Construction InnovationInvestigating sustainable practices in the Malaysian office building developmentsZalina Shari Veronica Soebarto

Article information:To cite this document:Zalina Shari Veronica Soebarto , (2013),"Investigating sustainable practices in the Malaysian office buildingdevelopments", Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 17 - 37Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CI-12-2012-0064

Downloaded on: 16 June 2015, At: 01:12 (PT)References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 571 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Nazirah Zainul Abidin, Nor'Aini Yusof, Ayman A.E. Othman, (2013),"Enablers and challenges of asustainable housing industry in Malaysia", Construction Innovation, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 10-25Yeong Liang Sim, Frederik Josep Putuhena, (2015),"Green building technology initiatives to achieveconstruction quality and environmental sustainability in the construction industry in Malaysia", Managementof Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 233-249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2013-0093Nurul Sakina Mokhtar Azizi, Suzanne Wilkinson, Elizabeth Fassman, (2015),"Strategies for improvingenergy saving behaviour in commercial buildings in Malaysia", Engineering, Construction and ArchitecturalManagement, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 73-90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2014-0054

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:376953 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

Investigating sustainablepractices in the Malaysian office

building developmentsZalina Shari

Department of Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia, and

Veronica SoebartoSchool of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design,

University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – Economically, Malaysia has one of the fastest growing construction industries in theworld; however, the necessary balance between socio-economic and ecological systems – to avoidfurther environmental damage – has not yet been reached by the industry. This paper aims to explorethe extent of sustainable development practices (socially, environmentally and economically) in theMalaysian construction industry, focusing on the office building sector.

Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 stakeholders fromvarious backgrounds of the Malaysian construction industry are used to explore their challenges andmotivations for pursuing sustainable outcomes.

Findings – The study finds that economic issues are the first priorities among stakeholders in anydecision-makings for building projects and cost becomes one of the major reasons for the slowprogress in implementing sustainable practices in building projects. Socially, there is still a wide gapof knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues among stakeholders, explaining the lack ofcommitment in achieving sustainability.

Research limitations/implications – The sample size is only adequate to enable internalgeneralisation; hence, further research is required to test the generalisability of the findings in thisresearch.

Practical implications – This paper informs the government and regulatory stakeholders, researchand education sector, private sector, and clients of the building industry, where the authors currentlyare and the gaps that the authors have to bridge in order to make sustainability more sociallyacceptable and integral in the local construction industry.

Originality/value – There have been very limited studies on exploring the views from variousgroups of stakeholders regarding all the three components of sustainable development in theMalaysian construction industry.

Keywords Qualitative research, Malaysia, Office buildings, Building stakeholders,Design and construction, Sustainability and green buildings

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

The authors wish to acknowledge that part of this work was published in the Proceedings of the2nd International Conference Socio-political and Technological Dimensions of Climate Change(STDCC2012), 19-21 November 2012, Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp. 51-62. The authors are especiallythankful for the contribution by Associate Professor Terence Williamson, who was theCo-Supervisor of the first author during her PhD studies. The Ministry of Higher EducationMalaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia are also acknowledged for the award of scholarship toconduct this research. The authors would like to thank 30 interviewees who contributed to thisresearch.

Construction InnovationVol. 14 No. 1, 2014

pp. 17-35q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1471-4175DOI 10.1108/CI-12-2012-0064

Investigatingsustainable

practices

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

IntroductionThe construction industry is one of the productive sectors that constantly contribute tothe economy in Malaysia. Malaysia has one of the fastest growing constructionindustries in the world (Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (ABCSE),2007); and is currently categorised as a “newly industrialised country” (Mankiw, 2008)or an “emerging market/economy” (Dow Jones Indexes, 2011), indicating its economicsuccess. The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b)however asserted that the construction industry has been emphasising mostly onproviding buildings with the best possible (lowest) cost often at the expense of quality.

This current trend of minimising possible initial costs has taken its toll on variousenvironmental issues in the country. The exploitation of resources, uncontrolled, andimproperly planned development has resulted in the deterioration of the environmentsuch as land pollution due to uncontrolled solid wastes disposal, as well as soil erosionand silting of water course, which in turn causes water pollution, flooding in low-lyingareas and flash floods in urban areas (Aiken et al., 1982; Begum et al., 2006; Departmentof Environment Malaysia, 1997; Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia, 2005; Sani, 1999).The building sector has also contributed to the depletion of non-renewable fossil-fueland deterioration of air quality due to its huge amount of electricity consumption.According to the Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia (2001), buildings inMalaysia consume about 12.85 percent of the total energy consumption and 47.5 percentof the country’s electricity consumption. As such, based on the production levels in 2005,it is estimated that the oil reserves in Malaysia is yet to last only another 15 years,while gas reserves is estimated to last for just another 29 years (APEC, 2006). Malaysia isnow ranked 25th in the global list of human-made carbon dioxide emissions(Mohd Yunus, 2007), second highest in Asia after Japan, and the highest in South-EastAsia (Praveena et al., 2010).

The industry’s emphasis on low cost resulted in relying on cheap foreign labour hasalso led to several effects on the social image of the industry. Much criticism has beendirected toward low quality end-products, low level of productivity, and lower incentiveto invest in more productive and modern technology (Chan, 2009; CIDB Malaysia,2007b). Since foreign workers are usually unskilled[1], occupational safety is normallycompromised (Abdul-Aziz, 2001; CIDB Malaysia, 2007b). Between 1999 and 2003, theconstruction industry had the highest fatality rate compared to other sectors in Malaysia(CIDB Malaysia, 2005). This is unsurprising as there are only six (as of end 2007) out ofthousands construction companies in Malaysia that have OSHMS/OHSAS[2]certifications (CIDB Malaysia, 2007a).

These predicaments suggest the benefits of development may be negated by the costsof environmental and social impacts. In the process of economic and infrastructuraldevelopment, social obligations have often been side-lined and environment has notbeen given its due respect which leads to further social problems and degradation of theenvironment. If this is the case, then the current Malaysian construction and buildingpractices appear to be not sustainable. The adoption of sustainable development inMalaysian construction industry is therefore very timely and crucial.

There are a large number of definitions of sustainable development, however themost prominent and universal definition lies in the Brundtland Report where it is definedas development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 8). Agenda 21, the key

CI14,1

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

outcome of the Rio Summit in 1992, highlights that the key components of sustainabledevelopment are the protection of the environment, social equity, and economicdevelopment. The World Summit on Sustainable Development report explains thatthese three components are interdependent and mutually supportive elements oflong-term development (UN, 2002). This means, decision makings to supportsustainable development must be based on a balanced and holistic approach(ICLEI, 1996).

In responding to sustainable development in the construction industry, Malaysiahas a plethora of policies and legislations. Malaysia has one of the best sets ofenvironmental legislations, comparable even with those of some developed countries(Sani and Mohd Sham, 2007). The thrusts of government development plans, such asDraft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 (KLCH, 2004) and Construction Industry MasterPlan 2006-2015 (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b), place priority on sustainable development asthe path in strategising the development of cities or the country as a whole. In otherwords, it is the priority of the country in general, and the construction industry inparticular, to strike the necessary balance between the socio-economic and ecologicalsystems to avoid further environmental damage. As such, one might question: givensuch a strong policy drive in Malaysia, why are there increasing problems related to,the environment in Malaysia? What is stopping sustainable building developmentsfrom being realised in practice?

These questions were among those addressed in three-year research that aimed todevelop an appropriate assessment framework to enable sustainability to be addressedand incorporated in building development in Malaysia (Shari, 2011). The focus of theresearch is on the office building sector as office buildings are identified to be“intensive” users of energy (Yeang, 1998). This paper particularly aims to explore theextent of sustainable practices (socially, environmentally, and economically) inthe Malaysian office sector to define gaps that need to be bridged to promotesustainable building development. It was hypothesised that a new framework could bemade acceptable and integral part of the local building practice if it reflects anunderstanding of the local stakeholders’ primary concerns in pursuing sustainableoffice building development.

The paper first outlines the method used in the research. It then presents the extentof economic, environmental and social practices as described by the stakeholders. Thepaper concludes with some thoughts on how to address the problems identified anddevelop approaches to improving sustainability in the construction industry,particularly in the office building sector.

Research methodologyThe study was undertaken from the constructive principles to valuemultiple perspectives from different stakeholders and gain a deeper understandingof sustainability issues in the Malaysian construction industry. Constructivistresearchers rely upon the participants’ views of the situation being studied with anintention to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have and “generate orinductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings” (Creswell, 2003, p. 9) throughoutthe research process.

To capture different views from different stakeholder groups, the research wasconducted through in-depth interviews. Patton (2002, p. 348) states that:

Investigatingsustainable

practices

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

[. . .]the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to capture how those being interviewed viewtheir world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of theirindividual perceptions and experiences.

In-depth interviews offer a greater opportunity to ask probing questions and give datawith higher comprehensiveness or depth than any other data-collection method(Bryman, 2008).

Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007, p. 289) pointed out that:

[. . .]sample sizes in qualitative research should not be so small as to make it difficult toachieve data saturation, theoretical saturation, or information redundancy. At the same time,the sample should not be so large that it is difficult to undertake a deep, case-orientedanalysis.

Therefore, a total of 50 commercial building stakeholders from various professionscurrently practicing in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya were invited to beparticipants. There were 30 stakeholders agreed to be interviewed consisting of12 consultants, five developers/owners, three builders, four facility managers,and six regulators/policy makers. The interviews were conducted from early Januaryto early March 2009. Table I is a summary of the profiles of the interviewees. A samplesize of 20-30 is deemed adequate to enable internal generalisation in a qualitative study(Leech, 2005); however, the findings may not be employed to make inferences on otherconstruction industry stakeholders not included here.

The purposive sampling, particularly judgement sampling, was used to provide themeans to investigate a specialised population of stakeholders who have experienced inthe relevant field for more than ten years. Purposive sampling provides the opportunityto gain insight and understanding from well-situated participants and those who arerelevant to the research questions (Neuman, 2006; Bryman, 2008). In this case, thesamples were focused on individuals who were knowledgeable in delivering sustainableoffice buildings but not necessarily had the related experience. Those were recognisedthrough their green or “sustainable” building projects, sustainability-relatedtalks and publications, or their involvements in sustainability-related policies,guidelines, and other government initiatives. Building-owners group of stakeholders,on the other hand, were those who worked in an organisation that owned at least anenergy-efficient purpose-built office building.

The study employed a semi-structured interview to allow the respondents morefreedom and creativity to respond to the questions. Each interview, which last forapproximately 45 minutes, was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Theinterview questions can be found in the Appendix. The data were then analysed byusing content analysis (Patton, 2002) performed on individual cases and cross cases.It also involved a process of comparing the themes and categories and using a numberof cross-case analysis techniques, including text units (sentences) counts for eachtheme across the cases. No statistical analysis was employed in the study as all viewswere taken as valid and a new understanding was then constructed, which was in linewith the constructivism approach. The verification procedures included memberchecking, rich and thick descriptions of the cases, presenting negative or discrepantinformation that runs counter to the themes, and academic adviser’s auditing (Creswelland Miller, 2002). The analytical process was done conventionally without the use ofany analytical tool or software programme.

CI14,1

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

ResultsInterviewees’ responses are grouped into current economic, environmental and socialpractices. Even though findings are grouped and discussed separately under these threeissues, many aspects are interrelated; hence, cross-references are made whenever necessary.Below are the results reported based on the questions asked during the interviews.

Current economic practicesHave economic issues been the stakeholders’ first priorities? Majority of the interviewees(77 percent) believed that they had always considered economic issues as the firstpriorities in any decision-makings for office building projects (Figure 1). The mostcommon economic issues cited was the economic return especially when the projects

Position of interviewees Type of company/organization n

Private sector 23ConsultantsPrincipal architects Architectural consultant 7Architects Architectural consultant 2Managing director Engineering consultant and trading 1Managing director Engineering consultant 1Mechanical engineer and director Building environmental consultant 1Developers/building ownersHead of property management Major real estate developer and investor 1Project coordination manager Major real estate developer and investor 1Executive director and head of corporateinvestment

Major real estate developer and investor 1

Senior general manager Major real estate developer and investor 1Project director Bank/building owner 1BuildersManaging director Major property contractor 1Executive director Major property contractor 1General manager Major property contractor 1Facility managers/building operatorsProperty maintenance manager Major real estate developer and investor 1Chief executive officer Facility management 1Operation manager Property management 1

Public sector 7Facility managers/building operatorsPrincipal assistant secretary Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications 1Assistant director Independent, non-profit making research organisation 1Government projects implementerBranch director Public Works Department 1Policy makers/regulatorsPrincipal assistant director Statutory Body under Ministry of Federal Territories 1Senior architect Local Authority under Ministry of Federal Territories 1Senior manager Statutory Body under Ministry of Works 1Senior technical advisor Statutory Body under Ministry of Energy, Water and

Communications1

Total 30

Note: n ¼ 30Table I.

Summary of interviewees

Investigatingsustainable

practices

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

involved clients who build to sell. For owner-occupied buildings, “corporate socialresponsibility” was cited as the driving factor in decision makings apart fromeconomic considerations. Most local developers and building owners, however, wereonly concerned about having their buildings met the minimum mandatory standardsenforced by the approving authorities and built at minimum cost without giving somuch thought about energy efficiency as it was considered an economic waste due toheavily subsidised electricity tariffs.

Others who believed economic issues were not their first priorities did not includedevelopers and cited “health and well-being of building users” and “deliver on time andin good quality” instead. Only one architect cited that economic issue is “equallyimportant as environmental and social issues”.

Capital cost, operational cost or both? Would sustainability guarantee higher marketvalue? Majority (60 percent) of the interviewees had always regarded minimising theinitial capital cost as more important than the long-term operational costs (Figure 2).Generally the local building industry was less concerned about the operational andmaintenance costs as these costs were perceived to be the tenants’ problem. In caseswhere unawareness and unwillingness were not an issue, developers admitted thatthey were improperly and inadequately advised by consultants to consider both initialand future costs and benefits (savings) of an investment to facilitate the effective choicebetween different building alternatives or to select more competitive technologies.

Those who supported the importance of minimising the long-term operational costsbelieved that this consideration was important in two circumstances. First was when theproject was to be rented/leased and managed by the client (speculative developer orowner-occupier). Second was when developers/owners were absolutely certain that theirproperty market/rental values would be much higher in the future. Unfortunately, all six

Figure 1.Frequency distributionof interviewees who haveand have not consideredeconomic issues as thefirst priorities

92

5

2

523

31

0

2

17

0%

Desig

ners

Build

ers

Devel

oper

s

Facil

ity M

gr

Regul

ator

s

Tota

l

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Different groups of stakeholders

Economic issues have notbeen the priorities

Economic issues havebeen the priorities

Freq

uen

cy

92

5

2

523

31

0

2

17

0%

Desig

ners

Build

ers

Devel

oper

s

Facil

ity M

gr

Regul

ator

s

Tota

l

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Different groups of stakeholders

Economic issues have notbeen the priorities

Economic issues havebeen the priorities

Freq

uen

cy

Note: n = 30

CI14,1

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

developers/building-owners interviewed perceived that there had been no relationshipbetween sustainability and property market values in the Malaysian context due to:

. lack of local empirical data to prove the economic benefits of green or sustainablebuildings to local investor; and

. lack of awareness amongst market participants about the benefits of sustainabledesign in general.

Current environmental practicesWhat are the stakeholders’ perceptions on the recently built office buildings? Intervieweeswere asked to make some general comments on office buildings being built inMalaysian cities (during 2005-2009). The various comments were grouped into13 categories (Figure 3). Generally, the comments touched issues related to theenvironment, social and/or economy; however, the negative comments outnumberedthe positive ones as explained below.

Figure 2.Frequency distribution of

interviewees with differentpriorities between capital

and operational costs

72 3

24

2

1

12

23

0

1

00

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Designers Builders Developers FacilityMgr

Regulators

Per

cen

tag

e

Different groups of stakeholders

Minimizing the capital cost is LESSIMPORTANT than minimizing theoperational cost

Minimizing the capital cost isEQUALLY IMPORTANT withminimizing the operational cost

Minimizing the capital cost isMORE IMPORTANT thanminimizing the operational cost

Note: n = 30

Figure 3.Frequency distribution

of interviewees’comments (in categoriesof issues) about recentlybuilt office buildings in

Malaysian cities

11

7

6

4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1 Overall design

Landscape

Mechanical and electrical services

Indoor environmental quality

Building site

Methods of construction

Materials and solid waste

Energy efficiency

Testing and commissioning

Spatial planning

Economic issues

Operation and maintenance

Building envelope

Frequency

Cat

ego

ry o

f g

ener

al c

om

men

ts

Note: Total comments given by 30 interviewees = 46

Investigatingsustainable

practices

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

Most commonly cited responses (25 percent) were about the “building envelope”, cited byall stakeholder groups with the exception of facility managers. The majority of thecomments were however negative, for example, the building envelopes were “non-climaticfacade designs”, “attractive but no due respect to energy issues”, “commercially drivenwith corporate image”, and had “unnecessary features and decorations”. Only oneinterviewee from a local authority suggested that office buildings built during that periodwere “greener” in their architectural design than those built previously.

The second most cited issue concerned “operation and maintenance”. Most intervieweescommented that many of existing buildings were poorly operated and maintained.Preventive maintenance was rarely practiced and building energy consumption was rarelymonitored because building owners or tenants normally refused to employ energy managerespecially during economic downturn.

Comments regarding “economic issues” were the third most commonly cited.An architect interviewee suggested that, “most of our developers are concerned withdollars and cents. Nothing is considered from the environmental and social aspects”.“spatial planning” and “testing and commissioning” were the fourth commonly citedcomments. Two issues raised under the former category were:

(1) do not facilitate sub-divisions; and

(2) without due consideration on the impact on energy use.

The latter category of comments was mainly raised by mechanical engineers andfacility managers who stated that although testing and commissioning werecommonly practiced but only recently, they were still improperly done.

Other comments were related to “energy efficiency”, “materials and solid waste”,“methods of construction”, “building site”, “indoor environmental quality”, and“mechanical and electrical services”. An architect interviewee informed that: “typicaloffice buildings in Malaysia use 265 kWh/m2/year [. . .]. We should try to reach 140-150if we can”. An interviewee from the CIDB lamented on the improper waste disposalmanagement among local builders. One builder admitted that environmentallydestructive “methods of construction” were a normal practice:

It is a common practice among contractors to flatten the whole site, chop [down] all the treesand bare the land during site clearance. Even though the building footprint is small but thesite area covers for operation is huge.

Undoubtedly, this response was consistent with that of the interviewee from the CIDB,who specifically said:

In terms of managing the environment at the earthwork stage, I think it is still not up to thestandard. That’s why we still have flash floods, river sedimentation and so on.

To what extent do stakeholders implement sustainable waste management? Half of theinterviewees had never specified or experienced using reused components or recycledmaterials. Only eight interviewees claimed the opposite; however, waste recycling was stillseen in terms of fly-ash, timber and steel reuse. None of the interviewees acknowledged theexperience of using recycled concrete aggregate in new concrete. This confirms theviews given by two builders which indicated that concrete was not being recycled inMalaysia.

CI14,1

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

The slow uptakes of utilising reused and recycled materials or components in theMalaysian construction industry is reflected by the interviewees’ three major concerns,namely:

(1) cost;

(2) lack of availability; and

(3) perception of “low quality” (Figure 4).

Consultants and builders were then asked to explain how the reduction of waste wasconsidered in their design or construction activities. Most interviewees (73 percent) believedthat industrialised building systems (IBS) were one of the most appropriate methods to beadopted. However, IBS were unfavoured by most as they require higher initial capitalinvestment and tremendous need for technical know-how than does the traditional system.

To what extent do stakeholders utilise ecologically friendly and healthyproducts/materials? The interview also examined the uptakes of ecologically friendlyand healthy materials/products (e.g. certified timber products, products with low- orzero-pollutant off-gassing). It was found that although there was virtually unanimousagreement among interviewees from both sectors that these products/materials neededto be exploited in the building industry, most indicated their concerns that theseproducts/materials did not carry any certification or eco-label to designate them asbeing preferable. The reasons mentioned were:

. no authority to certify them locally, except for local timber products;

. mostly imported or certified by other countries; and

. lack of demand from clients.

There were also doubts on the adequacy of existing eco-labelling system to show theenvironmental profile of products.

Why is there a lack of interest in seeking ISO 14001 certification? As construction isan important industry in any economy, it has an obligation and the potential to make a

Figure 4.Summary of interviewees’concerns that impede the

widespread usage ofreused components and

recycled materials

17

10

0 5 10 15 20

10

7

4

3

3

3

1

1Concerns about technical know-how

Concerns about facilities

Concerns about key players

Concerns about public awareness

Concerns about environmental labelling

Concerns about demand

Concerns about government initiatives

Concerns about quality

Concerns about availability

Concerns about cost

Frequency

Cat

ego

ry o

f co

nce

rns

abo

ut

usi

ng

reu

sed

com

po

nen

ts a

nd

rec

ycle

d m

ater

ials

Note: Total comments given by 30 interviewees = 59

Investigatingsustainable

practices

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

significant contribution to sustainable development through implementing ISO 14001.The ISO 14000 standards have been developed to stimulate better environmentalmanagement practices by businesses. The standards provide a mechanism that linksthe concept of sustainable development with the construction procurement process(Department of Standards Malaysia, 2005). Hence, it is important to see the extent towhich construction companies seek to acquire registration with ISO 14001.

It was found that ten out of 12 interviewees had never worked with ISO 14001 EMScertified construction companies in their professional career. One asserted that noneof the clients insisted on this requirement. This was confirmed by three out of fivedevelopers who mentioned that ISO 14001 had never been in their contracts’requirement. An interviewee from the CIDB asserted that only multinationalconstruction and real estate development companies who ventured overseas weremotivated and could afford to seek ISO 14001 registration and maintain thecertification.

Current social practicesDoes universal design matter? Answers to the current state of accommodatinguniversal access in office building designs varied. A small number of the intervieweesacknowledged that the minimum requirements had already been spelt out in twoimportant documents:

(1) The uniform building by-law (UBBL), issued to set a standardised buildingregulations for the whole of Malaysia and applicable to all local authorities andbuilding professionals (Laws of Malaysia, 2008).

(2) The Malaysian Standard MS 1184: code of practice on access for disabledpeople to public buildings, aimed at systematically improving the livingconditions of disabled persons and helping them to achieve their fulldevelopment potential (Department of Standards Malaysia, 2002).

Nevertheless, some others further clarified that accessibility was only mandatory forgovernment and semi-government buildings; and only to a certain limit for privatebuildings; however, mandatory compliance was still depending on local authoritiesand their level of enforcement. Others argued that universal accessibility had only beenconsidered after being demanded by foreign investors and tenants, while some linkedaccessibility to the current practice of only complying with the minimum requirementsof UBBL and MS 1184. More responses, however, seemed to think that manyconsultants still chose not to conform to universal design guidelines.

What is the place of education and training in sustainability issues? Realising the factthat there was still a wide gap in knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues inMalaysia, interviewees unanimously supported the importance of relevant educationand trainings. When investigated in terms of the interviewees’ usage of tools to assisttheir sustainable design, construction, development or maintenance, it was found that57 percent had never used any (Figure 5). Only three architects and onebuilding environmental consultant had used “building simulation tools” while manyof them still preferred to make decisions and assess their building performance usingintuition.

Can the culture of feedback be practiced more widely? In use, buildings do not alwayswork as intended. Different things happen which nobody anticipated; therefore,

CI14,1

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

the stakeholders were asked whether it was important to know how the building thatthey had designed, built, or developed, performed during its occupancy period or howsatisfied occupants were with the building’s indoor environmental quality. This part ofinterview aimed to investigate the extent of post occupancy evaluation (POE) beenundertaken by design and building teams in the country.

There was virtually unanimous agreement that feedbacks that could help clientsobtain information on the performance of their completed projects were veryimportant. Three reasons were mentioned:

(1) to provide a continuous learning process;

(2) to eliminate the current poor practices of building maintenance; and

(3) to maintain good reputation.

There was a tendency to initiate programmes of monitoring and benchmarking eitherby owners or design teams, as part of a culture of feedback, service and continuousimprovement.

It was found, however, that POEs were far from being a “mainstream” activitybecause it was not a requirement or of interest to the client. One example is typical ofthe reluctance among private clients: “Only multinational companies would request[for POE] and they pay for it [. . .] Locally [. . .] the awareness is not there”. Theinterviewees recognised that in practice, most private organisations were unable tocope with feedbacks and could not (or thought they could not) afford it. Similarly, theculture of feedback was not easy to be created in government organisations due to thelack of specific budget allocated for effective operation and maintenance.

DiscussionCurrent economic practicesThe study reveals that majority of the interviewees had regarded the initial cost to bemore important than the long-term operational cost, due to lack of awareness among

Figure 5.Percentage distribution

of tools used by theinterviewees

6

0 0

2 3 2 13

12

1

1

0 1 6

3 1

0

0

0 4

1 0 0 0

2 0

3

0%

Archi

tect

sEng

inee

rs

Bldg.E

nv. C

onsu

ltant

Builde

rsDev

elope

rsFa

cility

Mgr.

Tota

l

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cen

tag

e

Stakeholders

Energy monitoring

Building environmentalrating tool

Building simulation tools

ASHRAE guidelines/MalaysianStandards/procedures/checklistsNone

Notes: Total number of responses given by 23 interviewees = 27; total number of toolsgiven by 23 interviewees = 14

Investigatingsustainable

practices

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

the clients on the long-term financial benefits of building green and lack of knowledgeon life cycle costing among consultants to effectively advise their clients on choosingdifferent green design alternatives. Long-term operational costs were more importantto speculative developers or owner-occupier who developed office buildings to berented/leased and managed by themselves than clients who built to sell. According toBordass (2000), although speculative developers are always interested in savingmoney, capital cost is not always the biggest thing because what counts is the returnon investment. The study also highlights that the lack of demand on green buildinghas resulted in an absence of green criteria on value component when undertaking avaluation of a commercial office building. Assimakopoulus et al. (2003) point out that ifinputs required by valuation professionals do not comprise the client’s wish to takeadvantage of the benefits of sustainable buildings, then property professionals willhave no basis for including sustainability issues into their estimates of market value.Hence, it is sensible to suggest that at present, the local market has not yet accountedfor property characteristics which add values to the user and the environment. Thisphenomenon is confirmed by Rahman (2011) who noted that, in Malaysia:

[. . .] the difference in rental rates between green and non-green buildings is not so much dueto the green features, but more on supply and demand factors within the specific location.

Current environmental practicesThe current state of environmental practices was marked by the interviewees’ criticismstoward the recently built office buildings in Malaysian cities. The building envelopeswere criticised as non-responsive to local climate, focusing only on aesthetics andcorporate image. This finding supports Bordass’ (2000, p. 343) findings that “the marketis often driven by features and fashions rather than functionality” and glassier buildingswithout apprehending the notion of “big windows can mean big problems!” Buildingmaintenance seems not to have gained the level of attention it warranted. Reactive andpreventive types of maintenance were rarely practiced and energy consumptions wererarely monitored. Space planning was geared towards gaining economic returns with noconsideration to suit different and changing tenancy situations. Environmentallydestructive methods of construction were still considered a normal practice amongcontractors in Malaysia.

Using reused components or recycled materials still remain unpopular while wasterecycling was still seen only in terms of fly-ash concrete, timber and steel reuse. Thiscan be attributed to the fact that, recycling of concrete and other building materials is arelatively new concept compared to recycling steel scrap, paper, plastics, or glass(Ozkan, 2000). Construction and demolition waste treatment or recovery were yet to becommonly practiced, and disposing unseparated and reusable construction wastes inlandfills was certainly a common on-going practice. Compared with the early studycarried out by Mohd Nasir et al. (1995), the situation remains unchanged, leading to thesuggestion that, for these stakeholder groups at least, the progress of implementingsustainable waste management in the local construction industry has been too slow,let alone reaching its tipping point. This notion is further supported by Begum et al.(2009) who found that majority of contractors in Malaysia did not practice sourceseparation and source reduction, reuse or recycling at construction sites.

With regard to the current practice of reducing wastage, majority believed that IBSwere one of the most appropriate methods to be adopted; however, since IBS required

CI14,1

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

higher capital investment and tremendous need for technical know-how, majorityhesitated to give their full support on IBS. Though the builder group of stakeholdersdid practice waste segregation on site, the practice is still inefficient and uncoordinated.There were doubts among the interviewees that all of the segregated wastes on site hadactually been sent for recycling instead of ending up in the landfills.

The uptakes of ecologically friendly and healthy products/materials were slow, andone of the major reasons related to environmental certification or eco-labelling. Therewere doubts on the adequacy of existing eco-labelling system; hence, cohere with theargument by Lavagna (2006) that consultants need to know the environmental profile ofthe product. SIRIM Berhad, a wholly-owned company of the Malaysian Governmentunder the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, has recently developed “green labelschemes” that identify products that are more environmentally preferable than othersimilar products (SIRIM Berhad, 2012). This move can be considered as a“supplier-driven” (Ronning and Vold, 2006, p. 11) strategy. This research howevershows that it would not be possible to achieve the results hoped for with the“buyer-driven” strategy due to the lack of resources and competence on the purchasingside; therefore, Malaysia needs to focus on the supplier-driven strategy, where thesupplier or producer becomes more active in understanding the requirements and takingresponsibility for developing and updating criteria and documentation.

Majority of the interviewees had never worked with ISO 14001 certified constructioncompanies in their professional career. As of the end of 2007, there were only twoconstruction companies out of 598 accredited organisations in Malaysia that obtained ISO14001 (CIDB Malaysia, 2007a; Tsujii, 2007). Tan (2005) also revealed that ISO 14001 has notbecome an integral part of the local construction companies’ culture especially those whoconcentrate solely on the local market in which sustainable construction is still relatively anew concept. Those who produce environmental-friendly certified products and servicesin the country were heavily geared towards fulfilling the foreign market demandsespecially in developed countries where the growth of green consumerism are higher.

Clearly, if a nation is slow in accepting ISO 14001, it is likely that it will lose out inthe competition with other nations that are more ready to accept and implement thesystem. This may have been realised by the government through theirrecommendation for introducing tax incentives for the adoption of ISO 14001 as oneof the key action steps to promote environmentally-friendly construction practices inMalaysia (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b).

Current social practicesThis study found that despite the clear requirements for a barrier-free built environment,many consultants chose not to conform to universal design guidelines. This is becausethe use of the Malaysian Standards in designing and building physical development of acity is voluntary unless the regulatory authority of a particular city regulates it asmandatory. The consultants’ neglect of the universal design might be the result of lack ofknowledge on how to design built environment in compliance with the requirement ofthe universal design (Heylighen, 2008). Clearly, universal design in Malaysia is “stillperceived as a pedagogical process, rather than legally enforceable compliance practice”(Abdul Rahim and Abdullah, 2009, p. 50).

Almost all interviewees supported the importance of sustainability-related educationand training indicating their positive attitude towards improving their knowledge

Investigatingsustainable

practices

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

and understanding. Haron et al. (2005) point out that the more environmentallyknowledgeable respondents tend to have more positive environmental attitudes, which inturn increased their environmental behaviour and participation. Surprisingly however,many of them still made decisions based on intuition rather than assisted by buildingsimulation tools. This can be attributed to the fact that the usage of predictive andassessment tools are costly, not easy and time consuming (Papamichael, 2000). It was alsoperceived that investigations using such tools could be done by energy specialistsengaged by the clients, though unfortunately, in Malaysia, these specialists are verylimited in number.

On the positive side, the interviewees acknowledged that in order to improve theoverall building performance in a changing market, the industry and its clients neededto identify opportunities and pitfalls by means of rapid feedback (POE). Despite this,the local construction industry was unable to cope with the feedbacks and unable toafford it. Zimmerman and Martin (2001) argue that this is because consultants arealmost never paid to go back and review the outcomes of their design decisions,particularly when the clients are not the tenants of the building who have littlefinancial benefits of refurbishment to save energy bills.

ConclusionThis paper has drawn on in-depth qualitative research undertaken with 30 stakeholdersfrom various backgrounds in the Malaysian construction industry to gauge theirdifferent views on the extent of sustainable practices in the country with the focus onoffice building development. It has highlighted the most crucial social andenvironmental impacts as a result of the Malaysian construction industry prioritisingeconomic issues alone. The Malaysian Government’s sustainability agenda hasprioritised the balance between socio-economic and ecological systems to avoid furtherenvironmental damage; however, such balance has not successfully been reached due tothe construction industry’s continuing contributions to social and problems.

The study generally finds that in Malaysia, there is a wide gap of knowledge andawareness on sustainable building practices. Most stakeholders mainly prioritise oneconomic issues rather than taking a balanced approach to economic, environmentaland social sustainability. Cost also appears to be one of the reasons for the lack ofinterest in seeking ISO 14001 certification as well as demanding for POE studies to beconducted. These findings reinforced the findings by Shafii and Othman (2007) that thegreatest barrier to achieve sustainable buildings in the South-East Asian constructionindustry is the lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design due to the lackof awareness among stakeholders. These findings are also echoed by Du Plessis (2001,p. 32) that “ignorance, lack of access to information, and education on environmentaltopics, especially those related to sustainable construction, are present at all levels”. Itcan be concluded that the progress to develop the culture of sustainability among localbuilding stakeholders in Malaysia is rather slow. Although concerns for sustainabilityare now embedded in many government policies and initiatives, they are still notintegrated into the Malaysian property development and investment practices.

To close the current gaps of sustainable building practices and to reachsignificantly higher performance levels in a broader range of performance issues thanjust energy, it is recommended that specific issues highlighted in this paper becollectively addressed by the government and regulatory stakeholders, research and

CI14,1

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

education sector, private sector, and clients of the building industry. One possiblesolution is for a building sustainability assessment framework to be developed to makesustainability more socially acceptable and integral in the local construction industry(Shari, 2011). Internationally, efforts have been made in developing such systems toassist in the decision-making process and to assess the performances of buildings.Research community and relevant government agencies have viewed these systems asone of the most effective methods of market transformation (Cole, 2000; Theaker andCole, 2001). While Malaysia has developed and implemented its building assessmentsystem call GBI (Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd, 2012), the scope of this system,however, is on the environmental impact of the building itself (Shari, 2011); hence, anew framework shall take into account a combined assessment of environmental,social, and economic issues as formulated in ISO CD 21931-1 (ISO/TS 21931-1, 2006;Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2006). It is expected that this initiative will potentiallyencourage a continuous learning process, enhancing stakeholders’ understanding oftheir roles and responsibilities in supporting sustainability throughout the life cycle oftheir projects, and stimulating needed changes in the Malaysian construction industry.

Notes

1. Overall, unskilled (general) workers make up almost half of the total workers registered withCIDB and outnumber semi-skilled and skilled workers by more than two-to-one(CIDB Malaysia, 2007b).

2. OHSAS 18001 is an internationally used and recognised standard for occupational healthand safety management systems, while MS 1722 (Department of Standards Malaysia, 2003)is a Malaysian Standard on occupational safety and health management systems (OSHMS).

References

ABCSE (2007), Renewable Energy in Asia: Malaysia Report, ABCSE, Klagenfurt.

Abdul-Aziz, A.-R. (2001), “Foreign workers and labour segmentation in Malaysia’s constructionindustry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 789-798.

Abdul Rahim, A. and Abdullah, F. (2009), “Access audit on universal design: the case of KotaKinabalu Water Front”, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 4No. 4, pp. 49-57.

Aiken, S.R., Leigh, C.H., Leinbach, T.R. and Moss, M.R. (1982), Development and Environment inPeninsular Malaysia, McGraw-Hill International, Singapore.

APEC (2006), APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook, available at: www.ieej.or.jp/aperc/2006pdf/Outlook2006//ER_Malaysia.pdf (accessed 10 January 2011).

Assimakopoulus, V., Pagourtzi, E., Hatzichristos, T. and French, N. (2003), “Real-estate appraisal:a review of valuation methods”, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 383-401.

Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J. and Jaafar, A.H. (2006), “A benefit-cost analysis on theeconomic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia”, Resources,Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 86-98.

Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J. and Jaafar, A.H. (2009), “Attitude and behavioralfactors in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia”, Resources,Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 321-328.

Investigatingsustainable

practices

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

Bordass, B. (2000), “Cost and value: fact and fiction”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 28Nos 5/6, pp. 338-352.

Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Chan, T.K. (2009), “Measuring performance of the Malaysian construction industry”,Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1231-1244.

CIDB Malaysia (2005), Master Plan for Occupational Safety and Health in Construction Industry(2005-2010), CIDB Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

CIDB Malaysia (2007a), “Annual report 2007: building today for tomorrow”, available at: www.cidb.gov.my (accessed 10 June 2010).

CIDB Malaysia (2007b), Construction Industry Master Plan Malaysia 2006-2015, CIDB Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur.

Cole, R.J. (2000), “Building environmental assessment methods: assessing constructionpractices”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 949-957.

Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches,2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D. (2002), “Determining validity in qualitative inquiry”, Theory intoPractice, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 124-130.

Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia (2001), Statistics of Electricity SupplyIndustry in Malaysia, Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Department of Environment Malaysia (1997), Environmental Quality Report 1996, Ministry ofScience, Technology and the Environment, Department of Environment Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur.

Department of Standards Malaysia (2002), MS 1184:2002 - Code of Practice on Access forDisabled Persons to Public Buildings, 1st ed., SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.

Department of Standards Malaysia (2003), MS 1722:2003 – Occupational Safety and HealthManagement System – Guidelines, 1st ed., SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.

Department of Standards Malaysia (2005), MS 14001:2004 – Environmental ManagementSystems – Requirements with Guidance for Use, SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.

Dow Jones Indexes (2011), Country Classification System, available at: www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/downloads/brochure_info/Dow_Jones_Indexes_Country_Classification_System.pdf(accessed 30 September 2011).

Du Plessis, C. (2001), “Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries:first discussion document”, CIB and CSIR-Boutek, available at: www.sustainablesettlement.co.za/docs/a21_discussiondoc.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).

Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia (2005), Energy Outlook – Report for Discussion, available at:www.ptm.org.my (accessed 15 October 2007).

Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd (2012), Green Building Index, available at: www.greenbuildingindex.org (accessed 29 November 2012).

Haron, S.A., Paim, L. and Yahaya, N. (2005), “Towards sustainable consumption: an examinationof environmental knowledge among Malaysians”, International Journal of ConsumerStudies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 426-436.

Heylighen, A. (2008), “Sustainable and inclusive design: a matter of knowledge?”, LocalEnvironment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 531-540.

ICLEI (1996), The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives, Toronto.

CI14,1

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

ISO/TS 21931-1 (2006), Sustainability in Building Construction – Framework for Methods forAssessment of Environmental Performance of Construction Works – Part 1: Buildings,International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.

KLCH (2004), Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 – Towards a World Class City, Kuala LumpurCity Hall, Kuala Lumpur.

Lavagna, M. (2006), “EPD use in building assessment to support design strategies”, Proceedingsof the SETAC Europe 13th LCA Case Study Symposium, Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPD) with Focus on the Building and Construction Sector, Haus DerWirtschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, 7-8 December, Society of Environmental Toxicology andChemistry, Brussels, pp. 14-20.

Laws of Malaysia (2008), Uniform Building By-Laws, Act 133, 15th ed., MDC Publishers SdnBhd, Kuala Lumpur.

Leech, N. (2005), “The role of sampling in qualitative research”, Academic Exchange Quarterly,available at: www.thefreelibrary.com/Theþroleþofþsamplingþinþqualitativeþresearch.-a0138703704 (accessed 2 January 2010).

Lutzkendorf, T. and Lorenz, D. (2006), “Using an integrated performance approach in buildingassessment tools”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 334-356.

Mankiw, N.G. (2008), Principles of Economics, 6th ed., South-Western Cengage Learning,Natorp Boulevard, OH.

Mohd Nasir, H., Rakmi, A.R., Zamri, I. and Saifullah, R. (1995), Existing Solid WasteManagement and Problems in Malaysia: Privatisation of Solid Waste Management inMalaysia, Tabung Haji Technologies, Kuala Lumpur.

Mohd Yunus, M.I. (2007), “All must play their part to curb pollution”, New Straits Times, 18 May.

Neuman, W.L. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed.,Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2007), “Sampling designs in qualitative research: makingsampling process more public”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 238-254.

Ozkan, S.T.E. (2000), “Recovery and reuse of demolition waste: recycling rubble for concretecomponents”, unpublished PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Papamichael, K. (2000), “Green building performance prediction/assessment”, Building Researchand Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 394-402.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Praveena, S.M., Abdullah, M.H. and Aris, A.Z. (2010), “Towards a low carbon society: carbonemissions and the transport sector”, IMPAK, Vol. 2, p. 1, available at: www.doe.gov.my(accessed 15 June 2010).

Rahman, D.A.R. (2011), “A green look at property value”, The Star, 30 April, available at: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file¼/2011/4/30/business/8555914&sec¼business(accessed 31 May 2011).

Ronning, A. and Vold, M. (2006), “How can EPDs contribute to creating demanding customers?”,Proceedings of the SETAC Europe 13th LCA Case Study Symposium, EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD) with Focus on the Building and Construction Sector, Haus DerWirtschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, 7-8 December, Society of Environmental Toxicology andChemistry, Brussels, pp. 11-13.

Sani, S. (1999), Environmental Management Issues and Challenges in the Next Millenniumin Malaysia, Environmental Management Programme, Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia, Bangi.

Investigatingsustainable

practices

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

Sani, S. and Mohd Sham, A. (2007), “Environmental management in Malaysia: changingconcerns and approaches”, IMPAK, Vol. 3, pp. 4-6, available at: www.doe.gov.my(accessed 29 June 2010).

Shafii, F. and Othman, M.Z. (2007), “Keynote: sustainable buildings in South-East Asia:opportunities and implementations”, Proceedings of the Conference on SustainableBuilding South East Asia (SB07SEA), Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 November, Institute SultanIskandar of Urban Habitat and Highrise, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 1-9.

Shari, Z. (2011), “Development of a sustainability assessment framework for Malaysian officebuildings using a mixed-methods approach”, unpublished PhD thesis, School ofArchitecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

SIRIM Berhad (2012), “Environmental technology”, available at: www.sirim.my/web/core/research/environmental#Green_Label (accessed 29 August 2012).

Tan, L.P. (2005), “Implementing ISO 14001: is it beneficial for firms in newly industrializedMalaysia?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 397-404.

Theaker, I.G. and Cole, R.J. (2001), “The role of local governments in fostering ‘green’ building:a case study”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 394-408.

Tsujii, K. (2007), “Worldwide number of ISO14001”, available at: www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm (accessed 4 January 2010).

UN (2002), Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa,available at: www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).

WCED (1987), Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Yeang, K. (1998), “Research information: designing the green skyscraper”, Building Research andInformation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-141.

Zimmerman, A. and Martin, M. (2001), “Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers”,Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 168-174.

Appendix. Interview questions

A. To investigate the current economic practices of office building design and development:. Based on your experience, have economic issues always been the first priorities in

any decision-makings for office building projects (or operation and maintenance)?If yes, what are these economic issues: economic return, or minimising running cost,or minimising construction cost? If not so, what issues have always been the firstpriorities?

. Has minimising the capital/construction cost always been considered more importantthan minimising the long-term operational costs of the building? Or both have beenconsidered equally important?

. Do you think there is a relationship between sustainability and property marketvalue in the Malaysian context? Why?

B. To investigate the current environmental practices of office building design anddevelopment:. What are your general comments on office buildings being built in Malaysian cities

since five years ago?. Have you heard about reused components or recycled materials? Would you specify

(or encourage designers/the industry to specify) them in your office building projects,

CI14,1

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

and why? Do you think there is an opportunity for these components/materials in theMalaysian office building sector, and why?

. How is the reduction of construction waste considered in your work?

. Have you heard about ecologically friendly and healthy products/materials? Wouldyou (or encourage designers/the industry to) specify them in your office buildingprojects, and why? Do you think these products/materials are widely available andeasily recognisable in the local market, and why?

. Have you had any experience working with ISO 14001 EMS certified contractors?Or have you ever awarded any projects to contractors certified with ISO 14001? If yes,how different was their performance compared to non-certified ones? Has yourcompany been certified with ISO 14001 EMS? Why?

C. To investigate the current social practices of office building design and development:. What is your view of universal design, which accommodates the needs of all people

regardless of age and ability?. What is the place of education and training in order to increase knowledge and

awareness in sustainability issues in general and green/sustainabledesign/construction/operation and maintenance in specific? If important, how doyou achieve that in your organisation? Does your organisation allocate an annualbudget for this purpose? Do you use any tool(s), i.e. software, guideline to help youdesigning or constructing a green/sustainable building? If yes, name the tool(s).

. Is it important for you to know how the building that you have designed/builtperforms during its occupancy period or how satisfied occupants are with thebuilding’s indoor environmental quality? Why? If important, could this be widelypracticed in the Malaysian building sector?

About the authorsDr Zalina Shari is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti PutraMalaysia. She received her Master in integrated construction project management at UniversitiTeknologi MARA Malaysia in 2002 and a PhD in architecture at the University of Adelaide,South Australia in 2011. Her research interests include sustainable building design andassessments, and post-occupancy evaluations. She is currently the Co-Editor of the InternationalJournal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice, the Co-Editor of the InternationalConference on Sustainable Tropical Environmental Design (SusTED’13), and an AcademicMember of the Malaysian Green Building Confederation (MGBC). Zalina Shari is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: zalinashari@putra.upm.edu.my

Veronica Soebarto is an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, School ofArchitecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design. She received her Master of architecturein 1992 and PhD in architecture in 1996 from Texas A&M University, USA before joiningThe University of Adelaide in 1998. Her research interests include thermal/energy simulation ofcommercial and residential buildings, environmental monitoring, sustainable building designand assessments, and human thermal comfort. She has supervised 15 PhD students in theseareas, many of whom have completed. She is a member of the Editorial Board of Journal ofBuilding Performance Simulation and Architectural Science Review.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Investigatingsustainable

practices

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Wallace Imoudu Enegbuma, Uche Godwin Aliagha, Kherun Nita Ali. 2014. Preliminary buildinginformation modelling adoption model in Malaysia. Construction Innovation 14:4, 408-432. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F M

AL

AY

A A

t 01:

12 1

6 Ju

ne 2

015

(PT

)