ARCOM

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 43 results ...

Abd Jamil, A H and Fathi, M S (2018) Contractual challenges for BIM-based construction projects: a systematic review. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 372–85.

Adefila, A, Abuzeinab, A, Whitehead, T and Oyinlola, M (2020) Bottle house: utilising appreciative inquiry to develop a user acceptance model. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 567–83.

• Type: Journal Article
• Keywords: Bottle house; Case study; Circular solutions; Upcycled materials; User acceptance;
• ISBN/ISSN: 2044-124X
• URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-08-2019-0072
• Abstract:
  This paper develops a novel user-acceptance model for circular solutions to housing design. The model has been systematically developed from a case study of an upcycled plastic bottle building in a low-income community in Nigeria. It is common practice to use participatory approaches to consult end users in communities, typically after design concepts have been proposed and conceptualised. However, this often leads to critical socio-cultural or usability elements being overlooked and the design being substandard. Therefore, this paper develops a robust model for designers, specialists and activists involved in construction that can be used during all phases of a project. This approach demonstrates that user needs should be considered before building designs and plans are generated, providing a greater frame of reference for practitioners, consultants and end users. Enabling the integration of holistic needs of the community and the development of circular design solution. A case study methodology has been employed to develop this model, uses appreciative inquiry methodology. This includes multiple methods to capture end users’ perception: focus groups, interactions with the local community and self-recorded comments. This case study is part of a broader research project to develop replicable low-cost self-sufficient homes utilising local capacity using upcycled, locally available materials. The findings identify the challenges associated with designing circular solution housing without a robust understanding of interrelated factors, which ensure sustainability and user acceptance. The conclusions demonstrate why essential socio-cultural factors, usually unrelated to technical development, should be understood and contextualised when designing sustainable solutions in low/middle-income communities. The authors argue that without this holistic approach, undesirable consequences may arise, often leading to more significant challenges. Instead of referring to multiple frameworks, this distinctive model can be used to evaluate user acceptance for low-cost housing in particular and other dimensions of circular solution design that involve end-user acceptance. The model blends circular solution dimensions with user-acceptance concerns offering a guide that considers essential features that are both user-friendly and pragmatic, such as utility, technological innovation and functionality as well as their intersectionality. The research relied on a single case study, which focussed on end-user engagement of upcycling waste materials as an application of circular solutions. The model will contribute to developing socially accepted circular solutions taking into consideration local context factors. The paper is proposing a model for user acceptance of circular construction materials relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Al-Gahtani, K, Alsulaihi, I, Ali, M and Marzouk, M (2017) Production of green concrete using recycled waste aggregate and byproducts. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 413-25.

Amadi, C, Carrillo, P and Tuuli, M (2018) Stakeholder management in PPP projects: external stakeholders’ perspective. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 403–14.

Carrière, S, Weigend Rodríguez, R, Pey, P, Pomponi, F and Ramakrishna, S (2020) Circular cities: the case of Singapore. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 491–507.

Crippa, J, Araujo, A M, Bem, D, Ugaya, C M and Scheer, S (2020) A systematic review of BIM usage for life cycle impact assessment. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 603–18.

Farghaly, K, Abanda, F, Vidalakis, C and Wood, G (2019) BIM-linked data integration for asset management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 489–502.

Hadiwattege, C, Senaratne, S, Sandanayake, Y and Fernando, N G (2018) Academic research in emerging knowledge-based economies. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 415–28.

Hettige, N, Perera, B A K S and Mallawaarachchi, H (2017) A framework for adopting green leasing in developing countries: The case of Sri Lanka. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 377-87.

Ikediashi, D I, Ogunlana, S O and Odesola, I A (2015) Service quality and user satisfaction of outsourced facilities management services in Nigeria’s public hospitals. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 363-79.

Jafari, A and Akhavian, R (2019) Driving forces for the US residential housing price: a predictive analysis. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 515–29.

Jumas, D, Mohd-Rahim, F A, Zainon, N and Utama, W P (2018) Improving accuracy of conceptual cost estimation using MRA and ANFIS in Indonesian building projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 348–57.

Khallaf, R, Naderpajouh, N and Hastak, M (2018) A systematic approach to develop risk registry frameworks for complex projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 334–47.

Kim, K P and Park, K S (2016) Primary BIM dataset for refurbishing flood risk vulnerable housing in the UK. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 365-78.

Kumaraswamy, M, Wong, K K W and Chung, J (2017) Focusing megaproject strategies on sustainable best value of stakeholders. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 441-55.

Liu, C and Li, Y (2016) Measuring eco-roof mitigation on flash floods via gis simulation. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 415-27.

Madanayake, U H and Egbu, C (2019) Critical analysis for big data studies in construction: significant gaps in knowledge. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 530–47.

Manu, P, Mahamadu, A, Booth, C, Olomolaiye, P, Ibrahim, A D and Coker, A (2018) Assessment of procurement capacity challenges inhibiting public infrastructure procurement. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 386–402.

Marzouk, M and Enaba, M (2019) Analyzing project data in BIM with descriptive analytics to improve project performance. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 476–88.

Mitra, A and Munir, K (2019) Influence of Big Data in managing cyber assets. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 503–14.

Nguyen, T P and Chileshe, N (2015) Revisiting the construction project failure factors in Vietnam. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 398-416.

Nielsen, L-H K, Akanmu, A and Anumba, C J (2015) Comparative analysis of back-to-back subcontracts in the construction and telecommunications industries. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 446-60.

Ofori-Boadu, A N, Shofoluwe, M A, Owusu-Manu, D-G, Holt, G D and Edwards, D (2015) Analysis of US commercial buildings’ energy efficiency programs. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 349-62.

Okorafor, C, Emuze, F, Das, D, Awuzie, B O and Haupt, T (2020) An artefact for improving the delivery of building energy retrofit project in South Africa. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 619–35.

Olatunji, O A, Orundami, A O and Ogundare, O (2018) Causal relationship between material price fluctuation and project’s outturn costs. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(04), 358–71.

Omotayo, T, Olanipekun, A, Obi, L and Boateng, P (2020) A systems thinking approach for incremental reduction of non-physical waste. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 509–28.

Osunsanmi, T O, Aigbavboa, C O, Emmanuel Oke, A and Liphadzi, M (2020) Appraisal of stakeholders' willingness to adopt construction 4.0 technologies for construction projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 547–65.

Oyewobi, L O, Windapo, A O and James, R O B (2015) An empirical analysis of construction organisations’ competitive strategies and performance. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 417-31.

Ozcan, D G (2017) An analytic network process model to examine LEED-certified buildings’ operational performance. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 366-76.

Pathirage, C and Al-Khaili, K (2016) Disaster vulnerability of Emirati energy sector and barriers to enhance resilience. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 403-14.

Ram, J, Afridi, N K and Khan, K A (2019) Adoption of Big Data analytics in construction: development of a conceptual model. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 564–79.

Rose, J and Jayawickrama, J (2016) Capacity building of institutions for disaster risk reduction: Learning from communities as first responders. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 391-402.

Seneviratne, K, Amaratunga, D and Haigh, R (2015) Post-conflict housing reconstruction: Exploring the challenges of addressing housing needs in Sri Lanka. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 432-45.

Waidyasekara, K G A S, De Silva, L and Rameezdeen, R (2017) Application of “r” principles to enhance the efficiency of water usage in construction sites. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 400-12.

Walimuni, P C, Samaraweera, A and De Silva, L (2017) Payment mechanisms for contractors for better environmental hazard controlling in road construction projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 426-40.

Wedawatta, G and Ingirige, B (2016) A conceptual framework for understanding resilience of construction SMEs to extreme weather events. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 428-43.

Wedawatta, G, Kulatunga, U, Amaratunga, D and Parvez, A (2016) Disaster risk reduction infrastructure requirements for south-western Bangladesh: Perspectives of local communities. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(04), 379-90.

Weigend Rodríguez, R, Pomponi, F, Webster, K and D'Amico, B (2020) The future of the circular economy and the circular economy of the future. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 529–46.

Windapo, A O and Moghayedi, A (2020) Adoption of smart technologies and circular economy performance of buildings. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 10(04), 585–601.

Yap, J Y L, Ho, C C and Ting, C (2019) A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision-making methods in site selection problems. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(04), 548–63.

Zeb, J (2017) An eco asset ontology towards effective eco asset management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 388-99.

Zeb, J, Froese, T and Vanier, D (2015) An ontology-supported asset information integrator system in infrastructure management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(04), 380-97.

Zhao, X and Pan, W (2017) Co-productive interrelations between business model and zero-carbon building: A conceptual model. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 7(04), 353-65.