Advertisement

Investigating the Level of Sustainability in Off-Site Construction

  • Milad MoradibistouniEmail author
  • Brenda Vale
  • Nigel Isaacs
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 155)

Abstract

Prefabrication or off-site construction is claimed to be more sustainable than traditional methods when it comes to use materials and environmental impacts. After distinguishing the most important factors that make a construction system sustainable, this paper, which builds on an earlier paper (Moradibistouni et al. in evaluating sustainability of prefabrication methods in comparison with traditional methods. Springer, Berlin, 2018 [1]), begins with a literature review to compare prefabrication with traditional methods over the life span of a building. This helps in understanding the stages of a building’s life cycle where prefabrication might be more sustainable. A prefabricated house is then compared with three conventional houses in order to examine the energy efficiency of off-site compared with on-site construction. The primary results showed prefabrication is more sustainable than traditional methods regarding the two factors of water consumption and waste generation. However, when it comes to energy use and environmental pollution the differences between prefabrication and conventional methods are not great. This analysis shows it is not possible to compare prefabrication with other construction methods without considering other factors affecting the sustainability of construction such as choice of materials and design approaches. The other point to emerge was the lack of reliable data regarding the benefits and disadvantages of prefabrication over the life cycle of a building.

Keywords

Prefabrication Sustainable construction Life cycle 

References

  1. 1.
    Moradibistouni, M., Vale, B., Isaacs, N.: Evaluating sustainability of prefabrication methods in comparison with traditional methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Sustainability on Energy and Buildings (SEB’18). Springer, Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strange, T., Bayley, A.: Sustainable Development: Linking Economy, Society, Environment. Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giovannoni, E., Fabietti, G.: What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications. Integrated Reporting. Springer, Switzerland (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Purvis, B., et al.: Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wahlström, M., et al.: Environmentally Sustainable Construction Products and Materials: Assessment of Release and Emissions (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pero, M., et al.: Environmental collaboration for sustainability in the construction industry: an exploratory study in Italy. Sustainability, Switzerland 9(1), 100–125 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/what_we_do. Last accessed 21 Nov 2018
  9. 9.
    Hong Kong Observatory: Hong Kong in a Warming World. Hong Kong Observatory (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the World’s Forests Changing? United Nations, United States of America (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Moradibistouni, M., Vale, B., Isaacs, N.: The potential role of prefabrication in the New Zealand housing crisis: a study of manufacturers of prefabrication in New Zealand. In: Rajagopalan P. (ed.) 52nd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association. Melbourne RMIT University, Australia (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorgolewski, M.T.: The Potential for Prefabrication in United Kingdom Housing to Improve Sustainability. Smart and Sustainable Built Environments. Smart & Sustainable Built Environments. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Britto, J., Dejonghe, N., Dubuisson, M., Schmandt, K.: Business plan for green modular housing. School of Environmental Science & Management. Master’s in Environmental Science and Management (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bell, P.: Prefab + Green: past, present and future. Wellington, Prefab NZ (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phillipson, M.: New and Improved Technologies and Techniques Defining the Sustainability of Prefabrication and Modular Process in Construction. Building Research Establishment, Scotland (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammada, A.W.A., Akbarnezhad, A.: Modular vs conventional construction: a multi-criteria framework approach. In: 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Taiwan (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fenner, A., Razkenari, M., Hakim, H., Kibert, C.: A review of prefabrication benefits for sustainable and resilient coastal areas. In: 6th International Network of Tropical Architecture Conference, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    LafargeHolcim Foundation, Timber-Link, Interlocking panelized timber building system, https://www.lafargeholcim-foundation.org/projects/timber-link. Last accessed 21 May 2018
  20. 20.
    Ramesh, T., et al.: Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy Build. 42(10), 1592 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Atombo, C., Dzantor, J.C.K., Agbo, A.A.: Integration of sustainable construction in project management: a case study in Ghana. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 4(1), 13–25 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anom, M.Z.D.: Sustainable development and future of construction. National Report: Malaysian Outlined Paper on CIB W82 Project. CIB World Building Congress 1998, Malaysia (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kibert, C.J.: Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 4th edn. Wiley, New Jersey (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arena, A.P., de Rosa, C.: Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in Mendoza—Argentina. Build. Environ. 38(2), 359–368 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Building Research Association of New Zealand: Prefabrication impacts in the New Zealand construction industry. Wellington, Building Research Association of New Zealand (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waylen, C.: An Action Plan for Reducing Water Usage on Construction Sites. Strategic Forum for Construction, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McNab, D.J., Lynch, M., Young, Y.: Auditing of water use on construction sites—Phase I UK, Mabbett & Associates, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S.: Sustainable use of water in construction projects: the case of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bardhan, S., et al.: Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 144, 93–101 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kosmatka, S., Kerkhoff, B., Panarese, W.: Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    AraBegum, R., Satari, S.K., Pereira, J.J.: Waste generation and recycling: comparison of conventional and industrialized building systems. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 6(4), 383–388 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tam, V.W.Y., Hao, J.J.L.: Prefabrication as a mean of minimizing construction waste on site. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 14(2), 113–121 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jaillon, L., et al.: Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage. 29(1), 309–320 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lu, W., Yuan, H.: Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of offshore prefabrication construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28, 804–811 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gavilan, R.M., Bernold, L.E.: Source evaluation of solid waste in building construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120(3) (1994). OECD: World Energy Balances 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris (2017)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boafo, F.E., et al.: Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: case study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 8(6) (2016) (Switzerland)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fay, R., Vale, R., Vale, B.: Assessing the importance of design decisions on life cycle energy and environmental impacts. In: Steemers, K., Yannas, S. (eds.) 17th International PLEA Conference, Cambridge, England (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Petrović, E.K., Vale, B., Zari, M.P.: Materials for a Healthy, Ecological and Sustainable Built Environment: Principles for Evaluation. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, UK (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alcorn, A.: Embodied energy and CO2 coefficients for NZ building materials. Wellington, N.Z. The Centre for Building Performance, Research, Victoria University of Wellington, (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vale, B., Vale, R.: The New Autonomous House Design and Planning for Sustainability. Thames & Hudson, New York (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vale, R.: The Hockerton Housing Project: a case study of the use of concrete. In: Petrovic, E., Vale, B., Pedersen Zari, M. (eds.) Materials for a Healthy, Ecological and Sustainable Built Environment: Principles for Evaluation. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford UK, pp. 309–320 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations