Some research focused on the construction stage,

for example Chen, Okudan and Riley (2010) identified sustainable performance criteria

for the selection of construction methods as regards concrete buildings. The sustainable

performance of buildings at the operational stage, was also addressed by researchers

(Wang, Wei and Sun, 2014). The emergence of a variety of sustainability systems in the

current construction industry provides a means for assessment, ranging from leadership in

energy and environmental design (LEED), building research establishment environmental

assessment method (BREEAM), national Australian building environmental rating system

(NABERS), green mark, and three star to Hong Kong building environmental assessment

method (BEAM Plus) (Goh and Rowlinson, 2013).

2.5 Principles of Sustainable Building

Sustainability is a dynamic concept. It requires decision makers to be flexible and willing

to modify their approaches (Hussin et al., 2013). To achieve sustainable construction, it is

very important to balance the basic principles of sustainability i.e. environment, economic

and social aspect together (Mensah and Castro, 2004). Table 2.2 summarized principles of

sustainable building according to (Hussin et al., 2013; Halliday, 2008; Kibert, 2008;

Abidin and Pasquire, 2005; DETR, 2000; Cole and Larsson, 1999; Hill and Bowen, 1997;

Miyatake, 1996). These principles will form a framework for achieving sustainable

building that includes an environmental assessment during the planning and design stages

of building projects, and the implementation of sustainable practices. It will be used to

guide the process of construction at all levels and within all disciplines. From them, it is

possible to extrapolate an endless series of project or discipline-specific principles and

guidelines, which can assure that decisions taken follow the road of sustainable

development.

`

20

Table (2.2): Principles of sustainable building

Author Proposed principles for sustainable building

Huss

in e

t al.

(2

01

3)

a) Environment Aspect

Increase material efficiency by reducing the material demand of non-renewable goods.

Reduce the material intensity via substitution technologies.

Enhance material recyclability.

Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic materials.

Reduce the energy required for transforming goods and supplying services.

Support the instruments of international conventions and agreements.

Maximize the sustainable use of biological and renewable resources.

Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil, water, flora, and fauna.

b) Economic Aspect

Consider life-cycle costs.

Internalize external costs.

Consider alternative financing mechanisms.

Develop appropriate economic instruments to promote sustainable consumption

Consider the economic impact on local structures.

c) Social Aspect

Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders.

Promote public participation.

Promote the development of appropriate institutional frameworks.

Consider the influence on the existing social framework.

Assess the impact on health and the quality of life.

Hal

lid

ay (

20

08

)

Economy: Good project management is a vital overarching aspect in delivering sustainable

projects, both in the short and long term.

Using Resources Effectively: Buildings should not use a disproportionate amount of resources,

including money, energy, water, materials and land during construction, use or disposal.

Supporting Communities: Projects should clearly identify and seek to meet the real needs,

requirements and aspirations of communities and stakeholders while involving them in key

decisions.

Creating Healthy Environments: Projects should enhance living, leisure and work

environments; and not endanger the health of the builders, users, or others, through exposure

to pollutants or other toxic materials.

Enhancing biodiversity: Projects should not use materials from threatened species or

environments and should seek to improve natural habitats where possible through appropriate

planting and water use and avoidance of chemicals.

Minimising pollution: Projects should create minimum dependence on polluting materials,

treatments, fuels, management practices, energy and transport.

`

21

Author Proposed principles for sustainable building

Kib

ert

(20

08)

The creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on resource

efficiency and ecological principles

Ab

idin

an

d P

asq

uir

e

(20

05)

Showing concern for people by ensuring they live in a healthy, safe and productive built

environment and in harmony with nature, Safeguarding the interests of future generations while at

the same time, meeting today's needs, Evaluating the benefits and costs of the project to society

and environment., Minimizing damage to the environmental and its resources, Improving the

quality of buildings and services and promote social cohesiveness, Using technology and expert

knowledge to seek information and in improving project efficiency and effectiveness, Legislating

compliance and responsibility.

DE

TR

(2000) Profitability and competitiveness, customers and clients satisfaction and best value, respect and

treat stakeholders fairly, enhance and protect the natural environment, and minimize impact on

energy consumption and natural resources.

Cole

and

Lar

sson

(1999) Reduction in resource consumption (energy, land, water, materials), environmental loadings

(airborne emissions, solid waste, liquid waste) and improvement in indoor environmental quality

(air, thermal, visual and acoustic quality)

Hil

l an

d

Bow

en (

1997)

Social pillar: improve the quality of life, provision for social self-determination and cultural

diversity, protect and promote human health through a healthy and safe working environment

and etc.

Economic pillar: ensure financial affordability, employment creation, adopt full cost accounting,

enhance competitiveness, sustainable supply chain management. Biophysical pillar: waste

management, prudent use of the four generic construction resources (water, energy, material and

land)

Technical pillar: construct durable, functional, quality structure etc. These four principles are

contained within a set of over-arching, process-oriented principles (e.g., prior impact assessment

of activities).

Miy

atak

e

(19

96

) Minimization of resource consumption, maximization of resources reuse, use of renewable and

recyclable resources, protection of the natural environment, create a healthy and non-toxic

environment, and pursue quality in creating the built environment.

Building construction practitioners worldwide are beginning to appreciate sustainability

and acknowledge the advantages of implementing sustainable principles in building

projects. For example, implementing sustainable buildings will contribute positively to

better quality of life, work efficiency and healthy work environment as demonstrated by

Pettifer (2004). This was further supported by Abidin and Powmya (2014), who added

`

22

that the concept of sustainable building costs lower than conventional method and saves

energy.

2.6 Sustainable Development

“Sustainable development” can be defined as satisfying present needs without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Xinzheng, Ruixue and

Cheng, 2009). Sustainable development has gained increasing momentum in the past

decades due to a growing public concern on the environmental and social development

(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Global phenomena such as the depletion of natural

resources, carbon emission, climate change, and ecological development have triggered

the alarm on the importance of pursuing sustainable development. Significant effort

should go to the construction sector for improving sustainable development since the

construction industry has accounted for a large amount of natural resources exploitation,

land use, waste production, energy use, and carbon emission (Alyami and Rezgui, 2012;

Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; and UNEP, 2007).

In essence sustainable development is about managing the relationship between the needs

of humans and their environment (biophysical and social) in such a way that critical

environmental limits are not exceeded and modern ideals of social equity and basic

human rights (including the ‘right to development’) are not obstructed (Dzemyda and

Jurgeleviicius, 2014). The purpose is to avoid environmental and/ or social meltdown,

thus ‘sustaining’ the existence of not only modern society, but the future of the human

species (Du Plessis, 2007).

The relationship between humans and their environment is determined by a number of

factors, the first is the interpretation of ‘quality of life’ held by a particular society. This is

the main determinant of the needs that have to be met, the second factor is the choices

made in terms of the technological, political, economic and other systems adopted by

mainstream society. These two factors are informed by the particular value system a

society subscribes to. This value system not only determines the relationship between

people within that society, but also how a society responds to its biophysical environment.

`

23

The biophysical, in turn, influences these choices through the limitations of its source and

sink capacities. Within this complex relationship a number of responses are possible,

some wiser than others (Du Plessis, 2007). The building sector takes a large share of the

world’s energy consumption and it accounts for about 30-40% of the worldwide primary

energy (UNEP, 2007). The construction sector hence offers the largest single potential for

improving the performance of sustainable development significantly (Goh and Rowlinson,

2013). According to the overall requirements of building an economical society, and in

order to fulfill the scientific approach from an all-round way, it is necessary to carry out a

scientific evaluation on the sustainable development of the civil engineering construction,

to conclude the previous experience and failures so as to provide workable strategic

references for the future projects (Xinzheng and Ruixue, 2009).

The sustainability of the civil engineering consists of three aspects. One is the

sustainability of economy and finance. It requires the effective usage of the related

resources. Another is the sustainability of the environment and ecology. The last one is

the sustainability of the society. It is asked to improve economic benefit and benefit the

public. Therefore, the sustainable development of civil engineering construction can be

interpreted as the rationality of the economic benefits, the compatibility of environment

and ecology, as well as the acceptability of the public (Xinzheng and Ruixue, 2009).

2.7 Sustainability Awareness of Developed and Developing Countries

regarding Sustainability Issues

2.7.1 Importance of Raising the Awareness regard to Sustainable Buildings in

Developing Countries

Wang (2014) concluded that the environmental impact of the construction industry in the

developing countries is more serious than that in the developed countries, therefore, the

developing countries should pay more attention to sustainability in the rapid development

of their infrastructure and public facilities construction. Construction in developing

countries exemplifies a paradox. While it improves the much needed infrastructure base

required for the socio-economic development they desperately needs, it also has damaging

consequences. Lessons from their more developed counterparts indicate that better

`

24

consideration of the environment, societies and financial resources can be made in line

with the tenets of sustainable development (Dania et al., 2013).Sustainable construction

has different approaches and different priorities in various countries resulting from the

market economies. Unsurprisingly, there are divergent views and interpretations of the

term between the developed and developing countries (Shafii, 2006).

The Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries was launched as a

discussion document during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in

Johannesburg in 2002. It defined sustainable development as “the kind of development

that need to be pursued in order to achieve the state of sustainability. It is a continuous

process of maintaining a dynamic balance between the demands of people for equity,

prosperity and quality of life which is ecologically possible”. This document suggests a

strategic framework and a stakeholder’s plan of action (Du Plessis et al., 2002). This

framework captures a broad strategy for wholesome adoption of sustainability. However,

the implementation of these suggestions provides a bigger challenge. This document is the

result of a collaborative process representing an important step in the empowerment of

developing countries with an agenda that was prepared entirely by experts from

developing countries to answer to the specific needs and challenges of developing

countries. It also marks the first milestone in a new partnership between the International

Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) and UNEP-

IETC on sustainable construction in developing countries Although there are various

definitions, the aims and goals of sustainable construction remain the same.

Sustainable construction is a way for the building industry to move towards achieving

sustainable development, taking into account environmental, socio-economic and cultural

issues (Shafii, 2006). However, developing countries are often faced with challenges and

priorities that are different from those of more advanced countries. These include, but are

not limited to huge infrastructure and housing deficit, weak institutions of Government,

rapidly rising population, skills shortage, social inequity and relative unstable political

climate (Du Plessis, 2007; Ofori, 1998). Rapid rates of urbanization, deep poverty, social

inequity, low skills levels, institutional incapacity, weak governance, uncertain economic

`

25

environment and environmental degradation which makes development very challenging

(Du Plessis, 2007; Ofori, 1998) in addition to a poor infrastructure base.

As a consequence, they have not been able to replicate most of the progress made towards

sustainable construction globally. However, some of these underdevelopment especially

in the built asset is viewed by some researchers (Du Plessis, 2007) as providing the

opportunity to avoid the mistakes of more developed countries. Considering their recent

rapid rate of urbanization and the acceleration of infrastructure development, it is

imperative for the developing world to prevent avoidable negative impacts of construction

by latching on to the sustainability agenda (Du Plessis, 2007). Despite all the drivers of,

and sustainability becoming an important focal point from a global construction

perspective (Thorpe and Ryan, 2007), evidence in literature of any serious progress in this

regard in developing countries are very little.

2.7.2 Sustainable Building Awareness in Developed Countries

In contrast with most developing countries that are still taking the initial steps towards

achieving sustainable development, many of the developed countries are past this stage to

a more mature phase where sustainability standards and regulations have been enacted

and implemented, and are in constant change for the better. For instance, there are many

bodies in the United States of America that contribute to the implementation of

sustainable development, most importantly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

which issues laws and regulations, compliances and enforcements. The EPA addresses the

construction sector by monitoring air pollution, waste, and other hazardous pollutants

resulting from construction (Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

In UAE, sustainable development (SD) is a very important concept. This region exhibits a

fast growing economy exposed to extreme heat conditions and desertification risks .the

heavy reliance on natural gas and the increasing demand for air-conditioning and

desalination have made the UAE one of the biggest carbon emitters on a per capita basis.

This makes the conservation of energy vital and a strategic planning to reduce the

environmental harm essential (Wilen, 2008). The UAE ratified several international

conventions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Convention to Combat

`

26

Desertification, which shows its commitment to preserve the environment. Besides, the

Emirates Green Building Council (EGBC) plays a key role in protecting the environment

and in raising public awareness (Qaemi and Heravi, 2012).

Among the United Arab Emirates, Dubai is taking a leading edge towards sustainable

construction. In fact, the Government of Dubai, Dubai Electricity and Water Authority,

and the Municipality of Dubai coordinated the creation and implementation of the “Green

Building Regulations & Specifications”. This code, inspired by the LEED system, is

applicable to all the buildings in Dubai and targets areas such as ecology and planning,

building vitality, and resource effectiveness in terms of energy, water, material and waste

(Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

Accordingly, more than 300 buildings are certified to be green today in Dubai alone. As

for the emirate of Abu Dhabi, its Urban Planning Council (UPC) has introduced a

framework for sustainable design, construction and operation under the name of Estidama

Pearl Rating System. All new buildings, villas, and government-owned and operated

buildings are required to achieve a minimum sustainability score under the Pearl system.

(Abidin and Powmya, 2014).

Another huge leap towards leadership in sustainability is the fact that the country has

started its project to host the 2022 World Cup in 12 stadiums presenting zero carbon

impact and relying on solar power for all functions. This would definitely become an

inspiring incentive for the region. On the other hand, Qatar who is living a period of

economic prosperity and construction boom has been also one of the leading countries in

the Arab region in the sustainability field. Qatar has combined regional and international

certification systems into one comprehensive system QSAS which had been mentioned in

Table 2.3.

On the other hand, the European Union Member States have also formulated their long-

term strategy to achieve economic, social and environmental sustainable development and

have set certain targets to reach by 2020. Along its sustainability plan, the European

Commission has issued many policies and legislations impacting the construction industry

some targeting the energy efficiency of buildings, control over hazardous construction

`

27

materials and others addressing workers’ conditions. Among these regulations are the

Waste Framework Directive which aims at providing a better management of wastes

resulting from the construction industry, and the Energy Efficiency Package aiming at

reducing energy consumption (Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

This frameworks emphasize the importance of monitoring construction products by

classifying and regulating dangerous substances used in the construction industry such as

chemicals, waste issues, indoor emissions, soil and groundwater releases, etc. Moreover,

the European Commission has put into action several incentives that encourage its states

and their local governments to improve their environment and commit to sustainable

development. One of these initiatives is the European Green Capital award which is

granted to the city that has the highest environmental standards and which can be a role

model that inspires other European cities to compete for sustainability (Abidin and

Powmya, 2014).

Another such incentive is the One Billion Euros research investment entitled “Energy-

Efficient Buildings” and financed jointly by EC and the industry. This programme was

launched in July 2009 and aims at promoting the integration of green technologies and

energy efficient materials in new buildings in order to reduce CO2 emissions and save on

energy usage. To summarize, it is clear that Western countries are taking a huge leap

towards achieving sustainability due to the complementary efforts of their governments

and non-governmental agencies. They mostly exhibit a dynamic platform for green

construction supported by public awareness and a legislative body that ensures the

orientation of the industry in the proper direction (Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

2.7.3 Sustainable Building Awareness in Developing Countries

Sustainable development is recently becoming one of the top concerns in the Middle East

region. around 20% of the wealthy investors in the Middle East region, have already

invested in green related technologies (Cohen, 2006). In fact, green building councils

have been established in most of the Arab states, and while some rely on previously

established rating systems such as LEED, others create their own rating systems such as

the ARZ system in Lebanon, Estidama in the United Arab Emirates and the QSAS in

`

28

Qatar. On the other hand, the UNDP has been active as well through a comprehensive

plan on the regional scale to help the Arab countries save their environment threatened by

water scarcity, desertification and other concerns.

The UNDP has been working closely with governments through its Country Office to

tackle certain problems on the national level: combating desertification, improving water

management, mobilizing funding from the Global Environment Facility, and taking an

integrated approach to climate change. The Middle East region, hindered by natural

constraints and underlying political and social issues, has tried over the years to shift

towards more sustainable practices in design and construction (Alobaidi, Abdul Rahim,

Mohammed and S Baqutayan, 2015; Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

Sustainability is still a relatively new concept for the construction industry in the

developing countries of Southeast Asia. South-East Asia comprised of Malaysia,

Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, Burma and

Philippines (Shafi, 2006). A number of Southeast Asian countries have yet to formulate a

sustainable development strategy and action plan; others are still establishing the basic

legal framework for the environmental protection and management, and for the

environmental impact assessment. Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines have prepared

their Agenda 21 national sustainable development strategies. Singapore has a Green Plan;

Thailand a National Economic and Social Development Plan; Vietnam a National

Strategy for Environmental Protection to 2010, and Malaysia a Vision 2020 (Shafi and

Othman, 2005).

Asia Vision 2020 envisaged: “a clean and green Asia with fully established mechanisms

for sustainable development to ensure the protection of the region's environment, the

sustainability of its natural resources, and the high quality of life of its peoples.”

Construction was included in the goals of Asia Vision 2020 with focus on energy security,

utilization of natural resources, management of energy demands all taking into

consideration of the environment. Other initiatives include the development of regional

water conservation programme and enhancing regional efforts in addressing climate

change (Shafi, 2006).

`

29

The clamor by stakeholders for sustainable development in Nigeria is only relatively

recent. Prior to 1989, when a national environmental policy was enacted, policies

governing the environment were fragmented and scattered in different Government

agencies documents (Ajayi and Ikporukpo, 2005). This policy has been revised once and

regulations on the environment are only being formulated recently (NESREA, 2007). In

fact, Nigeria is lagging behind world developments associated with sustainability within

the construction sector and beyond (Dania et al., 2013). In Malaysia, the green movement

is still at the infancy stage whereby sustainable projects are mostly at the preliminary

stage (Abidin, 2010).

The National Green Technology Policy was launched in 2009 reflects the Malaysian

Government’s commitment to move towards sustainable construction based on green

practices in which will benefit current and future issues related to economic, social and

environment and also quality of life. Such policy indicates that government is seriously

encouraging the efforts in tackling green issues in the country that complement the global

vision on sustainable development (Idris and Ismail, 2011).

Abidin (2010) pointed out that there are a modest number of sustainable projects in

Malaysia and this showed that sustainability concept being slow adopted among

construction practitioner. Thus, this indicates that the concerted efforts by the government

sector, private agencies and educational institutions have not fully applied into

construction work. It showed that there is still lack of effort in the application of the

sustainable concept among construction practitioner and this scenario shown that it seems

difficult for the Malaysian construction industry to further implement the sustainable

construction. Hence, more efforts are needed and should be directed towards the green

agenda of the industry in order to increase the level of environmental awareness and civic

consciousness among the people to build sustainably in the future.

Green technology was further emphasized in the 9th Malaysia Plan (2006–2010) to

promote sustainability in the built environment and raise awareness among construction

practitioner concerning the environmental issues. This indicates serious effort by the

`

30

government to support sustainable development in order to address sustainability issues

and meeting its target and obligations in this regards (Idris and Ismail, 2011).

In developing countries, like Saudi Arabia, which have been experiencing a rapid rate of

urbanization, sustainable concept intervention is essential due to the scarcity of resources

(Reffat, 2004). Sustainable building methods include the full use of the site design,

passive solar design, natural light and ventilation (Susilawati and Al Surf, 2011). Several

initiatives were taken by the kingdom, most importantly, the adoption of the Green

Building EcoSENS program that aims to raise awareness and provides training for local

engineers for the LEED certification program. Also, new buildings for Princess Noura

University and the Ministry of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia are applying LEED

standards. The Saudi Green Building Council is also playing an important role in

spreading awareness and providing a platform for various construction sectors to facilitate

green construction (Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015; Taleb and Sharples, 2011).

Jordan is a developing country suffering from the global problems of energy and the

increasing of pollution, especially with poor resources of energy and inefficient use of it.

This state force Jordan to adopt a number of policies that enhance energy efficiency,

develop investment energy proposals, supports the sustainable development by using

clean and environmentally friendly resources, and apply baseline parameters in

accordance with international standards (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources,

2009). The concern of environment and sustainable development has been increased

recently in Jordan. Therefore, Jordan established different institutions that concern

sustainable issues environmental social, and economical beside other non-governmental

organizations.

Even Jordan emphasizes the role of laws and regulations as an approach ensuring

sustainable development through reducing waste and providing adequate supplies at an

affordable cost that limit human wrong practices (Ali and Nsairat, 2009). Many efforts are

put into the matter, and the Jordan Green Building Council has been established in 2009

taking part of the World Green Building Council. Additionally, other bodies such as the

Jordan Engineers Association are working closely with other regional bodies such as the

`

31

Gulf Organization for Research and Development to promote sustainability (Alsubeh,

2013).

Egypt is also at a preliminary stage of launching and implementing a strategic sustainable

development plan. The Egyptian Green Building Council was established in 2009

encouraging the implementation of already existing codes aiming to preserve the

environment, combat desertification, and reduce energy consumption in buildings (Reffat,

2004). Liu, Zhou, Wennersten and Frostell (2014) analyzed the different approaches to

sustainable urban development in China, and pointed out the main barrier for China to

develop sustainable cities was the lack of clear targets, visions and indicators for

sustainable development. The research of Wang and Chang (2014) on low-carbon

development in China suggested the government should establish stricter regulations and

strengthen law enforcement in sustainable development of cities. most of researches

focused mostly on the negative effects of the construction industry in China's economic

and sustainable development. However there is a lack of research on positive and negative

role of the construction industry in the economical, social and environmental

sustainability of the country which is experiencing the fastest urban development in the

world (Wang, 2014).

In Yemen, the construction industry in the developing economy is plagued by difficult

economic and technical problems, which permeate most aspects of the industry. In

addition, construction procedures in Yemen consume excessive capital, time and

resources that have a direct flow on effect for the national economy and the nations socio-

economic development.

Macroeconomic problems in unemployment, inflation and an inequitable balance of

payments all add to the existing difficult economic situation in the construction industry.

Further, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, weak and inefficient legal, administrative

and financial institution are also major contributor. The recent global shift to sustainable

development also requires that the construction industry in Yemen initiate important

strategic developmental policies in order to meet future demand for economical and

sustainable development (Sultan, 2005).

`

32

2.8 Sustainability Assessment Systems Tools Used All over the World

Various assessment tools and methods have focused on different perspectives of

sustainability and different targeted projects. Project performance is benchmarked against

a set of prescribed qualitative and quantitative criteria and a single score will subsequently

be used after balancing all achieved criteria in a designed weighting scheme (Goh and

Rowlinson, 2013; and Idris and Ismail, 2011). Ding (2008) believes sustainability

assessment systems have enhanced the awareness of sustainability building practices and

provided a structured and objective way to measure progress towards sustainability. In

addition, the systems also lay down a fundamental direction for the construction industry

to move towards sustainable development (Ding, 2008).

The market for sustainable construction can be stimulated and promoted by applying the

systems in the construction practices. Besides, sustainability assessment systems have also

furthered the promotion of higher sustainable expectations and are directly or indirectly

influencing the sustainable performance of buildings (Cole, 2005). Table 2.3 summarizes

the use of various existing sustainability performance tools that are commonly used in the

construction industry. Another rating system were mentioned by Goh and Rowlinson

(2013) and Bragança et al. (2010) such as Eco-labeling in Europe, Green-Calc in the

Netherlands, Green Olympic Building Assessment System (GOBAS) in China, TERI-

GRIHA in India, Green Building Rating System (GBRS) in Korea, Green Mark in

Singapore, and SBTool 'Sustainable Building Tool' in Canada.

2.9 Approaches to Building Sustainability

2.9.1 Sustainability Indicators of a Building Project

The sustainability indicators of the construction and real estate sector give information

about the influences of the industry as a whole, and about the impacts of the construction

and operation of buildings and other built assets. Different approaches for indicators exist

due to differences between societies, industrial traditions, environment, and geography.

The sustainability indicators for a building project can be selected from various lists prepared at

the level of the government, sector, and community (Bragança et al., 2010).

`

33

Table (2.3): Summary of various sustainability assessment tools

Assessment

Method Ori

gin

Characteristic Reference

BREEAM-

BRE

Environmental

Assessment

Method

Un

ited

Kin

gdo

me,

Bu

ildin

g R

esea

rch

Est

abli

shm

ent

(199

0) Launched in 1990

First environmental assessment system used internationally

Used four levels of ratings excellent, very good, good and

pass.

Sustainability assessment system

Each criterion weighted based on its importance.

means of reviewing and improving the environmental

performance of buildings.

Hussin et al.

(2013); Jawali

and

Fernández-

Solís (2008)

LEED.

Leadership in

Energy and

Environmental

Design

.

US

A (

2000).

Dev

eloped

by t

he

US

Gre

en B

uil

din

g C

ounci

l

A certification process developed to create an industrial

standard

Self-assessing system awards rating of certified, silver, gold

and platinum

Use simple checklist format to rate building performance

For new and existing commercial, institutional, high-rise

residential & major renovation

Comprises 5 areas of sustainability

A voluntary tool

Promotes a whole-building approach by recognizing

performance in the sustainable site development, water

savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor

environment quality

Hussin et al.

(2013); Jawali

and

Fernández-

Solís (2008);

Seo et al.

(2006); Yau et

al. (2006);

Crawley and

Aho (1999);

Larsson

(1999).

ABGR-

Australian

Building

Greenhouse

Rating

Aust

rali

a

Dep

artm

ent

of

Com

mer

ce,

NS

W

(2005)

Performance based assessment tool

Star rating on the scale of 1 to 5

National approach to benchmarking

Based on 12 months of energy consumption

Seo, Tucker,

Ambrose,

Mitchell, and

Wang (2006)

BASIX-

Building and

Sustainability

Index

Dep

artm

ent

of

Infr

astr

uct

ure

,

Pla

nnin

g a

nd

Nat

ura

l

Res

ou

rces

(2

004) Web-based planning tool for residential development

To assess the water and energy efficiency of new residential

developments

NatHERS and AccuRate are simulation packages used to

assess energy performance

It is mandatory for all new residential development and a

BASIX certificate is required for development approval

Seo et al.

(2006)

GBI. Green

Building Index

Mal

aysi

a

(20

09)

Launched in 2009

Comprises of 6 key criteria for rating the green building in

Malaysia. The criteria are based on Energy Efficiency,

Indoor Environmental Quality, Sustainable Site Planning

and Management, Material and Resources, Water Efficiency

and Innovation.

Hussin et al.

(2013)

`

34

Assessment

Method Ori

gin

Characteristic Reference

BEAM.

Building

Environmental

Assessment

Method. Ho

ng

Ko

ng

Defines over 100 best practice criteria to prevent pollution and

reduce resource consumption across the whole life of a

building, whilst providing a healthy environment inside and

outdoors.

Hussin et al.

(2013)

CASBEE-

Comprehensive

Assessment

System for

Building

Environmental

Efficiency

Jap

an (

20

04)

Developed by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium

and introduced in 2004

Applicable in accordance with the stages of a development

in predesign, new construction, existing building and

renovation

It is based on the concept of closed ecosystems to determine

the environmental capacities

Consideration for regional Character

Hussin et al.

(2013); Jawali

and

Fernández-

Solís (2008);

Seo

et al. (2006);

Yau et al.

(2006); Cole

(2005)

GBTool –

Green Building

Challenge

Inte

rnat

ional

(1995).

Inte

rnat

ional

coll

abora

tion o

f over

20

countr

ies

The most comprehensive framework

Absolute performance indicators to complement the relative

scores

More than 90 individual performance assessment

Four levels of weighting

A comprehensive evaluation method that can be used by

different regions with the adjustment of regional variations

Seo et al.

(2006); Yau et

al. (2006);

Cole (2001);

Kohler (1999);

Cole (1998);

Larsson (1998)

SpeAR-

Sustainable

Project

Appraisal

Routine

AR

UP

, D

evel

op

ed

by

pri

vat

e

arch

itec

tura

l fi

rm,

AR

UP

A project assessment methodology within Ove Arup’s

consulting projects

To enable a rapid review of project sustainability

Use a graphical format to present sustainable design

Yau et al.

(2006); Cole

(2005);

Clement-

Croome

(2004)

CEPAS

Comprehensive

Environmental

Performance

Assessment

Scheme

aspects are also

integrated into

all CEPAS

categories and

indicators.

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

A holistic assessment tool for various building types with

clear demarcation of the entire building life-cycle, which

covers the pre-design, design, construction & demolition and

operation stages.

The element of sustainability has been built into this

assessment scheme. Issues of broader sense of sustainability

as well as extending environmental sustainability to social

and economic

Hussin et al.

(2013)

`

35

Assessment

Method Ori

gin

Characteristic Reference

R-2000 C

anad

a A voluntary national standard whose technical requirements

involve three main areas of construction: energy

performance, indoor air quality and environmental

responsibility.

Hussin et al.

(2013)

Eco-Effect

Sw

eden

A national environmental assessment system focusing on the

environmental effects of the use of energy and materials,

indoor and outdoor environment and life cycle costs

Hussin et al.

(2013)

Green Pyramid

Rating System

(GPRS)

Egypt

(20

10) It can be used to assess individual new buildings at either or both

of the Design Stage and/or the Post-Construction Stage . Two

further documents – The Green Pyramid Rating System for New

Buildings at Post-Occupancy Stage and The Green Pyramid

Rating System for Existing Buildings will be produced at a later

date.

Elmeligy

(2014)

Estidama

Unit

ed A

rab E

mir

ate

(UA

E)

Launched in 2008.

Estidama is not a program, a rating method or something

people do, it is a vision and a desire to achieve a new

sustainable way of life in the Arab world in the Arab world.

Estidama aims to revive the ecological and cultural

sensitivity (traditions) of the people to their environment.

Estidama arose from the need to properly plan design

construct and Estidama arose from the need to properly plan,

design, construct and operate sustainable developments with

respect to the local traditions and climate.

Alobaidi et al.

(2015)

QSAS

Qat

ar

QSAS is a green building certification system developed for

the State of Qatar.

QSAS has manuals and toolkits and online project

management is responsible for suite. QSAS Design manuals

consist of a set of criteria and measurements and reference

guides used to assess the sustainability performance for

buildings.

QSAS has three stages of rating systems: Design,

Construction and Operations.

Attia and

Dabaieh

(2013)

ARZ

Leb

ano

n

The ARZ Building Rating System (BRS) is designed to measure

the extent to which existing commercial buildings in Lebanon are

healthy, comfortable places for working and doing business,

consuming the right amount of energy and water, while having a

low impact upon the natural environment. In addition, the rating

system will stimulate building owners and facility managers to

achieve ever-higher certification levels to attract discerning

tenants and clients

Attia and

Dabaieh

(2013)

`

36

Agenda 21 (1999) stated that the framework of relevant issue areas should be based on the

assumption that a sustainable building approach includes all factors that may affect the

natural environment or human health. For a contractor or facility manager, it is important

to differentiate between the criteria and tools used to assess technology at the generic or

global level, and the approach used at the site specific application or local level (UNEP,

2003). In spite of some differences between lists of the indicators, most of them deal

directly or indirectly with the following key issues: resources consumption, environmental

pressure, energy and water efficiency, indoor air quality, comfort, and life cycle costs.

An indicator is expressed by a value derived from a combination of different measurable

parameters (variables). Indicators have to be defined in a clear, transparent, unambiguous,

and correct way, even before addressing the concern of whether they relate to and

evaluate several parameters. The indicators are usually grouped (aggregated, categorized)

into eight categories: Project management, resources consumption, indoor environmental

quality, material aspects, environmental loading, building services, social and economic

aspects, design features, and innovations (Nguyen and Altan, 2013), and further various

aggregated indicators may create subgroups in a hierarchic. By using questionnaire and

interview survey, Tam, Tam, Zeng and Chan (2006) suggested environmental

performance measurement indicators in construction, including regulatory compliance,

auditing activities and resource consumption.

2.9.2 Managing and Assessing Building Sustainability

Tam et al. (2006) stated that Building Sustainability Assessment (BSA) methods can be

oriented to different scales of analysis: building material, building product, construction

element, independent zone, building and the neighborhood. By analyzing the scopes of

the most important sustainability support and assessment systems and tools, it is possible

to distinguish three types of assessment methods:

Systems to manage building performance (Performance Based Design);

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) systems;

Sustainable building rating and certification systems.

`

37

2.9.2.1 Managing Building Performance

Performance Based Building is an approach to building-related processes, products, and

services, with a focus on the required outcomes (the ‘end’). This approach allows for any

design solution (the ‘means’) which can be shown to meet design objectives (Koukkari

and Huovila, 2005). The comprehensive implementation of the performance approach is

dependent on further advancement in the following three key areas: the description of

appropriate building performance requirements, the methods for delivering the required

performance, and the methods for verifying that the required performance has been

achieved. Bragança et al. (2010) had developed a generic hierarchical model which help

to provide a common platform for defining the desired qualities of a building and to

develop a common language for different disciplines, as well as to serve as a basis for the

development of design and technical solutions. The choice of the objectives in the

hierarchical presentation also shows, to some extent, the values of the developer. Based

on the hierarchy of performance objectives and their targeted qualities, alternate design

and technical solutions can be developed. The capability of different solutions to fulfill

the performance criteria can be studied with verification methods. Figure 2.1 represents a

generic model of a building’s performance analysis.

This kind of method provides some important benefits to both end users and other

participants in the building process, since it promotes substantial improvements in the

overall performance of the building, encourages the use of construction solutions that

better fit the use of the building, and promotes a better understanding and communication

of client and user requirements. Tools to support decision-making, in accordance with the

principles of performance based design, have been developed mainly in research

communities (Bragança et al., 2010).

2.9.2.2 Integrated Life-Cycle-Analysis of Buildings

The complete Building Sustainability Assessment (BSA) comprises the ways in which

built structures and facilities are procured and erected, used and operated, maintained and

repaired, modernized and rehabilitated, and finally dismantled and demolished, or reused

and recycled. Adoption of environmental LCA in buildings and works is a complex and

`

38

tedious task. A building incorporates hundreds and thousands of individual products, and

in a construction project, there might be tens of companies involved. Further, the expected

life cycle of a building is exceptionally long (tens or hundreds of years) (Bragança et al.,

2010).

A1 Location

A2 Spatial System

A3 Services

B1 Indoor Conditions

B2 Service Life

B3 Adaptability

B 4 Safety

B5 Comfort

B6 Accessibility

B7 Usability

C1 Life Cycle Costs

C2 Environment Pressure

Design Construction

C Life cycle costs and

environmental pressure

B Performance

RequirementsA Conformity

Environmental Pressure

Use and Maintenance

Costs

Owner

User

Society

Figure (2.1): A generic model for building performance analysis (Bragança et al., 2010).

The life-cycle of a building project starts before any physical construction activities and

ends after its usable life. Figure 2.2 shows an integrated LCA of the building stages. In the

first BSA methods, the concept of sustainable construction was confused with the concept

“low environmental impact construction”. Therefore these methods failed to enter the

mainstream sustainable development discourse. More recent BSA methods include the

economic performance analysis in the evaluation. The economic assessment is an

important factor in the success of any new approach in construction that includes

sustainable principles. Demand for sustainable construction is influenced by buyer

perception of the first costs versus the life cycle costs of sustainable alternatives (Kibert,

2003). At the environmental performance level, life-cycle inventory analysis (LCI) can be

extremely complex and may involve a dozen individual unit processes in a supply chain

`

39

(e.g., the extraction of raw resources, various primary and secondary production

processes, transportation, among others) as well hundreds of tracked substances (Bragança

et al., 2010).

The more rigorous the LCA methods are, the more data intensive they are. Therefore, the

assessment process can involve significant costs of collecting data and keeping it updated,

particularly in a period of considerable changes in materials manufacturing processes.

Some data needed for the LCA is expensive and difficult to obtain, and is most often kept

confidential by those manufactures that do undertake the studies (Bragança et al., 2010).

According to Pushkar (2005), the databases do not include all the needed information for

many of the relevant building products and components, nor for the construction process

itself. Therefore, the researchers concluded that it is essential for LCA tools to allow the

editing of existing variables and the addition of new ones according to local conditions

and constant technological development. The goal of some BSA methods is to simplify

the LCA for practical use. The simplified LCA methods that currently exist are not

comprehensive or consistently LCA-based, but they play an important role in promoting

sustainable buildings. More accurate BSA tools integrate environmental assessment, life

cycle costs, and the methods needed to verify if the required performance has been

achieved. LCA-based methods are used to compare solutions to help decide which

solution corresponds to the best compromise among the different sustainability dimension

(Pushkar, 2005).

2.9.3 Sustainable Building Rating and Certification

The rating and certification systems and tools are intended to foster more sustainable

building design, construction, operation, maintenance, and disassembly or deconstruction

by promoting and making possible a better integration of environmental, societal,

functional, and cost concerns with other traditional decision criteria. These systems and

tools can both be used to support the sustainable design, since they transform the

sustainable goal into specific performance objectives to evaluate the overall performance.

`

40

MATERIAL ACQUISITION

Raw material extraction

Transport to processing plant

Raw material processing

Transport to construction site

CONSTRUCTION AND REBUILDING

Operation inconstruction site

Operation

Use

Reuse

Maintenance

DEMOLITION/DISPOSAL

Demolition/dismantling

Materials and products reuse or recycling

Waste management

Transport

ECONOMIC COSTS

ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS

Raw materials

Energy

Water

+

FUNCTIONAL

REQUIREMENTS

Comfort

Durability

Flexibility

Safety (…)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Emissions to air, Water and

land

Recycli

ng

Figure (2.2): The integrated LCA of the building stages (Bragança et al., 2010)

There are different perspectives in different sustainable building rating and certification

approaches, but they have certain points in common. In general, these systems and tools

deal, in one way or another, with the same categories of building design and life cycle

performance: site, water, energy, materials, and indoor environment. Nearly all building

sustainability rating and certification methods are based in local regulations or standards,

and in local conventional building solutions. The weight of each parameter and indicator

in the evaluation is predefined according to local socio-cultural, environmental, and

economic contexts, and therefore most of the approaches developed so far can only have

reflexes at local or regional scales. However, there are a few examples of global scale

methods. These kind of methods are, above all, used at the academic level, since the

requisite reference cases have to be constructed and separately assessed for each building

type, which is a time consuming and expensive process. There are three major building

rating and certification systems that provide the basis for the other approaches used

`

41

throughout the world: the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

Method (BREEAM), which was developed in the U.K., the Sustainable Building

Challenge Framework (SBTool), which was developed by the collaborative work of 20

countries, and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental design (LEED), which was

developed in the U.S.A. The task of understanding and translating strategic sustainability

objectives into concrete action at project level has become a very challenging task for

construction professionals (Viitaniemi and Haapio, 2007).

The process has been exacerbated by the multi-dimensional perspectives of sustainability

such as economy, society, environment, combined with a lack of structured methodology

and information at various levels. Also, while discussing environmental issues in the

building sector, the use of terms is not well established. This inconsistent use of terms

may cause confusions and misunderstandings (Viitaniemi and Haapio, 2007). Over the

past few years, the increased concern over the deterioration of our environment has

motivated the development of various sustainability assessment systems across the globe.

Although most of them are based on the concept of life cycle assessment, they have been

basically focused on the evaluation of the environmental performance during building

operation (Cole, 2000). The limited attention given to the onsite construction impacts is a

consequence of the perceived relatively lower significance of construction impacts

compared with the lifecycle impacts associated with building design and management.

The environmental assessment methods all have limitations that may hamper their future

usefulness and effectiveness (Ding, 2008).

According to Ding (2008), current assessment methods do not adequately and readily

consider environmental effects in a single tool and therefore do not assist in the overall

assessment of sustainable development. Also the inflexibility, complexity and lack of

consideration of weighing system are still major obstacles to the acceptance of

sustainability assessment methods. Use of a sustainability index should simplify the

measurement of sustainability and therefore should make a significant contribution to the

identification of optimum design solutions and facility operations(Ding, 2008). In U.S.A

and Australia “rating systems' have been introduced that do provide this additional

`

42

information for assessing energy-efficiency compared to an arch-type building. These

schemes have a variety of objectives forming either part of the requirements for building

planning code compliance or part of a scheme to market energy efficient environmentally

responsible buildings (Soebarto, 2001). Despite claims to the contrary, most of these

assessment programs are not design-orientated. They are constructed to give endorsement

to a completed design rather than to assist the designer during the design process

(Soebarto, 2001). Hence the in future the rating systems developed should ideally assist

designers during the design process, they should be clear with the definitions of its

indicators in order to avoid confusion, they should be developed with the help of trend

analysis or equivalent to remove future uselessness.

2.10 A framework for the Attainment of Sustainable Construction

The essence of this framework is to suggest how sustainable construction can be achieved.

Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) should be carried out during the planning and

design stages of projects, provided that the traditional EIA is expanded to include

assessment of all four `indicators’ of sustainable construction (Ogola, 2007). It should

also be undertaken in accordance with the process oriented principles of sustainable

construction, and enforcement by government regulations for each project, during

construction, operation and, where appropriate, even decommissioning (Nwokoro, 2011).

The framework and its components are summarized in Table 2.4. In this research a broad

meaning is given to the term `environment’, to include the physical, biological, social and

economic indicators that affect the individuals and groups within the developmental area.

Environmental impact Assessment’ could include assessment of all four `indicators’ of

sustainable construction. There is need to set up a sustainability policy.

Such a policy would set the desired level of environmental performance. Construction

organizations could adopt a general environmental policy which could inform policies for

specific projects. At the level of individual construction projects, environmental policy

would emanate from company policy, if available; relevant legal requirements, and the

EIA for the project, which would identify those principles of sustainable construction

`

43

deemed relevant to the project through consultation with interested parties at an early

stage in the EIA.

The second key requirement is to provide an organizational structure and to determine the

responsibilities, authority, lines of communication and the resources needed to implement

the EMS (Hill, Bergman and Bowen, 1994). An EMS (Environmental Management

System) would need to determine the required interactions between the various

contractors, consultants and clients involved in the project. Similarly, lines of

communication should link the organizations involved, and should also provide a

connection with a range of interested and affected parties external to the construction

process.

The third key requirement is to develop an environmental management programme

(EMP) that stipulates environmental objectives and targets to be met and work

instructions and controls to be applied in order to achieve compliance with the

environmental policy. At project level, the EMP would contain operational procedures for

controlling various activities, which would include: work instructions for determining the

manner of conducting an activity; inspection procedures to ensure that mitigating

measures are applied; procedures for dealing with accidents and emergencies; and,

procedures for the measurement of performance indicators. In construction, where the

primary goals of the contractor and the environmental management team may be

different, the EMP may need to rely on penalties and bonuses to ensure compliance with

standards. The fourth key requirement is to undertake periodic audits of the environmental

performance of the construction team and the effectiveness of the Environmental

Management System (Nwokoro, 2011).

According to Hussin et al. (2013); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005); CIB

(2004); Cole and Larsson (1999); Gottfried (1996); and Miyatake (1996), Table 2.4. is

developed as a framework to achieve sustainable building adopting to each phase of

construction process.

`

44

Table (2.4): A framework to Achieve Sustainable Building adopting to each phase of construction process

Principles Sustainability

consideration Activities Sustainability goals

Project

stages

Feasibility study

Proper site

selection, give

priority to reuse

or rehabilitate

existing structure,

evaluation of the

orientation of

building (involve

how the building

will relate to

climatic and

weather

conditions)

, maintain and

enhance the

biodiversity and

ecology of the

site, a forestation

of the site to

achieve

sustainable

construction.

Study cost benefits and

risk associated, obtain

client commitment for

sustainability, prepare

sustainability policy

Consultant

appointment

Understand the

sustainability issues

Feasibility

study

Master plan

Fulfillments of needs

due sustainable

principles

Identify sustainability

critical success factor,

conduct environmental

impact

assessment(EIA),

prepare cost estimation,

consider whole life

cycle in design options

Procurement route

decision, feasibility

study, planning and

management, criteria

selecting options

Choose the best

sustainability options

Compliance with

sustainability criteria,

conduct environmental

assessment, sustainable

contractor and supplier

selection

Prepare update data,

identify

suppliers/contractor,

decide options

Choose the most

sustainable choices

Design stage

Durability,

usefulness,

attractiveness,

adaptability,

diassemply

Decide sustainability

design elements,

identify sustainable

materials, compliance

with regulations, prepare

cost and procurement

plan

Identify design

alternatives, develop

schematic design, and

use criteria to review

design

Select sustainable

design

Design stage Integrated of sustainable

elements into design,

compliance with

legislation

Prepare detailed

design, identify

materials, liaison with

authority, financial

arrangement

Complete design for

planning approval,

(detailed sustainable

design)

Integrated of sustainable

elements into design,

update sustainable plans

Submission to

authority, liaison for

design and financial

approval

Sustainable design

preparation

`

45

Principles Sustainability

consideration Activities Sustainability goals

Project

stages

Construction stage

Mange water use,

use biological

waste treatment

system, converse

water use, reduce

negative impact to

environment,

minimize energy

consumption,

minimize

consumption and

depletion of

material

resources, select

friendly materials

Control pollution and

prevent disturbances to

local community, using

sustainable materials,

using sustainable

construction methods.

Site management

appointment of

suppliers/ contractor,

monitor work

progress, monitor cost,

public relation, testing

and commissioning

Construct in

sustainable manner

Construction

stage

Operations and maintenance

Create a clean and

healthy

environment,

enhance the

awareness of

puplic with regard

to sustainable

issues, provide

effective lighting,

appropriate

building

acoustical and

vibration

conditions,

providing views,

view space, and

connection to

natural

environment,

assure indoor

environmentally

quality, use

material that are

reuasable,

recyclable, and

biodegradable

Provide information

storage facility, evaluate

sustainability

achievement, and

introduce feedback

mechanism

Information storage,

feedback, upgrade

relevant document,

evaluate project

success

Compile lessons for

future sustainable

projects, achieving

sustainability

benefits

Operations

and

maintenance

stage

`

46

Table (2.5): Principles of sustainable building adopting to their references C

ateg

ory

Reference

Principles of sustainable building

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

2012)

H

alli

day

(2008)

Kib

ert

(2008)

Abid

in a

nd P

asquir

e

(2005)

Yuso

f (2

005)

CIB

(2004)

Det

r (2

000)

Wil

liam

s (2

000)

Cole

an

d L

arss

on

(1999)

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Miy

atak

e (1

996)

Kib

ert

(1994)

Hil

l an

d B

ow

en (

1997)

En

vir

on

men

t A

spec

t

Minimize resource consumption √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Reduce the material intensity via substitution technologies √

Enhance material recyclability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Apply waste management system √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic materials like

asbestos √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Reduce energy consumption √ √ √ √ √

Ensure the prudent use of the four generic construction resources

(water, energy, material and land) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil, water, and flora √ √ √ √ √

Maximize the sustainable use of biological and renewable resources √ √ √ √ √

Creating Healthy Environments (enhance living, leisure and work

environments; and not endanger the health of the builders, users, or

others, through exposure to pollutants or other toxic materials).

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Enhancing biodiversity: Projects should reduce use materials from

threatened species or environments like oil and metals √ √ √ √

Improve natural habitats where possible through enhance

afforestation around the building √ √ √ √

Support the instruments of international conventions and

agreements with respect to environment protection

√

`

47

Asp

ect

Reference

Principle of sustainable building

Huss

in e

t al.

(201

3)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

201

2)

H

alli

day

(2008)

Kib

ert

(2008)

Abid

in a

nd P

asquir

e

(2005)

Yuso

f (2

005)

CIB

(2004)

Det

r (2

000)

Wil

liam

s (2

000)

Cole

an

d L

arss

on

(1999)

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Miy

atak

e (1

996)

Kib

ert

(1994)

Hil

l an

d B

ow

en (

199

7)

Eco

nom

ic A

spec

t

Consider building life-cycle costs √ √ √ √ √

Internalize external costs ( like transportations, equipments,

training workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies ) √ √ √

Consider alternative financing mechanisms √ √

Develop appropriate economic instruments to promote sustainable

consumption √

Consider the economic impact of local structures when planning to

construct sustainable building √ √

Achieve good economic project management in both long and short

term √

Achieve prudent use for resources which can rise the life cycle cost

of the building including money, energy, water, materials and land √ √ √ √ √

Achieve profitability and enhance competitiveness √ √ √

Ensure financial affordability √ √ √

Create employment √

Make sustainable supply chain management. √ √

Soci

al A

spec

t

Evaluating the benefits and costs of the project to society and

environment. √ √ √

Improve the quality of life √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Provision for social self-determination and cultural diversity √

Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all

project life cycle

√ √ √

`

48

Reference

Principles of sustainable building

Huss

in e

t al.

(20

13)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

20

12

)

H

alli

day

(2008

)

Kib

ert

(2008

)

Abid

in a

nd P

asq

uir

e

(2005)

Yuso

f (2

005)

CIB

(2004)

Det

r (2

000)

Wil

liam

s (2

00

0)

Cole

an

d L

arss

on

(1999)

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Miy

atak

e (1

99

6)

Kib

ert

(1994

)

Hil

l an

d B

ow

en (

199

7)

Protect and promote human health through a healthy and safe

working environment √ √ √ √ √

Promote public participation by seek to meet the real needs,

requirements and aspirations of communities √ √ √ √

Involving communities and stakeholders in key decisions √ √

Consider the influence on the existing social framework √

Assess the impact on health and the quality of life. √ √ √ √ √ √

Customers and clients satisfaction and best value √ √

Respect and treat stakeholders fairly √

Legislating compliance and responsibility with respect to human

protection √ √

Safeguarding the interests of future generations while at the same

time, meeting today's needs, √

Tec

hn

ical

asp

ect

Construct durable √ √ √

Quality structure √ √ √

Improvement in indoor environmental quality (air, thermal, visual

and acoustic quality √ √ √

Using technology and expert knowledge to seek information and in

improving project efficiency and effectiveness, √

Improving the quality of buildings and services √

Attractiveness √

Adaptability √

`

49

Objective 2

2.11 Introduction

Enabling sustainable construction is the focus of world attention recently. For developing

countries to embark on a path of sustainable development and construction a two pronged

approach is required: it is first necessary to create a capable and viable local construction

sector; second, it is necessary to ensure that the sector is able to respond to the demands

sustainable development places on its activities. This can only be possible if all the

different stakeholders cooperate in the implementation of a clear strategy that involves

specific supportive actions by all role players and the development of a set of enablers

(Du Plessis, 2007). Construction practitioners worldwide are beginning to appreciate

sustainability and acknowledge the advantages of building sustainably. Sustainable

buildings would contribute positively to better quality of life, work efficiency and healthy

work environment. The approach of sustainable construction will enable construction

practitioners to be more responsible towards the need for environmental protection

without neglecting the social and economic aspects in the quest for balanced outcomes.

The right motivation will push the industry to enter into green construction (Abidin and

Powmya, 2014).

Becchio, Corgnati, Kindinis and Pagliolico (2009) stated that the use of recycled materials

is an importance in construction industry since environmental protection becomes issues

that gain wider attention worldwide. It is estimated around 20–25% of entire world energy

is spent in production of construction materials like cement, steel, and plastic.

Furthermore during the production of Portland cement, CO2 emissions caused

environmental impact such as global warming or climate change. As a result, there are

many research has been conducted to find ways to reduce energy consumption (Idris and

Ismail, 2011). The advantages of green building are abundant: when a green design is

implemented, it lessens the overall impact to the environment. Energy and water

consumption are reduced, natural resources are conserved and materials are re-used.

Moreover, the materials used in green building are much less hazardous than other

`

50

available options since they are created to meet environmental standards in addition,

green building has a significant impact on the worldwide climate crisis(USGBC, 2015).

Thus, the contribution of buildings and of the property and construction sector to

sustainable development could be immense. However, the major argument is not that

sustainable behavior in property and construction market should be pursued only because

it is beneficial for humans, the environment and because environmental legislation

requires us to do so, but because it significantly increases financial profit and long-term

competitiveness . As a consequence, sustainability is no longer a technical or moral issue,

but an economic and financial imperative (Abolore, 2012).

2.12 Green Building Definition

Green building is defined as “On the premise of ensuring quality, safety and other basic

requirements, scientific management and technological progress should be used in

engineering construction, to maximize the conservation of resources and reduce the

construction activities which will bring negative impacts on the environmental, and to

achieve the goal of four savings (energy, land, water and materials) and environmental

protection” (Shi, Zuo, Huang, Huang and Pullen, 2013).

2.13 Green Building Concept

The “Green Building” is an interdisciplinary theme, where the green building concept

includes a multitude of elements, components and procedures which diverge to several

subtopics that intertwined to form the green building concept. The green building is

considered to be an environmental component, as the green building materials are

manufactured from local eco-sources, i.e. environmentally friendly materials, which are

then used to make an eco-construction subject to an eco-design that provides a healthy

habitat built on the cultural and architectural heritage in construction while ensuring

conservation of natural resources (Samer, 2013).

According to Green Construction Guideline issued by Ministry of commerce (MOC,

2007), green construction is classified into six parts, i.e. construction management,

environmental protection, material conservation and utilization, water conservation and

`

51

utilization, energy conservation and utilization, land conservation and construction using

land protection. The five factors in the construction process “man, machine, material,

method and environment” are all covered by these six aspects (Shi et al., 2013).The

construction of a green building can be part of an overall plan for sustainable corporate

development. According to Kubba (2010), green buildings are designed for optimum

energy efficiency and are constructed with a preference for natural, reclaimed, and

recycled materials. These buildings provide healthier, more comfortable and productive

indoor environments for occupants by maximizing the efficient usage of resources like

energy, water, and raw materials. The American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM,

2009) maintains that green buildings provide the specified building performance

requirements while minimizing disturbance and improving the function of local, regional

and global ecosystems both during and after its construction and specified service life.

Burnett (2007) describes that the ideal green building should have five major features:

integration with local ecosystems; closed loop material systems; maximum use of passive

design and renewable energy; optimization of building hydrologic cycles; and full

implementation of indoor environmental quality measures. This ideal green building

approach should be the aim of both the owner and the project managers.

Hussin et al. (2013) stated that green building practices are environmentally responsible

and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle. Green building relates to

sustainable development, as it promotes building practices that conserve energy and water

resources, preserve open spaces. Green buildings minimize the emission of toxic

substances throughout its life cycle, harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture

and the surrounding environment. Green buildings are able to sustain and improve the

quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local and global

levels. Although green construction has been attached more importance recently,

obstacles still exist to its widespread adoption (Lam, Chan, Poon, Chau and Chun, 2010).

Identified additional costs, incremental time and the limited availability of green suppliers

and information, as the critical barriers to green construction (Wang, 2014).

`

52

2.14 "Green building" and "Sustainable construction: How They Differ and

Why It Matters ?

"Green building" and "Sustainable construction" are relatively new terms (Kuba, 2010).

They are often used interchangeably. But being "green" and being "sustainable" is not the

same thing. The federal government (2005) defined green as "products and services that

reduce health and environmental impacts compared to similar products and services used

for the same purpose," Sustainability, on the other hand, governs three main pillars:

environmental protection, social well-being and economic prosperity (Abdin, 2010). A

green building covers measures like limiting consumption of non-renewable fuels, water,

land, materials, emissions of greenhouse gas and other emissions; minimizing impacts on

site ecology, solid waste or liquid effluents, improving indoor air quality, natural lighting

and acoustics and securing maintenance of performance. A sustainable building features

all of the same measures, and in addition addresses longevity, adaptability and flexibility

of the object, accounts for the efficiency of resources spent, addresses safety and security,

includes social and economic considerations and regards urban and planning issues

(Larsson, 2010).

Sustainability is the capacity to endure, to sustain. In regards to ecology, the term

describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time, examples of

sustainable biological systems are long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests. In regards

to humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which

has environmental, economic, and social dimensions. So when discussing buildings, the

core issues are long-term maintenance and well being of the users, seen under the aspects

of environmental, economic, and social dimensions (Imam and Ali, 2011).

Overall, with green, our consideration about people and staff is limited to direct exposures

from products or services, but sustainability is a much broader term that talks about the

implications of those products and services used over a much longer period of time, and

considers social and financial impacts as well (Yanarella, Levine and Lancaster, 2005).

The core message of these two terms is essentially to improve conventional design and

construction practices and standards so that the buildings will last longer, be more

`

53

efficient, cost less to operate, increase productivity, and contribute to healthier living and

working environments for their occupants. but more than that, green building and

sustainability are also about increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sited

utilize and conserve energy, water, and materials, about protecting our natural resources,

and improving the built environment (Kubba, 2010). Table 2.6 shows some differences

between green and sustainable construction.

Table (2.6): Differences between Green and Sustainable Construction (Yanarella et al.,

2005)

Dimensions Green Sustainable

Relation to sustainability

tripod

Only one leg(environmental

improvement)

All three legs (environment health,

economy vitality, social justice)

Focus Individual components Interplay of individual components and

whole system

Tactics/strategy

Tactical application of activities

that involve “picking low-hanging

fruit”;promoting individual

changes and reforms to make

world less unsustainable

Strategic discovery of the proper scale

that will make successive policy steps

and actions easier and less costly by

designing and implementing a

sustainable, self-balancing system

Political orientation Conventional, “pragmatic realist,

reformist

Innovative, visionary,

revolutionary(“going to the roots”)

Scale

Individual devices, products,

indicators, practices, buildings as

most tractable level for greening

City region as the level at which human

and social disequilibrium's and

ecological insults can be dynamically

rebalanced

Risks or excesses Green washing Utopian fantasizing or top-down

authoritarian policy action

Definition of success Infinite progress of incremental

improvements

Reduction of ecological footprint to a

city region’s fair Earth-share

2.15 Importance of Green Buildings

Shi et al. (2013) stated that construction activities have significant impacts on the

community and environment. As a result, green construction has been promoted to

mitigate these issues. The construction industry is one of the main contributors to the

depletion of natural resources and a major cause of unwanted side effects such as air and

water pollution, solid waste, deforestation, toxic wastes, health hazards, global warming,

and other negative consequences. Buildings account for one-sixth of the world’s

`

54

freshwater withdrawals, one-quarter of its wood harvest and two-fifths of its material and

energy flows. Nearly one-quarter of all ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are

emitted by building air conditioners and the processes used to manufacture building

materials (Ragheb, 2011). Fragile eco-zones in many countries are being destabilized

because of construction activities. Occurrence of floods, land and mud slides caused by

construction on delicate hill slopes and wet lands testify to the vulnerability of the

environment to interventions of the construction sector. Physical destruction of land are

also caused by extraction of sand and gravel for concrete and extraction of clay for the

production of bricks. The rate of deforestation is extensive due to lumbering, land clearing

for farming and building construction, which has even penetrated restricted areas like

forest reserves on hill sided and highlands. This resulted in increase instability of the

natural landscape and increased in erosion (Shafii et al., 2006).

Ragheb (2011) stated that construction industry is a major consumer of natural non

renewable resources such as metals, fossil fuel and non-renewable energy resources.

Construction sector activities and the manufacturing processes of basic building materials

such as cement, steel, aluminum, glass, bricks and lime are highly energy dependent

where fossil fuel is a major non-renewable resource require to generate huge amount of

energy. The world-wide recognition of the limited supply of fuels and the high degree of

dependency on energy by the construction industry has lead to regional efforts in search

of alternative energy sources and renewable sources. So, rational decision-making and

implementation of transparent and effective strategies are needed to solve the conflicts

between land use and the construction sector are urgently required and should be given

high priority by decision makers (Shafii et al., 2006).

2.16 Benefits of Green Buildings

Construction practitioners worldwide are beginning to appreciate sustainability and

acknowledge the advantages of building sustainable (Abolore, 2012; Abidin, 2009).

Green building practices are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient

throughout a building's life-cycle. Green building relates to sustainable development, as it

promotes building practices that conserve energy and water resources, preserve open

`

55

spaces (USEP, 2008). Green buildings minimise the emission of toxic substances

throughout its life cycle, harmonise with the local climate, traditions, culture and the

surrounding environment. Green buildings are able to sustain and improve the quality of

human life whilst maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local and global

levels.Green buildings have many benefits, such as better use of building resources,

significant operational savings, and increased workplace productivity (Hussin et al.,

2013). For example, the concept of green building costs lower than conventional method

and saves energy as demonstrated by Hydes and Creech (2000). This was further

supported by Heerwagen (2000), who added that sustainable buildings will contribute

positively to better quality of life, work the business benefits of sustainability and

concluded that the benefits are diverse and potentially very significant. The approach of

sustainable construction will enable the construction players to be more responsible to the

environmental protection needs without neglecting the social and economic needs in

striving for better living (Abidin, 2009).

Some of the economic benefits of green building are savings in capital and operational

costs, improved marketability and heightened public profile (Urbecon Bulletin, 2008).

The benefits of green buildings for the Middle East are not only environmentally-related,

but extend to economic and social aspects. Lower long term operating costs can be

achieved via reduced energy consumption, reduced emissions, improved water

conservation, temperature moderation and reduced waste (Katkhuda, 2013).

Other benefits associated with green building for the occupiers include gains in employee

productivity, reduced absenteeism and building-related health problems leading to

reduction in health and safety costs, improved morale and better employee retention

(Pearce, 2008). There is a strong positive correlation between work performance of

employees and the building in which the process takes place. Studies have proven that the

increase in productivity gains is related to the improvements of the indoor environments

(Ries, Bilec, Gokhan and Needy, 2006). Hussin et al. (2013) summarized the potential

benefits of green building as shown in Figure 2.3.

`

56

Solid

Waste

70%

Water

Use

40%

Co2 Emissions

33-39%

Energy

Use

24-50%

Green Building Can Reduce

Figure (2.3): Benefits of Green Buildings (Hussin et al., 2013)

Builders, contractors and building owners are also quickly realizing the additional

economic and environmental benefits of applying sustainable construction. USGBC

(2015) summarized these benefits as followed:

Economic benefits:

1. Reduce operating costs

2. Enhance asset value and profits

3. Improve employee productivity and satisfaction

4. Optimize life cycle economic performance

5. Qualifying for various tax rebates, zoning allowances and other incentives

6. Become a selling point to potential buyers

7. Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills

8. Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost

Environmental benefits:

1. Improve air and water quality

2. Reduce solid waste

3. Conserve natural resources

4. Enhance and protect ecosystems and biodiversity

Health and community benefits:

1. Improve air, thermal, and acoustic environments

2. Enhance occupant comfort and health

`

57

3. Possibly limiting growth of mold and other airborne contaminants that can affect

worker productivity and/or health

2.17 Motivating Factors for Green Buildings

According to Nurul Diyana and Abidin (2013), factors that can influence the decision to

pursue green construction can be grouped into financial, ethical and business strategies.

Du Plessis (2007) highlighted that awareness and knowledge are crucial to start any green

action. Therefore, awareness and knowledge is included as the 4th factor, and are further

divided into categories. Abidin and Powmya (2014, a) and Abidin and Powmya (2014,

b) summarized a total of 13 motivating factors have been identified as potential reasons to

encourage acceptance and implementation of green construction, as shown below:

Financial

1. Green building can get more profit

2. There are many incentive by the government to encourage green building

3. The potential of saving money during operational of the building in the long

term

Business Strategy

4. It is good for company’s image

5. Venturing into green building ensure more opportunities in the future

6. Green construction will become a trend in all over the world

7. There is good market for green building all over the world

Knowledge and Awareness

8. More developers, contractors, builders are aware & interested about green

construction

9. The government supports the construction of green building

10. The increase of knowledge on green building among construction practitioners

Ethical

1. It is good way to protect the environment

2. Green building shows that the company cares for the society and environment

3. Green building is a safe way to avoid infringement of laws and regulations

`

58

2.18 Requirements to Achieve Green Construction

Abolore (2012) stated that designers as well as owners are however realizing that with due

attention and meticulous planning building can be designed to save energy, decrease

impact on the environment, be more people friendly and reduce lifecycle costs.

Sustainability in construction projects is generally achieved by:

Defining clear goals sympathetic to sustainability issues.

Concentrated effort at design stage to achieve these goals.

Focusing on decisions like site selection, building layout, design etc.

Choosing the right materials which are recyclable after their useful lives

Choosing the right methods of construction in term of energy and resource

efficiency

Creating efficient and integrated building envelop harnessing the gift of nature

Augenbroe and Pearce (2010) summarized priorities for achieving green construction as

followed:

Energy conservation measures

Land use regulations and urban planning policies

Waste reduction measures

Resource conservation strategies

Indoor environmental quality

Environmentally-friendly energy technologies

Re-engineering the design process (Reengineering means redesign of business

processes—and the associated systems and organizational structures—to achieve a

dramatic improvement in business performance).

Proactive role of materials manufacturers

Better ways to measure and account for costs

New kinds of partnerships and project stakeholders

Adoption of performance-based standards

Product innovation and/or certification

Adoption of incentive programs

Education and training

`

59

Table (2.7): Benefits of green buildings according to their references

Hydes

and C

reec

h

(2000)

Hee

rwag

en (

2000)

Rie

s et

al.

(2006)

US

EP

(2008)

Pea

rce

(2008)

Bull

etin

(2008)

Abid

in (

2009)

Kat

khuda

(2013)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Diy

ana

and A

bid

in

(2013)

US

GB

C (

2015)

Reference

Benefit of Sustainable construction

Asp

ect

√ Improve air and water quality

Envir

onm

enta

l ben

efit

s

√ √ √ Reduce solid waste

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ Conserve natural resources (better use of building resources)

√ √ Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout building project life cycle

√ √ √ √ Improve water conservation (Reduce water used)

√ √ Enhance and protect ecosystems and biodiversity

√ √ √ √ √ Reduce energy consumption by promote building practices that conserve energy

√ √

Enable the construction participants to be more responsible to the environmental

protection needs without neglecting the social and economic needs

√ Preserve temperature moderation

√ Promote building practices that preserve open spaces

√ √ √ √ √ Reduce operating costs

Eco

no

mic

ben

efit

s

√ √ Enhance asset value and profits (from improvements in health and safety)

√ √ √ √ Improve employee productivity and satisfaction

√ Optimize life cycle economic performance

√ √ Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills

√ √ √ √ Achieve Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost

√ Better employee retention

√ Improve marketability for buildings

√ Reduce maintenance costs

`

60

Hydes

and C

reec

h

(2000)

Hee

rwag

en (

2000)

Rie

s et

al.

(2006)

US

EP

(2008)

Pea

rce

(2008)

Bull

etin

(2008)

Abid

in (

2009)

Kat

khuda

(2013)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Diy

ana

and A

bid

in

(2013)

US

GB

C (

2015)

Reference

Benefit of Sustainable construction

Asp

ect

√ Improve thermal and acoustic environments

Hum

an a

nd c

om

munit

y b

enef

its

√ √ Enhance occupant comfort and health

√ √ √

Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity of

the ecosystem at local and global levels

√ Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne contaminants that

can affect worker productivity and/or health

√ improve morale

√ improve indoor environments

√ √ Enhance the idea that green building lead to sustainable development

√ Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture and the surrounding

environment.

√ √

Dissemination of good behaviors which urges protect the environment (It

is good way to protect the environment )

Eth

ical

Ben

efit

s

√ √ Emphasize that green building shows that the company cares for the society and

environment

√ √ Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid infringement of laws and

regulations

`

61

Objective 3

2.19 Introduction

Although sustainable building provides a wide range of benefits for the society, it suffers

from various kinds of barriers in developing countries. In order to include sustainable

construction development as part of a sound sustainable economic development plan, it is

necessary to identify and eliminate obstacles at the beginning (Samari, 2015). Developing

countries are suffering from many problems and challenges, such as rapid rates of

urbanization, deep poverty, social inequity, low skills levels, institutional incapacity,

weak governance, an uncertain economic environment and environmental degradation,

which by themselves create a challenging environment within which to work (Alsubeh,

2013). The sheer enormity of this developmental challenge often results in confusion

between what are developmental interventions and what are interventions that aim to

ensure that the development that needs to happen will follow the principles of sustainable

development )Du Plessis, 2007).

The biggest challenge for the construction sector in developing countries thus lies in

finding a holistic approach to making sure that its contribution to the physical, economic

and human development of these countries meets the requirements of sustainable

development as defined by locally identified needs and value systems, which may differ

from the needs and values of the economic elite in these countries (Alsubeh, 2013). In the

last decade, the construction industry has presented some of the most challenging issues in

the world. Sustainable building covers a wide range of elements when compared with

green buildings. Sustainable building not only considers environmental matters, but also

tries to consider social and economic factors as well (Samari, 2015). Meryman and

Silman (2004) identified three primary barriers for using specifications in sustainable

engineering. They argued that the economic factor was the most critical barrier, apart

from policy and technical issues, which could be translated to green construction in many

countries.

`

62

A survey by Shen et al. (2010c) showed that managerial concern was the most important

driver for the adoption of green practices by contractors. Knowledge gap (Ofori and Hu,

2004), public awareness (Shafii et al., 2006), economic barriers (Samari et al., 2013b;

Ofori and Hu, 2004) and timing (Wiliiams and Dair, 2007) are some commonly cited

barriers of sustainable development in the construction industry by researchers. Overall,

the main barriers of green construction were classified into 4 fundamental aspects,

economics, technology, awareness and management (Sourani and Sohail, 2011).

Investigation on barriers can lead to finding out more effective solutions, promote

sustainable development and attract more construction firms to apply this development

concept (Shafii et al., 2013).

2.20 Barriers Towards Sustainable Construction

In order to endorse and drive the agenda of sustainable construction within the

Construction Industry, the barriers that impede these practices must first be identified. The

barriers identified can be grouped into four primary categories: cultural, financial,

steering and professional barriers as mention in Table 2.8.

2.20.1 Cultural Barriers

Shafii et al. (2005) shows many cultural barriers that faces implementing sustainable

construction such as: Lack of awareness on sustainable building, vagueness of definitions

and diversity of interpretations, insufficient research and development, lack of

understanding, information, commitment and demand (Shi et al., 2013; Surani and Suhail,

2011). Regional ambiguities in the green concept, conflicts in benefits with competitors,

and dependence on promotion by government (Shi et al., 2013). In addition, lack of

training and education and ineffective procurement systems are among the major cultural

barriers for sustainable construction in developing countries (Idris and Ismail, 2011).

Awareness of green construction is closely related to the public awareness of

environmental issues. At present, the knowledge and cognition on sustainability of all

parties, including policy makers, owners, designers, construction personnel and the public

need to be further enhanced (Shi et al., 2013, Idris and Ismail, 2011). Although the

majority of residents recognized that the environmental pollution was a serious issue, they

`

63

often ranked social issues, such as companies’ participation, public indifference,

government involvement with higher priorities (CEAP, 2007).

The construction industry process has been used over the past decades as such it presents

itself as a sector which is traditionally very difficult to change especially with respect to

construction methods practiced and building materials used. Construction participants

favors the use of blocks and reinforced concrete and discourages any other alternative to

these building materials and services. This illustrates a typical change resistance; a major

barrier (Surani and Suhail, 2011). Bilec (2007) highlighted the role that civil engineers

played in a “green” initiative in order to enhance the awareness of the public and policy

makers to both the costs and the benefits associated with green design. Therefore, the

unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional way of specifying

existing methods and processes became another technical barrier (Meryman and Silman,

2004; Chen and Chambers, 1999). Abidin (2010) considered that the pace of action

towards sustainable application depended on the consciousness, knowledge as well as an

understanding of the consequences of individual actions.

Overall, Sustainability is still a relatively new concept for the construction industry in the

developing countries (Shafii et al., 2006). In order to utilize the use of sustainable

construction practices, there is a need to enhance the awareness of construction industry

participants. Usually, conferences and exhibitions are the best platform to share

knowledge and to increase awareness of them. In developed countries, conferences and

exhibitions have been organized in order to provide knowledge sharing and to attract

industry players on the benefits of sustainable construction practices (Ismail, 2012).

2.20.2 Financial Barriers

It is well recognized that cost effectiveness is one of the most important considerations for

decisions of implementing green construction (Meryman and Silman, 2004). The fear of

higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional building and

the risks of unforeseen costs are often addressed as barriers for sustainable buildings

(Djokoto et al., 2014). The utilization of green techniques such as high performance

insulation protection, water and energy saving equipment often increase the capital cost

`

64

(Shi et al., 2013). The adoption of sustainable building solutions may be hindered because

clients are concerned about the higher risk (Hydes and Creech, 2000). This risk based on

unfamiliar techniques, the lack of previous experience, additional testing and inspection in

construction, a lack of manufacturer and supplier support, and a lack of performance

information. These costs are also high as according to Larsson and Clark (2000), cost

consultants overestimated the capital cost and underestimated the potential cost savings.

Hydes and Creech (2000) further highlight that these higher costs may be as a result of

increases in the consultant’s fees and indirectly from the unfamiliarity of the design team

and contractors with sustainable building methods. Even though it’s a known fact that

sustainable practices in construction are estimated to increase initial capital cost generally

in the range of 1-25%, this can often be offset by significant savings in the operational

costs (Kats, 2003).

Zhang (2011) argued that green construction incurs construction participants additional

costs and incremental time. However, Surani and Suhail, (2011) disagreed with him and

argued that many stakeholders are in the opinion that the construction industries won’t go

green unless it saves them money somehow. Majority of the clients have not been

interested in any sustainable features except for energy efficiency aspects, which is

believed to lead to an immediate paybacks. Ismail (2012) stated that sustainability will not

only reduce life-cycle cost but also increase productivity of staff using the building.

Anyway, to assist the promotion of green construction, a life cycle approach should be

considered during the assessment of relevant cost and impacts.

2.20.3 Capacity/Professional Barriers

The most critical barrier to sustainable construction is the lack of capacity of the

construction sector to actually implement sustainable practices (CIB, 1999). This is

further reiterated by Djokoto et al. (2014) that sustainable buildings can be hindered by

ignorance or a lack of common understanding about sustainability. Rydin (2006) claimed

that while designers demonstrate confidence in their ability to access and use knowledge

in general, this confidence falls when sustainable building issues are addressed. This

presupposes that professionals within the built environment need to be fully acquainted

`

65

with sustainable construction principles in order to implement its practice. Not only are

they supposed to be knowledgeable, these professionals need to form an integrated team

from conception to inception comprising of the developer/owner, project manager,

contractor, architect, services engineer, structural engineer, civil engineer, environmental

engineer, landscape consultant, cost planner and building surveyor (Djokoto et al., 2014).

This team needs to have the best available information on products and tools to achieve

sustainable construction (Williams and Dair, 2006). Shi et al. (2013) stated that lack of

professional capabilities/designers is another barrier to implement green construction, he

concluded that sustainability takes too much time to learn and design, and argued that

existing schools and construction education is not sufficient to prepare future architects

and engineers to understand such roles and responsibilities of sustainability. In several

cases, stakeholders admitted to not being aware of sustainable measures or alternatives

that fall within their remit. Similarly, installing sustainable technologies and materials

requires new forms of competencies and knowledge, yet it was evident from the research

that not all those with responsibilities in this area had the necessary experience or

expertise to meet the challenge (Sourani and Sohail, 2011).

The lack of knowledge on green technology and the durability of green materials is a

significant barrier preventing the construction industry from implementing the strategies

and specifying green construction. For example, a construction enterprise can reject using

green materials with uncertain performance, which may cause more testing fee and

maintenance costs (Shi et al., 2013). Shen et al. (2010) asserted contractors and suppliers

should be engaged during early stage of construction projects due to their knowledge on

the environmental issues associated with construction activities, building materials and

plants. Shi et al. (2013) stated that lack of training and education in sustainable design and

construction is another barrier, he argued that many important stakeholders are not even

aware of the concept of sustainable building and so are naturally resistant to change.

Hence the greatest barrier is the lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design.

He also added that procurement issues as existing barrier, he stated that undue emphasis

on lowest price rather than best value impacts negatively on industry performance in

terms of time, cost and quality. It affects the sustainability of enterprises and their ability

`

66

000000000000000000000000000000to develop and retain a skilled workforce, and to

actively promote safety, health and the environment. Overall, he workforce of every

industry is its back bone as such the need to involve professionals who are not only

knowledgeable but can promote sustainable construction working as a team. This barrier

if unattended will indicate a considerable knowledge and skills gap in the construction

sector (Sourani and Sohail, 2011).

2.20.4 Steering Barriers

A major characteristic of the construction industry is the involvement of a large number of

individuals ranging from clients to the builder thus an effective steering or strategy will be

required to implement sustainable construction. The lack there of or wrongful steering

may rather stifle sustainable construction whilst on the other hand, steering measures can

promote it. Steering barriers include but not limited to the lack of building codes,

government policies/support and measurement tools amongst others. On the contrary, a

new kind of orchestrating and pioneering role of the building authorities and other public

actors in the building sector is called for (Djokoto et al., 2014). Measurement tools have

been developed in some advanced countries to measure the application of sustainable

principles in buildings. Popular amongst them is the LEED for the US and CASBEE in

Jaban (Seo, Tucker, Ambrose, Mitchell and Wang, 2006).

Sourani and Sohail (2011) added regulatory barriers as another barrier to implement

sustainable construction, he stated that public policies and regulatory frameworks do not

encourage the development of the construction sector, and added that

insufficient/inconsistent policies, regulations, incentives and commitment by leadership is

another barrier, also he stated that insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations

and best practice will hinder implementing sustainable construction, he added that lack of

building codes and regulation and lack of government support is another steering barrier.

Overall, government policies have been recognized as important indicators in guiding the

industry for sustainable construction. Thus, policy plays a role as a major catalyst of the

government’s strategies in order to promote sustainable construction (Ismail, 2012).

`

67

Table (2.8): Barriers that Face Sustainable Buildings

CIB

(1999)

Chen

and C

ham

ber

s

(1999)

Lar

sson a

nd C

lark

(2000)

Hydes

and C

reec

h

(2000)

Mer

ym

an a

nd

Sil

man

(2004)

Shaf

ii e

t al.

(2005

)

Nel

ms

(2005)

Bil

ec (

2007)

Abid

in (

2010)

Zhan

g e

t al.

(2011)

Sura

ni

and S

uhai

l

(2011)

Idri

s an

d I

smai

l

(2011)

Ism

ail

(2012)

Shi

et a

l. (

2013)

Djo

koto

et

al.

(201

4)

Reference

Barrier Type

of

Bar

rier

√

√ √ Regional ambiguities in the green concept

Cult

ura

l B

arri

ers

√

√ √ √ Lack of awareness with respect to sustainable building issue

√

√ √ Insufficient research and development to promote sustainable buildings

√

√ √ Lack of demand from companies and society on sustainable buildings

√

√ √ √

Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional

construction methods practiced and building materials used

√

unfamiliarity of the design team and contractors with sustainable

building methods

√ Conflicts in benefits with competitors

√

Dependence on promotion by government to encourage sustainable

buildings

√ √

Lack of training and education of construction participants on

sustainable building methods, and strategies

√ √

√

√

√ √

Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with

traditional building

Fin

anci

al B

arri

ers

√ the risks of unforeseen costs

√ √

√

The risk based on unfamiliar techniques used in sustainable buildings

√ √

√

Additional testing and inspection needed to implement sustainable

construction,

√ √

√

A lack of manufacturer and supplier support to sustainable building

because of its high cost

√

Cost consultants overestimated the capital cost and underestimated the

potential cost savings.

√

High costs of the consultant’s fees

√

Green construction incurs construction participants incremental time.

`

68

CIB

(1999)

Chen

and

Cham

ber

s (1

99

9)

Lar

sson a

nd C

lark

(2000)

Hydes

and C

reec

h

(2000)

Mer

ym

an a

nd

Sil

man

(200

4)

Shaf

ii e

t al.

(2005)

Nel

ms

(2005

)

Bil

ec (

2007)

Abid

in (

2010

)

Zhan

g e

t al.

(2011)

Sura

ni

and S

uh

ail

(2011)

Idri

s an

d I

smai

l

(2011)

Ism

ail

(2012)

Shi

et a

l. (

2013

)

Djo

koto

et

al.

(2014)

Reference

Barrier

Type

of

Bar

rier

√

√ √ Difficulty of installing sustainable technologies and materials which

requires new forms of competencies and knowledge

Cap

acit

y/P

rofe

ssio

nal

Bar

rier

s

√

Lack of professional capabilities/designers to implement green

construction

√

√ √ Ignorance or a lack of common understanding among designers,

contractors, and society about sustainability.

√

Insufficient of existing university to prepare future engineers to

understand their roles and responsibilities to achieve sustainable

buildings

√ Sustainability takes too much time to learn and design

√ Lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design

√

Many important stakeholders are not even aware of the concept of

sustainable building and so are naturally resistant to change.

√ Lack of aware of sustainable measures or alternatives

√

The lack of knowledge on green technology and the durability of green

materials

√

√ √ lack of capacity of the construction sector to actually implement

sustainable practices

√ √

Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not encourage the

development of the construction sector

Ste

erin

g B

arri

ers

√ √

√

Lack of government policies/support and measurement tools amongst

others.

√ √

√ lack of sustainable building codes

√ The lack or wrongful steering to implement sustainable construction.

√ √

insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best

practice

`

69

Objective 4

2.21 Introduction

Integrate the sustainability concepts in all construction levels and paradigm with regard to

social, economic, biophysical and technical goals is very important issue (Wang, 2014).

Many publications provide a generic classification on the types of environment and social

impact. Environment impact includes high-energy consumption, solid waste generation,

global greenhouse gas emissions, external air pollution, environmental damage and

resource depletion and so on (Xue, Zhang, Zhang, Yang and Li, 2015; Melchert, 2005;

Zimmermann, Althaus and Haas, 2005). Social impacts refer to both quantifiable

variables such as numbers of beneficiaries from the building, and qualitative indicators

such as cultural impacts involving changes to people's norms, values, beliefs, and

perceptions about the society in which they live (Vanclay, 2002). Due to an increased

awareness of sustainable development and constructability, the construction industry is

now facing challenges to integrate sustainability concepts in planning, design,

construction, and operation stages of projects in order to reduce energy consumption,

carbon emissions and other negative environmental impacts while maintaining high

economic sustainability and constructability performance (Zhong and Wu, 2015).

Green buildings is the output of integrating social, economic, and environmental issues in

project stages, it’s the approach taken by the building industry to achieve sustainable

development, which aims to reduce the overall impact on the natural environment by

reducing green house emissions, lowering the levels of pollutants, conserving resources

through reuse and renewal strategies and reducing waste throughout all the stages of

building construction (Bohari et al., 2015). Sustainability is a relationship, or balancing

act, between many factors (social, environmental and economic realities and constraints)

which are constantly changing (Rigamonti, 2015). Because sustainability is a dynamic

concept rather than a static state, it requires decision makers to be flexible and willing to

modify their approaches according to changes in the environment, human needs and

`

70

desires, or technological advances. This means that actions that contribute to

sustainability today, either in perception or in reality, may be deemed detrimental

tomorrow if the context has changed: Ensuring sustainability over time means

maintaining a dynamic balance among a growing human population and its demands, the

changing capabilities of the physical environment to absorb the wastes of human activity,

the changing possibilities opened up by new knowledge and technological changes and

the values. Sustainable construction should at least focus on environmental and economic

sustainability (Asici, 2015; Menash and Castro, 2004).

During the project whole life, sustainable practices plays an important role by integrating

resources and stakeholders in different stages, such as designers, engineers and operators,

to achieve sustainable project results (Wang et al., 2014).Various techniques and

management skills have previously been developed to help improving sustainable

performance from implementing construction projects. However, these techniques seem

not being effectively implemented due to the fragmentation and poor coordination among

various construction participants. There is a lack of consistency and holistic methods to

help participants implementing sustainable construction practice at various stages of

project realization (Shen, Hao, Tam and Yao, 2007c).

2.22 Sustainability Dimensions that should be Involved when Integrate

sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle

2.22.1 Social Sustainability

Construction projects have broad and long term social impacts. Construction operation

consumes energy, creates substantial noise, and produces large quantities of waste

(Gambatese and Rajendran, 2005). Civil infrastructure system is a major consumer of raw

materials and energy. In addition, it may affect the community growth (more people) and

community demographics (Forkenbrock, Benshoff and Weisbrod, 2001), and change the

land use pattern (Wegener, 2004). It may replace some of the residents near the

construction site (Tilt, Braun and He, 2009), and also brings about inconvenience of the

community nearby (Zhang, 2011).

`

71

According to Hill and Bowen (1997), the social attributes of green construction calls

specifically for addressing poverty and inequality. The basic principle of social

sustainability is to improve the quality of human life by ensuring secure and adequate

consumption of basic needs, which are food, clothing, shelter, health, and beyond that by

ensuring comfort, identity and choice. The first step towards achieving this goal is poverty

alleviation. Social sustainability attributes include: Improve quality of human life,

including poverty alleviation, make provision for social determination and cultural

diversity in development planning, protect and promote health through a healthy and safe

working environment, implement skills training and capacity enhancement of

disadvantaged workforce, seek fair distribution of the social costs of construction, seek

equitable distribution of the social benefits of distribution, and seek intergenerational

equity (Nwokoro, 2011). The theory of ‘social sustainability’ calls for economic growth

constrained by the requirements of social equity. In order to link these, an enabling

environment must be created that optimizes resource use, prioritizes resource allocation,

and fosters equitable resource distribution (Basiago, 1999).

Construction workers safety and health play a major role in achieving sustainable socio-

economic development in the construction industry (Rajendran and Gambatese, 2009).

The sustainable safety and health concept aim to sustain a construction worker's safety

and health during a single project; for each future project a worker is involved in; and

during the worker's remaining lifetime after retirement (Rajendran, 2007). Many studies

have quantified sustainability in terms of indicator and indexing methods. Such metrics

have the potential to translate the concept of sustainability into numbers for quantifying

and optimizing (Xue et al., 2015).Social Sustainability is inherently anthropocentric, since

it is the welfare of humans with which we are concerned. More than a concern for mere

survival, sustainability is a desire to thrive, to have the best life possible. There are many

socio cultural issues which influence sustainability. The most prominent issue is inter-

generational equity, in which we must insure that we leave our progeny with the tools and

resources they need to survive and enjoy life. As an African proverb says, “We do not

own the earth, we are just taking care of our grandchildren’s inheritance.” In so doing, we

should not forsake the quality of life that people today are experiencing. Instead, we must

`

72

strive to raise the standard of living of those people who today lack the most basic

requirements such as clean water and adequate food. Other issues in this realm are:

environmental justice, population growth, human health, cultural needs, and personal

preferences. These elements have a great deal to do with our quality of life and should not

be ignored (Du Bose and Pearce, 2015).

2.22.2 Economic Sustainability

The construction industry is an important economic sector in every country, providing

physical facilities and infrastructure. In addition, construction has a strong indirect

influence on other industries (Bohari et al., 2015) through the pattern of demand and

supply. Construction projects demand materials or products from other industries, such as

the manufacturing industry, in order to produce buildings and infrastructure that are, in

turn, beneficial for those industries. This supply and demand pattern has significantly

contributed to economic growth (Ofori, 2000). Construction is the largest industrial sector

in Europe and the US, representing 10– 11% and13% of GDP, respectively (Halliday,

2008). Economics, as it pertains to sustainability, does not simply refer to Gross National

Product, exchange rates, inflation, profit, etc. Economics is important to sustainability

because of its broader meaning as a social science that explains the production,

distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The exchange of goods and services

has a significant impact on the environment, since the environment serves as the ultimate

source of raw material inputs and the repository for discarded goods. Economic gain has

been the driver for much of the unsustainable development that has occurred in the past. A

shift to sustainability will only occur if it is shown not to be excessively costly and

disadvantageous. Part of sustainability is changing the way things are valued to take into

consideration the economic losses due to lost or degraded natural resources, and expand

our scope of concern from short term to long term impacts. Once this is done sustainable

development will be revealed to be a more economically beneficial option than current

development patterns (Du Bose and Pearce, 2015).

According to Sultan (2005), economic sustainability attributes include: Labour-intensive

construction policies (promotion of employment by mandating minimum crew size and

`

73

supervisors and use of less machinery in construction projects associated with import

reduction of machines, spares and foreign exchange savings); Energy-Efficiency policies

in Design and Construction (Mandating the use of low embodied energy materials such as

granite, minimizing high energy materials such as cement and steel, energy reduction in

buildings via insulation, day lighting, optimize material use and minimize site waste);

credit and policies to select projects, strategies for sustaining the continuity of affordable

infrastructure projects (infrastructure projects can help enhance the process of

industrialization by raising productivity and reducing production cost); strengthening the

law and regulations in construction and land affairs; pricing policies (maintain the

monetary and fiscal discipline required to promote price control); improve administration

effectiveness and reduce bureaucratic procedures. Choose environmentally responsible

suppliers and contractors. Ensure financial affordability for intended beneficiaries, and

maintain sustained and efficient use of resources and materials, sustained employment

opportunities through formal construction, material production and distribution,

maintenance during the economic life span of buildings.

Economic sustainability, by way of growth, development, and productivity, has guided

conventional development science in the past. Market allocation of resources, sustained

levels of growth and consumption, an assumption that natural resources are unlimited and

a belief that economic growth will ‘trickle down’ to the poor have been b its hallmarks

(Basiago, 1999). Economic sustainability implies a system of production that satisfies

present consumption levels without compromising future needs. ‘income’ can be defined

as ‘the amount one can consume during a period and still be as well off at the end of the

period’. Traditionally, economists, assuming that the supply of natural resources was

unlimited, placed undue emphasis on the capacity of the market to allocate resources

efficiently. They also believed that economic growth would bring the technological

capacity to replenish natural resources destroyed in the production process. Today,

however, a realization has emerged that natural resources are not infinite. The growing

scale of the economic system has strained the natural resource base (Basiago, 1999).

`

74

To achieve economic sustainability, the construction industry must shift the use of

resources from non renewable to renewable forms, from waste production to reuse and

recycling, from an emphasis on first costs to life cycle costs and full-cost accounting,

where all costs such as waste, emission, and pollution are factored into the price of

materials (Kibert, 2008). Although traditional cost accounting methods, e.g. internal rate

of return and return of investment, can still be used in the decision making processes,

these methods have been challenged for leading to incorrect decisions concerning

environmental costs (Hamner and Stinson, 1995). Life cycle costing (LCC) is a useful

tool to address these issues. According to British Standards Institution (2008), life cycle

cost is the cost of an asset, or its parts throughout its life cycle, while fulfilling the

performance requirements. The components in life cycle cost include construction costs,

maintenance costs, operational costs, occupancy costs, end-of-life costs and non-

construction costs (BSI, 2008).

2.22.3 Environmental Sustainability

Environmental concerns are also very important for sustainability. The natural

environment is the physical context within which we live. Sustainability requires that we

recognize the limits of our environment. There are limits to the quantities of natural

resources that exist on the planet. Some of these resources, such as trees and wildlife, are

renewable so long as we leave enough intact to regenerate. Other resources, such as

minerals, are renewed at such slow rates that any use whatsoever depletes the total stock

(Du Bose and Pearce, 2015). Construction projects have been considered to cause

environmental problems ranging from excessive consumption of global resources both in

terms of construction and building operation and the pollution to the urban environment

(Xue et al., 2015). The construction industry consumes a large amount of natural

resources, such as land, water, fossil and mineral and energy, these resources all being

non-renewable resources. The abuse of these resources seems certain to affect future

generations and therefore, such activity is not sustainable. The products of the

construction industry buildings and infrastructure, have a long-term impact on the

environment and local inhabitants. They continuously emit a large amount of pollution

`

75

and waste affecting the air, land and water (Wang, 2014). We need to minimize our

consumption of all resources, renewable and depletable. Another key environmental issue

is to minimize our impact on global ecosystems: the earth is like an organism and we must

maintain it in a healthy state. Natural ecosystems can survive some impacts, but these

must be small enough so that the earth can recover. Protecting ecosystem health may

involve the protection of an endangered species, the preservation of a wetland, or

protection of biodiversity in general (Du Bose and Pearce, 2015). The IUCN (1991)

stated that sustainability requires the improvement of the quality of human life within the

carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. Bio physical sustainable attributes include:

Project design facilities that reflect consciousness of the fragility of the ecology in which

it is situated and the awareness of its impact upon it; The use of renewable building

materials from sustainable sources and designs that take into consideration existing

cultural patterns and behaviors, materials and techniques; Prevention of pollution from

construction activity and preserving sites in their natural state and water use reduction and

conservation and rainwater collection and; Reduction of energy use and on-site renewable

energy and encourage construction waste management (Nwokoro, 2011).

Due to the importance of environmental sustainability in the construction industry, there

is a growing awareness regarding environmental sustainability (De Medeiros, Ribeiro and

Cortimiglia, 2014). Various environmental building assessment methods have been

developed in the construction industry, using a wide range of environmental sustainability

indicators. For example, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

uses sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material and resources, as

well as indoor air quality as the indicators while the Singapore Green Mark uses energy

efficiency, water efficiency, environmental protection and indoor air quality as the

indicators. According to Cu cek, Klemes and Kravanja (2012), moving towards

sustainability requires the redesigning of production and construction, which is built on a

complete environmental building assessment. No matter what assessment methods are

chosen, the primary role of an environmental building assessment method is to provide a

comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of a building using a

`

76

common and verifiable set of criteria and targets for building owners and designers to

achieve higher environmental standards (Zhong and Wu, 2015).

2.22.4 Technical Sustainability

Technology plays a very important role in sustainable development because it is one of

the most significant ways in which we interact with our environment; we use technologies

to extract natural resources, to modify them for human purposes, and to adapt our man-

made living space. It is through use of technology that we have seen drastic improvements

in the quality of life of many people. Unfortunately, many of these short term

improvements in the immediate quality of life have also exacted a great toll on the

environment. In order to proceed toward sustainability, we will have to be more deliberate

and thoughtful in our employment of technology. We need to develop and use

technologies with sustainability in mind. We need “sustainable technologies”. To avoid

confusion and ambiguity it is necessary to establish a working definition of “technology”

(Zhong and Wu, 2015). The technical attribute of sustainability relate to the performance,

quality and service of a building. The emphasis on the application of these principles

should be on implementing a process which seeks to achieve consensus among interested

parties on which principles are more and which are less important. Sustainable technical

attributes include: Design for flexibility, adaptability and durability of exposed building

parts. Pursue quality in creating the built environment and use serviceability to promote

sustainable construction as well as revitalize existing urban infrastructure (Sultan, 2005;

Hill and Bowen, 1997). Constructability and buildability are basic terms to achieve

technical sustainability in construction projects. The term “constructability” in the US and

the equivalent concept “buildability” in the UK emerged in the late 1970s. According to

Zhong and Wu (2015), constructability is the extent to which the design of the building

facilitates ease of construction, subject to the overall requirements for the completed

building. Similarly, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) (2011) defines

buildability as the extent to which the design of a building facilitates ease of construction

as well as the extent to which the adoption of construction techniques and processes

affects the productivity level of building works. In order to assess constructability,

`

77

Singapore has initiated two well-known schemes, which are Buildable Design Appraisal

System (BDAS) and Constructability Appraisal System (CAS). These two systems

include statutory requirements for building designs to fulfill a minimum buildability score

and a minimum constructability score. There are three key constructability principles on

which the designs are assessed, including:

Standardization refers to the repetition of grids, sizes of components and connection

details. A repeated layout, for example, will facilitate faster construction. Similarly,

columns or external claddings of repeated sizes will reduce mould changes.

Simplicity means uncomplicated building construction systems and installation

details. A flat plate system, for example, eases formwork construction as well as

reinforcement work considerably.

Single integrated elements are those that combine related components together into a

single element that may be prefabricated in the factory and installed on site. Pre-cast

concrete external walls, curtain walls or prefabricated toilets are good examples of

this category (Zhong and Wu, 2015).

2.23 Integrate the Sustainability Concepts in All Construction Levels and

Paradigm with Regard to Economic, Environment, Social, and Technical

goals.

A shift to a green construction need to articulate ways of achieving social, economic,

biophysical and technical indicators of sustainable construction (Rigamonti, 2015). The

following stages are essential in sustainable construction, undertake prior assessments of

proposed activities and involve all stakeholders on the project in due time; Promote

interdisciplinary collaborations and recognize the complexity and multiplicity of

objectives inherent in the concept of sustainability; Utilize a life cycle framework, which

recognizes the need to consider all of the principles of sustainable construction at each

and every stage in planning, assessment, design, construction, operation and

decommissioning of projects. Comply with relevant legislation and regulations and

manage activities through the setting of targets, monitoring, evaluation, feedback and self-

regulation of progress, in a process that is iterative and adaptive in nature (Nwokoro,

`

78

2011). Environmental sustainability involves ecosystem integrity, carrying capacity and

biodiversity. It requires that natural capital be maintained as a source of economic inputs

and as a sink for wastes. Resources must be harvested no faster than they can be

regenerated. Wastes must be emitted no faster than they can be assimilated by the

environment. The theoretical framework elaborated by Sultan (2005) posits that

economic, social and environmental ‘sustainability’ must be ‘integrated’ and ‘interlinked’.

They must be coordinated in a comprehensive manner (Basiago, 1999). It is fitting that

unprecedented attention has been given to ‘environmental sustainability’ in recent years,

given the fact that development theory has focused on matters of economic

underdevelopment and poverty alleviation in developing countries, and was late in

responding to unprecedented threats to the global environment. Economic sustainability,

environmental sustainability and constructability indicators related to concrete and steel

projects (Goodland, 1996).

A shift to a green economy – an economy that generates prosperity while maintaining a

healthy environment and social equity among current and future generations (EEA, 2011)

depends on the promotion of recycling, particularly if it enables reducing environmental

impacts from raw material extraction and materials processing. As suggested by the EEA

(2011), recycling generates jobs, provides business opportunities and ensures secure

supplies of essential resources. Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and

constructability indicators related to concrete and steel projects. While traditional design

and construction focuses on cost, performance and quality objectives, sustainable design

and construction adds to these criteria minimization of resource depletion and

environmental degradation, and creating a healthy built environment (Kibert, 1994).

Figure 2.4 illustrates the primary paradigm shift to sustainability within the building

design and construction industry. This model of the new sustainability paradigm shows

issues which must be considered for design making at all stages of the life cycle of

facility. Sustainable designers and constructors will approach each project with the entire

life cycle of the facility in mind, not just the initial capital investment. Instead of thinking

of the built environment as an object separate from the natural environment, it should be

viewed as part of the flow and exchange of matter and energy which occurs naturally

`

79

within the biosphere. In addition to the nonliving components which make up the built

environment, sustainable designers and constructors must also consider the living

components of the built environment (flora, fauna, and people) which operate together as

a whole system in the context of other ecosystems in the biosphere (Du Bose and Pearce,

2015). Life cycle considerations are particularly important with respect to the design and

construction of built facilities because the life cycle of a facility involves more than just

constructing the facility itself. Operation, maintenance, and decommissioning or disposal

of the facility also consume matter and energy, and are largely constrained by the design

and construction decisions made in the early phases of the facility’s life.

Fig. (2.4): Shift from traditional to sustainable design and construction (DuBose and Pearce, 2015)

People who make project decisions with sustainability as an objective will need to

evaluate the long-term as well as short-term impacts of those decisions to the local and

global environments. And those who take a sustainability approach to design and

construction will be rewarded with reduced liability, new markets, and an earth-friendlier

construction process, which will help future and current generations to achieve a better

quality of life (Liddle, 1994). Only by ‘integrating’ and ‘interlinking’ economic, social

and environmental ‘sustainability’ can negative synergies be arrested, positive synergies

fostered, and real development encouraged. Economic, social, and environmental

‘sustainability’ form elements of a dynamic system. They cannot be pursued in isolation

for ‘sustainable development’ to flourish (Basiago, 1999). Table 4.1 shows how to

integrate the sustainability concepts in all construction levels and paradigm with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

`

80

Table (2.9): Integrate the sustainability concepts in all construction levels and paradigm with regard to economic, environment,

social, and technical goals

Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Asp

ect

Project Building Stage

Operation Stage Construction Stage Design Stage Planning Stage

Insulate building

envelope

Minimize energy

consumption

Choice of materials and construction methods

Design for energy efficient deconstruction &

recycling

Design for low energy intensive transportation

Develop energy efficient technological process

Use of passive energy design

Ener

gy

conse

rvat

ion

Res

ou

rce

conse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Use biological waste

treatment system

Minimize consumption

and depletion of

material resources

Use sustainable

materials

Reuse materials

Design for waste management

Specify durable material

Specify natural and local material

Design for pollution prevention

Specify non-toxic material

Decide sustainability design elements.

Use Renewable materials

Storage and collection of recyclables.

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

Use water efficient

plumbing fixtures

Collect rain water

Employ re-circulating

systems Wastewater

technology

Mange water use

Design for dual plumbing

Designing low-demand landscaping

Water treatment

Pressure reduction

Wat

er c

on

serv

atio

n

`

81

Method S

trat

egy

Project Building Stage

Operation Stage Construction Stage Design Stage Planning Stage

Reuse of existing building (give priority

to reuse or rehabilitate exist structure)

Locate construction project close to

existing infrastructure

Proper site selection

Lan

d

conse

rvat

ion

Create a clean and

healthy

environment

Reduce negative impact

to environment

Select friendly

environment materials

Control pollution

Using sustainable

construction methods.

Reduce green house gas

emission

Reduce waste

generation

Compliance with regulations and legislation

Evaluation of the orientation of building

(involve how the building will relate to

climatic and weather conditions)

Maintain and enhance the biodiversity

and ecology of the site.

A forestation of the site to achieve

sustainable construction.

Obtain client commitment for

sustainability

Prepare sustainability policy

Identify sustainability critical success

factor

Conduct environmental impact

assessment (EIA)

Consider whole life cycle in design

options

Compliance with sustainability criteria

Conduct environmental assessment

Eco

syst

em c

on

serv

atio

n

`

82

Method S

trat

egy

Goal

Asp

ect

Project Building Stage

Operation Stage Construction Stage Design Stage Planning Stage

Reduce time required to

assemble materials on

site

Use recycled and

reclaimed materials

Use locally sourced materials

Utilize modular design and standardized

components

Use less expensive building materials

Identify sustainable materials

Prepare cost and procurement plan

Integrate sustainable elements into design

Calculate life-cycle cost

Employ cost saving technology that can

be managed locally

Use readily available materials

Study cost benefits and risk associated

Prepare cost estimation

Sustainable contractor and supplier

selection

Take into account the project budget Init

ial

cost

(P

urc

has

e co

st)

Co

st e

ffic

iency

Eco

nom

ic

Protecting materials

from destructive

elements such as sun,

temperature variations,

rain or wind, or

migration of moisture-

laden air through

defects in the envelope.

Provide easy to

understand access

control for occupants

Design for regular cleaning, maintenance, and

repair.

Choose minimum-maintenance materials

Ensure service life requirements of materials

and components

Update sustainable plans

Transport and accessibility

Ensure availability of skills required and

labor supply

Co

st i

n u

se

Recycling potential

and ease of

demolition

Reusing building

materials or

components

Adaptive reuse of an existing project

Rec

over

y c

ost

`

83

Method

Str

ateg

y

Go

al

Asp

ect

Project Building Stage

Operation Stage Construction Stage Design Stage Planning Stage

Thermal comfort

Acoustic comfort

Day lighting

Natural ventilation

Functionality

Aesthetics

Appropriate

building acoustical

and vibration

conditions

Assure indoor

environmentally

quality

Providing nice

views, view space

Control

temperature

Manage colors

Regulate humidity

Ensure durability

Ensure usability

Prevent disturbances to

local community

Acoustic and noise

control

Safety and health for

workers

Design for usefulness

Attractiveness

Adaptability

Disassembly

Innovation in design

Study the effect on local development

Protection to culture heritage

Protection to Built heritage

Respect customs and beauty of the place

Pro

tect

ing

Hum

an h

ealt

h a

nd c

om

fort

Des

ign

for

Hum

an a

dap

tati

on

Soci

al

`

84

Method S

trat

egy

Project Building Stage

Operation Stage Construction Stage Design Stage Planning Stage

Enhance the

awareness of

public with regard

to sustainable

issues

Connection to

natural

environment

Use material that

are reusable,

recyclable, and

biodegradable

Evaluate

sustainability

achievement

Introduce feedback

mechanism

Energy efficient

heating, cooling

and air

conditioning

systems

Ensure safety

Provide privacy

Satisfy needs

Design for fire protection

Resist natural hazards

Design for crime prevention

Pro

tect

ing P

hysi

cal

Res

ourc

es

`

85

2.24 Indicators of Sustainability Integration Process

Sustainability performance of an individual construction project across its life cycle is an

indispensable aspect in attaining the goal of sustainable development (Shen et al., 2007c).

Throughout the life cycle of a building, various natural resources are consumed, including

energy resources, water, land, and several pollutants are released back to the

global/regional environment. These environmental burdens result in global warming,

acidification, air pollution, etc., which impose damage on human health, primarily natural

resources and biodiversity (Ragheb, 2010). There is no doubt that reducing the

environmental burden of the construction industry is crucial to a sustainable world

(Abolore, 2012).

Most research on the environmental impacts of buildings examine the issues at a

relatively broad level though extensive descriptions. For example, Finnveden and Palm

(2002) stated that the use phase accounts for the majority of the environmental impacts of

buildings. Klunder (2001) gave a description of environmental issues of dwellings, noting

that assessments should focus primarily on components that involve large quantities of

materials (e.g., foundation, floors, and walls), but there are also dangerous materials that

should be avoided regardless of quantity (e.g., lead). Energy consumption in space

heating, hot water, lighting, and ventilation should be studied along with the energy

carrier (electricity or gas). Some of the building-related environmental studies present

detailed quantitative data about the life cycle of a building (Scheuer, Keoleian and Reppe,

2003). However, most studies only utilize one or two indicators of environmental impacts.

Treloar, Fay, Ilozor and Love (2001) have used a hybrid input-output model to estimate

the primary energy consumption of building materials to study the relative importance of

different life-cycle phases. Other quantitative studies have used a wider set of

environmental impact indicators in their analyses, but have only included certain life-

cycle elements. Junnila and Saari (1998) have used life-cycle inventory analysis to

estimate the primary energy consumption and environmental emissions of CO2 , CO,

NOx , SO2 , volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulates from a residential

building.

`

86

Environment

Ecological value

So

il

Erosion and sedimentation

control plan

Soil consumption

Water saving

Wa

te

r Water consumption

Protection of water resources

Control consumption

Ventilation

Atm

osp

her

e

Minimizing Noise

Minimizing GHG emissions

Particulate emissions and dust

Odors

Air Quality

Nox and So2 emissions

Impacts on the environment

Protection of flora and fauna

Barrier effect of the project

Natural heritage

Ecological footprint Bio

div

ersi

ty

Visual impact

La

nd

s

cap

e

Optimization of resources

Rec

ou

rses

Equipments and material with

ecological label

Use of regional materials

Materials with low health risks

Use of durable materials

Waste management

Wa

ste

Energy consumption

En

erg

y

Renewable energy

Savings and energy efficiency

Light pollution

Mitigating the effects of

Ris

ks floods and droughts

Adaptation to climate change

Infrastructure control-Risk

management

Social

Cultural heritage

Built heritage

Respect custom and beauty

of place

Cu

ltu

re

Public access

Human biodiversity access

Acc

essi

bil

ity

Public participation and

control over the projects

Public information

Participation of associations

and organizations

Multidisciplinary Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n

of

all

act

ors

Safety and health of workers

User security

Impact on the global

community

Technical and

environmental training

Security of the

infrastructures

Sec

uri

ty

Project declared of general

interest

Satisfaction of society

Happiness

Pu

bli

c

uti

lity

Local workers during

construction, operation, and

maintenance

Raising levels of training

and information

Environmental campaigns

Integration into the society

So

cia

l

inte

gra

tio

n

Corporate social

responsibility of the sponsor

Environmental and

sustainable awareness

Necessity urgency of the

work

Res

po

nsi

bil

it

y

Economy

Direct costs

Co

st Indirect costs

Cost/ benefit of society

Life cycle costs

Cost incurred to users

Local economy

Constructability

Quality control

Durability

Functionality

Innovation in design

Plain maintenance

Operating manual

Design for disassembly

or change of use

Environmental

management

accreditation

Quality management

accreditation

Synergies with other

projects

Tec

hn

ica

l req

uir

emen

ts

Types of contracts

Synergies with actors

Product warranties

installation and set B

ure

au

cra

cy

Project management

Figure. (2.5): Framework of Sustainability Indicators (Fernández and Rodríguez-López,

2010)

`

87

The life-cycle phases studied included manufacturing of structural materials,

construction, operational energy, maintenance, and demolition, As some aspects of

sustainability can be difficult to quantify such as social sustainability, many studies and

tools, e.g. the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), use

environmental and economic sustainability as sustainability indicators (Zhong and Wu,

2015). (Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López, 2010) summarized the indicators that

should be taken in consideration when integrate integrating social, economic, and

environmental issues in project stages. Fig 2.5 shows framework of sustainability

indicators.

2.25 The Objectives that should be considered when integrate sustainability

concepts in all Project Life Cycle

Three general objectives should shape the framework for implementing integration of

sustainable concept in all building Project life cycle, while keeping in mind the principles

of sustainability issues (social, environmental and economic), these objectives are

2.25.1 Resource conservation

"Resource conservation” means achieving more with less (Akadiri, 2012). It is the

management of the human use of natural resources to provide the maximum benefit to

current generations while maintaining capacity to meet the needs of future generations

(Menash and Castro, 2004). According to Yi-Kai, Peng and Jie (2010). Buildings are one

of the heaviest consumers of natural resources. Halliday (2008) observe that certain

resources are becoming extremely rare and the use of remaining stocks should be treated

cautiously. Hence, he called for the substitution of rare material with less rare or

renewable materials. Many of the initiatives pursued in order to create ecology sustaining

buildings are focusing on increasing the efficiency of resource use; the ways in which

these efficiencies are sought are varied.

Graham (2003) cited examples ranging from the principles of solar passive design which

aim to reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources, the consumption of energy

production, life cycle design and design for construction. Methods for minimizing

material wastage during building construction process and providing opportunities for

`

88

recycling and reuse of building material also contribute to improving resource

consumption efficiency. He calls to be resource efficient have been born from concern for

increasing depletion of non-renewable natural resources. Since the non-renewable

resources that play major role in a construction project are energy, water, material and

land, the conservation of these non-renewable resources has vital importance for a

sustainable future.

2.25.2 Cost Efficiency

Construction clients are demanding assurance of their buildings’ long-term economic

performance and costs. In addition, the construction project supply chain of developers,

suppliers, manufacturers, design and construction teams are under increasing pressure

from clients to minimize total project cost and consider how much a building will cost

over its life cycle and how successfully it will continue to meet occupier’s requirements.

Buildings represent a large and long-lasting investment in financial terms as well as in

other resources (Oberg, 2005). Improvements of cost effectiveness of buildings is

consequently of common interest for the owner, the user and society. The concept of

sustainability as applied to the construction of buildings is intended to promote the utmost

efficiency and to reduce financial costs (Bakis, 2003). A building’s economic operation

should be considered throughout the construction stage and also in terms of its

maintenance and conservation throughout its useful life; In order to ensure that cost

efficiency is achieved, the concept of life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) will play

significant roles in the economics of a building project (Alkhadiri, 2012). Life cycle cost

analysis (LCCA) is an economic assessment approach that is able to predict the costs of a

building from its operation, maintenance, and replacement until the end of its life-time

(San-Jose and Cuadrado, 2010).

2.25.3 Design for Human Adaptation

One of the main purposes of a sustainable building is to provide healthy and comfortable

environments for human activities. A building must accommodate the activities it is built

for and provide floor-space, room volume, shelter, light and amenities for working, living,

learning, curing, processing etc. Furthermore, the building must supply a healthy and

`

89

comfortable indoor climate to the people using it. In meeting these basic requirements, the

building should not cause harm to its occupants or the environment and must, for

example, be structurally stable and fire safe. Sustainable development requires that the

building does not cause unnecessary load or risk to the environment, for example in the

form of energy use (Akadiri, 2012).

2.26 Sustainable Technology Characteristics

A sustainable technology is one that promotes a societal move toward sustainability, a

technology that fits well with the goals of sustainable development. Sustainable

technologies are practical solutions to achieve economic development and human

satisfaction in harmony with the environment. These technologies serve to contribute,

support or advance sustainable development by reducing risk, enhancing cost

effectiveness, improving process efficiency, and creating processes, products or services

that are environmentally beneficial or benign, while benefiting humans (Du Bose and

Pearce, 2015). To qualify as sustainable technologies, these solutions must have the

following characteristics, in addition to meeting pre-existing requirements and constraints

(e.g. economic viability):

• Minimize use of nonrenewable energy and natural resources.

• Satisfying human needs and aspirations with sensitivity to cultural context.

• Minimal negative impact on the earth’s ecosystems.

2.26.1 Minimizing Consumption

The use of nonrenewable energy and natural resources should be minimized because

consumption of resources inherently involves increasing the disorder of materials and

energy, rendering them of lower utility for future use (Rees, 1990). By subjecting

materials and energy to consumption processes we decrease their potential utility to

current and future generations. Therefore, consuming as little matter and energy as

possible, or “doing more with less,” is a fundamental objective of sustainability (Du Bose

and Pearce, 2015).

2.26.2 Maintaining Human Satisfaction

`

90

A sustainable technology must fulfill the needs of the population it is intended to serve. In

fulfilling those needs the technology must account for human preferences and cultural

differences. In some cases these preferences may conflict with environmental and

economic criteria and a compromise will have to be worked out. This is does not mean

that human preferences should be ignored; fulfillment of our desires means the difference

between surviving and living (Du Bose and Pearce, 2015).

2.26.3 Minimizing Negative Environmental Impacts

Finally, causing minimal negative environmental impacts (as well as maximizing positive

impacts) is an important objective of sustainability since the environment consists of

ecosystems whose ongoing health is essential for human survival on earth (Goodland

1994). Sustainability of the human race requires that ecosystems be protected and

preserved in a reasonable state of health through maintaining biodiversity, adequate

habitat, and ecosystem resilience (Du Bose and Pearce, 2015).

`

91

Table (2.10): Integrate the sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Cole

& L

arss

on (

1999

)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

quir

e (2

00

5)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(2006)

LE

ED

(2009)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at (

2009

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(201

0)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(2010)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

., (

201

0)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al.

(2010)

AL

wae

r an

d C

lem

ents

-

Cro

om

e (2

01

0)

Shen

et

al.

(2011)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

2011)

An

dra

de

& B

rag

ança

(2

011

)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

2012)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Method Strategy

Goal

Pro

ject

Buil

din

g S

tag

e

√ Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Pla

nnin

g

Material conservation

√ Pressure reduction Water conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Proper site selection

Land conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Adaptive reuse of existing building (give

priority to reuse or rehabilitate existing

structure)

√ Locate construction project close to existing

infrastructure

√ √ Development of non-arable lands for

construction

Site development

√ √ √ √ √ √

Evaluation of the orientation of building

(involve how the building will relate to

climatic conditions)

Ecosystem

conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ Maintain and enhance the biodiversity and

ecology of the site

√ √ √ √ √ √ A forestation of the site

√ √ √ √ √ √ Obtain client commitment for sustainability

√ √ √ √ √ √ Prepare sustainability policy

√ √ √ √ √ √ Identify sustainability critical success factor

√ √ √ √ √ √ Conduct environmental impact assessment

(EIA)

√ √ √ √ √ √ Consider whole life cycle in design options

√ √ √ √ √ √ Compliance with sustainability criteria

√ √ √ √ √ √ Conduct environmental assessment,

`

92

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Cole

& L

arss

on (

199

9)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

quir

e (2

00

5)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(20

06

)

LE

ED

(2009)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at (

2009

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(201

0)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(2010

)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

., (

201

0)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al.

(20

10)

AL

wae

r a&

Cle

men

ts-

Cro

om

e (2

010)

Shen

et

al.

(2011)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

2011)

An

dra

de

& B

rag

ança

(2

011

)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

201

2)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Method Strategy

Goal

√ `

Initial cost (Purchase

cost)

Eco

nom

ic

√ Use readily available materials

√ √ √ √ √ √ Study cost benefits and risk associated

√ √ √ √ √ √ Prepare cost estimation

√ √ √ √ √ √ Sustainable contractor and supplier

selection

√ √ Project budget

√ Ensure availability of skills required &

labor supply Cost in use

√ √ Effect on local development

Protecting Human

health and comfort So

cial

√ √ √ Protection to culture heritage

√ Built heritage

√ Respect customs and beauty of the place

√ Choice of materials and construction

method

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Des

ign √

Design for energy efficient deconstruction

and recycling

√ Design for low energy intensive

transportation

√ √ √ Developing energy efficient technological

process

√ Use of passive energy design

`

93

Gott

frie

d (

1996

)

Cole

& L

arss

on

(1999)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

qu

ire

(2005)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(2006)

LE

ED

(2009

)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at

(2009)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(2010)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(2

01

0)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

.,

(2010)

Bar

agan

ca e

t a

l.

(2010)

AL

wae

r &

Cle

men

ts-

Cro

om

e (2

010

)

Shen

et

al.

(20

11

)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

20

11

)

Andra

de

& B

ragan

ça

(2011)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

201

2)

Huss

in e

t al.

(20

13

)

Method Strategy

√ Design for Waste

Material conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Specify durable material

√ Specify natural and local material

√ Design for Pollution prevention

√ √ Specify non-toxic material

√ √ √ √ √ √ Decide sustainability design elements

√ √ √ √ Renewable material use

√ Storage and collection of recyclables

√ Design for dual plumbing

Water conservation √ Designing low-demand landscaping

√ √ Water treatment

√ √ √ √ √ √ Compliance with regulations and legislation Ecosystem

conservation

√ Use locally sourced materials

Initial cost (Purchase

cost)

Eco

no

mic

√ Utilize modular design & standardized

components

√ Use less expensive building Materials

√ √ √ √ √ √ Identify sustainable materials

√ √ √ √ √ √ Prepare cost and procurement plan

√ √ √ √ √ √ Integrated of sustainable elements into

design

√ √ √ √ Transport and accessibility

√ √ √ √ √

Calculate life cycle costs( direct costs,

indirect costs, investment costs, and

maintenance costs

`

94

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Cole

& L

arss

on (

199

9)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

quir

e (2

00

5)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(20

06

)

LE

ED

(2009)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at (

2009

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(201

0)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(2010

)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

., (

201

0)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al.

(20

10)

AL

wae

r an

d C

lem

ents

-

Cro

om

e (2

010)

Shen

et

al.

(2011)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

2011)

An

dra

de

& B

rag

ança

(2

011

)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

2012

)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Method Strategy

√ Design for regular cleaning, maintenance,

&repair.

Cost in use

√ Choose minimum-maintenance Materials

√ Ensure service life requirements of

materials and components

√ √ √ √ √ √ Update sustainable plans

Recovery cost

√ √ √ √ √ √ Design for usefulness

Protecting Human

health and comfort

So

cial

√ √ √ √ √ √ Attractiveness

√ √ √ √ √ √ Adaptability

√ √ √ √ √ √ Disassembly

√ √ √ √ Innovation in design

√ Design for Fire Protection Protecting Physical

Resources √ Resist Natural Hazards

√ Design for crime prevention

√ √ √ Insulating building envelope Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Co

nst

ruct

ion √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Minimize energy consumption

√ √ √ √ √ √ Use biological waste treatment system

Material conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ Minimize consumption of material

resources

√ √ √ √ √ √ Using sustainable materials

√ √ √ Material reuse

`

95

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Cole

& L

arss

on (

199

9)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

quir

e (2

00

5)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(20

06

)

LE

ED

(2009)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at (

20

09

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(20

10)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(201

0)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

., (

20

10)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al.

(201

0)

AL

wae

r an

d C

lem

ents

-

Cro

om

e (2

010)

Shen

et

al.

(2011

)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

201

1)

An

dra

de

and

B

rag

ança

(20

11

)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

2012

)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Method Strategy

√ Using water efficient plumbing fixtures

Water conservation

√ Collecting rain water

√ √ √ Employ re-circulating systems (Wastewater

technology

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Mange water use

√ √ √ √ √ √ Reduce negative impact to environment

Ecosystem

conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ Select friendly environment materials

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Control pollution (reduce pollution

generation) Construction activity pollution

prevention

√ √ √ √ Reduce green house gas emission

√ √ √ √ √ √ Using sustainable construction methods.

√ √ √ √ √ Reduce waste generation

√ √ Reduce time required to assemble materials

on site Initial cost

Eco

no

mic

√ Use recycled and reclaimed materials

√

Protecting materials from destructive

elements such as sun, temperature

variations, rain or wind, or migration of

moisture-laden air through defects in the

envelope.

√ Provide easy to understand access control

for occupants

√ Reusing building materials or components Recovery Cost

`

96

Gott

frie

d (

1996)

Cole

& L

arss

on (

199

9)

CIB

(2004)

Yuso

f (2

005)

Abid

in &

Pas

quir

e (2

00

5)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(2006

)

LE

ED

(2009)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at (

2009

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(2010)

Kai

Juan

et

al.

(2010

)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

., (

2010)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al.

(2010)

AL

wae

r an

d C

lem

ents

-

Cro

om

e (2

010)

Shen

et

al.

(2011)

Mw

asha

et a

l. (

2011)

Andra

de

and

Bra

gan

ça (

201

1)

Akad

iri

et a

l. (

2012

)

Huss

in e

t al.

(2013)

Method Strategy

Goal

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ Prevent disturbances to local community Protecting Human

health and comfort

Soci

al √ √ Acoustic and noise control

√ Safety and health for workers

Protecting Physical

Resources

Energy conservation

Envir

onm

ent

Op

erat

ion a

nd

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Material conservation

Water conservation

Land conservation

√ √ √ √ √ √ Create a clean and healthy environment Ecosystem

Conservation

Initial cost

Eco

nom

ic

Cost in use

√ Recycling potential and ease of demolition Recovery Cost

√ √ Acoustic comfort

√ Visual comfort

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Day lighting

√ √ √ √ √ √ Natural ventilation

√ √ Functionality

√ √ √ √ √

Aesthetics

`

97

Go

ttfr

ied

(19

96

)

Co

le &

Lar

sso

n (

199

9)

CIB

(2

00

4)

Yu

sof

(200

5)

Ab

idin

& P

asq

uir

e

(20

05

)

Yam

i an

d P

rice

(20

06)

LE

ED

(2

009

)

Ali

& A

l N

sair

at

(20

09

)

Yin

g C

hen

et

al.

(20

10

)

Kai

Ju

an e

t a

l. (

20

10)

Bar

agan

ca e

t al

.,

(20

10

)

Bar

agan

ca e

t a

l.

(20

10

)

AL

wae

r an

d C

lem

ents

-

Cro

om

e (2

01

0)

Sh

en e

t a

l. (

20

11

)

Mw

ash

a et

al.

(2

01

1)

An

dra

de

& B

rag

ança

(20

11

)

Ak

adir

i et

al.

(2

012

)

Hu

ssin

et

al.

(2

013

)

Method

√ √ √ √ √ √ Appropriate building acoustical and

vibration conditions

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Assure indoor environmentally quality

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Providing nice views, view space

√ Control temperature

√ √ Regulate humidity

√ Manage colors

√ √ Ensure safety

√ Provide privacy

√ Satisfy needs

√ Sound insulation

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ensure durability

√ Ensure usability

√ √ √ √ √ √ Enhance the awareness of puplic with

regard to sustainable issues

Protecting Physical

Resources

√ √ √ √ √ √ Connection to natural environment

√ √ √ √ √ √ Use material that are reusable,

recyclable, and biodegradable

√ √ √ √ √ √ Provide information storage facility1

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ evaluate sustainability achievement,

√ √ √ √ √ √ introduce feedback mechanism

√ √ Energy efficient heating, cooling and air

conditioning systems

`

98

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

`

99

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

This chapter discusses the methodology which was used in this research. The

research methodology was chosen to achieve the research aims and objectives which

help to accomplish this research study. This chapter included information about the

research plan/strategy, population, sample size, data collection technique,

questionnaire design and development, face validity of the questionnaire, pre-test the

questionnaire, pilot study, final content of the questionnaire, and analytical methods

of data.

3.1 Research Aim and Objectives

This research was designed to promote green buildings by investigating

sustainability concepts in building projects life cycle in Gaza Strip with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals in order to ensure efficient use of

natural resources, minimization of any negative impact on the environment as well as

satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life. In achieving this

aim, four objectives have been outlined which includes:

1. To investigate awareness level of sustainability concept principles with regard

to economic, environment, social, and technical goals in building projects.

2. To identify and rate benefits level of sustainable construction (green buildings).

3. To identify and rate barriers to implementing sustainable buildings.

4. To integrate sustainability concepts in building project life cycle with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

3.2 Research Framework

This study employed qualitative and quantitative data. The researcher designed the

research by sixth main steps as described below and shown in figure 3.1.

3.2.1 First step: Theme Identification (Problem definition)

It was initiated to define the problem, set the objectives and develop the research

plan.

`

100

3.2.2 Second step: Literature Review

About two hundred references were reviewed including journals, conferences, books,

official reports and websites. The literature on sustainability principles, benefits,

barriers, as well as integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle

provided the theoretical basis to develop the research framework.

3.2.3 Third step: Pilot Study

The pilot study includes two parts. The first part was undertaken by consulting 15

experts in green buildings field; sustainability academic experts, experts from

government institution, experts from consultant offices, and experts from NGO's

institutions to pre-test the survey and subsequently modified before a final version

was produced. After this, the second part was accomplished by making analysis trial

using some of the population sample for validation before the main survey. The

questionnaire was modified based on the results of the pilot study and the final list of

questions was adopted to be used for the study.

3.2.4 Fourth step: The Main Survey

In this step of the survey, a quantitative and qualitative approach were utilized as the

main components in the study. A purposive sampling strategy will be used to ensure

meaningful statistical analysis, which included distributing the questionnaire to

specific people who have experience in the research topic. Unlike random studies,

which deliberately include a diverse cross section of ages, backgrounds and cultures,

the idea behind purposive sampling is to concentrate on people with particular

characteristics who will better be able to assist with this research subject. The

questionnaire will be designed in one form, and distributed to three categories of

engineers (civil, architectural, and electrical engineers) in several positions who

represent the target group of this research in order to obtain reliable and

representative quantitative data. While the purposive questionnaire survey can

provide information about level of awareness of sustainability concept principles

regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals, and rank and prioritize

sustainability benefits and barriers. The case study was used to integrate

sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle with regard to economic,

`

101

environment, social, and technical goals, and gather more in-depth insights on

participant attitudes, thoughts, and actions.

3.2.5 Fifth step: Results and Discussion

Data collected will be analyzed using both descriptive and inferential tools of

statistical software Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 20).

3.2.6 Sixth step: Case study

After the quantitative research, A case study was used to integrate sustainability

concepts in all building project life cycle with regard to economic, environment,

social, and technical goals.

3.2.7 Seventh step: Conclusion and Recommendations

The final phase of the research included the conclusions and recommendations.

3.3 Research Location

The research was carried out in Gaza Strip, which consists of five governorates: the

Northern governorate, Gaza governorate, the Middle governorate, KhanYounis

governorate and Rafah governorate.

3.4 Research Strategy

The followed strategy in this research study is a combination between quantitative

and qualitative methods. The quantitative approach will be used to investigate

awareness level of sustainability concept principles with regard to economic,

environment, social, and technical goals in building projects, identify benefits level

of sustainable construction, and investigate and rate barriers to implementing

sustainable buildings. On the other hand, the attitudinal type of qualitative approach

was followed to integrate sustainability concepts in building project life cycle with

regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

`

102

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 2

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 5

Ste

p 6

Ste

p 7

Figure (3.1): Framework of the research methodology

Literature review: Investigate sustainable building principles, benefits, barriers,

and integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

Questionnaire Survey:

Purposive sample (50 expert were selected)

Case study: Integrate sustainability

concepts in all building project life

cycle with regard to economic,

environment, social, and technical

goals

Qualitative data analysis

Systematic contextual analysis

Conclusion and recommendation

Problem definition

Theme identification:

(1) Objectives development.

(2) Framework development

(2) Framework development

Questionnaire Design:

Including Sustainable building principles, benefits and barriers

Quantitative data analysis:

Using SPSS to perform frequencies and percentile, factor analysis, reliability and

validity analysis, correlation and regression analysis, non-parametric tests and

relative important index.

Results and Discussion

`

103

3.5 Rationale of Using the Research Method

The related data of this research were collected using two approaches. The first

approach was the survey approach by using a purposive questionnaire survey. The

purposive sampling technique is a type of non-probability sampling that is most

effective when there is a limited number of people that have expertise in the area

being researched (Dolores and Tongco, 2007).Using questionnaires survey is mostly

suited to surveys whose purpose and objectives are clear enough to be explained in a

few paragraphs which are carefully chosen and guaranteed in this research. Moreover

it offers relatively high validity of results and a quick method of conducting the

survey. Therefore the researcher adopted this strategy base on previous studies Issa

and Al Abbar (2015); Abidin and Powmya (2014); Wang (2014); Abidin and Diyana

(2013); Goh and Rowlinson (2013); Samer (2012); Idris and Ismail (2011); Surani

and Suhail (2011); Surani and Suhail (2011); Susilawati and Al-Surf (2011); Shen

et al. (2010); Alnaser et al. (2008); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); and Sultan (2005).

The second approach was the case study approach which will enable the researcher

to integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals, and gather more in-depth

insights on participant attitudes, thoughts, and actions. By surveying the relevant

studies mentioned in the literature review, it was obtained that there were different

methodologies and data collection approaches used in order to achieve the required

target, goals and objectives. It included postal questionnaire, case study approach –

which both were adopted by this research –, interviews, focus groups documents

review, and workshops. Table 3.1 shows the surveyed studies and the adopted

corresponding methodologies.

Table (3.1): Research methods for previous studies

No. Author Country Research methods

1 Abidin and Jabbar (2015) Malaysia Questionnaire and interviews

2 Issa and Al Abbar (2015) United Arab Emirates Questionnaire

3 Issa and Al Abbar (2015b) United Arab Emirates Case Study

3 Saleh (2015) Oman Case study

4 Samari et al. (2015) Malaysia Questionnaire

`

104

No. Author Country Research methods

5 Abidin and Powmya (2014) Oman Questionnaire

6 Abidin and Powmya (2014b) Oman Case studies

7 Buys et al. (2014) Australia Case studies

8 Djokoto et al. (2014) Ghana Questionnaire

9 Rezgui et al. (2014) UK Interviews

10 Sivunen et al. (2014( Finland Workshop

11 Wang (2014) China Interviews

12 Wanget al. (2014) China Structured interviews

13 Abidin and Diyana (2013) Malaysia Interviews

14 Alsubeh (2013) Jordan Case study

15 Dania et al. (2013) Nigeria A multi-case study

16 Dobson et al. (2013) UK Questionnaire and Case study

17 Goh and Rowlinson (2013) Hong Kong Interviews

18 Shi et al. (2013) Shanghai Questionnaire

19 Alyami and Rezgui (2012) Saudi Arabia Delphi consultation approach

20 Abolore (2012) Nigeria and Malaysia Structured questionnaire

21 Lop et al. (2012) Malaysia Questionnaire and interviews

22 Qaemi and Heravi (2012) Iran Interviews

23 Samer (2012) Egypt Questionnaire

24 Idris and Ismail (2011) Malaysia Questionnaire and interviews

25 Nwokoro (2011) Nigeria Questionnaire and , Focus

group

26 Ragheb (2011) America Multiple Case Method

27 Robichaud &Anantatmula

(2011)

America Case study and interviews

28 Surani and Suhail (2011) UK Interviews

29 Susilawati and Al-Surf (2011) Saudi Arabia Questionnaire and case study

30 Taleb and Sharples (2011) Saudi Arabia Case study

31 Zhang (2011) China Case studies

32 Abidin (2010) Malaysia Questionnaire and interviews

33 Bragança et al. (2010) Portugal Case studies

34 Chen et al. (2010) US Questionnaire

35 Fernández and Lopez (2010) Spain Case Study and AHP method

36 Lam et al. (2010) Hong Kong Questionnaire

37 Shen et al. (2010) China Case study

38 Abidin (2009) Malaysia Questionnaire

40 Ali and Nsairat (2009) Jordan AHP method

41 Asokan et al. (2009) US Case study

42 Becchioet al. (2009) Oman Case study

43 Rajendran and Gambatese

(2009)

Portland Delphi survey

44 Tilt (2009) China Case studies

45 Xinzheng and Ruixue (2009) China Questionnaire and interviews

46 Alnaser et al. (2008)

Bahrain Case study

`

105

No. Author Country Research methods

47 Jawali and Fernández-Solís

(2008)

Prague Interviews

48 Thorpe and Ryan (2007) Australia Interviews

49 Shen et al. (2007) Hong Kong Interviews

50 Ries et al. (2006) Malaysia Case study

51 Shafii (2006) Southeast Asia Questionnaire

52 Shelbourn et al. (2006) UK Case study; Questionnaire;

and Interviews

53 Tam et al. (2006) Hong Kong Questionnaire and interviews

54 Abidin and Pasquire (2005) UK Questionnaires

55 Ajayi and Ikporukpo (2005) Nigeria Questionnaire

56 Shelbourn et al. (2005) UK prototyping approach

57 Sultan (2005) Yemen Delphi survey, poters model,

swot

58 Oberg (2005) Sweden Life cycle method

59 Ashley et al. (2003) UK Case study

60 Cole (2000) US Questionnaire

61 Hydes and Creech (2000) Malaysia Case studies

62 Lippiatt (1999) USA Multidimensional, life cycle

approach

63 Hill et al. (1994) Tampa, Florida Case study

3.6 Target population, sampling of the questionnaire, and data collection

The questionnaire survey was conducted in 2015 (November). Research population

includes civil, architects, and electrical engineers in the construction field in Gaza

Strip, Palestine as a target group. Purposive sample was chosen as the type of

sample. The purposive sampling technique is a type of non-probability sampling that

is most effective when there is a limited number of people that have expertise in the

area being researched (Dolores and Tongco, 2007). Purposive sampling may also be

used with both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The inherent bias of

the method contributes to its efficiency, and the method stays robust even when

tested against random probability sampling. Choosing the purposive sample is

fundamental to the quality of data gathered; thus, reliability and competence of the

informant must be ensure (Dolores and Tongco, 2007).

Purposive sample are differentiate from convenience sample. A convenience

sampling is Statistical method of drawing representative data by selecting people

because of the ease of their volunteering or selecting units because of their

availability or easy access. The advantages of this type of sampling are the

`

106

availability and the quickness with which data can be gathered. The disadvantages

are the risk that the sample might not represent the population as a whole, and it

might be biased by volunteers (Field, 2009).The main assumption associated with

convenience sampling is that the members of the target population are homogeneous.

That is there would be no difference in the research results obtained from a random

sample, a nearby sample, a co-operative sample, or a sample gathered in some

inaccessible part of the population (Ross, 2005). Fifty four copies of the

questionnaire were distributed to experts in sustainability field in Gaza Strip. This

number of questionnaires was chosen according to the number of experts in this field

in Gaza Strip as well as the easy access to them. Each respondent took about 10 to 15

minutes to fill out the questionnaire. Fifty copies of the questionnaire were returned

from the respondents and completed for quantitative analysis. The total of 50

questionnaires were satisfactory completed, making the total response rate

(50/54)*(100)= 92.59 %. Personal delivery for the whole sample helped to increase

the rate of response and thus the representation of the sample.

3.7 Questionnaire design and development

A self administrated questionnaire was used for data collection. Three fundamental

stages were taken for constructing the questionnaire:

1. Identifying the first thought questions

2. Formulating the final questionnaire

3. Wording of questions

Identification of items for the study and preparation of questionnaire was a crucial

step for the success of the research. Significant effort has done to identify items of

sustainable building principles, benefits, and barriers and there is a well documented

and peer reviewed set of those available items in the literature review in the previous

chapter. According to the review of literature related to sustainable building, a well

designed questionnaire was developed for this study. The questionnaire consisted of

close-ended (multiple choice) questions. Close-ended questions are more difficult to

design than open ended questions, but they come up with much more efficient data

collection, processing and analysis (Bourque and Fielder, 2003). The questionnaire

divided into four parts as follows:

`

107

Part one: Respondents demographic data and the ways of work performance.

Part two: Awareness level of sustainability concept principles with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals in building projects.

Part three: Benefits level of sustainable construction (green buildings).

Part four: Barriers to implementing sustainable buildings.

And of course, the questionnaire was provided with a covering letter explaining the

aim of the research, the security of the information in order to encourage a high

response, and the way of responding. The variety in the questions aimed first to

meet the research objectives, to cover the main questions of the study, and to collect

all the necessary data that can support the results and discussion, as well as the

recommendations in the research. Five-point Likert scale was used in this

questionnaire (1 = lowest scale and 5 = highest scale). Likert scale was chosen in

order to expand the way the respondents would reply. First draft of the

questionnaire was revised through three main stages, which are: face validity,

pretesting the questionnaire in order to ensure all kinds of errors that are associated

with survey research are reduced, and pilot study. With each stage, the

questionnaire was revised and refined more and more. Regarding details of each

stage, will be discussed in the following parts.

Table (3.2): The used quantifiers for the rating scale (the five-point likert scale) in

each of the second, third, fourth and fifth field of the questionnaire

Field Scale

Awareness level regard to

Sustainable (green)

building concept

Not at all

aware

(1)

Slightly

aware

(2)

Somewhat

aware

(3)

Moderately

aware

(4)

Extremely aware

(5)

Benefits of sustainable

(green) buildings

Extremely

Low

Beneficial

(1)

Low

Beneficial

(2)

Moderately

Beneficial

(3)

Highly

Beneficial

(4)

Extremely

Beneficial

(5)

Barriers that face

implementing sustainable

(green) buildings

Not a barrier

(1)

Somewhat

of a barrier

(2)

Moderate

barrier

(3)

Important

barrier

(4)

Extremely

important barrier

(5)

The numerical rating scale was chosen to format the questions of the questionnaire

with some common sets of response categories called quantifiers (they reflect the

intensity of the particular judgment involved) (Naoum, 2007). Those quantifiers

was used to facilitate understanding as shown in Table (3.2). The respondents were

`

108

asked to measure their knowledge according to sustainable buildings principles,

benefits, and barriers.

3.8 Face validity

Face validity was important to see whether the questionnaire appears to be a valid or

not. It was "common sense' assessment by experts in green building field as well as

experts in statistics (Salkind, 2010). The questionnaire was presented to 5 experts by

hand delivery and by email at different periods for assessment the validity of the

questionnaire. Many useful and important modifications have been made for the

questionnaire. Those modifications have been explained in Table 3.3.

Table (3.3): Results of face validity

Name Experience Specialization Outcome

Exper

t A

15

yea

rs e

xp

erie

nce

in s

ust

ainab

le b

uil

din

gs

fiel

d

Ass

oci

ated

Pro

fess

or

in a

rchit

ectu

re i

n P

ales

tine

univ

ersi

ty

Suggested adding examples of toxic material in item

'Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic

materials' in Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable

(green) building concept.

Suggested adding examples of threatened species in item

'Enhancing biodiversity: Projects should not use materials

from threatened species or environments' in Part 2:

Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building

concept.

Deleted item 'Support the instruments of international

conventions and agreements with respect to environment

protection' in Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable

(green) building concept, because its not necessary.

Deleted item 'Consider alternative financing mechanisms'

in Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green)

building concept, because its not clear.

Deleted item 'Achieve prudent use of the four generic

construction resources (water, energy, material and land' in

Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green)

building concept, because its repeated.

Suggested use term ' Construct durable' or " Quality

structure' not both in Part 2: Awareness level regard to

Sustainable (green) building concept, because they are

leading to the same meaning.

`

109

Name Experience Specialization Outcome E

xp

ert

A

15

yea

rs e

xp

erie

nce

in

sust

ainab

le b

uil

din

gs

fiel

d

Ass

oci

ated

Pro

fess

or

in

arch

itec

ture

in

Pal

esti

ne

un

iver

sity

Suggested use item 'Reduce operating costs' or ' Reduce

maintenance costs' in Part 3: Benefits of sustainable (green

building), because they are leading to the same meaning.

Merged item ' Improve thermal and acoustic environments'

and ' improve indoor environments' in Part 3: Benefits of

sustainable (green building).

Audited the English language of the first draft of the

questionnaire and modified some words.

Proposed the words of the numerical rating scale for each

field

Exper

t B

9 y

ears

exper

ience

in g

reen

bu

ild

ings

Hea

d o

f E

nvir

onm

ent

Man

agem

ent

Un

it i

n

UN

DP

Audited the cover letter of the questionnaire and the

general structure of the questionnaire.

Suggested adding definition of green building in the cover

letter of the questionnaire.

Reformulated item ' unfamiliarity of the design team and

contractors with sustainable building methods' in Part 4:

Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green

building) to be 'Lack of design team experience regard to

sustainable building methods'.

Modified item 'Public policies and regulatory frameworks

do not encourage the development of the construction

sector' Part 4: Barriers that face implementing sustainable

(green building) to be ' Public policies and regulatory

frameworks do not encourage pursue green construction'

Proposed the words of the numerical rating scale for each

field.

Exper

t C

12 y

ears

exper

ience

in s

ust

ainab

le

buil

din

gs

pro

ject

s

The

man

ager

and

coord

inat

or

of

the

sust

ainab

le

dev

elopm

ent

pla

n i

n

UN

ICE

F

Suggested adding definition of green building in the cover

letter of the questionnaire.

Suggest adding ethical sustainability aspect in part two

"sustainable building benefits"

Audited the English language of the first draft of the

questionnaire and modified some words.

Ex

per

t D

5 y

ears

exp

erie

nce

in

gre

en

bu

ild

ings

Hea

d o

f d

esig

n u

nit

in

UN

Had advised to shortcut the questionnaire

Audited the cover letter of the questionnaire and the

general structure of the questionnaire

Corrected the formulation of the questions (in terms of

statistics), by modifying the used quantifiers for the rating

scale (the five-point likert scale in each of the second, third,

fourth and fifth field of the questionnaire.

Proposed the words of the numerical rating scale for each

field

`

110

Name Experience Specialization Outcome E

xp

ert

E

15

yea

rs' e

xper

ience

in s

ust

ain

able

bu

ild

ing

fie

ld

Ass

oci

ated

Pro

fess

or

in C

ivil

En

gin

eeri

ng

in

Pal

esti

ne

Un

iver

sity

Suggested adding cultural sustainability as a new aspect

that affect the success of executing green buildings and

clarify how people behave in the world regard to

sustainable issues.

Audited the cover letter of the questionnaire and the

general structure of the questionnaire

Suggested to add mechanical engineer in the target group

of the questionnaire.

Deleted 'Gender' question in part one which related to

personal information because its not useful.

Deleted 'Age' question in part one which related to personal

information because its not important in the presence of

years of experience question.

Modified 'nature of the work place' question in part one

which related to personal information to include

(contractor, government institution, NGOs institution, and

international institution).

Replaced options in 'Current field- present job' question

which related to personal information to from (Designer,

Site engineer, Project Manager, and Academic) to (Design,

Execution, supervision, Maintenance, and Academic)

Reformulated item ' Enhance and protect ecosystems and

biodiversity' in Part 3: Benefits of sustainable (green

building) to be ' Protect ecosystems and biodiversity'

Reformulated item ' Reduce energy consumption by

promote building practices that conserve energy' in Part 3:

Benefits of sustainable (green building)to be ' Reduce

energy consumption'

Reformulated item ' Promote building practices that

preserve open spaces' in Part 3: Benefits of sustainable

(green building) to be ' preserve open spaces'

Audited the English language of the first draft of the

questionnaire and modified some words.

3.9 Pretesting the questionnaire

Pretesting is a very important step in survey research. It is an absolutely necessary

step to ensure all kinds of errors that are associated with survey research are reduced.

It helps to improve the quality of data significantly. Pretesting is done on a small

sample of respondents from the target population. After the pilot test, the respondents

are asked a series of questions regarding the survey as well as the process of data

collection during the debriefing session. Such debriefing sessions can help detect any

problem with the questionnaire design leading to ambiguity of words,

misinterpretation of questions, inability to answer a question, sensitive questions, and

many other problems associated with the questionnaire as well as the process of

`

111

administering the survey. It also provides an opportunity to give feedback to the

interviewer to ensure that she/he follows the proper protocol of data collection

procedures to ensure objectivity in data collection (Lavrakas, 2008). The pre-testing

was conducted in two phases and each phase has been tested with 5 professionals in

'Sustainable Building'. The researcher was convinced that choose 5 professionals to

accomplish this stage is reasonable number since Melody (2008) identify using 10%

of the sample in pretesting stage will be adequate. The first phase of the pre-testing

resulted with some amendments to the wording of some words in the questions, in

addition to add further explanation to some items to facilitate the understanding of

the question. The questionnaire was modified based on the results of the first phase

of the pre-testing. After that, the second phase was conducted and it was sufficient

to ensure success of the questionnaire, where there were no any queries from any

professional and everything was clear. According to that, questions have become

clear to be answered in a way that helps to achieve the target of the study and to start

the phase of the pilot study. For further details review Table (3.4)

Table (3.4):Results of pre-testing the questionnaire

Name Country Specialization Outcome

Stage (1)

Ex

per

t A

1

15

yea

rs e

xp

erie

nce

in

sust

ainab

le b

uil

din

gs

fiel

d

Ass

oci

ated

Pro

fess

or

in a

rch

itec

ture

in P

ales

tine

un

iver

sity

Audited the English language of the first draft of the

questionnaire and modified some words.

Had advised to shortcut the questionnaire

Add examples of resources in item ' Ensure prudent use of

the four generic construction resources ' in Part 2:

Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building

principles to be ' Ensure prudent use of the four generic

construction resources (water, energy, material and land)'

Suggested use term ' Construct durable' or " Quality

structure' not both in Part 2: Awareness level regard to

Sustainable (green) building concept, because they are

leading to the same meaning.

Delete item ' Improve the quality of life' ' in Part 2:

Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building

principles because of its ambiguity.

Add item 'Dependence on promotion by government to

encourage sustainable buildings' in Part 4: Barriers that face

implementing sustainable (green building).

`

112

Name Country Specialization Outcome E

xp

ert

B1

10

yea

rs' e

xper

ien

ce i

n s

ust

ain

able

bu

ild

ing

fie

ld

Ass

oci

ated

Pro

fess

or

in C

ivil

En

gin

eeri

ng

Modified the wording of some items related vocabularies and

grammar.

Delete item 'Construct durable' in Part 2: Awareness level

regard to Sustainable (green) building principles

Delete item 'Improve the quality of buildings and services in

Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building

principles

Helped in designing the questions for measuring objective #1

which was about investigating awareness level of sustainability

concept principles with regard to economic, environment,

social, and technical goals in building projects.

Delete item 'Lack of government policies/support and

measurement tools amongst others' in Part 4: Barriers that face

implementing sustainable (green building).

Exper

t C

1

9 y

ears

exper

ience

in

sust

ainab

le b

uil

din

gs

pro

ject

s

Hea

d o

f des

ign a

nd

super

vis

ion u

nit

in

Min

istr

y o

f E

duca

tio

n

and H

igh E

duca

tio

n Audited the English language of the first draft of the

questionnaire and modified some words.

Suggested to add mechanical engineer in the target group of the

questionnaire.

Add item 'Preserve open spaces' in Part 3: Benefits of

sustainable (green building)

Changing the beginning of all the statement of Part 2:

Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building

principles to be one style

Exper

t D

1

15 y

ears

exper

ience

in u

rban

pla

nnin

g

M.s

c of

civil

engin

eeri

ng Modified item ' Internalize external costs ' in Part 2: Awareness

level regard to Sustainable (green) building principles to be '

Internalize external costs like transportations, equipments,

training workforce on new sustainable methods and

technologies '.

Delete item 'Lack of demand from companies and society on

sustainable buildings' in Part 4: Barriers that face implementing

sustainable (green building)

Delete item ' Improve air and water quality ' in Part three,

identify and rate benefits level of sustainable construction

(green buildings).

Exper

t E

1

7 y

ears

' ex

per

ien

ce i

n

sust

ainab

le b

uil

din

g f

ield

Des

igner

in

des

ign

an

d

sup

erv

isio

n u

nit

in

Isl

amic

Rel

ief

Suggested to add mechanical engineer in the target group of the

questionnaire.

Added item 'Achieve good economic project management in

both long and short term' in Part 2: Awareness level regard to

Green building principles.

Delete item 'Insufficient/confusing guidance, tools,

demonstrations and best practice' in Part 4: Barriers that face

implementing sustainable (green building)

Modified the wording of some items related vocabularies and

grammar.

`

113

3.10 Pilot study

After the success of the second phase of the pretesting of the questionnaire, a pilot

study can be used as a small scale version or trial run in preparation for major study

(Thomas, 2004). Baker (1994) noted that " a pilot study is often used to pretest or try

out a research instrument, he added that a pilot study is an initial investigation to give

information that will be necessary when designing a future trial or study. For example

a pilot may be used to:

1. In the pilot study, the researcher may try out a number of alternative measures and

then select those that produce the clearest results for the main study

Table (3.4): Continued

Name Country Specialization Outcome

Stage (2)

Exper

t A

2

15

yea

rs

exp

erie

nce

in

sust

ainab

le

bu

ild

ings

fiel

d

M.s

c in

stat

isti

cs

Everything was clear

Exper

t B

2

10

yea

rs' e

xper

ien

ce

in s

ust

ain

able

bu

ild

ing

fie

ld

M.s

c of

civil

engin

eeri

ng (

15

yea

rs e

xp

erie

nce

in

urb

an p

lannin

g i

n

Gaz

a m

un

icip

alit

y)

Everything was clear

Exper

t C

2

9 y

ears

exper

ience

in

sust

ainab

le

buil

din

gs

pro

ject

s

Civ

il e

ngin

eer

(8 y

ears

exper

ien

ce i

n

super

vis

ion u

nit

in M

OH

E)

Everything was clear

Exper

t

D2

15 y

ears

exper

ienc

e in

urb

an

pla

nnin

g

Hea

d o

f

des

ign

unit

in

UN

Everything was clear

Exper

t E

2

7 y

ears

'

exper

ience

in

sust

ainab

le

buil

din

g f

ield

M.s

c in

elec

tric

al

engin

eeri

ng

Everything was clear

`

114

2. It permits preliminary testing of the hypotheses that leads to testing more precise

hypotheses in the main study. It may lead to changing some hypotheses, dropping

some, or developing new hypotheses.

3. It often provides the researcher with ideas, approaches, and clues you may not

have foreseen before conducting the pilot study. Such ideas and clues increase the

chances of getting clearer findings in the main study.

4. It permits a thorough check of the planned statistical and analytical procedures,

giving you a chance to evaluate their usefulness for the data. You may then be

able to make needed alterations in the data collecting methods, and therefore,

analyze data in the main study more efficiently.

5. It can greatly reduce the number of unanticipated problems because you have an

opportunity to redesign parts of your study to overcome difficulties that the pilot

study reveals.

6. It may save a lot of time and money. Unfortunately, many research ideas that

seem to show great promise are unproductive when actually carried out. The pilot

study almost always provides enough data for the researcher to decide whether to

go ahead with the main study.

7. Especially for students: If the researcher is a student planning to continue beyond

the master’s degree, the master’s research may sometimes serve as a pilot study

for later research to be carried out as part of a doctoral program.

There is little published guidance concerning how large a pilot study should be.

General guidelines, for example using 10% of the sample required for a full study,

may be inadequate for aims such as assessment of the adequacy of instrumentation or

providing statistical estimates for a larger study (Melody, 2008). According to that,

30% of the sample which equal 15 copies of the questionnaire were distributed

conveniently to respondents from the target group ( Professionals in the green

building field in Gaza Strip). All copies were collected, coded, and analyzed through

statistical Package for the social science IBM (SPSS) version 20. The tests that

conducted were as follows:

1. Statistical validity of the questionnaire/ criterion related validity

2. Reliability of the questionnaire by Half Split method and the Cronbach's coefficient

Alpha method.

`

115

3.10.1 Statistical validity of the questionnaire

In quantitative research, validity is the extent to which a study using a particular tool

measures what it sets out to measure. To insure the validity of the questionnaire, two

statistical tests should be applied. The first test is criterion-related/internal validity test

(Pearson test) which measures the correlation coefficient between each item in the

field and whole field. The second test is structure validity test (Spearman test) that

used to test the validity of the questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each

field and the validity of the whole questionnaire. It measures the correlation

coefficient between one field and all the fields of the questionnaire that have the same

level of similar scale (Garson, 2013).

3.10.1.1 Internal validity test

Internal consistency of the questionnaire was measured by the scouting sample (the

sample of pilot study), which consisted of 15 questionnaires. It was done by measuring

the correlation coefficients (Pearson test) between each item in one field and the whole

field (Garson, 2013). Tables in appendix C from 1 to 3 show the correlation

coefficient P-value for each item in each field. The test applied on the part 2. Asses

the awareness level regard to sustainable (green) building principles in Gaza Strip), 3.

Investigate an rate benefits of sustainable construction (green buildings), 4. Investigate

barriers that face implementing sustainable (green building). As shown in the tables

C1, C2,and C3 , the P-values are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of each

field are significant at α= 0.05. Thus , it can be said that the items of each field are

consistent and valid to be measured what it were set for.

3.10.1.2 Structure validity test

Structure validity is the second statistical test that used to test the validity of the whole

questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between one field and all of the

other fields of the questionnaire that have the same level of rating scale (five-point

Likert scale) (Garson, 2013). As shown in table (3.5), the significance values are less

than 0.05. Thus it can be said that the fields are valid to be measured what it were set

for to achieve the main aim of the study.

`

116

Table (3.5): Structure validity of the questionnaire

Fields Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. level

Awareness level regard to sustainable building principles 0.887** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Benefits of sustainable (green building) 0.788** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Barriers that face implementing sustainable building 0.576 0.025 sig. at 0.05

3.10.2 Reliability test

Reliability is the degree of consistency or dependability with which an instrument

(questionnaire for the study) measures what it designed to measure. The tests is doing

by repeating the questionnaire to the same sample of the target group in a different

time and comparing the scores that obtained in the first time and in the second time

by computing a reliability coefficient is above (0.7). A period from two weeks to a

month is recommended for distributing the questionnaires for the second time (Garson,

2013; Field, 2009). Due to the complicated conditions, it was too difficult to ask the

same sample to respond to the same questionnaire twice within short period. Thus, to

overcome the distribution of the questionnaire twice to measure the reliability, Half

Split method and Cronbach's alpha coefficient test were used through the SPSS

software to achieve that.

3.10.2.1 Half Split method

This method depends on finding Pearson correlation coefficient between the means

of questions with odd rank and questions with even rank of each field of the

questionnaire. Then, correcting the Pearson correlation coefficient can be done by

using Spearman Brown correlation coefficient of correction. The corrected

correlation coefficient (consistency coefficient) is computed according to the

following equation: Consistency coefficient =2r/(r+1), where r is the Pearson

correlation coefficient. The normal range of corrected correlation coefficient 2r/(r+1)

is between 0.0 and +1.0 (Garson, 2013). As shown in table (3.6), all the corrected

correlation coefficients values are between 0.699 and 0.945 and the general reliability

for all items equal 0.613. The significance values are less than 0.05, which indicates

that the corrected correlation coefficients are significant at α=0.05. Thus, it can be said

that the studied fields were reliable according to the Half Split method.

`

117

Table (3.6): Half Split coefficient method

Fields Pearson

Correlation

Spearman-

Brown

Coefficient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Awareness level regard to sustainable building principles 0.896 0.945 0.00*

Benefits of sustainable (green) buildings 0.771 0.871 0.00*

Barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings 0.571 0.699* 0.00*

All 0.511 0.613* 0.00*

3.10.2.2 Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha (Cα)

This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field

and the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of Cronbach's

coefficient alpha (Cα) value is between 0.0 and +1 and the higher value reflects a

higher degree of internal consistency (Garson, 2013; Field, 2009). As shown in table

(3.7) , the Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Cα) was calculated for three fields. The results

were in the range from 0.861 and 0.964 and the general reliability for all items equals

0.951. This range is considered high, where it is above 0.7. Thus, the result ensures

the reliability of the questionnaire.

Table (3.7): Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for reliability (Cα)

Fields Cronbach's Alpha

Awareness level regard to sustainable building principles 0.964

Benefits of sustainable (green) buildings 0.908

Barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings 0.861

All items 0.951

3.11 Final amendment to the questionnaire

After piloting, the questionnaire was adopted and distributed to the whole sample. The

questionnaire was provided with a covering letter explaining the aim of the research,

the security of the information in order to encourage a high response, and the way of

responding. The original questionnaire was developed in English language. English

language questionnaire is attached in (Appendix A). Based on the belief of the

researcher that the questionnaire would be more effective and easier to be understood

for all respondents if it is in Arabic(native language); hence, the questionnaire was

translated in Arabic language, which is attached in (Appendix B).

`

118

Regarding the final content of the questionnaire, as mentioned above in (3.4 research

design), the researcher summarized a set of items that related to Green building

principles, benefits, and barriers that were reviewed in the previous chapter (literature

review) in three tables (2.5) (2.7) (2.8) where the researcher has complied and

summarized as 44 principles according to Hussin et al. (2013); Akadiri et al. (2012);

Halliday (2008); Kibert (2008); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005); CIB

(2004); Detr (2000); Williams (2000); Cole and Larsson (1999); Gottfried (1996);

Miyatake (1996); Kibert (1994); and Hill and Bowen (1997), 30 benefit extrapolate

from USGBC (2015); Diyana and Abidin (2013); Hussin et al. (2013);Katkhuda

(2013); Abidin (2009); Bulletin (2008); Pearce (2008); USEP (2008); Ries et al.

(2006); Heerwagen (2000); and Hydes and Creech (2000); 32 barriers extrapolate

from Djokoto et al. (2014); Shi et al. (2013); Ismail et al. (2012); Idris and Ismail

(2011); Surani and Suhail (2011); Zhang et al. (2011); Abidin (2010); Bilec et al.

(2007); Nelms et al. (2005); Shafii et al. (2005); Meryman and Silman (2004); Hydes

and Creech (2000); Larsson and Clark (2000); and Chen and Chambers (1999).

According to the research objectives, most of these items were used in the

questionnaire design in three parts (part2, part3 , part4).

More deeply in the questionnaire design some items have been modified, while

others have merged, as well as others have been added, and the remains were selected.

Table 3.7 shows how items were obtained for each field in the questionnaire. Also, all

changes in those items can be followed through the following three Tables: 3.9, 3.10,

and 3.11. Based on that, the final questionnaire contains:

Part one: is related to the respondents demographic data and (consist from 9

questions, Q1 to Q9)

Part two: To investigate awareness level of sustainability concept principles with

regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals in building projects

(consist from 38 principles, Aw1 to Aw38)

To identify and rate benefits level of sustainable construction (green) buildings

(consist from 26 benefit, from Be1 to Be26)

To identify and rate barriers to implementing sustainable buildings (consist from

29 barriers, from Ba1 to Ba29)

`

119

Table (3.8): A summery illustrates how items were obtained for each field in the

questionnaire

Field

Fro

m

lite

ratu

re

revie

w

Added

item

s

Del

eted

item

s

Mer

ged

item

s

Modif

ied

item

s

Mer

ged

and

Modif

ied

item

s

Fin

al

item

s

Awareness level regard to

sustainable (green) building

principles

19 2 3 0 12 5 38

Benefits of sustainable (green)

buildings

12 1 2 2 10 1 26

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable buildings

16 2 2 1 9 1 29

`

120

Table (3.9): List of items of sustainable building principles

No. Principle Source The way that was done

to get the item

Aw1 Minimize resource consumption Hussin et al. (2013); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005);CIB

(2004);Detr (2000); Williams (2000); Cole and Larsson (1999); Kibert

(1994)

From literature review

Aw2 Enhance material recyclability Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004); Williams (2000); Cole and

Larsson (1999) ; Gottfried (1996); Miyatake (1996); Kibert (1994(

From literature review

Aw3 Apply waste management system Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004); Williams (2000); Cole

and Larsson (1999) ; Gottfried (1996); Miyatake (1996); Kibert (1994)

Modified

Aw4 Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic

materials like asbestos

Hussin et al. (2013); Halliday (2008); Kibert (2008); Yusof (2005);CIB

(2004); Detr (2000); Williams (2000); Cole and Larsson (1999);

Gottfried (1996); Miyatake (1996); Kibert (1994(

From literature review

Aw5 Reduce energy consumption Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); Detr (2000); Williams (2000);

Gottfried (1996)

Modified

Aw6 Ensure prudent use of the four generic construction

resources (water, energy, material and land)

Kibert (2008); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004);

Williams (2000); Cole and Larsson (1999); Gottfried (1996); Miyatake

(1996); Kibert (1994(

Merged and modified

Aw7 Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil,

water, and flora

Hussin et al. (2013); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); CIB (2004); Williams

(2000); Kibert (1994)

From literature review

Aw8 Maximize the sustainable use of biological and

renewable resources

Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); Williams (2000); Gottfried (1996) Modified

Aw9 Create healthy environments (enhance living, leisure

and work environments; and not endanger the health

of the builders, users, or others, through exposure to

pollutants or other toxic materials).

Halliday (2008); Kibert (2008); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005);

CIB (2004); Detr (2000); Williams (2000); Gottfried (1996); Kibert (1994)

Merged and modified

Aw10 Enhancing biodiversity: Projects should reduce use

materials from threatened species or environments like

oil and metals

Halliday (2008); Yusof (2005); Williams (2000) Modified

Aw11 Consider building life-cycle costs Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); Williams (2000); Gottfried (1996) From literature review

Aw12 Internalize external costs (like transportations,

equipments, training workforce on new sustainable

methods and technologies )

Hussin et al. (2013); Yusof (2005); Gottfried (1996) Merged and modified

`

121

No. Principle Source The way that was done

to get the item

Aw13 Develop appropriate economic instruments to promote

sustainable consumption

Hussin et al. (2013) From literature review

Aw14 Consider the economic impact of local structures when

planning to construct sustainable building

Hussin et al. (2013); Gottfried (1996) From literature review

Aw15 Achieve good economic project management in both long

and short term

Added

Aw16 Achieve prudent use for those resources which can rise the

life cycle cost of the building including money, energy,

water, materials and land

Halliday (2008); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004); Williams (2000);

Gottfried (1996)

Merged and modified

Aw17 Achieve profitability and enhance competitiveness Detr (2000); Williams (2000); Miyatake (1996) Modified

Aw18 Ensure financial affordability Akadiri et al. (2012); Yusof (2005); Miyatake (1996) From literature review

Aw19 Create employment Miyatake (1996) From literature review

Aw20 Make sustainable supply chain management. Akadiri et al. (2012); Miyatake (1996) From literature review

Aw21 Evaluate the benefits and costs of the project to society and

environment.

Akadiri et al. (2012); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005)

Modified

Aw22 Improve the quality of life Akadiri et al. (2012); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004); Williams (2000);

Gottfried (1996); Miyatake (1996)

From literature review

Aw23 Consider provision for social self-determination and cultural

diversity

Miyatake (1996) From literature review

Aw24 Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders

in all project life cycle

Hussin et al. (2013); Halliday (2008); Detr (2000) Modified

Aw25 Protect and promote human health through a healthy and

safe working environment

Akadiri et al. (2012); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof (2005);

Williams (2000); Miyatake (1996)

Modified

Aw26 Promote public participation by seek to meet the real needs,

requirements and aspirations of communities

Hussin et al. (2013); Akadiri et al. (2012); Halliday (2008); Detr

(2000)

Modified

Aw27 Involve communities and stakeholders in key decisions Akadiri et al. (2012); Halliday (2008) From literature review

Aw29 Assess the impact on health and the quality of life. Hussin et al. (2013); Kibert (2008); Yusof (2005); CIB (2004);

Williams (2000); Gottfried (1996)

Modified

Aw28 Consider the influence on the existing social framework Hussin et al. (2013) From literature review

Aw30 Achieve customers and clients satisfaction and best value CIB (2004); Detr (2000) Modified

`

122

Table (3.10): List of items of sustainable building benefits

No. Benefits of green buildings Source The way that was

done to get the item

Be1 Reduce solid waste USGBC (2015); Hussin et al. (2013); Katkhuda (2013) From literature review

Be2 Conserve natural resources (better use of building

resources)

USGBC (2015); Diyana and Abidin (2013); Hussin et al. (2013);

Abidin (2009); Pearce (2008); USEP (2008); Hydes and Creech

(2000)

From literature review

Be3 Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout

building project life cycle

Hussin et al. (2013); Katkhuda (2013) Modified

Be4 Improve water conservation (Reduce water used) Diyana and Abidin (2013); Hussin et al. (2013); Katkhuda (2013) From literature review

Be5 Protect ecosystems and biodiversity USGBC (2015); Diyana and Abidin (2013) From literature review

Be6 Reduce energy consumption Hussin et al. (2013); Katkhuda (2013) From literature review

Be7 Enable the construction participants to be more responsible

to the environmental protection needs without neglecting

the social and economic needs

Abidin (2009); USEP (2008) Modified

Be8 Preserve temperature moderation Katkhuda (2013) From literature review

No. Principle Source The way that was done

to get the item

Aw31 Respect and treat stakeholders fairly Added

Aw32 Ensure legislating compliance and responsibility with

respect to human protection

Akadiri et al. (2012); Abidin and Pasquire (2005)

From literature review

Aw33 Safeguard the interests of future generations while at the

same time, meeting today's needs

Abidin and Pasquire (2005) From literature review

Aw34 Achieve quality structure Yusof (2005); Williams (2000); Miyatake (1996) From literature review

Aw35 Improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal, visual

and acoustic quality

Yusof (2005); Williams (2000); Cole and Larsson (1999) Merged and modified

Aw36 Use technology and expert knowledge to seek information

and in improving project efficiency and effectiveness

Abidin and Pasquire (2005) Modified

Aw37 Achieve adaptability Yusof (2005) From literature review

Aw38 Achieve attractiveness Yusof (2005) From literature review

`

123

No. Benefits of green buildings Source The way that was

done to get the item

Be10 Reduce operating costs (maintenance) USGBC (2015); Hussin et al. (2013); Katkhuda (2013); Bulletin

(2008); Ries et al. (2006)

Merged

Be11 Improve employee productivity and satisfaction USGBC (2015); Hussin et al. (2013); Pearce (2008); Ries et al.

(2006)

From literature review

Be12 Optimize life cycle economic performance USGBC (2015) From literature review

Be13 Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills USGBC (2015); Diyana and Abidin (2013) From literature review

Be14 Achieve Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost USGBC (2015); Diyana and Abidin (2013) From literature review

Be15 Achieve better employee retention Pearce (2008) Modified

Be16 Improve marketability for buildings Bulletin (2008) Modified

Be17 Enhance occupant comfort and health USGBC (2015) From literature review

Be18 Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst

maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local and

global levels

Diyana and Abidin (2013); Hussin et al. (2013) Modified

Be19 Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne

contaminants that can affect worker productivity and/or

health

USGBC (2015) Modified

Be20 Improve morale Pearce (2008) From literature review

Be21 Improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and

acoustic environments)

USGBC (2015); Ries et al. (2006) Merged

Be22 Enhance the idea that green building lead to sustainable

development

Diyana and Abidin (2013); USEP (2008) Modified

Be23 Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture and the

surrounding environment.

Hussin et al. (2013) Merged and modified

Be24 Disseminate of good behaviors which urges protect the

environment (It is good way to protect the environment )

Diyana and Abidin (2013); Abidin (2009) Modified

Be25 Emphasize that green building shows that the company

cares for the society and environment

Diyana and Abidin (2013); Abidin (2009) Modified

Be26 Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid

infringement of laws and regulations

Diyana and Abidin (2013); Abidin (2009) Modified

`

124

Table (3.11): List of items of sustainable building barriers

The way that was done

to get the item Source Barriers to implement sustainable buildings No.

From literature review Shi et al. (2013); Surani and Suhail (2011); Shafii et al. (2005) Regional ambiguities in the green concept Ba1

From literature review Shi et al. (2013); Surani and Suhail (2011); Abidin (2010); Shafii

et al. (2005)

Lack of awareness with respect to sustainable building issue Ba2

From literature review Shi et al. (2013); Surani and Suhail (2011); Shafii et al. (2005) Insufficient research and development to promote sustainable buildings Ba3

From literature review Surani and Suhail (2011); Bilec et al. (2007); Meryman and

Silman (2004); Chen and Chambers (1999)

Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional

construction methods practiced and building materials used

Ba4

Modified Nelms et al. (2005) Lack of design team experience regard to sustainable building

methods

Ba5

Modified Shi et al. (2013) Conflicts in benefits with competitors Ba6

Added Dependence on promotion by government to encourage sustainable

buildings

Ba7

Modified Shi et al. (2013); Idris and Ismail (2011) Lack of training and education of construction participants on

sustainable building methods, and strategies

Ba8

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014); Shi et al. (2013); Shi et al. (2013); Zhang et

al. (2011); Nelms et al. (2005); Hydes and Creech (2000); Larsson

and Clark (2000)

Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with

traditional building

Ba9

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014) Risks of unforeseen costs Ba10

Modified Nelms et al. (2005); Hydes and Creech (2000); Larsson and Clark

(2000)

Risks based on unfamiliar techniques used to execute sustainable

buildings

Ba11

From literature review Nelms et al. (2005); Hydes and Creech (2000); Larsson and Clark

(2000)

Additional testing and inspection needed to implement sustainable

construction,

Ba12

Modified Nelms et al. (2005); Hydes and Creech (2000); Larsson and Clark

(2000)

Lack of manufacturer and supplier support to sustainable building

because of its high cost

Ba13

Merged Larsson and Clark (2000) Cost consultants overestimated the capital cost and underestimated the

potential cost savings.

Ba14

Modified Hydes and Creech (2000) High costs of the consultant’s fees

Ba15

`

125

The way that was done to

get the item Source Barriers to implement sustainable buildings No.

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014); Shi et al. (2013); CIB (1999) Difficulty of installing sustainable technologies and materials which

requires new forms of competencies and knowledge

Ba17

Modified Shi et al. (2013) Lack of professional capabilities/designers to implement green

construction

Ba18

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014); Shi et al. (2013); CIB (1999) Ignorance or a lack of common understanding among designers,

contractors, and society about sustainability.

Ba19

Modified Shi et al. (2013) Insufficient of existing university to prepare future engineers to

understand their roles and responsibilities to achieve sustainable

buildings

Ba20

Added Sustainability takes too much time to learn and design Ba21

From literature review Shi et al. (2013) Lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design Ba22

Merged and modified Shi et al. (2013) Many important stakeholders are not even aware of the concept of

sustainable building and so are naturally resistant to change.

Ba23

Modified Shi et al. (2013) Lack of aware of sustainable measures or alternatives Ba24

From literature review Shi et al. (2013) Lack of knowledge on green technology and the durability of green

materials

Ba25

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014); Shi et al. (2013) lack of capacity of the construction sector to actually implement

sustainable practices

Ba26

From literature review Ismail et al. (2012); Surani and Suhail (2011) Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not encourage pursue

green construction'

Ba27

From literature review Djokoto et al. (2014); Ismail et al. (2012); Surani and Suhail

(2011)

Lack of sustainable building codes Ba28

Modified Djokoto et al. (2014) Lack or wrongful steering to implement sustainable construction. Ba29

`

126

3.12 Quantitative data analysis

A quantitative method was adopted in the current research, where quantitative

methods of data analysis can be of great value to the researcher who is attempting to

draw meaningful result from a large body of qualitative data. The main beneficial

aspect is that quantitative analytical approach provides the means to separate out the

large number of confounding factors that often obscure the main quantitative findings.

Statistical methods play a prominent role in most research that dependent on

quantitative analysis of data through converting the ordinal data to numerical scale

data by using the numerical rating scale as it mentioned before. This way helps to

conclude better results and linking them and comparing with the results of previous

research to show the contrast and the extent of progress. Also, statistical analysis helps

the researcher to identify the degree of accuracy of data and information of the study.

It allows reporting of summery results in numerical terms to be given with a specified

degree of confidence (Field, 2009).

3.13 Measurements

Analysis of the data was undertaken using IBM SPSS Statistics (Statistical Package

for the social Science) Version 20 (IBM). The following quantitative measures were

used for the data analysis :

A. Descriptive Statistics (Salkind, 2010)

1. Frequencies and Percentile

2. Measures of central tendency (the mean)

3. Measurement of dispersion based on the mean (standard deviation)

4. Relative Important Index

5. Factor analysis

6. Normal distribution

7. Homogeneity of variances

B. The inferential statistics (bivariate)`/ test of hypotheses (Naoum, 2007) :

1. Cross tabulation analysis

`

127

2. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient / Pearson's correlation

coefficient ( a parametric test)

3. The sample independent t-test to find out whether there is a significant

difference in the mean between two groups (a parametric test)

4. Scheffe's method for multiple comparisons

To present the results, the following tools have been used: tabulation, bar chart, pie

chart, and graph.

3.13.1 Cross-tabulation analysis

In statistics, a cross tabulation (crosstab) is a type of table in a matrix format that

displays the (multivariate) frequency distribution of the variables. They are heavily

used in survey research, business intelligence, engineering and scientific research.

They provide a basic picture of the interrelation between two variables and can help

find interactions between them. In other words, cross tabulation is a tool that

allows researcher to compare the relationship between two variables.

3.13.2 Relative Importance Index (RII)

The relative importance index method (RII) was used to determine the ranks of all

performance factors. The relative importance index was computed as (Sambasivan

and Soon, 2007):

𝑅𝐼𝐼=𝛴𝑊 ÷ (𝐴×𝑁)

Where:

W = the weighting given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5)

A = the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case)

N = the total number of respondents

The RII value had a range from 0 to 1 (0 not inclusive), the higher the value of RII,

the more impact of the attribute. However, RII doesn't reflect the relationship

between the various attributes.

3.13.2.1 Mathematical validity of factor analysis

Once factors have been extracted, it is necessary to cross check if factor analysis

measured what was intended to be measured by using Cronbach's test (Cα). An

`

128

alpha of 0.6 or higher is the minimum acceptable level. Preferably, alpha will be 0.7

or higher (Field, 2009).

3.13.3 Normal distribution

Normal distribution approximates many natural phenomena so well. It has been

developed into a standard of reference for many probability problems (Field, 2009).

Parametric statistical tests often assume the data has normal distribution , because

when the data is not normal it produces unqualified results. Normality was assessed

by applying the central limit theorem. The central limit theorem states that when

samples are large (above about 30), the sampling distribution will take the shape of a

normal distribution regardless of the shape of the population from which the sample

was drawn (Field, 2009).

According to that, the collected data of the research follows the normal distribution ,

where the sample size is N=50 and so parametric tests must be used. Besides the

central limit theorem, normality was assessed by conducting Skewness and kurtosis

lying between -1 to 1 (Hair et al., 2013). As shown in table (3.12), Skewness and

kutosis values where located in the acceptable range in the current data set.

Table (3.12): Skewness and Kurtosis results

Fields

Mean Std.

Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std.

Error Statistic Statistic

Std.

Error Statistic

Std.

Error

Awareness level regard to sustainable

building principles

146.280 3.326 23.518 -0.142 0.337 -0.704 0.662

Benefits of sustainable (green) buildings 111.160 2.003 14.161 -0.731 0.337 0.092 0.662

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable buildings

123.220 1.967 13.910 -0.751 0.337 1.122 0.662

All Fields 356.360 5.374 38.001 -0.135 0.337 -0.779 0.662

Sample size =50, Missing=0

3.13.4 Homogeneity of variances (Homoscedasticity)

Equal variances across samples are called homogeneity of variance. Some

statistically tests, foe example the analysis of variance, assume that the variances are

equal across groups or samples. The assumption of homoscedasticity (homogeneity

of variance) simplifies mathematical and computational treatment. Levene's test

`

129

(Levene,1960) is used to verify the assumption that k samples have equal

variances (Field, 2009).

3.14 Summery

This chapter described the detailed adopted methodology of research. It included the

primary design for the research, details of research location, target population,

sample size, and response rate. The questionnaire design was detailed including the

types of questions, question format, the sequence of questions, and the covering

letter. Face validity, pretesting the questionnaire, and pilot study were three main

steps that were used to reach to the final amendment of the questionnaire. They all

have been illustrated through this chapter. Quantitative data analysis techniques,

which include Relative important index, Factor analysis, Pearson correlation

analysis, and others, were adopted to be applied by the instruments of SPSS. For the

purposes of testing the research validity, reliability, and adequacy of methods used in

analysis, different statistical tests were used and explained in details.

`

130

Chapter 4

Case study

`

131

Chapter 4

Case study

4.1 Introduction

To achieve objective 4, this part include a case study which examine and discuss

sustainability concepts integration in building project life cycle with regard to

economic, environment, social, and technical goals in a green school funded by

USAID in Aqaba city in Nablus in the West Bank. The designer, supervisor, and

owner of the school (Ministry of Education and High Education) were communicated

by Mobile and email in order to send all school drawings, cost estimate, and bill of

quantity, as well as respond to all inquiries precisely. Table 4.1 shows the

background of the case study participants. Table 4.2 shows the background of Aqaba

school.

Table (4.1): The background of the case study participants

Specialization Position Experience No of

interviews

Time of the

interview

Architect Head of Department the

planning unit in the

Ministry of Education and

High Education

10 years experience in

urban development

and sustainable

buildings

3 30 min

Civil engineer Head of Department the

design unit in the Ministry

of Education and High

Education

16 years experience in

sustainable buildings

4 40 min

Civil engineer Site manager (supervisor) 12 years experience in

supervision

5 40 min

4.2 Case study

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) sustainability assessment tools

was used to examine to what extent sustainability concepts were achieved. The mean

reason of choosing this assessment tool belonged to the American fund of the school who

adopt LEED system. Table 4.3 shows methods and green items that should be

involved in all building project life cycle according to previous literature review.

The main principles that were included by LEED assessment tool are:

1. Reduce resource consumption (energy, land, water, materials)

2. Maximization of resources reuse

`

132

3. Protection of the natural environment

4. Create a healthy and non-toxic environment

5. Pursue quality in creating the built environment

6. improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal, visual and acoustic quality)

7. Construct durable, functional, quality structure

8. Improve the quality of life

It should be noted that all case study information was obtained by communication with the

owner, supervisor, and the designer of the school, as well as from the bill of quantity and the

cost estimate of the school. Table 4.4 shows case study questions.

Table (4.2): Aqaba school background

Aqaba secondary school Name of school

3.5 Acres Area

North-east of the West Bank, halfway between Jenin and Nablus city City site

195.26 North, 183.25 East Coordinates

250 student Number of students

Global Communities institution, U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID)

Fund

Al Rashad contracting company(RCC). Contractor

2,733,464.20 USD Cost

25/4/2015 Commencement date

29/3/2016 Project delivery date

The Ministry of Education and Higher education and donors institutions

trend to improve the environmental situation in the Palestinian schools.

School construction aim

Constructing environmentally friendly school which depend in its

implementation on reduce energy, material, and water consumption, and

reduce wastes, as well as careful consideration of land use, air quality

and indoor environment.

School objective

Aqaba school is precedent environmentally friendly school, and third

green building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Aqaba school feature

Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED). Sustainability assessment tool

used

Palestinian schools are suffering from bad situation, where is no means

to keep warm in winter or cool in summer as well as the materials used

in establishing the schools contain harmful substances which leaves

negative effects on students health in the long term which in turn create

a noticeable trend in the Ministry of Education to improve the health

status of school by starting planning for green schools.

Main Problem

`

133

Aqaba secondary school Name of school

Achieve thermal and sound insulation

Apply seismic (earthquake) code

Apply safety specification

Apply Solar system

Apply Geothermal system

General conditions

Random cesspits that exist in Aqaba town and around the school,

which will be overcome through the impending sewage network

project in the town

Indiscriminate spread of sheep pens between residential houses,

which will be overcome by transferring it to a special compound

outside the structural plan limits.

There is no free land from the trees, hence, the contractor were

forced to uproot several olive trees, however he re-planted it at the

entrance to the town

Challenges

`

134

Table (4.3): Case study framework

Planning Stage Design Stage Construction Stage Maintenance and Operation Stage

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Reduce energy consumption

Land conservation

Proper site selection

Adaptive reuse of existing building

(give priority to reuse or rehabilitate

existing structure)

Locate construction project close to

existing infrastructure

Development of non-arable lands for

construction

Site development

Ecosystem conservation

Evaluation of the orientation of

building (involve how the building

will relate to climatic conditions)

Maintain and enhance the

biodiversity and ecology of the site

A forestation of the site

Obtain client commitment for

sustainability

Prepare sustainability policy

Identify sustainability critical success

factor

Conduct environmental impact

assessment (EIA)

Consider whole life cycle in design

options

Compliance with sustainability

criteria

Conduct environmental assessment

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Choice of materials and construction

method

Design for energy efficient

deconstruction and recycling

Design for low energy transportation

Developing energy efficient

technological process

Use of passive energy design

Material conservation

Design for Waste

Specify durable material

Specify natural and local material

Design for Pollution prevention

Specify non-toxic material

Decide sustainability design

elements

Renewable material use

Storage and collection of recyclables

Water conservation

Design for dual plumbing

Designing low-demand landscaping

Water treatment

Ecosystem conservation

Compliance with regulations and

legislation

Initial cost (Purchase cost)

Eco

no

mic

Eco

no

mic

Use locally sourced materials

Utilize modular design &

standardized components

Identify sustainable materials

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Insulating building envelope

Minimize energy consumption

Material conservation

Use biological waste treatment

system

Minimize consumption of

material resources

Using sustainable materials

Material reuse

Water conservation

Using water efficient plumbing

fixtures

Collecting rain water

Employ re-circulating systems

(Wastewater technology

Mange water use

Ecosystem conservation

Reduce negative impact to

environment

Select friendly environment

materials

Control pollution (reduce

pollution generation)

Construction activity pollution

prevention

Reduce green house gas

emission

Using sustainable construction

methods.

Reduce waste generation

Ecosystem Conservation

Env

iro

nm

ent

Create a clean and healthy

environment

Recovery Cost

Eco

no

mic

Recycling potential and ease of

demolition

Acoustic comfort

Visual comfort

Day lighting

Natural ventilation

Functionality

Aesthetics

Appropriate building acoustical

and vibration conditions

Assure indoor environmentally

quality

Providing nice views, view space

Control temperature

Regulate humidity

Manage colors

Ensure safety

Provide privacy

Satisfy needs

Sound insulation

Ensure durability

Ensure usability

`

135

Planning Stage Design Stage Construction Stage Maintenance and Operation Stage

Initial cost (Purchase cost)

Eco

no

mic

Employ cost saving technology that

can be managed locally

Use readily available materials

Study cost benefits and risk

associated

Prepare cost estimation

Sustainable contractor and supplier

selection

Project budget

Cost in use

Ensure availability of skills required

& labor supply

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Effect on local development

Protection to culture heritage

Built heritage

Respect customs and beauty of the

place

Use less expensive building

Materials

Eco

no

mic

Prepare cost and procurement plan

Integrated of sustainable elements

into design

Transport and accessibility

Calculate life cycle costs( direct

costs, indirect costs, investment

costs, and maintenance costs

Cost in use

Design for regular cleaning,

maintenance, &repair.

Choose minimum-maintenance

Materials

Ensure service life requirements of

materials and components

Update sustainable plans

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Design for usefulness

Attractiveness

Adaptability

Disassembly

Innovation in design

Protecting Physical Resources

Design for Fire Protection

Resist Natural Hazards

Design for crime prevention

Initial cost

Eco

no

mic

Reduce time required to

assemble materials on site

Use recycled and reclaimed

materials

Protecting materials from

destructive elements such as

sun, temperature variations,

rain or wind, or migration of

moisture-laden air through

defects in the envelope.

Provide easy to understand

access control for occupants

Recovery Cost

Reusing building materials or

components

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Prevent disturbances to local

community

Acoustic and noise control

Safety and health for workers

Protecting Physical Resources

So

cial

Enhance the awareness of public

with regard to sustainable issues

Connection to natural

environment

`

136

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method S

trat

egy

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, what is this measures?

Planners used Building Information Modeling (BIM) to link the size, shape and direction of the school

in an integrated manner that simulates surrounding environmental and natural factors in order to ensure

effective energy consumption.

Planners plan to pursue passive solar system to conserve largest possible amount of sun rays by steering

the longest wall of the building to the south direction, and increase the glass area at the south direction in

order to ensure appropriate light accessibility to interior walls (these walls will be called solar windows),

and supply and install in position a composite solar chimney made from galvanized steel draft tube 300

cm height made by 4 quarter 1.5mm thick ; and external tube 230 cm height 1.0mm thick galvanized

steel consolidated with bracket and folding bracket size 30x3mm; and stainless steel galvanized for

water protection

Planners suggested use "Trombe walls" which can stimulate solar system success ('A trombe wall' is a

passive solar building design where a wall is built on the winter sun side of a building with a glass

external layer and a high heat capacity internal layer separated by a layer of air. Heat in close to UV

spectrum passes through the glass almost unhindered then is absorbed by the wall that then re-radiates in

the far infrared spectrum which does not pass back through the glass easily, hence heating the inside of

the building. Trombe walls are commonly used to absorb heat during sunlit hours of winter then slowly

release the heat over night.

Planners suggested also to pursue 'Geothermal System' in order to conditioning the school classrooms.

On the bases of constant temperature of the crust at a depth 5 m which equal to 17 ° C. Geothermal

system idea depends on transfer thermal energy from the interior earth crust through concrete trenches

which have built at a depth of 5 meters depended on the fixed earth crust temperature and transmit this

energy through channels across the concrete walls to the classrooms so that the classroom will be warm

and suitable in summer and winter. The entrance of the trenches will be 50 meters away from the school

at a depth of 5 meters and going through tunnels to reach the school

Planners planed to design the front façade of the school with glass panels to make most of a building

covered with consolidated glass, as follows:

A transparent glass panel from the inside (The transparency feature allows in natural light which

reduces energy consumption used in electrical lighting).

√

Did the project

planners apply

any measure to

conserve energy

in planning

stage?

En

ergy c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

`

137

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

A shaded glass panel from the outside

Planners planned to use insulating walls (insulation bricks) which reduced energy consumption by 30%

About indoor lighting, planners planned to use fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole

internal lighting system which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy consumption by up to

80%, compared to usual bulbs.

About outdoor lighting: Siemens has designed the outdoor lighting system according to the architectural

style and type of stones using long life LED lighting, which saves energy and is environment friendly.

Planners emphasized not to use incandescent lamps in order to conserve energy as possible.

√

Ener

gy c

onse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, explain it

Planners planned to use regional material (wood, aluminum, glass, steel, polystyrene)

Planner planned to collect and store waste materials it into groups (metal, glass, wood, ect) in order to

recycle and reuse it later.

Planner planned to use recycled materials as possible.

Planners planned to use rabidly renewable materials like wood, polystyrene and solar energy.

Planners planned to reuse broken stone and construction debris by transferring it to Ramallah crusher

in order to reuse it as a base course in pavement projects.

Planners planned to use durable material (steel, concrete, adobe)

Planners planned to use friendly environment and non polluting materials (wood, bamboo, polystyrene,

adobe, cellulose fiber, bricks and led lightings)

Planners planned to eliminate using hazardous materials (prevent use toxic materials like asbestos and

minimize the adverse effect of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which used in wood treatment.

√

Did project

planners apply

any measure to

ensure optimum

use of building

materials?

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

If yes, explain how?

Planners planned to use drip irrigation to irrigate school garden

Planners planned to choose dual flush water closet or low impact toilets

Planners planned to use low flow lavatory

√ Did project

planners plan

for reduce water

consumption?

Wat

er

conse

rvat

ion

`

138

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

Planners planned to install flow regulators/restrictors

Planners planned to use water drainage of laundries to charge water toilets

Planners planned to prevent waterproofing from water network, tanks, and sanitary tools in the school

Planners planned to use non-potable water to irrigate parks and charging toilets and install backflow

preventer to ensure separation between potable and non potable water

√

Envir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, explain how?

Before selecting the school site, planners have studied the following:

Site topography

Exist of plants

Nature of soil

Microclimate

Ecosystem

Solar radiation fall corners

Wind direction

The course of rainwater

School accessibility

Site development

Outdoor thermal comfort strategy

Planners selected the school site in Nablus to be near to the city infrastructure (roads, telephone

networks, electricity networks, and water networks)

Planners selected the school site in a densely populated and infill development area in order to serve

largest possible number of students.

Planners selected the school site so that doesn't damage open spaces (Unfortunately, the contractor was

forced to uproot some olive trees upon constructing the school, however, he re-planted it at the entrance

of the city)

√

Did project

planners attempt

to achieve

proper site

selection?

Lan

d c

onse

rvat

ion

`

139

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

Planners selected the school site to be near to public services and transportation (within 500 meters)

Planners used Geographic Information system (GIS) to ensure best site selection of the school taking

into account population density, land use, infrastructure, services, and development status.

Planners planned to ensure accessibility to public transport (within 800 meters)

√

Lan

d c

onse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If No, explain why?

There is no existing structure, Aqaba school is a new constructing building

√ Did project

planners give

priority to reuse

or rehabilitate

existing

structure?

If yes, explain

Planners selected Aqaba school site in Nablus near to the city infrastructure (roads, telephone

networks, electricity networks, and water networks)

√ Is this project is

located close to

existing

infrastructure?

If No, explain why?

Planners efforts have been limited on making soil inspections and tests for the school site and make soil

management plan". Rehabilitating the damaged soil and developing non arable land (lands that are

unsuitable for agriculture) were not applied because of its higher cost.

√ Did project

planners try to

develop non-

arable lands for

construction?

If No, explain

Site development includes education, healthcare, civic/municipal, solar projects, as well as office, retail,

industrial, residential and recreation projects. This project was limited on constructing the school and

didn't extended outside the school boundaries.

√

Did project

planners plan to

achieve site

development?

`

140

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Planners planned to pursue passive solar system to conserve largest possible amount of sun rays by

steering the longest wall of the building to the south direction, and increase the glass area at the south

direction in order to ensure appropriate light accessibility to interior walls (these walls will be called

solar windows), and supply and install in position a composite solar chimney made from galvanized

steel draft tube 300 cm height made by 4 quarter 1.5mm thick ; and external tube 230 cm height 1.0mm

thick galvanized steel consolidated with bracket and folding bracket size 30x3mm; and stainless steel

galvanized for water protection.

√ Did project

planners

consider

evaluation of the

orientation of

building

(involve how

the building will

relate to climatic

conditions)?

Eco

syst

em c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, explain how?

Planners selected the school site so that it doesn't damage open spaces (Unfortunately, the contractor

was forced to uproot some olive trees upon constructing the school, however, he re-planted it at the

entrance of the city)

Planners planned to afforest the school

√ Did project

planners keen to

maintain and

enhance the

biodiversity and

ecology of the

site?

If yes, explain how?

Planners planned to afforest the school , especially in the direction that is near to the street (in order to

absorb noise).

√ Did project

planners include

forestation of

the site in their

plan?

If No, explain why?

Because clients are not even aware of the concept of sustainable building

Naturally resistant of clients to change their behavior,

Because green concept is still ambiguities in the Palestinian construction industry.

√ Did project

planners obtain

client

commitment for

sustainability?

`

141

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Planners made pre assessment before design and construction process in order to examine to what extent

it is possible to construct green school.

Planners prepared management plan to propose innovative solutions for the predicted problems that the

construction team may face in construction process.

Planners planned to use solar cells to generate energy

Planners prepared integrated maintenance plan for the school

Planners planned to protect the site soil and make soil management

Planners emphasize to maintain ecosystem by

reduce generating dust by reducing the activities that generate dust and steering it away from the

surrounding population, as well as control the dust by water sprinklers

cover sand trucks through transportation process

clean vehicles before leaving the construction site.

control noise and reduce it in the construction site

reduce greenhouse effect through using effective equipments and tools in construction and make

periodic maintenance for it and reducing the period of operation of the equipment without the actual

work for less than five minutes for every 60 minutes of actual work

Planners planned to use sustainable materials (wood, polystyrene)

Planners emphasized not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Planners planned for minimum resource consumption (energy, land, water, material)

Planners planned to achieve human satisfaction regarding to the healthy environment of the school.

Planners planned to achieve attractiveness, usefulness and adaptability

Planners emphasized to achieve indoor environment quality

√

Did project

planners pursue

sustainability

policy?

Eco

syst

em c

onse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, what is this principles?

Minimize of resource consumption

Maximization of resource use

√ Did project

planners pursue

sustainability

(principles)?

`

142

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

protect the natural environment

create a healthy anon toxic environment

pursue quality in creating the built environment

Use renewable and recyclable resources

Eco

syst

em c

onse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, explain

Planners made Environmental impact assessment (EIA) in order to examine the impacts of constructing

Aqaba school as a first green school in Nablus. A set of details were prepared like:

Clarification of the proposed project

Site Description

General arrangement including a detailed description of the site supported with maps, aerial

photographs, and drawings

Groundwater

Ecosystem at the site of

Open areas

Transportation

legislation and regulations adopted

Project description included:

o Detailed plan of the proposed school which clarify general arrangement, elevators, sections

and the needed area of the school

o Water resources, and proposed methods to reduce water consumption

o Ways of energy supply, and proposed methods to reduce energy consumption

o Predicted amount of solid waste, and waste management plan

The Environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework included:

Air quality

Groundwater quality

Solid waste

√

Did project

planners plan to

conduct

environmental

impact

assessment

(EIA)?

`

143

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

The physical and visual characteristics

Rationalization of water consumption

Green area accessibility

Rainwater management

Accessibility to public transport

Quality of local environment

Resources depletion

√

Eco

syst

em c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, what is this criteria?

Economic criteria

Environment criteria

Social criteria

Technical criteria

√ Did project

planners comply

with

sustainability

criteria?

If yes, explain

Planners planned to use regional material as possible (wood, aluminum, glass, steel, polystyrene, led

lightings)

√ Did project

planners use

readily available

materials?

Init

ial

cost

Eco

no

mic

If yes, explain

Planners were well aware that every additional cost they will incur will be saving in the future (saving of

energy, land, water, material, and ecosystem)

Planners prepared feedback template to investigate problems that faced stakeholders (planners, designers,

labors, contractor, students, teachers, and administrative staff) in pre-construction, construction, and

operation phases respectively in order to avoid this problems in future as possible and make innovative

solutions for it when constructing another schools in the future. Feedback has been done also, to examine

to what extent the desired interest of constructing Aqaba school was achieved.

√

Did project

planners study

cost benefits and

risk associated?

`

144

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method S

trat

egy

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain it

Green School

USD Elements

44,073.00 Excavation and Earthworks

1,108,461.00 Concrete Work

33,198.50 Block Work

74,989.00 Carpentry and Joinery

161,924.00 Metalwork

188,737.00 Finishing's

21,326.00 Internal Plumbing

17,144.00 External Plumbing

12,972.00 Roofing

19,958.00 Painting and Decorating

272,407.00 Electro Mechanical

11,895.00 Sewerage

1,967,084.50 Total

√

Did project planners

prepare cost

estimation?

Init

ial

cost

Eco

nom

ic

Pla

nnin

g

If No, why?

Selecting the contractor was according to the traditional way, because of the ambiguities of the green

concept in the Palestinian construction industry. So, there is no sustainable contractor in Palestine.

Aqaba school is precedent green school in Palestine.

√

Did project planners

consider sustainable

contractor and

supplier selection?

`

145

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 1. Planning Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method S

trat

egy

G

Goal

l

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If No, explain

The estimated budget were 1,967,084.50 USD, however the real cost incurred were 2,733,464.20 USD..

Extra cost of 60,000 USD in the Metalwork is due using Laminated Glass 10mm thick in Aluminum

windows and high quality of steel Staircase handrail & Balustrading (as per the approved architectural

design)

Extra cost of 140,000 USD in the Electro mechanical works (main building) is due of using LED Light

fitting and emergency exit LED light

Extra cost of 300,000 USD in the External works. This is due the high rate for the paths, paving’s, and

steps as the big size of plot area which more than traditional school . In addition to the retaining walls.

The external servicing building is also considered of high cost due the approved design.

√

Did this project

commit with

planned budget?

Init

ial

cost

Eco

nom

ic

Pla

nnin

g

If yes, explain

The planners sought to select good reputation contractor, with a well trained staff of professional

workers

√ Did project

planners ensure

availability of skills

required & labor

supply? Cost

in u

se

If yes, explain

According to reports from World Health and Environment Organization nearly 70% of buildings suffer

from harmful environmental conditions: Bad air circulation and ventilation, artificial lighting, odors,

rapid temperature fluctuations, emissions from carpets, furniture, insecticides, paints and the presence of

gluing materials which can cause breathing problems, allergies, nausea, headaches, skin irritations, etc

(UNEP, 2015). All these issues can be positively influenced by green building design and construction.

√

Did project

planners consider

effect on local

development?

Pro

tect

ing

Hum

an h

ealt

h a

nd

com

fort

So

cial

If yes, explain

Planners planned Aqaba school to be a unique example of the success of coupling beauty of design with the

latest technological advances in building construction. The planners made sure from the start to use the

latest and highest quality, environment-friendly, materials. That, in addition to using the best technological

tools and very highly skilled craftsmen and architects has resulted in an architectural work of art that is also

good for the environment and translates into savings in the future.

√

Did project

planners respect

customs and beauty

of the place?

`

146

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method S

trat

egy

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers designed to use durable materials include steel, copper, wood, and concrete.

Designers designed to use easy cleaning, easy maintenance , recyclable, low emission of organic gases

materials like oil painting (Jotun paints), Ceramic tiles, cork (polystyrene), and aluminum.

Designers attempted to minimize the adverse effect of 'chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which use in

wood treatment, and formaldehyde that exist in Adhesive materials.

Designers designed to use 'vinyl wall papers' in the art and craft room rather than traditional wall papers

due to its humidity resistance

Designers designed to use renewable and friendly insulation materials from those of low embodied

energy such as wood fiber boards and cork.

Designers designed to use polystyrene plates which is environmentally friendly material for thermal

insulation of exterior elements which characterized by

High resistance to fungi and mold bacteria

High resistance to vibrations and shocks

no capillary action absorption and little water absorption

Fixed sizes not affected by external factors

Efficient isolation under sub-zero temperatures

Designers designed to use fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole internal lighting

system, which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy consumption by up to 80%, compared to

usual bulbs.

Designers designed to use natural materials in construction like granite and natural marble

√

Did designers choose

materials and

construction method so

that they are

environmentally

friendly?

En

ergy c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Des

ign

`

147

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers used Building Information Modeling (BIM) to link the size, shape and direction of the school

in an integrated manner that simulates surrounding environmental and natural factors in order to ensure

effective energy consumption. It should be noted that the school was designed by USAID designers

who have good experience in this field.

Designers emphasized to pursue passive solar system to conserve largest possible amount of sun rays,

by steering the longest wall of the school toward south direction, and increased the area and number of

glass windows.

Designers designed to apply 'Geothermal System' in order to conditioning the school classrooms. On

the bases of constant temperature of the crust at a depth 5 m which equal to 17 ° C. Geothermal system

idea depends on transfer thermal energy from the interior earth crust through concrete trenches which

have built at a depth of 5 meters depended on the fixed earth crust temperature and transmit this energy

through channels across the concrete walls to the classrooms so that the classroom will be warm and

suitable in summer and winter. The entrance of the trenches will be 50 meters away from the school at a

depth of 5 meters and going through tunnels to reach the school

Designers designed the front façade of the school with glass panels to make most of a building covered

with consolidated glass, as follows:

A shaded glass panel from the outside

A transparent glass panel from the inside (The transparency feature allows in natural light which reduces

energy consumption used in electrical lighting).

Designers designed to use insulating walls which reduced energy consumption by 30%.

Designers designed to use fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole internal lighting

system, which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy consumption by up to 80%, compared to

usual bulbs.

About outdoor lighting: Siemens has designed the outdoor lighting system according to the architectural

style and type of stones using long life LED lighting, which saves energy and is environment friendly.

Designers emphasized not to use incandescent lamps in order to conserve energy as possible.

√

Did the designers

design for energy

efficiency?

En

erg

y c

onse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Des

ign

`

148

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers used Building Information Modeling (BIM) to simulate physical and functional features in

order to determine to what extent accessibility is achieved.

Designers used simulation programs (Arena) to determine the optimum number of trips and the

needed time to transfer materials from and into school site and ensure achieving equal access for the

school from all community ages and categories specially disabled people.

√

Did the designers

design for low energy

intensive

transportation?

Ener

gy c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Des

ign

If yes, explain

Designers designed to pursue passive solar system to conserve largest possible amount of sun rays by

steering the longest wall of the building to the south direction, and increase the glass area at the south

direction in order to ensure appropriate light accessibility to interior walls (these walls will be called

solar windows), and supply and install in position a composite solar chimney made from galvanized

steel draft tube 300 cm height made by 4 quarter 1.5mm thick ; and external tube 230 cm height

1.0mm thick galvanized steel consolidated with bracket and folding bracket size 30x3mm; and

stainless steel galvanized for water protection.

√

Did the designers use

passive energy design?

If yes, explain

Designers prepared integrated waste management plan for construction waste through sorting, reuse

and recycling. Construction waste can be anything from concrete and flooring tiles to fixtures and

doors. Other materials like wood, metal, bricks and glass also count. Even the trees, stumps and earth

from clearing sites. For example, The contractor was forced to uproot some olive trees, however he re-

planted it at the entrance of the city.

Designers planned to transfer the sand after excavation works in Aqaba school (about 800 m3) to a

nearby site in order to reuse it in another project (constructing a playground).

√

Did the designers

design for Waste?

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

If yes, explain why?

Designers designed to use natural materials in construction like granite and natural marble, and local

materials like aluminum in order to support the local economy.

√ Did the designers

specify natural and

local material?

`

149

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers designed to use durable materials include concrete, steel, copper , wood, composites, and Adobe.

Adobe( This process of making bricks from a combination of clay, sand, straw, and a binding agent.

These bricks have stood the test of time and they look pretty gnarly too. Plus, they get environmentally-

friendly points)

Composites (It’s essentially a “wood substitute” made from wood scraps and recycled plastic, which ups

its durability factor. And it doesn’t have to be stained, nor does it fade. A lot of builders use these

materials in decks or when designing custom sheds, because it gives the homeowners a durable, low-

maintenance option)

Designers designed to use insulation bricks in the last roof, the insulating walls provide various benefits,

such as reduced energy consumption, quieter surroundings and better resistance to fire and humidity. This

system allows up to 50% less heat emission, compared to ordinary brick-constructed walls, and 30% less

energy consumption, for the following reasons: Insulating walls stops air-leakage into the wall structure,

allowing a higher capacity of controlling the quality of indoor air and of its recirculation according to

environment requirements. Furthermore insulated walls reduce heat exchange, and eliminate humidity,

odors, and allergens, hot and cold spots, all of which lead to better energy efficiency.

Designers designed to use natural and durable materials in construction like granite and natural marble

Designers designed to use easy cleaning and maintenance , recyclable, low emission of organic gases

materials like oil painting, Ceramic tiles, cork (polystyrene) , and aluminum.

Designers designed to use polystyrene plates which is environmentally friendly material for thermal

insulation of exterior elements which characterized by

High resistance to fungi and mold bacteria

High resistance to vibrations and shocks

no capillary action absorption and little water absorption

Fixed sizes not affected by external factors

efficient isolation under sub-zero temperatures

√

Did the

designers

specify durable

material?

En

ergy c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Des

ign

`

150

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Y

es Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain why?

Designers designed to use natural materials in construction like granite and natural marble, and local materials

in order to support the local economy.

√ Did the designers

specify natural

and local

material?

En

erg

y c

onse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Des

ign

If yes, explain

Designers designed to use renewable materials as possible (like wood, polystyrene, solar energy)

Designers designed to pursue passive solar system as renewable resource of solar energy

Designers designed to pursue 'Geothermal System' as renewable source of energy in order to conditioning the

school classrooms. On the bases of constant temperature of the crust at a depth 5 m which equal to 17 ° C.

Geothermal system idea depends on transfer thermal energy from the interior earth crust through concrete

trenches which have built at a depth of 5 meters depended on the fixed earth crust temperature and transmit

this energy through channels across the concrete walls to the classrooms so that the classroom will be warm

and suitable in summer and winter.

√

Did the designers

consider using

renewable

material ?

If yes, explain

Designers prepared integrated waste management plan for construction waste through sorting, reuse and

recycling. Construction waste can be anything from concrete and flooring tiles to fixtures and doors. Other

materials like wood, metal, and glass also count. Even the trees, stumps and earth from clearing sites.

Two containers were exist , one of them for general waste, and the other for recyclable waste at distance

less than 30 m of the school.

Designers designed to achieve accessibility for waste trucks to transfer it in order to treat it later.

Designers designed to reduce/ recycle/ reuse construction solid waste after separating and sorting it into

categories (plastic, metal, glass and organic materials).

Designers designed to ensure transferring broken blocks and construction debris to Ramallah crusher in

order to reuse it as base course for pavement works.

Designers seek to achieve net zero waste site.

Recyclable materials include metal, aluminum, copper, papers, cardboard, plastic, glass, rubber, and

fluorescent bulbs

Did the designers

plan to collect

recyclables?

`

151

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers designed to use painting material in which that doesn't contain volatile organic compound

(VOC's), and low percentage of Lead and mercury according to allowable limits ( Jotun Paints)

Designers designed to minimize the adverse effect of 'chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which use in

wood treatment.

Designers designed to reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic materials like asbestos

√

Did the designers

specify non-toxic

material? Ener

gy

conse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Des

ign

If yes, explain

Designers designed to reuse grey water (Grey water is all wastewater generated in households or office

buildings from streams without fecal contamination, i.e. all streams except for the wastewater from toilets.

Sources of grey water include, e.g. sinks, showers, baths, clothes washing machines or dish washers. As

grey water contains fewer pathogens than domestic wastewater, it is generally safer to handle and easier to

treat and reuse onsite for toilet flushing, landscape or crop irrigation, and other non-potable uses).

√

Did the designers

plan for water

treatment? Wat

er

conse

rvat

ion

If yes, explain

Designers committed with Palestinian green building specifications.

Designers emphasized to conduct organic and inorganic water tests to ensure its validity to use according to

Palestinian green building specifications.

Designers emphasized to conduct BOD (Biological organic demand) and COD (chemical organic demand)

tests for non potable water according to Palestinian specification

Designers study the groundwater schemes and make sure that buildings works will not damage it

Designers emphasized to conduct required soil tests.

Designers emphasized to use painting material from those that are empty from volatile organic compound

(VOC's), and low percentage of Lead and mercury according to allowable limits.

√

Did the designers

comply with

regulations and

legislation?

Eco

syst

em c

on

serv

atio

n

If yes, explain

Designers designed to use natural materials in construction like granite and natural marble, and local

materials in order to support the local economy.

√ Did the designers

design to use

locally sourced

materials?

Init

ial

cost

(Purc

has

e co

st)

Eco

no

m

ic

Des

ign

`

152

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers prepared cost plan for sustainable school and traditional school and compared between it

Difference (2-

1) Percentage

Green School

USD

Traditional School

USD Elements

-12.10% 44,073.00 50,142 Excavation and earthworks

95.22% 1,108,461.00 567,799 Concrete work

-36.83% 33,198.50 52,554 Block work

16.58% 74,989.00 64,322 Carpentry and Joinery

61.85% 161,924.00 100,046.5 Metalwork

-16.36% 188,737.00 225,658 Finishing's

8.21% 21,326.00 19,708.75 Internal Plumbing

-11.00% 17,144.00 19,262.5 External Plumbing

-43.00% 12,972.00 22,757.5 Roofing

-21.26% 19,958.00 25,346.5 Painting and decorating

101.78% 272,407.00 135,000.00 Electro mechanical

18.42% 11,895.00 10045 Sewerage

Difference (2-

1) Percentage 1,967,084.50 1,292,641.75 Elements

The estimated budget were 1,967,084.50 USD, however the real cost incurred were 2,733,464.20 USD..

Extra cost of 60,000 USD in the Metalwork is due using Laminated Glass 10mm thick in Aluminum windows

and high quality of steel Staircase handrail & Balustrading (as per the approved architectural design)

Extra cost of 140,000 USD in the Electro mechanical works (main building) is due of using LED Light fitting

and emergency exit LED light

Extra cost of 300,000 USD in the External works. This is due the high rate for the paths, paving’s, and steps as

the big size of plot area which more than traditional school . In addition to the retaining walls. The external

servicing building is also considered of high cost due the approved design.

√

Did the

designers

prepare cost

plan?

`

153

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers sought to use green materials, regardless to their cost.

√ Did the designers use

less expensive

building Materials?

If yes, explain

Designers used Building Information Modeling (BIM) to

Support design decision making by comparing different design alternativesthat achieve green

requirements in order to choose the optimum one quickly and effectively

Simulate physical and functional features in order to determine to what extent accessibility is

achieved.

Improve design quality by reducing errors/ redesign and managing design changes

Increase the accuracy of cost estimation

link the size, shape and direction of the school in an integrated manner that simulates surrounding

environmental and natural factors in order to ensure effective energy consumption

Use Geographic Information system (GIS) to ensure best site selection of the school taking into account

population density, land use, infrastructure, services, and development status

√

Did the designers

utilize technical

programs to achieve

modular design &

standardized

components?

Init

ial

cost

(P

urc

has

e co

st)

Eco

no

mic

Des

ign

If yes, explain it

Cost ( USD) Sustainable elements

9,725.00 Concrete work

2,784.00 Carpentry and joinery

514,525.00 Metalwork

98,132.50 Internal plumbing

7,782.00 External plumbing

531,070.00 Electro mechanical

248,594.00 Drainage and water treatment

28,210.00 Roof for external Buildings

1,440,822.50 Sum

√

Did the designers

make cost estimation

for sustainable

elements separately?

`

154

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers used simulation programs (Arena) to determine the optimum number of trips and the needed time

to transfer materials from and into school site in order to consider transport and accessibility costs.

√

Did the designers

consider transport

and accessibility

costs?

Init

ial

cost

(P

urc

has

e co

st)

Eco

nom

ic

Des

ign

If yes, explain

Designers attempted to choose minimum-maintenance materials as possible in commensurate with

sustainable characteristics like wood, aluminum, glass and polystyrene.

Easy cleaning and maintenance , recyclable, low emission of organic gases materials were used like oil

painting, ceramic tile, marble, and aluminum for windows.

√

Did the designers

choose minimum-

maintenance

materials?

If yes, explain

Designers emphasized storing construction materials according to required specifications in order to protect

them from destructive elements such as sun, temperature variations, rain or wind, or migration of moisture-

laden air.

√ Did the designers

ensure good

storing for

construction

materials ?

If No, why?

Aqaba school is precedent project in Palestine and considered as the third green building that appliedgreen

specifications in Palestine; hence, sustainable plans were not updating in an optimal way because of lack of

engineers experience regarding to sustainable practices and regional ambiguities of green concept in the

Palestinian construction industry. It should be noted that there is only three green buildings in

Palestine. These green buildings are Palestinian cultural center, Palestinian Museum, and Aqaba

green school (UNEP, 2015).

√

Did the designers

concern updating

sustainable plans?

`

155

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Aqaba school stands out as a unique example of the success of coupling beauty of design with the latest

technological advances in building construction. The designers made sure from the start to use the latest and

highest quality, environment-friendly, materials. That, in addition to using the best technological tools and

highly skilled architects has resulted in an architectural work of art that is also good for the environment and

translates into savings in the future.

√

Did the

designers design

for building

attractiveness?

Pro

tect

ing

Hu

man

hea

lth

and

co

mfo

rt

So

cial

Des

ign

If yes, explain

Designers design to use passive energy system and geothermal system in order to conditioning the school

classrooms so that the classroom will be warm and suitable in summer and winter.

Designers designed for thermal insulation using polystyrene

Designers designed for humidity resistance

Designers designed for acoustics

Designers designed to achieve good ventilation

√

Did the

designers design

for adaptability?

If yes, explain

(Deconstruction essentially means that pieces of a home or building are carefully dismantled in order to be used

again)

Designers designed the school for easy re-use of structural and non-structural elements after finishing using

the school.

Bolts have been used to joint structural elements (roof and walls)

Doors and windows have been installed in a way that is can be carefully dismantled in order to be used again

√ Did the

designers

achieve

disassembly

(Deconstruction

)?

If yes, explain

Designers designed Aqaba school to be a unique example of the success of coupling beauty of design with

the latest technological advances in building construction. The designers made sure from the start to use the

latest and highest quality, environment-friendly, materials. That, in addition to using the best technological

tools and very highly skilled craftsmen and architects has resulted in an architectural work of art that is also

good for the environment and translates into savings in the future.

√

Did the

designers

achieve

Innovation in

design?

`

156

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 2. Design Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Designers designed Aqaba school to be a healthy environment for school education and to be suitable for

students, teachers and administrative staff.

Designers designed Aqaba school to serve about 250 students

Did the designers

design for

usefulness?

Pro

tect

ing H

um

an

hea

lth a

nd c

om

fort

Soci

al

Des

ign

If yes, explain

The school was provided with the need measures to face fires (Fire extinguishers)

The school designed for fire resistance by designing pipes for lines in station and substations and emphasize

using high density polyethylene pipes (PEAD) for pressurized fluid

√

Did the designers

design for fire

protection?

Pro

tect

ing

Physi

cal

Res

ourc

es

If yes, explain

The school designed for earthquakes

The school designed for fire resistance and provide the school with need measures to face fires (Fire

extinguishers)

Two stairs are available in each building of the school commensurate with the number of school students in

order to escape in emergency cases

Using insulation bricks in the school last floor can provide better resistance to fire

Did the designers

concern resist

natural hazards?

`

157

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

The contractor made building envelope for the school in order to separate internal and exterior spaces.

'Building envelope is the exterior elements of a building which form a barrier between the internal and

exterior spaces. For an air conditioned building, the building envelope is defined as the elements of a

building that separate conditioned spaces from the exterior.

√ Did the contractor

make insulating

building

envelope?

Ener

gy

conse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

The contractor pursued the integrated waste management plan that have been prepared previously in the

planning stage including waste water reuse and treatment.

The contractor pursued reusing grey water (Grey water is all wastewater generated in households or office

buildings from streams without fecal contamination, i.e. all streams except for the wastewater from toilets.

Sources of grey water include, e.g. sinks, showers, baths, clothes washing machines or dish washers. As grey

water contains fewer pathogens than domestic wastewater, it is generally safer to handle and easier to treat

and reuse onsite for toilet flushing, landscape or crop irrigation, and other non-potable uses).

√

Did the

executing

company use

biological waste

treatment

system (reuse)? Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

If yes, explain

The contractor used durable materials like concrete, steel, copper and marble, however planners suggested

using Composites and Adobe as durable materials in building Aqaba school, but this suggestion wasn't

applied. 'Adobe means this process of making bricks from a combination of clay, sand, straw, and a binding

agent. These bricks have stood the test of time and they look pretty gnarly too. Plus, they get

environmentally -friendly points'. 'Composites is essentially a “wood substitute” made from wood scraps

and recycled plastic, which ups its durability factor. A lot of builders use these materials in decks or when

designing custom sheds, because it gives the homeowners a durable, low-maintenance option.

Easy cleaning and maintenance , recyclable, low emission of organic gases materials were used like oil

painting, Ceramic tile, Aluminum, and Cork (Polystyrene) to isolate library and art and craft room.

√

Did the

contractor use

sustainable

materials?

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

`

158

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

The contractor has used painting material that are empty from volatile organic compound (VOC's), and

have low percentage of Lead and Mercury according to allowable limits, and Palestinian green

specifications ( Jotun Paints)

The contractor considered minimizing the adverse effect of 'chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which use in

wood treatment, and formaldehyde that exist in Adhesive materials.

The contractor painted school classroom walls with light colors to reflect light and minimize dependence

on lighting devices.

The contractor has used 'Vinyl wall papers' in the art and craft room rather than traditional wall papers due

to its humidity resistance

The contractor used environmental friendly and renewable insulation materials which have low embodied

energy such as wood fiber boards and Polystyrene which used for thermal insulation of exterior elements.

Polystyrene is characterize by

High resistance to fungi and mold bacteria

High resistance to vibrations and shocks

no capillary action absorption and little water absorption

Fixed sizes not affected by external factors

efficient isolation under sub-zero temperatures

For indoor Lighting: the whole internal lighting system uses fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs,

which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy consumption by up to 80%, compared to usual bulbs.

For outdoor lighting: Siemens has designed the outdoor lighting system according to the architectural style

and type of stones

The contractor used long life LED lighting, which saves energy and is environment friendly.

the contractor used natural materials in construction, such as granite and natural marble in the floors and

internal walls

The contractor used insulation bricks in the last roof. Isolation bricks reduces energy consumption. The

insulating walls provide various benefits, such as reduced energy consumption, quieter surroundings and

better resistance to fire and humidity. This system allows up to 50% less heat emission, compared to

√

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Const

ruct

ion

`

159

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

ordinary brick-constructed walls, and 30% less energy consumption, for the following reasons: Insulating

walls stops air-leakage into the wall structure, allowing a higher capacity of controlling the quality of indoor

air and of its recirculation according to environment requirements.. Furthermore insulated walls reduce heat

exchange, and eliminate humidity, odors, and allergens, hot and cold spots, all of which lead to better energy

efficiency.

Mat

eria

l co

nse

rvat

ion

Envir

onm

ent

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

The contractor pursued integrated waste management plan that have been prepared previously for

construction waste including sorting, reusing and recycling it. 'Construction waste can be anything from

concrete and flooring tiles to fixtures and doors. Other materials like wood, metal, bricks and glass also

count. Even the trees, stumps and earth from clearing sites'.

The contractor sought to reduce/ recycle/ reuse construction solid waste after separating and sorting it into

categories (plastic, metal, glass, bricks and organic materials),

Two containers were exist , one of them for general waste, and the other for recyclable waste at distance

less than 30 m of the school

The contractor ensured achieving accessibility for waste trucks to transfer it in preamble to treat it.

The contractor transferred broken blocks and construction debris to Ramallah crusher in order to reuse it as

base course for pavement works.

The contractor transferred broken blocks and construction debris to Ramallah crusher in order to reuse it as

base course for pavement works.

√

Did the contractor

employ material

reuse?

If yes, explain

The contractor pursued rainwater harvesting system, as well as reuse water exploitation

The contractor executed school ceilings to collect rain water in preparation to inject it into ground water

Two wells were exist for rain water, and one for grey water

√

Did the contractor

employ collecting

rain water? Wat

er

Co

nse

rvat

ion

`

160

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

The contractor reused grey water to irrigate school garden and charging toilets (Grey water is all wastewater

generated in households or office buildings from streams without fecal contamination, i.e. all streams except

for the wastewater from toilets. Sources of grey water include, e.g. sinks, showers, baths, clothes washing

machines or dish washers. As grey water contains fewer pathogens than domestic wastewater, it is generally

safer to handle and easier to treat and reuse onsite for toilet flushing, landscape or crop irrigation, and other

non-potable uses).

√

Did the contractor

employ re-

circulating

systems

(Wastewater

technology)?

Wat

er

Conse

rvat

ion

En

vir

onm

ent

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

The contractor used durable materials including concrete, steel, copper, wood, and bricks.

The contractor used fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole internal lighting system, which

contribute to a large degree to reducing energy consumption by up to 80%, compared to usual bulbs.

The contractor used painting material that are empty from volatile organic compound (VOC's), and low

percentage of Lead and mercury according to allowable limits (like Jotun Paints).

The contractor considered minimizing the adverse effect of 'chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which use in

wood treatment , and formaldehyde that exist in Adhesive materials.

The contractor used 'vinyl wall papers' in the art and craft room rather than traditional wall papers due to its

humidity resistance

The contractor used renewable and friendly insulation materials from those of low embodied energy such as

wood fiber boards and cork (polystyrene).

The contractor used polystyrene plates which is environmentally friendly material for thermal insulation of

exterior elements which characterized by

High resistance to fungi and mold bacteria

High resistance to vibrations and shocks

no capillary action absorption and little water absorption

Fixed sizes not affected by external factors

efficient isolation under sub-zero temperatures

√

Did the contractor

select friendly

environment

materials? Eco

syst

em

`

161

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

The contractor used easy cleaning and maintenance , recyclable, low emission of organic gases materials like

oil painting, Cork (polystyrene) , and wood.

Eco

syst

em

Envir

onm

ent

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

The contractor sought to achieve net zero waste site

The contractor sought to reduce greenhouse effect through

Using effective equipments and tools in construction and make periodic maintenance for it.

Reducing operation period of the equipment without any actual work for less than five minutes for

every 60 minutes of actual work

The contractor sought to reduce generating dust by reducing the activities that generate dust and steering it

away from the surrounding population, as well as controlling dust by water sprinklers.

The contractor covered sand trucks through transportation process

The contractor cleaned vehicles before leaving construction site.

The contractor tried to control noise and reduce it in the construction site.

√

Did the contractor

control pollution

(reduce pollution

generation)?

If yes, explain

Designers used simulation programs (Arena) to determine the optimum number of trips and the needed time

to transfer materials from and into school site and ensure achieving equal access for the school from all

community ages and categories specially disabled people.

√ Did the contractor

concern reduce

time required to

assemble

materials on site?

Init

ial

cost

Eco

no

mic

If yes, explain

Yes, (as example, transfer broken blocks and construction debris to Ramallah crusher in order to reuse it as base

course for pavement works).

√

Did the contractor

use recycled and

reclaimed

materials? Co

st i

n u

se

`

162

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If no, why?

The contractor stored construction materials according to required specifications in order to protect them

from sun, temperature variations, rain or wind, and migration of moisture-laden air

√ Did the contractor

protect materials

from destructive

elements such as

sun, temperature

variations, rain or

wind, or

migration of

moisture-laden air

through defects in

the envelope?

Co

st i

n u

se

Eco

nom

ic

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

Designers used Building Information Modeling (BIM) to simulate physical and functional features in order

to determine to what extent accessibility is achieved.

Achieve equal access for the school for all community ages and categories specially disabled people.

√ Did the contractor

ensure

accessibility ofthe

occupants?

If yes, explain

The contractor afforested the school in the direction that is near to street in order to absorb noise

Storing room and service rooms have been selected to be near the street direction rather than classrooms to

avoid disturb students in the classrooms.

The contractor tried to committee with allowable limits of sound transmission between classrooms as

possible.

The front façade and the back of the building have been designed with glass panels to make most of a

building covered with consolidated glass, and an air space between the two glass panels. The gap between

the two glass panels is meant to reduce heat and noise

The contractor used insulating walls which provides noise reduction and ambience enhancement

√

Did the contractor

concern acoustic

and noise control?

Pro

tect

ing

Hum

an h

ealt

h a

nd

com

fort

So

cial

Co

nst

ruct

ion

`

163

`

164

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 3. Construction Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method

Str

ateg

y

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

The contractor reduced and control use toxic materials (Asbestos, Formaldehyde that exist in Adhesive

materials) in order to provide healthy working environment for labors.

The contractor used painting material which are empty from volatile organic compound (VOC's), and low

percentage of Lead and mercury according to allowable limits (Jotun Paints) to preserve workers health.

The contractor sought to minimize the adverse effect of 'chromated copper arsenate (CCA) which use in

wood treatment to preserve workers health .

The contractor respect and treat labors fairly

The contractor sought to maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne contaminants that can

affect worker productivity and/or health.

The contractor committed with safety regulations, and provide workers with safety protective equipment like

hard hats, gloves, eye goggles, ear plugs, safety shoes, face shield.

Adequate safety supervision has conducted to emphasize that labors are committee with a safety regulation

and behave in a safety way

The contractor provided the site with first aid measures

√

Did the contractor

concern safety and

health for workers?

Pro

tect

ing

Hum

an h

ealt

h a

nd c

om

fort

Soci

al

Const

ruct

ion

If yes, explain

The school designed for earthquakes

The school designed for fire resistance and provide the school with need measures to face fires (Fire

extinguishers)

Two stairs are available in each building of the school commensurate with the number of school students in

order to escape in emergency cases

Using insulation bricks in the school last floor can provide better resistance to fire

Did the designers

concern resist

natural hazards?

`

165

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g S

tage

If yes, explain how?

Afforest the school and conserve open spaces

Achieve indoor thermal comfort for students by using "Geothermal" strategy

Ensure not endanger the health of the builders, students, or others, through

exposure to pollutants or other toxic materials

Create a nice landscape and aesthetic school

Seek to achieve net zero waste site

Achieve indoor environment quality

Achieve good ventilation

provide good day lighting and Glare

Achieve safe and secure environment

Achieve high frequency lighting

Achieve good humidity resistance

√

Did this school building create a

clean and healthy environment?

Ecosystem

Conservation

Envir

onm

ent

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

The designers applied deconstruction process of the school (deconstruction

is the selective dismantlement of building components, specifically for re-

use, repurposing, recycling, and waste management. It differs from

demolition where a site is cleared of its building by the most expedient

means. Deconstruction has also been defined as “construction in reverse".

Deconstruction focuses on giving the materials within a building a new life

once the building as a whole can no longer continue. When buildings reach

the end of their useful life, they are typically demolished and hauled to

landfills. Building implosions or ‘wrecking-ball’ style demolitions are

relatively inexpensive and offer a quick method of clearing sites for new

structures. On the other hand, these methods create substantial amounts of

waste. Components within old buildings may still be valuable, sometimes

more valuable than at the time the building was constructed. Deconstruction

√

Did this school have recycling

potential and ease of demolition? Recovery Cost

Eco

no

mic

`

166

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g S

tage

is a method of harvesting what is commonly considered “waste” and reclaiming it

into useful building material) Recovery Cost

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

Designers took many measures to provide acoustic comfort for the school like:

Afforest the school in direction that is near to street in order to absorb noise

Choose store room and service rooms to be near the street direction and

choose the classrooms away from the street to avoid disturb students in the

classrooms.

Committee with allowable limits of sound transmission between classrooms

as possible

The front facade and the back of the building have been designed with glass

panels to make most of a building covered with consolidated glass, and an

air space between the two glass panels. The gap between the two glass

panels is meant to reduce heat and noise

Use insulating walls which provides noise reduction and ambience

enhancement.

√

Is this building provide acoustic

comfort?

Protecting

Human health

and comfort

If yes, explain

Increase reliance on natural daylight by reducing the number of lighting

devices and increase the number of windows, and control the location and

area of windows.

Emphasize not to use incandescent lamps

Provide head master rooms, worker social room, first aid room, secretary

room, physical lab, chemistry lab, library, art and craft room, and corridors

with occupancy sensors.

For indoor lighting: the whole internal lighting system uses fluorescent bulbs

√

Is this building provide visual

comfort?

`

167

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g S

tage

and LED long life bulbs. For outdoor lighting: Siemens has designed the

outdoor lighting system according to the architectural style and type of

stones using long life LED lighting.In addition, LED signs have been used

for all emergency exits. As well as, Emphasize that 75% of the interior

spaces have a direct contact with the external environment

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

The front facade and the back of the building have been designed with glass

panels to make most of a building covered with consolidated glass, as

follows:

A shaded glass panel from the outside

An air space between the two glass panels

A transparent glass panel from the inside (The presence of glass panels

which allow for comfortable lighting and prevent ultraviolet light, The

gap between the two glass panels is meant to reduce heat and noise, The

transparency feature allows in natural light which reduces energy

consumption used in electrical lighting. A transparent glass panel from the

inside)

Increase reliance on natural daylight by reducing the number of lighting

devices and increase the number of windows, and control the location and

area of windows.

Indoor Lighting: the whole internal lighting system uses fluorescent bulbs

and LED long life bulbs, which contribute to a large degree to reducing

energy consumption by up to 80%, compared to usual bulbs.

Outdoor lighting: Siemens has designed the outdoor lighting system

according to the architectural style and type of stones using long life LED

lighting, which saves energy and is environment friendly.

LED signs have been used for all emergency exits.

√

Is this building provide good day

lighting?

Protecting

Human health

and comfort

`

168

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

The school have been designed to achieve good ventilation according to

architect standards and specifications.

√ Is this building provide natural

ventilation?

Protecting

Human health

and comfort

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

Aqaba school provide a healthy environment for school education. Its

suitable for students, teachers and administrative staff.

Aqaba school serve about 250 students

√

Is this building characterize with

functionality?

If yes, explain, how?

Afforest the school and conserve open spaces

Use passive solar system to conserve largest possible amount of sun rays

Create a nice landscape and aesthetic school

Seek to achieve net zero waste site

Achieve indoor environment quality

Achieve good ventilation

achieve indoor thermal comfort for students by using "Geothermal"

strategy

Provide good day lighting

Achieve safe and secure environment

Achieve high frequency lighting

Achieve good humidity resistance

Achieve school adaptability

Using insulating walls which stops air-leakage into the wall structure,

allowing a higher capacity of controlling the quality of indoor air and of its

recirculation according to environment requirements. Furthermore

insulated walls reduce heat exchange, and eliminate humidity, odors, and

allergens, hot and cold spots, all of which lead to better energy efficiency.

Insulating walls provides noise reduction and ambience enhancement.

√

Is this building assure indoor

environmentally quality?

`

169

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

The school is surrounded with wonderful flora, and open spaces, as well as

new buildings. This area was controlled by urban planning of Aqaba city.

√ Is this building provided with nice

views, view space?

Protecting

Human health

and comfort

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain how?

Use "geothermal" strategy which achieve the three functions " heating,

ventilating, and air conditioning" so that the classroom will be warm and

suitable in summer and winter

Achieve good shading of the building which can help in maintain suitable

temperature.

Achieve good ventilation by increasing the number and area of windows

√

Is this building control temperature?

If yes, explain how?

Use thermal insulation for pipes by installing 50mm thickness thermal

insulation for piping in sheath of cross-linked polyethylene foam, closed

cells, with anti-scratch external coating protection

Use insulation bricks in last roof which provide good humidity resistance

Use Polystyrene plates for thermal insulation for exterior elements which

characterized by

No capillary action absorption and little water absorption

Efficient isolation under sub-zero temperatures

Insulated walls were used which can reduce heat exchange, eliminate

humidity, odors, and allergens. Use Porous Material Without covering or

painting it -to avoid filling its pores- in order to control the humidity inside

the building whereas this materials maintain moisture in its pores in the

night (humidity in the night is higher than it during the day) and emanating

it from its pores in the times of the hot days in summer. An examples of

these materials are bricks, natural and non painting wood.

√

Is this building regulate humidity?

`

170

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If yes, explain

Aqaba school colors have approved by design and supervision unit.

√ Is this building have homogeneous

colors?

Protecting

Human health

and comfort

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

The school designed for earthquakes

The school designed for fire resistance and provide the school with need

measures to face fires (Fire extinguishers)

two stairs are available in each building of the school commensurate with

the number of school students in order to escape in emergency cases

Using insulation bricks in the last floor can provide good resistance to fire

Is this building ensure safety?

If No, explain

As Aqaba school provide public services 'Education', privacy is not needed

here.

√

Is this building provide privacy?

If yes, explain

Aqaba school provide a healthy environment for school education which

suitable for students, teachers and administrative staff.

Designers designed Aqaba school to serve about 250 students

√

Is this building satisfy occupants

needs?

If yes, explain

Durable materials have bused in constructing Aqaba school as mentioned

previously.

√

Is this building assure durability?

If yes, explain

Aqaba school has been designed according to Palestinian green

specifications, Aqaba school ensure usability for all students, teachers and

Administrative staff.

√

Is this building achieve usability?

`

171

Table (4.4): Case study questions (Part 4. Maintenance and Operation Stage)

Interpretation No Yes Method Strategy

Goal

Buil

din

g

Sta

ge

If No, explain

The donor concerned with constructing the school only, however he

recommended to enhance the awareness of public with regard to

sustainable issues.

√

Is the donor concern enhance the

awareness of public with regard to

sustainable issues?

Protecting

Physical

Resources

Eco

nom

ic

Mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd O

per

atio

n S

tage

If yes, explain

The company has prepared a feedback to investigate the problems that

faced stakeholders (planners, designers, contractor, students, teachers, and

administrative staff) in pre-constructing, constructing, and operation stage

respectively in order to avoid this problems as possible in future and make

innovative solutions for it when constructing another schools in future.

Feedback has been made also, to examine to what extent the desired

interest of constructing Aqaba school was achieved.

√

Is the executing company introduce

feedback mechanism?

`

172

4.3 Summary

The case study of Aqaba school was developed to integrate sustainability concepts in all

building project life cycle with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical

goals. Hence, a theoretical and practical benefits were concluded.

4.3.1 Theoretical benefits

The case study findings demonstrated that sustainability concept can be integrated in

building project life cycle through many steps:

Planning stage: Planners should study

Site topography

Exist of plants

Nature of soil

Microclimate

Ecosystem

Solar radiation fall corners

Wind direction

The course of rainwater

School accessibility

Site development

Outdoor thermal comfort strategy

Transportation

Design stage: Designers should design to:

Minimize of resource consumption (water, energy, materials, land)

Maximize resource use

Protect the natural environment

Create a healthy and non toxic environment

Use renewable and recyclable resources

Improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal, visual and acoustic

quality)

Pursue quality in creating the built environment

Construction stage: Several green methods should be applied, these methods

include:

Apply solar energy system or geothermal system.

Achieve good ventilation

Apply gray and black water treatments and re-use

Apply cold and heating system

Apply waste management system

Apply rain water harvesting

`

173

Achieve good isolation for (thermal, acoustics, and humidity) resistance

Use durable and environmentally friendly materials

Maintenance stage: Mangers should ensure that environment, economic, social, and

technical criteria's were achieved as following:

Environment: by conserve energy, materials, water, land, and ecosystem.

Social: by improve the quality of life, provision for social self-determination

and cultural diversity, protect and promote human health through a healthy

and safe working environment.

Economic: by ensure financial affordability, employment creation, adopt full

cost accounting, enhance competitiveness, sustainable supply chain

management, waste management, prudent use of the four generic construction

resources (water, energy, material and land)

Technical: by ensure achieving building durability, functionality, structure

quality, safety, privacy, usability, noise control, acoustic, and indoor

environmentally quality

4.3.2 Practical benefit

The case study findings demonstrated that sustainability concept can be integrated in

building project life cycle by applying the following practical steps:

Apply passive solar design and geothermal design in order to conserve energy

as possible.

Make Environmental impact assessment (EIA) to ensure achieving all

sustainability concepts

Prepare reasonable cost estimation in preamble to achieve economic

sustainability.

Designers should prepare integrated waste management plan for construction

waste through sorting, reuse and recycling.

Planners should promote using sustainable and friendly environment materials

(wood, bamboo, polystyrene, adobe, polystyrene, bricks and led lightings)

and emphasize not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Pay greater care at design stage in building projects in Gaza Strip to deliver

sustainable solutions at a more reasonable cost.

Seek to select sustainable contractor.

Internalize external costs (like transportations, equipments, training

workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies) before the building

project take place in

Use computer programs like Building Information Modeling (BIM), and

Geographic Information System (GIS) which can help in achieving all

sustainability concepts

`

174

Committee with green specification and seek to enact green legislation and

regulations.

4.4 The extent of achieving sustainability concepts in Aqaba school

LEED sustainability assessment tool was used, as it gives site sustainability, energy

efficiency, water efficiency, indoor environment quality, material and resources,

innovation and building integrated design different points as shown before in literature

review.Findings of the case study illustrated the green concepts that have been integrated

in Aqaba school project. Table 4.5 shows to what extent was sustainability concepts

integrated in Aqaba school building life cycle. As shown, the number of achieved points

= 153 point which equal 76.5%. This evaluation was developed by researcher as she

evaluated the extent of applying sustainability concept in Aqaba school according to

LEED sustainability assessment tool. This means that the green concepts were achieved

in the school with a good percentage. This result may appeared because the fund and the

drawings of the school were from USAID which committee with the green specification

as possible. Aqaba school is precedent green school in Palestine.

Table (4.5): The extent of integrating sustainability concepts in Aqaba school building

life cycle

Domain Total No.

of points

Total

Percentage

Achieved

points

The achieved

percentage of

sustainability

Site Sustainability 30 15% 21 70.0%

Energy Efficiency 60 30% 50 83.3%

Water Use Efficiency 50 25% 38 76.0%

Indoor Environment Quality 30 15% 22 73.3%

Materials and Resources 20 10% 15 75.0%

Innovation and Building Integrated Design 10 5% 7 70.0%

Total 200 100% 153 76.5%

4.5 Limitation of the case study

Although the case study was carefully prepared and has reached its aim, there were some

unavoidable limitations.

Because of lack of green buildings in Gaza Strip, making case study in Gaza Strip

was very difficult. Hence, a lot of effort was made to make case study about green

building in the west bank. Communication with the school designers and

supervisor was difficult and incur the researcher incremental time and effort.

Because of the geographical limit. It was difficult to visit Aqaba school and obtain

additional information.

`

175

Chapter 5

Results and discussion of the

questionnaire

`

176

Chapter 5

Results and discussion of the questionnaire

This chapter included analysis and discussion of the results that have been collected from

field surveys. First section presents the profile and all necessary information about the

respondents. Other sections in the questionnaire were designed to attain the objectives of

this research. The first objective was to investigate awareness level of sustainability

concept principles with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals in

building projects. The second objective to identify and rate benefits level of sustainable

construction buildings. The final objective was to identify barriers of implementing

sustainable buildings. A total of 50 completed copies had been returned, representing a

valid response rate of 92.59 %. Data were analyzed quantitatively using IBM (SPSS)

version 20 including descriptive and inferential statistical tools.

5.1 Respondents profiles

The target respondents of the questionnaire survey were engineers who work in the field

of design, supervision, construction, and maintenance (civil, architect, and electrical

engineers). This section analyzed the demographic data of the 50 respondents. Table 5.1

illustrates the results of respondents profile. It shows that 62.0 % of the respondents were

males, and 38.0% were females. About respondents educational qualification, the

percentages were 46%, 40%, and 14% for Bachelors, Master, and Ph.D degree

respectively. The results also revealed that the age of 50% of the respondents were less

than 30 years, 44% were from 30 to 45 years and only 6% were more than 45 years. It

could be noted that the majority of respondents were civil engineers 54%, and the

remaining were architect and electrical engineers with a percentage 32% and 14%

respectively. As appeared in the results, 30 % of the respondents have an experience less

than 5 years, 36% have an experience from 5 years to 10 years, and 34% have experience

over than 10 years. Regarding to the current field-present job, 32% of the respondents

were designers, 36% were site engineers, 16% project managers, and 16% academic

engineers. Results also indicated that 70% of respondents were from consultant offices,

and 30% were from owners institutions as appeared in the results. It should be noted that

`

177

the contractor was excluded because there is no sustainable contractor in Gaza Strip.

About years of experience in sustainable building field, that the majority of respondent

58% were have an experience less than 5 years in sustainable building field, 32% were

have an experience between 5 to 10 years, and only 10% were have an experience more

than 10 years, which indicate the recentness of sustainability theme in Gaza Strip, and

regional ambiguities in the green concept in Gaza Strip.

Table (5.1): Respondents profile

General information about respondents Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 31 62.0 %

Female 19 38.0 %

Educational qualification

Bachelors 23 46.0 %

Master 20 40.0 %

Ph.D 7 14.0 %

Age in years

Less than 30 25 50.0 %

From 30-45 22 44.0 %

More than 45 3 6.0 %

Specialization Civil 27 54.0 %

Architect 16 32.0 %

Electrical 7 14.0 %

Years of experience Less than 5 years 15 30.0 %

From 5 to 10 years 18 36.0 %

More than 10 years 17 34.0 %

Current field- present job Designer 16 32.0 %

Site engineer 18 36.0 %

Project Manager 8 16.0 %

Academic 8 16.0 %

Nature of the work place Consultant 35 70.0 %

Owner 15 30.0 %

Years of experience in sustainable building

field

Less than 5 years 29 58.0 %

from 5 to 10 years 16 32.0 %

more than 10 years 5 10.0 %

5.2 Awareness level regarding sustainable (green) building principles

This section contains 4 sustainability concepts, environment (10 statements), economic

(10 statements), social (13 statements) and technical (5 statements) to assess the level of

respondents awareness regarding sustainable building principles. These statements were

subjected to the views of respondents, and the outcomes of the analysis were shown in

`

178

Table (5.2). The descriptive statistics, i.e. means, standard deviations (SD), t-value (two-

tailed), probabilities (P-value), relative importance indices (RII), and ranks were

established.

Results illustrated that the total average mean for all "awareness principles statement"

equal 3.63, T-test 3.212 and the P-value equal 0.000 which is less than 0.05. This means

that the respondents have high awareness regarding sustainability buildings principles,

and the results are confident. The SD were also used to quantify the amount of variation

or dispersion of respondent opinions regard to "awareness principles statements". As

shown in Table (5.2), the average SD were 1.05, which indicate that the respondents

results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. This means that

results are confident. According to table (5.2)

P-value = 0.000 < 0.05, and T statistics (4.73) > T critical (2.01), so , there is a

statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level

of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.63) and hypotheses mean (3) on the field

of awareness level regarding sustainable buildings principles.

Average mean = 3.63 > 3 (Neutral RII), which means that the respondents have high

awareness regarding sustainability buildings principles.

SD = 1.05, it is not far from zero, which means that the respondents results are

consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So, the results are

confident.

The numerical scores obtained from the questionnaire responses provided an indication of

the awareness level of respondents regard to sustainable (green) building principles. The

"awareness principles statements" were ranked according to their concepts, as well as

overall concepts. The ranks start from 1st "awareness statement" with 93.3% for aw5 to

38 awareness statement with 63.6% for aw10 (Table 5.2). It worth mentioning that

ranking of the statements was based on the highest mean, RII, and the lowest SD. If some

statements have similar means and RIIs, as in the case of aw34 and aw35, ranking will be

depended on the lowest SD. For example, although aw35 and aw34 have the same mean

and RIIs, aw35 is ranked higher than the aw34 because it has lower SD.

`

179

Table (5.2): Awareness level regard to sustainable (green) building principles

No. Awareness statement

Mea

n

Std

. D

ev

RII

(%

)

T v

alue

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P v

alue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Environment Aspect

Aw5 Reduce energy consumption 4.160 0.992 83.2 6.741 0.009 1 1

Aw9 Create healthy environments (enhance living, leisure

and work environments; and not endanger the health

of the builders, users, or others, through exposure to

pollutants or other toxic materials).

3.860 0.948 77.2 6.416 0.000 2 6

Aw6 Ensure prudent use of the four generic construction

resources (water, energy, material and land)

3.740 0.922 74.8 5.678 0.000 3 14

Aw8 Maximize the sustainable use of biological and

renewable resources

3.600 1.030 72.0 4.118 0.000 4 21

Aw7 Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil,

water, and flora

3.600 1.050 72.0 4.041 0.000 5 22

Aw1 Minimize resource consumption 3.560 0.861 71.2 4.599 0.000 6 25

Aw2 Enhance material recyclability 3.520 0.974 70.4 3.775 0.000 7 28

Aw4 Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic

materials like asbestos

3.280 1.179 65.6 1.680 0.099 8 35

Aw3 Apply waste management system 3.200 1.088 64.0 1.300 0.200 9 36

Aw10 Enhance biodiversity: Projects should reduce use

materials from threatened species or environments

like oil and metals

3.180 1.063 63.6 1.197 0.237 10 38

Economic Aspect

Aw12 Internalize external costs (like transportations,

equipments, training workforce on new sustainable

methods and technologies )

3.720 1.011 74.4 5.036 0.000 1 15

Aw11 Consider building life-cycle costs 3.580 0.928 71.6 4.420 0.000 2 23

Aw17 Achieve profitability and enhance competitiveness 3.560 0.929 71.2 4.261 0.000 3 26

Aw16 Achieve prudent use for those resources which can

rise the life cycle cost of the building including

money, energy, water, materials and land

3.540 0.930 70.8 4.104 0.000 4 27

Aw19 Create employment 3.500 1.035 70.0 3.416 0.001 5 30

Aw14 Consider the economic impact of local structures

when planning to construct sustainable building

3.500 1.055 70.0 3.352 0.002 6 31

Aw15 Achieve good economic project management in both

long and short term

3.480 0.953 69.6 3.562 0.001 7 32

Aw18 Ensure financial affordability 3.400 0.881 68.0 3.212 0.002 8 33

Aw13 Develop appropriate economic instruments to

promote sustainable consumption

3.400 1.050 68.0 2.694 0.010 9 34

Aw20 Make sustainable supply chain management.

3.200 1.125 64.0 1.257 0.215 10 37

`

180

No. Awareness statement

Mea

n

Std

. D

ev

RII

(%

)

T v

alue

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P v

alue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Social Aspect

Aw24 Enhance a participatory approach by involving

stakeholders in all project life cycle

3.980 1.020 79.6 6.794 0.000 1 2

Aw25 Protect and promote human health through a healthy

and safe working environment

3.940 0.978 78.8 6.800 0.000 2 3

Aw31 Respect and treat stakeholders fairly 3.820 0.850 76.4 6.824 0.000 3 8

Aw22 Improve the quality of life 3.800 0.857 76.0 6.600 0.000 4 9

Aw30 Achieve customers and clients satisfaction and best

value

3.780 0.815 75.6 6.764 0.000 5 10

Aw27 Involve communities and stakeholders in key

decisions

3.780 0.864 75.6 6.383 0.000 6 12

Aw21 Evaluate the benefits and costs of the project to

society and environment.

3.700 0.814 74.0 6.078 0.000 7 16

Aw33 Safeguard the interests of future generations while at

the same time, meeting today's needs

3.700 0.974 74.0 5.081 0.000 8 17

Aw32 Ensure legislating compliance and responsibility

with respect to human protection

3.680 0.957 73.6 5.024 0.000 9 18

Aw23 Consider provision for social self-determination and

cultural diversity

3.640 0.875 72.8 5.172 0.000 10 19

Aw26 Promote public participation by seek to meet the real

needs, requirements and aspirations of communities

3.620 1.048 72.4 4.185 0.000 11 20

Aw29 Assess the impact on health and the quality of life. 3.580 1.032 71.6 3.974 0.000 12 24

Aw28 Consider the influence on the existing social

framework

3.500 0.886 70.0 3.989 0.000 13 29

Technical Aspect

Aw35 Improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal,

visual and acoustic quality

3.900 0.789 78.0 8.066 0.000 1 4

Aw34 Achieve quality structure 3.900 0.931 78.0 6.833 0.000 2 5

Aw38 Achieve attractiveness 3.840 0.817 76.8 7.269 0.000 3 7

Aw37 Achieve adaptability 3.780 0.815 75.6 6.764 0.000 4 10

Aw36 Use technology and expert knowledge to seek

information and in improving project efficiency and

effectiveness

3.780 0.864 75.6 6.383 0.000 5 12

All statements 3.63 1.05 72.78 4.73 0.000

Critical value of t: at degree of freedom (df) = N-1 = 50-1 = 49 and significance (Probability) level 0.05 equals “2.01”

5.2.1 Environment concept

The environment concept contains 10 statements. The findings indicated that “Reduce

energy consumption” awareness statement (aw5) (RII =83.3 %; P-value = 0.00*; T-value

= 2.741; SD = 0.992) has the highest rank in this concept and in the overall concepts

`

181

(Figure 5.1). Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 2.741

> T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the

respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.16) and

hypotheses mean (3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 0.992, it is not far from zero,

which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a

wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident.

Ranking "Reduce energy consumption" in the first position with an average mean = 4.16

> 3 (Neutral RII), indicted that the respondents have high awareness regarding energy

consumption issue. Its reflected that the respondents believed that building process

consume a high amount of energy (in heating, cooling, lighting and construction process).

This finding also showed that the respondents understand the massive need to conserve

energy in building process as possible. Hence, they sounded the alarm regarding energy

efficiency issue. This awareness may appeared because most of building projects in Gaza

Strip are funded by international institution who seek to incorporate sustainability

concepts in their projects. According to UNEP (2007), the building sector takes a large

share of the world’s energy consumption and it accounts for about 30-40% of the

worldwide primary energy. The findings of Shen et al. (2011); Mwasha et al. (2011);

Chen et al. (2010); Ali and Nsairat (2009); Abidin and Pasquire (2005) and Yusof (2005)

are in agreement with this result.

Huda et al., (2013) results are disagreed with the result of this research as she ranked

"Reduce energy consumption" in the 17en position. She interpreted this result as

construction respondents in the place of her study (Serbia) have a poor awareness

regarding energy consumption issue. This difference in result between Huda et al., (2013)

and this research can be also referred to the difference of country nature between Serbia

and Gaza Strip. In short, findings indicated that construction participants in Gaza Strip

have good awareness regarding "energy consumption" issue. However, the lack of

absorption of this knowledge into construction process reflected the need to exploit this

knowledge for addressing environmental aspect more effectively. According to Al Ghoul

(2014), taking actions for reduce energy consumption in Gaza Strip still in its cradle stage

and take faltering steps.

`

182

The results also revealed that "Create healthy environments (enhance living, leisure and

work environments; and not endanger the health of the builders, users, or others, through

exposure to pollutants or other toxic materials)" awareness statement (aw9) (RII =

77.2%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 6.416; SD = 0.948) is ranked in the second position.

Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics (6.416) > T critical

(2.01), so there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents

opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.86) and hypotheses mean

(3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 0.948, it is not far from zero, which means that

the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values.

So, it can be said that results are confident.

Ranking "Create healthy environments " in the second position with an average mean =

3.860> 3 (Neutral RII) indicated that the respondents have high awareness regarding

"Create healthy environments" principle, and reflected their believe that buildings projects

suffer from harmful environmental conditions. This result also revealed that the

respondents are appreciates the role of "Create healthy environments" principle in

achieving green buildings. The findings of Issa and Al Jabbar (2015); Abidin and

Powmya (2014); Andrade and Bragança (2011); and Holiday (2008) are in agreement

with this result. Having good awareness regarding the important role of green building in

creating a healthy environment can encourage construction participants to be more

responsible to the environmental protection needs without neglecting the social and

economic needs.

“Enhance biodiversity: projects should reduce use materials from threatened species or

environments like oil and metals” awareness statement (aw10) (RII = 63.30%; P-value =

0.237*; T-value = 1.197; SD = 1.063) was ranked in the last (10th) position in this

concept and in the 38 position in the overall concepts. Since P-value here equal 0.237

which greater than 0.05, this means that there is no statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean

(3.180) and hypotheses mean (3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 1.063, it is not

too far from zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not

spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that the results are confident.

`

183

This result indicated that the respondents haven’t adequate awareness regarding

"Enhance biodiversity" principle compared with other principles in the environment

concept. This result may be referred to the respondents unwillingness to change the

conventional construction methods practiced and building materials used, because they

have a certain belief that changing traditional construction materials used will incur them

more cost and time, however, this changing can be translated into savings in the long

term. Unfortunately, many construction participants in Gaza Strip have a reasonable

knowledge on sustainable concept, but they did not put it in practice or incorporating it in

their projects. The evident of that is there is only three green buildings in Palestine. These

green buildings are Palestinian cultural center, Palestinian Museum, and Aqaba green

school (UNEP, 2015). This result is in line with Holiday (2008), and Yusuf (2005), who

ranked "Enhance biodiversity" in the last position. It should be noted that humans all over

the world have been depending heavily on the natural materials as a raw materials for

construction process(Issa and Al Abbar, 2015).

Figure (5.1): RII of statements (Aw1 to Aw10)

5.2.2 Economic concept

The economic concept contains 10 statements. The findings indicated that “Internalize

external costs (like transportations, equipments, training workforce on new sustainable

methods and technologies)” awareness statement (aw12) (RII =74.4 %; P-value = 0.00*;

T-value = 5.036; SD = 1.011) has the highest rank in the economic aspect (Figure 5.2).

Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 5.036 > T critical

(2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents

0

20

40

60

80

100Aw5

Aw9

Aw6

Aw8

Aw7

Aw1

Aw2

Aw4

Aw3

Aw10

`

184

opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.72) and hypotheses mean

(3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 1.011, it is not far from zero, which means that

the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values.

So, it can be said that results are confident.

This finding showed that the respondents have a good awareness regarding the

importance of "considering external costs (like transportations, equipments, training

workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies)" in cost estimation process.

This result is acceptable, and indicated that respondents believed that preparing good and

representative cost estimation should involve: procurement process cost, workforce

training process cost, and material transportation process cost. Respondents are well

aware that neglecting these expenditures can incur them an incremental time and cost.

Considering external costs should be injected before the construction project takes place

to avoid any incremental cost in order to achieve economic sustainability.

This result is consistent with Hussin et al. (2013), and Robichaud and Anantatmula

(2011) results who ranked “Internalize external costs" in the first position. It should be

noted that economic sustainability theme is relatively new in Gaza Strip, but actions like

Use Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Building Information Modeling (BIM)

methods have been initiated by several parties like United Nations and USAID to bring

this concept to the forefront of Palestine agenda at par with other developing countries

(Al Ghoul, 2014).

The results also revealed that "Consider building life-cycle costs" awareness statement

(aw11) (RII = 71.6%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 4.42; SD = 0.928) is ranked in the

second position in the economic concept. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than

0.05, and T statistics = 4.42 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant

differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the

statistical mean (3.58) and hypotheses mean (3) on this awareness statement. SD equal

0.928, it is closed to zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are

not spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident.

This result revealed that the respondents have good awareness regarding the importance

of considering building life-cycle costs. It is reflected their believe that a life cycle

`

185

approach should be considered during the assessment of relevant cost and impacts in

order to promote green construction. This result may appeared because the respondents

are well aware that the utilization of green techniques (such as high performance

insulation protection, water and energy saving equipment) often increase the capital cost.

Hence, considering building life cycle costs is a massive need.

This result is consistent with Shi et al. (2013) results who ranked “Consider building life-

cycle costs" in the 3rd position in the economic sustainability category. Akadiri et al.

(2013) and Hussin et al. (2013) also agreed with this result and ranked this principle in

the top five principles. Cost control presents the biggest challenge to implement green

practices in Gaza Strip. Hence, considering building life-cycle costs need to be raised

early in the building process, and construction participants commitment is vital to achieve

cost effectiveness and overcome extra cost challenge.

Figure (5.2): RII of statements (Aw11 to Aw20)

5.2.3 Social concept

The social concept contains 13 statements. The results revealed that "Enhance a

participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all project life cycle” awareness

statement (aw24) (RII =79.6 %; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 6.794; SD = 1.02) has the

highest rank in the social concept (Figure 5.3), and the 2nd rank in the overall concepts.

Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 6.794 > T critical

(2.01). Hence, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents

opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.98) and hypotheses mean

55

60

65

70

75Aw12

Aw11

Aw 17

Aw16

Aw19

Aw14

Aw15

Aw18

Aw13

Aw20

`

186

(3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 1.02, it is not far from zero, which means that

the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values.

So, it can be said that results are confident. This result reflected that respondents are well

aware that incompatibility of interests amongst stakeholders caused conflicts and disputes

in construction. This result reflected that respondents believed that "involving

stakeholders in all project life cycle" will ensure create healthy working environment

which characterize by transparency and objectivity in order to achieve social

sustainability. Berke (2002) advocated the holistic inclusion of different interests from

stakeholders and involving the public in planning. Incorporating the various interests of

stakeholders should be extremely important for the preparation of green specifications.

This result is in line with the result of Lam et al. (2010) and Deter (2000) who ranked "

Stakeholder Involvement" in the first position of social aspect. However, Augenbroe and

Pearce (2010) disagreed with this result and ranked this principle in the 13en position. To

enable stakeholder involvement, the preparation of green specifications should be carried

out with top management’s directives and participation by stakeholders. Examples of

such participation include the publication of green product directories and web-based

sharing of information.

The findings also indicated that "Protect and promote human health through a healthy

and safe working environment" awareness statement (aw25) (RII = 78.8%; P-value =

0.00*, T-value = 6.8; SD = 0.978) is ranked in the 2nd position in the social concept and

3rd position in the overall concepts. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05,

and T statistics = 6.8 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean

(0.978) and hypotheses mean (3) on this awareness statement. SD equal 0.978, it is closed

to zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out

over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident.

This result showed that the respondents have a good awareness regarding the importance

of protect and promote human health through create a healthy and safe working

environment. This means that the respondents expect that improving working conditions

and social amenities will facilitate better standard of living and achieve social

sustainability. This result also reflected that protecting human health is a part and parcel

`

187

from achieving green specifications. This finding supports the contribution of Hill and

Bowen (1997) in their study on principles of sustainable construction. The finding of

Chen et al. (2010) and Sultan (2005) is also in agreement with this result.It should be

noted that, buildings projects suffer from harmful environmental conditions: bad air

circulation and ventilation, artificial lighting, odors, rapid temperature fluctuations,

emissions from carpets, paints and the presence of gluing materials which can cause

breathing problems, allergies, nausea, headaches, skin irritations, etc. All these issues can

be positively influenced by green building design and construction as mentioned before

in the literature review.

It should be noted that This finding indicated that the respondents have good awareness

regarding all social principles, since the RII for social concepts are ranges from (70% to

79.6%).The mean reason of this good awareness may appeared because most of building

projects in Gaza Strip are funded by international institution who cares with social

sustainability concept.

Figure (5.3): RII of statements (Aw21 to Aw33)

5.2.4 Technical concept

The technical concept contains 5 statements. The findings revealed that “Improve indoor

environmental quality (air, thermal, visual and acoustic quality” awareness statement

(aw25) (RII =78 %; P-value = 0.00*, T-value = 8.066; SD = 0.789) has the highest rank

in this concept (Figure 5.4), and in the fourth position in the overall concepts. Since P-

value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 8.066 > T critical (2.01).

65

70

75

80Aw24

Aw25

Aw31

Aw22

Aw30

Aw27

Aw21 Aw33

Aw32

Aw23

Aw26

Aw29

Aw28

`

188

So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at

the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.90) and hypotheses mean (3) on this

awareness statement. SD equal 0.789 it is closed to zero, which means that the

respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So,

it can be said that results are confident. This finding indicated that the respondents have

high awareness regarding the importance of improving indoor environmental quality (air,

thermal, visual and acoustic quality. This result may appear because the respondents

believed that buildings projects contribute to poor air quality which harm the human

health. The result showed that respondent are well aware that acoustical quality, lighting,

texture, color, and spatial distribution of functions have a hard effect on indoor

environmental quality. Hence, they consider "Improve indoor environment quality" as the

most important principle and ranked it in the first position. The findings of Andrade and

Bragança (2011); Augenbroe and Pearce (2010); Abidin and Pasquire (2005); Yusof

(2005); Cole and Larsson (1999); and Gottfried (1996) are in agreement with this result.

Unfortunately, Over 30% of conventional buildings have poor indoor air quality and we

spend about 90% of our time indoors. These issues can be addressed by the Green

building approach, which is more sustainable than current practices (UNEP, 2007).

Figure (5.4): RII of statements (Aw34 to Aw38)

It should be noted that the findings indicated that the respondents have good awareness

regarding all technical principles, since the RII for technical principles are ranges from

(75.6% to 78%).The mean reason of this good awareness may appeared because there is

many expert in sustainability field in Gaza Strip, and there is a lot of researches that

74

75

76

77

78Aw35

Aw34

Aw38 Aw37

Aw36

`

189

discussed green buildings (Ali and Al Nsairat, 2009; Ying Chen et al., 2010; Kai Juan et

al., 2010; Baraganca et al., 2010; ALwaer and Clements-Croome , 2010; Shen et al.,

2011; Mwasha et al., 2011; Andrade and Bragança, 2011; Akadiri et al., 2012., Hussin et

al., 2013)in the last decade.

5.2.5 Summary of awareness issue regarding sustainability buildings principles

Table (5.2) showed the respondents awareness according to sustainable building

principles. The mean for all statements equals 3.639, the average RII equals 72.78%, the

average P-value = 0.00*; and the T-value = 4.73. The neutral value of RII is (3/5)*100 =

60%, where (5) refers to the rating scale that was used and (3) refers to the average of that

rating scale as mentioned before. Based on all of that, and as shown, the total RII 72.78%

is over than the neutral value of RII 60%. In addition, “critical value” of t (tabulated t), at

degree of freedom (df) “[N (the whole sample) -1] = [50-1] = 49 and at “significance level

= 0.05”, equals 2.01, while the value of t test equals 4.73. As shown, the value of t test

(4.73) is greater than the critical value of t (2.01). Also, the total P-value of the all items

equals 0.00*, which is less than the significance level 0.05. Hence, there is a statistically

significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05

between the statistical mean (3.639) and hypotheses mean (3) on the average of all

awareness statements. SD equal 1.05, it is not far from zero, which means that the

respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. It

can be said that results are confident.

Table 5.3 illustrates respondents awareness according to sustainable construction

concepts. As shown in Table, technical concept is the highest important concept with an

average RII (76.13%), and economic concept is the last important concept with an

average RII (69.76%) (Figure 5.5). This finding indicted that the respondents have good

awareness regarding sustainable building principles and its importance in improving the

quality of life. Nevertheless, they did not put it in practice or incorporating it in their

projects. The evident of that is that there is only three green buildings in Palestine. These

green buildings are Palestinian cultural center, Palestinian Museum, and Aqaba green

school (UNEP, 2015; Al Ghoul, 2013). This results also reflected the massive need to

integrate economic, social, technical and environment principles in building projects in

order to achieve sustainable (green) building. It should be noted that the Palestinian

`

190

government published a green specification to be adopted by Palestinians construction

industry. However, it doesn't enacted any laws nor provided any incentives to promote

sustainable buildings in Palestine according to Muhaisen and Ahlback (2012).

To compare this results with other countries, Ali and Nsairat (2009) studied "Developing

a green building assessment tool for developing countries" in Jordan and revealed that

environmental concept is the most important concept, then the economic concept and

finally the social concept. Wariset al. (2014) results differentiate with this result and

ranked the "engineering concept" in the first position, then the "socio-economic concept"

and finally the "environmental concept". Zabihi et al. (2012) ranked environment concept

in the first position, then economic concept and finally the social concept. In short,

however, the awareness of respondents regarding sustainability buildings principles in

Gaza Strip is good, green buildings in Gaza Strip are hindered by "change resistance

culture" which represented in construction participants unwillingness to change the

conventional construction methods practiced and building materials used to avoid

incurring higher cost compared with traditional buildings(Al Ghoul, 2013; Auffret, 2009).

Table (5.3): Respondents awareness according to sustainable construction categories

Category Average RII Rank

Technical Aspect 76.13 1

Social Aspect 74.64 2

Environment Aspect 71.40 3

Economic Aspect 69.76 4

Figure (5.5): Average RII of environment, economic, social and technical principles concepts

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

TechnicalAspect

SocialAspect

EnvironmentAspect

EconomicAspect

76.1374.64

71.469.76

`

191

5.3 Benefits of sustainable buildings

This section contains 4 sustainability building benefits types, environment (9 statements),

economic (7 statements), social (7 statements) and technical (3 statements) to investigate

and rate the most valuable benefits of green buildings. These statements were subjected

to the views of respondents, and the outcomes of the analysis were shown in Table (5.4).

The descriptive statistics, i.e. means, standard deviations (SD), t-value (two-tailed),

probabilities (P-value), relative importance indices (RII), and ranks were established.

Results illustrated that the total average mean for all sustainability buildings benefits

equal 3.967, average T-test equal 8.58, and the average P-value equal 0.000 which is less

than 0.05, that means that all sustainability buildings benefits are valuable and important,

and the results are confident. The SD were also used to quantify the amount of variation

or dispersion of respondent opinions regard to" sustainability buildings benefits. As

shown in Table (5.4), the average SD were 0.858. It is closed to zero, which indicate that

the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values.

This means that results are confident. According to Table (5.4)

P-value = 0.000 < 0.05, and T statistics (8.58) > T critical (2.01), so, there is a

statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level

of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.967) and hypotheses mean (3) on the field

of benefits of sustainable (green) buildings.

Average mean = 3.967 > 3 (Neutral RII), so most of sustainability buildings benefits

are valuable and important.

SD= 0.858 it is closed to zero, so the respondents results are consistent and are not

spread out over a wider range of values. So, the results are confident.

The numerical scores obtained from the questionnaire responses provided an indication of

the benefits of sustainable (green) buildings. The "sustainable buildings benefits" were

ranked according to their types, as well as overall types. The ranks start from 1st

"sustainable buildings benefit" with 84.4% for Be17 to 26 benefit statement with 72.8%

for Be11 (Table 5.4). It worth mentioning that ranking of sustainable construction

benefits was based on the highest mean, RII, and the lowest SD. If some items have

similar means and RIIs, as in the case of (Be6 andBe8); and (Be12 and Be16), ranking

`

192

will be depended on the lowest SD. More precisely, although Be12 and Be16 have the

same mean and RIIs, but Be16 is ranked higher than the Be12 because it has lower SD.

The same thing was done for Be19 and Be21, where Be19 has taken the higher rank than

Be21.

Table (5.4): Benefits of sustainable (green) buildings

No. Benefit statement

Mea

n

St.

Dev

.

RII

(%

)

T-v

alu

e

(tw

o t

aile

d)

P-

val

ue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Environmental Benefits

Be6 Reduce energy consumption 4.180 0.774 83.6 10.776 0.000 1 3

Be3 Minimize the emission of toxic substances

throughout building project life cycle 4.100 0.909 82.0 8.556 0.000 2 6

Be8 Preserve temperature moderation 4.060 0.867 81.2 8.647 0.000 3 8

Be4 Improve water conservation (Reduce water used) 4.040 0.755 80.8 9.742 0.000 4 9

Be7 Enable the construction participants to be more

responsible to the environmental protection needs

without neglecting the social and economic needs in

striving for Achieve better living

4.020 0.795 80.4 9.071 0.000 5 12

Be5 Protect ecosystems and biodiversity 4.020 0.915 80.4 7.887 0.000 6 13

Be1 Reduce solid waste 3.960 0.807 79.2 8.411 0.000 7 15

Be2 Conserve natural resources (better use of building

resources) 3.940 0.740 78.8 8.984 0.000 8 17

Be9 Preserve open spaces 3.820 0.962 76.4 6.025 0.000 9 20

Economic Benefit

Be14 Achieve Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost 3.960 0.856 79.2 7.928 0.000 1 16

Be13 Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s

skills 3.880 0.849 77.6 7.333 0.000 2 18

Be10 Reduce operating costs (maintenance) 3.800 0.926 76.0 6.110 0.000 3 22

Be12 Optimize life cycle economic performance 3.760 0.771 75.2 6.971 0.000 4 23

Be16 Improve marketability for buildings 3.760 1.041 75.2 5.161 0.000 5 24

Be15 Achieve better employee retention 3.700 0.995 74.0 4.975 0.000 6 25

Be11 Improve employee productivity and satisfaction 3.640 1.025 72.8 4.413 0.000 7 26

Social Benefit

Be17 Enhance occupant comfort and health 4.240 0.716 84.8 12.246 0.000 1 1

Be21 Improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and

acoustic environments) 4.220 0.737 84.4 11.713 0.000 2 2

Be22 improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and

acoustic environments) 4.140 0.783 82.8 10.299 0.000 3 4

`

193

No. Benefit statement

Mea

n

St.

Dev

.

RII

(%

)

T-v

alu

e

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P-

val

ue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Be20 improve morale 4.080 0.778 81.6 9.812 0.000 4 7

Be19 Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to

airborne contaminants that can affect worker

productivity and/or health

4.040 0.807 80.8 9.111 0.000 5 10

Be18 Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst

maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local

and global levels

4.040 0.925 80.8 7.951 0.000 6 11

Be23 Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture

and the surrounding environment. 4.000 0.969 80.0 7.298 0.000 7 14

Ethical Benefit

Be24 Disseminate of good behaviors which urges protect

the environment (It is good way to protect the

environment )

4.120 0.799 82.4 9.912 0.000 1 5

Be25 Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid

infringement of laws and regulations 3.840 0.997 76.8 5.957 0.000 2 19

Be26 Emphasize that green building shows that the

company cares for the society and environment 3.800 0.833 76.0 6.791 0.000 3 21

3.967 0.858 76 8.15

Critical value of t: at degree of freedom (df) = [N-1] = [50-1] = 49 and significance (Probability) level 0.05 equals “2.01”

5.3.1 Environmental benefits

The environment benefits contains 9 statements. The findings revealed that “Reduce

energy consumption” benefit statement (Be6) (RII =83.6%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value =

10.776; SD = 0.774) is the most valuable benefit of green buildings. It has been ranked in

the first position in the environment benefits (Figure 5.6) and in the 3rd position in the

overall benefits. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics =

10.776 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to

the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.18) and

hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit statement. SD equal 0.774, it is closed to zero, which

means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider

range of values. It can be said that results are confident

This result reflected the high importance of taking suitable measures to reduce energy

consumption. According to UNEP (2007), the building sector takes a large share of the

world’s energy consumption and it accounts for about 30-40% of the worldwide primary

`

194

energy (UNEP, 2007). Hence, there is a massive need to conserve energy as possible.

This result is in line with Augenbroe and Pearce (2010) who ranked "Reduce energy

consumption" in the second position of sustainable buildings benefits. The findings of Ali

and Nsairat (2009); Shen et al. (2011); Mwasha et al. (2011); Chen et al. (2010); Abidin

and Pasquire (2005) and Yusof (2005) is also in agreement with this result. Reducing

energy consumption can be accomplished through education, the development of an

energy code, improvement of systems (air-conditioning, heating, water heating),

improvement of insulation, use of alternative energy sources and passive solar design

improvements. Consumption can also be reduced through the redesign of appliances such

as water heaters and lighting sources.

The findings also indicated that "Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout

building project life cycle" benefit statement (Be3) (RII=82%; P-value=0.00*; T-value =

8.556; SD = 0.909) is ranked in the second position. Since P-value here equal 0.000

which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 8.55 > T critical (2.01). Hence, there is a

statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α

≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.1) and hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit

statement. SD equal 0.909, it is closed to zero, which means that the respondents results

are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that

results are confident. This result reflected that respondents believed that building

materials and activities generate a lot of pollutants. Building materials contains heavy

metals like nickel, cobalt, lead, chromium, pollutants hazardous to the biotic

environment, with adverse impact for vegetation, human and animal health and

ecosystems (Baby et al., 2008). The findings of Katkhuda (2013); Hussin et al. (2013);

Andrade and Bragança (2011); and Akadiri et al. (2012) ) in this area of study is also in

agreement with this result. Green buildings can reduce and control the use and dispersion of

toxic materials.

It should be noted that the findings indicated that all environmental benefits are valuable

since the RII for environmental benefits are ranges from (76.4% to 83.6%).

`

195

Figure (5.6): RII of environment sustainable buildings benefits (Be1 to Be9)

5.3.2 Economic benefits

The economic benefits contains 7 statements. The findings indicated that “Achieve

lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost” benefit statement (Be14) (RII =79.2 %; P-

value = 0.00*; T-value = 7.928; SD = 0.856) has the highest rank (Figure 5.7) in the

economic benefits and the 16 position in the overall benefits. Since P-value here equal

0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 7.928 > T critical (2.01). Hence, there is a

statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α

≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.96) and hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit

statement. SD equal 0.856, it is closed to zero, which means that the respondents results

are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that

results are confident. This result reflected the important role of economic sustainability in

achieving sustainable building. The explanation of that is green construction will face

higher initial cost than the conventional construction because the high consultant’s fees,

the unfamiliarity of the design team, and the cost of building assessment tools

documentation (Shi et al., 2013; Djokoto et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). However, this

additional cost can be recoverable over the life cycle of operations and maintenance of

the buildings. This result is supported by Diyana and Abidin (2013) results, who added

that the extra cost in green buildings will be translated into savings in the long term.

72

74

76

78

80

82

84Be6

Be3

Be8

Be4

Be7 Be5

Be1

Be2

Be9

`

196

The results also revealed that "Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills "

benefit statement (Be13) (RII = 77.6%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 7.333; SD = 0.849) is

ranked in the second position in the economic benefits and the 18 position in the overall

benifits. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 7.33 > T

critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the

respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.88) and

hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit statement. SD equal 0.849, it is closed to zero, which

means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider

range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. This result can be interpreted

as the special features in green building will enhance the contractor, labors, and

engineers skills because they will use new materials and methods, it is also enhance the

value of the building therefore green building can be sold at a higher price, thus more

profit potential. The findings of Abidin and Powmya (2014, a) and Abidin and Powmya

(2014, b) is also in agreement with this result.

The findings also showed that “Improve employee productivity and satisfaction” benefit

statement(Be11) (RII of 72.8%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 4.413; SD = 1.025) is ranked

in the last position in the economic benefits and in the last position in the overall benefits.

However, it has a high RII equal 72.8% which means that all the economic benefits are

valuable and important. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T

statistics = 4.413 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean

(3.64) and hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit statement. SD equal 1.025, it is closed to

zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over

a wider range of values. Hence, it can be said that results are confident. It should be noted

that employee productivity are affected by many factors in the construction industry, but

it can be said that the relationship between economic sustainability benefits and employee

productivity /satisfaction is a weak relation. The findings of Ries et al. (2006)is also in

agreement with this result who stated that the special feature of green materials and

methods can increase the skills of labors, however it will incur them incremental time.

`

197

It should be noted that all economic benefits are valuable and important because the RII

of the economic benefits are ranges from 72.8% to 79.2%.

Figure (5.7): RII of economic sustainable buildings benefits (Be11 to Be16)

5.3.3 Social benefits

The social benefits contains 7 statements. The findings indicated that “Enhance occupant

comfort and health” benefit statement (Be17) (RII =84.8 %; P-value = 0.00*; T-value =

12.246; SD = 0.716) has the highest rank in the social benefits (Figure 5.8) and in the

overall benefits. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics =

12.246 > T critical (2.01). Hence, there is a statistically significant differences attributed

to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.24)

and hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit statement. SD equal 0.716, it is closed to zero,

which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a

wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. This result reflected

that the respondents appreciate the importance of creating healthy environments for

occupants. The results also clarify that the respondents believed that green buildings can

control the harmful environmental conditions that can be caused by traditional building

methods. This result is consistent with the result of Sourani and Sohail (2011) and Chen

et al. (2010) who ranked "Human health and safety" in the first position in the social

benefits and in the overall benefits, and stated that it is essential that construction process

has minimal negative impact on workers, potential occupants, and surroundings, and

concluded that sustainable buildings can improve workers' health and safety due to

cleaner and safer working environments. It also contributes to the health of future

68707274767880

Be14

Be13

Be10

Be12 Be16

Be15

Be11

`

198

occupants during the building use phase. In general, all harmful effect of construction

process on human health can be controlled by applying sustainable construction.

Figure (5.8): RII of social sustainable buildings benefits (Be17 to Be23)

The results also revealed that "Improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and acoustic

environments " benefit statement(Be21) (RII = 84.4%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 11.713;

SD = 0.737) is ranked in the second position. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less

than 0.05, and T statistics = 11.713 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically

significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05

between the statistical mean (4.22) and hypotheses mean (3) on this benefit statement. SD

equal 0.737, it is closed to zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent

and are not spread out over a wider range of values. Hence, it can be said that results are

confident. This result may appear because over 30% of conventional buildings have poor

indoor air quality and we spend about 90% of our time indoors. This problem can be

addressed by the green building approach, which improve indoor environment (UNEP,

2007). This result is in line with (Nenonen et al., 2014); (Hussin et al. ,2013); (Akadiri,

2012) who concluded that the building must supply a healthy and comfortable indoor

climate to the people using it. In meeting these basic requirements, the building should

not cause harm to its occupants or the environment and must, for example, be structurally

stable and fire safe, as well as provide good thermal and acoustic environment.

76

78

80

82

84

86Be17

Be18

Be22

Be20 Be19

Be21

Be23

`

199

It should be noted that all social benefits are valuable and important because the RII of

the social benefits are ranges from 80% to 84.8%.

5.3.4 Ethical benefits

Ethical benefits contains 3 statements. The findings indicated that “Disseminate of good

behaviors which urges protect the environment " benefit statement(Be24) (RII = 82.4 %;

P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 9.912; SD = 0.799) has the highest rank (Figure 5.9). Since P-

value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 9.912 > T critical (2.01).

Hence, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions

at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.12) and hypotheses mean (3) on

this benefit statement. SD equal 0.799, it is closed to zero, which means that the

respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. It

can be said that results are confident. This result reflected that green construction respect

the ethical concept of building process and fulfill it because human beings are the centre

of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive

life in harmony with nature (Diyana and Abidin, 2013). Thus have an ethical responsibility

toward the society is a valuable benefit. This result is consistent with the result of Diyana

and Abidin (2013) who concluded that the idea of sustainable development is “meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

needs” which reflect the ethical responsibility of sustainable buildings toward the

environment.

Figure (5.9): RII of ethical sustainable buildings benefits (Be24 to Be25)

72

74

76

788082

84Be24

Be25 Be26

`

200

5.3.5 Summary of sustainability buildings benefits

Table (5.4) showed the benefits of green buildings according to the overall respondents.

As shown in Table 5.4, the mean for all statements equals 3.967, the average RII equals

76%, the average P-value = 0.00*; and the average T-value = 8.15. The neutral value of

RII is (3/5)*100 = 60%, where (5) refers to the rating scale that was used and (3) refers to

the average of that rating scale as mentioned before. Based on that, the total RII 76% is

over than the neutral value of RII 60%.In addition, “critical value” of t (tabulated t), at

degree of freedom (df) “[N (the whole sample) -1] = [50-1] = 49 and at “significance level

= 0.05”, equals 2.01, while the value of t test equals 8.15. The value of T test (8.15) is

greater than the critical value of t (2.01). Also, the total P-value of the all items equals

0.00*, which is less than the significance level 0.05. So, there is a statistically significant

differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the

statistical mean (3.967) and hypotheses mean (3) on the average of all awareness

statements. SD equal 0.858, it is not far from zero, which means that the respondents

results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be

said that results are confident.

Table 5.5 illustrates the average of sustainable building benefits according to sustainable

benefits types. As shown in Table, social benefits is in the first position with average RII

(82.17%), and economic benefits is in the last position with average RII (75.71%). This

result may appeared because construction process have a harm effect on human health;

hence, there is a massive need to improve the quality of life, provision for social self-

determination and cultural diversity, and protect and promote human health through a

healthy and safe working environment. As shown in Table 5.5, all benefits categories are

valuable and important. So, construction participants should integrate environmental,

economical, and social concepts in building project life cycle in order to obtain

environmental, economic social and ethical benefits of sustainable buildings. To compare

this result with other researches, Chen et al. (2010) has ranked economic benefits in the

first position (73.4%) before social and environment benefits. However, Zolfaghrian et

al. (2012) has ranked ecosystem benefits in the first position (67.5%). This results can

reflect the difference of opinions of construction participants from country to another

`

201

according to construction participants experience, country nature, culture, as well as the

extent that green buildings concept is common.

Table (5.5): The average of sustainable building benefits according to their categories

Category Average RII Rank

Social Benefit 82.17 % 1

Environmental Benefit 80.31 % 2

Ethical Benefit 78.40 % 3

Economic Benefit 75.71 % 4

Figure (5.10): Average RII of sustainable buildings benefits types

5.4 Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings

This section contains 4 barriers categories, cultural (8 statements), financial (8

statements), capacity/professional (9 statements), and steering barriers (3 statements).

These items were subjected to the views of respondents and the outcomes of the analysis

were shown in Table (5.6). The descriptive statistics, i.e. means, standard deviations

(SD), t-value (two-tailed), probabilities (P-value), relative importance indexes (RII), and

ranks were established and presented in Table (5.6). Results illustrated that the total

average mean for all "sustainable buildings barriers" equal 3.96, T-test 7.67 and the P-

value equal 0.000 which is less than 0.05, that means that all of sustainability buildings

barriers are important, and the results are confident. The SD were also used to quantify

the amount of variation or dispersion of respondent opinions regard to "sustainability

72 74 76 78 80 82 84

Social Benefit

Environmental Benefit

Ethical Benefit

Economic Benefit

82.17 %

80.31 %

78.4 %

75.71%

`

202

buildings barriers". As shown in Table (5.6), the average SD were 0.905. It is closed to

zero, which indicate that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over

a wider range of values. This means that results are confident. According to Table (5.4)

Average P-value = 0.000 < 0.05, and T statistics (7.67) > T critical (2.01), so , there

are is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at

the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.96) and hypotheses mean (3) on

the field of benefits of sustainable (green) buildings

Average mean = 3.96 > 3 (Neutral RII), so all sustainability buildings barriers are

important.

Average SD = 0.905, it is closed to zero, so the respondents results are consistent and

are not spread out over a wider range of values. As well as, the results are confident.

The "Sustainable buildings barriers" were ranked according to their types, as well as

overall types. The ranks start from 1st barrier "the strongest barrier that face

implementing sustainable building" with RII equal 86.8% for Ba9 to 26 barrier (the most

vulnerable barrier that face implementing sustainable buildings) with RII equal 74% for

Ba24 (Table 5.6). It worth mentioning that ranking of sustainable building barriers was

based on the highest mean, RII, and the lowest SD. If some items/ variables have similar

means and RIIs, ranking will be depended on the lowest SD. Items/ Variables were

categorized with ratings from 86.8 % to 74 %

Table (5.6): Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings

No. Barrier statement

Mea

n

St.

Dev

.

RII

(%

)

T-v

alu

e

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P-

val

ue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Cultural Barriers

Ba4 Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change

the conventional construction methods practiced

and building materials used

4.220 0.764 84.4 11.296 0.000 1 3

Ba5 Lack of design team experience regard to

sustainable building methods

4.120 0.982 82.4 8.062 0.000 2 7

Ba2 Lack of awareness with respect to sustainable

building issue

4.060 0.935 81.2 8.018 0.000 3 9

Ba6 Conflicts in benefits with competitors 4.020 0.979 80.4 7.366 0.000 4 10

`

203

No. Barrier statement

Mea

n

St.

Dev

.

RII

(%

)

T-v

alu

e

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P-

val

ue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Ba8 Lack of training and education of construction

participants on sustainable building methods, and

strategies

3.980 0.820 79.6 8.447 0.000 5 12

Ba1 Regional ambiguities in the green concept 3.960 0.947 79.2 7.170 0.000 6 14

Ba7 Dependence on promotion by government to

encourage sustainable buildings

3.860 0.783 77.2 7.769 0.000 7 20

Ba3 Insufficient research and development to promote

sustainable buildings

3.840 1.057 76.8 5.621 0.000 8 22

Financial Barriers

Ba9 Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings

compared with traditional building

4.340 0.823 86.8 11.508 0.000 1 1

Ba15 High costs of the consultant’s fees 4.260 0.876 85.2 10.168 0.000 2 2

Ba10 Risks of unforeseen costs 4.160 0.866 83.2 9.475 0.000 3 5

Ba14 Cost consultants overestimated the capital cost

and underestimated the potential cost savings.

4.120 0.799 82.4 9.912 0.000 4 6

Ba13 Lack of manufacturer and supplier support to

sustainable building because of its high cost

4.060 0.740 81.2 10.131 0.000 5 8

Ba12 Additional testing and inspection needed to

implement sustainable construction,

3.940 0.867 78.8 7.668 0.000 6 15

Ba16 Green construction incurs construction

participants an incremental time.

3.800 0.969 76.0 5.838 0.000 7 24

Ba11 Risks based on unfamiliar techniques used to

execute sustainable buildings

3.740 0.922 74.8 5.678 0.000 8 28

Capacity/Professional Barriers

Ba20 lack of training and education in sustainable

design and construction

4.000 0.990 80.0 7.144 0.000 1 11

Ba21 Sustainability takes too much time to learn and

design

3.960 0.925 79.2 7.339 0.000 2 13

Ba19 Ignorance or a lack of common understanding

among designers, contractors, and society about

sustainability.

3.940 0.935 78.8 7.110 0.000 3 16

Ba23 Many important stakeholders are not even aware

of the concept of sustainable building and so are

naturally resistant to change.

3.920 0.944 78.4 6.890 0.000 4 17

Ba25 Lack of knowledge on green technology and the

durability of green materials

3.900 0.839 78.0 7.584 0.000 5 18

Ba22 Lack of understanding of the sustainable design

need

3.880 0.982 77.6 6.335 0.000 6 19

Ba18 Lack of professional capabilities/designers to

implement green construction

3.860 0.783 77.2 7.769 0.000 7 20

Ba26 lack of capacity of the construction sector to

actually implement sustainable practices

3.800 0.926 76.0 6.110 0.000 8 23

`

204

No. Barrier statement

Mea

n

St.

Dev

.

RII

(%

)

T-v

alu

e

(tw

o

tail

ed)

P-

val

ue

Sig

.

Ran

k

Ran

k i

n

tota

l

Ba17 Difficulty of installing sustainable technologies

and materials which requires new forms of

competencies and knowledge

3.760 1.001 75.2 5.367 0.000 9 26

Ba24 Lack of aware of sustainable measures or

alternatives

3.700 0.909 74.0 5.444 0.000 10 29

Steering Barriers

Ba27 Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not

encourage pursue green construction'

4.160 0.738 83.2 11.108 0.000 1 4

Ba28 Lack of sustainable building codes 3.780 1.112 75.6 4.960 0.000 2 25

Ba29 Lack or wrongful steering to implement

sustainable construction.

3.760 1.041 75.2 5.161 0.000 3 27

All statements 3.96 0.905 79.24 7.67

Critical value of t: at degree of freedom (df) = [N-1] = [50-1] = 49 and significance (Probability) level 0.05 equals “2.01”

5.4.1 Cultural barriers

The cultural barriers contains 8 statements. The findings indicated that “Unwillingness of

industry practitioners to change the conventional construction methods practiced and

building materials used” barrier statement (Ba4) (RII = 84.4%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value

= 11.296; SD = 0.764) is the predominant barrier that face implementing sustainable

building in Gaza Strip. It is ranked in the first position in the cultural barriers (Figure

5.11) and in the 3rd position in the overall barriers. Since P-value equal 0.000 which less

than 0.05, and T statistics = 11.296 > T critical (2.01). Hence, there is a statistically

significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05

between the statistical mean (4.22) and hypotheses mean (3) on this barrier statement. SD

equal 0.764, it is closed to zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent

and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are

confident.

However, many construction participants have good knowledge on sustainable concept

but they did not put it in practice or incorporating it in their projects because of their

unwillingness to incur higher cost compared with traditional buildings (Al Ghoul,

2013).Engineers and contractors in Gaza Strip favor to use blocks and reinforced concrete

and neglect any other green construction methods and materials alternatives (Muhaisen

`

205

and Ahlbäck, 2012). This highlighted change resistance as a major barrier. This result is

in line with Williams and Dair (2006) results, who identified "Change resistance" as a

commonly recognized barrier. However, this result is full differentiate with Djokoto et

al. (2014) results in Ghana who ranked "change resistance in the 14en position". This

difference referred to the high awareness of the respondents in Ghana regarding to the

green buildings concept.

The findings also showed that "Lack of design team experience regard to sustainable building

methods” barrier statement (Ba5) (RII = 82.4%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 8.062; SD =

0.982) is ranked in the second position. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than

0.05, and T statistics = 8.062 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant

differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the

statistical mean (4.12) and hypotheses mean (3) on this barrier statement. SD equal 0.982,

it is not far from zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not

spread out over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. This

result may appeared because sustainable buildings is a new territory in Gaza Strip. The

number of green buildings in Palestine is very low (there is only three green buildings in

Palestine). These green buildings are Palestinian cultural center, Palestinian Museum, and

Aqaba green school (UNEP, 2015). Sustainable buildings needs training workforce on

new sustainable methods and technologies and use new equipments. In addition, there is

no sustainable contractor in Gaza Strip, as well as there is regional ambiguities in the green

concept in Gaza Strip. This result is consistent with Nelms et al., (2005) who concluded

that construction team needs to have the best available information on products and tools

to achieve sustainable construction.

It should be noted that all cultural barriers are important, because the RII for the barriers

statements are ranges from 76.8% to 84.4%.

`

206

Figure (5.11): RII of sustainable buildings cultural barriers (Ba1 to Ba8)

5.4.2 Financial barriers

The economic barriers contains 8 statements. The findings revealed that “Higher

investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional building” barrier

statement(Ba9) (RII = 86.8%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 11.508; SD = 0.823) is the

strongest financial barrier that face implementing sustainable buildings. It is ranked in the

first position (Figure 5.12). Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T

statistics = 11.508 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean

(4.34) and hypotheses mean (3) on this barrier statement. SD equal 0.823, it is not far

from zero, which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out

over a wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. Green buildings

will face higher initial cost than the conventional buildings because of the increase of the

consultant’s fees, the unfamiliarity of the design team, and the cost of building

assessment tools documentation (Shi et al., 2013). However, the cost is recoverable over

the life cycle of operations and maintenance of the buildings according to Zhang et al.,

(2011). This result is differentiate with Djokoto et al. (2014) result who ranked " Higher

investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional building " in the 9th

position, and added that any extra cost of sustainable building will be translated into

savings in the short and long term. This savings include savings in water, energy,

materials, and natural resources.

70

75

80

85Ba4

Ba5

Ba2

Ba6

Ba8

Ba1

Ba7

Ba3

`

207

The findings also showed that “High costs of the consultant’s fees” barrier statement(Ba15)

(RII =85.2%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 10.168; SD = 0.922) is ranked in the second

position. Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 10.168>

T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the

respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.26) and

hypotheses mean (3) on this barrier statement. SD equal 0.876, it is not far from zero,

which means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a

wider range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. Green building projects

need special design features and techniques. These techniques includes a high

performance insulation protection, and water and energy saving strategies which often

increase the cost of the consultant fees (Djokoto et al., 2014). This result is in line with

Hydes and Creech (2000) result who concluded that green building incur the owners

incremental time and costs, and needed special techniques.

It should be noted that all financial barriers are important, because the RII for the barriers

statements are ranges from 74.8% to 86.8%.

Figure (5.12): RII of sustainable buildings financial barriers (Ba9 to Ba16)

5.4.3 Capacity/Professional Barriers

The professional barriers contains 10 statements. The findings indicated that “lack of

training and education in sustainable design and construction” barrier statement(Ba20)

(RII = 80%; P-value = 0.00*; T-value = 7.144; SD = 0.99) is ranked in the first position

(Figure 5.13). Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics =

65

70

75

80

85

90Ba9

Ba11

Ba10

Ba14

Ba13

Ba12

Ba16

Ba15

`

208

7.144 > T critical (2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the

respondents opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4) and

hypotheses mean (3) on this barrier statement. SD equal 0.99, it is closed to zero, which

means that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider

range of values. So, it can be said that results are confident. Most of the graduates

engineers doesn’t understand the need for sustainable buildings. Education is seen as an

important tool in promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the

people to address environment and development issue. This will increase the level of

awareness both among the actors in the entire construction process, as well as the general

public. This result is supported by Samari (2015) and Shafii et al. (2006) who concluded

that lack of training and education in sustainable design and construction is one of the

most important barriers. Education and training should incorporate sustainable

development concepts and made it well known and accepted by all peoples.

Figure (5.13): RII of sustainable buildings Capacity/Professional barriers (Ba17 to Ba26)

It should be noted that all professional barriers are important, because the RII for the

barriers statements are ranges from 74% to 80%.

5.4.4 Steering barriers

The findings also indicated that “Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not

encourage pursue green construction” barrier statement(Ba26) (RII = 83.2%; P-value =

0.00*; T-value = 11.108; SD = 0.738) is the strongest barrier that face implementing

sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza Strip. It is ranked in the first position (Figure 5.14).

70

72

74

76

78

80Ba20

Ba21

Ba19

Ba23

Ba25

Ba22

Ba18

Ba26

Ba17

Ba24

`

209

Since P-value here equal 0.000 which less than 0.05, and T statistics = 11.108> T critical

(2.01). So, there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents

opinions at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (4.16) and hypotheses mean

(3) on this barrier statement. SD equal 0.738, it is closed to zero, which means that the

respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of values. So,

it can be said that results are confident.

Gaza Strip still taking the initial steps towards achieving sustainable development, in

contrast with many of the developed countries who put sustainable buildings issue in

forefrontof the country important issues and ensure that sustainability standards and

regulations have been enacted and implemented. This result is full differentiate with Issa

and Al Jabbar (2015); Shi et al., (2013); Qaemi and Heravi (2012) who classified this

factor as a weak barrier, because there is many enacted regulation and legislation in the

place of their study in USA, Shanghai, and Iran respectively. For instance, there are many

bodies in the United States of America that contribute to the implementation of

sustainable development, most importantly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

which issues laws and regulations, compliances and enforcements. The EPA addresses

the construction sector by monitoring air pollution, waste, and other hazardous pollutants

resulting from construction (Issa and Al Jabbar, 2015).

Figure (5.14): RII of sustainable buildings steering barriers (Ba27 to Ba29)

5.4.5 Summary to barriers of sustainable buildings

Table (5.7) showed the sustainable buildings barriers according to overall respondents.

As shown in Table 5.7, the mean for all statements equals 3.96, the average RII equals

76%, the average P-value = 0.00*; and the T-value = 8.15. The neutral value of RII is

70

75

80

85Ba27

Ba28 Ba29

`

210

(3/5)*100 = 79.24%, where (5) refers to the rating scale that was used and (3) refers to

the average of that rating scale as mentioned before. Based on all of that, and as shown,

the total RII (79.24) % is over than the neutral value of RII 60%.In addition, “critical

value” of t (tabulated t), at degree of freedom (df) “[N (the whole sample) -1] = [50-1] =

49 and at “significance level = 0.05”, equals 2.01, while the value of t test equals 7.67. As

shown, the value of t test (7.67) is greater than the critical value of t (2.01). Also, the total

P-value of the all items equals 0.00*, which is less than the significance level 0.05. So,

there is a statistically significant differences attributed to the respondents opinions at the

level of α ≤ 0.05 between the statistical mean (3.96) and hypotheses mean (3) on the

average of all awareness statements. SD equal 0.905, it is closed to zero, which means

that the respondents results are consistent and are not spread out over a wider range of

values. So, it can be said that results are confident.

Table 5.8 illustrates the average of sustainable building barriers according to sustainable

barriers categories. As shown in Table 5.8, financial Barriers is in the first position with

average RII (81.05%) (Figure 5.8). The mean reason of this result is that construction

participants in Gaza Strip are not convinced of the value added nature of sustainability

and the need for them to prepare for additional cost, so they unwilling to incur extra cost

for sustainable method and strategies. Hence, cost control presents the biggest challenge

to implement green practices in Gaza Strip. This result is consistent with Djokoto et al.

(2014) result who ranked economic barriers category in the first position before cultural,

steering and professional barriers. As shown in figure 5.8, results also showed that

cultural barrier is in the 2nd position with an average RII (80.15%). This result can reflect

the massive need to enhance the awareness of construction participant in Gaza Strip

regarding the importance of sustainable buildings. To overcome sustainable building

barriers, it is important to explore environmentally and economically sound design and

development techniques for buildings and infrastructure for them to be sustainable,

healthy and affordable. To overcome these barriers, its recommended to enhance the

awareness of construction participants regarding sustainability building concept and its

important role in conserve energy, water, land, and resources and improve the quality of

life. Its recommended also to enact legislation to promote green buildings. As well as

`

211

encourage use Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Building Information

Method (BIM) in order to assure economic sustainability.

Table (5.8): The average of barriers of sustainable building according to their categories

Rank Average RII Category

1 81.05 % Financial Barriers

2 80.15 % Cultural Barriers

3 78.00 % Steering Barriers

4 77.44 % Capacity/Professional Barriers

Figure (5.15): Average RII of barriers of sustainable buildings regard to their types

5.5 Test of research hypotheses

Four hypotheses have been developed to study relations between a numbers of variables

in order to support sustainable buildings implementation in the building industry in Gaza

Strip. According to Figure 5.16, three hypotheses were tested through applying the

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson's correlation coefficient). The

Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of the

relationship (linear association/correlation) between two quantitative variables, where the

value r = 1 means a perfect positive correlation and the value r = -1 means a perfect

negative correlation. Each hypothesis was tested separately. The three variables in Figure

5.9 represent parts of the questionnaire, where the questionnaire was built from the

following four parts:

Part one: to assess the awareness level regard to sustainable building principles in

Gaza Strip

74 76 78 80 82

Financial Barriers

Cultural Barriers

Steering Barriers

Capacity/ProfessionalBarriers

81.05 %

80.15 %

78.00 %

77.44 %

`

212

Part two: to investigate the value of benefits of sustainable buildings in Gaza Strip

Part three: to investigate barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings in

Gaza Strip

Part four: was related to the respondent’s demographic data

Figure (5.16): Hypotheses model

5.5.1 Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles and benefits of sustainable buildings

In order to test the hypothesis, the Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure

the strength and direction of the relationship (linear association/ correlation) between

“awareness level regard to sustainable building principles” and “benefits of sustainable

buildings”. According to results of the test that shown in Table (5.9), “awareness level

regard to sustainable building principles” is positively related to “benefits of sustainable

buildings”, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.641 and the significance value

is less than 0.05 (P-value < 0.05), and thus the relationship is statistically significant at α

≤ 0.05 (as indicated by the double asterisk after the coefficient). Consequently, the

hypothesis H1 is accepted. The closer (r) is to +1, the stronger the positive correlation,

while the closer (r) is to -1, the stronger the negative correlation. According to that, it can

be said that the relationship between “awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles” and “benefits of sustainable buildings” is an intermediate positive relationship

H1: There is a positive relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05, between

awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and benefits of sustainable

buildings

`

213

because (r = 0.641). This means, when one variable increases in value, the second

variable also increase in value. In other words, increasing awareness level regard to

sustainable building principles will increase obtaining of the benefits of sustainable

construction.

As it turns out previously in this chapter, results indicated that the respondents have a

good awareness regarding sustainable building principles. Nevertheless, they did not put

it in practice or incorporating it in their projects because of their unwillingness to incur

additional costs compared with traditional building. Hence, incorporate sustainable

building principlesin building projects will increase the obtained benefits of green

buildings.

Table (5.9): Correlation coefficient between awareness level regard to sustainable

building principles and benefits of sustainable buildings

Field Statistics Benefits of sustainable building

Awareness level regard to

sustainable building principles

Pearson correlation (r) **0.641

P-value (Sig.) (2-tailed) 0.000

Sample size (N) 50 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.5.2 Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles and barriers that face implementing sustainable (green) buildings

In order to test the hypothesis, the Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure

the strength and direction of the relationship (linear association/ correlation) between

“awareness level regard to sustainable building principles” and “sustainable buildings

barriers”. According to results of the test that shown in Table 5.10, “awareness level

regard to sustainable building principles” is negatively related to “barriers of sustainable

buildings”, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.172 and the significance value

is less than 0.05 (P-value < 0.05), and thus the relationship is statistically significant at α

≤ 0.05 (as indicated by the double asterisk after the coefficient). Consequently, the

hypothesis H2 is accepted. The closer (r) is to +1, the stronger the positive correlation,

H2: There is an inverse relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05, between

awareness level regard to sustainable building principles and sustainable

buildings barriers

`

214

while the closer (r) is to -1, the stronger the negative correlation. According to that, it can

be said that the relationship between “awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles” and “barriers of sustainable buildings” is a weak negative relationship because

(r = -0.172). This means, when one variable increases in value, the second variable will

decrease in value. In other words, increasing awareness level regard to sustainable

building principles will decrease barriers of sustainable construction.

As it turns our previously in this chapter, results indicated that 'Higher costs for

sustainable buildings compared with traditional buildings', 'Risk of unfamiliar techniques

used to execute sustainable buildings', and 'Unwillingness of industry practitioners to

change the conventional construction methods practiced and building material used' are

the strongest barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings in Gaza Strip.

Table (5.10): Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles and sustainable buildings barriers

Field Statistics Benefits of sustainable

buildings

Awareness level regard to

sustainable building principles

Pearson correlation (r) -0.372**

P-value (Sig.) (2-tailed) 0.000

Sample size (N) 50 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.5.3 Correlation between benefits of sustainable buildings principles and Barriers

that face implementing sustainable buildings

In order to test the hypothesis, the Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure

the strength and direction of the relationship (linear association/ correlation) between

“Benefits of sustainable buildings” and “sustainable buildings barriers”. According to

results of the test that shown in Table 5.11, “Benefits of sustainable buildings” is

negatively related to “barriers of sustainable buildings”, with a Pearson correlation

coefficient of r = -0.193 and the significance value is less than 0.05 (P-value < 0.05), and

thus the relationship is statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 (as indicated by the double

asterisk after the coefficient). Consequently, the hypothesis H1 is accepted. The closer (r)

H3: There is an inverse relationship, statistically significant at α ≤ 0.05 between benefits

of sustainable buildings principles and barriers that face implementing sustainable

building

`

215

is to +1, the stronger the positive correlation, while the closer (r) is to -1, the stronger the

negative correlation. According to that, it can be said that the relationship between

“sustainable building benefits” and “barriers of sustainable buildings” is a weak negative

relationship because (r = -0.193). This means, when one variable increases in value, the

second variable will decrease in value. As it turns out previously in this chapter, results

indicated that many important benefits can be obtained when applying sustainable

buildings, the most prominent benefits are "Enhance occupant comfort and health",

"Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity of the

ecosystem at local and global levels", and "Reduce energy consumption". To obtain these

benefits, the sustainable building barriers should be overcome.

Table (5.11): Correlation between awareness level regard to sustainable building

principles and benefits of sustainable buildings

Field Statistics Benefits of sustainable

buildings

Value of sustainable building

benefits

Pearson correlation (r) -0.193

P-value (Sig.) (2-tailed) 0.000

Sample size (N) 50 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5.5.4 Hypothesis related to respondents’ profiles (respondents analysis)

This hypothesis was to analyze the differences among opinions of respondents toward the

investigation of sustainability (green) buildings in Gaza Strip due to gender, educational

qualification, respondent age, specialization, nature of the workplace, years of

Experience, current field / present job, and years of experience in sustainable building

field.The Sample Independent t-test and One way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test

were used to find whether there were statistically significant differences between

opinions of respondents or not. Also, Scheffé's method (multiple-comparison procedure)

was used. All used tests are parametric tests based on the normal distribution.

H4: There is a statistically significant differences attributed to the demographic data of

the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the subject

of sustainability (green) buildings in Gaza Strip.

`

216

5.5.4.1 Analysis considering gender

Independent samples t-test provides a statistical test of whether the means of two groups

are equal or not. Critical value of t = 2.01, where the degree of freedom (df) = [N-2] =

[50-2] = 48 (N is the sample size) at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05 (Field,

2009). Thus, independent samples t-test was used to test the differences among opinions

of respondents with respect to their gender (male, and female). As shown in Table (5.12),

the P-value for the Levene’s test is greater than 0.05 in each field and all fields together.

Thus, the variances of the two groups (male, and female) are not significantly different

(the groups are homogeneous). Also, according to the results of the independent samples

t-test as shown in Table (5.12), the significance values for each field and all fields

together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). In addition, the absolute values of t- test for

each field and all fields together are less than the critical value of t (2.01). Thus, there are

no statistically significant differences attributed to the gender of the respondents at the

level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the subject of the investigation into

sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza Strip. This result indicated that the respondents

result regard to sustainable buildings principles, benefits, and barriers doesn’t affected by

their gender.

Table (5.12): Results of Sample Independent t-test regarding the gender of the respondents

Field

Levene's test for

equality of variances T-test P-value Mean

F P-value

(Sig.)

Male

(N=31)

Female

(N=19)

Awareness level regard to Sustainable

(green) building principle

0.024 0.877 -0.885 0.381 136.064 141.947

Benefits of sustainable (green building) 1.984 0.165 0.323 0.748 103.645 102.368

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable (green building)

3.693 0.061 -0.408 0.685 114.290 115.894

Critical value of t: at degree of freedom (df) = [N-2] = [50-2] = 48 and at significance (Probability) level 0.05 equals

“2.01”. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

5.5.4.2 Analysis considering educational qualification

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

`

217

respondents with respect to their educational qualification (Bachelor's, Master's, and

Ph.D). It should be noted that the analysis of variance, popularly known as the ANOVA,

can be used in cases where there are more than two groups. When we have only two

samples we can use the t-test to compare the means of the samples but it might become

unreliable in case of more than two samples. If we only compare two means, then the t-

test (independent samples) will give the same results as the ANOVA (Field, 2009).

According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.13), the P-value for the Levene’s

test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together.

Thus, the variances of the groups are not significantly different (the groups are

homogeneous). Regarding to F- test, the significance values for the first filed

(Awareness level regard to sustainable (green) building principles) as well as the all fields

together are significant (P-value < 0.05). Also, the values of F-test for the first field and

all fields together are greater than the critical value of F (3.195).Thus, there are

statistically significant differences attributed to the educational qualification of the

respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on “Awareness

level regard to sustainable (green) building principles” as well as the subject of the

investigation into sustainable (green) building in Gaza Strip.

And therefore, Scheffe test was used for multiple comparisons between the means of the

opinions of respondents with respect to their educational qualification (Field, 2009).

According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.14), there is a difference between

the averages of the opinions of respondents who have "P.hD' degree, and respondents

who have "Bachelor" and "Master" degree about the field of “Awareness level regard to

sustainable (green) building principle” in favor of respondents who have "P.hD” degree.

This results showed that the opinions of the respondent who have Bachelors degree are

differentiate from those who have Master and Ph.D degree with regard to "Awareness level

regard to Sustainable building principles" field. Findings revealed that the results that

obtained from the respondent who have Ph. D degree is more confident. This result can

be justified as they had better awareness in sustainable buildings principles field

compared with those who have Bachelors and Master degree.

`

218

Table (5.13): One way ANOVA results regarding educational qualification of the respondents

Field

Test of Homogeneity

of Variances F-test

P-value

(Sig.)

Bachelors

(N=23)

Master

(N=20)

Ph.D

(N=7) Levene

Statistic

P-value

(Sig.)

Awareness level regard to

Sustainable building principle

0.576 0.566 7.708 0.001

**

129.739 139.20 163.85

*

Benefits of sustainable

building

0.149 0.862 0.305 0.739 103.043 102.05 106.71

Barriers that face

implementing sustainable

(green building)

0.472 0.627 0.857 0.431 116.608 111.90 117.85

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(3-1), (50-3)] = [2,47] and at significance

(Probability) level 0.05 equals “3.195”. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table (5.14): Results of Scheffe test for multiple comparisons due to educational

qualificationof the respondents for the field of the “Awareness level regard to Sustainable

(green) building principle”

Mean difference Bachular degree

M= 129.73

Master degree

M=139.20

P.hD degree

M=163.85

Bachular degree (M=129.73) 9.46 34.11*

Master degree (M=139.2) 24.675*

P.hD degree (M=163.85)

5.5.4.3 Analysis considering respondent age

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

respondents with respect to their age (Less than 30 years, between 30 to 45 years, and

More than 45 years). According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.15), the P-

value for the Levene’s test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three fields as well as

the all fields together. Thus, the variances of the groups are not significantly different (the

groups are homogeneous). Regarding to F- test, the significance values for each field of

the three fields as well as the all fields together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). Also,

the values of F-test in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together are

less than the critical value of F (3.195). Thus, there are no statistically significant

differences attributed to the age in years of the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05

`

219

between the means of their views on the subject of investigation into sustainable (green)

building in Gaza Strip.

Table (5.15): One way ANOVA results regarding age of the respondents

Field

Test of Homogeneity

of Variances F-

test

P-value

Sig.

Less

than 30

years

(N=25)

From

30-45

years

(N=22)

More

than 45

years

(N=3) Levene

Statistic

P-value

(Sig)

Awareness level regard to

Sustainable building principle

0.289 0.751 0.914 0.408 138.840 135.500 154.333

Benefits of sustainable buildings 1.560 0.221 0.783 0.463 104.320 100.909 110.000

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable (green building)

0.025 0.976 0.431 0.653 113.160 116.454 118.000

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(3-1), (50-3)] = [2,47] and at significance (Probability)

level 0.05 equals “3.195”.

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

5.5.4.4 Analysis considering respondents specialization

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

respondents with respect to their specialization (Civil, Architect, and Electrical).

According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.16), the P-value for the Levene’s

test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together.

Thus, the variances of the groups are not significantly different (the groups are

homogeneous). Regarding to F- test, the significance values for each field of the three

fields as well as the all fields together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). Also, the

values of F-test in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together are less

than the critical value of F (3.195). Thus, there are no statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents specialization at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of

their views on the subject of investigation into sustainable (green) building in Gaza Strip.

`

220

Table (5.16): One way ANOVA results regarding specialization of the respondents

Field

Test of

Homogeneity of

Variances F-test P-value

Sig.

Civil

(N=27)

Architect

(N=16)

Electrical

(N=7) Levene

Statistic Sig.

Awareness level regard to

sustainable building principle

0.302 0.741 2.588 0.086 131.777 146.625 144.428

Benefits of sustainable building 3.833 0.063 0.805 0.453 100.925 105.812 105.714

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable buildings

1.496 0.234 0.927 0.403 117.148 111.437 114.142

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(3-1), (50-3)] = [2,47] and at significance (Probability)

level 0.05 equals “3.195”. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

5.5.4.5 Analysis considering nature of the work place

Independent samples t-test provides a statistical test of whether the means of two groups

are equal or not. Critical value of t = 2.01, where the degree of freedom (df) = [N-2] =

[50-2] = 48 (N is the sample size) at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05 (Field,

2009). Thus, independent samples t-test was used to test the differences among opinions

of respondents with respect to the nature of their work place (Consultant, and Owner).

As shown in Table (5.17), the P-value for the Levene’s test is greater than 0.05 in each

field and all fields together. Thus, the variances of the two groups (Consultant, and

Owner) are not significantly different (the groups are homogeneous).

Table (5.17): One way ANOVA results regarding respondents nature of the work place

Field

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

T.test

P. value

Sig.

Mean

F P-value

(Sig.) Consultant Owner

Awareness level regarding

sustainable building principle

1.558 0.218 0.735 0.466 139.857 134.666

Benefits of sustainable building 0.311 0.580 0.833 0.409 104.200 100.733

Sustainable building barriers 3.933 0.053 -0.561 0.577 114.200 116.533

Critical value of t: at degree of freedom (df) = [N-2] = [50-2] = 48 and at significance (Probability) level 0.05 equals

“1.97”. *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

Also, according to the results of the independent samples t-test as shown in Table (5.17),

the significance values for each field and all fields together are not significant (P-value >

0.05). In addition, the absolute values of t- test for each field and all fields together are

less than the critical value of t (2.01). Thus, there are no statistically significant

`

221

differences attributed to the work place of the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05

between the means of their views on the subject of the investigation into sustainable

building in Gaza Strip.

5.5.4.6 Analysis considering years of experience

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

respondents with respect to the years of their experience (Less than 5 years, from 5 to 10

years, and more than 10 years). According to the results of the test as shown in Table

(5.18), the P-value for the Levene’s test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three

fields as well as the all fields together. Thus, the variances of the groups are not

significantly different (the groups are homogeneous).

Regarding to F- test, the significance values for each field of the three fields as well as

the all fields together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). Also, the values of F-test in

each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together are less than the critical

value of F (3.195). Thus, there are no statistically significant differences attributed to the

years of experience of the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their

views on the subject of investigation into sustainable (green) building in Gaza Strip.

Table (5.18): One way ANOVA results regarding years of experience of the respondents

Field

Test of Homogeneity

of Variances F

P. value

Sig.

Less than

5 years

(N=15)

from 5 to

10 years

(N=18)

More than

10 years

(N=17) Levene

Statistic Sig.

Awareness level regard to

Sustainable building principle

2.424 0.100 0.155 0.857 137.133 140.722 136.764

Benefits of sustainable building 2.662 0.080 0.558 0.576 101.266 105.833 102.000

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable building

1.084 0.347 1.131 0.331 113.333 112.500 118.823

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(3-1), (50-3)] = [2,47] and at significance (Probability) level

0.05 equals “3.195”.*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

`

222

5.5.4.7 Analysis considering current field- present job

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

respondents with respect to their present job (Designer, Site engineer, Project Manager ,

and Academic). According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.19), the P-value

for the Levene’s test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three fields as well as the all

fields together. Thus, the variances of the groups are not significantly different (the

groups are homogeneous). Regarding to F- test, the significance values for each field of

the three fields as well as the all fields together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). Also,

the values of F-test in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together are

less than the critical value of F (2.806). Thus, there are no statistically significant

differences attributed to the present job of the respondents at the level of α ≤ 0.05

between the means of their views on the subject of investigation into sustainable (green)

building in Gaza Strip.

Table (5.19): One way ANOVA results regarding nature of current field- present job of the

respondents

Field

Test of Homogeneity

of Variances F

P. value

Sig.

Designer

(N=16)

Site

engineer

(N=18)

Project

Manager

(N=8)

Academic

(N=8) Levene

Statistic Sig.

Awareness level regard to

sustainable building principles

0.694 0.560 1.564 0.211 137.250 135.888 130.875 153.250

Benefits of sustainable

buildings

1.020 0.392 0.833 0.483 103.375 102.111 99.000 109.250

Barriers that face

implementing sustainable

buildings

0.813 0.493 0.581 0.631 114.562 114.833 119.750 110.875

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(4-1), (50-4)] = [3,46] and at significance (Probability) level

0.05 equals “2.806”.*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

5.5.4.8 Analysis considering years of experience in sustainable building field

ANOVA (F-test) provides a parametric statistical test of whether the means of several

groups (more than two) are equal or not (by using the F-ratio). Critical value of F at

`

223

degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] at significance (probability) level (α) = 0.05

(Field, 2009). Thus, ANOVA was used to test the differences among opinions of

respondents with respect to their specialization (Civil, Architect, and Electrical).

According to the results of the test as shown in Table (5.20), the P-value for the Levene’s

test is greater than 0.05 in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together.

Thus, the variances of the groups are not significantly different (the groups are

homogeneous). Regarding to F- test, the significance values for each field of the three

fields as well as the all fields together are not significant (P-value > 0.05). Also, the

values of F-test in each field of the three fields as well as the all fields together are less

than the critical value of F (3.195). Thus, there are no statistically significant differences

attributed to the respondents years of experience in sustainable building fieldat the level

of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the subject of investigation into

sustainable (green) building in Gaza Strip. Because sustainable buildings is a new

territory in Gaza Strip; hence, the experience between the respondent appeared to be in

the same level.

Table (5.20): One way ANOVA results regarding nature of years of experience in sustainable

building field of the respondents

Field

Test of Homogeneity

of Variances F

P.

value

Sig.

Less than

5 years

(N=29)

From 5 to

10 years

(N=16)

More than

10 years

(N=5) Levene

Statistic Sig.

Awareness level regard to

Sustainable building principle

1.127 0.333 1.826 0.172 133.448 146.750 139.400

Benefits of sustainable building 2.259 0.107 2.202 0.122 99.896 108.250 105.800

Barriers that face implementing

sustainable building

1.341 0.271 0.473 0.626 115.034 116.312 109.600

Critical value of F: at degree of freedom (df) = [(K-1), (N-K)] = [(3-1), (50-3)] = [2,47] and at significance (Probability) level

0.05 equals “3.195”.

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

`

224

Chapter 6

Conclusions and recommendations

`

225

Chapter 6

Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter summarizes the research and aims to provide recommendations and

conclusions for promoting green building by investigating sustainability concepts in

building projects with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals

in Gaza Strip and suggests areas of future research as a result of the findings. By

revisiting the research objectives and key findings, an overview will be critically

discussed to assess the extent to which the research objectives were met.

6.1 Summary of the research

An investigation into the principles, benefits and barriers to sustainable (green)

buildings in Gaza Strip was conducted. An extensive review of literature was

conducted to achieve the aim of the study. The aim of the research was to promote

green buildings by investigating sustainability concepts in building projects life cycle

in Gaza Strip with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals. The

results of a 50 collected purposive questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively and

then presented by using an “interpretive-descriptive” method for qualitative data

analysis, which contains tabulation, bar chart, pie chart, and graph. In addition,

qualitative survey was conducted using a case study for green school in the West

bank in order to integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle.

6.2 Conclusions of the research objectives, questions, and hypotheses

In achieving the aim of the research, four main objectives have been outlined and

achieved through the findings of the analyzed collected questionnaires. These

objectives are related with the research questions that were developed to increase

one’s knowledge and familiarity with the subject. The outcomes were found as

following:

`

226

6.2.1 Outcomes related to objective one

The objective was: To investigate awareness level of sustainability concept

principles with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals in

building projects. This objective is related with the following research question:

The first research question: What is the level of awareness of engineers

regarding sustainability buildings principles?

Environment concept

The research has evaluated the awareness levelof the respondents regard to

"Environment concept" of sustainability. The findings indicated that the respondents

have good awareness regard to "environmental green building principles", since the

RII equal 71.4%. This result reflected that the respondents believed that environment

sustainability is very important to obtain green building and manage sustainability

more effectively. Respondents were well aware to the importance of protect the

environment. The results also illustrated that the respondents have high awareness

regard "Reduce energy consumption", and "Create healthy environments (enhance

living, leisure and work environments; and not endanger the health of the builders,

users, or others, through exposure to pollutants or other toxic materials" principles.

This finding showed that the respondents understand the massive need to conserve

energy in building process as possible. Hence, they sounded the alarm regarding

energy efficiency issue. The result also revealed that the respondents are appreciates

the role of "Create healthy environments" principle in achieving green buildings.

However, this good awareness regarding sustainable building principles need to be

incorporated in the construction projects in order to obtain all advantages of

environmental sustainability. Therefore, its recommended to:

Enable the construction participants in Gaza Strip to be more responsible to

the environmental protection needs without neglecting the social and

economic needs in striving for achieve better living.

Maintain ecosystem through building process by reduce generating dust and

control noise.

`

227

promote using sustainable and friendly environment materials (wood,

bamboo, polystyrene, adobe, polystyrene, bricks and led lightings) and

emphasize not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Reduce energy consumption by using solar energy system, and increase

reliance on natural daylight by reducing the number of lighting devices and

increase the number of windows.

Economic concept

With regard to the awareness level of the respondents regarding economic

sustainability principles, results indicated the awareness level of Gaza Strip engineers

is acceptable since RII equal 69.76%. The results also illustrated that the respondents

have high awareness regarding "Internalize external costs (like transportations,

equipments, training workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies", and

"Consider building life-cycle costs" principles. The greatest challenges was higher

investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional building.

Economic sustainability concept is relatively new in Gaza Strip, but actions like Use

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Building Information Modeling (BIM)

methods have been initiated by several parties like United Nations and USAID to

bring this concept to the forefront of Palestine agenda at par with other developing

countries. Unfortunately, government in Gaza Strip hasn’t enact any law nor provide

incentives to promote sustainable buildings. Sustainable buildings can improve the

quality of working life, education, training as well as knowledge management for all

stakeholders in sustainable construction. Considering building life-cycle costs need

to be raised early in the building process, and construction participants commitment

is vital to achieve cost effectiveness and overcome extra cost challenge. Hence, it is

recommended to:

Pay greater care at design stage in building projects in Gaza Strip to deliver

sustainable solutions at a more reasonable cost.

Internalize external costs (like transportations, equipments, training

workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies) before the building

project take place in order to ensure that the building project cost still within

the estimated budget.

`

228

Consider building life-cycle costs to make good and representative cost

estimation and ensure economic sustainability.

Social concept

About social sustainability principles, results indicated that Gaza Strip engineers

have a good awareness regarding social sustainability principles since RII equal

74.64%. The results also illustrated that the respondents have high awareness

regarding " Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all

project life cycle ", and " Protect and promote human health through a healthy and

safe working environment " principles. The mean reason of this good awareness may

appeared because most of building projects in Gaza Strip are funded by international

institution who cares with social sustainability concept. The greatest challenge here

was the unwillingness of construction participants to change the conventional

construction methods practiced and building materials used. Results emphasized that

considering the influence of sustainable buildings on the existing social framework

and enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all project life

cycle can open avenues for further action towards sustainable construction

improvement. Results also indicated that, considering the social sustainability

principles within construction process would be useful to enable these principles to

be managed effectively and efficiently. Therfore, It is recommended to:

Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in all project life

cycle.

To enable stakeholder involvement, the preparation of green specifications

should be carried out with top management’s directives and participation by

stakeholders. Examples of such participation include the publication of green

product directories and web-based sharing of information.

Ensure contractor commitment with green specification and safety

regulations.

Government in Gaza Strip should establish standard measures, to impose

restrictions on construction industry behavior, so as to protect the social and

environmental benefits of society.

`

229

Technical concept

With regard to respondents awareness with respect to technical sustainability

principles, results indicated that the respondents have good awareness regarding

technical sustainability principles, since RII equal 76.13%. This good awareness may

appeared because most of building projects in Gaza Strip are funded by international

institution who seek to incorporate technical sustainability concepts in their projects.

The improvement on technical sustainability can be made possible if the knowledge

regarding it are injected before the construction project takes place. Therefore, it is

recommended to:

The construction industry should pay more heed to technical innovation, in

order to improve productivity, waste recycling and reuse, as well as energy

efficiency.

Provide funding to support innovative technologies. While there are many

technologies being developed in Gaza Strip to support sustainable

construction, there is often no funding to help the inventors of these

technologies to commercialize them and set up viable businesses.

Train and educate construction participants on sustainable building methods,

and strategies.

Results of objective one regarding respondents profile

Findings showed that there are no statistically significant differences attributed to the

gender, respondent age, specialization, nature of the work place, years of experience,

current field- present job, and years of respondents experience in sustainable building

field at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the subject of the

investigation "Awareness level regarding sustainable building principles".

Results also showed that there is a difference between the averages of the opinions of

respondents who have "P.hD" degree, and respondents who have "Bachelor" and

"Master" degree about the field of “Awareness level regard to sustainable (green)

building principles” in favor of respondents who have "P.hD" degree. Findings

revealed that the results that obtained from the respondent who have Ph. D degree is

more confident. This result can be justified as they had better awareness in

`

230

sustainable buildings principles field compared with those who have Bachelors and

Master degree.

6.2.2 Outcomes related to objective two

The objective was: To identify and rate benefits level of sustainable buildings.

The second research question: Are the benefits of sustainable buildings

valuable from the standpoint of the professionals engineers in Gaza Strip?

The study findings indicated that sustainable buildings benefits are significantly

valuable for professionals engineers in Gaza Strip. Results also showed that the

social benefits is the most valuable benefit of sustainable buildings in Gaza Strip

with a RII equal 82.17%. Some benefits of sustainable buildings were more valuable

than others.

Environmental benefits:

The top environmental benefits of sustainable buildings according to overall

respondents are:

1. Reduce energy consumption.

2. Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout building project life

cycle.

This result reflected the high importance of taking suitable measures to conserve

energy and control pollution by minimizing the emission of toxic materials. It should

be noted that the findings indicated that all environmental benefits are valuable since

the RII for environmental benefits are ranges from (76.4% to 83.6%). Therefore, it is

recommended to:

Use passive energy system and geothermal system in order to conditioning

buildings so that it will be warm and suitable in summer and winter.

Design to use fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole internal

lighting system, which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy

consumption by up to 80%, compared to usual bulbs.

`

231

Increase reliance on natural daylight by reducing the number of lighting

devices and increase the number of windows, and control the location and

area of windows.

Promote using sustainable and friendly environment materials (wood,

bamboo, polystyrene, adobe, polystyrene, bricks and led lightings) and

emphasize not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Maintain ecosystem through building process by reduce generating dust and

noise.

Economic benefits:

The top economic benefits of sustainable buildings according to overall respondents

are:

1. Achieve lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost.

2. Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills.

3. Reduce operating costs (maintenance)

This result reflected the important role of economic sustainability in achieving

sustainable building. The explanation of that is green construction will face higher

initial cost than the conventional construction because the high consultant’s fees, the

unfamiliarity of the design team, and the cost of building assessment tools

documentation. However, this additional cost can be recoverable over the life cycle

of operations and maintenance of the buildings. It should be noted that all economic

benefits are valuable and important because the RII of the economic benefits are

ranges from 72.8% to 79.2%. To obtain economic benefits of sustainable buildings, it

is recommended to:

Pay greater care at design stage in building projects in Gaza Strip to deliver

sustainable solutions at a more reasonable cost.

Internalize external costs (like transportations, equipments, training

workforce on new sustainable methods and technologies) before the building

project take place in order to ensure that the building project cost still within

the estimated budget.

Consider building life-cycle costs to make good and representative cost

estimation and ensure economic sustainability.

`

232

Provide funding for construction participants training and education. The

requirements of sustainable construction will demand new skills and

continuous learning.

Provide funding to support innovative technologies. While there are many

technologies being developed in Gaza Strip to support sustainable

construction, there is often no funding to help the inventors of these

technologies to commercialize them and set up viable businesses.

Social benefits

The top social benefits of sustainable buildings according to overall respondents are:

1. Enhance occupant comfort and health

2. Improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and acoustic environments)

This result reflected that the respondents appreciate the importance of creating

healthy environments for occupants. The results also clarified that the respondents

believed that green buildings can control the harmful environmental conditions that

can be caused by traditional building methods. This result may appeared because

construction process have a harm effect on human health; hence, there is a massive

need to protect the occupants health through a healthy and safe working environment

and satisfy the human needs. The building must supply a healthy and comfortable

indoor climate to the people using it. In meeting these basic requirements, the

building should not cause harm to its occupants or the environment and must, for

example, be structurally stable and fire safe, as well as provide good thermal and

acoustic environment. It should be noted that all social benefits are valuable and

important because the RII of the social benefits are ranges from 80% to 84.8%. To

obtain economic benefits of sustainable buildings, it is recommended to:

Planners should promote using sustainable and friendly environment

materials (wood, bamboo, polystyrene, adobe, polystyrene, bricks and led

lightings) and emphasize not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Design for good thermal insulation, humidity resistance, acoustics

Achieve good ventilation

`

233

Use shading elements, panels and skylight to overcome the change in the

temperatures degree during seasons.

Prevent and control use toxic materials (Asbestos, Formaldehyde that exist in

Adhesive materials) in order to provide healthy working environment for

building occupants and labors.

Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne contaminants that

can affect worker productivity and/or health.

Ethical benefits

The top ethical benefits of sustainable buildings according to overall respondents are:

1. Disseminate of good behaviors which urges protect the environment (It is

good way to protect the environment).

2. Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid infringement of laws

and regulations.

This result reflected that green construction respect the ethical concept of building

process and fulfill it. Respondents believed that human beings are the centre of

concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive

life in harmony with nature. Thus have an ethical responsibility toward the society is

a valuable benefit. Therefore, it is recommended to:

Incorporate ethical sustainability in building project lifecycle in order to

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their needs.

Results regarding respondents profile

Findings showed that there are no statistically significant differences attributed to the

gender, respondent age, qualification, specialization, nature of the work place, years

of experience, current field- present job, and years of respondents experience in

sustainable building field at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views

on the subject of the investigation "Benefits level of sustainable buildings (green)

buildings".

`

234

6.2.3 Outcomes related to objective three

The objective was: To identify and rate barriers to implementing sustainable

buildings.

The third research question: Are sustainable buildings barriers affecting

the implementation of sustainable (green) buildings projects in Gaza Strip?

The study findings demonstrated that sustainability buildings barriers are greatly

affecting the implementation of sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza Strip. Results

also showed that the financial barrier is the strongest barrier that face implementing

sustainable buildings in Gaza Strip with a RII equal 80.05%. Some barriers of

sustainable buildings were stronger than the others.

Cultural Barriers

The top cultural barrier for sustainable buildings implementation, which got top

ranking according to overall respondents are as follow:

1. Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional

construction methods practiced and building materials use

2. Lack of design team experience regard to sustainable building methods.

However, many construction participants in Gaza Strip have good knowledge on

sustainable concept but they did not put it in practice or incorporating it in their

projects because of their unwillingness to incur higher cost compared with traditional

buildings. Engineers and contractors in Gaza Strip favor to use blocks and reinforced

concrete and neglect any other green construction methods and materials alternatives,

which highlighted change resistance as a major barrier. Sustainable buildings is a

new territory in Gaza Strip. Hence, training workforce on new sustainable methods

and technologies and use new equipments is a massive need. It should be noted that

all cultural barriers are important because the RII of the cultural barriers are ranges

from 76.8% to 84.4%. Therefore, it is recommended to:

Overcome "change resistance culture" that dominate the construction

participants in Gaza Strip should. There are many ways do this such as

`

235

educating the construction players through conferences, trainings, seminars,

workshops.

Education and training should incorporate sustainable development concepts

and made it well known and accepted by all people. Education is seen as an

important tool in promoting sustainable development and improving the

capacity of the people to address environment and development issue.

Train and educate construction participants on sustainable building methods,

and strategies.

Education in existing universities in Gaza Strip should prepare future

engineers to understand their roles and responsibilities to achieve sustainable

buildings

Raise awareness among government officials and politicians. If politicians

were to fully understand and support sustainability, they would be a very

powerful force for advocacy and raising awareness amongst the public.

Seminars, workshops and lectures should be organized for all stakeholders in

sustainable construction to address issues on efficient waste management,

environmental management systems, and design for flexibility, durability,

adaptability and the use of renewable construction materials.

Financial Barriers

The top financial barriers for sustainable buildings implementation, which got top

ranking according to overall respondents are as follow:

1. Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional

building

2. Risks based on unfamiliar techniques used to execute sustainable buildings.

Findings showed that green buildings will face higher initial cost than the

conventional buildings because of the increase of the consultant’s fees, the

unfamiliarity of the design team, and the cost of building assessment tools

documentation. However, this additional cost will be recoverable over the life cycle

of operations and maintenance of the buildings.Green building projects need special

design features and techniques. These techniques includes a high performance

insulation protection, and water and energy saving strategies which often increase the

`

236

cost of the consultant fees. It should be noted that all financial barriers are important

because the RII of the financial barriers are ranges from 74.8% to 86.8%. Hence, it is

recommended to:

Pay greater care at design stage in building projects in Gaza Strip to deliver

sustainable solutions at a more reasonable cost.

Consider building life-cycle costs to make good and representative cost

estimation and ensure economic sustainability.

Provide funding for construction participants training and education. The

requirements of sustainable construction will demand new skills and

continuous learning.

Capacity/Professional Barriers

The top professional barriers for sustainable buildings implementation, which got top

ranking according to overall respondents are as follow:

1. Lack of training and education in sustainable design and construction

2. Sustainability takes too much time to learn and design.

Training and education are seen as an important tool in promoting sustainable

development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and

development issue. This will increase the level of awareness both among the actors

in the entire construction process, as well as the general public. It should be noted

that all professional barriers are important because the RII of the professional

barriers are ranges from 77.2% to 80%. Hence, it is recommended to:

Education and training should incorporate sustainable development concepts

and made it well known and accepted by all people. Education is seen as an

important tool in promoting sustainable development and improving the

capacity of the people to address environment and development issue.

Train and educate construction participants on sustainable building methods,

and strategies.

Education in existing universities in Gaza Strip should prepare future

engineers to understand their roles and responsibilities to achieve sustainable

buildings.

`

237

Steering Barriers

The top steering barriers for sustainable buildings implementation, which got top

ranking according to overall respondents are as follow:

1. Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not encourage pursue green

construction.

2. Lack of sustainable building codes.

Gaza Strip still taking the initial steps towards achieving sustainable development, in

contrast with many of the developed countries who put sustainable buildings issue in

forefront of the country important issues and ensure that sustainability standards and

regulations have been enacted and implemented. In addition, there is no sustainable

building codes in Gaza Strip. It should be noted that all steering barriers are

important because the RII of the steering barriers are ranges from 79.24% to 83.2%.

Hence, it is recommended to:

Committee with Palestinian green building specifications.

Adopt a regulatory framework for sustainable construction. Government, the

professional regulators and industry representatives in Gaza Strip have to

formulate and adopt a regulatory framework for sustainable construction that

clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of the various role-players and

the performance indicators according to which they will be measured.

Government in Gaza Strip should enact laws and provide incentives to

promote sustainable buildings so as to improve quality of working life,

education, training as well as knowledge management for all stakeholders in

sustainable construction.

Government in Gaza Strip should establish standard measures, to impose

restrictions on construction industry behavior, so as to protect the social and

environmental benefits of society.

Results regarding respondents profile

Findings showed that there are no statistically significant differences attributed to the

gender, respondent age, qualification, specialization, nature of the work place, years

of experience, current field- present job, and years of respondents experience in

`

238

sustainable building field at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views

on the subject of the investigating "Barriers of sustainable buildings (green

buildings)".

6.2.4 Outcomes related to objective four

The objective was: To integrate sustainability concepts in all building project life

cycle with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals.

The fourth research question: How can professionals engineers integrate

sustainability concepts in all building project life cycle?

As a supplementary step in achieving this objective, a framework has been developed

as a result of case study. This frame work can be considered as a guideline for

engineers to help them to integrate sustainability concepts in the building project life

cycle. It is illustrate the green methods and items that should be involved in all

building project life cycle (Table 6.1).

`

239

Table (6.1): Case study framework

Planning Stage Design Stage Construction Stage Maintenance and Operation Stage

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Reduce energy consumption

Land conservation

Proper site selection

Adaptive reuse of existing building

(give priority to reuse or rehabilitate

existing structure)

Locate construction project close to

existing infrastructure

Development of non-arable lands for

construction

Site development

Ecosystem conservation

Evaluation of the orientation of

building (involve how the building

will relate to climatic conditions)

Maintain and enhance the

biodiversity and ecology of the site

A forestation of the site

Obtain client commitment for

sustainability

Prepare sustainability policy

Identify sustainability critical success

factor

Conduct environmental impact

assessment (EIA)

Consider whole life cycle in design

options

Compliance with sustainability

criteria

Conduct environmental assessment

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Choice of materials and construction

method

Design for energy efficient

deconstruction and recycling

Design for low energy intensive

transportation

Developing energy efficient

technological process

Use of passive energy design

Material conservation

Design for Waste

Specify durable material

Specify natural and local material

Design for Pollution prevention

Specify non-toxic material

Decide sustainability design

elements

Renewable material use

Storage and collection of recyclables

Water conservation

Design for dual plumbing

Designing low-demand landscaping

Water treatment

Ecosystem conservation

Compliance with regulations and

legislation

Initial cost (Purchase cost)

Eco

no

mic

Eco

no

mic

Use locally sourced materials

Utilize modular design &

standardized components

Identify sustainable materials

Energy conservation

En

vir

on

men

t

Insulating building envelope

Minimize energy consumption

Material conservation

Use biological waste treatment

system

Minimize consumption of

material resources

Using sustainable materials

Material reuse

Water conservation

Using water efficient plumbing

fixtures

Collecting rain water

Employ re-circulating systems

(Wastewater technology

Mange water use

Ecosystem conservation

Reduce negative impact to

environment

Select friendly environment

materials

Control pollution (reduce

pollution generation)

Construction activity pollution

prevention

Reduce green house gas

emission

Using sustainable construction

methods.

Reduce waste generation

Ecosystem Conservation

Env

iro

nm

ent

Create a clean and healthy

environment

Recovery Cost

Eco

no

mic

Recycling potential and ease of

demolition

Acoustic comfort

Visual comfort

Day lighting

Natural ventilation

Functionality

Aesthetics

Appropriate building acoustical

and vibration conditions

Assure indoor environmentally

quality

Providing nice views, view space

Control temperature

Regulate humidity

Manage colors

Ensure safety

Provide privacy

Satisfy needs

Sound insulation

Ensure durability

Ensure usability

`

240

Planning Stage Design Stage Construction Stage Maintenance and Operation Stage

Initial cost (Purchase cost)

Eco

no

mic

Employ cost saving technology that

can be managed locally

Use readily available materials

Study cost benefits and risk

associated

Prepare cost estimation

Sustainable contractor and supplier

selection

Project budget

Cost in use

Ensure availability of skills required

& labor supply

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Effect on local development

Protection to culture heritage

Built heritage

Respect customs and beauty of the

place

Use less expensive building

Materials

Eco

no

mic

Prepare cost and procurement plan

Integrated of sustainable elements

into design

Transport and accessibility

Calculate life cycle costs( direct

costs, indirect costs, investment

costs, and maintenance costs

Cost in use

Design for regular cleaning,

maintenance, &repair.

Choose minimum-maintenance

Materials

Ensure service life requirements of

materials and components

Update sustainable plans

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Design for usefulness

Attractiveness

Adaptability

Disassembly

Innovation in design

Protecting Physical Resources

Design for Fire Protection

Resist Natural Hazards

Design for crime prevention

Initial cost

Eco

no

mic

Reduce time required to

assemble materials on site

Use recycled and reclaimed

materials

Protecting materials from

destructive elements such as

sun, temperature variations,

rain or wind, or migration of

moisture-laden air through

defects in the envelope.

Provide easy to understand

access control for occupants

Recovery Cost

Reusing building materials or

components

Protecting Human health and

comfort

So

cial

Prevent disturbances to local

community

Acoustic and noise control

Safety and health for workers

Protecting Physical Resources

So

cial

Enhance the awareness of public

with regard to sustainable issues

Connection to natural

environment

`

241

According to the case study results, it is recommended to committee with sustainability

principles that have been concluded previously in literature review in order to achieve

good integration of sustainability concepts in building project life cycle by conserving

material, environment, energy, and water, as well as improve Indoor environmental

quality by pursing the following recommendation:

Materials conservation

Designers in Gaza Strip should prepare integrated waste management plan for

construction waste through sorting, reuse and recycling.

Construction participants should reduce using materials from threatened species

or environments like oil and metal and promote using rabidly renewable

materials like wood, polystyrene and solar energy.

Planners should promote using durable materials including concrete, steel,

copper , wood, composites, and adobe.

Planners should promote using sustainable and friendly environment materials

(wood, bamboo, polystyrene, adobe, polystyrene, bricks and led lightings) and

emphasize not to use toxic materials like asbestos.

Use environmental impact assessment tool (EIA) on the basis of minimizing

consumption of materials and energy, minimizing contamination of the

surrounding environment, and increase resource reuse/ recycle efficiency.

Environment conservation

Enable the construction participants in Gaza Strip to be more responsible to the

environmental protection needs without neglecting the social and economic

needs in striving for achieve better living.

Maintain ecosystem through building process by:

Reduce generating dust by reducing the activities that generate dust and

steering it away from the surrounding population, as well as control the dust

by water sprinklers

Cover sand trucks through transportation process

Clean vehicles before leaving the construction site.

`

242

Control noise and reduce it in the construction site

Reduce greenhouse effect through using effective equipments and tools in

construction and make periodic maintenance for it and reducing the period of

operation of the equipment without the actual work for less than five minutes

for every 60 minutes of actual work.

Energy conservation

Use passive energy system and geothermal system in order to conditioning

buildings so that it will be warm and suitable in summer and winter.

Design to use fluorescent bulbs and LED long life bulbs in the whole internal

lighting system, which contribute to a large degree to reducing energy

consumption by up to 80%, compared to usual bulbs.

Emphasized not to use incandescent lamps which consume a large amount of

energy.

Increase reliance on natural daylight by reducing the number of lighting devices

and increase number of windows, and control the location and area of windows.

Use solar energy system to conserve energy as well as mitigate the high cost of

buying fossil fuels from Israel.

Use Building Information Modeling (BIM) which can help to ensure effective

energy consumption.

Indoor environmental quality

Design for good thermal insulation, humidity resistance, acoustics

Achieve good ventilation

Use shading elements, panels and skylight to overcome the change in the

temperatures degree during seasons.

Water conservation

Implement the techniques of water management and water conservation such as

rain water harvesting, treatment and reuse of sewage and gray water for

irrigation, toilet.

`

243

Encourage the use of gray water system resulting from laundries, washing

machines and kitchen sink and hand washing basin to re-use in toilet as it

provides saving in the water quantities amount of 30% of total consumption of

water per day.

Encourage designers to use the Arena program in the internal water network

design inside residential buildings, and to increase the value engineering through

increase the efficiency and effectiveness of water tanks

Prevent waterproofing from water network, tanks, and sanitary tools in

buildings.

Promote the study of developmental work so as to re-use the water from the

sewage output in other operations, such as agriculture and injected in the ground.

Improve the quality of life

Protect and promote human health through a healthy and safe working

environment.

Implement skills training and capacity enhancement of disadvantaged workforce.

Seek fair distribution of the social costs of construction.

Seek equitable distribution of the social benefits of distribution.

6.2.5 Outcomes related to objective five

The objective was: To study a number of hypotheses that might help to promote

using sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza Strip. This objective is related with the

following research questions.

The fifth research question: What is the effect of awareness level of building

professionals on increasing the value of sustainable building benefits in Gaza

Strip?

The sixth research question: What is the effect of awareness level of building

professionals on the reduction of sustainable building barriers in Gaza Strip?

`

244

The seventh research question: What is the effect of value of sustainable

building benefits on the reduction of sustainable building barriers in Gaza

Strip?

In order to achieve this objective, four hypotheses were tested through applying the

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson's correlation coefficient). They

all have been accepted.

At first (for H1), Pearson correlation analysis asserted that there is intermediate positive

relationship between “awareness level regard to sustainable building principles” and

“benefits of sustainable buildings”. This means, when one variable increases in value,

the second variable also increase in value. In other words, increasing awareness level

regard to sustainable building principles will maximize the benefits of sustainable

construction. At second (for H2), Pearson correlation analysis asserted that the

relationship between “awareness level regard to sustainable building principles” and

“barriers of sustainable buildings” is a weak negative relationship because. This means,

when one variable increases in value, the second variable will decrease in value. In other

words, increasing awareness level regarding sustainable building principles will

decrease barriers of sustainable buildings.

At third (for H3) Pearson correlation analysis asserted that there is a weak negative

relationship between “sustainable building benefits” and “barriers of sustainable

buildings”. This means, when one variable increases in value, the second variable will

decrease in value. In other words, when the value of sustainable benefits increase, this

will reduce the barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings in Gaza Strip.

At fourth, (H4) was about the differences among opinions of respondents toward the

investigation into sustainable (green) buildings in Gaza Strip due to gender, educational

qualification, age in years, specialization, nature of the work place, years of experience,

current field- present job, and years of experience in sustainable building field.

The Sample Independent t-test proved that there is no difference due to the

gender of the respondents as well as ANOVA proved that there is no difference

`

245

attributed of the respondents age, specialization, nature of the work place, years of

experience, current field- present job, and years of experience in sustainable

building field at the level of α ≤ 0.05 between the means of their views on the

subject of investigation into sustainable (green) building in Gaza Strip.

According to that, the hypothesis has been rejected regarding these seven parts.

In contrast, regard to educational qualification of the respondents, ANOVA

asserted that there are significant differences attribute between the averages of

the opinions of respondents who have "P.hD' degree, and respondents who have

"Bachelor" and "Master" degree about the field of “Awareness level regard to

sustainable (green) building principle” in favor of respondents who have "P.hD”

degree. Accordingly, the hypothesis has been accepted regarding this part.

6.3 Research benefits to knowledge and construction industry

The value of this research lies in highlighting into sustainable (green) buildings

in Gaza Strip in Palestine. The research has contributed to the construction

industry, simplified as following:

The research will add to existing knowledge on sustainable buildings by

developing a clear understanding about green buildings adoption in Gaza Strip in

Palestine.

The research provide a new framework to integrate sustainability concepts

(environment, economic, social, and technical) in all project life cycle.

The research has identified the engineers awareness level of sustainability

concept principles with regard to economic, environment, social, and technical

goals in building projects, the most valuable benefits of sustainable (green)

buildings as well as barriers that face implementing sustainable buildings in Gaza

Strip.

The study has established a good platform for future researchers to identify

meaningful ways of providing solutions to the barriers identified and facilitate a

smoother and more successful transition in the adoption of green buildings and

innovations in the construction industry.

`

246

The outcomes of this research could also be used for appropriate education and

awareness purposes. It could be integrated into the education programs, training

courses, conferences, workshops to enhance the awareness of engineers

regarding the importance of sustainable buildings.

Research findings could help the construction participants to explore

environmentally and economically sound design and development techniques for

buildings and infrastructure for them to be sustainable, healthy and affordable.

Research results can enable the construction participants in Gaza Strip to be more

responsible to the environmental protection needs without neglecting the social

and economic needs in striving for achieve better living.

6.4 Limitations and future studies

Although the research was carefully prepared and has reached its aim, there were some

unavoidable limitations.

Because of the geographical limit, this research was conducted only on a

population who is living in Gaza Strip in Palestine. It was difficult to think about

a sample from the same population in West bank. Also, because of the time limit,

it was difficult to think about using e-mail for sending and receiving

questionnaires. Involving population of other areas in Palestine would help more

to generalize the findings.

Because of lack of green buildings in Gaza Strip, making case study in Gaza

Strip was very difficult. Hence, a lot of effort was made to make case study about

green building in the west bank.

Therefore, it is recommended that future researchers should find the balance between

environmental, economic and social solutions in order to apply sustainability concept

effectively and efficiently and with a reasonable cost. It's also recommended to study

the relationship between sustainability concepts in building projects and climate change.

It could be valuable to study how can technology and computer programs help in

achieving sustainability concepts in all building project lifecycle

`

247

References

`

248

References

Abdullah, F. (2004). Construction industry and economic development: The Malaysian

scene. Universiti Teknologi. Malaysia.

Abidin, N. Z. (2009). Sustainable construction in Malaysia-Developers awareness.

World Academy of Science. Engineering and Technology International Journal of

Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic and Management Engineering, 3(5),

480-487.

Abidin, N. Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable

construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34, 421–426.

Abidin, N. Z., and Al Jabbar, A. (2015). Sustainable concept awareness in Malaysia

construction and practice. Proceedings of the Conference of the 3rd Built

Environment and Natural Environment, 137-144.

Abidin, N. Z., and Pasquire, C. L. (2005). Delivering sustainability through value

management: The concept and performance overview. Engineering, Construction

and Architectural Management, 12(2), 168-180.

Abidin, N. Z., and Powmya, A. (2014a). Drivers for green construction in Oman and its

future prospects. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(6), 929-935.

Abidin, N. Z., and Powmya, A. (2014b). Perceptions on motivating factors and future

prospects of green construction in Oman. Sustainable Development, 7(5), 1913-

9063.

Abolore, A. A. (2012). Comparative study of environmental sustainability in building

construction in Nigeria and Malaysia. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and

Management Sciences (JETEMS), 3(6), 951-961.

Ajayi, D., and Ikporukpo, C. (2005). An analysis of Nigeria's environmental vision

2010. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7, 341-365.

Akadiri, P. O., Chinyio, E. A. and Olomolaiye, P. O. (2012). Design of a sustainable

building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the Building

Sector. Buildings, 2(2), 126-152.

Ali, H. H., and Nsairat, S. F. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for

developing countries - Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053-1064.

`

249

Alnaser, N. W., Flanagan, R., and Alnaser, W. E. (2008). Model for calculating the

sustainable building index (SBI) in the kingdom of Bahrain. Energy and Buildings,

40(11), 2037-2043.

Alnaser, N. W., Flanagan, R., and Alnaser, W. E. (2008). Potential of making-Over to

sustainable buildings in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Energy and Buildings, 40(7),

1304-1323.

Alobaidi, K. A., Abdul Rahim, A., Mohammed, A., and S Baqutayan, S. (2015).

Sustainability Achievement and Estidama Green Building Regulations in Abu Dhabi

Vision 2030. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 509-518.

Alsubeh, M. A. (2013). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in Jordan.

Civil and Environmental Research, 3(2): 2222-2863.

ALwaer, H., and Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs)

and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable

intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807.

Alyami, S. H., and Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development

approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5(0), 52-62.

Anderson, J., and Shiers, D. (2002). The Green Guide to Specification, third ed.

Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

Andrade, J. B., and Bragança, L. (2011). Analysis of the impacts of economic and social

indicators to sustainability assessment. Proceedings of the International Conference

Sustainability of Constructions: Towards a Better Built Environment. Innsbruck

Áustria, 1 January. University of Malta. Faculty for the Built Environment, 163-168.

Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Jowitt, P., and Smith, H. (2003). Sustainable

decision making for the UK water industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 156(1), 41-49.

Asici, A. A. (2015). On the sustainability of the economic growth path of Turkey:1995–

2009. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 1731-1741.

Asokan, P., Osmani, M., and Price, A. D. F. (2009). Assessing the recycling potential of

glass fibre reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites. Cleaner

Production, 17(9), 821-829.

`

250

ASTM, American Society of Testing and Materials. (2009). Standard Guide for General

Principles of Sustainability Related to Buildings. ASTM E 2432‐05. West

Conshohocken: PA.

Attia, S., and Dabaieh, M. (2013). The usability of green building rating systems in hot

arid climates: A case study in Siwa, Egypt: Proceedings of the 4th Biennial

subtropical cities conference. Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 17-19 October. Florida

Atlantic University.

Auffret, P., Almoamer, W., Camacho, I., D’Cruz, R., Rajab, M., Safi, W., Tarazi, A.

and Wolstenholme P. (2009). Damage Assessment and Needs Identification in the

Gaza Strip. Report, Gaza Strip, Palestine.

Augenbroe, G. L. M., and Pearce, A. R. (2010). Sustainable construction in the USA:

perspectives to the year 2010. International Council for Research and Innovation in

Building and Construction, Atlanta.

Augenbroe, G. L. M., and Pearce, A. R. (2010). Sustainability and the US construction

industry. Sustainable Development and the Future of Construction: A comparison of

visions from various countries. CIB Publications, Rotterdam, 1-12.

Aydin, S., Croteau, G., Sahin, I., and Citil C. (2010). Ghrelin nitrite and

paraoxonase/arylesterase concentrations in cement plant workers. Medical

Biochemistry, 29(2), 78-83.

Bakis, N., Kagiouglou, M., Aouad, G., Amaratunga, D., Kishk, M., and Al-Hajj, A.

(2003). An integrated environment for life cycle costing in construction: Proceeding

Of the 20th CIB W78 Conference on Information Technology in Construction,

Waiheke Island, Auckland, New Zealand, 23-25.

Barbour Index. (2004). The Barbour Report. United Business Media, Berkshire,

Windsor.

Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in

development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19, 145-161.

BCA, Building and Construction Authority. (2011). Code of Practice on Buildability.

Building and Construction Authority. Retrieved August 6 , 2015, from:

https://www.bca.gov.sg/BuildableDesign/others/copbdapr2011.pdf.

`

251

Becchio, C., Corgnati, S. P., Kindinis, A., and Pagliolico, S. (2009). Improving

environmental sustainability of concrete products: Investigation on MWC thermal

and mechanical Properties. Energy and Buildings, 41, 1127-1134.

Berke, P. R. (2002). Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning?

Challenges for the twenty-first century?. Journal of Planning Literature, 17, 21-36.

Bohari, A. A. M., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Teo, M., Zhang, X. and Adham, K. N. (2015).

The path towards greening the Malaysian construction industry. Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 1742-1748.

Bossink, B. A. G. (2002). A Dutch public-private strategy for innovation in sustainable

construction. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7), 633-642.

Bourque, L.B., Fink A., Fielder, E.P. (2003). How to conduct self-administered and mail

surveys. Sag Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.

Bragança, L., Mateus, R., and Koukkari. (2010). Building Sustainability Assessment.

Sustainability. Sustainability, 2(7), 2010–2023.

Bulletin, U. (2008). Building green: financial costs and benefits. SGS economic and

planning. Retrieved from

http://www.sgsep.com.au/system/files/Urbecon_Aug%2008(Web).pdf

Burnett, J. (2007). City buildings- eco-labels and shades of green. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 83, 29-38.

Buys, L., Mengersen, K., Johnson, S., Buuren, N.V., and Chauvin, A. (2014). Creating a

sustainability scorecard as a predictive tool for measuring the complex social,

economic and environmental impacts of industries, a case study: assessing the

viability and sustainability of the dairy industry. Journal of Environmental

Management, 133, 184-192.

Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., and Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable performance criteria for

construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction, 19,

235-244.

CIB, International Council for Building. (1999). Agenda 21 on Sustainable

Construction. Rotterdam, CIB, Rotterdam, CIB Report Publication 237. Retrieved

November 10 , 2014, from: http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/cibw82/A21text.pdf.

CIB. (2004). 50 Years of International Cooperation to Build a Better World, CIB,

Rotterdam.

`

252

Citherlet, S., and Defaux, T. (2007). Energy and environmental comparison of three

variants of a family house during its whole life span. Building and Environment, 42,

591-598.

Clements-Croome. (2004). Intelligent Buildings Design, Management and Operation.

London.: Thomas Telford.

Cohen, B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future

projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society, 28, 63-80.

Cole, R. (2000). Building environmental assessment methods: Clarifying intentions.

Building Research and Information, 27(4-5), 230-246.

Cole, R., and Larsson, K. (1999). GBC ’98 and GB tool. Build. Res. Inf. 27: 221–

229.CBPP, Construction Best Practice Programme. (2002). Challenge for change-

annual report and assessment of the construction best practice programme in 2001.

CBPP.

Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions

and roles. Building Research and Information, 33(5), 455-467.

Crawley, D. and Aho, I. (1999). Building environmental assessment methods:

Application and development trends. Building Research and Information, 27(4-5),

300-308.

Cu, cek L., Klemes, J.J., and Kravanja, Z. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools

for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20.

Dania, A. A., Larsen G. D., and Yao, R. (2013). Sustainable construction in Nigeria:

Understanding firm level perspectives: Proceeding on Sustainable Building

Conference.

De, Medeiros J.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D. and Cortimiglia, M.N. (2014). Success factors for

environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 76-86.

DETR. (2000). Building a Better Quality of life: Strategy for more Sustainable

Construction; Eland House: London, UK.

Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction- The role of environmental assessment

tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 451-464.

`

253

Diyana, N. A., and Abidin, N. Z. (2013). Motivation and expectation of developers on

green construction: A conceptual view: Proceeding of World of Science, Engineering

and Technology, International Conference of Housing and Urban Environments,

Venice, Italy, 100-104.

Djokoto, S. D., Dadzie, J. and Ohemeng-Ababio, E. (2014). Barriers to Sustainable

Construction in the Ghanaian Construction Industry: Consultants Perspectives.

Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 1913-9071.

Dolores, Ma., Tongco, C. (2007). Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant

Selection. A Journal of Plants, People, and Applied Research, 147- 158.

Du Bose, J., and Pearce, A.R. (2015). Sustainable technologies for the building

construction industry. International Invention Journal of Arts and Social Sciences,

26(2), 1477-7835.

Du Plessis, C. (2007). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing

countries. Construction Management and Economics, 25(1), 67-76.

Du Plessis, C., CIB, and UNEP-IETC. (2002). Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction

in Developing Countries. CSIR Report BOU/ E0204, CSIR, CIB and UNEP-IETC,

Pretoria.

Dzemyda, I., and Jurgelevicius, A. (2014). The impact of intangible capital on countries.

Sustainability during the economical recession: Proceeding on 8 th International

Scientific Conference: Business and Managment. Vilnius, Lithuania, May 15-16,

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 814-822.

EEA, European Environmental Agency. (2011). Earnings, jobs and innovation: The role

of recycling in a green economy. EEA Report No 8. Copenhagen, Denmark:

European Environmental Agency, 1725-9177.

Elmeligy, D. A. (2014). Rating systems awareness for green buildings applications.

International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(5), 53-64.

Federal, Register. (2006). Rules and Regulations, 70 (113). Available at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. [Accessed on 2 August, 2013].

Feifer, L. (2011). 786: Sustainability indicators in buildings: identifying key

performance indicators. Proceedings on PLEA 2011- 27th Conference on Passive

and Low Energy Architecture. Belgium, Louvain-la-Neuve: PLEA, p. 133-138.

`

254

Fernandez-Sanchez, G., and Rodriguez-Lopez, F. (2010). A methodology to identify

sustainability indicators in construction project management—Application to

infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1193-1201.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd Edition. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Finnveden, G., and Palm, V. (2002). Rethinking producer responsibility. International

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,7(2), 61.

Forkenbrock, D. J., Benshoff, S., and Weisbrod, G. E. (2001). Assessing the social and

economic effects of transportation projects. NCHRP Web Document 31 (Project

B25-19). 208, Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Retrieved September

25, 2014, From: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w31.pdf.

Gambatese, J. A., and Rajendran, S. (2005). Sustainable roadway construction: Energy

consumption and material waste generation of roadways. Proc., Construction

Research Congress: Broadening Perspectives. ASCE Construction Institute, Reston.

104-110.

Gardner, J.E. (1989). Decision making for sustainable development: Selected

approaches to environmental assessment and management. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 9(4), 337- 366.

Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity and Realability (Statistical Associates Blue Book Series

12), Kindle Edition. USA: Statistical Associates Puplisher.

Goh and Rowlinson. (2013). The roles of sustainability assessment systems in delivering

sustainable construction: Procceeding on 29th Annual ARCOM Conference,

September 2-4, Reading, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction

Management, 1363-1371.

Goodland, R., and Daly, H.E. (1996). Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-

negotiable. Ecological Applications. 6(4), 1002-1017.

Gottfried, D. A. (1996). Sustainable building technical manual: Green building design,

construction and operation. 1st edition. United states of Amirica: Puplic

Technnology. Inc.

Graham, P. (2003). Building Ecology—First Principles for a Sustainable Built

Environment; Blackwell, Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003.

`

255

Green Building. (2007). The Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers. WBDG,

Whole Building Design Guide. Retrieved August 20, 2015, From:

www.greenbuilding.com.

Griefahn, B., and Spreng, M. (2004). Disturbed sleep patterns and limitation of noise.

Noise and Health. 6(22), 27-33.

Halliday, S. (2008). Sustainable construction. USA: Routledge.

Hanna, G. B. (2013). Energy efficiency building codes and green pyramid rating system.

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 4(5), 3055-3060.

Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green building, organisational success and occupant productivity.

Building Research and Information, 28(5/6), 353-367.

Hill, R. C., Bergman, J. G., and Bowen, P. A. (1994). A framework for the attainment

of sustainable construction. Sustainable Construction, Tampa, Florida, USA,

November 6-9.

Hill, R. C., and Bowen, P. A. (1997). Sustainable construction: Principles and a

framework for attainment. Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 223–

239.

Holistic Process of the Project Life Cycle in Gaza Strip. Master theses. Islamic

university of Gaza.

Horvath, A. (2004). Construction materials and the environment. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources, 29, 181-204.

Huda, M., Setiyo R.T, Paing J., Purwito A. (2013). Analisis Of Important Factors

Evaluation Criteria For Green Building. The International Journal Of Engineering

And Science (IJES), 2(12), 41-47.

Hussin, J. M., Abdul Rahman, I., and Memon, A. H. (2013). The way forward in

sustainable construction: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Advances in

Applied Sciences (IJAAS), 2(1), 31-42.

Hydes, K., and Creech, L. (2000). Reducing mechanical equipment cost: The economics

of green design. Building Research and Information, 28(5/6), 403-407.

Idris, N. H., and Ismail, Z. (2011). Framework policy for sustainable construction in

Malaysia. IEEE Symposium on business engineering and Industrial Application.

Langkawi, September 25, 441-446.

`

256

Ijigah, E. A., Jimoh R. A., Aruleba, B. O., and Ade, A. B. (2013). An assessment of

environmental impacts of building construction projects. Civil and Environmental

Research, 3(1), 93-105.

Imam, A., Ali, M. A. (2011). Environmental ethics and integrating sustainability into

management education. Environmental Ethics and Integrating Sustainability into

Management Education.

Issa, N., and Al Abbar (2015). Sustainability in the Middle East: Achievements and

challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban

Development.

IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

(1991). World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland.

Jawali, R., and Fernández-Solís, J. F. (2008). A Building sustainability rating index

(BSRI) for building construction. In 8th International Post Graduate Research

Conference, Prague.

Junnila, S., and Saari, A. (1998). Environmental burdens of a Finnish apartment

building by building elements in the context of LCA. Rep. 167, Helsinki Univ. of

Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Construction

Economics and Management, Helsinki, Finland.

Kahn, M. (1995). Concepts, definitions, and key issues in sustainable development: The

outlook for the future: Proceedings of the 1995 International Sustainable

Development. Research Conference. Manchester, England, Mar. 27-28, Keynote

Paper, 2-13.

Katkhuda, N. (2013). Green buildings and the Middle East. EcoMENA. Retrieved from

http://www.ecomena.org.

Kibert, C. J. (1994). Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction: In

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction.

Tampa, Florida, November 6-9, 3-12.

Kibert, C. J. (2003). Forward: Sustainable construction at the start of the 21st century. Ie

JC 2003, Special Issue: The Future of Sustainable Construction, 1-7.

Kibert, C. J. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery,

2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA.

`

257

Kilbert, C. J. (1994). Principles of sustainable construction: Proceedings of the First

International Conference on Sustainable Construction, November 6-9, Tampa,

Florida, USA.

Klunder, G. (2001). Environmental impact of Dutch dwellings: Priorities for reduction

and benefits of sustainable construction. Proceeding on Towards sustainable

building conference, N. Maiellaro, ed., Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 109–

134.

Kohler, N. (1999). The relevance of Green Building Challenge: An observer’s

perspective. Building Research and Information, 309-320.

Koukkari, H., and Huovila, P. (2005). Improving the Performance of Buildings:

Proceedings of the Final Conference of COST Action C12—Improvement of

Building’s Structural Quality by New Technologies, Innsbruck, Austria, 20–22

January 2005, Balkema Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 425-430.

Kubba, S. (2010). Green construction Project Management and Cost Oversight. U.S.A:

Elsevier.

Lam, P. T. I., Chan, E. H. W., Poon, C. S., Chau, C. K., and Chun, K. P. (2010). Factors

affecting the implementation of green specifications in construction. Environmental

Management, 91, 654-661.

Lanting, R. (1998). Sustainable construction in the Netherlands - Report 9; CIB Report

Publication 225. Rotterdam.

Larson, N. K., and Cole, R. J. (2001). Green Building Challenge: The development of an

idea. Building Research and Information, 29(5), 336-345.

Larsson, N. (1998). Green Building Challenge ‘98: International strategic

considerations. Building Research and Information, 118-121.

Larsson, N. (1999). Development of a building performance rating and labelling system

in Canada. Building Research and Information, 27(4-5), 332-341.

Larsson, N. (2010). Building performance assessment, SB Method and SBTool.

Larvrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. United States:

SAGE Publication, Inc.

`

258

LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. (2009). LEED for New

Construction and Major Renovation. USA, Developed by US Green Building

Council.

Liddle, B.T. (1994). 'Construction for sustainability and the sustainability of the

construction industry'. In Proceedings of the First International Conference

onSustainable Construction, CIB TG 16, Tampa, Florida, November 6-9.

Lippiatt, B. C. (1999). Selecting cost-effective green building products: BEES

approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(6),448-55.

Liu, H., Zhou, G., Wennersten, R. and Frostell, B. (2014). Analysis of sustainable urban

development approaches in China. Habitat International, 41, 24-32.

Lombardi, P. L. (2001). Responsibilities towards the coming generations: forming a new

creed. Urban Design Studies, 7, 89-102.

Lop, Z. Z. A., Zain, O. M, Kamar, I. F. M., Salleh, O. M. and Hamdan, A. M. (2012).

'Awareness improvement amongst end users towards the economic sustainability in

Green homes: A research proposal'. 1 st International Conference on Innovation and

Technology for Sustainable Built Environment, 16-17April 2012, Perak,

MALAYSIA.

Mc Donough, W. and Partners. (2000). The hannover principles, design for

sustainability. Expo 2000. The worlds fair, Hannver. Germany.

Melchert, L. (2005). The Dutch sustainable building policy: a model for developing

countries? Building and Environment, 41(12), 1892-1904.

Melody, A., and Hertzog. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot

studies. Research in Nursing and Health, 31 (2).

Mensah, A. M., and Castro, L.C. (2004). Sustainable resource use and sustainable

development: A contradiction?. Center of development research. University of

Bonn. Retrieved June 15, 2015, From: http://

www.zef.de/fileadmin/downloads/forum/docprog/Termpapers/2004_3b_Mensah_Ca

stro.pdf.

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. (2009). The annual report of ministry of

energy and mineral resources, 5 May 2015..

Miyatake, Y. (1996). Technology development and sustainable construction. J. Manag.

Eng., 12, 23–50.

`

259

Mora, E. P. (2005). Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building

materials, Building and Environment, 42, 1329-1334.

Mwasha, A., Williams, R. G., and Iwaro, J. (2011). Modeling the performance of

residential building envelope: The role of sustainable energy performance indicators.

Energy and Buildings, 43(9), 2108-2117.

Naoum, S. G. (2007). Dissertation research and writing for construction students, 2nd

Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

NESREA. (2007). Report of the first national stakeholder's forum on the new

mechanism for environmental protection and sustainable development in Nigeria,

National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency,

Abuja.http://www.lead-journal.org/content/12116.pdf.

Nguyen, B. K., and Altan, H. (2012). Tall-Building projects sustainability indicator

(TPSI): A new design and environmental assessment tool for tall buildings. Building,

2, 43-62.

Nwokoro, I. (2011). Sustainable or green construction in Lagos, Nigeria: Principles,

attributes and framework. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), 166-174.

Oberg, M. (2005). Integrated life cycle design-Applied to concrete multi dwelling

buildings. Ph.D theses. Sweden, Lund University.

Ofori, G. (1998). Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework for attainment –

comment. Construction Management and Economics, 16(2), 141-145.

Ofori, G. (2000). Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European

Journal. Purchasing and Supply Management, 6, 195-206.

Ofori, G., Briffett C., Gang G. and Ranasinghe. M. (2000). Impact of ISO 14000 on

Construction Enterprises in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics,

18, 935- 947.

Ogola, P. F. A. (2007). Environmental impact assessment general procedures. Presented

at Short Course II on Surface Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by

UNU-GTP and KenGen, at Lake Naivasha, Kenya, 2-17 November.

Ortiz, O., Pasqualino J. C., Diez, G., and Castells, F. (2010). The environmental impact

of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle

perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 832-840.

`

260

Parkin, S. (2000). Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 138(2), 3-8.

Pearce, A. R. (2008). Sustainable capital projects: leapfrogging the first cost barrier.

Civil Engineering and Environmental System, 25(4), 291-300.

Pearce, A. R., Ahn, Y. H., and Hanmiglobal. (2012). Sustainable buildings and

infrastructure Paths to the future. Routledge, Oxon, Abingdon, Oxon.

Pearce, A. R., and Vanegas, J. A. (2002). A parametric review of the built environment

sustainability literature. International Journal Environmental Technology and

Management, 2 (1/2/3), 54-93.

Pettifer, G., and Studios, J. (2004). A Case Study in Commercial Green Construction. In

Proceedings of the CIBSE National Conference on Delivering Sustainable

Construction, London, UK.

Pushkar, S., Becker, R., Katz, A. (2005). A methodology for design of environmentally

optimal buildings by variable grouping. Bldg. Environ, 40(27), 1126–1139.

Qaemi and Heravi. (2012). Sustainable Energy Performance Indicators of Green

Building in Developing Countries. Construction Research Congress, ASCE, US,

1961–70.

Ragheb, A. F. (2011). Towards environmental profiling for office buildings using life

cycle assessment (LCA). Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan.

Rajendran, S. and Gambatese, J. (2009). Development and initial validation of

sustainable construction safety and health rating system. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, ASCE, 135(10), 1067-1075.

Rajendran. (2007). Sustainable construction safety and health rating system.

Ph.D.Theses. Oregon State University, USA.

Rees, W. E. (1990). The Ecology of Sustainable Development. The Ecologist, 20(1), 18-

23.

Reffat, R. (2004). Sustainable construction in developing countries. In the Proceedings

of First Architectural International Conference, Cairo University, Egypt.

Rezgui, Y., Wilson, I. E., and Li, H. (2010). Promoting Sustainability Awareness

through Energy Engaged Virtual Communities of Construction Stakeholders. 11th

`

261

IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE, St. Etienne,

France, 11-13 October.

Ries, R. M., Bilec, M. M., Gokhan, N. M., and Needy, K. L. S. (2006). The Economic

Benefits of Green Buildings: A Comprehensive Case Study. The Engineering

Economist, 51(3), 259-295.

Rigamonti, L., Sterpi, I., and Grosso, M. (2015). Integrated municipal waste

management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic

sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 60, 1-7.

Robert, K., Bleek, B. S., and Larderel, J. A. (2002). Strategic sustainable development

selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10,

197-214.

Robichaud, L. B., and Anantatmula, V. S. (2011). Greening Project Management

Practices for Sustainable Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering,

27(1), 48-57.

Ronnie, Garrett. (2012). The professional cleaning industry's premier online resource.

Retrieved May 8, 2015, From: Available at:

http://www.cleanlink.com/hs/article/The-Difference-Between-Green-And-

Sustainability--13976.

Ross, K. N. (2005). Quantitative research methods in educational planning: Sample

design for educational survey research. UNESCO International Institute for

educational Planning. http://www.sacmeq.org and http://www.unesco.org/iiep

(accesses 10 November 2015)

Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martinez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C.M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell,

X. (2009). Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish wine industry. Technical,

economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. J. Clean. Prod.,

17, 830–838.

Saleh, M. S., (2015). Towards sustainable construction in Oman: Challenges and

Opportunities. International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and

Construction. Procedia Engineering, 118, 177-184.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (hardcover). London, UK:SAGE

Puplications, Inc.

Sambasivan, M., and Soon, Y. W. (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian

construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 517-526.

`

262

Samer, M. (2013). Towards the implementation of the green building concept in

agricultural buildings: a literature review. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 15(2), 25-

46.

San-Jose, J. T. L., and Cuadrado, R. J. (2010). Industrial building design stage based on

a system approach to their environmental sustainability. Construct. Build. Mater.,

24, 438-447.

Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G. A., and Reppe, P. (2003). Life cycle energy and environmental

performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design

implications. Energy and Building, 35, 1049-1064.

Seo, S., Tucker, S., Ambrose, M., Mitchell, P., and Wang, C. (2006). Technical

Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Rating Tools. Research and Development

Corporation.

Shafii, F., Ali, Z. A., and Othman, M. Z. (2006). Achieving sustainable construction in

the developing countries of southeast ASIA. Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific

Structural Engineering and Construction Conference. Kuala Lumpur, September 5-

6. Malaysia, 29-44.

Shafii, F., and Othman, M. Z. (2005). Sustainable Building and Construction in South-

East Asia. Proceedings of The Conference on Sustainable Building South-East Asia,

11-13 April, Malaysia.

Shakoorian, A. A comparative study of LEED, BREEAM and GBTOOL.

Shelbourn, M. A., Bouchlaghem, D. M., Anumba, C. J., Carillo, P. M., Khalfan, M. M.

K., and Glass J. (2006). Managing Knowledge in the Context of Sustainable

Construction. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 11, 57-71.

Shen, L. Y., Hao, J. L., Tam, V. W., and Yao, H. (2007). A checklist for assessing

sustainability performance of construction projects. Journal of civil engineering and

management, 5(4), 273-281.

Shen, L., Tam, V., Tam, L., Ji, Y. (2010). Project feasibility study: The key to successful

implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management

practice. J. Clean. Prod., 18, 254–259.

Shen, L., Wu, Y., and Zhang, X. (2011). Key Assessment indicators for the

sustainability of infrastructure projects. Construction Engineering Management,

137(6), 441-451.

`

263

Shi, Q., Zuo, J., Huang, R., Huang, J., and Pullen, S. (2013). Identifying the critical

factors for green construction: An empirical study in China. Habitat International.

40(1), 1-8.

Soebarto, V. I. (2001). Multi-criteria assessment of building performance: Theory and

implementation. Building and Environment, 681–690.

Sourani, A., and Sohail, M. (2011). Barriers to addressing sustainable construction in

public procurement strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:

Engineering Sustainability. 164(4), 229-237.

Sultan, M. K. (2005). The Construction Industry in Yemen: Towards economic

sustainability. PH.D. Thesis. Yemen.

Susilawati and Al-Surf. (2011). Challenges Facing Sustainable Housing in Saudi Arabia:

A current study showing the level of public awareness. 17th Pacific Rim Real Estate

Society Conference Gold Coast, Australia 16-19th Jan.

Taleb, H. M., and Sharples, S. (2011). Developing sustainable residential buildings in

Saudi Arabia: A case study. J. Applied Energy, 88, 383-391.

Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, C. M., Zeng, S. X., and Chan, K. K. (2006). Environmental

performance measurement indicators in construction. Building and Environment, 41,

164-173.

Tam, W. Y. V. (2009). Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the

Australian and Japanese construction industries. J. Clean. Prod., 17, 688-702.

Thomas, S. J. (2004). Using web and paper questionnaires for data-based decision

making from design to interpretation of the results. Mumbai, India: Corwin.

Thorpe, D., and Ryan, N. (2007). Responding to global issues: Sustainability and

innovation in the Australian SME residential building construction sector.

2ndInternational conference on construction project management, Building and

Construction Authority, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Tilt, B., Braun, Y., and He, D. (2009). Social impacts of large dam projects: A

comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice.

Environmental Management, 90(3), 249-257.

Treloar, G., Fay, R., Ilozor, B., and Love, P. (2001). Building materials selection:

Greenhouse strategies for built facilities. Facilities, 19(3-4), 139-149.

`

264

UNEP, United Nations Environmental Program. (2007). Building and climate change:

Status, Challenges and Opportunities. United Nation Environment Programme,

United Nation.

USEP. (2008). 'Lean in Government Starter Kit'. , Last updated on Wednesday, April

16th, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/lean/toolkit/LeanGovtKitFinal.pdf,

University of Technology Research Week International Conference, April 16th.

USQBC, U.S. Green Building Council. (2015). Benefits of LEED certification.

Available at: www.usgbc.org.

Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualizing social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment,

22 (3), 183-211.

Viitaniemi, P., and Haapio, A. (2007). Environmental criteria and indicators used in

environmental assessment of buildings.In Proceedings of the CIB World Building

Congress, Cape Town, South Africa. 14-17 May, pages 2406-2416.

Wang, N. (2014). The role of the construction industry in China's sustainable urban

development. Habitat International, 44 (0), 442-450.

Wang, N., and Chang, Y. (2014). The development of policy instruments in supporting

low-carbon governance in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 35,

126-135.

Wang, N., Wei, K., and Sun, H. (2014). The whole life project management approach to

sustainability. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), 246-255.

Waris, M., Shahir, M., Faris, K. M., Idrus, A. (2014). Criteria for the selection of

sustainable onsite construction equipment. International Journal of Sustainable Built

Environment, 3, 96–110.

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future; World Commission on Environment and

Development, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Wilen, J. (2008). United Arab Emirates: Sustainable building and green buildings.

http://www.finpro.fi/NR/rdonlyres/1B5896B2-4663-4382-A0E4 (Accessed 15 June

2015).

Williams, K., and Dair, C. (2007). What is stopping sustainable building in England?

Barriers experienced by stakeholders. Sustainable Development, 15, 135-147.

`

265

Wong, J. K. W., Li, H., Huang, T., Luo, E. and Li, V. (2013). Toward low-carbon

construction processes: The visualization of predicted emission via virtual

prototyping technology. Automation in Construction, 33, 72-78.

Wyatt, D. P. (1994). 'Recycling and Serviceability: The Twin Approach to Securing

Sustainable Construction. Proceedings of First International Conference of CIB TG

16 on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, Florida, USA, 6-9 November, 69-78.

Xinzheng, A., and Ruixue, D., and Cheng, Y. (2009). 'Evaluation Analysis on

Sustainable Development of Civil Engineering Construction'. International

Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial

Engineering.

Xue, X., Zhang, R., Zhang, X., Yang, R., and Li, H. (2015). Environmental and social

challenges for urban subway construction: An empirical study in China.

International Journal of Project Management, 33, 576-588.

Yami, A.M., and Price, A. D. F.(2006). A framework for implementing sustainable

construction in building briefing project'. Annual ARCOM Conference. Birmingham,

September 4-6. UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 327-

337.

Yanarella, E. J., Levine, R. S., and Lancaster, R. W. (2009). Green versus Sustainability.

Sustainability, 2(5), 296-302.

Yau, R. C. (2006). Building performance assessment in China. Proceedings of the

Second International Conference on Intelligent Green and Energy Efficient Building

and Technologies and Products. Beijing, 28-30.

Yi-Kai, J., Peng, G., and Jie, W. (2010). A hybrid decision support system for

sustainable office building renovation and energy performance improvement. Energy

and Buildings, 42, 290-297.

Ying, C., Gül, E. O., and Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable performance criteria for

construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in Construction,

19(2), 235-244.

Yusof, S. H. A. B. M. (2005). Application of sustainable construction principles in

construction industry. Master Theses. Malaysia, University technology.

Zabihi, H., Habib, F., Mirsaeedie, L. (2012). Sustainability Assessment Criteria for

Building Systems in Iran. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 11(10), 1346-

1351

`

266

Zaiontz, C. (2014). Factor analysis. Real statistics using Excel. Available at:

http://www.real-statistics.com/multivariate-statistics/factor-analysis/ (accessed at

January 15, 2016).

Zeleke, Z., Moen, B., and Bratveit, M. (2010). Cement dust exposure andacute lung

function: A cross shift study. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 10(1), 19.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2466/10/19.

Zhang, X. (2011). Social risks for international players in the construction market: A

China study. Habitat International, 35(3), 514-519.

Zhong, Y., and Wu, P. (2015). Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and

constructability indicators related to concrete and steel-projects. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 108, 748-756.

Zimmermann, M., Althaus, H. J., and Haas, A. (2005). Benchmarks for sustainable

construction- a contribution to develop a standard. Energy Building, 37 (11), 1147-

1157.

Zolfagharian, S., Nourbakhsh, M., Irizarry, J., Ressang, A., and Gheisari, M. (2012).

Environmental impacts assessment on construction sites. Construction Research

Congress 2012, 1750-1759.

`

267

Appendices

`

268

Appendix A: Questionnaire (English)

`

269

The Islamic University of Gaza

Civil Engineering Department

Master Program in Construction Management

Subject: Questionnaire survey about: Investigating Sustainability Concepts in

Building Projects with Regard to Economic, Environment, Social, and Technical

Goals

Research Aim:

Investigating the sustainability concepts in building projects life cycle in Gaza Strip with

regard to economic, environment, social, and technical goals in order to ensure efficient

use of natural resources, minimization of any negative impact on the environment as

well as satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life.

Target Group:

Engineers who work in the field of design, supervision, construction, and maintenance

(civil, architect, and electrical engineers), as well as academic engineers.

Sustainable Building Definition

Those building that is friendly environment which depend in its implementation on

reduce energy, material, and water consumption, and reduce wastes, as well as careful

consideration of land use, air quality and indoor environment

Best Regards

Ehsan Yousef Rizqa

Civil Engineer

M.Sc Candidate in construction management, IUG

December 2015

`

270

Please tick √ the appropriate option of the following question

Name (Optional) ……………………………………………………………………………

Gender

Educational Qualification

Age in years -45

Specialization Electrical

Nature of the Work Place Owner

Years of Experience

years

5-10 years

years

Current field- present job

engineer Manager

Years of Experience in

Sustainable Building Field years

-10 years

years

How would you rate your awareness regard to the principles of sustainable building which

mentioned in the following table?

Please tick √ in front of the option that reflect your point of view

Cate

gory

Are you aware of the importance of the following principles of sustainable

building? N

ot

at

all

aw

are

Sli

gh

tly

aw

are

Som

ew

h

at

aw

are

Mod

erat

ely a

ware

E

xtr

emel

y a

ware

Envir

onm

ent

Minimize resource consumption

Enhance material recyclability

Apply waste management system

Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic materials like asbestos

Reduce energy consumption

Ensure prudent use of the four generic construction resources (water, energy,

material and land)

Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil, water, and flora

Maximize the sustainable use of biological and renewable resources

Createhealthy environments (enhance living, leisure and work environments;

and not endanger the health of the builders, users, or others, through exposure to

pollutants or other toxic materials).

Enhance biodiversity: Projects should reduce use materials from threatened

species or environments like oil and metals

Part 1: Questions related to personal information

Part 2: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building principles

`

271

C

ate

gory

Are you aware of the importance of the following principles of sustainable

building?

No

t a

t all

aw

are

Sli

gh

tly a

wa

re

So

mew

hat

aw

are

Mo

der

ate

ly

aw

are

E

xtr

emel

y

aw

are

Eco

nom

ic A

spec

t

Consider building life-cycle costs

Internalize external costs ( like transportations, equipments, training workforce

on new sustainable methods and technologies )

Develop appropriate economic instruments to promote sustainable consumption

Consider the economic impact of local structures when planning to construct

sustainable building

Achieve good economic project management in both long and short term

Achieve prudent use for those resources which can rise the life cycle cost of the

building including money, energy, water, materials and land

Achieve profitability and enhance competitiveness

Ensure financial affordability

Create employment

Make sustainable supply chain management.

Soci

al A

spec

t

Evaluate the benefits and costs of the project to society and environment.

Improve the quality of life

Consider provision for social self-determination and cultural diversity

Enhance a participatory approach by involving stakeholders in project life cycle

Protect and promote human health through a healthy and safe working

environment

Promote public participation by seek to meet the real needs, requirements and

aspirations of communities

Involve communities and stakeholders in key decisions

Consider the influence on the existing social framework

Assess the impact on health and the quality of life.

Achieve customers and clients satisfaction and best value

Respect and treat stakeholders fairly

Ensure legislating compliance and responsibility with respect to human

protection

Safeguard the interests of future generations while at the same time, meeting

today's needs

Achieve quality structure

Improveindoor environmental quality (air, thermal, visual and acoustic quality

Use technology and expert knowledge to seek information and in improving

project efficiency and effectiveness

Achieve adaptability

Achieve attractiveness

`

272

How would you rate the following benefits of sustainable (green building(?

Please tick √ in front of the option that reflect your point of view

Ty

pe

of

Ben

efit

How would you rate the following items in terms of sustainable

building benefits to environment, economic, and society?

Ex

trem

ely

Lo

w

Ben

efic

ial

Lo

w B

enef

icia

l

Mo

der

ate

ly

Ben

efic

ial

Hig

hly

Ben

efic

ial

Ex

trem

ely

Ben

efic

ial

Envir

onm

enta

l ben

efit

s

Reduce solid waste

Conserve natural resources (better use of building resources)

Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout building project life cycle

Improve water conservation (Reduce water used)

Protect ecosystems and biodiversity

Reduce energy consumption

Enable the construction participants to be more responsible to the environmental

protection needs without neglecting the social and economic needs in striving for

Achieve better living

Preserve temperature moderation

Preserve open spaces

Eco

nom

ic

ben

efit

s

Reduce operating costs (maintenance)

Improve employee productivity and satisfaction

Optimize life cycle economic performance

Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills

Achieve Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost

Achieve better employee retention

Improve marketability for buildings

So

cial

ben

efit

s

Enhance occupant comfort and health

Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst maintaining the capacity of

the ecosystem at local and global levels

Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne contaminants that

can affect worker productivity and/or health

improve morale

improve indoor environments (Improve thermal and acoustic environments)

Enhance the idea that green building lead to sustainable development

Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture and the surrounding

environment.

Eth

ical

Ben

efit

s

Disseminate of good behaviors which urges protect the environment (It is good

way to protect the environment )

Emphasize that green building shows that the company cares for the society and

environment

Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid infringement of laws and

regulations

Part 3: Benefits of sustainable (green building)

`

273

How would you rate the following barriers that face implementing sustainable (green

building).Please tick √ in front of the option that reflect your point of view

No

t a

ba

rrie

r

So

me

wh

at

of

a

ba

rrie

r

Mo

de

rate

ba

rrie

r

Imp

ort

an

t b

arr

ier

Ex

tre

me

ly

imp

ort

an

t b

arr

ier

Barriers to implement sustainable buildings

Ty

pe

of

Ba

rrie

r

Regional ambiguities in the green concept

Cult

ura

l B

arri

ers

Lack of awareness with respect to sustainable building issue

Insufficient research and development to promote sustainable buildings

Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the conventional construction

methods practiced and building materials used

Lack of design team experience regard to sustainable building methods

Conflicts in benefits with competitors

Dependence on promotion by government to encourage sustainable buildings

Lack of training and education of construction participants on sustainable building

methods, and strategies

Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings compared with traditional building

Fin

anci

al B

arri

ers

Risks of unforeseen costs

Risks based on unfamiliar techniques used to execute sustainable buildings

Additional testing and inspection needed to implement sustainable construction,

Lack of manufacturer and supplier support to sustainable building because of its

high cost

Cost consultants overestimated the capital cost and underestimated the potential cost

savings.

High costs of the consultant’s fees

Green construction incurs construction participants an incremental time.

Difficulty of installing sustainable technologies and materials which requires new

forms of competencies and knowledge

Cap

acit

y/P

rofe

ssio

nal

Bar

rier

s

Lack of professional capabilities/designers to implement green construction

Ignorance or a lack of common understanding among designers, contractors, and

society about sustainability.

Insufficient of existing university to prepare future engineers to understand their

roles and responsibilities to achieve sustainable buildings

Sustainability takes too much time to learn and design

Lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design

Many important stakeholders are not even aware of the concept of sustainable

building and so are naturally resistant to change.

Lack of aware of sustainable measures or alternatives

Lack of knowledge on green technology and the durability of green materials

lack of capacity of the construction sector to implement sustainable practices

Part 4: Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green building)

`

274

No

t a

ba

rrie

r

So

me

wh

at

of

a

ba

rrie

r

Mo

de

rate

ba

rrie

r

Imp

ort

an

t b

arr

ier

Ex

tre

me

ly

imp

ort

an

t b

arr

ier

Barriers to implement sustainable buildings

Ty

pe

of

Ba

rrie

r

Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not encourage pursue green

construction'

Ste

erin

g

Bar

rier

s

Lack of sustainable building codes

Lack or wrongful steering to implement sustainable construction.

`

275

Appendix B: Questionnaire (Arabic)

`

276

غزة-الجامعة االسالمية

قسم الهندسة المدنية –كلية الهندسة

يةالماجستير في ادارة المشروعات الهندسبرنامج

The Islamic University -Gaza

Faculty of Engineering

Construction Management

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ايا البناء األخضر من خالل بحث مفاهيم االستدامة في مشاريع البناء بالنظر إلى القضالموضوع : تشجيع

االقتصادية, البيئية, االجتماعية, والتقنية

فيما يتعلق غزة قطاع في البناء مشاريع حياة دورة في االستدامة مفاهيم بحث:الهدف الرئيسي من البحث

من والحد الطبيعية، للموارد الفعال االستخدام ضمان أجل والتقنية، من االجتماعية،االقتصادية، البيئية، باألهداف

.الحياة نوعية وتحسين البشرية االحتياجات تلبية عن فضال البيئة، على سلبي تأثير أي

المهندسون المختصون )مدني، معماري، كهربائي( الذين يعملون في مجال تصميم المباني، واإلشراف، :الفئة المستهدفة

والتنفيذ،والصيانة، وكذلك المهندسون األكاديميون الذين يعملون في الجامعات.

األراضي، المياه، الطاقة، استهالك من الحد هي مباني صديقة للبيئة تعتمد في تنفيذها على: الخضراء المباني تعريف

الطبيعية المستخدمة والتقليل من النفايات، وكذلك الحفاظ على جودة الهواء والبيئة الداخلية للمبنى. والموارد

أطيب التحيات:

إحسان يوسف رزقـة، مهندسة مدنية/ وباحثة للحصول على درجة الماجستير في إدارة المشاريع الهندسية )الهندسة

غزة. -إلسالميةالمدنية( ، الجامعة ا

أمام الخيار المناسب في األسئلة التالية: √يرجى وضع عالمة

.................................................................................................................................... االسم )اختياري(

أنثى ذكر الجنس

دكتوراة ماجستير بكالوريوس المؤهل العلمي

54أكثر 54إلى 00من 00أقل من العمر بالسنوات

يميكانيك كهربائي معماري مدني التخصص

مالك هندسية استشارات طبيعة مكان العمل

سنوات 00أكثر من سنوات 00سنوات إلى أقل من 4من سنوات4أقل من سنوات الخبرة

جامعيسمدر مدير مشاريع موقع سمهند مصمم وظيفتك الحالية

سنوات الخبرة في

البناء المستداممجال

أقل من

سنوات4 سنوات 00أكثر من سنوات 00سنوات إلى أقل من 4من

معلومات خاصة بالمهندس الذي يقوم بتعبئة االستبانة: األول الجزء

`

277

:ما تقييمك لدرجة المعرفة والوعي الخاص بك تجاه أسس البناء المستدام الواردة في الجدول التالي

أمام التقييم الذي تراه مناسبا √يرجى وضع عالمة

د ج

و ي

ال

فةعر

م

يلقل

ة رف

معة

ة رف

مع

طةس

ومت

يةالع

ة رف

مع

يةالع

ة رف

مع

داج

هل أنت على دراية بأهمية المبادئ التالية في تحقيق البناء المستدام؟

ع المبدأو ن

الحد من استهالك الموارد الطبيعية

ي بيئــ

إعادة تدوير المواد المستخدمة تعزيز سياسة

اتباع نظام إدارة النفايات

مثل االسبستوس الحد والسيطرة على استخدام المواد السامة في عمليات البناء

تقليل استهالك الطاقة

الخام، واألرض(االستخدام الرشيدة واألمثل لموارد البناء األربعة )الماء، الطاقة، المواد ضمان

دراسة أثر المشاريع على الهواء والتربة والمياه والنباتات في مرحلة التخطيط

تعظيم االستخدام المستدام للموارد المتجددة

خلق بيئة صحية )من خالل الحفاظ على البيئة، جودة المبنى، راحة المستخدمين للمبنى، وضمان عدم تعرض

البنائين والمستخدمين للخطر وعدم تعرضهم للملوثات و المواد السامةصحة

مثل البترول والمعادن الحفاظ على التنوع البيولوجي من خالل تجنب استخدام المواد النادرة أو المهددة باالنقراض

دراسة تكاليف دورة حياة المبنى

يصاد

اقت

)مثل المعدات، النقل، تدريب األيدي العاملة على طرق ووسائل البناء المستدام(استيعاب التكاليف الخارجية

تطوير وسائل وطرق اقتصادية مناسبة لتشجيع البناء المستدام

دراسة األثر االقتصادي للمباني القائمة عند التخطيط إلنشاء مبنى مستدام

المدى القصير والبعيد إدارة المشاريع اقتصاديا بشكل جيد على

االستخدام الرشيد للموارد التي يمكن أن تزيد من تكلفة دورة حياة المبنى مثل المال، الطاقة، المياه، المواد واألرض

وزيادة القدرة التنافسية لفائدةتحقيق ا

ضمان القدرة على تحمل التكاليف المالية الالزمة لبناء مبنى مستدام

خلق فرص عمل في مشاريع البناء

إدارة سلسلة التوريد المستدامة

تقييم فوائد وتكاليف مشاريع البناء المستدام على المجتمع والبيئة

يع

جتمــا ا

تحسين جودة الحياة

تعزيز النهج ألتشاركي من خالل إشراك أصحاب المصلحة في جميع مراحل البناء

حماية والحفاظ على صحة اإلنسان من خالل توفير بيئة عمل صحية وآمنة

تعزيز المشاركة العامة من خالل السعي لتلبية احتياجات، متطلبات، وتطلعات المجتمع

إشراك المجتمعات المحلية وأصحاب المصلحة في صنع القرار

اإلطار االجتماعي القائمدراسة أثر المباني المستدامة على

تقييم أثر المباني المستدامة على الصحة وجودة الحياة

السعي للحصول على رضا العمالء والزبائن والحصول على المخرجات األفضل

االحترام والتعامل مع أصحاب المصلحة بشكل عادل ونزيهضمان

فيما يخص حماية اإلنسانااللتزام بالقوانين والتشريعات

الحفاظ على مصالح األجيال القادمة مع تلبية احتياجات اليوم

تحقيق جودة الهيكل اإلنشائي للمبنى

ي تقن

تحسين جودة البيئة الداخلية )الهواء، الجودة الحرارية، البصرية، والصوتية(

للحصول على المعلومات وتحسين كفاءة وفعالية المشروعاستخدام التكنولوجيا ومعرفة الخبراء

تحقيق القابلية للتكيف

تحقيق عنصر الجاذبية في المبنى

سس المباني الخضراء )المستدامة(بأدرجة المعرفة : الثاني الجزء

`

278

: ما تقييمك لفوائد البناء األخضر )المستدام( الواردة في الجدول التالي من حيث أهميتها

أمام التقييم الذي تراه مناسبا √يرجى وضع عالمة

جدة

يلقل

ة ئد

فاا

لةلي ق

دةائ ف

طةس

ومت

ة ئد

فا

رةبي

كدة

ائ ف

جدة

يركب

ة ئد

فاا

حققها البناء المستدام للبيئة, االقتصاد, كيف تقيم البنود التالية من حيث الفائدة التي ي

والمجتمع؟

ع الفائدة نو

تقليل النفايات الصلبة

بيئيــة

(البناء للموارد األفضل االستخدام) الطبيعية الموارد على الحفاظ

المبنى حياة دورةطوال السامة المواد انبعاث تقليل

للمياه )الحد من المياه المستخدمة(ضمان االستخدام الرشيد

المحافظة على البيئة والتنوع البيولوجي

ةالطاق استهالك خفض

االجتماعية االحتياجات إهمال دون البيئة حمايةتجاه مسؤولية أكثر البناء في المشاركينجعل

أفضل حياة بهدف الوصول إلى واالقتصادية

على درجة حرارة معتدلة داخل المبنىضمان الحصول

المفتوحة المساحات على المحافظة

خفض التكاليف التشغيلية )تكاليف الصيانة(

يصاد

اقت

تحسين إنتاجية الموظفين و رضاهم الوظيفي

ضمان الحصول على األداء االقتصادي األمثل

الذين يمتلكون مهارات تنفيذ البناء المستدام والمقاولين للمهندسين التسويق تحسين

المبنى حياة دورةل اإلجمالية التكلفة خفض

ضمان االحتفاظ بالموظفين بطريقة أفضل )القدرة على االحتفاظ بالموظفين(

تحسين التسويق للمباني

صحتهم توفير الراحة للمقيمين في المبنى والحفاظ على

يعجتما

ا

تحسين جودة حياة اإلنسان مع الحفاظ على النظام البيئي في المستوى المحلي والعالمي المطلوب

أن يمكن التي جوا المحمولة للملوثات التعرض من الحد طريق عن العاملة القوى صحة على الحفاظ

صحته أو العامل إنتاجية على تؤثر

تحسين الروح المعنوية لدى المقيمين في مبنى اخضر )نظرا تشجير المكان وكونه صديق للبيئة وقلة

تعرضهم للملوثات(

تحسين جودة البيئة الداخلية للمبنى )البيئة الحرارية والصوتية للمبنى عن طريق تقنيات عزل الصوت،

والتحسين السمعي(

التنمية المستدامة عن طريق البناء المستدامتعزيز فكرة الوصول إلى

المبنىب المحيطة والبيئة ،الثقافة، التقاليد، المحلي المناخ مع مانسجتحقيق اال

ي نشر سلوكيات جيدة تحث على الحفاظ على البيئة الق

خ أ

إظهار اهتمام الشركات التي تتبع البناء األخضر بالمجتمع والبيئة

واللوائح القوانين انتهاك لتجنب آمنة وسيلة هو الخضراء المبانيالتأكيد على أن

فوائد المباني الخضراء )المستدامة(: لثالثا الجزء

`

279

: ما تقييمك للعوائق التالية التي تواجه تطبيق المباني الخضراء )المستدامة( من حيث درجة إعاقتها

أمام التقييم الذي تراه مناسبا √يرجى وضع عالمة

سي ب

قائع

ط

داج

سي ب

قائع

ط

ق ائع

طس

ومت

يركب

ق ائع

يركب

ق ائع

داج

عوائق تنفيذ البناء األخضر

ع ون

جزوا

ح ال

غموض مفهوم البناء األخضر

ز الثقافيةج

حوا ال

قلة الوعي تجاه أهمية المباني المستدامة

كفاية البحوث والتطوير والمعلومات لتعزيز المباني المستدامةعدم

رغبة العاملين في صناعة اإلنشاءات في تغيير أساليب البناء التقليدية ومواد البناء ضعف

المستخدمة

إلمام فريق التصميم والمتعاقدين بطرق البناء المستدامة قلة

البناء المنافسة تضارب المصالح من قبل شركات

االعتماد على الحكومة لترويج وتشجيع المباني المستدامة

تدريب وتعليم المشاركين في البناء على أساليب واستراتيجيات البناء المستدامقلة

ارتفاع تكاليف تنفيذ المباني المستدامة مقارنة بالمباني التقليدية

ز الماليةج

حوا ال

الخوف من ظهور تكاليف غير متوقعة

الخوف من تكبد الخسائر بسبب استخدام البناء المستدام تقنيات غير مألوفة

كثرة الفحوصات واالختبارات الالزمة لتطبيق البناء المستدام

دعم أصحاب المصانع والموردين للبناء المستدام قلة

االستشاريين بالمبالغة في تضخيم موضوع زيادة التكاليف مقابل االستخفاف بقيمة الفائدة قيام

التي تعود من البناء المستدام )األخضر(

ارتفاع تكلفة أتعاب االستشاري

تكبد المشاركون في البناء المستدام وقتا إضافيا مما يعني تكلفة إضافية

استخدام التقنيات والمواد المستدامة و التي تتطلب أشكاال جديدة من الكفاءات والمعرفةصعوبة

ز المهنيةج

حوا ال

وجود قدرات مهنية محترفة عند المصممين لتنفيذ البناء األخضرندرة

عدم وجود فهم مشترك عند المصممين، المقاولين، واألفراد حول المباني المستدامة

عدم كفاية التعليم في الجامعات في إعداد مهندسين مستقبليين يتفهمون دورهم ومسؤوليتهم في

تحقيق البناء المستدام

الوقت اإلضافي الذي تستغرقه عملية التعلم والتصميم للبناء المستدام

مدى الحاجة إلى التصميم المستدام إدراك قلة

البناء التغيير نحو البناء المستداممقاومة المشاركين في

المعرفة بالتدابير و البدائل المستدامة قلة

اإللمام بمواصفات مواد البناء المستدامة والتي تتميز بالقوة والمتانة ضعف

قصور وعدم قدرة المشاركين في قطاع اإلنشاءات تنفيذ البناء المستدام بشكل فعلي

ز تشجيع السياسات العامة واألطر التنظيمية تطوير قطاع البناء والتشييد قلة ج

حواال

جيهية التو

كود خاص بالبناء المستدام قلة توفر

التوجيه الخاطئ لتنفيذ البناء المستدام

العوائق التي تواجه تطبيق المباني الخضراء )المستدامة(: الرابع الجزء

`

280

Appendix C: Correlation coefficient

`

281

Table (C1): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field; second

field: Awareness level regard to Sustainable (green) building principles

Num

ber

Item Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. at

Aw1 Minimize resource consumption 0.632* 0.012 sig. at 0.05

Aw2 Enhance material recyclability 0.917** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw3 Apply waste management system 0.808** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw4 Reduce and control the use and dispersion of toxic

materials like asbestos

0.677** 0.006 sig. at 0.01

Aw5 Reduce energy consumption 0.885** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw6 Ensure prudent use of the four generic construction

resources (water, energy, material and land)

0.869** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw7 Consider the impact of planned projects on air, soil, and

flora

0.774** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Aw8 Maximize the sustainable use of biological and

renewable resources

0.813** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw9 Create healthy environments (enhance living, leisure

and work environments; and not endanger the health of

the builders, users, or others, through exposure to

pollutants or other toxic materials).

0.635* 0.011 sig. at 0.05

Aw10 Enhancing biodiversity: Projects should reduce use

materials from threatened species or environments like

oil and metals

0.894** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw11 Consider building life-cycle costs 0.632* 0.012 sig. at 0.05

Aw12 Internalize external costs (like transportations,

equipments, training workforce on new sustainable

methods and technologies )

0.622* 0.013 sig. at 0.05

Aw13 Develop appropriate economic instruments to promote

sustainable consumption

0.846** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw14 Consider the economic impact of local structures when

planning to construct sustainable building

0.769** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Aw15 Achieve good economic project management in both

long and short term

0.799** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw16 Achieve prudent use for those resources which can rise

the life cycle cost of the building including money,

energy, water, materials and land

0.782** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Aw17 Achieve profitability and enhance competitiveness 0.603* 0.017 sig. at 0.05

Aw18 Ensure financial affordability 0.568* 0.027 sig. at 0.05

Aw19 Create employment 0.779** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Aw20 Make sustainable supply chain management.

0.672** 0.006 sig. at 0.01

`

282

Num

ber

Item Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. at

Aw21 Evaluate the benefits and costs of the project to society

and environment.

0.703** 0.003 sig. at 0.01

Aw22 Improve the quality of life 0.679** 0.005 sig. at 0.01

Aw23 Consider provision for social self-determination and

cultural diversity

0.722** 0.002 sig. at 0.01

Aw24 Enhance a participatory approach by involving

stakeholders in all project life cycle

0.658** 0.008 sig. at 0.01

Aw25 Protect and promote human health through a healthy and

safe working environment

0.875** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw26 Promote public participation by seek to meet the real

needs, requirements and aspirations of communities

0.807** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw27 Involve communities and stakeholders in key decisions 0.839** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw28 Consider the influence on the existing social framework 0.636* 0.011 sig. at 0.05

Aw29 Assess the impact on health and the quality of life. 0.619* 0.014 sig. at 0.05

Aw30 Achieve customers and clients satisfaction and best

value

0.555* 0.032 sig. at 0.05

Aw31 Respect and treat stakeholders fairly 0.673** 0.006 sig. at 0.01

Aw32 Ensure legislating compliance and responsibility with

respect to human protection

0.728** 0.002 sig. at 0.01

Aw33 Safeguard the interests of future generations while at the

same time, meeting today's needs

0.677** 0.006 sig. at 0.01

Aw34 Achieve quality structure 0.657** 0.008 sig. at 0.01

Aw35 Improve indoor environmental quality (air, thermal,

visual and acoustic quality

0.798** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Aw36 Use technology and expert knowledge to seek

information and in improving project efficiency and

effectiveness

0.549* 0.034 sig. at 0.05

Aw37 Achieve adaptability 0.619* 0.014 sig. at 0.05

Aw38 Achieve attractiveness 0.565* 0.031 sig. at 0.05

`

283

Table (C2): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field; third

field: Benefits of sustainable (green building) N

um

ber

Item Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. at

Be1 Reduce solid waste 0.630* 0.012 sig. at 0.05

Be2 Conserve natural resources (better use of building resources) 0.623* 0.013 sig. at 0.05

Be3 Minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout

building project life cycle

0.648** 0.009 sig. at 0.01

Be4 Improve water conservation (Reduce water used) 0.598* 0.017 sig. at 0.05

Be5 Protect ecosystems and biodiversity 0.691** 0.004 sig. at 0.01

Be6 Reduce energy consumption 0.757** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Be7 Enable the construction participants to be more responsible to

the environmental protection needs without neglecting the

social and economic needs

0.679** 0.005 sig. at 0.01

Be8 Preserve temperature moderation 0.764** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Be9 Preserve open spaces 0.599* 0.018 sig. at 0.05

Be10 Reduce operating costs (maintenance) 0.585* 0.022 sig. at 0.05

Be11 Improve employee productivity and satisfaction 0.639* 0.010 sig. at 0.05

Be12 Optimize life cycle economic performance 0.791** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be13 Increase the market for an engineer’s or contractor’s skills 0.596* 0.019 sig. at 0.05

Be14 Achieve Lowering a building’s overall life cycle cost 0.534* 0.040 sig. at 0.05

Be15 Achieve better employee retention 0.869** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be16 Improve marketability for buildings 0.924** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be17 Enhance occupant comfort and health 0.804** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be18 Sustain and improve the quality of human life whilst

maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at local and global

levels

0.630* 0.012 sig. at 0.05

Be19 Maintain workforce health by limiting exposure to airborne

contaminants that can affect worker productivity and health

0.776** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Be20 improve morale 0.613* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Be21 improve indoor environments 0.892** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be22 Enhance the idea that green building lead to sustainable

development

0.811** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be23 Harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture and the

surrounding environment.

0.597* 0.019 sig. at 0.05

Be24 Disseminate of good behaviors which urges protect the

environment (It is good way to protect the environment )

0.535* 0.040 sig. at 0.05

Be25 Emphasize that green building shows that the company cares

for the society and environment

0.871** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Be26 Emphasize that green building is a safe way to avoid

infringement of laws and regulations

0.768** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

`

284

Table (C3): The correlation coefficient between each paragraph/item in the field and the field; fourth

field: Barriers that face implementing sustainable (green building)

Num

ber

Item Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. at

Ba1 Regional ambiguities in the green concept 0.758** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Ba2 Lack of awareness with respect to sustainable building

issue

0.639* 0.010 sig. at 0.05

Ba3 Insufficient research and development to promote

sustainable buildings

0.597* 0.019 sig. at 0.05

Ba4 Unwillingness of industry practitioners to change the

conventional construction methods practiced and

building materials used

0.613* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Ba5 Lack of design team experience regard to sustainable

building methods

0.612* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Ba6 Conflicts in benefits with competitors 0.679** 0.005 sig. at 0.01

Ba7 Dependence on promotion by government to

encourage sustainable buildings

0.623* 0.013 sig. at 0.05

Ba8 Lack of training and education of construction

participants on sustainable building methods, and

strategies

0.724** 0.002 sig. at 0.01

Ba9 Higher investment costs for sustainable buildings

compared with traditional building

0.623* 0.013 sig. at 0.01

Ba10 Risks of unforeseen costs 0.584* 0.022 sig. at 0.05

Ba11 Risks based on unfamiliar techniques used to execute

sustainable buildings

0.670** 0.006 sig. at 0.01

Ba12 Additional testing and inspection needed to implement

sustainable construction,

0.580* 0.024 sig. at 0.05

Ba13 Lack of manufacturer and supplier support to

sustainable building because of its high cost

0.686** 0.005 sig. at 0.01

Ba14 Cost consultants overestimated the capital cost and

underestimated the potential cost savings.

0.597* 0.019 sig. at 0.05

Ba15 High costs of the consultant’s fees 0.679** 0.005 sig. at 0.01

Ba16 Green construction incurs construction participants an

incremental time.

0.668** 0.007 sig. at 0.01

Ba17 Difficulty of installing sustainable technologies and

materials which requires new forms of competencies

and knowledge

0.613* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Ba18 Lack of professional capabilities/designers to

implement green construction

0.847** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

Ba19 Ignorance or a lack of common understanding among

designers, contractors, and society about sustainability.

0.854** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

`

285

Num

ber

Item Pearson

Correlation P- value Sig. at

Ba20 Insufficient of existing university to prepare future

engineers to understand their roles and responsibilities

to achieve sustainable buildings

0.748** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Ba21 Sustainability takes too much time to learn and design 0.612* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Ba22 Lack of understanding of the need for sustainable

design

0.623* 0.013 sig. at 0.05

Ba23 Many important stakeholders are not even aware of the

concept of sustainable building and so are naturally

resistant to change.

0.766** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Ba24 Lack of aware of sustainable measures or alternatives 0.565* 0.028 sig. at 0.05

Ba25 Lack of knowledge on green technology and the

durability of green materials

0.571* 0.026 sig. at 0.05

Ba26 lack of capacity of the construction sector to actually

implement sustainable practices

0.626* 0.013 sig. at 0.05

Ba27 Public policies and regulatory frameworks do not

encourage pursue green construction'

0.611* 0.015 sig. at 0.05

Ba28 Lack of sustainable building codes 0.779** 0.001 sig. at 0.01

Ba29 Lack or wrongful steering to implement sustainable

construction.

0.791** 0.000 sig. at 0.01

`

286

All thanks and praise belongs to

ALLAH

“Al-hamdulillah”