Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Management criteria for green building in

Malaysia; relative important index

Nasim Aghili, Seyed Ehsan Hosseini, Abdul Hakim Bin Mohammed & Nazirah
Zainul Abidin

To cite this article: Nasim Aghili, Seyed Ehsan Hosseini, Abdul Hakim Bin Mohammed &
Nazirah Zainul Abidin (2019): Management criteria for green building in Malaysia; relative
important index, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, DOI:
10.1080/15567036.2019.1568634

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1568634

Published online: 21 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1568634

Management criteria for green building in Malaysia; relative

important index
Nasim Aghilia, Seyed Ehsan Hosseinib, Abdul Hakim Bin Mohammedc,
and Nazirah Zainul Abidina
a
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia; bCombustion and
Sustainable Energy Laboratory (ComSEL), Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Arkansas Tech University,
Russellville, USA; cDepartment of Real Estate, Faculty of Geo-information and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper investigates the management criteria that can be applied to improve Received 13 August 2018
green building performance. The primary purpose of this paper was to quantify Revised 5 November 2018
the relative importance index (RII) of management of the green building factors Accepted 22 November 2018
and ranked the factors and groups consistent with their relevance level in KEYWORDS
management criteria. This objective was achieved by making relevant analyses Management criteria;
on the distributed questionnaires. In this regard, a comprehensive literature relative importance index
review was conducted, and a structural expert survey was carried out with 35 (RII); rank; Malaysia
different highly experienced green building experts, green building managers,
and professional facilitators. The technique of Relative Importance Index (RII) was
adopted to quantify the relative importance indices of an inclusive list of
management criteria in the Malaysian green buildings management context.
The paper is categorized relevance management green buildings factors based
on important include; (1) Sustainable Procurement; (2) Sustainable Operation; (3)
Environmental Health; (4) Repair and Maintenance management; (5) Resource
Management. It was carried out a ranking of management criteria by RII tech-
nique in this research.

Introduction
To date, there are several human activities have a negative impact on climate change in the world
(Bampou 2017). Buildings are major producers of greenhouse gases worldwide by 40–50% (Hong
et al. 2007; Wu and Low 2010; Nejat et al. 2015; Allouhi et al. 2015; Doan et al. 2017). In this regard,
the green building revolution has emerged to decrease the negative impact on people and support
the environment and at the same time the tendency to boost those possibilities which enable
affirmative benefits (Cassidy 2003; Wu and Low 2010; Allen et al. 2015). During the past two
decades, efforts have been made by the construction industry to develop green building practices
(Gluch 2005; Samer 2013). Green buildings are designed and built by developed and developing
countries to use less energy and resources than traditional buildings and aim to minimize their
impacts on human health and the environment (Akshey, Swati, and Disha 2018; Geng et al. 2012;
Lukachko and Lstiburek 2008). It means, green building practices are the construction of buildings
and infrastructures to care for existing resources, reduce negative impacts on the environment, and
produce environments that provide developed standards for people who live there (Chatterjee 2009;
Gou and Xie 2017; Samer 2013; Sharif, Kamaruzzaman, and Pitt 2013). It is worth nothing that green
buildings have the potential of considerably mitigating the significant impacts of building stock on

CONTACT Seyed Ehsan Hosseini seyed.ehsan.hosseini@gmail.com; shosseini@atu.edu Departments of Mechanical

Engineering, Arkansas Tech University, USA
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 N. AGHILI ET AL.

the economy, society, and environment (Zuo and Zhao 2014). According to Wu et al. (2018) and
Dorsey and Alan (2017), Samer (2013), the significant achievement of the green building practices is
sustainability. Indeed, it has been acknowledged that green building is an important alternative for
implementing sustainable goals set to produce a healthier environment, utilize less energy and
resources than conventional buildings, and mitigate impacts on the environment.
Over the years, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing in Malaysia. It is estimated
Malaysia’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emission will quantity to 285.73 million tonnes in 2020 which an
increase of 68.86% compared to 2000 (Zaid et al. 2015). According to the United Nations
Development Report, Malaysia with 31.62 million people was ranked at number 26 over 149
countries with the final score of 84.0 (Begum and Pereira 2010; Hosseini, Wahid, and Aghili 2013;
Nor et al. 2011). Buildings are one of the main factors contributing to the CO2 emissions in Malaysia
that is predicted to increase in almost 6% annually by (Zaid et al. 2015). For instance, energy
consumption of commercial and residential buildings approximately constitutes 14.3% which causes
to the producer of greenhouse gases emissions in Malaysia (Shaikh et al. 2016). Thus, implementing
green buildings seems essential toward supporting the environment and decreasing the greenhouse
gas emissions in tropical climate countries such as Malaysia (Algburi and Faieza 2016;
Papargyropoulou et al. 2012). In this regard, some researchers claimed that the quality of the living
environment and quality of life are interdependent that have been proven in previous studies (Gou
and Xie 2017; Yau 2010). Indeed, the building management is one of the main factors to arrange for
an enjoyable and contented living environment for owners and tenants. If common parts of
a building are maintained appropriately, safety will be guaranteed for tenants, owners, and the
public (Ho et al. 2004). In a sense, employing an appropriate green building management is effective
in reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, consuming energy more efficiently, and sustainable
protection of the environment. Green building management practices are comprehensive a series of
techniques and methods which to able support and preserve the environment and to decline
negatively impact of buildings on the environment (Aghili et al., 2016; Tony 2013). Therefore, the
outcome of the study can claim the management criteria is a key role to achieve sustainable
development in green buildings. Based on the review of GBI of Malaysia, it has different criteria
in such as energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, sustainable site planning & management,
material & resource, water efficiency, and innovation. It means, unlike developed countries Malaysia
has not included the management criteria in the green building index. Ideally, green building
management requires appropriate key practices to achieve sustainable development objectives.
However, currently the appropriate management key practices are not available.

Background of management criteria

Sustainable procurement
Sustainable procurement (SP) is a comprehensive concept that was first introduced after the Rio
Earth Summit in 1992. There are various definitions of SP; the core of each definition is similar. It
means various definitions are of a high importance to comprehend the broad meaning of SP, which
is attributed to society, economy, and environment.
SP secures the acquisition of goods and services (i.e. “products“) in a way to ensure the least
impact on environment and society during full life cycle of the product (Brammer and Walker 2007,
2011; Meehan and Bryde 2011; Ruparathna and Hewage 2015). According to Brammer and Walker
(2011) all government agencies need to prepare green supplies, and all responsible personnel should
be trained in green procurement. Integrated sustainability is a key step towards sustainability and
can remove the social problems and environmental damages along the entire procurement proce-
dure (Aragao and Jabbour, 2017; Koplin, Seuring, and Mesterharm 2007). During SP, organizations
attempt to meet their requirements for services, goods, and capital projects in such a way that they
can attain value for money on a whole life basis to produce benefit to not only the organization, but
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3

also the society, the economy, and the natural environment (Brammer and Walker 2011; Wilkinson
and Kirkup 2009).
In brief, sustainable procurement practices involve strategies for decreasing demand/avoidable
consumption/end-of-life disposal; evaluating the future sustainability issues (e.g., energy and costs);
supporting sustainability innovation in tenders; and measuring and enhancing the sustainability
outcomes (Zeppel 2014). Sustainable procurement refers to searching for objectives of sustainable
development by purchasing and supply process, involving making stability in economic, social, and
environmental objectives. In numerous countries, it is growing in policy agenda, but knowledge has
remained still limited (Ruparathna and Hewage 2015; Walker and Phillips 2008).
As noted earlier, sustainable procurement contains social, environmental, and economic aspects.
In connection with this study, sustainable procurement was identified as one of the main practices
that run green building performance into triplets’ line to achieve the sustainable development in the
Malaysian context.

Sustainable operation
Sustainable operation (SO) is a key issue in operation management and management science
(Gunasekaran and Irani 2014). Several concepts have been identified by Gimenez, Sierra, and
Rodon (2012), Sierra and Rodon (2012) and (Magon et al. 2018) in SO management that refers to
the skills and leverages that allow an organization to organize its business process in a way to attain
sustainable performance. SO management covers operation strategies, techniques, schemes, and
operational policies, which can achieve both environmental and economic objectives. SO manage-
ment is broadly introduced from three different aspects: economic, environmental, and social, which
are elaborated in the next section (Gimenez, Sierra, and Rodon 2012; Jaehn 2016). Typically,
environmental sustainability is connected to reduction of pollution, waste, and emissions, energy
efficiency and so on (Gimenez, Sierra, and Rodon 2012). According to economic sustainability,
a sustainable system should be capable of producing services and goods on a continuous basis,
maintaining manageable levels of government and external debt, and avoiding extreme section
imbalances that can be harmful to industrial or agricultural production (Harris 2000, 2003). Social
sustainability has shifted the concentration to both external communities and internal ones. In terms
of social sustainability, organizations should make available equitable opportunities, inspire diversity,
stimulate connectedness in and out of the community, guarantee the life quality and arrange for
democratic processes and accountable governmental structures (Gimenez, Sierra, and Rodon 2012).
SO protect the environment, reduce emission of the greenhouse gases and are cost effective. Such
factors are vital for obtaining a sustainable development.
The main goal of SO management is to plan and control a system in a way to be entirely cost-
effective and, at the same time, preserve natural resources and environment (Gunasekaran, Irani, and
Papadopoulos 2013; Machado et al. 2017). This section presented SO management as one of the
main practices to improve green building performance into economic aspect to achieve sustainable
development in the context of Malaysia.

Resource management
The focus of environmental policy is to resolve the most critical problems regarding environmental
pollution. Public and policy-makers are increasingly paying their attention to the need to decrease
resource use and its impacts on the environment. Kakkar (2014) maintains that resource manage-
ment is focused on using both artificial and natural resources to appropriately manage green
buildings and to encourage the use of resources in a way to produce less amount of pollution.
Resource management is a critical practice resulting in a reduction in overall operating costs,
improvement in profitability and productivity, and enhancement in competitiveness of the business.
Resource management is a relatively emerging issue in green building industry, and can be usually
4 N. AGHILI ET AL.

extended beyond just water, energy, and waste. To achieve the aim of resource management, the
sustainable management of water, energy, and waste is necessary. The next part describes each sub-
criteria of RM briefly.
Energy management (EM) is a complicated function in buildings. It means each building
dependent on set of factors which makes the building is highlighted from application and
behavior point of view (Danisha et al. 2019). EM is the continuous process of managing energy
consuming devices for minimizing energy demand and improving energy performance and
consumption (Danisha et al. 2019; Sinopoli 2008; Turner and Doty 2007). EM is a continuous
process used to enhance and encourage resource conservation, climate protection, and cost
savings. To date, by growing the knowledge regarding support the environment, water manage-
ment and adjustment in buildings have been encountered challenges (Badarnah, 2016). In today’s
world, water availability and water quality challenges are global subjects with which both
developing and developed countries have faced (Miller and Buys 2008). Water management
(WM) is considered based on water saving installations, and rainwater and gray-water manage-
ment (Alejandre, Traspaderne, and Elgea 2010). WM involves designing and operating practices
that can be used in water supply and the distribution systems (Arfanuzzaman and Rahman 2017;
Smallwood et al. 2010). The construction industry consumes a lot of resources and returns
a significant amount of waste to the environment, therefore, building sustainable waste manage-
ment in order to minimize resource consumption, increase recycling and reduce the environ-
mental impact is crucial (Hossain and Poon, 2018). In the construction industry, there is great
resource consuming activities resulting in a substantial amount of construction waste (Wu and
Low 2010). As maintained by Wu and Low (2010) large quantity of construction waste has
extensive environmental and socio-economic impacts. The negative environmental influences
caused by construction waste are universally emphasized; thus, the waste management (WM) is
a significant strategy for overcoming this problem by waste reduction and its management
(Alejandre, Traspaderne, and Elgea 2010). To deal with construction waste problems, many
waste management strategies and techniques are proposed, respectively contain reduce, reuse,
recycle, compost, incinerate and landfill, with the environmental (Awosusi 2010; Wu et al. 2016).
In this regard, Malaysia is a rich country in natural resource; therefore, to protect natural
resources and to achieve sustainable development, it is urgently necessary to accomplish each top
three lines: energy management, water management, and waste management in the Malaysian
context.

Repair and maintenance management

Repair and maintenance practice allude to obstacles and hindrances of buildings during their
lifetime, which are generally the resulting of environmental factors and vulnerabilities (Thaheem
and De Marco. 2014). In brief, repair and maintenance have a considerable effect on building life,
through deterring risks that may be subjected to buildings by means of appropriate tools and
materials for reducing the costs of life cycle (Horner, El-Haram, and Munns 1997).
“Repair“ and “maintenance“ are closely linked concepts. Maintenance refers to measures done to
prevent collapse of a structure and its systems (Thomson 2012). Building maintenance management
is established to coping with problems pertaining to the preservation of the building which is
associated with innovative strategies and sustainability (Puķītea and Geipeleb 2017). In fact, the
impressive maintenance management decline negative impacts on tenants and the environment also
can boost the occupants’ quality of life (Oliveira, Lopes, and Figueiredo 2014). Repair is additionally
described as the process of restructuring a damaged, broken, or failed equipment, tool, or property in
a way to preserve them in a satisfactory condition (Straub 2012).
In this study, repair and maintenance management (RMM) involves the establishment of
a framework for the maintenance of buildings and their associated services and the upkeep of the
green building performance that cause to save and minimize cost in the Malaysian context.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5

Environmental health
Environmental health (EH) is the discipline that focuses on the interactions between people and
their environment, promotes human health and well-being, and fosters a safe and healthful envir-
onment (Frumkin 2005). As Frumkin (2005) EH consists of perspectives of human health, including
quality of life, that are defined by biological, physical, social, and psycho-social factors in environ-
ment. EH also refers to theory and practice of measuring, amending, controlling, and averting the
factors in environment that are potentially capable of adversely affecting the state of health of the
present and future generations.
Malaysia is ranked the ninth best in the world by the Clean Air Initiative Asia1 for lecturing the
global and domestic environmental problems. This rank was based on an International Index of 133
countries and reason of that good ranking was related to good governance that is a significant
criterion for the environmental performance (Ambu et al. 2008). Malaysia has witnessed consider-
able economic, social, and environmental developments during the past three decades; although, still
there is lack of knowledge concerning the environmental health.

Research method
The paper used the structural expert survey and analyzed by Relative Important Index (RII)
technique. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) identifying management factors in managing
green buildings; (2) categorizing management factors in green buildings into five main groups; and
(3) quantifying relative importance of management factors and showing the ranking of factors and
categories based on their relevance level in management. Furthermore, the present paper applying
Relative Important Index (RII) technique was used to analyze the gathered data.
The questionnaire for this study was designed based on the literature review. The questionnaire
was filled out by a total of 35 highly Malaysian green building experts, managers, and facilitators
certified by Green Building Index (GBI) in Malaysia. The target population of this research involved
experts, managers, and facilitators. Most researchers have no adequate money and/or time to study
the entire population of people, things, and places. Census, which refers to collecting data from
a population, has been successfully applied over the years (Latham 2007). In case of the present
research, the entire population is rather small; as a result, the census survey strategy was chosen. In
this survey method, required data were collected from every member of the population. Great effort
and brainstorming were involved in designing the questionnaire, which consisted of three sections.
Section A included demographic information of respondents (e.g. name, gender, job title, and
experience). Section B included management criteria like sustainable operation, sustainable procure-
ment, resource management (e.g. water management, energy management, and waste management),
repair and maintenance management, and environmental health. This section consisted of a total of
47 items with 5-point Likert scale. This section contained 32 items with 5-point Likert scale. For
each question, a 5-point Likert scale was provided ranging from “not very relevant“ to “very
relevant.“ The questionnaires were sent via the Google docs account to the respondents (i.e.
managers, experts, and facilitators). Alternative methods of data collection used included telephone
calls as follow-up and office visits.
The Relative Importance Index (RII) technique was used to analyze the gathered data. The analysis
consisted of ranking of various variables based on the relative importance indices. Through the analysis,
different management key practices and green building performance were put in the ranking based on
the relative importance indices. The analysis showed the variables and categories with the highest
contribution to the green buildings management in the Malaysian context. The RII formula (Chan and
Kumaraswamy 1997; Olomolaiye, Wahab, and Price 1987) is as follows:
P
W
RII ¼ ð0  RII  1Þ
AN
6 N. AGHILI ET AL.

where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5), A is the
highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case), and N is the total number of respondents. The RII value ranges
from 0 to 1 with 0 not inclusive (Kometa, Olomolaiye, and Harris 1994; Özdemir 2010; Waris et al.
2014). Three important levels in management key practices and green building performance, namely:
high (H) (0.8 ≤ RII ≤ 1), medium (M) (0.5 ≤ RII ≤ 0.8) and low (L) (0 ≤ RII ≤ 0.5), were then
transformed from the RII values (Sterner 2002; Tam, Tam, and Ng 2007); since medium means are
used in this study. Calculating the average RIIs of the causes in each group gives the RIIs of the mean
groups. The collected data were analyzed through the RII method. The analysis included ranking
different causes according to RII (Gündüz, Nielsen, and Özdemir 2012).

Results and discussion

The data collection involved 35 responses from a total of 200 managers, experts, and facilitators,
acquired in a period of three months. This study is based on an expert survey in which the 47 factors
(see Table 1) were categorized into five main categories as follows: (1) Sustainable Procurement; (2)
Sustainable Operation; (3) Environmental Health; (4) Recourse Management; (5) Repair and
Maintenance Management. Table 1 presents the green building management criteria and respon-
dent’s scoring.
Indeed, Table 2 reveals the raw data. In the next step of the study examined the data provided by
respondents and made use of them as a basis for case selection. RIIs were computed as the final
outlined results. The factors were ranked and categorized based on their RII report. Table 2 shows
how the respondents ranked each factor of management criteria.
As mentioned, the recognized effects of each of the 47 factors explored on management criteria in
Malaysia were determined. The identified factors were divided into five categories. The relative
importance indices, rank within the corresponding category and ranking of the investigated factors
are discussed in the next sections. As mentioned earlier, medium means were used in this study.
Calculating the average RIIs of the causes in each group gives the RIIs of the mean groups. In the
next section, the most important variables of Green Building Management criteria are listed. Based
on the ranking of the categories, the optimal variables of each category that have the highest
contribution to the management green building key practices are discussed as in the following.

Sustainable procurement
According to Koplin, Seuring, and Mesterharm (2007), SP Policies, SP Supplier, SP Aware, SP
Integrated, and SP Set-up are the most important factors of sustainable procurement. Table 3
presents the relative importance indices and ranks of the 11 factors categorized under the
“Sustainable Procurement Category.“ The surveyed managers, experts, and facilitators ranked
the factor of ‘‘SP Policies’’ as the most important in green building management in Malaysia,
with an RII of 0.76.

Sustainable operation
In this study, sustainable operation practices include service life planning, life cycle cost, and
adoption of sustainable development principles in tuning and operation. Sterner (2002) pointed
out that in the Swedish context, investment cost, energy cost, and maintenance cost are variables of
the highest importance. The results obtained from the expert survey showed that energy cost,
investment cost, and maintenance cost are the most important variables in case of green building
in Malaysia. The relative importance indices and ranks of the nine factors categorized under the
“Sustainable operation Category“ are presented in Table 4. In this category, the surveyed managers,
experts, and facilitators ranked the “SO Account“ factor as the most important one in the green
building management in the Malaysian context, with an RII of 0.812.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 7

Table 1. Variables and categories of schedule green building management criteria and Likert scale.
Number of respondent’s scoring
Category No Variable 1: NVR 2: NR 3: N 4: R 5: VR
Sustainable Procurement 1 SP Policies 1 1 11 13 9
2 SP Suppliers 1 0 12 17 5
3 SP Set-up 1 1 14 14 5
4 SP Integrated 1 1 13 16 4
5 SP Contract 1 1 15 14 4
6 SP Aware 1 2 11 17 4
7 SP Develop 2 3 12 14 3
8 SP Training 2 3 14 11 5
9 SP Targets 2 3 10 16 4
10 SP Purchasing 1 4 11 15 4
11 SP Material 4 4 15 11 1
Sustainable Operation 12 SO Investment 0 1 7 17 10
13 SO Account 0 0 6 21 8
14 SO Maintenance 0 1 8 18 8
15 SO Alteration 0 2 11 18 4
16 SO Acquisition 0 1 14 16 4
17 SO Salvage 1 1 19 13 1
18 SO Environmental 0 1 10 20 4
19 SO Interest 1 1 10 18 5
20 SO Life-cycle 0 2 12 14 6
Environmental Health 21 EH Pollution 0 1 5 19 10
22 EH Microclimate 0 2 10 16 7
23 EH Health 3 4 11 11 6
Recourse Management 24 RM Vision 2 1 12 15 5
25 RM Current 1 2 8 20 4
26 RM Appointed 8 9 7 8 3
27 RM Audit 6 6 6 13 4
28 RM Advantage 5 3 8 14 5
29 RM Track 5 3 14 13 0
30 RM Performance 6 6 14 7 2
31 RM Provide 4 3 15 12 1
32 RM Plumbing 3 2 11 19 0
33 RM Control 4 1 10 17 3
34 RM Regularly 4 1 11 14 5
35 RM Legislation 4 3 16 10 2
36 RM Initiating 4 0 13 15 3
Repair and Maintenance management 37 RMM Inspections 2 3 14 13 3
38 RMM Preventive 0 3 12 15 5
39 RMM Procedures 4 9 14 4 4
40 RMM Respond 1 2 18 9 5
41 RMM Personnel 1 2 14 13 5
42 RMM Communication 2 11 15 6 1
43 RMM Replacement 3 2 20 9 1
44 RMM Importance 1 6 10 13 5
45 RMM Sustain 2 4 12 15 2
46 RMM Exterior 2 5 10 17 1
47 RMM Landscape 3 5 11 13 3

Environmental health
According to Fernández et al. (2009), high level of noise for any construction-work environment has
harmful noise effects. One of the notable negative effects is the bad effect of noise on workers’
hearing system. Another significant variable is EH Microclimate. Zacharias, Stathopoulos, and Wu
(2001) believes that among the microclimatic factors, temperature is the most significant in outdoor
environments, which adversely affects the human comfort level. Table 5 shows the relative impor-
tance indices and ranks of the three factors categorized under the “Environmental Health Category.“
In this category, the respondents ranked the ‘EH Pollution’ as the most significant factor in green
building management in Malaysia, and they also place it at the top of ranking among all manage-
ment key practices with an RII of 0.818.
8 N. AGHILI ET AL.

Table 2. declared that respondents rank the factor number 47 ‘‘management criteria’’ as the factors that can improve the green
building management. Therefore, based on RII formula was ranked the all most factors with their related category item, which
cause improve the green building management in Malaysian green buildings. It was noticed that the first factor ‘‘EH Pollution’’
related to ‘‘Environmental Health Category’’ the most effect with Relative Importance Index equals to 0.818 and last one ‘‘RM
Appointed’’ related to ‘‘Recourse Management Category’’ the less effect with Relative Importance Index equals to 0.538 from all
factors.
Rank NO Variable Category RII
5 1 SP Policies Sustainable Procurement 0.76
7 2 SP Suppliers 0.742
11 3 SP Set-up 0.72
11 4 SP Integrated 0.72
13 5 SP Contract 0.700
11 6 SP Aware 0.72
18 7 SP Develop 0.676
17 8 SP Training 0.680
15 9 SP Targets 0.698
15 10 SP Purchasing 0.698
25 11 SP Material 0.606
3 12 SO Investment Sustainable Operation 0.806
2 13 SO Account 0.812
4 14 SO Maintenance 0.788
8 15 SO Alteration 0.738
9 16 SO Acquisition 0.732
20 17 SO Salvage 0.668
6 18 SO Environmental 0.754
7 19 SO Interest 0.742
7 20 SO Life-cycle 0.742
1 21 EH Pollution Environmental Health 0.818
5 22 EH Microclimate 0.76
19 23 EH Health 0.674
12 24 RM Vision Recourse Management 0.714
8 25 RM Current 0.738
29 26 RM Appointed 0.538
24 27 RM Audit 0.618
21 28 RM Advantage 0.662
26 29 RM Track 0.6
28 30 RM Performance 0.56
24 31 RM Provide 0.618
21 32 RM Plumbing 0.662
17 33 RM Control 0.680
16 34 RM Regularly 0.686
24 35 RM Legislation 0.618
19 36 RM Initiating 0.674
20 37 RMM Inspections Repair and Maintenance management 0.668
10 38 RMM Preventive 0.726
27 39 RMM Procedures 0.572
16 40 RMM Respond 0.686
14 41 RMM Personnel 0.700
28 42 RMM Communication 0.56
24 43 RMM Replacement 0.618
16 44 RMM Importance 0.686
21 45 RMM Sustain 0.662
22 46 RMM Exterior 0.658
23 47 RMM Landscape 0.646

Resource management
The RIIs and ranks of the 13 factors categorized under the “Resource Management Category“ are
presented in Table 6. The surveyed managers, experts, and facilitators ranked the “RM Current“
as the most important factor in green building management in the context of Malaysia with an
RII of 0.738.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9

Table 3. RII and ranking of factors related to sustainable procurement category.

NO Rank Factor RII
1 5 SP Policies 0.76
2 7 SP Suppliers 0.742
3 11 SP Set-up 0.72
4 11 SP Integrated 0.72
5 13 SP Contract 0.708
6 11 SP Aware 0.72
7 18 SP Develop 0.676
8 17 SP Training 0.68
9 15 SP Targets 0.698
10 15 SP Purchasing 0.698
11 25 SP Material 0.606

Table 4. RII and ranking of factors related to sustainable operation category.

NO Rank Factor RII
12 3 SO Investment 0.806
13 2 SO Account 0.812
14 4 SO Maintenance 0.788
15 8 SO Alteration 0.738
16 9 SO Acquisition 0.732
17 20 SO Salvage 0.668
18 6 SO Environmental 0.754
19 7 SO Interest 0.742
20 7 SO Life-cycle 0.742

Table 5. RII and ranking of factors related to environmental health category.

NO Rank Factor RII
21 1 EH Pollution 0.818
22 5 EH Microclimate 0.76
23 19 EH Health 0.674

Table 6. RII and ranking of factors related to resource management category.

NO Rank Factor RII
24 12 RM Vision 0.714
25 8 RM Current 0.738
26 29 RM Appointed 0.538
27 24 RM Audit 0.618
28 21 RM Advantage 0.662
29 26 RM Track 0.6
30 28 RM Performance 0.56
31 24 RM Provide 0.618
32 21 RM Plumbing 0.662
33 17 RM Control 0.680
34 16 RM Regularly 0.686
35 24 RM Legislation 0.618
36 19 RM Initiating 0.674

Repair and maintenance management

Table 7 shows the RIIs and ranks of the 11 factors categorized under the “Repair and Maintenance
Management Category.” The surveyed managers, experts, and facilitators ranked the ‘RMM Preventive’
as the most important factor in green building management in Malaysia, with an RII of 0.726.
10 N. AGHILI ET AL.

The recognized effects of each of the 47 factors explored on green building management in
Malaysia were determined. The identified factors were divided into five categories. The relative
importance indices, rank within the corresponding category and ranking of the investigated
factors are discussed in the next sections. As mentioned earlier, medium means were used in this
study; it means medium (M) (0.5 ≤ RII ≤ 0.8). The findings study reveals the sustainable
operations factor was ranked first with an RII value of 0.753, environmental health was
ranked second with an RII value of 0.750, sustainable procurement with the RII value of 0.701
was ranked third, repair and maintenance management were ranked fourth with an RII value of
0.652, and resource management with an RII value of 0.643 was ranked fifth. Figure 1 illustrates
final ranked management criteria.

Analysis of the results

According to the results, it proposes that sustainable operation factors ranked the first relevant factor
of management criteria in Malaysia context. This was followed by environmental health. Then,
sustainable procurement and repair and maintenance management factors ranked, and resource
management, respectively.

Sustainable operation
The sustainable operation factors categories were ranked the first relevance factor the management
criteria by the respondents. According to Gunasekaran and Irani (2014), the main objective of sustain-
able operation is to achieve sustainable development in triple aspects economic, environmental, and
social. The concept is that, in the opinion of managers, experts, and facilitators sustainable operation is
prime ranking of relevance to management criteria to achieve the sustainability.

Environmental health
The respondents ranked environmental health factors categories as the second relevance factor the
management criteria. The environmental health in Malaysia included air pollution, water contam-
ination, waste management, and climate change. The Ministry of Health, Malaysia is seeking to
improve the environmental health in partnership with regional, state, national and international
organizations (Mokhtar and Murad, 2010). Sustainable development is an effort to decline the
environmental negative impacts and increase the environmental health (Furie and Balbus, 2012).
Since people spend most of their time in buildings. Therefore, the health of buildings is of great
importance on daily-life for providing the healthy environment and well-being for human being

Table 7. RII and ranking of factors related to repair and maintenance management
category.
NO Rank Factor RII
37 20 RMM Inspections 0.668
38 10 RMM Preventive 0.726
39 27 RMM Procedures 0.572
40 16 RMM Respond 0.686
41 14 RMM Personnel 0.700
42 28 RMM Communication 0.56
43 24 RMM Replacement 0.618
44 16 RMM Importance 0.686
45 21 RMM Sustain 0.662
46 22 RMM Exterior 0.658
47 23 RMM Landscape 0.646
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 11

Figure 1. The final ranked management criteria.

(Kamaruzzaman et al., 2016). The result illustrates who managers, experts, and facilitators empha-
sized the relevance of environmental health to management criteria to achieve the sustainability.

Sustainable procurement
The respondents have highlighted sustainable procurement factors categories as third relevant factor
that management criteria. Considering that Malaysia is a fast-growing country, it has a great deal of
emphasis on sustained procurement (Ruparathna and Hewage, 2015). According to Ruparathna and
Hewage (2015), sustainable procurement comprises three factors including environmental, eco-
nomic, and social which is significant in purchasing decision. Indeed, the concept of sustainable
development is applicable through sustainable procurement. Thus, availability of sustainable pro-
curement helps managers, experts, and facilitators to achieve sustainable development.

Repair and maintenance management

The repair and maintenance management factors categories are as fourth relevant factor that
management criteria. It supports viewing, repair and maintenance management is new and con-
sidered young practice in Malaysia, also a tool as known to achieve innovation strategy and
sustainable development (Nor et al. 2011). Based on results, respondents have pointed out
Malaysia as a developing country required the repair and maintenance management to achieve
sustainable development.
12 N. AGHILI ET AL.

Resource management
The results demonstrate the resource management factors categories are as fifth relevant factors to
management criteria. Sustainable development is the policy evolved that has been used in manage-
ment of renewable natural resources to assess the rate of consumption and its renewal a resource
around the world (Zawaydeh, 2017). Regarding to the rapidly growing natural resources such as
energy and water and produce the waste in Malaysia, therefore, it requires resource management to
conserve the types of natural resources to achieve the sustainability.
In concluding, the sustainable operation category is the most relevant because it is activities seek to
move towards sustainability in environmental, social, and economic aspects of green building perfor-
mance. Therefore, in the light of these findings, it is recommended that employed in green building
management in Malaysia. Likewise, the second relevant criteria are environmental health because it
causes to promote human health and well-being and fosters a safe and healthy environment. Based on
the findings of the study, sustainable procurement is in third place among categories. In fact, the
availability of sustainable procurement helps managers, experts, and facilitators have a clear approach
toward sustainable development in green building. Finally, the repair and maintenance management
and resources management in the fourth and fifth, respectively, are less important.

Conclusion
This research was conducted to demonstrate a quantitative approach to certified green building
management in Malaysia to promote and improve green building performance. For the identifica-
tion of effective factors is used relative importance index in this study. These factors were classified
under the following five classifications: (1) sustainable procurement; (2) sustainable operation; (3)
environmental health; (4) repair and maintenance management and (5) resource management.
According to the quantified relative importance index, this study identified and ranked a total of
47 factors proved to be effective in the improvement of the green building management in Malaysia.
The findings make provision a comprehension into the factors that contribute to manage and
improve green buildings performance. The result was achieved through the analysis of distributed
questionnaire among experts. RII evaluated considering all factors and based on the knowledge and
consciousness of green building experts, managers and facilitators in Malaysia were ranked.

References
Akshey, B., B. Swati, and B. Disha. 2018. Green buildings - A step towards environmental protection. Journal of Waste
and Recycle 3 (1):7.
Alejandre, E., A. Traspaderne, and O. A. Elgea. 2010. Best practice on green or sustainable public procurement and new
guidelines. Eropa: Open House
Algburi, S. M., and A. A. Faieza. 2016. Review of green building index in Malaysia; existing work and challenges.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 11 (5):3160–67.
Allen, J. G., P. MacNaughton, J. G. C. Laurent, S. S. Flanigan, E. S. Eitland, and J. D. Spengler. 2015. Green buildings
and health. Current Environmental Health Reports 2 (3):250–58. doi:10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y.
Allouhi, A., Y. El Fouiha, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, Y. Zeraouli, and Y. Mourad. 2015. Energy consumption and efficiency
in buildings: Current status and future trends. Journal of Cleaner Production 109:118–30. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.05.139.
Ambu, S., W.-L. Chu, J.-W. Mak, S.-F. Wong, -L.-L. Chan, and S. T. Wong. 2008. Environmental health and building
related illnesses. Journal of Science, Medicine and Education 2 (1):11–18.
Aragão, C. G., and C. J. C. Jabbour. 2017. Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from the Brazilian
public sector. Industrial and Commercial Training 49 (1):48–54. doi:10.1108/ICT-07-2016-0043.
Arfanuzzaman, M., and A. A. Rahman. 2017. Sustainable water demand management in the face of rapid urbanization
and ground water depletion for social–Ecological resilience building. Global Ecology and Conservation 10:9–22.
doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.005.
Awosusi, A. O. 2010. Assessment of environmental problems and methods of waste management in Ado-Ekiti,
Nigeria. African Research Review 4 (3). doi:10.4314/afrrev.v4i3.60273.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13

Bampou, P. 2017. Green buildings for Egypt: A call for an integrate policy. International Journal of Sustainable Energy
36 (10):994–1009. doi:10.1080/14786451.2016.1159207.
Begum, R. A., and J. J. Pereira. 2010. GHG emissions and energy efficiency potential in the building sector of Malaysia.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 4 (10):5012–17.
Brammer, S., and H. L. Walker. 2007. Sustainable procurement practice in the public sector: An international
comparative study. Working Paper Series No. 2007.16, School of Management, University of Bath
Brammer, S., and H. L. Walker. 2011. Sustainable procurement in the public sector: An international comparative
study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31 (4):452–76. doi:10.1108/
01443571111119551.
Cassidy, R. 2003. White paper on sustainability: A Report on the Green Building Movement. Building Design and
Construction. A Reed Business Information publication. www.bdcmag.com.
Chan, D. W. M., and M. M. Kumaraswamy. 1997. A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 15 (1):55–63. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00039-7.
Chatterjee, A. K. 2009. Sustainable construction and green buildings on the foundation of building ecology. The Indian
Concrete Journal 83 (5):27–30.
Danisha, M. S. S., T. Senjyu, A. M. Ibrahimi, M. Ahmadi, and A. M. Howlader. 2019. A managed framework for
energy-efficient building. Journal of Building Engineering 21:120–28. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.013.
Doan, D. T., A. Ghaffarianhoseini, N. Naismith, T. Zhang, A. Ghaffarianhoseini, and J. Tookey. 2017. A critical
comparison of green building rating systems. Building and Environment 123:243-260. doi:10.1016/j.
buildenv.2017.07.007.
Dorsey, J., and H. Alan. 2017. Re-evaluation of a LEED platinum building: Occupant experiences of health and
comfort. Work 57 (1):31–41. doi:10.3233/WOR-172535.
Fernández, M. D., S. Quintana, N. Chavarría, and J. A. Ballesteros. 2009. Noise exposure of workers of the construc-
tion sector. Applied Acoustics 70 (5):753–60. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2008.07.014.
Frumkin, H. 2005. Environmental health: From global to local. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Furie, G. L., and J. Balbus. 2012. Global environmental health and sustainable development: The role at Rio+20.
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 17 (6):1427-1432. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232012000600007.
Geng, Y., H. Dong, B. Xue, and J. Fu. 2012. An overview of chinese green building standards. Sustainable Development
20 (3):211–21. doi:10.1002/sd.v20.3.
Gimenez, C., V. Sierra, and J. Rodon. 2012. Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom line.
International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1):149-159. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035.
Gimenez, C., V. Sierra, and J. Rodon. 2012. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line.
International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1):149–59. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035.
Gluch, P. 2005. Building green-perspectives on environmental management in construction. PhD Thesis, Chalmers
University of Technology.
Gou, Z., and X. Xie. 2017. Evolving green building: Triple bottom line or regenerative design? Journal of Cleaner
Production 153:600–07. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.077.
Gunasekaran, A., and Z. Irani. 2014. Sustainable operations management: Design, modelling and analysis. Journal of
the Operational Research Society 65 (6):801–05. doi:10.1057/jors.2014.26.
Gunasekaran, A., Z. Irani, and T. Papadopoulos. 2013. Modelling and analysis of sustainable operations management:
Certain investigations for research and applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65 (6):806–23.
doi:10.1057/jors.2013.171.
Gündüz, M., Y. Nielsen, and M. Özdemir. 2012. Quantification of delay factors using the relative importance index
method for construction projects in Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering 29 (2):133–39. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000129.
Harris, J. M. 2000. Basic Principles of Sustainable Development. Global Development and Environment Institute,
Working Paper 00-04. Tufts University, Medford, MA. http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae.
Harris, J. M. 2003. Sustainability and sustainable development. International Society for Ecological Economics 1
(1):1–12.
Ho, D. C. W., H. F. Leung, S. K. Cheung Wong, A. K. C. Lau, S. S. Y. Wong, W. S. Lung, D. P. Y. Wong, and
K. W. Chau. 2004. Assessing the health and hygiene performance of apartment buildings. Facilities 22 (3/4):58–69.
doi:10.1108/02632770410527789.
Hong, W., M. S. Chiang, R. A. Shapiro, and M. L. Clifford. 2007. Building Energy Efficiency: Why Green Buildings Are
Key to Asia Future. Hong Kong, China: Asia Business Council Publication.
Horner, R. M. W., M. A. El-Haram, and A. K. Munns. 1997. Building maintenance strategy: A new management
approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 3 (4):273–80. doi:10.1108/13552519710176881.
Hossain, M. U., and C. S. Poon. 2018. Comparative LCA of wood waste management strategies generated from
building construction activities. Journal of Cleaner Production 177:387-397. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.233.
Hosseini, S. E., M. A. Wahid, and N. Aghili. 2013. The scenario of greenhouse gases reduction in Malaysia. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28:400–09. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.045.
14 N. AGHILI ET AL.

Jaehn, F. 2016. Sustainable operations. European Journal of Operational Research 253 (2):243–64. doi:10.1016/j.
ejor.2016.02.046.
Kakkar, A. A. 2014. Resource management for green buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering Research
5:443–46.
Kamaruzzaman, S. N., A. Razali, E. M. Ahmad Zawawi, and M. L. Riley. 2016. Determining significant parameters on
health and well-being of building occupants towards re-engineered inclusive environment. Journal of Building
Performance 9 (1):80-92.
Kometa, S. T., P. O. Olomolaiye, and F. C. Harris. 1994. Attributes of UK construction clients influencing project
consultants’ performance. Construction Management and Economics 12 (5):433–43. doi:10.1080/
01446199400000053.
Koplin, J., S. Seuring, and M. Mesterharm. 2007. Incorporating sustainability into supply management in the
automotive industry–The case of the Volkswagen AG. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (11):1053–62.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.024.
Latham, B. 2007. Sampling: What is it. Quantitative Research Methods 5377. Retrieved from http://webpages.acs.ttu.
edu/rlatham/Coursework/5377(Quant))/Sampling_ Methodology_Paper.pdf.
Lidia, B. 2016. Water management lessons from nature for applications to buildings.”. Procedia Engineering
145:1432–39. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.180.
Lukachko, A., and J. Lstiburek. 2008. Towards sustainability: Green building, sustainability objectives, and building
America whole house systems research. Technical Report, Building Science Corporation, Somerville, MA.
Machado, C. G., E. P. de Lima, S. E. G. Da Costa, J. J. Angelis, and R. A. Mattioda. 2017. Framing maturity based on
sustainable operations management principles. International Journal of Production Economics 190:3–21.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.020.
Magon, R. B., A. M. T. Thom, A. L. C. Ferrer, and L. F. Scavarda. 2018. Sustainability and performance in operations
management research. Journal of Cleaner Production 190:104–17. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.140.
Meehan, J., and D. Bryde. 2011. Sustainable procurement practice. Business Strategy and the Environment 20
(2):94–106. doi:10.1002/bse.v20.2.
Miller, E., and L. Buys. 2008. Water-recycling in South-East Queensland, Australia: What do men and women think?
Rural Society 18 (3):220–29. doi:10.5172/rsj.351.18.3.220.
Mokhtar, M. B., and M. W. Murad. 2010. International perspectives: Issues and framework of environmental health in
Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Health 72 (8):24-29.
Nasim, A., A. H. Bin Mohammed, and L. Sheau-Ting. 2016. Key practice for green building management in Malaysia.
In MATEC web of conferences 66, The 4th International Building Control Conference (IBCC). Published by EDP
Sciences. doi:10.1051/matecconf/20166600040.
Nejat, P., F. Jomehzadeh, M. M. Taheri, M. Gohari, and M. Z. A. Majid. 2015. A global review of energy consumption,
CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43:843–62. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.066.
Nor, S., S. Mohd, Z. Z. Noor, H. Hashim, Z. Ujang, and J. Talib. 2011. Projection of CO2 emissions in Malaysia.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 30 (4):658–65. doi:10.1002/ep.10512.
Oliveira, A. M., I. D. S. Lopes, and D. Figueiredo. 2014. Maintenance management practices of companies of the
industrial pole of Manaus. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (WCECS).
Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science 2, San Francisco. 1016-1022.
Olomolaiye, P. O., K. A. Wahab, and A. D. F. Price. 1987. Problems influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Nigeria.
Building and Environment 22 (4):317–23. doi:10.1016/0360-1323(87)90024-2.
Özdemir, M. 2010. A probabilistic schedule delay analysis in construction projects by using fuzzy logic incorporated
with relative importance index (RII) method.Master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Papargyropoulou, E., R. Padfield, O. Harrison, and C. Preece. 2012. The rise of sustainability servieces for the built
environment in Malaysia. Sustainable Cities and Society 5:44–51. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.008.
Puķītea, I., and I. Geipeleb. 2017. Different approaches to building management and maintenance meaning
explanation. Procedia Engineering 172:905–12. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.099.
Ruparathna, R., and K. Hewage. 2015. Sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction industry: Current
practices, drivers and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production 109:305–14. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.007.
Samer, M. 2013. Towards the implementation of the green building concept in agricultural buildings: A literature
review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal 15 (2):25–46.
Shaikha, P. H., N. B. M. Nor, A. A. Sahito, P. Nallagownden, I. Elamvazuthi, and M. S. Shaikh. 2016. Building energy
for sustainable development in Malaysia: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 75:1392–403.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.128.
Sharif, S., S. N. Kamaruzzaman, and M. Pitt. 2013. Implementation framework of green building design for Malaysian
government building. In 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Ecology, and Environmental Sciences (ICEES
2013), London, 230–35.
Sinopoli, J. 2008. How do smart buildings make a building green? Energy Engineering 105 (6):17–22. doi:10.1080/
01998590809509394.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15

Smallwood, J., J. Snoxall, S. Highmore, and D. Sauntson. 2010. Green building management toolkit translating words
into action. London, UK: Better Buildings Partnership, British Land.
Sterner, E. 2002. Green procurement of buildings: Estimation of environmental impact and life-cycle cost. PhD Thesis,
Luleå tekniska universitet. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2002/er01).
Straub, A. 2012. Maintenance and repair. International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home 4:186-194. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-08-047163-1.00523-3.
Tam, V. W. Y., C. M. Tam, and W. C. Y. Ng. 2007. On prefabrication implementation for different project types and
procurement methods in Hong Kong. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 5 (1):68–80. doi:10.1108/
17260530710746614.
Thaheem, M. J., and A. De Marco. 2014. Sustainable repair & maintenance of buildings in the developing countries:
A risk management perspective and proposal of customized framework. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture Research 1 (1):14–23.
Thomson, M. 2012. Repair and maintenance obligations under the commercial lease. Real Estate Report, Alberta.
Tony, A. 2013. What is a green building? On its website. http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/
Turner, W. C., and S. Doty. 2007. Energy management handbook. USA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
Walker, H., and W. Phillips. 2008. Sustainable procurement: Emerging issues. International Journal of Procurement
Management 2 (1):41–61. doi:10.1504/IJPM.2009.021729.
Waris, M., M. S. Liew, M. F. Khamidi, and A. Idrus. 2014. Criteria for the selection of sustainable onsite construction
equipment. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 3 (1):96–110. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.06.002.
Wilkinson, A., and B. Kirkup. 2009. Measurement of sustainable procurement. Nottingham: East Midlands
Development Agency.
Wu, P., and S. P. Low. 2010. Project management and green buildings: Lessons from the rating systems. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 136 (2):64–70. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000006.
Wu, P., Y. Song, X. Hu, and X. Wang. 2018. A preliminary investigation of the transition from green building to green
community: Insights from LEED ND. Sustainability 10 (6):1802. doi:10.3390/su10061802.
Wu, Z., L. Shen, T. W. Ann, and X. Zhang. 2016. A comparative analysis of waste management requirements between
five green building rating systems for new residential buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production 112:895–902.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.073.
Yung, Y. 2010. Engaging homeowners in building care in Hong Kong: Drivers and barriers. Journal of Building
Appraisal 6 (1):35–48. doi:10.1057/jba.2010.6.
Zacharias, J., T. Stathopoulos, and H. Wu. 2001. Microclimate and downtown open space activity. Environment and
Behavior 33 (2):296–315. doi:10.1177/0013916501332008.
Zaid, S. M., N. E. Myeda, N. Mahyuddin, and R. Sulaiman. 2015. Malaysia’s rising GHG emissions and carbon ‘lock-in’
risk: A review of Malaysian building sector legislation and policy. Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property
(JSCP) 6 (1):1–13. doi:10.22452/jscp.vol6no1.1.
Zawaydeh, S. 2017. Economic. Environmental and Social Impacts Of Developing Energy from Sustainable Resources in
Jordan. Strategic Planning for Energy and The Environment 36 (3):24-52.
Zeppel, H. 2014. Green procurement by local government: A review of sustainability criteria 8. A report for Local
Government Association of South Australia. Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development.
University of Southern Queensland
Zuo, J., and Z.-Y. Zhao. 2014. Green building research–Current status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 30:271–81. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021.