Editorial

Citation

Yang, J. (2013), "Editorial", Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 2 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe.2013.57602aaa.001

Editorial

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Volume 2, Issue 1.

Sustainable development is a multi-faceted process. It is about making social investments friendly to the natural environment and financially viable for stakeholders in the long term. In the current global financial atmosphere, our industries and businesses are under enormous pressure to deliver sustainable products and services, as they endeavour to survive competition and maintain growth. From a client's perspective, the pursuit of technology innovation and green credentials needs to be consistent with the benefits produced by the process. For this reason we are seeing more and more discussions on the managerial and developmental aspects of sustainable built environments. In this regard, the SASBE journal provides an ideal platform through its orientation towards integrated approaches, engagement of all stakeholders and holistic decision making. This issue presents an augmentation on the importance of managing resources and assessing implementation outcomes.

We begin with a paper by Carmichael, Siew and Balatbat to explore the relationship between sustainable practices and financial performance of Australian construction organisations. They examine the non-financial reporting of publicly listed construction companies on a number of issues, such as environmental management, health and safety, human capital and governance. What is the current level of reporting among the majority of companies? How do companies issuing non-financial reports compare financially with those which do not? Readers can find these details in this issue and compare with related work that SASBE has featured on sustainability reporting in the UK construction sector (Glass, 2012).

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an important tool for sustainability studies. According to Slagstad and Brattebø however, there is little documented experience on how to use LCA in the early planning phase of new projects. By applying the life-cycle methodology on waste, water and wastewater systems of a new carbon-neutral settlement under planning in Norway, they explore the pros and cons of using LCA in the early planning phase. LCA is found to be able to facilitate the comparison of suggestions from interdisciplinary planning teams, relate them to existing systems and provide quantitative feedback to decision makers of the municipality. How to increase the impact of early LCA application is also introduced.

Presenting another Norwegian study on user experiences with passive houses and zero energy buildings, Thomsen et al. discuss how user interface, knowledge and commitment may influence building use and awareness of the level of energy efficiency. Users in general are satisfied in new energy efficient buildings. Misuse and misunderstanding are primary reasons for concerns over thermal discomfort. The levels of end-user control, adaptability of the building and complexity of systems and the need for adequate information, are also important factors to consider.

The implementation of sustainable housing requires a holistic consideration of the product, the supply chain and the market. But is sustainability performance in residential dwellings linked to the diffusion of sustainable housing into the mainstream housing market? Against such a background, Miller and Buys study the experiences of seven Australian families as “early adopters” of sustainable homes in subtropical Queensland. They examine the “product” – a sustainable house, factors that influence sustainability outcomes, economic comparisons with “standard” housing, and roles that the housing market and regulators can play in limiting or enhancing market diffusion. Authors interested in this work may also want to read the Hong Kong study on willingness to pay for eco-labelled housing (Yau, 2012).

Construction operations often examine productivity to overcome work difficulties and cost flow shortages. Hajji and Lewis remind us of the essence of productivity improvement through the development of a productivity-based estimating tool in the USA, which helps earthwork contractors to reduce fuel consumption and air emissions. Unlike existing models that tend to deal with one or two aspects alone, their framework model is unique in that it can consider production rate, activity duration, total fuel use and total pollutant emissions from earthwork activities all at once. This presents valuable information that equipment operators and contractors can use for a preliminary environmental assessment of construction projects requiring earthworks.

In his paper for SASBE's inaugural issue, Brandon (2012) asks us to think about and respond to the “what don’t we know” of sustainable development. He raises four issues of time horizon, technical infrastructure, a technology supported democracy and the implementation challenge. These provocations still ring true as we continue the sustainability journey amidst uncertainties of global financial difficulties, impact of climate change and worsening resource constraints. The search for new paradigms and new world views will continue. At the same time, we also need timely solutions for practical problems. SASBE is designed to stimulate such explorations, debates and discussions on different levels, through which future strategies can hopefully be agreed upon and implementation plans promoted. That is the reason we have featured a variety of papers covering both micro and macro angles. As the journal enters its second production cycle, the editorial team is keen to hear from you, our authors and readers, on how we can better respond to your needs for knowledge and information and on what topics you most want to see in the journal. Please contact me to offer your thoughts, or indeed to discuss the submission of your research work to SASBE.Jay Yang