Abstract
This study attempts to explore the depth of knowledge and understanding of sustainability issues across a range of construction professions and utilise this evidence to reveal if Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is being delivered with due diligence across the industry. A range of construction professionals, key actors in achieving sustainability across the built environment through their advisory roles in design and specification, were interviewed (n = 7). It became apparent that knowledge and understanding of sustainability was certainly below an expected level of competence suitable to deliver solutions across the multifaceted sustainability crisis, with many professionals failing to see beyond energy efficiency and carbon reduction. Furthermore, it revealed that planning policy changes incorporating BREEAM as a condition has had negative effects, leading clients and professionals to engage only when required. It was also evident that BREEAM schemes are being used with the goal to obtain development consents and cost was determining actions taken rather than best sustainability outcomes. This results in both BREEAM and Sustainability being perceived as an add-ons rather than core elements or drivers of a project and, in doing so, reduces the effectiveness of the design. Based on this evidence, it is proposed that there is a timely need to change construction professionals’ perceptions to achieve a truly sustainable built environment. With BREEAM being one of many similar certification schemes it is worrying that these findings may the same elsewhere around the world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ameen, R., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 110–125.
Barlow, S. (2011). Guide to BREEAM. London: RIBA Publishing.
Berardi, U. (2013). Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 8, 72–78.
Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future—Call for action. Environmental Conservation, 14(4), 291.
Cinquemani, V., & Prior, J. (2011). Integrating BREEAM throughout the design process: A guide to achieving higher BREEAM and code for sustainable homes ratings (FB 28). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Cole, R. (2010). Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455–467.
Dixon, T., Colantonio, A., Shiers, D., Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., & Gallimore, P. (2008). A green profession? A global survey of RICS members and their engagement with the sustainability agenda. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 26(6), 460–481.
Elkington, J. (1998). Accounting for the triple bottom line. Measuring Business Excellence, 2(3), 18–22.
Gil, J., & Duarte, J. (2013). Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: A review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Urban Design and Planning, 166(6), 311–325.
Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Governing temptation: Changing behaviour in an age of libertarian paternalism. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 483–501.
Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P., & Hill, R. (2006). Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment. Building Research & Information, 34(4), 308–320.
Michl, P., Lorenz, D., Lützkendorf, T. & Sayce, S. (2016). Reflecting sustainability in property valuation – a progress report. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. 34(6), 552–577. [Accessed 25 February 2018].
Newport, D., Chesnes, T., & Lindner, A. (2003). The “environmental sustainability” problem. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4), 357–363.
Parker, J. (2012). The value of BREEAM. Bracknell: BSRIA.
Parkin, S., Sommer, F., & Uren, S. (2003). Sustainable development: Understanding the concept and practical challenge. Engineering Sustainability, 156(1), 19–26.
Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M., & Longden, J. (2009). Towards sustainable construction: Promotion and best practices. Construction Innovation, 9(2), 201–224.
Reed, W., & Gordon, E. (2000). Integrated design and building process: What research and methodologies are needed? Building Research & Information, 28(5–6), 325–337.
Santillo, D. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research—International, 14(1), 60–66.
Shove, E. (2002). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(4), 395–418.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.
Taylor, T. (2015). Assessing carbon emissions in BREEAM. Watford: BRE Global.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H., & Dixon, J. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348.
Williams, K., & Dair, C. (2007). A framework of sustainable behaviours that can be enabled through the design of neighbourhood-scale developments. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 160–173.
Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z. (2014). Green building research—Current status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271–281.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mundy, P., Booth, C.A. (2020). Are Construction Professionals Equipped with the Knowledge and Tools to Address the Sustainability Dilemma?. In: Scott, L., Dastbaz, M., Gorse, C. (eds) Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44381-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44381-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44380-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44381-8
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)