Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT MANAGEMENT International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong C.M. Tam *, Vivian W.Y. Tam 1, W.S. Tsui Department of Building and Construction, City University of Hong Kong 83, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong Received 7 November 2003

Abstract There is a growing concern on environmental impacts resulted from construction activities. Environmental assessment (EA), a tool for reviewing, monitoring, checking and evaluating environmental performance for the construction industry, has been advocated. Although there is a plethora of environmental assessment tools, most of them are not designed for construction. This paper proposes a system called ‘‘green construction assessment’’ (GCA) for construction. Two types of environmental indicators are embraced: management performance indicators (MPIs) and operational performance indicators (OPIs). Using a multi-criteria decision system, the non-structural fuzzy decision support system (NSFDSS), the weights for each criterion and sub-factors are developed, producing a yardstick for assessing the environmental performance for construction activities at the construction stage. Further, three projects were used in the verification of the GCA model. Positive results have been obtained that verifies the reliability of the proposed GCA model for construction in Hong Kong.
2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental assessment; Environmental performance; Green construction; Multi-criteria decision making system

1. Introduction The construction industry plays a vital role in meeting the needs of society and enhancing the quality of life. However, the responsibility for ensuring construction activities and products consistent with environmental policies needs to be defined and good environmental practices through reduction of wastes need to be promoted [1]. Indeed, construction is one of the major contributors to environmental problems. Most of the resources consumed in construction sites are non-renewable and some may even create adverse environmental effects during their manufacture [2]. Forty percent of the waste reaching landfill was proved to be generated from the construction industry in 2001 [3]. The industry has been used to adopt non-environmentalfriendly practice such as bamboo sticks for scaffold, a *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2788-7620/7609; fax: +852-27887612. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M. Tam), [email protected], [email protected] (V.W.Y. Tam). 1 Tel.: +852-2784-4377; fax: +852-2788-7612. 0263-7863/$30.00
2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.001

non-inert material that would end up in landfill areas which will be completely consumed in the next 8–10 years. As a result, the government has strongly promoted the certification exercise of ISO 14001: environmental management systems (EMSs). However, from the report of the Construction Industry Review Committee [4], it concludes that such certifications can only demonstrate contractors’ commitment to environmental protection without any guarantee that any genuine environmental benefits can be reaped.

2. Research objectives A comprehensive environmental assessment system can facilitate tracking and benchmarking of the performance, providing a tool for measuring any continuous improvement. The following summarises the four objectives of this study: • Review of the environmental assessment tools for construction activities.

564

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

• Development of a set of indicators/criteria for measuring environmental performance in construction. • Formulation of weightings for all indicators, leading to a comprehensive yardstick for gauging construction environmental performance. • Verification of the above yardstick by studying its application to some real-life projects.

3. Review of environmental assessment tools Environmental assessment (EA) is a collective term for measurement and analysis of criteria, which are either having direct or indirect impacts on the environment [5,6]. It is also defined by Kuhre [7] as a continuous monitoring process applied to evaluate companies’ environmental performance. EA has been broadly used in different business sectors. It can provide reliable, objective and verifiable information to the management about the achievement on the organisations’ environmental objectives and targets, as well as fulfilling the legislative regulations regarding environmental protection. The results from EA can also help in predicting the future trend in environmental-related development, which assist the management in designing suitable environmental strategies for the future projects [6,8–10]. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the management and operational structure in the construction industry [11], and the lack of a well-defined series of indicators for evaluation in construction, there is no consistent environmental information available in today’s marketplace [12]. In the market, there are some construction-related assessment tools such as the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) [13], the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HKBEAM) [14–16] and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) [17]. BREEAM is a tool for surveyors and engineers to evaluate the life-cycle costs of a building. Through the ‘Eco-labelling’ system, buildings are rated by four ranges: Excellent, Very Good, Good and Pass. The system mainly focuses on the ecological and global effects of the construction activities, such as the quantity of CO2 emitted with less emphasis on issues like management and construction methods. HKBEAM is a classification system in which buildings are divided into four categories according to their environmentalfriendliness: Excellent, Very Good, Good and Fair which are used to assess the environmental performance of the design and building services systems adopted at the early planning stage whereas LEED is a software tool used to measure the environmental performance of a building site on an operational level; that is, technical information on site concerning daily environmental performance. A criticism of the LEED is that it is concerned mainly with the technical aspect of environmental performance with

Table 1 Comparison of EA tools

Applications Environmental management Product marketing Building performance targeting Design Guidelines Performance based codes Scope of study Air pollution Noise pollution Water pollution Waste management Ecological impacts Energy consumptions Resources consumptions

BREEAM

LEED

p p p

p

HKBEAM p

p

p p p

p p p p p p p

p

very little emphasis on the management side. Table 1 summarizes the environmental tools mentioned as well as their applications and scope of study.

4. Green construction assessment Green construction assessment (GCA) is introduced in this paper, which serves as an assessment tool for construction activities in measuring the environmental performance, analysing, foreseeing the performance trend as well as providing a consistent basis for comparisons, eco-labelling and environmental benchmarking among companies and construction sites. 4.1. Assessment criteria The criteria for the environmental assessment are critical to the success of the system. However, most of the designers of the assessment tools only focus on measuring and reporting what they can measure rather than what users of such information really want to know [18]. In developing the criteria for this study, a pilot study was conducted by interviewing members of a focused group, comprising environmental managers of six large construction firms in Hong Kong. From their observation and opinions, and the support from six previous studies as shown in Table 2, six management performance indicators (MPIs) including ‘‘Management Involvement’’, ‘‘Training’’, ‘‘Investment’’, ‘‘Environmental management programme’’, ‘‘Research and development’’ and ‘‘Environmental planning’’; and seven Operational Performance Indicators (OPIs) including ‘‘Maintenance of equipment’’, ‘‘Air pollution control’’, ‘‘Noise pollution control’’, ‘‘Water pollution control’’, ‘‘Waste pollution control’’, ‘‘Ecological impact’’ and ‘‘Energy consumption’’ are identified. These criteria are shown schematically in Fig. 1.

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

565

Table 2 Performance criteria highlighted by previous studies Environmental assessment criteria Management Indicators Conformity indicators Financial performance indicators Community indicators Material-related indicators Energy consumption indicators Supporting services indicators Pollution indicators (Air, water, land, waste) Environmental control indicators Training indicators Services indicators Planning Indicators Ecological Indicators Health and safety indicators

Bennett and James [20] p

Cole [9]

Griffith [27] p

p p p

p p

p p p

p p

p p p

Jasch [5] p p p p p p p

Kuhre [7] p

p p p

p

p p

Wathey and O’Reilly [6] p p

p p p p

p

p p p

p

Fig. 1. Categories of environmental indicators for green construction assessment (GCA).

4.1.1. Management performance indicators Management performance indicators (MPIs) are those concerned with management efforts to influence the organisation’s environmental performance [6,19]. The six MPIs are described as follows: 4.1.1.1. MC1. Management involvement. The degree of management participation is important when implementing GCA [7,20]. Effective environmental management depends on team effort on site, which includes involvement and support from main contractors, subcontractors and their head offices [9,21]. There are three sub-indicators under this: SC1- Top management that sets the strategic direction and beliefs; SC2- Middle

management that sets the management culture on operational management and resources allocating; and SC3- Frontline staff that sets the blue-collar culture focusing on production or services [22]. 4.1.1.2. MC2. Training. All personnel must have appropriate training in order for companies to implement the environmental concepts and eliminate confusions on environmental issues [7,11,23,24]. SC1- Sufficiency and availability of training policies is the sub-indicator. 4.1.1.3. MC3. Investment. The high set-up costs often scare contractors from investing on any environmental associated facilities and equipment, and setting up

566

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

related management structures [11]. In fact, there long-term benefits such as reduction in cost waste treatment, fines, and insurance premium, SC1- Sufficiency and availability of investment is sub-indicator.

are on etc. the

4.1.1.4. MC4. Environmental management programme. The environmental management programme is concerned with the implementation of the EMS, overall environmental auditing and monitoring activities, overall corrective action plans in any non-compliance, other special programmes implemented to reduce the environmental impacts during construction and the internal promotion to staff in encouraging environmentalfriendly practices during construction. SC1- Sufficiency and availability of the programme is the sub-indicator. 4.1.1.5. MC5. Research and development. In order to maintain a privilege over other competitors, construction firms should conduct research and development. SC1- Level of investment on research and development is the sub-indicator. 4.1.1.6. MC6. Environmental planning. Planning is important in any management systems. SC1- Comprehensiveness of construction planning related to environmental issues is the sub-indicator.

casing and SC3 – Other measures related to noise pollution are the three sub-indicators. 4.1.2.4. OC10. Water pollution control. It is vital to manage water quality properly on site. Anything that has the potential to pollute, such as muddy water, should be prevented from entering surface water drainage [26]. SC1 – Monitor of water usage and promotion of water conservation, SC2 – Water reuse and recycle system, SC3 – Wastewater collection and treatment and SC4 – Other measures related to water pollution are the sub-indicators proposed. 4.1.2.5. OC11. Waste pollution control. Solid waste disposal is critical in Hong Kong. It is estimated that if the current quantity of solid waste persists, all the landfills will be consumed within the next 8 to 10 years [3]. Measures should be taken to reduce construction and demolition waste [2]. SC1 – Purchasing management to reduce excessive orders, SC2 – Waste reuse and recycling scheme, SC3 – Use of green construction technology, and SC4 – Chemical waste treatment are the subindicators.

4.1.2. Operational performance indicators Operational performance indicators (OPIs) are concerned with the environmental performance resulted from organizational operations [6,19]. These seven OPIs are described as follows:

4.1.2.6. OC12. Ecological impact. Ecological impact is not common for building projects in Hong Kong but can be significant for civil engineering projects. Ecological impact means any disturbance to the pre-existing conditions such as topsoil, trees and vegetation and living habitats [26]. SC1 – Degree of efforts in reducing ecological impact is the sub-indicator. It can be determined by measuring the effort to cope with the potential ecological impacts.

4.1.2.1. OC7. Maintenance of equipment. Regular maintenance is required to ensure the environmental equipment functioning properly. Plants should be properly maintained to avoid creating any disturbance to the environment [25]. SC1- Quality of equipment maintenance is the sub-indicator, which is estimated from the frequency in checking and testing of plants, or the percentage of staff involved in such activities.

4.1.2.7. OC13. Energy consumption. There is a considerable level of energy consumptions in both the construction process and the finished building [27]. SC1 – Monitor of energy usage is the sub-indicator that can be determined from the policies set in dealing with the energy consumption, or from recording the electricity consumption per production unit [5,28], or the unit of consumption of non-recoverable energy systems [29].

4.1.2.2. OC8. Air pollution control. The seriousness of air pollution in Hong Kong can be observed from the blurred and smoggy views [1]. There were 157 prosecutions on breaching the construction dust regulations in 2001 [3]. SC1 – Water-spray to minimise flying dusts, SC2 – Screening (covering) and SC3 – Other measures related to air pollution are the sub-indicators proposed to measure the degree of air pollution control.

4.2. Determining weightings of indicators

4.1.2.3. OC9. Noise pollution control. There were 273 prosecutions on construction noise in 2001 [3]. SC1 – Time management approach (avoiding site operations beyond allowable time limits), SC2 – Noise barrier/

Because of the complexity and the interrelation between the above indicators, a scientific method is proposed to determine the weightings of the GCA criteria. A multi-attribute decision making system, called ‘‘Nonstructural Fuzzy Decision Supporting System’’ (NSFDSS) [30,31], is proposed. There are three principles in using the non-structural fuzzy decision support system: decomposition, comparative judgment and synthesis of priorities. First, the decomposition principle structures the assessment into elements of different levels, each

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

independent of those on succeeding levels, and then working downward from the goal (e.g. the overall assessment on performance) on the top through criteria on the second level, and then to sub-criteria on the third level, and so on, working from the general to the more specific at the lower levels (see Fig. 2). The principle of comparative judgment is applied to construct pair-wise comparisons of the relative importance of criteria on some given levels with respect to the property on the level above, giving rise to the corresponding matrix. The third is the synthesis of priorities. In NSFDSS, priorities are synthesized from the second level down by multiplying local priorities with the priority of their corresponding criterion on the level above, and weighting each element on a level according to the criteria it affects. (The second-level elements are multiplied by unity, the weight of the single top-level goal.) This gives the composite or global priority of that element, which is then used to weight the local priorities of the elements on the level below, and so on, repeating this procedure to the bottom level. NSFDSS is similar to the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a widely used decision-making operational research technique [32–35]. The similarity of the two is that they apply the three basic principles as mentioned above; then break down the problem into multi-levels and compare each pair, one by one. They simplify the comparison of multi-criteria problems. Also, both offer consistency checks to the pair-wise comparison matrix, ensuring the rationalization of the final decision. However, in the pair-wise comparison, NSFDSS is obviously superior to AHP by adopting a ‘‘logical checking’’ which only consists of three options:

567

(1) ‘‘D1’’ is better than ‘‘D2’’; or (2) ‘‘D1’’ is equally important as ‘‘D2’’; or (3) ‘‘D1’’ is worse than ‘‘D2’’. This approach much simplifies the nine levels of comparison in AHP. During the consistency check, it is assumed that the upper rows of the matrix are more reliable then the lower rows and the system will re-set the values of the lower rows if inconsistencies are found. In other words, the earlier comparisons made are assumed to be more accurate, which resembles human beings’ cognitive behaviour. AHP gives a consistency index that has an upper limit of 0.1, exceeding which users should check the inputs manually and re-structure the matrix and the procedures again. However, NSFDSS has another procedure of ‘‘priority ordering’’ to measure the difference in magnitude of the first ordered decision and others. It has 21 semantic operators, compared with nine of AHP. 4.2.1. Overall weightings A structured interview survey was organized from July 2003 to September 2003. Twelve organizations from 4 different construction sectors were approached for this survey, which include government departments, consultant firms, construction companies and sub-contractors. The contractors and consultant firms selected are large in size, renowned and representative in the construction industry while the interviewees chosen are experienced environmental managers with at least fifteen years of on-site experience. This group of interviewees is thus considered as a typical sample from the Hong Kong construction industry with adequate representation. Hence, the data collected is believed to bear credibility. Table 3 summarizes the results of the weightings to the key criteria and sub-criteria in GCA which were

More General

Output

Goal

Criteria Criteria C1

Decision D 1

Decision D 2

Criteria C2

Decision D 3

Criteria C3

Decision D 4

Decision D 5

Fig. 2. Decomposition structure of a multi-criteria problem.

Sub-criteria More Specific

568

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

Table 3 Results on assignment of weightings to main criteria and sub-criteria Main criteria

Sub-criteria (%) MC1

MC2

MC3

MC4

MC5

MC6

OC7

OC8

OC9

OC10

OC11

OC12

OC13

Overall SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

11.38 4.84 2.98 3.57

7.39 7.39

8.40 8.40

8.18 8.18

5.99 5.99

9.13 9.13

5.84 5.84

8.00 3.40 2.54 2.06

8.27 3.39 2.03 2.85

7.44 1.43 2.15 2.38 1.47

6.53 1.15 1.33 1.74 0.86 1.45

6.36 6.36

7.10 7.10

50.46%

49.54%

Notes. MC1 – Management involvement; MC2 – Training; MC3 – Investment; MC4 – Environmental management programme; MC5 – Research and development; MC6 – Environmental planning; OC7 – Maintenance of equipment; OC8 – Air pollution control; OC9 – Noise pollution control; OC10 – Water pollution control; OC11 – Waste pollution control; OC12 – Ecological impact; and OC13 – Energy consumption.

derived by synthesizing the opinions of interviewees using NSFDSS. The result shows that ‘‘Management involvement’’ carries the highest weighting among the 13 key criteria of MPIs and OPIs with a percentage of 11.38%. Under this, the sub-criterion ‘‘top management’’ ranks the highest at 4.84%. As top management is responsible for policy setting and if they post a mandate of considering environmental impacts, the project team members will follow. ‘‘Environmental planning’’ is weighted second with a value of 9.13%. A good plan agreed before the commencement of construction is effective in leading to a better environmental performance, rather than taking corrective action after the problems arise. Among the 13 main indicators in GCA, ‘‘Maintenance of equipment’’ bears the lowest weighting with a value of 5.84%. As most on-site equipment and plants are hired from plant hirers, the maintenance of equipment is out of contractors’ control. ‘‘Research and development (R & D)’’ is ranked the second lowest with a weighting of 5.99%. Although most interviewees emphasized the importance of R & D, returns from R & D could not be realized in a short duration, which explains the reason for its low ranking. Among the OPIs, air, noise, water and waste are considered important in GCA, with a weighting of 8.00%, 8.27%, 7.44% and 6.53%, respectively. Fulfilling statutory requirements is fundamental for construction organizations. Most of the twelve interviewed construction organizations opined that the noise pollution control ordinance is the most restrictive when compared with air, waste and water. This explains why ‘‘Noise pollution control’’ is ranked higher than the others. Furthermore, reuse, recycle and reduction of wastes are managed on a voluntary basis; thus, ‘‘Waste pollution control’’ has the lowest weighting among the four types of pollution control. In comparing weightings of MPIs and OPIs in GCA, the percentage proportions are close to each other at 50.46% and 49.54%, respectively (see Table 3). This

reflects their equal importance in the environmental performance. The operational systems have the most direct impact on the environment performance while the management system will have an indirect but large impact in causing the operational system to malfunction and damage the environment [7]. Therefore, both the management and operational systems are crucial in measuring the long-term environmental performance of organizations [7].

5. Verification of GCA For verification, three projects were studied to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the developed GCA in measuring the environmental performance for construction. These three projects have similar background and all were managed by the same experienced environmental manager in a renowned construction organization in Hong Kong. In order to eliminate any variation and inconsistence of results due to the deviations of the assessment standards, one expert/decisionmaker who manages all the three projects is targeted. Project details are summarized in Table 4, which shows that all the three projects are of similar types of development, located in the urban area and with similar contract sums. The assessment results generated from GCA for the three projects are shown in Table 5, from which, it shows that Projects 1, 2 and 3 score 67.38%, 64.67% and 63.75%, respectively. These scores were presented to the environmental manager who concurred with the ranking of the three projects that confirmed the level of accuracy of GCA. Project 1 scores the highest mark in the GCA. The project adopted many precast elements including staircases, slabs, structural beam, etc. that can reduce site material wastage due to site casting. Most of the site activities were carried out within the building envelope to reduce pollution to the nearby residents. Besides, there were some special measures taken to reduce air, noise

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

569

Table 4 Characteristics of three sample projects Project 1 Nature of project Project type Sectors Approximate contract sum Contract duration Commencement date Locations Precautions measures adopted

Others

Project 2

Superstructure Superstructure Commercial Residential Private Public HK$ 400 million HK$ 300 million 20 months 28 months July 2001 May 2001 Urban district Urban district • Movable noise barrier • Reduce site casting activities • Time limit construction and carried out within the activities is controlled building envelop • Adopted electric poker • Use of internal jump lift was chosen for concreting replacing external material • Wastewater treatment facility hoists • Water sprinkler systems • Concrete paved roads for for water spray of air pollutants reducing the dusty site traffic • Waste segregation tanks • Cement stored independent for construction wastes for reduce waste and prevent • Recyclable corrugated airborne dust steel sheets • Small-scaled saw cutting used instead of large-scaled concrete breaker • Off-site prefabricated building service installations was adopted • Aluminium scaffolding is used • Recycling solid wastes • Wastewater treatment facility • Water sprinkler systems for water spray of air pollutants • Waste segregation tanks for construction wastes • Recyclable corrugated steel sheets Assessed by HKBEAM in the planning stage (with excellent award)

Table 5 Green construction assessment results of the three projects

Overall weighting

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

67.38%

64.67%

63.75%

and waste pollution in the site; for example, the use of internal jump lift replacing external material hoists could reduce air pollution resulted from the spread of dust; concrete paved roads within the site could reduce the dusty site traffic; cement stored independent in huts could reduce waste and prevent airborne dust. In terms of noise pollution control, small-scale saw cutting instead of large-scale concrete pneumatic breaker for demolition works were adopted that could reduce the generation of noise. Further, all building service installations were prefabricated off-site and ready for use upon delivery. Solid wastes were also sorted on site that facilitated recycling and reuse. The scaffold used was of aluminium scaffolding, which could greatly reduce the consumption of bamboo sticks which would end up in

Project 3 Superstructure Residential Public HK$ 400 million 20 months June 2001 Urban district • Wastewater treatment facility • Water sprinkler systems for water spray of air pollutants • Waste segregation tanks for construction wastes • Recyclable corrugated steel sheets

-

landfills. Furthermore, the project had adopted the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HKBEAM) [14–16] to assess the environmental design of the building at the planning stage and won the ‘‘Excellent’’ award. The environmental manager observed that middle management had committed themselves in environmental management and the overall environmental performance of the project was good. As regards Projects 2 and 3, the expert commented that Project 2 should perform better as greater dedication to environmental issues from the project team was observed. Project 2 had provided some precautionary measures to reduce pollution, such as movable noise barrier in curtain-form. Construction activities were confined to the time limits of the construction noise permit and electric poker was chosen for concreting to reduce generation of noise. Besides the above, all the three projects had administered ISO 14001 EMS, with a well established wastewater treatment facility, water sprinkler systems on the ground floor and near the exit to reduce airborne dust,

570

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571

waste segregation tanks for inert and non-inert wastes, recyclable corrugated steel sheets to replace timber for subcontractor site sheds and other activities like training policies, etc.

6. Conclusion To assess the environmental performance of contractors in various construction projects, it needs a systematic and objective assessment tool. However, most of the existing assessment methods are not designed for assessing construction activities. GCA helps to fill the gap. The assessment can help set the standard to evaluate contractors’ performance and provide a yardstick for performance benchmarking. It also helps contractors to keep track their own environmental achievements. Green Construction Assessment, a tailor-made mechanism for construction in Hong Kong, provides a scientific, reliable and comprehensive environmental assessment scale. GCA has included thirteen performance indicators, worked out with the consultation with the industry. The weighting to each criterion is worked out using a multi-criteria decision tool – NSFDSS, giving a higher credibility to the scale. For verification, the scale was applied to assess three real-life projects, which has proven the reliability of GCA.

Acknowledgements The work described in this paper was fully supported by the strategic grants from CityU Project No. 7001452.

Appendix A List of abbreviations AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method EA Environmental Assessment EMS Environmental Management System GCA Green Construction Assessment HKBEAM Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design MPI Management Performance Indicators NSFDSS Non-structural Fuzzy Decision Support System OPI Operational Performance Indicators R&D Research and Development

References [1] EPD (Environmental Protection Department), Homepage, available at http://www.epd.gov.hk, 2003. [2] Griffith A. Environmental management in construction. Macmillan; 1995. [3] EPD, Environmental Hong Kong, Hong Kong Government, 2002. [4] CIRC (Construction Industry Review Committee), Construct for Excellence, Report of the Construction Industry Review Committee, Hong Kong Government, 2001. [5] Jasch C. Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. J Cleaner Product 2000;8(1):79–88. [6] Wathey D, O’Reilly M. ISO 14031: A practical guide to developing environment performance indicators for your business. London: The Stationary Office; 1999. [7] Kuhre WL. ISO 14031 Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) – practical tools and techniques for conduction an environmental performance evaluation. Prentice-Hall PTR; 1997. [8] Apsan NH. Moving ahead with ISO 14000 – improving environmental management and advancing sustainable development. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 1997. p. 171–6. [9] Cole RJ. Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices. Construct Manage Econ 2000;18(8):949– 57. [10] Li CP, Hui IK. Environmental impact evaluation model for industrial processes. Environ Manage 2001;27(5):729–37. [11] McCloskey J, Maddock S. Environmental management: its role in corporate strategy. Manage Decision 1994;32(1):27–32. [12] Kleivane T. Environmental and competitiveness of companies: international environmental management benchmarking – best practice experiences from America. Japan and Europe 1999:103–9. [13] BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), Homepage, available at http://www.bre.co.uk, 2002. [14] HK-BEAM (Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method), An environmental assessment for existing office buildings. Centre of Environmental Technology Limited; 1999. [15] HK-BEAM, An environmental assessment for new office designs. Centre of Environmental Technology Limited; 1999. [16] HK-BEAM, An environmental assessment for new residential buildings. Centre of Environmental Technology Limited; 1999. [17] LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), Homepage, available at http://www.usgbc.org/, 2002. [18] Olsthoorn X, Daniel T, Walter W, Marcus W. Environmental indicators for business: a review of the literature and standardization methods. J Cleaner Product 2001;9(5):453–63. [19] ISO (International Organization for Standardization), ISO 14031: Environmental management: Environmental performance evaluation Guidelines (Geneza:ISO), 1999. [20] Bennett M, James P. ISO 14031 and the future of environmental performance evaluation white, sustainable measures-evaluation and reporting of environmental and social performance. NY: Greenleaf Publishing; 1999. p. 76–97. [21] CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association), Environmental good practice on site, CIRIA Publication, London, 1999. [22] Stoner JAF, Freeman RE, Gilbert DR. Management. 6th ed. Prentice Hall; 1995. [23] CIRIA, Environmental handbook for building and civil engineering projects – Construction phase, CIRIA Special Publication 98, 1994. [24] Tibor T, Feldman I. ISO 14000 – A guide to the New Environmental Management Standards, Irwin, 1996. [25] HKPC (Hong Kong Productivity Council), A Guide to Green Construction Practices, Hong Kong Government, 2001.

C.M. Tam et al. / International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004) 563–571 [26] CIRIA, Environmental issues in construction – sustainability indicators for the civil engineering industry, Project report 75, 1999. [27] Griffith A. Management system for construction. Longman; 2000. [28] Master JE. ISO 14031 Environmental performance evaluation standard, The ISO 14000 Handbook. ASQ Quality Press; 1999. 264–274. [29] Thoresen J. Environmental performance evaluation – a tool for industrial improvement. J Cleaner Product 1999;7(5):365–70. [30] Tam CM, Tong KL, Chiu CW, Fung WH. Non-structural fuzzy decision support system for evaluation of construction safety management system. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(4): 303–13.

571

[31] Tam CM, Tong KL, Chiu CW. Site layout planning using nonstructural fuzzy decision support system. J Construct Eng Manage 2002;128(3):220–31. [32] Saaty TL. In: Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, vol. VI. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications; 1994. [33] Fong SWP, Choi KYS. Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process. J Construct Manage Econ 2000;18:547–57. [34] Shen QP, Lo KK, Wang Q. Priority setting in maintenance management: a modified multi-attribute approach using analytic hierarchy process. J Construct Manage Econ 1998;16:693–702. [35] Alhazmi T, McCaffer R. Project procurement system selection model. J Construct Eng Manage 2000;(May/June):176–84.