ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

SCHOOL OF COMMERCE

ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY IN ETHIOPIAN

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FIRM: THE CASE OF LEVEL I
RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS IN ADDIS ABABA

By

AMANUEL ASHENAFI TELKU

A Project Work Submitted to Addis Ababa University College of Business and

Economics School of Commerce in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts in Project Management (MAPM)

ADVISOR: Dr. Berhanu Denu.

June, 2022
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

APPROVAL SHEET

SUBMITTED BY: AMANUEL ASHENAFI TELKU

GSE/2763/12

APPROVED BY THE EXAMINING COMMITTEE

ADVISOR

Name: _______________________ Signature: ____________ Date: __________

INTERNAL EXAMINER

Name: _______________________ Signature: ____________ Date: __________

EXTERNAL EXAMINER

Name: ______________________Signature: ____________ Date: ___________

i
 DECLARATION

Student
I, Amanuel Ashenafi, declare that the project work titled " Assessment of Sustainability in Ethiopian
Construction Firm: The Case of Level I Residential Contractors in Addis Ababa " is the result of
my own efforts, and that all sources of materials used in the study have been properly acknowledged.
With the exception of the research advisor's advice and suggestions, I have developed this research
entirely on my own. It is provided as part of a Master of Art in Project Management degree program.

Name: _______________________ID:__________Signature:_________Date:__________

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

ii
 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION

This is to confirm that Amanuel Ashenafi worked under my supervision on the project "
Assessment of Sustainability in Ethiopian Construction Firm: The Case of Level I Residential
Contractors in Addis Ababa " This work is original, and it is sufficient for submission as partial
fulfillment for a Masters of Art in Project Management degree.

ADVISOR SIGNATURE DATE

_____________________ ______________________ _____________

iii
 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to thank God for all the opportunities and chances I was granted by him
to be enrolled at AAU – SOC, to have finished my three years study at the campus and to work
on this study

This project work would not have been possible without the exceptional support and
understanding of my advisor, Dr. Berhanu D. his valuable support, advice, guidance and critical
comments from the beginning to the completion of this project work.

I am also grateful for the support I was provided by my kind and amazing sister starting with
financial support to the decisions I have been making throughout all my study years. And I
would also like to thank my parents who have been helping me with their prayer, those that
inevitably remain are entirely my responsibility.

iv
 ABSTRACT
Building construction uses land, energy, water, and other natural resources, produce waste and
releases hazardous gases causing ecological imbalance. Incorporating sustainable principles in
the construction sector, the buildings can develop the capacity to curtail Green House Gas
emissions and reduce the carbon footprint. The research provides assessments with in a
geographical scope of major local (Ethiopian) construction firms which are highly involved and
are very influential in providing the Countries economic value. The study used descriptive
research design and qualitative research approach. The study uses a sampling technique known
as Purposive sampling. Specifically, the Maximum variation sampling is used through the
research. Four, level I, construction sites were selected, 28 questionnaires were distributed to key
personnel, 7 to each built environment, direct observation and key personnel interviewing were
key during the information gathering. Sustainable Building Assessment Residential 1.04 Tool is
used to assess and analyze the sustainability of Built Environments, through the data collected and
derive a report based on the data fed. Findings from the study revealed that built environments in
Ethiopian construction firm provide partial capability to enable occupants to achieve Human
Development Index and Ecological Footprint targets and live in a sustainable way. It is evident
that much more work needs to be done in the areas of the built environments support to use
sustainable products and services, support to the local economy, mains water usage minimization,
waste minimization and energy usage efficiency, to improve the sustainability in the built
environment. The study suggests that future researches to be performed considering other levels
of building contractors in Addis Ababa and other parts of the country as well.

Key Words; Sustainable Built Environment, Sustainability, Sustainable Building Assessment

Tool, Building Construction in Ethiopia, Level I contractors

v
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................. 2
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 4
1.4 BASIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 4
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................. 5
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY................................................................................ 5
1.8 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS .......................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................... 7
2.1 THEORETICAL LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ..................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 SUSTAINABILITTY ..................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 INFLUENCES OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ......................... 9
2.1.4 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS ........................................ 10
2.2 EMPIRICAL REVIEW ................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ON SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENTS .... 11
2.2.2 ETHIOPIAN STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................... 13
2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 15
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 15
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND APPROACH ..................................................................... 15
3.3. TARGET POPULATION .............................................................................................. 16
3.4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE ............................................................................................ 16
3.5. SAMPLING SIZE .......................................................................................................... 17
3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 18
3.6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTS IN DATA COLLECTION .... 21

vi
 3.7 RESEARCH ETHICS ..................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 23
4. DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 23
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 23
4.2. RESPONSE RATE ......................................................................................................... 24
4.3. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERSTICS OF RESPONDENTS ................................... 24
4.3.1. RESPONDENTS WORK EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ......... 24
4.3.2 TYPE OF RESPONDENTS ORGANIZATION ......................................................... 24
4.3.3 RESPONDENTS CURRENT POSITION IN HIS/HER ORGANIZATION .............. 25
4.4. SUSTAINABLE BUILDING ASSESSMENT TOOL (SBAT) AREA’S BY
OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS ..................................................................................... 26
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREAS ........................................................... 26
4.4.1.1 ENERGY (Is the built environment energy efficient and uses renewable energy?) . 27
4.4.1.2. WATER (Built environment minimizes the consumption of mains portable water) 29
4.4.1.3. WASTE (The building minimizes emissions and waste directed to landfill) .......... 30
4.4.1.4 MATERIALS (Construction impacts of building materials are minimized) ............ 31
4.4.1.5 BIODIVERSITY (Built environment supports biodiversity) .................................... 32
4.4.2. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AREAS ....................................................................... 33
4.4.2.1. TRANSPORT (The building supports energy efficient transportation) ................... 33
4.4.2.2. RESOURCES (The building makes efficient use of resources)............................... 34
4.4.2.3. MANAGEMENT (The building is managed to support sustainability)................... 34
4.4.2.4. LOCAL ECONOMY (The building supports the local economy)........................... 35
4.4.2.5. SERVICES AND PRODUCTS (The building supports use sustainable products and
services) ................................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.3 SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ASPECTS ........................................................................... 37
4.4.3.1. ACCESS (The building supports access to facilities) .............................................. 37
4.4.3.2 HEALTH (Built environment supports a healthy and productive environment) ...... 38
4.4.3.3 EDUCATION (The building supports education)..................................................... 40
4.4.3.4 INCLUSION AND SOCIAL COHESION (The building is inclusive of diversity in
population and social cohesion) ............................................................................................ 41
4.6 GENERALIZATON OF THE FINDINGS ON SBAT REPORT ................................... 45
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 48
5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATION .............................................................. 48

vii
 5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 48
5.2 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 49
5.3 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 58

viii
 List of Tables
Table 2.1 Comparison between the most important green building rating systems in terms of the
weights used in the main categories of evaluation........................................................................ 11
Table 3.1 Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Scales ............................................................. 19
Table 3.2 HDI goalposts ............................................................................................................... 20
Table 4.1: Summary of Work Experiences of Respondents ......................................................... 24
Table 4.2: Summary of Type of Organization of Respondents .................................................... 25
Table 4.3: Summary of Respondents Current Position in his/her Organization ........................... 25
Table 4.4 Summary of built environments’ efficient energy and renewable energy .................... 27
Table 4.5 Summary of Built environments minimization of mains water usage.......................... 29
Table 4.6 Summary of responses for minimization of waste........................................................ 30
Table 4.7 Summary of construction materials impact .................................................................. 31
Table 4.8 summary of built environments support to biodiversity. ............................................ 32
Table 4.9 Summary of building’s support to energy efficient transportation ............................... 33
Table 4.10 Summary of building’s efficient use of resources ...................................................... 34
Table 4.11 Summary of Buildings management towards sustainability ...................................... 35
Table 4.12 Summary of building’s support to local economy ..................................................... 36
Table 4.13 Summary of building’s support to use sustainable products and service ................... 37
Table 4.14 Summary of the buildings support for access to facilities .......................................... 38
Table 4.15 Summary of responses in built environments support to a healthy and productive
environment .................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 4.16 Summary of the building’s support to education ........................................................ 41
Table 4.17 Summary of Inclusion and Social Cohesion ............................................................... 42

ix
 Table of Abbreviations

No. Abbreviation Description

2 AEC Architecture, Engineering and Construction
3 BIM Building Information Modeling
4 BRE Building Research Establishment
5 BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental assessment method
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
6 CASBEE Efficiency
7 CGRE Climate Resilience Green Economy
11 GHG Green House Gas
12 HDI Human Development Index
14 IBS Industrialized Building system
15 IPT Technological Research Institute Sao Paulo
16 ISO International Organization For Standardization
KPI Key Performance Indicators
17 LCA Life Cycle Analysis
18 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
21 PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge
22 PRINCE Projects IN Controlled Environment
25 SBAT Sustainable Building Assessment Tool
29 UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

x
 CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
According to the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainability is meeting our own needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In ecology, the word
sustainability characterizes the ability of biological systems to remain healthy, diverse, and
productive over time.

Incorporating sustainable principles in the construction sector, the buildings can develop the
capacity to curtail GHG emissions and reduce the carbon footprint. Buildings not only have
negative impacts in their pre-construction and construction phase but also during the operation and
maintenance (post construction) phase (Jain et al., 2013).

Having described sustainability, it is important to understand how this relates to developing and
developed countries. Developed countries may have achieved certain aspects of ‘a state of social
sustainability’, such as reasonable health and safety within their populations. It therefore could be
argued that social sustainable development objectives could have a lower priority to economic and
environmental sustainable development objectives in these developed countries. Developing
countries on the other hand are unlikely to have achieved many aspects described for a state of
social sustainability. Addressing social sustainable development objectives is therefore likely to
be a priority in developing countries. These differences in states mean that there are often differing
priorities in developing and developed countries. In sustainable development it is therefore
important to understand the local context and priorities. The assessment framework must
acknowledge and respond to the context in which it is used (Gibberd, 2005).

In developing countries the availability of conventional construction materials will fall

considerably short of their demand, despite improved productivity, and several alternatives for
them are being developed. Research and development institutions in India have developed a
number of technologies for production of new building materials that are cost-effective and
ecofriendly with special attention to utilization of industrial and agricultural waste. However, most
of these technologies are still in the experimental or demonstration stage. The development of new

1
materials and technologies needs also to take into account the fact that the majority of the
population is associated with very limited investment capacity. Furthermore, efforts must not only
be concentrated on sourcing new and environmentally friendly construction materials, but
attention must also be given to innovative recycling and re-use. This would require, as part of the
strategy, a practice of producing buildings and materials with a longer life-span, and which are
easy to recycle and can be disposed of at minimal environmental cost. Thus, the adverse impacts
of construction activities and products on the physical environment would only be effectively
minimized through efficient use of natural resources, especially non-renewable resources (Vij et
al. 2010).

Inside the climate mitigation market, the construction sector is assessed to offer a wide scope of
opportunities for new cost-effective services and products that improve sustainability in the built
environment (McKinsey & Co., 2009).

As the intensive construction in Ethiopia today becomes more complex, the impacts of the
buildings in the environment, economy and society is also seen to be increasing in an exponential
manner. Although, academicians have been playing an important role in universities by giving
lectures on sustainability for young designers that will build the future, those lectures are mostly
about the buildings yet to be built in the future. Even though the proposals the buildings of the
capital are crucial in the country’s struggle to achieve sustainability, there are no implications of
remedial sustainable building features on the buildings of Addis Ababa.

The research provides assessments with in a geographical scope of major local (Ethiopian)
construction firms which are highly involved and are very influential in providing the Countries
economic value. A shift to more sustainable building is seen as an essential part of urban renewal
focused on reduced environmental impacts..

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Almost all researches that are done on this area of study have focused on the firms residing in
developed nations. This research is motived to bring the area of study to developing nations like
Ethiopia and use the assessment tools to examine the firms standing point towards the attainment
of sustainable construction. According to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’s water and
energy authority, Climate Resilience Green Economy (CRGE) vision is for Ethiopia to become a

2
middle-income country by 2030, through rapid economic growth that is resilient to climate change
and results in no increase in carbon emissions.

The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia sets the overall environmental
values to be preserved and protected under the Environmental Objective of 92(sub-articles 2&4).
But, the uncontrolled rate of urban population growth in the country has damaged the environment
by degrading the resources found on it. Additionally, the misuse of resources in rural and urban
areas leads to different environmental degradation. Buildings, both in urban and rural, misuse the
quality and quantity of sensitive resources. With the ongoing rapid construction dynamics, Addis
Ababa is prone to such degradation. Nowadays, there are many improvements in constructing
sustainable buildings. Many initiatives and experiments have been taken in order to make buildings
to be built in the future sustainable and durable. This concept is poorly applied on the currently
being built buildings in Ethiopia particularly in Addis Ababa (Taeka, 2016).

The buildings in the city are simply abandoned units that are functional only in the inside. But
externally they do not compliment the environment or their aesthetics is somewhat alien when
we look at them from nature’s point of view. They do not merge into the environment or emerge
from the environment. There is no anchoring natural element that connects the buildings to the
ground they are built on. (Taeka, 2016).

The uncontrolled rate of urban population growth which increased the housing needs in the capital
that exposed the city life to the environmental, economic and social impacts of construction has
nudged the researcher to conduct this study which points out what is needed to be done to minimize
those impacts and secure the future generations safety of living in a sustainable environment.

The purpose of this study is to assess the Sustainability within the construction industry of
Ethiopia, and identify research gaps and potential new topics for research in relation to the
management of sustainability in the local construction Industry, and to increase knowledge on the
evaluation of sustainability in the construction sector. It analyses the research to pinpoint main
focus areas and strengths, as well as identifying areas of weakness and research gaps, which are
seen as potential topics for new research. The emphasis is on comprehensive projects of buildings
with a holistic sustainability approach. What makes this study different from the others is because
it is conducted using a specific tool (SBAT) to assess the Sustainability of the construction firm.

3
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The general objective of this study is to assess the Sustainability within the construction industry
of Ethiopia.

1.3.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To investigate the applicability of the Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) to
construction building developments in Ethiopia.
2. To assess the Sustainability and generate findings on the building construction firm
according to the Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT).
3. To point out all the areas of improvements to achieve the sustainable built environment.

1.4 BASIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study has three research questions that address the evaluation of sustainability in the local
construction sector from the Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) adoption perspective.

RQ1; How applicable are the environmental considerations inherent in the Sustainable
Building assessment tool to building developments in Ethiopia?
RQ2; what are the performance scores of the firm and its implications according to the
SBAT?
RQ3; how do built environments attain the sustainable built environment?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It is known that organizations can gain a competitive advantage only by managing effectively for
today, while simultaneously creating safe living for tomorrow, and sustainability is one of the
innovative strategies in major architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) organizations.
The purpose of this study is to assess the Sustainability within the construction industry of Ethiopia
by their environmental, economic and societal performances which in turn points out necessary
measures to be taken to improve the performances to attain sustainable built environment that adds
value in providing necessary feedbacks to the organizations involved, the society, the country’s
economy and the ecology balance in general. The study, then identifies research gaps and potential
new topics for research in relation to the management of sustainability in the local construction
Industry, and to increase knowledge on the evaluation of sustainability in the construction sector.

4
It analyses the research to pinpoint main focus areas and strengths, as well as identifying areas of
weakness and research gaps, which are seen as potential topics for new research. The emphasis is
on comprehensive projects of buildings with a holistic sustainability approach. The analysis
focuses on the management and process aspects in relation to planning, decision-making,
conducting, and evaluating construction projects. The result is a proposal for a recommendation
of cumulative measures in attaining sustainable built environment.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The research provides assessments with in a geographical scope of major local (Ethiopian)
construction firms which are highly involved and are very influential in providing the Countries
economic value. This is done by selecting four level I Construction firms, which are located in
Addis Ababa and measuring their sustainability performance through SBAT method of
assessment. A shift to more sustainable building is seen as an essential part of urban renewal
focused on reduced environmental impacts.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study is organized in five consequent chapters. The first chapter introduces the back ground
of the study, statement of the problem, basic research questions, and objectives, significance, scope
and limitation of the study. The second chapter discusses on review of literatures with descriptions
of different researchers related to the topics. The third chapter deals with the research
methodology, design, sources of data, target population, sampling technique and sample size,
validity and reliability of instrument and research ethics throughout the data collection and
analysis. The fourth chapter presents the data analysis, presentation and discussion through tables,
by frequency and occurrences and visually by a spider web diagram. The fifth chapter, which is
the final chapter of the study, is about the summary of major findings, conclusion and
recommendations.

5
1.8 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
i. Sustainability – sustainability is meeting our own needs without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, 1987). Sustainability in
construction, as with all industries, is measured by assessing the performance of social,
environmental and economic principles. These three pillars of sustainability are often
informally referred to as “people”, “planet” and “profit”. The ultimate project will rank
highly for all three, but balancing all three areas can be one of the greatest challenges in
implementing sustainable construction.
ii. Building Construction - is generally the construction of sheltered enclosures with walk-
in access for the purpose of housing persons, machinery, equipment, or supplies. It includes
all construction of such structures, the installation of utilities and the installation of
equipment, both above and below grade level as well as incidental grading, utilities and
paving. Additionally, such structures need not be "habitable" to be building construction.
iii. Sustainable Built Environment - A sustainable built environment is circular, designed
for longevity, flexibility, adaptability, assembly, disassembly, reuse and recoverability, and
considers future climate risks. It uses low-carbon, low-impact, non-toxic materials and it
recovers used resources (materials and products on-site or from other sites). It is powered
by renewable energy, ensures sustainable water consumption and enhances the wellbeing
and safety of people. Green spaces, natural biodiversity and nature-based solutions increase
resilience, wellbeing and social connectivity. It prioritizes sustainable and shared mobility.
The SBAT suggests in order for a built environment to be sustainable it should balance
among all the elements within the pillars of environmental, economic and social aspects of
assessments.

6
 CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides an overview of previous research on knowledge sharing and intranets. It
introduces the framework for the case study that comprises the main focus of the research
described in this thesis.

2.1 THEORETICAL LITERATURE

2.1.1 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The building shelter consumes one sixth of world’s fresh supply of water, one quarter of its
wood harvest and two fifth of its fossil fuel and manufactured materials (Wines, 2010).

There are two well-known sources within the project management domain that provide widely
accepted definitions of project management. The first is the widely-cited Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), which suggests that project management
incorporates an assemblage and application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques, to produce
the desired project outcomes (PMBOKGuide, 2017).

The second is the PRojects IN Controlled Environments (PRINCE2) methodology (Axelos, 2020).
This proposes that project management includes the application of specific processes and
principles to “…initiate, plan, execute and manage ...” the change process introduced by project
activity. Both therefore offer frameworks that might be employed as strategic alignment strategies
to achieve project outcomes and business goals. However, both are relatively silent regarding
managing sustainability and environmental issues in projects. This suggests that there is a
knowledge gap in this area (Brones et al., 2014).

The mission of a construction project is “to create a desired facility like a housing complex or a
plant with predetermined performance objectives defined in terms of quality specifications,
completion time, budgeted costs and other specified constraints. It is not a routine activity like the
regular maintenance of buildings or roads” (Chitkara, 2014). Therefore, construction projects are
usually high-value projects. To be performed, a construction project requires both spatial (plans,
designs, layouts, and blueprints) and non-spatial (schedule, amount and quality of materials,
specifications, etc.) information, which is separately maintained by different project team members

7
and stakeholders. Construction projects are classified into three categories—(a) building
construction projects such as residential and commercial buildings, schools (b) infrastructure
construction projects such as highways, and (c) industrial construction projects such as
manufacturing plants. The research mostly focuses building construction projects together with
the preceding definitions of project management to form the key reference points for this research.
This shifted the focus of the examination onto the sustainability elements contained within the
project management framework. Previous research suggests that efficient and effective
construction activity has a significant impact on national economic growth.

2.1.2 SUSTAINABILITTY
The research team examined the literature relating to sustainability. The definition of sustainability
appears to encompass several key areas and is typically viewed on a global stage, to incorporate
concepts such as ethical issues, rules, and guidelines, which act as a guide for organizational
decision-making (Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015).

According to ISO definition (ISO 15392, 2008) sustainability refers to a state in which the
components of the environment and their functions are maintained for present and future
generations. In the construction sector sustainability relates to how the attributes of the activities,
products or services used in construction work, or the use of the construction works, contribute to
the maintenance of ecosystem components and functions for future generations (ISO 15392, 2008).
Sustainability and as a result sustainable development is commonly defined as “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987). The definition of sustainable development was revised in
2006 stating “a long-term vision for sustainability in which economic growth, social cohesion and
environmental protection go hand in hand and are mutually supporting” (European Commission,
2021). Sustainability might also incorporate key components such as cleaner-production, pollution
prevention, and controlling mechanisms as well as designs that support ecological elements,
among them structures and building architecture. The broad spread and concomitant
understandings of the concept of sustainability, give rise to new terms and concepts in response to
the constantly emerging developments (Glaviˇc et al., 2007).

8
2.1.3 INFLUENCES OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Some literature refers to Sustainable Construction as the formation and management of a healthy
built environment through the sensible use of resources and ecological principles (Kibert, 2013).
Sustainable Construction is an approach that addresses the sustainable needs of the built
environment (Abidin, 2010). It is important to note that the terms high performance, green, and
sustainable construction are used interchangeably in most studies. Other terms that are
synonymous with sustainable construction are green building and sustainable building (Wang, et
al., 2014). According to Du Plessis (2007), Sustainable Construction is an all-inclusive process
with the aim of re-establishing and maintaining harmony between the built and natural
environments and the creation of settlements that assert human dignity and encourage economic
equity. This definition implies that SC takes a lifecycle perspective with emphasis on
environmentally orientated design, operation and maintenance procedures.

Majadalani et al. (2007) established that the main purpose of Sustainable Construction is to provide
structures of long-term value, affordability, quality and efficiency to clients and to enhance
economic sustainability whilst reducing the negative environmental impacts. Aghimien et al.
(2016) stated that Sustainable Construction is the delivery of construction projects that encourages
the preservation of the natural habitat; promotes social wellbeing of the occupants; and provides
reasonable economic stand for the investors. Bal et al. (2013) conclude that a construction project
is said to be sustainable if it meets environmental challenges, responds to social and cultural
demands, and delivers economic improvement.

Developed and developing countries alike all share a common concern and that is the current
environmental situation (Asif et al., 2007). The world is currently facing the effects of global
warming, ozone depletion, destruction of natural habitats and loss of biodiversity. Sustainability
is the way to go to avert the situation and this can be and achieved through the adoption of a multi-
disciplinary approach covering several features such as: energy saving, improved use of materials,
reuse and recycling and emissions control.

According to Du Plessis (2007), sustainability movement can only be set into motion if awareness
and knowledge are in place. Abidin (2010) described the implementation of Sustainable
Construction as a process that starts with awareness coupled with interest which leads to gaining
knowledge. Acceptance of the knowledge gained will lead to increased demand and this result in

9
implementation. New technologies and concepts have emerged with the aim of achieving
sustainability in the construction industry (Kibert, 2013). Examples like Building Information
Modelling (BIM) and high efficiency photovoltaic are impacting approaches to project design and
collaboration. Other philosophical and scientific concepts have risen due to the paradigm shift
towards sustainability. These concepts include bio mimicry, cradle to cradle design, construction
ecology, design for the environment, ecological economics, ecological footprint, life- cycle
assessment, life-cycle costing etc. Other technological methods to enhance sustainability in the
construction industry are Industrialized Building System (IBS), Value Engineering (VE) and lean
construction (Hussin et al., 2013). These innovations have been introduced and are still being
improved upon through further research to bring about energy saving, improved use of materials
and implementation of reuse and recycling of materials as a way of controlling emissions.

2.1.4 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS

In 1990, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom (UK) developed the
first functional method for assessing the environmental performance of buildings. The method was
named Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (Haapio
A.; et al., 2008). This method contained prescriptive requirements that focused on the interior of
the building, its immediate surroundings, and the environment (Silva V. G.; et al., 2003). Since
then, many tens of methods were developed and are in use throughout the world. There are
basically two approaches for the analysis of environmental performance by buildings (Haapio A.;
et al., 2008). The first and most widely used approach builds awards points within a selected
number of parameters, so called indicators, according to a scale ranging from an environmental
“small impact” to a “huge impact” (Ali H. H.; et al., 2009). These indicators have weights, explicit
or not, that recognize the main environmental problems. The second model utilizes methodology
of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), to indicate the best choice of design, materials of construction,
and options for local utilities. Local utilities include energy supply, waste management, and types
of transport (Ali H. H.; et al., 2009).

Very rapid urban growth rates have meant that now 40 % of the Africa’s population live in cities.
A large proportion of this growth has been in informal settlements which accommodate over 60%
of the urban population Sub Saharan African cities (Gibbered, 2017). Continued growth and
climate change has meant that it is becoming increasingly important to address these informal

10
settlements and develop improved housing. The Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)
for housing has been developed for this context. The tool has a focus on developing countries and
provides a way of assessing sustainability performance (Gibbered, 2017). The research paper uses
this tool for the assessments of construction projects in Ethiopia.

Table 2.1 shows the weights used for the main categories of evaluation in the most important rating
systems used to assess green buildings, namely, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED), Technological Research Institute of Sao Paulo (IPT), Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Comprehensive Assessment system for Building
Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), and Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT).

Table 2.1 Comparison between the most important green building rating systems in terms of the
weights used in the main categories of evaluation

Assessment criteria (%) Green building rating system

LEED IPT BREEM CASBEE SBTOOL
Energy Efficiency 21.7 20 8.3 9.6 4.0
Water Efficiency 7.3 20 4.5 9.1 4.0
Indoor environment quality 18.8 6.0 12.4 22.4 23
Waste and material management 18.8 20 9.8 21.1 12
Eco management 10.1 0.0 14.1 0.0 10
Source: (Gibbered, 2017)
2.2 EMPIRICAL REVIEW
The following findings of studies have been reviewed for this research is some of prior studies
on cause and effects of delay in different parts of the world.

2.2.1 INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ON SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENTS

Oscar o. et al., (2007) brings together research on life cycle assessment (LCA) applied within the
building sector. More than ever, the construction industry is concerned with improving the social,
economic and environmental indicators of sustainability. The paper implies that by applying LCA,
it is possible to optimize these aspects, from the extraction of raw materials to the final disposal of
waste building materials. First the review details LCA concepts and focuses on the LCA
methodology and tools employed in the built environment. Secondly, the paper outlines and
discusses the differences between the LCA of building materials and components combinations
versus the LCA of the full building life cycle. Finally, this work can be used by stakeholders as an

11
important reference on LCA including literatures on approaches and methodologies to preserve
the environment and therefore achieve sustainable development in both developed and developing
countries. When summarizing, it stated that the application of LCA is fundamental to sustainability
and improvement in building and construction.

Uttam K. (2014) aimed to bolster the knowledge of promoting sustainability in the construction
sector, with the specific aim of analyzing the ways in which policy instruments such as
environmental impact assessment and green public procurement can be reinforced to improve the
coordination between planning and the implementation of sustainability considerations. The study
conceptualizes an inter-link between impact assessment and green public procurement, and
identifies the opportunities to develop the inter-link. As his paper, it is appropriate to plan for green
public procurement at the pre-decision phase of an environmental impact assessment. The inter-
link can be strengthened by involving contractors in planning for green and sustainable public
procurement.

Kajander, (2016) utilized a mixed-method research strategy. Both quantitative and qualitative
data is collected and analyzed with qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the research topic. The study analyzes sustainability in the
construction sector by using empirical data from construction projects. The study found that
construction companies can evaluate sustainability by by investigating their potential monetary
benefits and made the following proposals: (i) Construction companies should evaluate
sustainability together with clients and value networks to systematically manage the development
and adoption of sustainability; and (ii) construction companies can demonstrate the monetary
benefits of sustainability to shareholders with the event study method, and the benefits to
clients and tenants with real option analysis. The paper presented and tested two new tools
that construction companies can use to evaluate sustainability. Overall, the study contributed by
examining the evaluation of sustainability in the construction sector. It does so by investigating
the evaluation of sustainability in construction projects and in the context of business management.

Moreover the study demonstrates new managerial tools for the evaluation of sustainability, i.e
event study and real option analysis.

12
2.2.2 ETHIOPIAN STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
Teklea (2015) mainly assessed the nature of the selected buildings in terms of building orientation
and location, functional layouts, indoor environment quality, energy consumption,
water consumption, waste management and building material and finds out how to adopt the
green building theories and concepts to the sampled buildings. The study employed both
descriptive and explanatory research method and also mixed type of quantitative and qualitative
data collected from primary sand from secondary data. The study found that most of the sampled
buildings had problems in their indoor environment quality, over consume energy, are indifferently
laid out functionally and have disorganized waste management system compared to green
buildings. Possible remedial solutions were given based on Environmental planning and
Landscape design.

2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A conceptual frame work is an analytical tool with many variations and contexts. It is used to make
conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Concepts are presented through visual or graphical
frameworks. According to the SBAT analysis tool, improving all the aspects of Environmental,
Economic and Social aspects of construction firms will lead to a reasonable result in the
Sustainable Built Environment.

Independent Variables (IV)

1. Environmental Areas of the firm
 Energy  Materials
 Water  Biodiversity
 Waste
2. Economic Areas of the firm
 Transport  Local Economy
 Resource  Service and Production
 Management
3. Social Areas of the firm
 Access  Social Cohesion
 Health  Education
 Inclusion
Dependent Variable

 Sustainable Built Environment

13
Figure Error! Use the Home tab to apply 0 to the text that you want to appear here..1
Conceptual Framework (Structure)

Environmental Factors

Economic Factors Sustainable Built

Environment

Social Factors

The SBAT suggests that the pillars of Environmental, Economic and Social factors accompanied
by their elements of energy, water, waste, materials, biodiversity, transportation, resource,
management, local economy, service production, Access, health, education, inclusion and social
cohesion along with all the assessment areas of their sub elements are the measuring factors for a
built environment to be called sustainable.

14
 CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter briefly presents the methodology applied in the course of the study. Design of the
research, sources of data, data collection technique, population of the study, sampling technique,
sample size, method of analysis and ethical considerations are highlighted.

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND APPROACH

The choice of research design primarily depends on the objectives of the study that are going
to be attained. This study used descriptive research design approach. Descriptive research
examines a situation as it is; it does not involve changing or modifying the situation under
investigation. (Leedly & Ormrod, 2005).

The study is qualitative in its approach; the qualitative data research relies on the
measurement and analysis of judgmental and subjective conclusions. Therefore, for this study,
qualitative research approach is used to assess Sustainability of Residential Building
Construction firms of Ethiopia, residing in Addis Ababa.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION TARGET POPULATION, SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND

SAMPLE SIZE
3.2. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

Personal observation and experiences; building occupiers, owners and managers, residents in the
study area, concerned professionals were the main sources of the primary data. The data
collection methods used to collect the primary data consist of, open ended surveys and
questionnaires, key informant interview and direct observation.

Contents from the SBAT tool template described on the conceptual framework are arranged in a
way comfortable to cover all the areas of assessment of sustainability.

The structure and criteria of the SBAT be understood in terms of environmental, economic and
social performance. Performance in each of these is captured in terms of a particular area,
objective and sets of indicators. This relationship between sustainability areas, built environment
objectives and indicators can be charted in the conceptual framework.

15
3.3. TARGET POPULATION
The target population in this research as seen from top-down include the following, targets from
representatives of the six groups mentioned, was involved in the study by their respective
involvement manners.

 Board of directors of construction projects

 Client representatives
 Project managers
 Construction managers
 Site and Office Engineers
 Contract employees (Contractors, Construction workers)

3.4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Sampling itself is a term that transcends research in general and research paradigms in particular.
Unfortunately, sampling has not been given prominence in qualitative research. Yet as noted by
Onwuegbuzie (2003), qualitative researchers make inferences from the sample of words to each
respondent’s truth space when conducting thematic analyses on data from interviews, Open-Ended
Surveys and Questionnaires. As the research is a qualitative type, Qualitative researchers believe
that humans are complex, somewhat unpredictable beings and those individual differences and
idiosyncratic needs override any notion of universal laws of human behaviors despite the research
collects some sort of quantitative information to drive them into qualitative conclusions of
assessments. Although there is little consensus about what qualitative research is and how it should
be undertaken, there is general agreement that the goal of qualitative research is not to generalize
beyond a sample to the population (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2005). The study uses a sampling technique
known widely as Purposive sampling. Purposive sampling, also known as judgmental, selective,
or subjective sampling, is a form of non-probability sampling in which researchers rely on their
own judgment when choosing members of the population to participate in their surveys.

This survey sampling method requires researchers to have prior knowledge about the purpose of
their studies so that they can properly choose and approach eligible participants for surveys
conducted. Researchers use purposive sampling when they want to access a particular subset of
people, as all participants of a survey are selected because they fit a particular profile. Purposive

16
sampling is when researchers thoroughly think through how they will establish a sample
population, even if it is not statistically representative of the greater population at hand. As the
name suggests, researchers went to this community on purpose because they think that these
individuals fit the profile of the people that they need to reach.

The more prior information that researchers have about their particular communities of interest,
the better the sample that they’re going to select. As the researcher like myself, having prior
knowledge on this industry and executing my undergraduate thesis on an area which have
similarity to the current study, I have chosen purposive data sampling for this research.

Specifically, the Maximum variation sampling is used through the research. Maximum variation
sampling also known as heterogeneous sampling, is a purposive sampling technique used to
capture a wide range of perspectives relating to the thing that you are interested in studying; that
is, maximum variation sampling is a search for variation in perspectives, ranging from those
conditions that are view to be typical through to those that are more extreme in nature. By
conditions, we mean the units (i.e., people, cases/organizations, events, pieces of data) that are of
interest to the researcher. These units may exhibit a wide range of attributes, behaviors,
experiences, incidents, qualities, situations, and so forth. The basic principle behind maximum
variation sampling is to gain greater insights into a phenomenon by looking at it from all angles.
This can often help the researcher to identify common themes that are evident across the sample.

3.5. SAMPLING SIZE

Qualitative research experts argue that there is no straightforward answer to the question of ‘how
many’ and that sample size is contingent on a number of factors relating to epistemological,
methodological and practical issues. The more useable data are collected from each person, the
fewer participants are needed. The researcher is to take into account parameters, such as the scope
of study, the nature of topic (i.e. complexity, accessibility), the quality of data, and the study
design. Indeed, the level of structure of questions in qualitative interviewing has been found to
influence the richness of data generated and so, requires attention; empirical research shows that
open questions, which are asked later on in the interview, tend to produce richer data.

17
As the research is tended to study The Assessments of Construction projects conducted by Major
Contractors which have a good reputation in adding values to the countries macro economy certain
contractors are to be selected by their financial performances their previous projects.

Four local (Level I) Contractors, which reside in the capital and have available projects for the
research to be conducted, were selected. Data which is collected from the target population’s key
personnel is given major importance. The key personnel include, representatives from; (deep 1-
on-1 Interviews) Project managers of Clients of each construction projects.

Four questionnaires were conducted on each of the following target populations (28)

 Board of Directors
 Project Managers
 Construction managers
 Site Engineers
 Office Engineers
 Quantity surveyors
 Data Collectors

4 construction sites consisting of 7 technical personnel, which is a total of 28 questionnaires is to

be submitted for the target populations.

The other source of data of the research are direct observations on the sites conducted by the
method of collecting evaluative information in which the evaluator watches the subject the usual
environment without altering that environment.
Only four Construction sites are selected as a sample because it is believed to represent other
level I contractors built environments that are playing biggest roles in residential housing
provision as they execute their building construction in visibly the same way.
3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Actual performance is measured by assessing proposed buildings using the indicators listed.
Performance in terms of the indicators is calculated in the tool to provide a value from 0 to 5,
with 5 indicating that all aspects are in place within housing for occupants to achieve HDI and
EF targets and that therefore full performance has been achieved. The scales used in the SBAT
rating are shown in table 2.

18
Table 3.1 Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Scales
SBAT Scale Sustainable Built environment performance

5 Built environments provide full capability to enable occupants to achieve

HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
4-5 Built environments provide excellent capability to enable occupants to
achieve HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
3-4 Built environments provide strong capability to enable occupants to achieve
HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way
2-3 Built environments provide partial capability to enable occupants to achieve
HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
1-2 Built environments provide limited capability to enable occupants to achieve
HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
0 Built environments provide no capability to enable occupants to achieve HDI
and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
Source: (Gibbered, 2017).

3.5.1. Human Development Index

The Human Development Index (HDI) of a population is based on the following indicators:

 A long healthy life, measured by life expectancy at birth

 Knowledge, measured by the adult literacy rate and combined primary, secondary, and tertiary
gross enrolment ratio

 A decent standard of living, as measured by the GDP per capita in purchasing power parity
(PPP) in terms of US dollars

Each of these indicators has minimum and maximum values (goalposts) as indicated on Table
3.3.

19
Table 3.2 HDI goalposts

Dimensional indicator Maximum value Minimum value

Life expectancy at birth 85 25
Adult literacy rate (%) 100 0
Combined gross enrollment 100 0
ratio (%)
GDP per capita (PPP US$) 40,000 100
Source: (World Health Organization (WHO)).

The implications for built environments of the HDI target are that built environments must have
the characteristics, and be configured, to enable occupant populations to achieve this target.
Another way of stating this would be to say that built environments must have the capability to
enable occupant populations to achieve the HDI targets.

3.5.2. Ecological Footprint

An Ecological Footprint is compiled by calculating the biologically productive land and sea
required to provide the resources a human population consumes and absorb the corresponding
waste. The following consumption and wastes and emission production rates are used:

 Food, measured in type and amount of food consumed

 Shelter, measured in size, utilization and energy consumption

 Mobility, measured in type of transport used and distances travelled

 Goods, measured in type and quantity consumed

 Services, measured in type and quantity consumed

The implications for built environments are that they must have characteristics, and be configured,
to enable this to be achieved. Again, this can be described as a requirement for built environments
to have the capability to enable occupants to follow living and working patterns that achieve the
EF target. The SBAT consists of a manual which describes the tool, the criteria, and how to apply
to the tool to develop ratings (the manual). It also consists of a locked preformatted Excel
spreadsheet (the tool). The tool generates reports, graphs and a rating based on data entered into
20
the tool. Training and the manual ensure that assessments are objective and standardized. The tool
generates reports provide an overall picture of the performance of the building in the form a spider
diagram.

3.6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTS IN DATA COLLECTION

Validity and reliability of qualitative research represent the key aspects of the quality of research.
When handled meticulously, the reliability and validity parameters help differentiate between
good and bad research. They also assure readers that the findings of the study are credible and
trustworthy. This aspect becomes particularly vital in case studies involving primary data
analysis. Here the researcher’s subjectivity can highly influence the interpretation of the data.

Qualitative data is as important as quantitative data, as it also helps in establishing key research
points. However, since it cannot be quantified, the question on its correctness is critical. Validity
relates to the appropriateness of any research value, tools and techniques, and processes,
including data collection and validation (Mohamad et al., 2015). Validity also establishes the
soundness of the methodology, sampling process, data analysis process, and the conclusion of
the study (Golafshani, 2003).

The Sustainable Assessment Tool (SBAT) lists elements, to measure the performances of
sustainability in a built environment which are within the factors of Environment, Economy and
Society. Within the elements there are also sub elements of performance measurements which
are listed in a way that a technical personnel in a built would easily understand from the
knowhow and prior academic and minimum site knowledge achieved. The target populations are
selected in a way that their response is valid and the answers they provide in their response is
totally from their knowledge they have on the respective subject matter.

Quantitative research includes reliability measures where the researcher must prove that the
process and the results have replicable outcomes. It is very important for qualitative research to
include a reference to a quantitative aspect. The use of a simple quantitative aspect in otherwise
completely qualitative research creates a very positive attitude towards the overall concept of the
research and helps to establish reliability in a much easier form. This study applied the idea of
using quantitative responses in a form of questionnaire to add more value on the research’s
reliability.

21
3.7 RESEARCH ETHICS
The researcher had followed ethically and morally acceptable processes throughout the research
process. The data was collected with the full consent of the participants and the respondents were
all aware of the purpose of the study. Documents reviewed from the organization remained
confidential. The findings and results from this study will not be used for another purpose. During
these study respondents were free to respond their own opinion from their experience, and their
personal information such as name and detailed information was not mentioned.

22
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected through primary and secondary sources. To
recall once again, the main purpose of this research is to assess sustainability of projects from
building construction firms residing in Addis Ababa. Qualitative analysis technique ranging from
simple tables and diagrams showing frequency and occurrences to establishing relationships
between variables by the help of SBAT is used to analyze the collected data. This analysis of data
is presented by means of percentages, tables and figures (spider diagram) which is generated from
the SBAT Report spreadsheet.

The information investigation and finding covers three essential portions; the first part is the basic
information of the respondents, which covers their Gender, work experience in the building
construction firm, the type of organization the respondents are working at, and their current
position in their respective organization.

The Second part covers Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) area’s objectives and
indicators, with their environmental, economic and social aspects of assessments along with their
respective sub assessment portions that include, Built environment’s energy efficiency and usage of
renewable energy, minimization of the consumption of mains portable water, minimization of emissions
and waste directed to landfill, minimization of construction impacts, The support of biodiversity, support
of energy efficient transportation, efficient use of resources, support of the local economy, support of access
to facilities, support of a healthy and productive environment and if the building supports education.

23
4.2. RESPONSE RATE
From the 28 questionnaires distributed to respondents, 25 of the respondents took their time to fill
the questionnaires, which accounts for 89% of the total respondents. Out of the respondents, 56%
were male and 44% are female.

4.3. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERSTICS OF RESPONDENTS

4.3.1. RESPONDENTS WORK EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The study sought to find out the respondents work experience in Building Construction projects.
This factor is critical because it can measure the quality of the responses given by the
respondents. The results are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Summary of Work Experiences of Respondents

Work Experience (Years) Frequency Percentage

<5 9 36
5 – 10 9 36
10 – 15 6 24
> 15 1 4
Total 25 100

The work experience of the respondents as presented in Table 4.1 indicate that out of the 25
respondents 36% worked for years less than five, 36% worked for years ranging from five to ten,
24% worked for years ranging from ten to fifteen and 4% worked for years greater than fifteen.
All the respondents are believed to be well informed and qualified for the terms used in the
questionnaire.

4.3.2 TYPE OF RESPONDENTS ORGANIZATION

The study evaluated responses of employees from three types of organizations which play direct
role in the construction firm of Ethiopia. Client, Consulting firm and the Contractor. The
distribution of respondents to their respective firms is presented in Table 4.2.

With respect to type of organization of the respondents, the information delineates that the
dominant response was from the consulting firms which accounts of 58.3% of all the responses.
Responses from both the contractor and client side accounts of 20.8% each.

24
Table 4.2: Summary of Type of Organization of Respondents

Type of Organization Frequency Percentage

Client 5 20.8
Contractor 5 20.8
Consultant 14 58.3
Total 24 100

4.3.3 RESPONDENTS CURRENT POSITION IN HIS/HER ORGANIZATION

As depicted below in Table 4.3 majority of the responses were from Project Managers in their
respective organizations which accounts for 28% of all the respondents. Office Engineers account
for 24% of the overall responses, Construction managers and Site Engineers take 12% of the
responses each Board of Directors and Quantity Surveyors have each 8% respondents the 4% of
responses is for both Site supervisor and Resident Engineers position.

Table 4.3: Summary of Respondents Current Position in his/her Organization

Current Position Frequency Percentage

Board of Directors 2 8
Project Manager 7 28
Construction Manager 3 12
Site Engineer 3 12
Office Engineer 6 24
Quantity surveyor 2 8
Site Supervisor 1 4
Resident Engineer 1 4
Total 25 100

25
4.4. SUSTAINABLE BUILDING ASSESSMENT TOOL (SBAT) AREA’S BY
OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AREAS
The Environmental Assessment Area on the SBAT deals with the areas of environmental
conditions in which buildings are being organized towards the sustainable built environment. This
area assesses the building efficiency and usage of renewable energy, minimization of the
consumptions of mains portable water, minimization of emissions and waste directed to landfill,
minimization of the construction impacts of building materials, and the built environments support
of biodiversity. In the tables preceding, the inquiries raised for the respondents contain five point
SBAT scale rating method in which; 1= Built Environment provides no capacity, 2 = provides
limited capacity, 3 = provides in partial capacity 4=provides with strong/excellent capacity and 5
= provides with full capacity. After the respondents’ inquiry is analyzed, the results are presented
as the weighing method provided by the SBAT Residential tool which is used throughout the study.

26
4.4.1.1 ENERGY (Is the built environment energy efficient and uses renewable energy?)
Respondents were asked to put forward their general understandings on the approaches of their
respective built environment towards the efficient energy and renewable energy usages based on
fourteen elements of assessment. Furthermore the median and weights according to the SBAT
tool are identified as they are the direct inputs for the SBAT Report.

Table 4.4 Summary of built environments’ efficient energy and renewable energy

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
EN1 – Building Orientation 25 3 0 28 56 16 0 1
EN2 - Building Depth 25 3 4 24 44 20 8 1
EN3 - Roof Construction 25 3 12 12 36 40 0 1
(minimizing the heat gain
through roof)
EN4 - Wall Construction 25 3 0 20 56 24 0 1
EN5 - Floor Construction 25 3 0 28 40 32 0 1
EN6 - Window to Wall Ratio 25 3 0 25 29.2 37.5 8.3 1
EN7 - Ventilation openings 25 3 0 16 48 32 4 1
EN8 - Daylight 25 3 4 4 56 32 4 1
EN9 - Internal Lighting 25 4 0 4 36 52 8 1
EN10 - External Lighting 25 3 4.3 8.7 39.1 39.1 8.7 1
EN11 - Installed Equipment Power 25 3 0 20 36 44 0 3
Density
EN12 - Food Cooking 25 3 12.5 41. 29.2 16.7 0 1
7
EN13 - Water Heating 25 3 24 24 24 28 0 1
EN14 - Renewable Energy 25 2 24 40 24 8 4 2
Generation

27
As it can be observed from the table more than half of the respondents said the building is oriented
towards optimum exposure to daylight, sunlight and associated heat loss and gain within the
building. 28% of the respondents answered the building is oriented in a limited capacity and those
of 16% responded it is in a strong capacity towards bringing optimum exposure to daylight,
sunlight and associated heat loss and gain within the building.

On the building depth, majority of respondents which accounts for 44% responded that the building
partially accompanies the concept of limiting the building depth for good cross ventilation and day
lighting within the building, 24% responded the building accounts the quality of the depth in a
limited capacity and 20% of respondent think the building strongly considers the depth for the
mentioned advantages.

Around 40% of respondents said that the roof construction in the built environment strongly
considers the attainment of minimizing the heat gain which may lead to heat loads within the
interior which in turn leads to high internal temperatures and discomfort, 36% of the respondents
think the building fulfills the roof construction in a partial capacity. On the other element stated,
which is wall construction, more than half of the respondents think that the built environment
provides partial capacity towards minimization of uncontrolled heat flow through walls of the
building that can lead to high or low internal temperatures and occupant discomfort.

Majority of the respondents (40%), believe the floor construction partially fulfills the logic of the
floor consisting of exposed high thermal mass material, and 37.5% of the respondents also believe
that the window to wall ratio is strongly achieved for the minimization of uncontrolled heat losses
and gains. 48% of respondents said the ventilation openings of the building partially accompanies
the idea of the minimum necessary ventilation opening area per room floor area provided for each
useable room, 32% believe that it is strongly achieved by the built environment.

Around 56% of respondents believe that the building partially achieves the requirement of enough
daylight entering, which is important for human health and avoids the need for artificial lighting,
32% think the building allows enough daylight. Majority of the respondents 52% and 39.1% also
believe the built environment provides internal and external lighting in strong capacity.

Majority, 44% of respondents believe the installed equipment density provides partial capacity
towards the minimization of Equipment in buildings which consume a significant and varying

28
proportion of energy within buildings. In other case, 41.7% of respondents believe the building
uses solar cooker, biogas stove or hotbox provided to support food cooking only in a limited
capacity, and 28% of respondents believe the buildings hot water heating requirements met
through renewable energy sources with electrical back up in a strong capacity. And finally,
majority of respondents (40%) believe the building’s renewable energy generation capacity is
limited.

4.4.1.2. WATER (Built environment minimizes the consumption of mains portable water)
In this section respondents were asked if the built environment minimizes mains water
consumption. Six elements are listed for Assessment and respondents were asked to use the
SBAT scaling approach which ranges from 1 = provides with no capacity to 5 = provides with
full capacity. The median of respondents answer is listed on the left of the table while the SBAT
weight for the purpose of the SBAT report is at the right.

Table 4.5 Summary of Built environments minimization of mains water usage

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
WA1 – Toilets 25 2 28 32 24 16 0 1
WA2 – Wash Hand 25 2 16 32 44 8 0 0
Basins
WA3 – Showers 25 3 16 28 44 12 0 1
WA4 – Hot Water 25 2 20 36 40 4 0 0
WA5 – Landscape 25 3 12 32 32 16 8 1
WA6 – Rainwater 25 2 48 24 4 16 8 2
Harvesting

The first element on the table asked respondents if the Toilets are capable of minimizing the
consumption of mains water portable water because Flushing toilets in housing consume very
significant amounts of mains potable water. 32% of respondents believe the building is limited to
provide that and 28% think the built environment does not provide water consumption
minimization for mains portable water. Furthermore, majority of the respondents (44%, 44%,
29
40%) believe the wash hand basins, showers and hot water serving in the building provide partial
impact in the minimization of the mains portable water consumption knowing that significant
amounts of mains potable water can be wasted in wash hand basins as a result of high water flows
and the other (32%, 28%, 36%) believe the building provides for this element in a limited capacity.
32% of respondents believe the landscaping is partially capable of not requiring irrigation or all
requirements met from grey/rain water harvested water, the other equally numbered respondents
believe the built environment is limited to provide the element. Finally, majority 48% of
respondents believe that rain water harvesting requirement is not met while 24% of respondents
believe the built environment have a limited capability in rain water harvesting.

4.4.1.3. WASTE (The building minimizes emissions and waste directed to landfill)
In this portion of the study, built environment’s minimization of emissions and wastes directed to
landfill is assessed. Five elements, to be rated by the SBAT scaling are listed on the table. The
respondents answer in percentile, the median and the SBAT weight are all provided on the table
as follows.

Table 4.6 Summary of responses for minimization of waste

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
WE1 - Recycling Area 25 2 40 16 24 20 0 0
WE2 - Recycling 25 2 44 28 20 8 0 0
Collection
WE3 - Organic Waste 25 2 32 36 12 20 0 0
WE4 - Sewage 25 3 16.7 29.2 12.5 33.3 8.3 1
WE5 - Construction Waste 25 3 0 20 40 36 4 1

Respondents were asked about how capable their respective built environment is in providing
enough recycling area and Collection. 40% and 44% of the respondents believe the building
provides none. Furthermore, 36% of the respondents believe the built environment provides
limited capability in recycling Organic waste is on site. 32% believe there is no such culture at the
site at all.
30
The fourth element at the table asked for if Sewage is treated on site, or in within the neighborhood,
to provide useful by-products such as irrigation water and fertilizer. 33.3% of the respondents
believe the sites have strong capability in providing those advantages. At last, the respondents were
asked if reasonable amount of construction waste to be recycled or reused on site, 40% said the
building is partially capable and 36% of them believe the built environment provides it in a strong
capacity.

4.4.1.4 MATERIALS (Construction impacts of building materials are minimized)

In the preceding table, respondents were asked for their insights of their respective built
environment’s minimization of the construction impacts of building materials. The respondents
were given to answer the questions listed as seven elements in a SBAT scaling method. The results
are on the table preceding.

Table 4.7 Summary of construction materials impact

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
MA1 - Building Reuse 25 2 16.7 33.3 41.7 8.3 0 2
MA2 - Timber Doors and 25 3 0 32 40 24 4 1
Windows
MA3 - Timber Structure 25 2 44 20 12 16 8 0
MA4 - Refrigerants 25 2 36 20 16 24 4 0
MA5 - Volatile Organic 25 2 32 36 16 12 4 0
Compounds
MA6 - Formaldehyde 25 2 48 20 24 8 0 0
MA7 - Locally Sourced 25 3 12 28 44 12 4 1
Materials

The first element on the table assesses the building reuse rate which is if reasonable amount of the
existing building structure is reused. 41.7% think that issue is partially applicable for their
respective built environment, and 33.3% think limited amount of the existing building structure is
reusable. The second element asks the respondents if reasonable amount of the windows and doors

31
(by number) used in the building are made of timber, because timber must be certified from
sustainable sources. 40% think the building provides partial employment of timber windows and
doors those of 32% believe it is in a limited capacity. The 3rd element on the table about the usage
of timber structure Over 80% (by weight) of the roof or floor structure. 36% believe that it is not
totally met by the built environment and 20% think that the building provides a limited capacity.

The other areas of assessment mentioned on the table are minimization of the effects usages of
refrigerants, volatile organic compounds and formaldehydes on the site. 36%, 32% and 32%
believe the built environment does not minimize the usages of the mentioned elements
respectively. 20% and 36% believe the building minimizes their usage in a limited capability.

The final element on the table assesses if the building provides the usage of locally sourced
materials. 44% think building materials are partially used from local sources and 28% think the
built environment uses locally sourced materials only in a limited capacity.

4.4.1.5 BIODIVERSITY (Built environment supports biodiversity)

This portion lists four elements which are used to assess the built environments support to
biodiversity which is the part of environmental assessment are that adds towards the overall
sustainability. Results are on the table 4.8.

Table 4.8 summary of built environments support to biodiversity.

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
BI1 Brownfield Site 25 2 29.2 25 37.5 8.3 0 2
B12 Municipal Boundary 25 3 8.3 16.7 29.2 29.2 16.7 1
BI3 Vegetation 25 2 20 32 32 16 0 2
B14 Ecosystems 25 3 8 28 48 16 0 1

The table consists of elements of lists which include Brownfield site, if the Site has already been

built on and a green-field site is avoided, if the site fulfils the criteria of meeting the municipal

32
boundary provided by the state, vegetation on the site which includes gardens, roof gardens,
internal planting, vertical gardens and creepers. And finally the ecosystem which should consist
of variety of plant species are assessed. 37.5% of the respondents answered the site was partially
green when it was cleared for the construction to begin. Equally 29.2 % of respondents believe the
municipal boundary is partially and strongly respected by the built environment. And when we
come to the vegetation cover and the ecosystem of the built environment, 32% and 28%
respondents think the site partially fulfils the elements with 32% and 28% of the respondents
believe built environment provides those elements in a limited capacity.

4.4.2. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AREAS

The Economic assessment areas on the SBAT deal with built environment’s economic wellbeing
which sums up towards the overall sustainability. The Economic assessment area is further
categorized into five areas which include, support to energy efficient transportation, built
environment’s efficient use of resource, the management to support sustainability, support to local
economy and usage of sustainable products and services. Those categories are further broken down
to sub elements for the purpose of detailed assessment.

4.4.2.1. TRANSPORT (The building supports energy efficient transportation)

Table 4.9 Summary of building’s support to energy efficient transportation

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
TR1 - Pedestrian Routes 25 3 0 17.4 43.4 30.4 8.7 1
TR2 - Cycling 25 2 28 40 24 8 0 0
TR3 - Public 25 3 4 4 48 32 12 2

This table deals with assessment of built environment’s support to energy efficient transportation.
Here the 1st question asks if the building supports Dedicated, safe and easily used pedestrian paths are
provided from public highways to main entrance of the building. Majority of respondents which account
for 43% of the total, think that the building partially provides the service, 30.4% think the built environment
has strong capability towards providing the necessity of pedestrian routes. Furthermore, 40% and 28% of
respondents believe the built environment’s capacity for providing cycling roads and secure bicycle

33
parking facilities provided at/for each unit is limited and null, respectively. Half of the respondents
believe the walking distance from the building to public transport node is neither faraway nor very
near. 32% think the distance strongly achieves the minimization of the walking distance to public
transportation facilities which is positively seen as a cost effective and has fewer negative
environmental impacts than car use.

4.4.2.2. RESOURCES (The building makes efficient use of resources)

This portion on the SBAT deals with assessing the built environment for its efficient resource
usage by listing four elements, which are the Site Density, Area per Occupant, Renewable Energy
generation and the Food production. The results are cited as follows.

Table 4.10 Summary of building’s efficient use of resources

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
RE1 - Site Density 25 3 0 48 44 4 4 2

RE2 - Area per occupant 25 3 4 20 40 36 0 2

RE3 - Renewable Energy 25 2 28 44 24 4 0 1
Generation
RE4 - Food Production 25 2 37.5 33.3 20.8 8.3 0 1

The first question is asked to assess the density of the site which is person per hectare, increased
site densities enable improved efficiency in the supply of services and support better access to
health, education and recreation facilities. Transportation costs and impacts are also reduced. Half
of the respondents believe the site is limited to be dense as needed to provide the advantages
mentioned and 44% think the built environment is partially dense. 44% of the respondents think
the built environment provides only a limited capacity towards renewable energy generation and
majority 37.5% of respondents believe space for food production at the site is very limited.

4.4.2.3. MANAGEMENT (The building is managed to support sustainability)

The management section on the SBAT is created to measure the built environments’
management quality in the support of achieving sustainability. It consists of five elements which

34
includes, the detailed manual provision about the usage of the building, Energy and Water
metering to control their usage, recording of necessary data and whether the building has
Residents association that makes necessary follow-ups towards the achievement of sustainable
built environment. The results are as follows on the table below.

Table 4.11 Summary of Buildings management towards sustainability

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
MN1 - Manual 25 3 8 44 20 28 0 1
MN2 - Energy Metering 25 2 4 52 40 4 0 0
MN3 - Water Metering 25 3 8 32 52 8 0 1
MN4 - Recording 25 3 4 12 40 24 20 1
MN5 - Residents 25 3 8 12 40 36 4 1
Association

In order for facilities managers to manage buildings properly and for occupants to use buildings
in optimum ways it is important that they are aware of the purpose of buildings systems and how
they work. As seen from the results of the table, 44% of respondents answered the buildings
provide detailed manual about the building use in a very limited manner. Furthermore, 52% of
the respondents think Energy metering at the site is very limited and also another 52% of the
respondents believe the water metering is done fairly in a partial capacity. Finally 40% of
respondents believe residents association which is an effective mechanism for ensuring that
neighborhood services and facilities such as street lighting, roads, pavements, storm water
channels, parks and sports facilities are managed effectively are fairly being implemented.

4.4.2.4. LOCAL ECONOMY (The building supports the local economy)

This portion discusses whether the built environment is entitled to support the local economy
which is a way out to achieving the overall sustainability. The Local Economy section on the
SBAT consists of three elements which include, locally sourced materials and products at the
site, small enterprises given chance and construction workers support. The result is as follows.

35
Table 4.12 Summary of building’s support to local economy

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
LE1 Locally Sourced 25 3 4 16 40 36 4 2
Materials and Products
LE2 Small Enterprise 25 3 16 20 52 12 0 3
LE3 Construction Workers 25 3 12 44 24 20 0 1
Support

Materials and products that are manufactured within the country have reduced impacts associated
with transport compared to similar imported materials and products. 40% and 36 % of the
respondents believe the built environment partially and strongly accepts the support of locally
manufactured supplies. More than half of respondents think small enterprises which are crucial
to the development of a diversified vibrant local economy are partially being given market
opportunity at the site. The 3rd section assesses the construction workers support at the built
environment which includes valuable employment opportunities for local people is provided in a
little or limited capacity.

4.4.2.5. SERVICES AND PRODUCTS (The building supports use sustainable products
and services)
The Services and Products section provides information on the buildings’ support to usage of
more sustainable products and services. Table 4.13 provides the answer by listing eight elements
that include, Fresh fruit and vegetables produced within the country, Fresh locally baked bakery
products are within walking distance from the building, Beans and pulse, Milk and Eggs,
Clothing, furniture, equipment hire and Physical notice at central point for advertising local
products and services are all located in reasonable distance from the built environment.

36
Table 4.13 Summary of building’s support to use sustainable products and service

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
SP1 - Fruit and Vegetables 25 2 16.7 45.8 33.3 4.2 0 1
SP2 - Bakery Products 25 2 24 48 24 4 0 0
SP3 - Beans and pulses 25 2 28 44 24 4 0 0
SP4 - Milk and Eggs 25 2 24 44 24 4 4 0
SP5 - Clothing 25 3 12 44 16 16 12 1
SP6 - Furniture 25 2 16 36 32 16 0 0
SP7 - Equipment Hire 25 3 12 44 16 24 4 1
SP8 - Notice Board 25 2 12 48 24 16 0 0

As it is observed from the table getting those sustainable services that include Fresh fruit and
vegetables produced within the country, Fresh locally baked bakery products are within walking
distance from the building, Beans and pulse, Milk and Eggs, Clothing, furniture, equipment hire
and Physical notice are all available for the built environment in a limited capacity. Majority of
the respondents 45.8%, 48%, 44%, 44%, 44%, 36%, 44% and 48% have agreed that those
services and products are provided in a limited capacity.

4.4.3 SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ASPECTS

The third part on the SBAT discusses about the assessment of Social Aspects of the built
environment which is further sub-divided into, the buildings support of access to facilities, built
environments support to healthy and productive environment, support to education, social
cohesion and inclusion.

4.4.3.1. ACCESS (The building supports access to facilities)

The first table puts the assessment of the buildings support of access to facilities listing six
elements within to make the measurement more legit. The elements include Access to the
Internet, Banking, Groceries, Post office, Crèche and Access to primary schools. The results are
on the table as follows.

37
Table 4.14 Summary of the buildings support for access to facilities

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
AC1 - Internet Access 25 3 0 8.3 45.8 41.7 4.2 1
AC2 - Banking 25 4 0 12 32 32 24 1
AC3 - Groceries 25 3 12 8 28 32 20 1
AC4 - Post Office 25 2 16 36 40 8 0 0
AC5 - Crèche 25 3 16 34 28 28 4 1
AC6 - Primary Schools 25 3 20 12 40 20 8 1

Access to low cost or free internet can be used to reduce transport impacts as information can be
accessed locally. Access to information can also be used to support education, communication
and small businesses. From the findings on the table 45.8% and 41.7% of respondents think the
access to the internet on the built environment is fair and is provided in a strong capacity.
Equally 32% of the respondents believe ATM or Bank can be fairly and easily accessed.
Furthermore, 32% of the respondents believe the groceries accessibility is strongly considered by
the built environment, 40% of the respondents believe post offices to be fairly accessible and
36% believe post offices accessibility is limited.

Access to local crèches reduce transport impacts. Living and business costs may also be lower as
there is a reduced requirement for vehicular transport. 34% 0f respondents think local crèche is
not easily accessible from the built environment while equally 28% of the respondents believe
the accessibility to be fair and strong. Furthermore, 40% of the respondents believe the access to
primary schools is fair the other 20% of the respondents think there are primary schools in a
walking distance from the built environment.

4.4.3.2 HEALTH (Built environment supports a healthy and productive environment)

This portion with in the social wellbeing of the built environment discusses the buildings support
to a healthy and productive environment by listing 14 assessing elements consisting of
Availability of Exercise facilities, Health facilities, fruit and vegetables, beans and pulses, milk

38
and egg, clean water, external views, daylight, openings, roof construction, wall construction,
volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde and the construction workers health, which are all
very essential for human development and health.

Table 4.15 Summary of responses in built environments support to a healthy and productive
environment

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
HE1 - Exercise 25 3 0 32 28 32 8 1
HE2 - Health facility 25 3 4 28 40 28 0 1
HE3 - Fruit and 25 3 12 32 28 28 0 1
Vegetables
HE4 - Bean and Pulses 25 2 12 52 36 0 0 0
HE5 - Milk and Eggs 25 3 16 36 24 24 0 2
HE6 - Water 25 3 0 28 36 32 4 1
HE7 - External Views 25 4 0 8 32 44 16 2
HE8 Daylight 25 3 0 8.3 54.2 37.5 0 1
HE9 - Openings 25 4 0 12 36 36 16 1
HE10 - Roof Construction 25 3 0 12 44 44 0 1
HE11 - Wall Construction 25 3 8 20 40 32 0 1
HE12 - Volatile Organic 25 2 28 40 16 16 0 0
Compounds
HE13 - Formaldehyde 25 2 25 37.5 12.5 16.7 8.3 0
HE14 - Construction 25 2 17.4 43.5 26.1 13 0 0
Worker Health

As it is seen on the findings from the table, equally 32% of the respondents believe the site
provides limited access and also strong access to exercise facilities while 28% think the access to
exercise facilities is fair. On the other hand 40% of respondents believe the access to health
facilities is fairly considered by the built environment while equally 28% of respondents think

39
access to health is limited and easy as well. 38% of respondents think access to fruits and
vegetables is limited, while equally 28% of respondents believe it is fair and easy to make it to
there. Access to bean, pulses, milk and eggs is limited according to 56% and 36 % of the
respondents. While equally 24% of respondents believe the milk and eggs are fairly and easily
accessible. 36% of respondents believe that clean drinking water is fairly available within or near
the building while 32% believe the built environment provides the service in a strong capacity.

According to 44% of the respondents external views at the site are strongly considered for the
useable rooms to have glazing on external walls which provide a view. Equally 36% of
respondents think the opening on the building is fair and enough. Majority 44 of the people belie
the built environment is strongly capable while building roofs, which is highly attached with
tenant’s comfort. 40% of respondents think the wall construction is fair. And as it is seen from
the findings of 40% and 37.5% of the respondents, usage of volatile organic compounds and
formaldehyde isn’t minimized. Concluding this portion, the construction workers health is
assessed, and majority of respondents believe there is a limited access and will for the health and
wellbeing of the construction workers.

4.4.3.3 EDUCATION (The building supports education)

This portion of the SBAT deals with the assessment of the built environment’s support to
education through the measurements of eight elements within it. Availability of Primary and
Secondary schools, Ongoing Education, Internet, Notice Boards, Space for Learning, Building
User Manual, and Construction Worker Education. The results from the finding is on the table as
follows.

40
Table 4.16 Summary of the building’s support to education

Percent of Responses

Indicator N Median 1 2 3 4 5 SBAT

weight
ED1 - Primary Schools 25 3 13 17.4 39.1 26.1 4.3 1
ED2 - Secondary Schools 25 3 13 26.1 26.1 30.4 4.3 1
ED3 - Ongoing education 25 3 12.5 29.2 25 29.2 4.2 1
ED4 - Internet 25 3 12.5 29.2 45.8 8.3 4.2 1
ED5 - Noticeboards 25 3 12 32 40 12 4 1
ED6 - Space for Learning 25 3 12 12 20 48 8 1
ED7 - Building User Manual 25 3 12 20 48 20 0 1
ED8 - Construction Worker 25 2 12 48 32 8 0 0
Education

According to 30.4% of the respondents availability of secondary school in the neighborhood is

strongly accessible and easy to find, but that of ongoing education is according to 29.2%
respondents, it is limited to access. 48% of respondents think the built environment provision of
space for learning is strongly achieved. Furthermore, majority of 48% of respondents believe the
construction workers access to education is very limited within the built environment.

4.4.3.4 INCLUSION AND SOCIAL COHESION (The building is inclusive of diversity in

population and social cohesion)
This portion of the SBAT deals with the building’s support of inclusion of diversity in
population through eleven elements consisting of accessible public transport route, accessible
walking routes to groceries, walking route within the site, entrances and exits, circulation within
the rooms, accessible locations of windows, doors and lighting controls, bathrooms, kitchen,
inclusive employment (inclusion of women, youth and disabled), the affordability of the housing
to the public, communal space, covered neighborhood facilities, external neighborhood facilities
and residents association. Unlike the other method of data collection which is the questionnaire,
this last portion of the SBAT data is collected through direct site observation and information

41
from key personnel. The results were put in the following table and directly used as inputs for the
final portion of the SBAT.

Table 4.17 Summary of Inclusion and Social Cohesion

Indicator SBAT Achievable Actual Weight
weight
IN1 – Public Transport 1 1
IN2 – Groceries 1 1
IN3 – External Routes 1 1
IN4 – Entrances and Exits 1 1
IN5 – Circulation 1 1
IN6 – Window, Door and Lighting 1 1
Control
IN7 – Doors 1 1
IN8 – Bathroom 1 1
IN9 – Kitchen 1 1
IN10 – Inclusive Employment 1 0
IN11 – Affordability 2 0
SC1 – Communal Space 2 0
SC2 – Covered Neighborhood Facilities 2 2
SC3 – External Neighborhood Facilities 1 0
SC4 – Residents Association 1 1

The finding from direct observation and key personnel interview from the above table shows
that, the route to public transportation, groceries, walking route within the site, entrances and
exits, circulation, windows doors and lighting systems, bathrooms, kitchens is easily accessible.
While, inclusive employment, affordability and external neighborhood facilities are all not well
considered by built environment.

In conclusion, the data and findings from each portion of the SBAT and their elements was all
fed to the “Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Residential 1.04” software to generate the

42
overall report for all the studied built environments in a form of Spider Web Diagram. The
results from the SBAT report will be summarized and concluded at the final chapter.

43
SUSTAINABLE BUILDING ASSESSMENT TOOL RESIDENTIAL
1.04
Achieved
SB SBAT REPORT 2.8

SB1 Project
Overall Report
SB2 Address
Addis Ababa
SB3 SBAT Graph
Actual Target
Energy 2.7 5.0
Water 2.3 5
Waste Energy 2.0 5
Materials Social Cohesion 5.0 Water 2.0 5
Biocapacity 4.0 2.3 5
Transport Inclusion Waste 3.3 5.0
Resource Use 3.0 3.0 5
Management
Services and 2.0 3.3 5
Local Economy Materials 2.7 5
Products
1.0
Access 4.2 5.0
Actual
Health 0.0 3.3 5.0
Education Biocapacity 3.5 Target
Education 5
Services and Products 1.7 5
Inclusion 3.8 5
Health
Social Cohesion Transport 2.5 5

Access Resource Use

Local Economy Management

SB4 Environmental, Social and Economic Performance Score

Environmental 2.3
Economic 3.3
Social 3.0
SBAT Rating 2.8

SB5 EF and HDI Factors Score

EF Factor 2.4
HDI Factor 3.3

SB6 Targets Percentage

Environmental 45
Economic 66
Social 59
Figure Error! Use the Home tab to apply 0 to the text that you want to appear here..2 Overall
SBAT report 1

44
4.6 GENERALIZATON OF THE FINDINGS ON SBAT REPORT
According to the findings of the study, the SBAT report is developed and the result is clearly put
to see the performances of the built environment in the form of spider diagram in which the
overall conclusion is drawn from. See figure 5.1.

SB3 SBAT Graph

Actual Target
Energy 2.7 5.0
Water 2.3 5
Waste Energy 2.0 5
Materials Social Cohesion 5.0 Water 2.0 5
Biocapacity 4.0 2.3 5
Transport Inclusion Waste 3.3 5.0
Resource Use 3.0 3.0 5
Management
Services and 2.0 3.3 5
Local Economy Materials 2.7 5
Products
1.0
Access 4.2 5.0
Actual
Health 0.0 3.3 5.0
Education Biocapacity 3.5 Target
Education 5
Services and Products 1.7 5
Inclusion 3.8 5
Health
Social Cohesion Transport 2.5 5

Access Resource Use

Local Economy Management

Figure Error! Use the Home tab to apply 0 to the text that you want to appear here..3 Overall
SBAT report 2
From the spider diagram on figure 5.1, we can conclude that which performance elements need
special attention through all the assessment aspects of Environmental, Economic and social
areas. It is clearly seen on the spider diagram that all the elements are listed in a web circle
manner with their SBAT weight ranging from 0 running to maximum 5. The Target is the last
web circling the weight 5 in a yellow color, while the actual performance runs as a web circle
within the spider web diagram in black. The study found out that the maximum performance
score is from the Economic area of assessment which weighs an average total of 3.3. The Social

45
assessment has a total average weight of 3. And the minimum performance score goes to the
Environmental aspects of the built environment.

The top performance scores from the findings with in the Environmental aspects of the built
environment as seen from the right top quarter in the spider web diagram are efficiency of energy
usage, in which it still didn’t surpass the weighing score of three. All the other elements like
minimization of mains water usage, efficient waste management, the construction impacts of
building materials and support to biodiversity all run exactly at the performance weighing score
of 2. Therefore all the mentioned aspects of Environmental performance by the built
environment are the ones to give attention for necessary improvement measures.

From the bottom right quarter of the spider diagram we can conclude that Transportation,
resource usages and the sustainability management aspects all surpassed the performance
weighing score of 3, which according to the SBAT has a positive implication but some extent of
improvement helps to widen the circle for even a better score. The support of the built
environment to Local economy is the last to be visualized at the bottom of the spider web
slightly to the left. From its score it is concluded that the performance weight of the element
(support to local economy) needs special attention among the Economic areas of the built
environment to reach the necessary target.

The left side of the spider web gives a visual implication for the Social performance of the built
environment. As it is seen from the stretched pin points of the spider web circle we can conclude
that one aspect of the Social condition in the built environment have performed giving an
excellent score weight which is the Access to facilities that also scored the highest through all the
elements in the spider web. Thus, it can be concluded that the built environments have taken
their responsibility of providing Access to facilities for their built environment and surrounding.

The next top scorers from the spider web diagram at the left are, access to health, education and
inclusion, in which all three surpassed the performance score weight of 3, from what the SBAT
implication is derived to put strong capability of the built environment towards these elements.
The performance weight score of the Social cohesion at the built environment passes through the
2 point which implies the site has to improve on its cohesiveness, socially. The last term to
discuss from the spider diagram needs special consideration in the Ethiopian built environment.
A performance Score weight of less than 2, which is the least among all the performance

46
elements. The SBAT report implies this score of built environment to provide limited capacity of
building performance. The spider web circle at that point needs to be stretched by improvements
in provision the access to get services and products with sustainable values.

The general implication from the SBAT report of the built environments sustainability approach
on the Ethiopian construction sites shows that the overall score of 2.8 is achieved which is a
positive performance score to conclude with at this point, knowing that the score range between
2 and 3 from the SBAT implies the built environment provides partial capability to enable
occupants to achieve HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way. But the target is still too
far away to reach. The negative insight comes when it is reminded that the study focused on the
samples which are executed by level I construction firms only. The housing projects from these
firms comprise a little part of the vast majority housing projects being built all around the capital
Addis Ababa. Generally addressing, the culture of the level of assessment of sustainability in
built environment of the Ethiopian construction firms needs to improve in an exponential manner
with detailed follow-ups and responsible contract administration and management to walk along
with the development goals.

47
 CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATION
5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Study attempted to assess the culture sustainability management of built environments in
Ethiopia by studying four different building sites which were being contracted by Level I
construction firms, residing in Addis Ababa, through the Sustainable Building Assessment
Tool (SBAT) which is specially developed for developing nation’s context. The SBAT
describes 15 sets of objectives that should be aimed for Residential Buildings. It suggests that
the extent to which these objectives are achieved in buildings provide a simple, yet
reasonably effective, measure of the level of support for sustainable development. Objectives
are arranged under the headings of Environmental, Economic and Social aspects of
assessment areas.

Based on the data analyzed in chapter four, using descriptive approach for quantitative data
collected through questionnaire, the researcher comes up with the following results.

 Regarding the Assessment of Environmental Aspects, a total SBAT value of 2.3 was
achieved from the total achievable of 5. This value is achieved through the accumulated
weights which are all measured out of 5. The individual measured weights consist of the
built environment’s energy efficiency and usage of renewable energy, which weighs 2.7,
the buildings minimization of the usage of mains portable water that weighs 2.3, the
building’s minimization of emissions and waste directed to landfill weighing 2,
minimization of Construction impacts of building materials weighing 2, and the buildings
support to biodiversity which weighs 2.3 out of 5 possible. The overall weight of 2.3 out
of the total 5 on the SBAT tool is considered the built environment provides partial
capability to enable occupants to achieve HDI and EF targets and live in a sustainable way.
It is visible that the overall environmental score measured below half the total achievable
weight there are certain areas toward the scores should be improved.

 As for the Economic Aspects of Assessment, a total SBAT value of 3.3 is achieved from
the overall five. This is the cumulative of the sub measurements all rated out of 5, within
the Economic Aspects of measurements that consist of, the building’s support to energy

48
 efficient transportation that weighs 3.3, the building’s efficient use of resource weighing 3,
management to support sustainability weighing 3, the building’s support to local economy
which weighs 2.7, and the building support to sustainable products and services which
weighs just 1.7 out of the total 5. Thus an overall SBAT score of 3.3 is finally achieved by
the built environment in which its performance is measured to be shown, the built
environment provides strong capability to enable occupants to achieve HDI and EF targets and live
in a sustainable way.

 Regarding the Social Aspects of Assessment, a total SBAT score of 3 is achieved from the overall
achievable of 5. And it is the cumulated measurement from the components of the economic areas
consisting of the buildings support of access to facilities weighing 4.2, the built environments
support to a healthy and productive environment, which weighs 3.3, support to education weighing
3.5, the buildings inclusivity of diversity in population weighing 3.8 and the building support to
social cohesion which is measured to weigh 2.5. Thus the buildings access to facilities is measured
to perform an excellent capacity while the social cohesion of the built environment has a
performance which is of fair value. The overall performance measurement shows the Economic
Aspect of Assessment is 3 out of the overall 5. The SBAT puts this performance for the built
environment to be strong capability to enable occupants to achieve HDI and EF targets and live in
a sustainable way.

5.2 CONCLUSION
Level I construction contractors in Addis Ababa are the main artists in the show of shaping the
country’s environmental, economic and social values. They have the influence of shaping the
aesthetics of the life standards in the country. This is the reason that their sustainability is needed
to be assessed.

Sustainability in the built environments of Addis Ababa is assessed by the Sustainable Building
Assessment Tool and the following conclusions were derived

 The built environment is less likely to achieve the environmental sustainability that those
of the economic and social ones.
 The support to usage of sustainable services and products from the social aspect and the
surge into the local economy from the economic aspect are the worst sustainability
performers throughout the built environment.

49
  Efficient use of energy, minimization of mains portable water usage, minimization of
waste sent to the landfill, minimization of construction material impacts and being
ecofriendly are the measures which are all performed by the built environment below the
average mark.
 The built environment provides partial capability to enable occupants to achieve Human
Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint (EF) targets and live in a sustainable
way

5.3 RECOMMENDATION
Sustainable construction is an essential aspect of projects, if properly assessed and implemented,
it will have an excellent benefits on adding value to cost reduction, increased productivity, waste
minimization, use of materials, quality of life, new emerging markets, room for experimentation,
while preserving better living environment for the future generation. Having that in mind, the
following recommendations are addressed.

 The built environments in Ethiopia should start using certain assessment tools in their
management culture. Employing Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) is the best
way to assess sustainability and implement improvement measures and the tool is suited to
be used in developing nation’s context.

 The built environments in Ethiopia need to highly improve on the building’s support to
surge into the local economy that consists of, the building’s support to locally sourced
materials and products. Materials and products that are manufactured within the country have
reduced impacts associated with transport compared to similar imported materials and products.
The built environment also should support small enterprises Small business are crucial to
the development of a diversified vibrant local economy. They can be supported by
providing market opportunities, space, service and finance. There are many useful
services that small business can provide within neighborhoods such as retail, car and
equipment hire, maintenance, retail, crèches and catering. Support should therefore be
provided for small businesses within residential areas. And lastly, because Construction
projects can provide valuable employment opportunities for local people, Contract
documentation and maintenance policy should requires majority of construction and
maintenance workers employed on site to live in the nearby of the site.

50
 The buildings should support use of more sustainable products and services by providing
Fresh fruit, vegetables Fresh locally baked bakery products, beans and pulses, milk and
eggs, clothing, furniture, equipment hire and physical notice board for sustainable products
and service promotion which are produced within the country are available within a
walking distance of the building.

 Other areas which should be given higher priority to attain sustainability in the construction
firms of Ethiopia are, the efficiency in use of energy, minimization of the usage of mains
portable water, minimization of wastage, minimization of the construction impacts of
materials and the support of biodiversity.

 The efficiency of energy usage by built environment is attained by giving all necessary
attention towards the building’s orientation, minimization of building depth, minimization
of solar heat gains through roofs, minimization of uncontrolled heat flow through the walls,
controlling the lighting and heat passing through the glazing, allowing Light breezes
flowing directly through a building which can be used to provide ventilation and cooling
without mechanical means, allowing Good day lighting in the building which is important
for human health and avoids the need for artificial lighting, controlling the internal and
external lighting, minimizing equipment power density, using Solar cooker, biogas stove
or hotbox provided to support food cooking, increasing energy efficiency and using
renewable energy sources to heat water and using renewable energy generation on housing
sites to avoid carbon emissions, enable increased control over energy costs and reduce
dependency on a mains electrical supply.

 Built environment should minimize the usage of mains portable water by using more water
efficient toilets or toilets that do not use mains water, by restricting water flows in wash
hand basins taps, restricting flow rates in showerheads, by restricting the length of piping
between the location of hot water generation and hot water consumption, using rainwater
and grey water for irrigation and rainwater for topping up pools.

 Emissions and waste directed to landfill is minimized by providing easily accessible

storage for recycling near the point where they are needed. Once recycling material has
been gathered, it should be provided to recycling contractor or store it at a central point
where it can be stockpiled and much of the construction wastes should be reused on site as

51
 part of construction processes, or be recycled. Finally a significant proportion of household
waste, which is organic matter, should be easily composted and used to fertilize planting.

 Built environments attain minimization of the construction impacts of materials through

using timber doors, windows and structures. Timber is a grown material and is therefore
renewable. It also has a very low embodied energy content (energy required to produce and
transport the product to from source to building site). Buildings also attain minimization
of material impact by not using refrigerants which contribute to global warming such as
HVAC or refrigeration equipment or insulation, and minimizing the use of paints,
varnishes, glues or carpets that include volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde.

 Built environments should improve their friendliness to the biodiversity within the site.
This is attained by starting the building projects at existing green-field sites that consist of
a rich variety of plants and ecosystems and play a valuable role in providing ecological
services related to carbon sequestration, temperature and humidity control. It is also
attained through planting on site and planting a range of plant species and a minimum of
range of different complementary species. Planting can include gardens, roof gardens,
internal planting, vertical gardens and creepers.

 Built Environments should allocate enough resource, design innovative processes, allocate
incentives for creative employees, give frequent training to people within the organization,
encourage knowledge sharing among the employees and develop the implementation of
new ideas to support and build the culture of innovative sustainable approach.

5.4. AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

 This study solely Focused on Built environments which are executed by level I contractors
located only at Addis Ababa. As a result, I suggest that future researches to be performed
considering other levels of building contractors in Addis Ababa and other parts of the
country as well.

52
REFERENCES
Abidin, N.Z. (2010). Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction
concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat International

Aghimien, D. O, Awodele, O. A. & Aghimien, E. I. (2016). Providing Sustainability in

Educational Buildings Through the Use of Compressed Stabilized Interlocking Earth
Blocks. Journal of Construction Engineering, Technology and Management

Ali, H. and Al Nsairat, S. (2009). “Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries—case of Jordan,” Building and Environment

Anumba, C., Kamara, J., Evbuomwan, N. (1996). Encapsulating the ‘voice of the customer’ in
construction projects.

Asif, M., Muneer, T. & Kelley, R. (2007). Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling
home in scotland. Building and environment

Axelos, (2020). What is Project Management?

Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D. & Ochieng, E. (2013). Stakeholder engagement: Achieving
sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability

Bansal, V.K., & Pal, M. (2009) Extended GIS for construction engineering by adding direct
sunlight visualizations on buildings.

Barlow, J., 2000. Innovation and learning in complex offshore construction

projects, Research Policy

Barney, J.B. (1986). Types of Competition and the Theory of Strategy: Toward an Integrative
Framework, Academy of management review

Baumol, W.J. (1993). Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs

Bettis, R.A., & Hitt, M.A. (1995). The New Competitive Landscape, Strategic Management
Journal

Bock, T., & Linner, T. (2015) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Robot Oriented Design

53
Brones, F., de Carvalho, M.M., & de Senzi Zancul, E. (2014). Eco design in project
management: A missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development?

Brundtland Report, (1987). Our Common Future

Chia, F.C.; Skitmore, M., Runeson, G., & Bridge, A. (2014) Economic development and
construction productivity in Malaysia

Chitkara, K.K. (2014). Construction Project Management. In Planning, Scheduling and

Controlling, 3rd edition

Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull
perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions,
Research Policy

Du Plessis, C. (2007). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing

countries. Construction management and economics

Gibberd Jt. (2005). The sustainable building assessment tool (SBAT) and the sustainable
building lifecycle (SBL), Assessing sustainable buildings in developing countries

Gibbered, (2017). A critical evaluation of the built environment sustainability tool (BEST)

Gkritza, K., Sinha, K.C., Labi, S., & Mannering, F.L. (2008). Influence of highway construction
projects on economic development, an empirical assessment

Glaviˇc, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions

Golafshani, N. (2003) ‘Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’, The

Qualitative Report

Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid Corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change,

Econometrica

Haapio, A. & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment

tools, Environmental Impact Assessment Review

54
Hussin, J.M., Rahman, I.A. and Memon, A.H. (2013). The way forward in sustainable
construction: Issues and challenges, International Journal of Advances in Applied
Sciences

Hicks, J. R. (1932). Marginal productivity and the principle of variation, Economica

IPCC, (2014). AR5 Climate change, Mitigation of climate

ISO 15392, (2008). Sustainability in building construction, General principles

Jain, M., Mital, M., & Syal, M. (2013). “Obstacles and Catalysts Associated with
Implementation of LEED-EB(R) in India.” Environment and Urbanization AsiaKajander,
j. (2016). Evaluation of sustainability innovations in the construction sector

Kibert, C.J, (2013). Sustainable Construction. Green building design and delivery. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons Inc

Leedly, P., & Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical Research Planning and Design (8th ed.). New
Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Majdalani, Z., Ajam, M. & Mezher, T. (2006). Sustainability in the construction industry: A
lebanese case study. Construction innovation

Marcelino-Sádaba, S., González-Jaen, L.F., & Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. (2015). Using project

management as a way to sustainability, from a comprehensive review to a framework
definition.

McKinsey & Co., (2009). McKinsey quarterly, when sustainability means more than green

Mohamad, M. M. et al. (2015) ‘Measuring the Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments’,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Onwuegbuzie A.J (2003). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon: Quality and
Quantity: International Journal of Methodology

Oscar O., Francesc C., & Guido S., (2007). Sustainability in the construction industry: A review
of recent developments based on LCA

55
Nemet, F. (2009). Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-
incremental technical change, Research Policy

Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy

PMBOK®Guide, (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

Safa, M.; Sabet, A., MacGillivray, S., Davidson, M., Kaczmarczyk, K., Haas, C.T., & Gibson,
G.E., Rayside, D. (2015). Classification of Construction Projects

Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press

Seaden, G., Guolla, M., Doutriaux, J., & Nash, J. (2003). Strategic decisions
and innovation in construction firms, Construction Management and Economics

Sheffer, D., & Levitt, R. (2012). Fragmentation inhibits innovation: Overcoming professional
and trade lock in

Silva V. G., Silva M. G. & Agopyan V. (2003). “Evaluation of buildings in Brazil:

environmental assessment for the evaluation of sustainability,” Built Environment,

Slaughter, E.S. (2000). Implementation of construction innovations, Building Research &

Information

Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations: Volume One.

Sun, J., & Zhang, P. (2019). Owner organization design for mega industrial construction projects

Taeka, H. (2016). Evaluation of Selected Addis Ababa Buildings with respect to the Green
Building Features

UNEP (2007). Climate Change, Synthesis Report

Uttam, k. (2014). Seeking sustainability in the construction sector: opportunities within impact
assessment and sustainable public procurement

Vij, A., Shorey, G., Zia, H., Majumdar, M., Shukla, P., Kumar, P., & Tripathi, A. K. (2010).
GRIHA Manual

56
Wang, L., Toppinen, A. & Juslin, H. (2014). Use of wood in green building: A study of expert
perspectives from the UK. Journal of cleaner production

Wines, J. (2010). Green Building

World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987). Our Common Future; United
Nations, Oxford University Press

57
 APPENDIX
ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF COMMERCE

DEPARTMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONNAIRE

Assessment of Sustainability in Residential Building Construction Firm

Addis Ababa University School of Commerce

Dear Respondents,

The aim of this questionnaire is to obtain professional opinion for the purpose of Assessment of
the Sustainability of the building construction industry in Ethiopia. The information provided in
this questionnaire will be used for research purposes only. All specific company and respondent
information will be kept confidential at all times.

Your response is highly valuable to the outcome of the research and I kindly ask for your
cooperation in filling the questionnaire. The data obtained from this questionnaire will not be
discussed with friends or family members. Data from one project will not be sold to another
organization.

With regards

Amanuel Ashenafi Graduate Student

Contact: [email protected]

[email protected]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanuel-ashenafi-304388118/

+251912281258

Basic information of the respondent

58
1. Name of respondent’s organization (Optional)

2. Respondent’s Gender
Check all that apply.
Male
Female
3. Respondent’s work experience in building construction projects (Years)
<5
5-10
10-15
>15
4. Type of respondent’s organization
Client
Contractor
Consultant
Other:
5. Respondent’s current position in his/her organization
Board of Directors
Project Manager
Construction Manager
Site Engineer
Office Engineer
Quantity Surveyor
Other:

59
Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Areas, Objectivesand Indicators.
Environmental Assessment Areas
Energy (Built environment energy efficiency and use of renewable energy)
EN1. Orientation
12345

EN2. Building Depth

12345

EN3. Roof Construction

12345

EN4. Wall Construction

12345

EN5. Floor Construction

12345

EN12. Food Cooking

12345

EN6. Window to Wall Ratio

12345

EN7. Ventilation openings

12345

60
EN8. Daylight
12345

EN9. Internal Lighting

12345

EN11. Installed Equipment Power Density

12345

EN12. Food Cooking

12345

EN12. Food Cooking

12345

EN14. Renewable Energy Generation

12345

Water (Built environment minimizes the consumption of mains portable water)

WA1. Toilets
12345

WA2. Wash Hand Basins

12345

61
WA4. Showers
12345

WA5. Hot Water

12345

WA6. Landscape
12345

WA7 Rainwater harvesting

12345

Waste (The building minimizes emissions and waste directed to landfill)

WE1 Recycling area
12345

WE2. Recycling Collection

12345

WE3. Organic Waste

12345

WE4. Sewage
12345

62
WA5. Construction Waste
12345

Materials (Construction impacts of building materials are minimized)

MA1. Building Reuse
12345

MA2. Timber Doors and Windows

12345

MA3. Timber Structure

12345

MA4 Refrigerants
12345

MA5. Volatile Organic Compounds

12345

MA6. Formaldehyde
12345

MA7. Locally Sourced Materials

12345

63
Biodiversity (Built environment supports biodiversity)
BI1. Brownfield site
12345

BI2. Municipal Boundary

12345

BI3. Vegetation
12345

BI4. Ecosystems
12345

Economic Assessment Areas

Transport (The building supports energy efficient transportation)
TR2. Pedestrian Route
12345

TR2. Cycling
12345

TR3. Public Transport

12345

64
Resources (The building makes efficient use of resources)
RE1. Site Density
12345

RE2. Area per occupant

12345

RE3. Renewable Energy Generation

12345

RE4. Food Production

12345

Management (The building is managed to support sustainability)

MN1 Manual
12345

Energy Metering
12345

MN3 Water Metering

12345

MN4 Recording
12345

65
MN5 Residents Association
12345

Local economy (The building supports the local economy)

LE1. Locally sourced materials
12345

LE2. Small Enterprise

12345

LE3. Construction Workers Support

12345

Services and Products (The building supports use sustainable products andservices)
SP1. Fruit and Vegetables
12345

SP2. Bakery products

12345

SP3. Beans and pulses

12345

SP4. Milk and Eggs

12345

66
SP5. Clothing
12345

SP6. Furniture
12345

SP7. Equipment Hire

12345

SP8. Notice Board

12345

Social Assessment Aspects

Access (The building supports access to facilities)
65. AC1. Internet Access
12345

AC2. Banking
12345

AC3. Groceries
12345

AC4. Post Office

12345

67
AC5. Crèche
12345

AC6. Primary School

12345

Health (Built environment supports a healthy and productive environment)

HE1. Exercise
12345

HE2. Health facility

12345

HE3. Fruit and Vegetables

12345

HE4. Bean and pulses

12345

HE5. Milk and Eggs

12345

HE6. Water
12345

68
HE7. External Views
12345

HE8. Daylight
12345

HE9. Openings
12345

HE10. Roof Construction

12345

HE11. Wall Construction

12345

HE12. Volatile organic compounds

12345

HE13. Formaldehyde
12345

HE15. Construction Worker Health

12345

69
Education (The Building Supports Education)
ED1. Primary Schools
12345

ED2. Secondary schools

12345

ED3. Ongoing education

12345

ED4. Internet
12345

ED5. Noticeboards
12345

ED6. Space for Learning

12345

ED7. Building User Manual

12345

ED8. Construction Worker Education

12345

70
Table 3.1: Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Areas, Objectives and Indicators.
Category Area objective Indicator
EN1 Orientation, EN2
Building Depth, EN3
Roof Construction,
EN4 Wall
Construction, EN5
Floor Construction,
EN6 Window to Wall
Built environment is Ratio, EN7 Ventilation
Energy energy efficient and openings, EN8
uses renewable energy Daylight, EN9 Internal
Lighting, EN10
External Lighting,
EN11 Installed
Equipment Power
Density, EN12 Food
Cooking, EN13 Water
Heating, EN14
Renewable Energy
Generation
WA1 Toilets, WA2
Built environment Wash Hand Basins,
minimizes the WA4 Showers, WA5
Environmental Water consumption of mains Hot Water, WA6
portable water Landscape, WA7
Rainwater harvesting
WE1 Recycling Area,
The building minimizes WE2 Recycling
emissions and waste Collection, WE3
Waste
directed to landfill Organic Waste, WE4
Sewage, WE5
Construction Waste

71
 MA1 Building Reuse,
MA2 Timber Doors
and Windows, MA3
Timber Structure, MA4
Refrigerants, MA5
Volatile Organic
Materials Construction impacts of
Compounds, MA6
building materials are
Formaldehyde, MA7
minimized.
Locally Sourced
Materials
BI1 Brownfield Site,
B14 Municipal
Built environment
Boundary, BI3
supports biodiversity
Biodiversity Vegetation B14
Ecosystems

The building supports TR1 Pedestrian Routes,

Transport energy efficient TR3 Cycling, TR3
transportation Public Transport
RE1 Site Density, RE2
Area per occupant RE3
The building makes
Renewable Energy
efficient use of
Resources Generation, RE4 Food
resources.
Production

MN1 Manual, MN2

The building is Energy Metering, MN3
Management managed to support Water Metering, MN4
Economic
sustainability. Recording, MN5
Residents Association
LE1 Locally Sourced
Materials and Products,
Local economy The building supports LE2 Small Enterprise,
the local economy LE3 Construction
Workers Support

72
 SP1 Fruit and
The building supports Vegetables, SP2
Services and Products use sustainable Bakery Products, SP3
products and services. Beans and pulses, SP4
Milk and Eggs, SP5
Clothing, SP6
Furniture, SP7
Equipment Hire, SP8
Notice Board
AC1 Internet Access,
The building supports AC2 Banking, AC3
Access access to facilities. Groceries, AC4 Post
Office, AC5 Crèche,
AC6 Primary Schools
HE1 Exercise, HE2
Health facility, HE3
Fruit and Vegetables,
HE4 Bean and Pulses,
HE5 Milk and Eggs,
HE6 Water, HE7
Built environment External Views, HE8
Health supports a healthy and Daylight, HE9
productive environment Openings, HE10 Roof
Construction, HE11
Social Wall Construction,
HE12 Volatile Organic
Compounds, HE13
Formaldehyde, HE15
Construction Worker
Health
ED1 Primary Schools,
Education ED2 Secondary
Schools, ED3 Ongoing
education, ED4

73
 The building supports Internet, ED5
education Noticeboards, ED6
Space for Learning,
ED7 Building User
Manual, ED8
Construction Worker
Education

74