Advertisement

Evaluating Sustainability of Prefabrication Methods in Comparison with Traditional Methods

  • Milad Moradibistouni
  • Brenda Vale
  • Nigel Isaacs
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 131)

Abstract

The construction industry is an important economic sector when it comes to using fossil fuels and consequent CO2 emissions and environmental pollution. It also involves considerable investment in resources as buildings and infrastructure last a long time. Considering the importance and influence of the construction industry on any moves toward sustainable development choosing a sustainable method of construction is of prime importance. This paper compares prefabrication methods with traditional construction based on factors affecting the overall sustainability of the construction phase. To do this, after a brief review of energy and the environmental status of the world, sustainable development, sustainable construction and prefabrication methods are defined. Then, by understanding the important role of the construction industry in sustainable development, the literature will be investigated to identify the most important factors affecting the sustainability of a construction project. At the end, prefabricated construction and traditional methods will be compared based on these factors in order to evaluate their potential for contributing to sustainability.

Keywords

Sustainable development Sustainable construction Prefabrication 

References

  1. 1.
    Global Footprint Network: National Footprint Accounts, 2016 Edition 2016. www.footprintnework.org. Accessed June 2016
  2. 2.
    OECD: World Energy Balances 2017 (2017). OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Observatory: Hong Kong in a warming world. Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Observatory (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitehouse, D.: The Global Warming Standstill. GWPF Report 10. The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Londen (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mobil, E.: The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040. SP-142, The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Texas Exxon Mobil (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conti, J.J.: Annual Energy Outlook with projections to 2040, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Administration, U. S. E. I.: International Energy Outlook 2017. DOE/EIA-0484, U.S. Energy Information Administration U.S. Energy Information Adm, Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Randers, J.: 2052: a global forecast for the next forty years. White River Junction (VT), Chelsea Green (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gea: Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herbers, J.: Prefab modern, foreward by Michael Graves. Harper Design International, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vale, B.: Prefabs: a history of the UK temporary housing programme. London [u.a., Spon] (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillipson, M.: New and Improved Technologies and Techniques Defining the Sustainability of Prefabrication and Modular Process in Construction, BRE Scotland (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner, C., Partington, R.: Homes through the decades NHBC Foundation, UK (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waskett, P.: Current Practice and Potential Uses of Prefabrication, DTI Construction Industry Directorate (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, R.: Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serrats, M.: Prefab Houses Design Source. Harper Design International, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kates, R.W.P., Leiserowitz, Thomas M., Anthony, A.: What is sustainable development? Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 47(3), 8–21 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    United Nations General Assembly: Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future, Oslo, Norway (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C.: Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Bus. Rev. 73(5), 120–134 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002. http://www.un-documents.net/jburgdec.htm
  21. 21.
    Enshassi, A., Kochendoerfer, B., Al Ghoul, H.: Factors affecting sustainable performance of construction projects during project life cycle phases. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 7(1), 50–68 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Programme, U. N. E.: Buildings and Climate Change Summary for Decision-Makers. 15 Rue de Milan, Sustainable Consumption & Production Branch (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kibert, C.J.: Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaatz, E., Root, B., Bowen, P.: Broadening project participation through a modified building sustainability assessment. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 33(5), 441–454 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, Y., Okudan, E., Riley, R.: Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Autom. Constr. 19(2), 235–244 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaillon, L., Poon, S.: Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26(9), 953–966 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, C., Kim, J.: Building environmental assessment schemes for rating of IAQ in sustainable buildings. Indoor Built Environ. 20(1), 5–15 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landman, M.: Breaking through the barriers to sustainable building: insights from building professionals on government initiatives to promote environmentally sound practices. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, U.S.A. (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeng, X., Tam, M., Deng, M., Tam, W.: ISO 14000 and the construction industry: survey in China. J. Manag. Eng. 19(3), 107–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greening Portland’s Affordable Housing Design and Construction Guidelines to Improving Environmental Performance, Tenant Health, and Long-Term Durability in Affordable Housing, Portland Development Commission, City of Portland Green Building Initiative (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Markelj, J., Kitek Kuzman, M., Grošelj, P., Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M.: A simplified method for evaluating building sustainability in the early design phase for architects. Sustainability 6(12), 8775–8795 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bell, P.: Kiwi prefab: prefabricated housing in New Zealand: an historical and contemporary overview with recommendations for the future Architecture and Design. Victoria University of Wellington Victoria University of Wellington Master of Architecture (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bell, P.: Prefab + Green: past, present and future. prefab NZ, Wellington (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Britto, J., et al.: Business plan for green modular housing. School of Environmental Science & Management. Master’s in Environmental Science and Management (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gorgolewski, M.T.: The potential for prefabrication in united kingdom housing to improve sustainability. In: Yang, J. (ed.) Smart & Sustainable Built Environments. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    BRANZ: Value of time saving in new housing. SR259, BRANZ, New Zealand (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shahzad, W., et al.: Prefab content versus cost and time savings in construction projects. In: 4th Built Environment Research Symposium (NZBERS), Auckland, New Zealand (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hunt, G.: Valuing the role of construction in the New Zealand economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Construction Strategy Group, the Construction Industry Council and BRANZ (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nana, G.: Assessment of the economic impact of efficiency improvements in building and construction, Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL) (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taware, A.K.T., Akshaya, A.: Prefabrication, sustainable technique in building construction. Resincap Int. J. Sci. Eng. 1(2), 44–50 (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khatavkar, J., Joshi, Y.P.: Use of partial prefabrication and non-traditional technology in construction of structure in disaster-prone areas. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. (IJCIET) 6(4), 127–135 (2015)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cook, B.: An Assessment of the Potential Contribution of Prefabrication to Improve the Quality of Housing, Construction Information Quarterly (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marquit, A.: From Sears & Roebuck to Skyscrapers: A History of Prefabricated and Modular Housing, NYC Buildings (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    laili Jabar, I., Ismail, F., Aziz,. A.R.A.: Public participation: enhancing public perception towards IBS implementation. In: Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies Berlin, Germany (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milad Moradibistouni
    • 1
  • Brenda Vale
    • 1
  • Nigel Isaacs
    • 1
  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations