Environment, Development and Sustainability

Criteria for the Assessment of Sustainability of Public Works

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: ENVI-D-19-00404

Full Title: Criteria for the Assessment of Sustainability of Public Works

Article Type: Original paper

Keywords: Public constructions; sustainable constructions; criteria for sustainable construction;

sustainability assessment tools; sustainability

Corresponding Author: ROGERIO PERLINGEIRO

Universidade Federal Fluminense
Niterói, Rio de Janeiro - RJ BRAZIL

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Universidade Federal Fluminense

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Rogerio Moreno Perlingeiro

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Rogerio Moreno Perlingeiro

Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro, Ph.D

Carlos Alberto Pereira Soares, Ph.D

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Funding Information:

Abstract: The assessment of the sustainability of public works has gained great importance,
especially for representing a significant portion of engineering work. In addition, given
the dimension of the impact caused by the construction industry on social, economic
and environmental aspects, the use of more sustainable construction practices has
been taking an important role on agendas of sustainability. There are currently various
assessment systems and methods with different scopes and approaches, however,
those which consider the specificities of public works are scarce. This study contributes
to filling this gap in the scientific knowledge by proposing a structured set of indicators
for the assessment of the sustainability of such works. The criteria proposed by the
principal researchers working with the theme and by the LEED, SBTool, BREEAM and
Green Star assessment tools were identified based on extensive, detailed bibliographic
research. After categorization, reordering and unification of the criteria, a
comprehensive, flexible structure was obtained, composed of nine categories that
aggregate 214 criteria, incorporating the principal aspects for sustainability assessment
in this important segment of construction work.

Suggested Reviewers: Naked Haddad, Ph.D

Full Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro)
assed@poli.ufrj.br

Leandro Torres Di Gregorio, Ph.D

Associate Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Universidade Federal do
Rio de Janeiro)
leandro.torres@poli.ufrj.br

Jordan Henrique de Souza, Ph.D

Associate Professor, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (Universidade Federal de Juiz
de Fora)
jordan.souza@engenharia.ufjf.br

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Ahmed Hammad
UNSW Sydney
a.hammad@unsw.edu.au

Laia Haurie Ibarra

Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
laia.haurie@upc.edu

Gislaine dos Santos

Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora
gislaine.santos@engenharia.ufjf.br

André Bittencourt do Valle

Fundacao Getulio Vargas
andre.valle@fgv.br

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Title Page W/All Author contact Info

Title Page

CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC WORKS

Rogério Moreno Perlingeiro1, Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro2, Carlos Alberto
Pereira Soares1

Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Fluminense Federal University (Universidade

1

Federal Fluminense), Niterói, RJ, Brazil

Department of Civil Engineering, Fluminense Federal University (Universidade

2

Federal Fluminense), Niterói, RJ, Brazil

Corresponding Author:

Rogério Moreno Perlingeiro

Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Fluminense Federal University (Universidade Federal

Fluminense)

Rua Passos da Pátria 156 – São Domingos

Niterói – RJ – CEP: 24210-240, Brazil.

Tel: +55 21 99911-4874

Email: rogerioperlingeiro@id.uff.br

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1642-0387

Manuscript(author information must not appear in the manuscript) Click here to view linked References

1 CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC WORKS

2
3 ABSTRACT: The assessment of the sustainability of public works has gained great importance, especially
4 for representing a significant portion of engineering work. In addition, given the dimension of the impact
5 caused by the construction industry on social, economic and environmental aspects, the use of more
6 sustainable construction practices has been taking an important role on agendas of sustainability. There are
7 currently various assessment systems and methods with different scopes and approaches, however, those
8 which consider the specificities of public works are scarce. This study contributes to filling this gap in the
9 scientific knowledge by proposing a structured set of indicators for the assessment of the sustainability of
10 such works. The criteria proposed by the principal researchers working with the theme and by the LEED,
11 SBTool, BREEAM and Green Star assessment tools were identified based on extensive, detailed
12 bibliographic research. After categorization, reordering and unification of the criteria, a comprehensive,
13 flexible structure was obtained, composed of nine categories that aggregate 214 criteria, incorporating the
14 principal aspects for sustainability assessment in this important segment of construction work.
15
KEYWORDS
16
17 Public constructions, sustainable constructions, criteria for sustainable construction, sustainability
18 assessment tools; sustainability.
19
20 1. Introduction
21 The constant degradation of the environment for the purposes of construction is present in most
22 developing countries (Djokoto et al. 2014). Although the construction industry has an important role in the
23 world economy, participating with 10% of the world's GDP, it is responsible for the consumption of 20%
24 of the water, 40% of all materials and 35% of all the energy consumed (Brenner 2015). Furthermore, it is
25 one of the main sources of undesirable side effects for the environment, such as air and water pollution,
26 solid waste, deforestation, toxic waste, greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, global warming and other
27 negative consequences (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Wu, Ya, et al. 2018).
28
29 Considering that the impact of civil construction on the environment is greater in developing
30 countries (Ayireb-Dansoh and Amoah 2010), whose participation in the world economy is growing notably
31 (IPRI 2017), it is of great concern that a larger and larger section of the economy does not adequately
32 incorporate principles of sustainable construction.
33
Sustainable construction consists of achieving a balance between social, economic and
34
environmental aspects of the construction, optimizing the cost-benefit relationship in these three areas
35
36 (Sourani and Sohail 2011). It is a broad theme and the scientific community has been discussing various
37 different aspects, with procurement and purchases, green buildings, construction materials and methods,
38 lifecycle analysis, waste and environmental impact, obstacles and challenges being among the most studied.
39 In general, governments are large-scale contractors of construction industry products and services
40 from their own countries. In Brazil, for example, public works account for 30.6% of the sector (IBGE 2015)
41 and, consequently, have a significant impact on questions of sustainability. However, little research is
42 directed exclusively towards this segment.
43
44 Adopting a simplified approach, what differentiates public works from other construction projects
45 are the objectives to be achieved and the rules for the procurement and execution of the construction.
46 Procurement, whether public or otherwise, passes through a process which normally contains six
47 principal activities (Adjarko et al. 2014):
48
49  Defining what should be procured;
50  Deciding procurement strategies in terms of contract, price and segmentation strategy and
51 procurement procedure;
52  Solicitation of tender offers;
53  Evaluation of tender offers;
54  Awarding the contract; and
55  Administration of the contracts and monitoring of compliance with requirements.
56
57 In relation to public procurements, local legislation normally establishes the rules on how this
58 process will be developed, although the sequence of activities remains unaltered. Even with the restrictions
59
60
61
62
1
63
64
65
 1 imposed by these rules, as the principal contractor of goods and services in the market, the state can modify
2 the parameters and demand eco-efficient production from suppliers (de Souza Dutra et al. 2017).
3
There are numerous barriers to the implementation of public policies aimed at sustainable
4
constructions. According to Sourani and Sohail (2011), the main obstacles to the incorporation of
5
sustainable projects into the public sector are:
6
7  Lack of funding, restrictions on expenditure and reluctance to incur higher capital cost when
8 needed;
9  lack of awareness, understanding, information, commitment and demand;
10  insufficient/inconsistent policies, regulations, incentives and commitment by leadership;
11  insufficient/confusing guidance, tools, demonstrations and best practice;
12
 vagueness of definitions and diversity of interpretations;
13
14  separation between capital budget and operational budget;
15  lack of sufficient time to address sustainability issues;
16  lack of long-term perspective;
17  general perception that addressing sustainability always leads to incurring greater capital cost;
18  resistance to change;
19  insufficient integration and link-up in the industry;
20  insufficient research and development
21
22 The use of assessment tools collaborates in the understanding of the relationships between the
23 constructions and the environment (Ding 2008), minimizes the obstacles mentioned above and provide
24 better possibilities to achieve sustainable outcomes (Wangel, Josefin, et al. 2016)
25 By adopting specific criteria, assessment tools make it possible to establish the degree of
26 sustainability of a project, from planning through to demolition (Huo et al. 2017; Fastofski et al. 2017;
27 Illankoon et al. 2017). The criteria used should represent the parameters necessary to execute a “green
28 construction project” (Illankoon et al. 2017).
29
30 There are currently various assessment systems and methods with differing scopes and approaches.
31 However, there is no agreement as to which method is the most appropriate for any given case (Pons et al.
32 2016). All the methods have limitations that may prejudice their use and efficacy in the determination of
33 environmental performance (Ding 2008).
34 Besides the present study adding to the scarce literature on sustainable public constructions, it also
35 proposes a structure for the assessment of sustainability in public works, incorporating concepts, guidelines
36 and criteria from various authors and collaborating so that public organs may carry out more sustainable
37 constructions. According to Djokoto et al. (2014), this influences in the reduction of resource consumption,
38 the maximization of resource reuse, the use of renewable and recyclable resources, protection of the natural
39 environment, the creation of a healthy, non-toxic environment, as well as in the pursuit of quality in creation
40 of the built environment.
41
42 The relevance and differential offered by the present study in relation to other systems lie in its
43 coverage, as, besides bringing together and synthesizing all the criteria extracted from the various
44 publications being analyzed, it incorporates the concepts of some of the most used assessment tools of the
45 moment BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and SBTool (Table 3).
46
47 Thus, the obtained structure covers a wide variety of projects, from the simplest to the most complex.
48 Considering that public works include all construction, reform, manufacture, recovery or expansion (TCU
49 2014), be it edification, transport infrastructure, public space or public service (water, sewage and energy).
50 This coverage is essential to assisting public administrators in acting sustainably, at any stage of the
51 construction lifecycle (viability studies, planning, project, construction, operation/use and demolition).
52 2. METHOD
53
54 The development for determination of the criteria structure for the assessment of sustainability in
55 public works was carried out as illustrated in Figure 1.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
2
63
64
65
 1
2
3 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
4 2.1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF 2.1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE
5 SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOLS
6
7
8 2.2 SELECTION OF CRITERIA FOR THE 2.3 CREATION OF A STRUCTURE OF
9 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CATEGORIES FOR THE CRITERIA
10
11
12 2.4 PLACEMENT OF THE CRITERIA IN THE
13 CATEGORIES
14
15
2.5 REORDERING OF THE CRITERIA IN
16
THE CATEGORIES
17
18
19
YES
20 INCONSISTENCIES?
21
22
NO
23
24 2.6 UNIFICATION OF THE SAME OR
25 SIMILAR CRITERIA
26
27
28 3.2 STRUCTURE OF
29 CRITERIA
30
31
Figure 1 – Flowchart of the method.
32
33
34
35 2.1. Bibliographic research
36 Extensive bibliographic research was carried out using various databases available through the
37 Portal de Periódicos - PP (Periodicals Portal), of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
38 Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes), of the
39 Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC). It contains the principal international databases, such as Web of
40 Science, Scopus, Emerald and SciELO.
41
42 The research initially explored publications from the last 10 years presenting criteria for the
43 assessment of sustainability in public works. Subsequently, due to the scarcity of results, the research was
44 widened to include the last 20 years, Google Scholar, and direct research on sites of the main periodicals;
45 the limitation on being exclusively public was removed and the references from publications selected for
46 analysis were also included.
47 The following expressions were researched: “sustainable construction”, “green construction”,
48 “sustainable procurement” and “green procurement” and associated with the words “public”,
49 “government”, “criteria” “indicator”, “assessment” and “legislation”. The combinations resulted in a list of
50 over 20 thousand publications.
51
52 The PP research system presented the results by order of relevance with the criteria of limiting the
53 retrieval to a maximum of the first 100 most relevant results for each combination being adopted. Other
54 studies made available by other sources were also selected, providing a list with over two thousand studies
55 extracted.
56
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses)
57
recommendations were used to guide the process and redaction of the systematic review of the literature.
58
59
60
61
62
3
63
64
65
 1 After selecting 2,146 publications based on keywords, the next step was to eliminate the 724
2 duplicated studies. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 1,422 publications were then read, and only
3 those presenting clear evidence of providing a relevant contribution to the theme were selected. Studies
4 without a named author, anonymous studies, those published in periodicals without the peer review system,
5 whose complete texts were not available, that had been developed in a language other than English, Spanish
6 or Portuguese, or those whose titles or abstracts were clearly not related to the present study were excluded.
7
8 Selective reading was conducted of the 326 remaining papers so as to verify their originality and the
9 validity and clarity of the methodology. This resulted in cutting a further 198 publications.
10 The remaining 128 publications were read in detail; 47 of which were effectively used. Figure 2
11 summarizes the bibliographic research using the PRISMA.
12
13
14
Identification

15
16
2050 Records 96 Additional records
17 identified through identified through
18 database searching other sources
19
20
21 1096 Records excluded
1422 Records after duplicates
22  Abstracts not clear enough
removed

Screening

23 Content abstracts without relevance

24
25  Paper published in journals without a peer
26 system
27  Full text not available
326 Records screened
28  Language other than English, Spanish or
29 Portuguese.
30
31 Full-text articles excluded
32  Non-original article
Eligibility

33 128 Full-text articles

34  Insufficiently described investigation method
35
assessed for eligibility  Results that not contribute to the study
36  Results whose methodology did not support
37 its validity
38
39
 Paper with non-original data.
40
Included

41
42
47 Studies included in
43 qualitative synthesis
44
45
46 Figure 2 - Literature search from the PRISMA flowchart.
47
48 2.1.1. Identification of the criteria for assessment of sustainability in works
49 Among the 47 studies incorporated, the 33 publications possessing a set of assessment criteria in
50 their content were selected, regardless of being aimed exclusively at public works or not. The following list
51 presents the different focuses and objectives of the chosen studies:
52
53  Barriers and challenges to sustainability deployment in public work procurement;
54  Barriers to the deployment of sustainable construction;
55  Impact of the construction and construction materials on the environment;
56  Guidelines and practices for the incorporation of sustainability into the construction;
57  Indicators of sustainability in the constructions;
58
59
60
61
62
4
63
64
65
 1  Challenges and opportunities in the use of sustainability assessment tools in the procurement of
2 public works;
3  Promotion of the use of sustainability assessment tools in urbanization projects;
4  Sustainability assessment system for improved environmental performance of public buildings;
5  Sustainability considerations in project procurement;
6  System for sustainability assessment in a nation;
7  System for sustainability assessment in a construction;
8
 Sustainability considerations in road building projects;
9
10  Importance of sustainability criteria in public works contracts;
11  Review of global initiatives (legal, political, commercial, ...) of sustainable public contracts;
12  Vision of how the states of the European Union approach the concept of sustainability in their
13 regulatory frameworks for construction;
14  Research possibilities for sustainable construction in the coming years;
15  Implications of integrating the evaluation of carbon emissions in the process of building approval;
16  Impact of the use of BIM in construction sustainability;
17  Sustainability considerations in public work procurements;
18  Proposal of a system for sustainability assessment in constructions;
19  Comparative analysis of assessment tools for the improvement of the land occupation and building
20 project for green constructions;
21  Methodology for the selection of sustainability indicators of the lifecycle of pre-molded and
22 conventional constructions;
23  Identification of criteria for comparative sustainability assessment between pre-molded and
24
conventional constructions;
25
 Analysis of habitational ventures in relation to sustainability assessment criteria.
26
2.1.2. Identification of sustainability assessment tools in construction work
27
28 Publications that make reference to assessment tools were found as a result of the studies carried out
29 on PP to locate sustainability criteria; from which 4 internationally relevant, comprehensive tools were
30 selected, as follows:
31
32  BREEAM – The first international tool to assess sustainability was launched in 1990 and is the
33 principal global method of sustainability assessment (Huo et al. 2017). It is an independent
34 certification system used in the elaboration of master plans and infrastructure and building projects
35 (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
36  LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) – Is a well-known and widely-used
37 system around the world (Fastofski et al. 2017). Launched by the US Green Building Council in
38 2000 and updated in 2015, it aims to assess and certify the energy efficiency and sustainable design
39 characteristics of new and existing buildings (Huo et al. 2017);
40  SBtool (Sustainable Building Tool) – A flexible system developed by the iiSBE (International
41 Initiative for the Sustainable Built Environment) non-profit organization, in cooperation with
42 teams from more than 20 countries, which enables interested parties to adjust to the tool and
43 develop their own systems. The method assesses sustainable performance of the project
44 deployment location, infrastructure, projects, building performance and other specific problems of
45 the built environment (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
46  Green Star – This is a comprehensive system, adapted from BREEAM, used in Australia, New
47 Zealand and South Africa to assess the environmental performance of buildings (Illankoon et al.
48 2017) (Ding 2008). It considers a wide range of sustainability issues such as the health and
49 productivity of the occupants and money-saving (Nguyen and Altan 2011);
50
51 Complementary detailed information on the tools was obtained through documents and information
52 available directly from the electronic addresses of the respective tools (BREEAM 2017; Green Star 2017;
53 LEED 2017; SBTool 2017).
54 2.2. Selection of sustainability criteria for the assessment of public works
55
56 A total of 33 documents were selected from the bibliographic review, from which 873 preliminary
57 criteria were extracted, with no type of filter. The criteria are listed and ordered as per Table 1.
58
59
60
61
62
5
63
64
65
 1 Table 1. List of criteria.
2 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
3 PRELIMINARYCRITERIA 1 2 ... 32 33
4 Criteria A1 X
5 Criteria A2 X
6 ... ...
7 Criteria AN X
8 Criteria B1 X
9
Criteria B2 X
10
... ...
11
12 Criteria BN X
13 Criteria M1 X
14 Criteria M2 X
15 ... ...
16 Criteria MN X
17
18 The primary table above brought elements that enable the categorization, reordering and unification
19 of the preliminary criteria possessing the same objective in the assessment of sustainability. This evolution
20 shall be detailed in the following stages of the method.
21
22 2.3. Creation of a structure of categories for the assessment criteria
23
The structure of categories also served as support for the following stages of the method. It
24
established the parameters enabling comparison between the preliminary criteria of different publications.
25
26 In this stage, the structure of categories of the main assessment systems (BREEAM, LEED, Green
27 Star and SBTool) were analyzed and, at first, simply listed, as per Table 2.
28
29 Table 2. Categories of the principal classification tools.
30 LEED BREEAM GREEN STAR SBTOOL
31 L1 - Location and B1 - Administration G1 - Governance S1 - Location, Services and
32 transport Characteristics of the land
33 L2 - Sustainable space B2 - Health and G2 - Habitability S2 - Regeneration and development
34 well-being of the land, Urban Design and
35 Infrastructure
36 L3 - Rational use of B3 - Energy G3 - Economic S3 - Consumption of energy and
37 water development resources
38 L4 - Energy and B4 - Transport G4 - Environment S4 - Environmental loads
39 atmosphere
40 L5 - Material and B5 - Water G5 - Administration S5 - Interior Environmental Quality
41 resources
42 L6 - Quality of internal B6 - Material G6 - Quality of internal S6 - Quality of service
43 environment environment
44 L7 - Regional priorities B7 - Waste G7 - Energy S7 - Social, cultural and perceptive
45 aspects
46 L8 - Innovation B8 - Soil use and G8 - Transport S8 - Cost and Economic Aspects
47 ecology
48 B9 - Pollution G9 - Water
49 B10 - Innovation G10 - Material
50
G11 - Soil use and
51
ecology
52
53 G12 - Emissions
54 G13 - Innovation
55 Subsequently, from the concepts contained in each of the tools, a new structure was proposed, with
56 categories that incorporated all the existing concepts. Table 3 presents the new proposed structure and the
57 full and partial influence on the new categories from the assessment tool categories.
58
59
60
61
62
6
63
64
65
 1 Table 3. Structure of proposed categories.
2 INFLUENCE OF THE CLASSIFICATION TOOL
PROPOSED CATEGORIES
3 CATEGORIES ON THE PROPOSED CATEGORIES
4 Social, location and transport aspects L1, L2, L7 | B4 | G2, G4, G8 | S1, S2, S7
5 Administration B1 | G1, G5 | S3, S6
6 Cost and Economic Aspects G3 | S8
7 Soil use and ecology L2 | B8, B9 | G4, G11, G12 | S1, S2, S4
8 Quality of the internal environment L6 | B2 | G6 | S5, S6, S7
9 Energy L4 | B3 | G7 | S3, S4
10
Materials and resources L5 | B6, B7 | G10 | S3, S4
11
Water L3 | B5 | G9 | S3, S4
12
13 Innovation L8 | B10 | G13
14 2.3. Framing of the criteria in the categories
15
16 Due to the large quantity, and as the descriptions of a given criteria vary according to the publication,
17 unifying those with the same representativity proved to be a challenge. Thus, a detailed analysis of the
18 articles was necessary to identify what the author really intended to represent with the description of each
19 criteria, in order to then frame them correctly.
20 The framing resulted in a large number of criteria concentrated in determined categories, making
21 the process of unification difficult. To further facilitate the analysis, it was necessary to create a secondary
22 category.
23
24 As such, two columns were added to Table 1; one referring to the MAIN CATEGORY, already
25 mentioned, and the other to the SECONDARY CATEGORY, resulting in Table 4.
26
Table 4. List of criteria and categories.
27
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
28
29 MAIN SECUNDARY THE CRITERIA 1 2 ... 32 33
30 PX - Category X Sub-category XY Criteria A X
31 ... ... ...
32 PX - Category X Sub-category XY Criteria B X
33 ... ... ...
34 PX - Category X Sub-category XY Criteria C X
35 ... ... ...
36 PX - Category X Sub-category XY Criteria D X
37 ... ... ...
38
39 2.4. Reordering of the criteria in the categories
40 After the distribution of the criteria according to the proposed categories, Table 4 was rearranged
41 with the column of the main category, followed by the secondary category and by the description of the
42 criteria. Therefore, it was possible to identify the criteria that were identical or similar, group them and
43 propose a new wording for said criteria.
44
45 To carry out the next stage, a new column was inserted in which texts containing the new
46 descriptions of the criteria were elaborated and positioned, resulting in Table 5. Verification of the framing
47 of all the criteria was repeated until there were no inconsistencies.
48 Table 5. List of criteria and categories with new descriptions of the criteria.
49 DESCRIPTION OF THE
50 CATEGORY DOCUMENTS
CRITERIA
51
MAIN SECONDARY NEW ORIGINAL 1 2 ... 32 33
52
Criteria A X
53 New description
54 Sub-category 1.1 Criteria J X
P1 Category 1 11
55 Criteria L X
56 ... ... ...
57 Criteria H X
New description
58 P2 Category 2 Sub-category 2.1 Criteria F X
21
59 Criteria M X
60
61
62
7
63
64
65
 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE
CATEGORY DOCUMENTS
2 CRITERIA
3 MAIN SECONDARY NEW ORIGINAL 1 2 ... 32 33
4 ... ... ...
5 ... ... ... ...
6
7 2.5. Unification of the same or similar criteria
8 In the final stage, the table with the assessment structure was consolidated. The original criteria were
9 grouped with the new descriptions to then be eliminated. Item 3.2 presents the resulting structure containing
10 the distribution of the 214 assessment criteria, already unified, by category, and the indications of their
11 bibliographic references.
12
13 3. PROPOSAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC WORKS
14
The research developed here presents two main results. The first consists of a list of categories
15
containing detailed descriptions of what will be assessed in each category and its coverage. This list brings
16
the elements to achieve the second result, whereby the criteria are linked to the proposed categories, and a
17
structure is then obtained which serves as a basis for the assessment of sustainability in public works (item
18
3.2).
19
20 Only from tools such as this is it possible to quantify the level of sustainability of constructions and,
21 with its use over time, establish parameters that enable following of the evolution of sustainability levels
22 of a given sector or governmental body.
23
24 3.1. List of categories
25 It is essential that each category is well defined, so as to unite only corresponding criteria. For
26 example, the criteria related to concepts and projects involving water, should be inserted into the category
27 of water and not administration, and so forth.
28
29 The following descriptions, which contain the definitions of what each of the categories proposes to
30 assess, are essential to consolidation of the result.
31 Social, location and transport aspects
32
33 This category assesses macro aspects for the carrying out of a project, its urban context and the
34 points that vary according to region. It takes into account environmental, social and economic differences
35 of each location and their iteration with other regions, promoting their development. The following
36 establishes the guidelines of the main topics in the category:
37
 Social: promotion of security, connectivity, culture, healthy lifestyle and leisure; maintenance and
38
improvement of the region's heritage value (cultural, social and infrastructure);
39
40  Location: protection for sensitive lands and high priority spaces; recovery and revitalization of
41 degraded and contaminated areas, concern with the surrounding density and its various uses;
42 geophysical analysis of the area; positioning of amenities, and the avoidance of displacements;
43  Transport: access to quality transport (multimodal and alternatives); reduction of parking spaces,
44 concern with urban mobility; reduction in dependence on the use of cars; offering public transport;
45 promotion of sustainable transport.
46 Administration
47
48 This category assesses administration techniques (set of tools conceived to support companies in
49 decision-making) aimed at sustainability at different phases of the work (viability, project, construction,
50 use and maintenance and dismantling), including: legal aspects, transparency, ethics, involvement of
51 interested parties, training (community and industry), resilience, policy of quality, human resources,
52 commissioning and planning practices and construction, operation and maintenance control.
53
Costs and economic aspects
54
55 This category assesses issues related to costs and economic aspects including: prosperity and
56 productivity of the region, financial accessibility to habitation, job opportunities, cost of capital, operational
57 cost, lifecycle cost, economic impact on the urban area and economic viability of commercial activities.
58
59
60
61
62
8
63
64
65
 1 Soil use and ecology
2
This is limited to the area occupied by the work and assesses strategies for the sustainable
3
deployment of the construction, including: accessibility; reuse of constructions; reduction of environmental
4
impact on the community and neighborhood; decrease in air, light and water blocks; heat island
5
impediment; minimization of pollution; recovery of biodiversity; flexibility and endeavor in the use of soil.
6
7 Quality of the internal environment
8
9 This category assesses issues related to the internal environment of the construction, including:
10 accessibility; lighting, thermal and acoustic comfort; well-being, health and safety; air quality, low emission
11 of VOC (volatile organic compounds); external view; natural, hybrid and mechanical light and ventilation
12 (cold and hot); monitoring of external air quality; functionality and efficiency; flexibility and adaptability
13 of the construction; maintenance of environmental quality.
14 Energy
15
16 This category assesses the design, project, sustainable use and efficiency of energy, including:
17 incorporation of efficient systems and equipment; generation of renewable energy and energy from
18 alternative sources; reduction of CO2 emissions, greenhouse gases and cooling gases (non-use of CFCs);
19 energy administration of the construction and use of the work; reduction in demand; analysis of
20 incorporated energy and operational energy.
21 Materials and resources
22
23 This category assesses the measures for reducing the impact of construction materials on the
24 environment, including: responsible acquisition of materials with low incorporated ecological impact
25 (extraction, processing and manufacture and recycling); waste reduction; use of certified timber; waste
26 administration (correct destination, selective collection); reuse of discarded materials; lifecycle analysis of
27 the material; minimization of the use of virgin material.
28
Water
29
30 This category assesses the sustainable use of water in the operation of the building and its land,
31 including: reduction in the consumption of potable water (internal and external); minimization of losses
32 through leakage; utilization and treatment of rainwater and sullage (reuse for watering, cleaning, cooling
33 facilities and toilets); adoption of waste water treatment stations; incorporation of efficient water-saving
34 devices and rainwater administration.
35
36 Innovation
37 This category assesses the benefits to sustainability that go beyond that required by the assessment
38 tools (BREEAM, LEED, etc), including: deployment of innovative practices, processes and strategies that
39 promote sustainability in the built environment; incorporation of innovations in the projects and innovative
40 professional participation.
41
42 3.2. Structure of criteria for the assessment of sustainability in public works
43 From the framing of 873 criteria extracted from 33 publications into new categories and the grouping
44 of those that possess the same or similar assessment objective, a structure was obtained containing 214
45 criteria distributed over nine categories, as shown in Appendix A.
46
47 Differently to the assessment systems, the structure obtained in the present study does not enable
48 the immediate establishment of a degree of sustainability. It would be necessary for public agents to carry
49 out complimentary steps.
50
The 214 criteria distributed across the nine categories should be carefully selected, taking into
51
account the characteristics of the Project, its location and the social, economic and environmental
52
53 objectives. This choice may reconfigure the original structure and reduce the quantity of indicators to only
54 those appropriate to the venture.
55 Once a new structure has been obtained, “weights” could be established for the main categories and
56 for each of the criteria, resulting in a complete assessment tool.
57
58 The final step is to move towards a pre-defined scale, individually score the listed criteria, which,
59 when added together, define the rating of the construction in relation to sustainability.
60
61
62
9
63
64
65
 1 4. CONCLUSIONS
2
The sustainable construction theme has been widely discussed by the scientific community around
3
the world. Many studies have been published in this area on the most varied approaches and the theme will
4
continue to be a source of scientific inspiration for many years (Czarnecki and Kapron 2010). However,
5
there are few studies directed at the assessment of sustainability in public works. In researching publications
6
7 on the PP (Periodicals Portal) on “sustainable construction”, it was found that among the first forty studies,
8 listed in order of relevance, only one mentioned public works and only four cited issues of sustainability
9 assessment in constructions. The present study has attempted to reduce the scarcity of studies on highly
10 relevant area within the civil construction industry; sustainability in public works.
11 Governments perform an important role of consumption within the economy, profoundly
12 influencing the entire market, and, as such, the construction industry.
13
14 In the present study, the environmental relevance of public construction can be observed, besides
15 how developing countries still have great difficulty aligning their governmental work with sustainability
16 principles.
17 Bidding is the public mechanism normally used for the procurement of works, having cost as its
18 main decision criterion. This focus promotes participation equality of the bidders; however, it often fails to
19 consider the environmental or socio-economic consequences. Objective measures should be taken to
20 establish the degree of sustainability of public constructions and enable the accompaniment of the evolution
21 of such indices.
22
23 Based on the vast bibliographic research, a flexible structure of criteria has been put together in the
24 form of a framework of quantifiable indicators that serve as a basis for sustainability assessment in various
25 types of work. A consequence of these results, besides removing some of the obstacles to the incorporation
26 of sustainability listed in the introduction, is to serve as a reference for public administrators to assess the
27 real situation, understand the true necessities, establish changes and direct their efforts so that their works
28 genuinely achieve a stamp of sustainability.
29
The following table presents the assessment criteria mentioned in at least ten of the selected
30
publications. The quantity of citations demonstrates the extent of its reach and how it is inserted in the
31
theme of sustainability, regardless of the approach given in the research.
32
33 Table 6. Quantity of citations per criteria.
34 No.
35 Category Criteria Guideline
Citations
36 Soil use and ecology Recovery and preservation of biodiversity A 17
37 Materials and Favor the reuse and use of recycled materials
38 A 15
resources
39 Minimize pollution in general (soil, water, air,
40 Soil use and ecology A 13
luminosity, thermal, noise, etc) in green areas
41 Materials and Promote the use of materials with low environmental
42 A 13
resources impact
43
Adopt an environmental management
44 Management A 12
plan/system/program
45
46 Management Promote the health and safety of workers S 11
47 Quality of the internal Promote internal air quality – use low toxicity materials
S 11
48 environment
49 Materials and Promote the reduction of resource consumption
A 11
50 resources
51 Materials and Adopt measures for the reduction of waste/wastage
A 11
52 resources
53 Management Train and develop the workforce S 10
54 Costs and economic Assess the best alternative considering the lifecycle of
E 10
55 aspects the work for the determination of total cost
56 Legend: A – Environmental; S – Social; E – Economic
57
58
59
60
61
62
10
63
64
65
 1 It can be seen that the environmental guideline possesses the highest number of criteria among the
2 most mentioned, followed by the social and the economic. This is an indication that concern over the
3 environment is Paramount among researchers on the theme. This number does not exactly represent the
4 level of importance, as, depending on the characteristics of the construction, a less cited indicator may be
5 more relevant than the others.
6
7 The proposed structure of the criteria may be adapted to the particularities of different types of work,
8 to any region and at any stage of the lifecycle. This flexibility and its coverage are its main advantages in
9 relation to the structures of the most used tools.
10 On the other hand, it is a non-standardized structure that enables various configurations, demanding
11 specific knowledge of public administrators for its adjustment to the specific conditions of the construction
12 to be assessed. This disadvantage is enhanced by the resistance, lack of information and commitment in
13 relation to sustainability issues (Sourani and Sohail 2011).
14
15 New studies with other approaches, the appearance of innovative technology and the Evolution of
16 the assessment tools could highlight new indicators that may be incorporated into the present study, further
17 increasing its coverage, without prejudice to the result obtained thus far.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
11
63
64
65
 1 Appendix A. Structure of criteria for the assessment of sustainability in public works
2
3
4 CATEGORY | SUB-CATEGORY | NEW DESCRIPTION OF THE CRITERIA
5 SOCIAL, LOCATION AND TRANSPORT ASPECTS
6 Location
7 1 Previously assess the work region with aims of sustainability (Huo et al. 2017; Kamali and
8 Hewage 2017);
9 2 Guarantee access to high quality spaces in the natural environment or green urban
10 infrastructure for all (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
11 3 Prioritize recovery and revitalization of degraded areas and occupy new areas (Bragança and
12 Guimarães 2016; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
13 4 Prioritize recovery of contaminated areas (da Silva 2006; Huo et al. 2017);
14 5 Prioritize the occupation of locations with social facilities and amenities (public networks,
15 education, health, security and commerce, etc) (Bahaudin et al. 2014; Bragança and
16 Guimarães 2016; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and
17 Van Bueren 2013);
18
6 Protect areas denoted as ecological preservation (Huang and Hsu 2011; Huo et al. 2017;
19
Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
20
7 Avoid occupation of areas of risk (landslides and floods, among others) (Stival and Sottoriva
21
2016);
22
8 Envision sporting, social and leisure facilities in occupied places (Bragança and Guimarães
23
2016; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huang and Hsu 2011);
24
9 Anticipate adequate infrastructure for facilities (water, sewage, energy, telephone and internet,
25
etc) in occupied places (Bahaudin et al. 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Fastofski et al.
26
27 2017; Huang and Hsu 2011);
28 10 Guarantee access to fresh food (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
29 Social
30 11 Promote actions to mitigate social risks – health, safety and disasters, among others (Bragança
31 and Guimarães 2016; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huang and Hsu 2011);
32 12 Establish an appropriate density of habitations for the occupied places (Huo et al. 2017; Van
33 der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
34 13 Promote widespread equality - social, gender and generational, among others (Bragança and
35 Guimarães 2016; Huang and Hsu 2011; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000;
36 Sourani 2008);
37 14 Promote social development of the region (Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al.
38 2000; Sourani 2008; Vilhena 2007);
39 15 Construct and maintain social capital (institutions, networks, standards, values, confidence,
40 rules and relationships that mold the quantity and quality of social interaction of a society and
41 is the glue that keeps societies together) (Sourani 2008);
42 16 Guarantee protection of cultural, historical, archeological and immaterial heritage (Bragança
43 and Guimarães 2016 ; Correia et al. 2016; Huang and Hsu 2011; Huo et al. 2017; Kamali and
44 Hewage 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
45 Transport
46 17 Adopt effective logistics strategies for the movement of labor, materials and equipment,
47 among others (Chen et al. 2010; da Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011; Sourani 2008; Van der
48 Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
49 18 Develop the design of the region considering quality in relation to mobility and transport
50 (Chen et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
51 19 Adopt measures for the reduction of congestion (Chen et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014; Zou and
52 Moon 2014);
53 20 Anticipate the integration of amenities with occupied places and their connectivity, so as to
54 facilitate displacement (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017);
55 21 Develop the design of the region considering the reduction of journeys, promoting walking
56 and multimodal transport (Bahaudin et al. 2014);
57 22 Adopt transport sharing policies (Huo et al. 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; )
58 23 Provide incentives for the use of green vehicles (Huo et al. 2017);
59
60
61
62
12
63
64
65
 1 24 Maintain the fleet of vehicles in perfect conditions for the reduction of pollution (Palmujoki et
2 al. 2010);
3 25 Anticipate the possibility of using alternative transport (Bragança and Guimarães 2016;
4 Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Vilhena 2007);
5 26 Favor the use of public transport (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Huo et al.
6 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Stival and Sottoriva 2016;Vilhena 2007);
7 MANAGEMENT
8 Conception
9 27 Incorporate sustainable concepts into constructions and facilities (Bragança and Guimarães
10 2016; Chen et al. 2014);
11 28 Incorporate sustainable guidelines for project and management (Chen et al. 2014; da Silva
12 2006; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000)
13 29 Promote ethical practices and transparency (Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015;
14 Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
15 Procurement
16 30 Adopt social criteria in public notices and contracts (Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage
17 2015);
18
31 Demand green/environmental sustainability criteria in public notices and contracts (Kibwami
19
and Tutesigensi 2016; Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and Hewage
20
2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000);
21
32 Assess constructor experience in sustainable constructions to define the procurement (Perera
22
et al. 2007; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
23
33 Select sub-contractors and building contractors following sustainability criteria (Perera et al.
24
2007; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
25
34 Stimulate the selection of local sub-contractors and building contractors (Kibwami and
26
27 Tutesigensi 2016; Pero et al. 2017);
28 35 Demand that sub-contractors and building contractors present an environmental management
29 plan/system/program (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Varnas et al. 2009);
30 36 Demand that sub-contractors and building contractors present a waste management plan
31 (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007);
32 37 Demand that sub-contractors and building contractors comply with the environmental policy
33 of the contracting party (Palmujoki et al. 2010);
34 38 Improve supply chain efficiency with procurement teams and integrated projects (Sourani
35 2008);
36 39 Perform auditing on the locations of the sub-contractors and building contractors to verify
37 sustainable requirements (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Pero et al. 2017);
38 Control
39 40 Incorporate a sustainability assessment method (LEED, SBtool, etc) into the constructions
40 (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Correia et al. 2016; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Ruparathna and
41 Hewage 2015);
42 41 Maintain a system of control accompanying the progress of the work in all aspects (da Silva
43 2006; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
44 42 Construction time reduction and control measures (Chen et al. 2010; da Silva 2006; Kamali
45 and Hewage 2017; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
46 43 Commissioning of the construction – verification of the performance of all elements and
47 systems (Bynum et al. 2012);
48 Environmental management
49 44 Adopt an environmental management plan/system/program (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bahaudin
50 et al. 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017; Kibwami and
51 Tutesigensi 2016; Palmujoki et al. 2010; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Tam
52 et al. 2004; Varnas et al. 2009; Vilhena 2007);
53 45 Engage high level management in environmental issues (Bragança and Guimarães 2016;
54 Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Tam et al. 2004)
55 Quality
56 46 Adopt practices aimed at constructability (Chen et al. 2010; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010);
57 47 Adopt a Quality Management System (QMS) (Bynum et al. 2012; Kamali and Hewage 2017;
58 Sourani 2008; Vilhena 2007);
59
60
61
62
13
63
64
65
 1 48 Maintain green areas organized and clean (Zou and Moon 2014);
2 Legislation
3 49 Demand compliance with labor legislation and eliminate sub-contractors and building
4 contractors that fail to comply (Huang and Hsu 2011; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and
5 Hewage 2015);
6 50 Demand that sub-contractors and building contractors comply with environmental legislation
7 (Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and
8 Hewage 2015; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
9 51 Demand compliance with tax legislation and eliminate sub-contractors and building
10 contractors that fail to comply (Perera et al. 2007);
11 52 Respect the legislation in relation to impact on the neighborhood (Zou and Moon 2014);
12 53 Respect the legislation on occupation and use of soil (Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
13 Interested parties
14 54 Make interested parties aware of sustainability issues (Augenbroe et al. 1998);
15 55 Foster a good relationship with interested parties (da Silva 2006; Vilhena 2007);
16 56 Foster/Promote social responsibility of interested parties (da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017;
17 Huang and Hsu 2011; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016);
18 57 Prepare the users for use of the construction (Fastofski et al. 2017);
19 58 Promote dialogue with the impacted community. From conception through to delivery of the
20 work (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; Van der
21
Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
22
59 Promote the engagement of interested parties in decision-making (Huang and Hsu 2011;
23
Sourani 2008);
24
25 Workforce
26 60 Stimulate the participation of workers in decision-making (da Silva 2006);
27 61 Promote equality of conditions among the workers (da Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011;
28 Sourani 2008);
29 62 Promote the health and safety of the workers (Chen et al. 2010; da Silva 2006; Kamali and
30 Hewage 2017; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and Hewage
31 2015; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Van der Heijden and Van
32 Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
33 63 Promote the well-being of the workers (da Silva 2006; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Sourani
34 2008; Vilhena 2007);
35 64 Use the local labor force (Fastofski et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Van der
36 Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
37 65 Train and develop the workforce (da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Kibwami and
38 Tutesigensi 2016; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000;
39 Tam et al. 2004; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
40 66 Train and develop the management team (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Fastofski et al. 2017; Pero et
41 al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
42 COSTS AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
43 Aggregate value
44 67 Develop alternatives that aggregate value to the community (Huang and Hsu 2011; Vilhena
45 2007);
46 68 Invest to aggregate value and benefits from sustainability (Rwelamila et al. 2000; Tam et al.
47 2004; Vilhena 2007);
48 69 Promote the economic development of the region (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bragança and
49 Guimarães 2016; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; Kamali and Hewage
50 2017; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Sourani 2008);
51 Lifecycle
52 70 Assess the best alternative considering lifecycle of the work for the determination of total cost
53 (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Chen et al. 2010; da Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kamali and
54 Hewage 2017; Perera et al. 2007; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila
55 et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
56 71 Guarantee the quality of being financially possible/economical (sustainable material v
57 conventional) within the lifecycle (material sustentável x convencional) no ciclo de vida
58 (Khoshnava et al. 2016);
59
60
61
62
14
63
64
65
 1 Costs
2 72 Determine and detail the costs in deployment of the asset (Chen et al. 2010);
3 73 Determine the costs of maintaining the asset (Chen et al. 2010; Kamali and Hewage 2017);
4 74 Determine the costs of dismantling the asset (Kamali and Hewage 2017);
5 Income distribution
6 75 Guarantee accessible finance (affordability) for the intended beneficiaries (Kamali and
7 Hewage 2017; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
8 76 Promote the equal distribution of resources (Huang and Hsu 2011; Rwelamila et al. 2000;
9 Sourani 2008);
10 Financial gain
11 77 Create job opportunities (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2010; de Souza Dutra et
12 al. 2017; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016;
13 Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
14 78 Promote competitivity (Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008);
15 79 Promote financial results for investors (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2010; da
16
Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Van der Heijden and Van
17
Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
18
80 Reduce rework and increase productivity, improving profit (da Silva 2006; Vilhena 2007);
19
20 Public policy
21 81 Establish a policy of subsidies and fiscal incentives to promote sustainable construction
22 (Huang and Hsu 2011; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016);
23 82 Direct towards financially accessible options such as walking instead of driving (Kibwami and
24 Tutesigensi 2016);
25 83 Promote standards of sustainable commerce and finance (Akbiyikli et al. 2012);
26 SOIL USE AND ECOLOGY
27 Design
28 84 Provide universal access of all people, with or without physical limitations (Bragança and
29 Guimarães 2016; Vilhena 2007);
30 85 Project considering the effects on the air, water and energy use during the entire lifecycle of
31 the project (Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
32 86 Adopt a lifecycle approach in all environmental aspects of the venture (Augenbroe et al.
33 1998);
34 87 Guarantee external thermal comfort avoiding heat islands ( Bragança and Guimarães 2016;
35 Bynum et al. 2012; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; );
36 88 Promote functionality of the occupied physical space (Djokoto et al. 2014; Huang and Hsu
37 2011; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016)
38 89 Promote flexibility of the occupied physical space (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al.
39 2014; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
40 90 Promote the use of open spaces - social and environmental interaction, recreation and physical
41 activity (Huo et al. 2017; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
42 91 Anticipate landscaping and urbanism with high levels of vegetation coverage (Bahaudin et al.
43 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017;
44 Medineckiene et al. 2010; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013;
45 Vilhena 2007);
46 92 Anticipate a design stimulating land use with various activities (Van der Heijden and Van
47 Bueren 2013);
48 93 Minimize the possibility of impact from natural environmental accidents (flooding,
49 earthquakes etc) and technological accidents (industrial, mining, etc) (Bragança and
50 Guimarães 2016; Medineckiene et al. 2010; )
51 94 Connect the design of the construction to visual impact (Adjarko et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017;
52 Kamali and Hewage 2017; Sourani 2008; Zou and Moon 2014);
53 Control
54 95 Maintain a system of control and accounting of pollutant emission (Kibwami and Tutesigensi
55 2016; Tam et al. 2004; Zou and Moon 2014);
56 96 Maintain a system of control and accounting of noise emission (Tam et al. 2004; Zou and
57 Moon 2014);
58 97 Maintain a system of control and mediation of vibrations (Zou and Moon 2014);
59
60
61
62
15
63
64
65
 1 Environmental impact
2 98 Use constructive methods in accordance with environmental impact (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; da
3 Silva 2006; Chen et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017; Vilhena 2007);
4 99 Minimize air, light and water blocks (Chen et al. 2010; Kamali and Hewage 2017);
5 100 Promote land occupation with lower impact on the topography (Bragança and Guimarães
6 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon
7 2014);
8 101 Reduce the potential for project operations to contaminate nearby water bodies (Zou and
9 Moon 2014);
10 102 Minimize pollution in general (soil, water, air, luminosity, thermal and noise, among others)
11 in the green areas (Adjarko et al. 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2010;
12 Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; da Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011; Huo et al. 2017; Kibwami
13 and Tutesigensi 2016; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Sourani
14 2008; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
15 103 Carry out baseline studies and make noise predictions for the work during the project phase
16 and establish proposals to attenuate noise during operation (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
17 104 The proposals to mitigate noise during the construction/work order phase should be presented
18 during the project phase (Adjarko et al. 2014);
19 105 Produce and implement a plan to control the impact of the project on the aquatic environment
20 during construction and maintenance contracts (Adjarko et al. 2014; Van der Heijden and Van
21 Bueren 2013);
22 106 Minimize the degree of atmospheric light pollution caused by external lighting systems of the
23 project (Bragança and Guimarães 2016);
24 107 Reduce vibration of the soil (Zou and Moon 2014);
25 108 Reduce the impact of construction activities on the neighborhood/site (pollution, congestion,
26 etc) (Chen et al. 2010; Correia et al. 2016; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Kamali and
27
Hewage 2017; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Vilhena 2007);
28
Legislation
29
30 109 Mitigate the environmental damage through compensatory measures (Correia et al. 2016;
31 Huang and Hsu 2011);
32 110 Establish policies and rules stimulating sustainable soil occupation and sustainable
33 constructions (Augenbroe et al. 1998);
34 Preservation
35 111 Promote the recovery and preservation of the biodiversity (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bahaudin et
36 al. 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; da
37 Silva 2006; de Souza Dutra et al. 2017; Djokoto et al. 2014; Fastofski et al. 2017; Huang and
38 Hsu 2011; Huo et al. 2017; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008; Tam et al. 2004; Van der
39 Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
40 112 Actively consider the conservation of trees and other vegetation as part of the project (Adjarko
41 et al. 2014);
42 113 Promote soil recovery and preservation (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; da
43 Silva 2006; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Rwelamila et al. 2000)
44 114 Prioritize the recovery and revitalization of existing constructions to carry out new projects
45 (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Medineckiene et al.
46 2010; Sourani 2008; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
47 QUALITY OF THE INTERNAL
48 ENVIRONMENT
49 Design
50 115 Adopt a quality management plan of the internal environment (Zou and Moon 2014);
51 116 Provide universal access to all people, with or without physical limitations (Huang and Hsu
52 2011; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
53 117 Deploy internal environments to facilitate alternative transport – bicycle racks and changing
54 rooms (Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
55 118 Promote a comfortable internal design with a pleasant impact (Chen et al. 2010; Huang and
56 Hsu 2011; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
57 119 Deploy internal environments that stimulate productivity (Augenbroe et al. 1998);
58 120 Favor natural ventilation in internal environments (Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva
59 2016; Vilhena 2007);
60
61
62
16
63
64
65
 1 121 Favor the external view (Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Vilhena 2007);
2 122 Anticipate flexibility of use over time (Fastofski et al. 2017; Kamali and Hewage 2017;
3 Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
4 123 Favor natural illumination in internal environments (Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017;
5 Medineckiene et al. 2010; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013;
6 Vilhena 2007);
7 Air
8 124 Promote internal air quality – use equipment that promotes air quality (Akbiyikli et al. 2012;
9 Augenbroe et al. 1998; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Rwelamila et al.
10 2000; Sourani 2008);
11 125 Promote internal air quality – use materials with low toxicity (Akbiyikli et al. 2012;
12 Augenbroe et al. 1998; Bynum et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2010; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010;
13 Djokoto et al. 2014; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008; Stival and
14 Sottoriva 2016; Vilhena 2007);
15 126 Promote internal air quality - use materials that prevent humidity (Akbiyikli et al. 2012;
16 Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; Djokoto et al. 2014; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Rwelamila et al.
17 2000; Sourani 2008);
18 Comfort
19 127 Promote the acoustic comfort of the users (project, equipment, window frames, etc)
20 (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013;
21
Vilhena 2007);
22
128 Promote the thermal comfort of the users (project, equipment, window frames, etc)
23
(Augenbroe et al. 1998; Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and
24
Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
25
129 Promote user satisfaction (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bahaudin et al. 2014; Czarnecki and Kapron
26
2010; da Silva 2006; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Rwelamila et al.
27
2000; Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
28
130 Guarantee that occupant satisfaction with the building is regularly monitored and reviewed so
29
30 that improvements can be made (Vilhena 2007);
31 Maintenance
32 131 Facilitate conservation of the construction to maintain quality (Bynum et al. 2012; Fastofski et
33 al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Tam et al. 2004; Vilhena 2007);
34 Health and safety
35 132 Create a safe environment for the users (Kamali and Hewage 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage
36 2015; Sourani 2008);
37 ENERGY
38 Air
39 133 Limit the emission of greenhouse gases (EGG) (Chen et al. 2014; Huang and Hsu 2011; Van
40 der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
41 134 Limit the emission of gases that attack the ozone layer (Kamali and Hewage 2017; Van der
42 Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
43 Performance
44 135 Energy efficiency through the use of efficient technology, systems and equipment (Bynum et
45 al. 2012; Chen et al. 2014; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Perera et al.
46 2007; Pero et al. 2017; Zou and Moon 2014);
47 136 Energy efficiency through an efficient design/project (de Souza Dutra et al. 2017;
48 Medineckiene et al. 2010; Pero et al. 2017; Sourani 2008; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Vilhena
49 2007);
50 137 Widespread energy efficiency – soil occupation, equipment, systems, control and training,
51 among others (Bahaudin et al. 2014; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Huang and Hsu 2011;
52 Khoshnava et al. 2016; Pero et al. 2017; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
53 138 Construction processes with low incorporated energy (Chen et al. 2010; Kamali and Hewage
54 2017);
55 Consumption
56
139 Monitoring and control of energy consumption (Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva
57
2016; Tam et al. 2004);
58
140 Establish new targets for energy consumption (Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
59
60
61
62
17
63
64
65
 1 141 Reduction of energy consumption in the construction (Chen et al. 2010; Kibwami and
2 Tutesigensi 2016; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
3 142 Reduction of energy consumption during use (Adjarko et al. 2014; Kibwami and Tutesigensi
4 2016; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
5 143 Reduction of energy consumption in dismantling of the asset (Kibwami and Tutesigensi
6 2016);
7 144 Establish norms or standards for energy use (Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
8 Material and Equipment
9 145 Use energy-saving equipment (Vilhena 2007);
10 146 Use energy-efficient equipment (Fastofski et al. 2017; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Vilhena 2007;
11 Zou and Moon 2014);
12 147 Use efficient lighting and lamps (Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
13 148 Use energy-efficient systems (Correia et al. 2016; Fastofski et al. 2017);
14 149 Use alternative/renewable energy sources (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Bragança and Guimarães
15 2016; Bynum et al. 2012; Fastofski et al. 2017; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Kibwami and
16 Tutesigensi 2016; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena
17 2007);
18 Management
19 150 Deploy and use an energy management system (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Vilhena
20 2007);
21
151 Encourage the reduction of energy consumption;
22
(Augenbroe et al. 1998);
23
152 Establish criteria for energy efficiency in the procurement of suppliers (Perera et al. 2007);
24
25 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES
26 Consumption
27 153 Promote the reduction of resource consumption (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2014;
28 Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; Djokoto et al. 2014; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Kibwami and
29 Tutesigensi 2016; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015;
30 Rwelamila et al. 2000; Varnas et al. 2009);
31 154 Promote the efficient use of resources (Augenbroe et al. 1998; de Souza Dutra et al. 2017;
32 Fastofski et al. 2017; Palmujoki et al. 2010);
33 155 Use materials with low incorporated energy (Chen et al. 2014; da Silva 2006; Khoshnava et
34 al. 2016);
35 156 Favor the use of locally available resources (promote the local economy / reduce transport
36 pollution and consumption) (Chen et al. 2014; de Souza Dutra et al. 2017; Kamali and
37 Hewage 2017; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Stival and Sottoriva
38 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
39 157 Promote the use of materials with low environmental impact (Akbiyikli et al. 2012;
40 Augenbroe et al. 1998; Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Chen et al. 2014; da Silva 2006;
41 Huang and Hsu 2011; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Palmujoki et al.
42 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Sourani 2008; Varnas et al. 2009;
43 Vilhena 2007; Zou and Moon 2014);
44 158 Favor the use of pre-fabricated and manufactured materials rather than those made during the
45 work (Chen et al. 2010; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017);
46 159 Control excessive purchasing (Tam et al. 2004);
47 Durability
48 160 Promote the offer of durable products (Chen et al. 2014; da Silva 2006; de Souza Dutra et al.
49 2017; Kamali and Hewage 2017);
50 161 Promote the use of durable materials (Chen et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014; Khoshnava et al.
51 2016; Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
52 162 Analyze the lifecycle of products as a criterion for acquisition (Vilhena 2007);
53 Suppliers
54 163 Adopt sustainability criteria to purchase materials/equipment (Palmujoki et al. 2010);
55 164 Adopt sustainability criteria in the procurement of suppliers (Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016;
56 Perera et al. 2007; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015);
57 165 Stimulate the selection of local suppliers (Pero et al. 2017);
58
59
60
61
62
18
63
64
65
 1 166 Demand that suppliers present an environmental management plan/system/program
2 (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Varnas et al. 2009)
3 167 Demand that suppliers present a waste management plan (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al.
4 2007);
5 168 Demand that suppliers comply with environmental legislation (Kibwami and Tutesigensi
6 2016; Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al. 2007; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Ruparathna
7 and Hewage 2015);
8 169 Demand that suppliers comply with the environmental policy of the contracting party
9 (Palmujoki et al. 2010);
10 170 Carry out audits on suppliers to verify sustainability requirements (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Pero
11 et al. 2017);
12 Hazards and pollutants
13 171 Avoid the use of materials with hazardous substances (Palmujoki et al. 2010; Perera et al.
14 2007; Pero et al. 2017; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Varnas et al. 2009);
15 172 Avoid the use of materials with polluting substances (Huang and Hsu 2011; Rwelamila et al.
16 2000; Vilhena 2007);
17 Quality
18 173 Encourage the offer of quality products (da Silva 2006; Huang and Hsu 2011; Rwelamila et al.
19 2000; Vilhena 2007);
20 174 Promote the use of quality materials (Chen et al. 2010; Fastofski et al. 2017);
21
175 Use construction processes and materials that generate quality and durability (Huang and Hsu
22
2011);
23
Recycling
24
25 176 Encourage the production of materials from recyclable resources (Khoshnava et al. 2016;
26 Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016; Pero et al. 2017; Rwelamila et al. 2000);
27 177 Favor reuse and the use of recycled materials (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bahaudin et al. 2014;
28 Bynum et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; da Silva
29 2006; Djokoto et al. 2014; Fastofski et al. 2017; Pero et al. 2017; Rwelamila et al. 2000;
30 Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007; Zou and
31 Moon 2014);
32 178 Promote the separation, treatment and recycling of waste (Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Van der
33 Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
34 Renewable
35 179 Favor the use of renewable material rather than non-renewable (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Djokoto
36 et al. 2014; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Khoshnava et al. 2016;
37 Rwelamila et al. 2000; Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
38 180 Use material of known origin and sustainable management (timber, sand, gravel, etc) (de
39 Souza Dutra et al. 2017; Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Vilhena 2007);
40 Waste
41 181 Adopt measures to reduce waste/wastage (Adjarko et al. 2014; Augenbroe et al. 1998; Chen et
42 al. 2010; Chen et al. 2014; Huang and Hsu 2011; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Ruparathna and
43 Hewage 2015; Sourani 2008; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Varnas et al. 2009;
44 Vilhena 2007);
45 182 Define and control waste production targets (Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena
46 2007);
47 183 Adopt a waste/wastage management plan (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Czarnecki and
48 Kapron 2010; da Silva 2006; Fastofski et al. 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Ruparathna and
49 Hewage 2015; Vilhena 2007; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Zou and Moon 2014);
50 184 Guarantee sustainably correct final disposal of generated waste (Bragança and Guimarães
51 2016; Correia et al. 2016; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Palmujoki et al. 2010; Varnas et al.
52 2009);
53 185 Guarantee adequate safety and storage of materials against waste (Zou and Moon 2014);
54 186 Anticipate waste storage facilities (Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
55 187 Reduce the costs in waste generation (Chen et al. 2010);
56 188 Consider design with areas for selective collection (Fastofski et al. 2017);
57 189 Guarantee adequate access to waste removal and delivery (Vilhena 2007);
58 WATER
59
60
61
62
19
63
64
65
 1 Consumption
2 190 Anticipate construction and usage systems of low water consumption (Stival and Sottoriva
3 2016);
4 191 Promote the reduction of water consumption during construction (Bynum et al. 2012; Chen et
5 al. 2010; Czarnecki and Kapron 2010; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kibwami and Tutesigensi 2016;
6 Medineckiene et al. 2010; Rwelamila et al. 2000; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Zou
7 and Moon 2014);
8 192 Promote the reduction of water consumption in the production and recycling of materials
9 (Khoshnava et al. 2016);
10 193 Promote the reduction of water consumption in the use of edification/construction (Bragança
11 and Guimarães 2016; Khoshnava et al. 2016; Sourani 2008; Stival and Sottoriva 2016);
12 194 Reduce water consumption, encouraging the specification of WCs/urinals/lavatories/showers
13 with water efficiency (Vilhena 2007);
14 195 Use water-saving devices (Fastofski et al. 2017; Vilhena 2007);
15 Control
16 196 Stimulate individualized control and measurement of water (Fastofski et al. 2017; Stival and
17 Sottoriva 2016; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013; Vilhena 2007);
18 197 Establish water consumption targets (Vilhena 2007);
19
Performance
20
198 Promote the efficient use of water in the construction (da Silva 2006; de Souza Dutra et al.
21
2017; Huang and Hsu 2011; Kamali and Hewage 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Ruparathna
22
and Hewage 2015; Van der Heijden and Van Bueren 2013);
23
24 199 Maintain the system in perfect condition and avoid waste through leakage (Vilhena 2007);
25 Management
26 200 Adopt a water management system (Bragança and Guimarães 2016;Vilhena 2007);
27 201 Adopt a system of rainwater and sullage management (Huo et al. 2017);
28 202 Adopt a system of effluent management (Bragança and Guimarães 2016; Stival and Sottoriva
29 2016);
30 203 Demand an efficient water use plan from contracted parties (Perera et al. 2007);
31 Rainwater and sullage
32 204 Anticipate sullage containment (Bahaudin et al. 2014);
33 205 Anticipate rainwater containment (Bahaudin et al. 2014; Fastofski et al. 2017; Vilhena 2007;
34 Zou and Moon 2014);
35 206 Reduce water pollution and encourage reuse (Tam et al. 2004);
36 207 Use permeable paving (soil coverage) to recharge sub-terrain waters (Chen et al. 2014;
37 Fastofski et al. 2017; Vilhena 2007);
38 208 Adopt measures for the recycling of rainwater (Fastofski et al. 2017; Huo et al. 2017;
39 Medineckiene et al. 2010; Stival and Sottoriva 2016; Vilhena 2007);
40 209 Adopt measures for the recycling of sullage (Medineckiene et al. 2010; Vilhena 2007);
41 210 Promote the treatment of water and waste water (concrete, rainwater and sewage) (Chen et al.
42 2014; Vilhena 2007);
43 INNOVATION
44 211 Stimulate the use of sustainable technological innovations (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Augenbroe
45 et al. 1998; Chen et al. 2014; de Souza Dutra et al. 2017; Zou and Moon 2014);
46 212 Stimulate the continual pursuit for sustainable improvement (Akbiyikli et al. 2012; Bahaudin
47 et al. 2014; Huo et al. 2017; Medineckiene et al. 2010; Tam et al. 2004);
48 213 Promote innovation in the design of the construction – related to form, esthetic, comfort,
49 flexibility and adaptability, among others (Augenbroe et al. 1998);
50 214 Promote the purchase of intelligent/innovative/other materials with sustainability concepts
51 (Augenbroe et al. 1998; Pero et al. 2017);
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
20
63
64
65
 1 References
2
3 Adjarko, H., Osei-Poku, G., & Ayarkwa, J. (2014). Challenges to the incorporation of environmental
4 sustainability issues into construction procurement at the local government level of Ghana. Int. Refereed
5 J. Eng. and Sci. (IRJES), 3(11), 42-52.
6 Akbiyikli, R., Eaton, D., & Dikmen, S. U. (2012). Achieving sustainable construction within private
7
finance initiative (PFI) road projects in the UK. Technol. and econ. dev. of econ., 18(2), 207-229.
8
http://dx.doi-org.ez24.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.3846/20294913.2012.677586
9
10 Augenbroe, G. L. M., Pearce, A. R., Guy, B., & Kibert, C. K. (1998). Sustainable construction in the
11 USA; a perspective to the year 2010. Sust. Dev. and the Future of Constr., vol. report, 225. .
12
13 Ayirebi-Dansoh, J. A., & Amoah, P. (2010). Barriers to implementation of EMS in construction industry
14 in Ghana. Int. J. Eng. Sci.. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1268
15
16 Bahaudin, A. Y., Elias, E. M., & Saifudin, A. M. (2014, January). A comparison of the green building's
17 criteria. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 3). EDP Sci.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20140301015
18 Bragança, L., & Guimarães, E. T. (2016). Introducing the Portuguese sustainability assessment tool for
19 urban areas: SBTool PT-Urban Planning. In International Conference SBE16 Malta "Europe and the
20 Mediterranean: Towards a Sust. Built Environ." (pp. 353-360). Sbe Malta-Sust. Built Environ..
21
22 BREEAM - Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (2017) Technicbal
23 Manual. Avaiable at https://www.breeam.com/. Accessed 30 Nov 2017.
24
25 Brenner R. (2015). A Construção Civil Sustentável e as Cidades. In: ISAE - Instituto Superior de
26 Administração e Economia. Avaiable via: http://www.isaebrasil.com.br/artigo/construcao-civil-
27 sustentavel-e-cidades.Accessed 18 Aug 2017
28
29 Bynum, P., Issa, R. R., & Olbina, S. (2012). Building information modeling in support of sustainable
30 design and construction. J. Constr. Eng. and Manag., 139(1), 24-34.
31 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000560
32 Chen, J. H., Yang, L. R., & Lin, S. I. (2014). Quantifying Impact Factors of Sustainable Road Planning in
33 Taiwan. Int. J. Pavement Res. and Technol., 7(1), 18-24.
34 http://dx.doi.org/10.6135%2fijprt.org.tw%2f2014.7(1).18
35
36 Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E., & Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable performance criteria for construction method
37 selection in concrete buildings. Automation in constr., 19(2), 235-244.
38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004
39
40 Correia, M. C., Salgado, M. S., & Bragança, L. (2016). The use of SBTool on public procurement:
41 Challenges and opportunities. SBE Series 16-Brazil & Portugal: Sustainable Urban Communities towards
42 a Nearly Zero Impact Built Environ., 2, 867-876.
43
44 Czarnecki, L., & Kapron, M. (2010). Sustainable construction as a research area. Int. J. of the Soc. of
45 Mater. Eng. for Resour., 17(2), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.5188/ijsmer.17.99
46 da Silva, V. G. (2006). Indicadores de sustentabilidade de edifícios: estado da arte e desafios para
47 desenvolvimento no Brasil. CEP, 13083, 852.
48
49 de Souza Dutra, C.T., Rohan, U., Branco, R.R., Chinelli, C.K., de Araujo, A.J.V.B. and Soares, C.A.P.
50 (2017) Barriers and Challenges to the Sustainability Requirements Implementation in Public Procurement
51 of Engineering Works and Services. Open J. Civ. Eng., 7, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2017.71001
52
53 Ding, G. K. (2008). Sustainable construction - The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ.
54 Manag., 86(3), 451-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025
55
56 Djokoto, S. D., Dadzie, J., & Ohemeng-Ababio, E. (2014). Barriers to sustainable construction In the
57 ghanaian construction industry: Consultants perspectives. J. Sust. Dev., 7(1), 134.
58 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v7n1p134
59
60
61
62
21
63
64
65
 1 Fastofski, D. C., González, M. A. S., & Kern, A. P. (2017). Sustainability analysis of housing
2 developments through the Brazilian environmental rating system Selo Casa Azul. Habitat Int., 67, 44-53.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.07.001
4
5 Green Star - Green Building Council Australia (2017). Avaiable at https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/.
6 Accessed 09 Dec 2017.
7
Huang, R. Y., & Hsu, W. T. (2011). Framework development for state-level appraisal indicators of
8
sustainable construction. Civ. Eng. and Environ. Syst., 28(2), 143-164.
9
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2010.502964
10
11 Huo, X., Ann, T. W., & Wu, Z. (2017). A comparative analysis of site planning and design among green
12 building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod., 147, 352-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.099
13
14 IBGE (2015). Pesquisa Anual da Industria da Construção - PAIC. Avaiable at
15 https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/economicas/industria/9018-pesquisa-anual-da-industria-
16 da-construcao.html?edicao=15591&t=resultados Accessed 18 Apr 2018
17
18 Illankoon, I. C. S., Tam, V. W., Le, K. N., & Shen, L. (2017). Key credit criteria among international
19 green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod., 164, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.206
20 Instituto de Pesquisa de Relações Internacionais - IPRI (2017). As 15 maiores economias do mundo.
21
Avaiable at http://www.funag.gov.br/ipri/index.php/indicadores/47-estatisticas/94-as-15-maiores-
22
economias-do-mundo-em-pib-e-pib-ppp. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
23
24 Kamali, M., & Hewage, K. (2017). Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of
25 modular versus conventional construction methods. J. Clean. Prod., 142, 3592-3606.
26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108
27
28 Khoshnava, S. M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M., & Rahmat, A. R. (2016). Rank of green
29 building material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria
30 decision making method. J. Clean. Prod.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.066
31
32 Kibwami, N., & Tutesigensi, A. (2016). Enhancing sustainable construction in the building sector in
33 Uganda. Habitat Int., 57, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.011
34 LEED - Lidership in Energy and Environmental Design - (2017) Avaiable at https://new.usgbc.org/leed/.
35
Accessed 29 Nov 2017.
36
37 Medineckiene, M., Turskis, Z., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Sustainable construction taking into account
38 the building impact on the environment. J. of Environ. Eng. and Landsc. Manag., 18(2), 118-127.
39 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/jeelm.2010.14
40
41 Nguyen, B. K., & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. Procedia Eng.,
42 21, 376-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029
43
44 Palmujoki, A., Parikka?Alhola, K., & Ekroos, A. (2010). Green public procurement: analysis on the use
45 of environmental criteria in contracts. Rev. of Eur., Comparative & Int. Environ. Law, 19(2), 250-262.
46 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00681.x
47 Perera, O., Chowdhury, N., & Goswami, A. (2007). State of play in sustainable public procurement. Int.
48 Insti.
49
50 Pero, M., Moretto, A., Bottani, E., & Bigliardi, B. (2017). Environmental collaboration for sustainability
51 in the construction industry: An exploratory study in Italy. Sustainability, 9(1), 125.
52 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010125
53
54 Pons, O., de la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment
55 MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability, 8(5), 460.
56 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8050460
57
58 Ruparathna, R., & Hewage, K. (2015). Sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry:
59 challenges and benefits. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 42(6), 417-426. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2014-0376
60
61
62
22
63
64
65
 1 Ruparathna, R., & Hewage, K. (2015). Sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry:
2 current practices, drivers and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod, 109, 305-314.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.007
4
5 Rwelamila, P. D., Talukhaba, A. A., & Ngowi, A. B. (2000). Project procurement systems in the
6 attainment of sustainable construction. Sust. Dev., 8(1), 39.
7
SBTool - Sustainable Built Tool (2017). Avaiable at http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod/. Accessed 02 Nov
8
2017.
9
10 Sourani, A. (2008). Realising sustainable construction through procurement stratergies (Doctoral
11 dissertation, © Amr Sourani). Dissertation, Loughborough University, UK.
12
13 SOURANI, A. and SOHAIL, M., (2011). Barriers to addressing sustainable construction in public
14 procurement strategies. Proceedings of the Inst. of Civ. Eng.: Eng. Sustainability, 164 (4), pp. 229 - 237.
15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2011.164.4.229
16
17 Stival, C. E., & da Silva Sottoriva, P. R. (2016). Sistema de Avaliação Ambiental para Projetos de
18 Edificações Públicas (SAAPE): análise dos critérios de sustentabilidade de três projetos de edificações
19 elaborados para a Universidade Federal do Paraná. Desenvolv. e Meio Ambiente, 36.
20 http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/dma.v36i0.42963
21
Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W., & Tsui, W. S. (2004). Green construction assessment for environmental
22
management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 22(7), 563-571.
23
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.001
24
25 Tribunal de Contas da União -TCU (2014). Obras Públicas - Recomendações Básicas para a Contratação
26 e Fiscalização de Obras de Edificações Públicas - 4ª edição. Avaiable at
27 http://portal.tcu.gov.br/biblioteca-digital/. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
28
29 Van der Heijden, J., & Van Bueren, E. (2013). Regulating sustainable construction in Europe: An inquiry
30 into the European Commission's harmonization attempts. Int. J. Law in the Built Environ., 5(1), 5-20.
31 https://doi.org/10.1108/17561451311312793
32
33 Varnäs, A., Balfors, B., & Faith-Ell, C. (2009). Environmental consideration in procurement of
34 construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in green procurement in the Swedish
35 construction industry. J. Clean. Prod., 17(13), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.001
36
Vilhena, J. M. (2007). Diretrizes para a sustentabilidade das edificações. Gestão & Tecnologia de
37
Projetos, 2(1), 59-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.4237/gtp.v2i1.32
38
39 Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T., & Finnveden, G. (2016). Certification systems for sustainable
40 neighbourhoods: What do they really certify? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 56, 200-213.
41
42 Wu, Y., Chau, K. W., Lu, W., Shen, L., Shuai, C., & Chen, J. (2018). Decoupling relationship between
43 economic output and carbon emission in the Chinese construction industry. Environ. Impact Assess.
44 Rev., 71, 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.04.001
45
46 Zou, X., & Moon, S. (2014). Hierarchical evaluation of on-site environmental performance to enhance a
47 green construction operation. Civ. Eng. and Environ. Syst., 31(1), 5-23.
48 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2012.749871
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
23
63
64
65