of 10

abstract_466.pdf | Environmental Impact Assessment | Sustainability

3 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
Abstract
Tags
Transcript
    Partnerships for Sustainable Development  November 7-10, 2004 12 th International Conference of Greening of Industry Network Hong Kong GreenPartner: A Decision-making Model for Sustainable Partnerships in Construction Zhen ChenInstitute of Technology and EngineeringMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew ZealandHeng Li, Stephen C.W. Kong, Qian XuDepartment of Building and Real EstateHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonHong Kong    GreenPartner: A Decision-making Model for Sustainable Partnerships in Construction Zhen ChenMassey UniversityNew ZealandHeng Li, Stephen C.W. Kong, Qian XuHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong Kong Abstract: Sustainable development in the construction industry requires contractors toquantitatively reduce adverse environmental impacts on construction sites by every possibleway, such as mitigating pollution level and seeking optimum environmental-friendly plans inconstruction planning, and assessing sustainable options for design and material inconstruction partnering. Although several quantitative approaches have been put forward andproved to be efficient in selections of the best construction design, plan, and material based ondistinguishing the degree of their potential adverse environmental impacts, there is still aresearch task to develop an effective tool for contractors and clients to conduct sustainabilityassessment in construction partnering. In this regard, a decision-making model is presented inthis paper using analytic network process (ANP) to evaluate the environmental consciousnessand performanceand sustainable performances of partner candidates (maincontractors andsubcontractors) in competitive procurement processes of construction projects. To undertakethis task, this paper firstly reviews sustainable issues and their characteristics relating topartnerships in construction, which are critical factors to evaluate potential adverseenvironmental impacts and sustainability of construction partnerships. These sustainablecharacteristics, as well as other criteria generally used in construction partnership assessment,are then used to structure the decision-making model for evaluating sustainable partnershipsby using ANP. The ANP model named GreenPartner can be used by both contractor andclients when it is necessary to evaluate the sustainable partnerships and select the best partnerduring construction partnering. Keywords : analytic network process, sustainable construction, partnerships Introduction Sustainable construction requires innovation in engineering and management areas, includingconstruction engineering for sustainability and construction management for sustainability.Regarding innovative construction engineering and management at all stages of theconstruction lifecycle from the initial architectural design and structural design, through to theactual construction, and then the maintenance and control as well as the eventual dismantlingof buildings and civil infrastructures, environmental consciousness and performanceisessential. Although there are some progresses in environmental-friendly design andconstruction, for example, there are quantitative approaches to reducing or mitigatingpollution level in construction planning have been put forward and proved to be efficient inselection of the best construction plan based on distinguishing the degree of its potentialadverse environmental impacts (Chen, et al , 2000; Li, et al , 2002), there is still a research task to develop an effective tool for construction contractors to conduct environmental assessmentin partnering.   In this regard, this paper proposes a decision-making model using Analytic Network Process(ANP) to evaluate the environmental consciousness and performance of partner candidates incompetitive procurement of construction projects. To undertake this task, this paper firstlyreviews environmental issues and their characteristics relating to contractors’ requirements onmaterial, equipment and design selection driving resource use in construction partnering,which are critical factors in evaluating potential adverse environmental impacts of aconstruction partner. These environmental characteristics, as well as other criteria such asassessments of qualification, profit, risk and constructability, which are generally adopted inconstruction partnering, are then used to construct an ANP model for evaluating constructionpartner candidates. The ANP model named GreenPartner can therefore be used byconstruction contractors when it is necessary to evaluate the potential adverse environmentalperformance of partner candidates and thus select the most suitable partner.The significant contributions of this paper include a set of criteria applied to partnerevaluation regarding to possessing sustainability in construction enterprises, and an ANPmodel for sustainability assessment in construction partnering. Meanwhile, the evidence to bepresented in this paper is the ANP model for selecting the most suitable partner based onenvironmental-friendly concerns and other general criteria for evaluation used in constructionpartnering. It is expected that construction contractors can use the proposed GreenPartnermodel for sustainability-concerned evaluation in construction partnerings. GreenPartner   Indicators  GreenPartner indicators are a group of evaluation criteria which are to be used to set up theANP model and select the most suitable partner. Although general evaluation criteria such ascost and qualification are to be adopted, the GreenPartner indicators will involve some newcriteria which can be used to evaluate potential adverse or favourable environmental impactsdue to partnering. Based on this consideration, a procedure of extensive literature review forcollecting comprehensive GreenPartner indicators is assigned. The extensive literature reviewfor collecting GreenPartner indicators is conducted by mining indicators from seven primaryacademic & professional information resources in construction engineering and managementfields including the Civil Engineering Database (CEDB) from the American Society of CivilEngineers (ASCE), the ScienceDirect® database from the Elsevier B.V., the Compendex ®  database from the Elsevier Engineering Information Inc., the Engineering News-Record(ENR) executive search engine (enr.com) and magazines from the McGraw-Hill Companies,the Construction Plus (CN+) search engine (www.cnplus.co.uk) from the Emap ConstructionNetwork, and the advanced search engine of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA) of the United States (epa.gov) and the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom(environment-agency.gov.uk). In addition to these dominant information resources, acommonly used search engine, Google, was also employed to search for any undetectedliteratures. Regarding the search results, the authors retrieved thousands of references relatedto environmental issues in construction partnering. As a result, the GreenPartner indicators areinterrelated with engineering, management, cost, time, resource, surrounding nature, andsociety with which the processes of a construction partnering is deployed and executed. Allindicators are listed in Table 1.    Table 1. GreenPartner indicators & corresponding value of Partner Candidates Partner CandidatesCluster Node (Environmental Indicators) Unit  A B C  E1:Suitability of design & construction plan % 100 95 95E2:Reliability of design & construction plan % 100 95 105E3:Quality of design & construction plan (Expected durability of the building) year 50 45 55E4:Constructability of design & construction plan % 100 100 100E5:Flexibility of variation and renovation % 100 90 80E6:Level of automation % 80 75 85    E  n  g   i  n  e  e  r   i  n  g E7:Level of cleaner technologies % 80 50 40M1:ISO EMS accreditation % 100 0 0M2:ISO QMS accreditation % 100 100 100M3:Qualification in design & construction (Rate of chartered engineers) % 100 80 65M4:Experience in similar project % 100 70 50M5:Computerization in design & construction % 90 85 80M6:Cooperativity risk in design & construction % 10 20 30M7:Unionization risk in design & construction % 100 80 60M8:Suitability of site layout design & controlment % 95 80 60M9:Pollution controllability in design & construction % 90 75 50    M  a  n  a  g  e  m  e  n   t M10:Accountability in design & construction % 100 100 100T1:Duration from design to completion day 620 660 700T2:Transportation arrangements in construction hour 4.95k 5.28k 5.72k T3:Interference possibility in design & construction % 25 35 35T4:Delay risk in design & construction hour 165 150 140T5:Overrun risk in design & construction % 15 20 15    T   i  m  e T6:Responsivity in design & construction % 100 90 90C1:Lifecycle cost of the project tender M$ 200 210 205C2:Variation possibility in design & construction % 10 20 15C3:Overrun risk in design & construction % 10 15 10C4:Financial risk in design & construction % 10 10 0    C  o  s   t C5:Emergency risk % 0.1 0.3 0.2R1:Electricity consumption in construction kWh 40k 55k 55k R2:Fuel consumption in construction MJ 45k 52k 55k R3:Water consumption in construction ton 3.9k 4.3k 4.5k R4:Wastewater treatment/reuse rate % 100 50 40R5:Material availability, serviceability & durability % 100 85 60R6:Generative material use rate % 20 5 10R7:Construction & demolition waste generating rate % 1.0 3.0 5.5R8:Waste reuse & recycling rate % 90 30 45R9:Equipment requirement in construction lifecycle m-day 29k 35k 36k R10:Workforce requirement in construction lifecycle m-day 68k 75k 82k     R  e  s  o  u  r  c  e R11:Required skills on workforce % 80 60 60N1:Temperature difference risk in construction lifecycle % 11.0 9.8 9.6N2:Windstorm risk in construction lifecycle % 2.0 1.8 1.8N3:Rainfalls risk in construction lifecycle % 1.0 1.1 1.1N4:Flood risk in construction lifecycle % 0.15 0.25 0.25N5:Earthquake risk in construction lifecycle % 0.01 0.01 0.01N6:Landslip risk in construction lifecycle % 0.0 0.1 0.2N7:Settlement risk in construction lifecycle % 1.5 2.5 3.0N8:Corrosion risk in construction lifecycle % 1.1 1.1 1.5    N  a   t  u  r  e N9:Disturbance risk to geoenvironment % 1.2 5.3 6.0S1:Public health risk in construction lifecycle % 10 15 20S2:Public safety risk in construction lifecycle % 0.15 0.20 0.30S3:Landfill burden (waste disposal) in construction lifecycle M$ 0.15 0.30 0.35S4:Public traffic disruptions in construction lifecycle day 45 60 70S5:Cargo transportation burden in construction lifecycle t-mile 600k 650k 710k S6:Legal & responsibility risk % 0.05 0.20 0.30    S  o  c   i  e   t  y S7:Neighbourhood disturbance in construction lifecycle day 35 45 55
Related Search
Advertisements
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks