Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...

Broft, R, Badi, S M and Pryke, S (2016) Towards supply chain maturity in construction. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 187-204.

Dale, J M and Dulaimi, M F (2016) Cultural competence: a success factor in NGO projects?. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 232-46.

Goh, B H (2016) Designing a whole-life building cost index in Singapore. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 159-73.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: green building,BCA green mark,cost efficiency,life-cycle costs,operating costs,passche price index
  • ISBN/ISSN:
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-09-2014-0045
  • Abstract:
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the whole-life costs of non-residential green-rated building developments in Singapore to derive useful information for research and practice. When industry stakeholders like building owners, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, builders and facility managers have detailed information about the initial and operating costs of different types of buildings, they will be able to apply whole-life costing to their existing or new projects with the intention of achieving value for money, as well as environmental sustainability. The developed index is useful to green policymakers and building owners. Design/methodology/approach - Data are collected from building projects certified by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore under the Green Mark scheme, starting from 2005. Statistical analysis is performed on the collected data to generate the information required to build the index as well as cost database. The Paasche price index method is used to produce a weighted composite index for Singapore’s non-residential building sector. Findings - The results show the classification of whole-life costs components by two main groups - “development and construction costs”, and “operating and maintenance costs”. There are a total of 68 cost significant items selected from 13 construction work categories. Comparing the weights for three non-residential building types, the highest is obtained for industrial building, which is followed by institutional and commercial buildings. Research limitations/implications - Without data, the description of the research has primarily dealt with the formulation of the proposed index because designing an appropriate methodology is key to ensure widespread acceptance and use. Practical implications - Prospective users have to be aware that the index cannot provide information about change in absolute terms and is not very accurate as such in reflecting the actual level of costs or prices of the variable of interest. However, it is a good indicator of the relative change over time in the level of costs or prices. Originality/value - It is expected that this method contributes additional information to BCA’s existing tender price index about a building’s operating costs as well since the proposed index is a measure of change in the average whole life-cycle costs of buildings over time.

Karunasena, G, Rathnayake, R M N U and Senarathne, D (2016) Integrating sustainability concepts and value planning for sustainable construction. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 125-38.

Manewa, A, Siriwardena, M, Ross, A and Madanayake, U (2016) Adaptable buildings for sustainable built environment. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 139-58.

Mlecnik, E (2016) Activating the adoption of innovation: Lessons from a passive house network. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 205-17.

Nazeer, S F and De Silva, N (2016) TBPE scoring framework for tropical buildings. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 174-86.

UlutaÅŸ, D D, Giritli, H and McDermott, P (2016) Corporate social responsibility in construction industry: A comparative study between UK and Turkey. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(02), 218-31.