Determining the importance levels of criteria in selection of sustainable building materials and obstacles in their use

Year 2024, , 144 - 158, 24.06.2024

Serkan Yıldız , Gülnaz Şengül Güneş

https://doi.org/10.47481/jscmt.1495140

Abstract

The construction industry has become the focal point of sustainability as one of the largest con- sumers of natural resources and waste producers. A sustainable construction industry is possible with the sustainability of building materials, which is the main factor controlling the construc- tion management process. In this research, the importance levels of a total of 17 criteria under the headings of economic, environmental, and social sustainability in terms of sustainability of building materials and the importance levels of 11 obstacles to the use of sustainable materials were investigated through a survey conducted with the participation of 60 people. Whether there were differences between the participants’ opinions was investigated through inferential analysis. In ranking criteria according to their importance level, the health of workers and cit- izens, safety in construction and operation, and toxic emissions took the first three places. The risks of higher initial cost, total cost, and extra time are the biggest obstacles to using sustainable materials. In addition, the obstacles were subjected to factor analysis, and a model consisting of four factors was created. The study revealed the criteria for sustainable material selection and the barriers to sustainable material use in a holistic manner. In this respect, it is evaluated that it will be a guide for governments, local governments, building material manufacturers, designers, contractors, and ultimately users to achieve a more sustainable construction sector.

Keywords

Building material, factor analysis, relative importance, sustainability

Ethical Statement

There are no ethical issues with the publication of this manuscript.

References

• 1. Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G., & De Vos, M. (2011). The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human‐induced global land‐use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob Ecol Biogeogr, 20(1), 73–86. [CrossRef]
• 2. Elander, I., Gleeson, B., Lidskog, R., & Low, N. (2002). Consuming cities—The urban environment in the global economy after the Rio Declaration (1st ed.). Rutledge.
• 3. Hoşkara, E., & Sey, Y. (2009). Ülkesel koşullar bağlamında sürdürülebilir yapım. İtüderg/a,7(1), 50–61.
• 4. Yazar, K. H. (2006). Sürdürülebilir kentsel gelişme çerçevesinde orta ölçekli kentlere dönük kent planlama yöntem önerisi [Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi].
• 5. Jian, Z., De-nong, Z., & Yu-kun, Z. (23–26 January, 1999). Opening a new epoch of architecture and culture in the 21st century. Sub-theme Reports of the 20th UIA Congress: Architecture of the 21st Century. Beijing, China.
• 6. Blowers, A., & Pain, K. (1999). The unsustainable city. Unruly Cities? Order/Disorder.
• 7. WCED. (1987). Our common future. World commis- sion on environment and development. Sustainable Development.
• 8. Vyas, S., Ahmed, S., & Parashar, A. (2014). BEE (Bu- reau of energy efficiency) and Green Buildings. Int J Res, 1(3), 23–32.
• 9. Dixon, W. (2010). The impacts of construction and the built environment. Willmott-Dixon Group.
• 10. McLennan, J.F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of architecture. Ecotone Publish- ing.
• 11. Ji, Y., & Plainiotis, S. (2006). Design for Sustainabili- ty. Architecture and Building Press.
• 12. Gür, N. V., & Aygün, M. (2008). Mimaride sürdürüle- bilirlik kapsamında değişken yapı kabukları için bir tasarım destek sistemi. İtüderg/a, 7(1), 74–82.
• 13. Karslı, H. (2008). Sürdürülebilir mimarlık çerçevesinde ofis yapılarının değerlendirilmesi ve çevresel performans analizi için bir model önerisi [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi.
• 14. Nassar, K., Thabet, W., & Beliveau, Y. (2003). A pro- cedure for multi-criteria selection of building as- semblies. Autom Constr 12(5), 543–560. [CrossRef]
• 15. Treloar, G., Fay, R., Ilozor, B., & Love, P. (2001). Building materials selection: greenhouse strategies for built facilities. Fac, 19(3–4), 139–150. [CrossRef]
• 16. Alibaba, H. Z., & Özdeniz, M. B. (2004). A building elements selection system for architects. Build Envi- ron, 39(3), 307–316. [CrossRef]
• 17. Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., & Rivard, H. (2005). Ap- plying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization. Build Environ, 40(11), 1512–1525. [CrossRef ]
• 18. Van Kesteren, I. E. H. (2008). Product designers’ information needs in materials selection. Mater De- sign, 29(1), 133–145. [CrossRef]
• 19. González, M. J., & Navarro, J. G. (2006). Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construc- tion field through the selection of materials: Practi- cal case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build Environ, 41(7), 902–909. [CrossRef]
• 20. Kibert, C. J. (2016). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley & Sons. [CrossRef ]
• 21. Wang, N., & Adeli, H. (2014). Sustainable building design. J Civ Eng Manag 20(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
• 22. Bourdeau, L. (1999). Sustainable development and the future of construction: A comparison of visions from various countries. Build Res Inf J, 27(6), 354– 366. [CrossRef ]
• 23. UN-Habitat. (2012). Going green: A handbook of sustainable housing practice in developing countries. UN-Habitat Publishing.
• 24. Kim, J. J., & Rigdon, B. (1998). Sustainable architecture module: Introduction to sustainable design. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education.
• 25. Pearce, F. Eco-cities special: Ecopolis now. https:// www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025561-600- eco-cities-special-ecopolis-now/.
• 26. Özek Karadeniz, Y. (2010). Geleneksel Afyonkar- ahisar evlerinin sürdürülebilir mimarlık ilkeleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi].
• 27. Yellamraju, V. (2004). Evaluation and design of dou- ble-skin facades for office buildings in hot climates [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University].
• 28. Roaf, S., Fuentes, M., & Thomas, S. (2003). Ecohouse 2: a design guide. Architectural Press.
• 29. Stahel, H. P. (1990). Baukunst & Gesundheit. AT Verlag.
• 30. Anderson, J., & Thornback, J. (2012). A guide to understanding the embodied impacts of construction products. Construction Products Association.
• 31. Bal, E. (2012, February 24). Su Hayattır, Ha- yatınızı Koruyun. https://web.archive.org/ web/20161005163326/http://www.yesiloji.com/ye- silhaber/su-hayattir-hayatinizi-koruyun/
• 32. Bleby, M. “Embodied water” is the latest challenge for the building industry. https://www.afr.com/ property/commercial/construction-s-next-cost- challenge-embodied-water-20230328-p5cvvm.
• 33. Fuller, R. J., Crawford, R. H., & Leonard, D. (January, 2009). What is wrong with a big house. Performative ecologies in the built environment: Sustainable research across disciplines: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Con- ference of the Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association ANZAScA. Launceston, Tasmania.
• 34. Tönük, S. (2001). Bina tasarımında ekoloji. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Basım-Yayın Merkezi.
• 35. Toofan, S. (2014). Importance of humane design for sustainable landscape. Int J Eng Technol, 6(6), 508– 511. [CrossRef ]
• 36. Oktay B., & Hoşkara, Ş. Ö. (2009). A model for mea- suring the sustainability level of historic urban quar- ters. Eur Plan Stud, 17(5), 715–739. [CrossRef]
• 37. Jones, D. L. (1998). Architecture and the environ- ment: bioclimatic building design. Laurence King Publication.
• 38. Aktuna, M. (2007). Geleneksel mimaride binaların sürdürülebilir tasarım kriterleri bağlamında değer- lendirilmesi Antalya Kaleiçi evleri örneği [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi].
• 39. Atabay, B. (2010). Doğal ve yapay ışığın mekanı an- lamlandırma gücü ve bir arada bulunma dinamikleri [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi].
• 40. Hashi, M. N., & Kasapoğlu, E. (2023). Türkiye’de Leed Belgesi almış büro binalarının sürdürülebilir malzeme ve kaynak kullanımı bağlamında değer- lendirilmesi. Eksen Dokuz Eylül Üniv Mimar Fak Derg, 4(1), 170–188. [CrossRef]
• 41. Akadiri, P. O. (2015). Understanding barriers affect- ing the selection of sustainable materials in building projects. J Build Eng, 4, 86–93. [CrossRef]
• 42. Kuppusamy, S., Chew, H. Y., Mari, T. S., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Implementation of green building materi- als in construction industry in Johor Bahru, Malay- sia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, 268(1), 012006. [CrossRef ]
• 43. Mohsin, A. H., & Ellk, D. S. (2018). Identifying bar- riers to the use of sustainable building materials in building construction. J Eng Sustain Dev, 22(2), 107–115. [CrossRef ]
• 44. Dinh, T. H., Dinh, T. H., & Götze, U. (2020). Inte- gration of sustainability criteria and life cycle sus- tainability assessment method into construction material selection in developing countries: The case of Vietnam. Int J Sustain Dev Plan, 15, 1145–1156. [CrossRef ]
• 45. Mewomo, M. C., Mogaji, I. J., Iruka, A., & Makan- juola, S. A. (2022). Barriers to the successful adop- tion of innovative building materials for sustainable construction: A review. In Construction Industry De- velopment Board Postgraduate Research Conference. (pp. 103–112). Springer. [CrossRef]
• 46. Gounder, S., Hasan, A., Shrestha, A., & Elmualim, A. (2023). Barriers to the use of sustainable materi- als in Australian building projects. Eng Constr Archit Manag, 30(1), 189–209. [CrossRef]
• 47. Eze, E. C., Sofolahan, O., & Omoboye, O. G. (2023). Assessment of barriers to the adoption of sustain- able building materials (SBM) in the construction industry of a developing country. Front Eng Built Environ, 3(3), 153–166. [CrossRef]
• 48. Danso, H. (2018). Dimensions and indicators for sustainable construction materials: A review. Res Dev Mater Sci, 3(4), 286–294. [CrossRef]
• 49. Al-Atesh, E. A., Rahmawati, Y., Zawawi, N. A. W. A., & Utomo, C. (2023). A decision-making model for supporting selection of green building materials. Int J Constr Manag, 23(5), 922–933. [CrossRef]
• 50. Mann, P. S. (1995). Introductory statistics. Wiley. [CrossRef ]
• 51. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the in- ternal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297– 334. [CrossRef]
• 52. Helmstadter, G. C. (1964). Principles of psychological measurement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• 53. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
• 54. Dodge, Y. (2003). The Oxford dictionary of statistical terms (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
• 55. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• 56. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge. [CrossRef ]
• 57. Gambatese, J. A., Behm, M., & Hinze, J. W. (2005). Viability of designing for construction worker safety. J Constr Eng Manag, 131(9), 1029–1036. [CrossRef ]
• 58. SSK. (n.d.) İstatistik yıllıkları. https://www.sgk. gov.tr/Istatistik/Yillik/fcd5e59b-6af9-4d90-a451- ee7500eb1cb4/
• 59. Müngen, U. (2011). İnşaat sektörümüzdeki başlıca iş kazası tipleri. Türk Müh Haber Derg, 469(5), 32–39.
• 60. Adisesh, A., Rawbone, R., Foxlow, J., & Harris-Rob- erts, J. Occupational health standards in the con- struction industry. https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Anil-Adisesh/publication/274700436_Oc- cupational_Health_Standards_in_the_Construc- tion_Industry/links/5aa40fe4aca272d448b8e7ab/ Occupational-Health-Standards-in-the-Construc- tion-Industry.pdf
• 61. Şen, Ö. L., Bozkurt, D., Göktürk, O. M., Dün- dar, B., & Altürk, B. Türkiye’de iklim değişikliği ve olası etkileri. https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Bahadir-Altuerk/publication/322099836_ Turkiye'de_Iklim_Degisikligi_ve_Olasi_Etkil- eri/links/5a44e280458515f6b0531a0e/Tuerki- yede-Iklim-Degisikligi-ve-Olasi-Etkileri.pdf
• 62. Attia, M. M. (2000). Aesthetic values in plastic arts. Dar al-Faker al-Arabi.