Citation
Najafi, M. and Rahimian, F. (2024), "Editorial: The role of sustainable development in addressing climate change", Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1069-1073. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-09-2024-409
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited
Climate change is visibly affecting the Earth and its creatures. The Earth is heating, rainfall patterns are changing and sea levels are rising. These changes can increase the risk of heat waves, floods, droughts and fires (Met Office, 2023). However, the consequences of climate change have already started in many ways everywhere, including air pollution, disease, extreme weather events, displacement, mental health issues, inequality and food insecurity (United Nations, 2015). If we do not take serious actions now, these impacts will only worsen, leading to more severe and widespread outcomes for the Earth and its creatures.
Human activities are central to climate change, leading to a 50% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over less than 200 years, primarily through producing and consuming products and services. This human interaction has implications increasingly related to sustainability threats as ecosystems are pushed beyond their capacity to recover (NASA, 2024). Leaders from 193 countries collaboratively gathered at the United Nations to address these global threats and crises. Their joint efforts resulted in the formulation of 17 crucial goals, collectively known as the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) or Global Goals (United Nations, 2015).
In this context, the construction industry has a significant socio-economic role globally. However, on the downside, the construction industry significantly contributes to environmental impact. The urban areas, which comprise only 3% of the Earth’s land, contribute considerably to around 70% of the world’s energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions (Environment Agency, 2023). In response to the unsustainable practices of the construction industry, there has been significant growth in studying transitions towards sustainable development over the past decades. Various initiatives have been implemented to address this urgency. For example, several innovative technologies and strategies have also been developed for sustainable construction project management (Najafi et al., 2024). The circular economy framework has emerged as a valuable approach to fostering sustainability and resource efficiency (Rodriguez Trejo et al., 2024). Furthermore, education and training for the construction industry are evolving to incorporate these new technologies, strategies and frameworks (Rashidi et al., 2024). Despite these advancements, a pressing need remains to explore further and address the complexities of sustainable urban development. This Smart and Sustainable Built Environment (SASBE) issue brings together 13 papers that examine various aspects of sustainable development, highlighting the urgency of integrating environmental management practices, energy efficiency and climate resilience. These papers collectively emphasise the importance of tailored approaches to policy-making and technology implementation, considering local socioeconomic and environmental contexts to promote equitable and inclusive growth in urban areas.
The adverse impacts of climate change and rapid informal urbanisation in Southern Africa heighten the vulnerability of sensitive populations. Consequently, urban regions in this area are particularly susceptible to urban heat island effects and heat waves due to various external and internal factors. Hugo and Sonnendecker (2024) underscore residents' lived experiences in informal settlements, presenting findings from a multidisciplinary project in Melusi, Tshwane, South Africa, to enhance local resilience to climate-induced heat stress. Using a mixed-method approach, their study included a semi-structured observational analysis of selected dwellings' spatial layout, material composition and continuous indoor environment monitoring. The findings of their study reveal that informal dwellings consistently perform poorly due to endogenous factors, with residents enduring extreme heat stress for 6–10 h daily during peak summer periods.
Ramalingam Rethnam and Thomas (2024) examine the impact of adopting energy conservation guidelines within a building community, focussing on mixed-mode buildings, to support global net-zero carbon goals. This study employs a community-based hybrid bottom-up modelling approach using urban building energy modelling (UBEM) techniques to assess the effectiveness of these guidelines. Specifically, the research develops and validates a UBEM framework for a 14-building residential community in Mumbai, India. The findings of this study indicate that adhering to the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) can lead to an energy use reduction of up to 15%, demonstrating significant benefits for energy efficiency and climate change mitigation.
Sandanayake et al. (2024) develop a sustainability rating tool tailored for small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) by analysing existing infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tools and identifying the unique needs of SSIPs. Through a comparative review and interviews with key stakeholders in current IS rating systems, this research identifies that most existing tools are predominantly designed for large-scale projects, leaving SSIPs inadequately assessed. Sandanayake et al. (2024) highlight five critical requirements for an effective SSIP sustainability rating tool: user-friendliness, efficient structure, training and technical support, cost-effectiveness, and stakeholder recognition. It also proposes six potential assessment options for SSIPs, ranging from adaptations of existing tools to new, customisable ones. The findings suggest that a new modified tool with a verification process and a revised tool with a clear grouping of sustainable criteria are the most effective solutions for evaluating SSIPs.
Rasheed and Rotimi (2024) explore the preferences of New Zealand office workers regarding the ideal indoor environment quality (IEQ) in green office settings, an area that has seen limited research in the local context. The study analyses perceptions and preferences based on demographics by conducting a questionnaire survey among 149 workers from Wellington and Auckland. The findings indicate that New Zealand office workers favour environments with more fresh air, mixed-mode ventilation and lighting systems, improved acoustic quality with minimal distractions and a comfortable temperature that is neither too cool nor too warm. Additionally, workers express a unique preference for having some level of individual control over the IEQ in their workspaces.
van Tonder and Rwelamila (2024) address the persistent housing problem in post-apartheid South Africa, a challenge that has continued for nearly 30 years. They argue for implementing housing knowledge management as a broader housing provision system component. By critically comparing information across different hypothetical, low-cost housing units adapted for various climatic regions, this study investigates whether there is a significant overlap in information. Their findings indicate that such an overlap exists, suggesting that effective knowledge management could be vital in improving housing provision in South Africa.
Dessouky et al. (2024) critique existing neighbourhood sustainability assessment (NSA) tools, such as LEED-ND and BREEAM communities, for their lack of transparency and imbalance in sustainability dimensions. They explore how the expectations and values of professionals and residents involved in sustainable neighbourhood projects influence the selection of sustainability indicators. Focussing on The Sustainable City (TSC) in Dubai, UAE, their study uses in-depth interviews with 46 stakeholders to reveal that these actors often prioritise different metrics than those proposed by sustainability experts and international rating systems. Their findings advocate for NSA tools to better incorporate local factors, enhance public engagement and address operational concerns to more effectively guide sustainable development.
Batista et al. (2024) aim to develop a solution for water management at the building scale through technological resources, automating analysis using 3D models to increase efficiency and promote sustainability during the operational phase. The authors employ a methodology based on design science research, integrating building information modelling (BIM), the Internet of Things (IoT) and facilities management (FM) to automate water management. Smart metre data (IoT) and BIM models are combined to enhance building performance. This methodology is implemented in a web prototype called AquaBIM, which captures, manages and analyses information. The application of AquaBIM allowed for both theoretical evaluation and practical validation of the water management methodology. By integrating BIM and IoT, their study determined consumption parameters and ranges for 17 activity categories, addressing a research gap for commercial buildings and meeting the AQUA-HQE environmental sustainability certification criteria.
Alamoudi et al. (2024) explain that smart sustainable cities (SSC) are widely acknowledged by governments and societies focussed on emerging technology and urban community development. However, Alamoudi et al. (2024) argue that the lack of citizen participation (CP) in current policies and governance often fuels aspirations for greater decision-making involvement to achieve smart cities. In this study, the authors use a quantitative approach to identify SSC variables and rank, categorise and discuss factors for implementing SSC by engaging, empowering and enabling citizens in urban development. Their findings identified four significant factors for SSC implementation; these factors include “knowledge of smart, sustainable cities,” “awareness of smart, sustainable cities,” “willingness of the citizens to participate,” and “opinion on the current agenda of the government’s role.”
Oke et al. (2024) quantitatively evaluate the recognition and implementation of environmental and economic practices in developing countries, focussing specifically on Nigeria’s construction sector. Their findings reveal limited awareness and implementation of ecological economic practices among Nigerian construction professionals. Consequently, this study proposes recommendations to enhance the adoption of these practices in the Nigerian construction industry. Implementing these recommendations is anticipated to mitigate the environmental and public health impacts of construction activities and foster the development of sustainable cities, communities and societies.
Velasco and Segovia (2024) argue that waiting for a bus can significantly expose traffic particles in hot and noisy street conditions. To mitigate particle load and heat at bus stops, a shelter named the Airbitat Oasis Smart Bus Stop was equipped with an electrostatic precipitator and a three-step adiabatic cooling system designed to adjust dynamically based on current conditions. Velasco and Segovia (2024) assess the shelter’s effectiveness in providing clean and cool air by comparing particle exposure in this innovative shelter to a conventional shelter. Measurements of fine particles, black carbon and particle number concentration (a proxy for ultrafine particles) were taken simultaneously in both shelters, along with air temperature, relative humidity and noise levels. The findings indicate that the new shelter only slightly reduced fine particles by 6.5% and did not reduce ultrafine particles or black carbon. It lowered air temperature by one °C but increased relative humidity by 3%. Importantly, its operation did not produce additional noise.
El Wazan and Edirisinghe (2024) investigate the impact of different dwelling types, specifically compact and non-compact housing, on the loss of agricultural land in metropolitan areas experiencing population growth, using Craigieburn, Australia, as a case study. While previous research has highlighted urban sprawl as a primary cause of agricultural land loss, this study addresses a knowledge gap by focussing on the role of dwelling type in this process. Utilising a mixed methods approach, the study quantitatively analyses the growth of housing types and the corresponding reduction in agricultural land over 18 years. Additionally, a thematic analysis of relevant policies and practices reveals a significant loss of agricultural land, predominantly due to the prevalence of separate housing, which requires more land. The findings highlight a need for improved practical guidelines and suggest opportunities for better practices through government intervention and potential industry changes to mitigate the overdevelopment of separate housing.
Tajani et al. (2024) propose an innovative methodology for assessing an “adjusted” social discount rate (SDR) that better reflects each European state’s unique socioeconomic and environmental conditions. This study critiques the European Commission’s current reference value for the SDR, used in cost-benefit analyses, which is uniformly applied across states benefiting from the Cohesion Fund. This uniformity does not account for the diverse economic, social and environmental conditions, potentially hindering equitable and inclusive growth. To address this, Tajani et al. (2024) utilise a methodological approach combining multi-criteria techniques and data envelopment analysis to establish a corrective coefficient for the SDR. Their findings demonstrate that the varied conditions across the 27 European states significantly influence the appropriate choice of SDR, suggesting that a more tailored approach is necessary for accurate cost-benefit analysis and sustainable development.
Pittri et al. (2024) explore the implementation of the design for deconstruction (DfD) technique among design professionals in the Ghanaian construction industry. DfD is a sustainable approach aimed at facilitating the disassembly of buildings for component reuse, thereby promoting the circular economy. In their study, Pittri et al. (2024) employ a mixed method approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, to identify the key drivers for DfD adoption. The findings of this study highlight eight critical factors, including the availability of DfD-related software, education and training, public awareness, industry guidance, regulation and the development of a market for salvaged materials. These insights underscore the potential and challenges of integrating DfD practices in construction in the Global South.
References
Alamoudi, A.K., Abidoye, R.B. and Lam, T.Y.M. (2024), “An evaluation of stakeholders' participation process in developing smart sustainable cities in Saudi Arabia”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1074-1095, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-08-2022-0170.
Batista, L.T., Franco, J.R.Q., Fakury, R.H., Porto, M.F., Alves, L.V.R. and Kohlmann, G.S. (2024), “BIM-IoT-FM integration: strategy for implementation of sustainable water management in buildings”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1096-1116, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-11-2022-0250.
Dessouky, N., Wheeler, S. and Salama, A.M. (2024), “Including local actors' perspective in neighborhood sustainability assessment: evidence from Dubai's sustainable city”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1117-1133, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2023-0052.
El Wazan, J.-P. and Edirisinghe, R. (2024), “Measuring agricultural loss and the impact of differing dwelling types: a case study in Melbourne”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1155-1176, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-11-2022-0253.
Environment Agency, C.S.S.G (2023), “The state of the environment: the urban environment”, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/the-state-of-the-environment-the-urban-environment#:∼:text=Globally%2C%20cities%20occupy%20around%202,to%2075%25%20of%20global%20resources.&text=This%20concentration%20of%20population%20and,and%20damaged%20and%20fragmented%20ecosystems (accessed 7 August 2024).
Hugo, J.M. and Sonnendecker, P.W. (2024), “Ground-level documentation of heat stress exposure and response strategies in informal settlements in Tshwane, South Africa”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1177-1193, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-10-2022-0229.
Met Office (2023), “Effects of climate change”, pp. 101-116, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-66372-1_5, available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change (accessed 20 June 2024).
Najafi, M., Sheikhkhoshkar, M. and Rahimian, F. (2024), “Editorial: innovation and lean practices for sustainable construction project management; emerging technologies, strategies and challenges”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 473-478, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-05-2024-406.
NASA (2024), “The causes of climate change”, available at: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/ (accessed 19 July 2024).
Oke, A.E., Aliu, J., Mwanaumo, E.M., Odia, O.A., Kahanji, C. and Tengan, C. (2024), “From awareness to action: a study of the effectiveness of environmental economic practices for sustainable construction in Nigeria”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1194-1212, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2023-0071.
Pittri, H., Agyekum, K., Botchway, E.A., Alencastro, J., Oladinrin, O.T. and Dompey, A.M.A. (2024), “Drivers for design for deconstruction (DfD) implementation among design professionals”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1134-1154, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-05-2023-0117.
Ramalingam Rethnam, O. and Thomas, A. (2024), “Urban building energy modelling-based framework to analyze the effectiveness of the community-wide implementation of national energy conservation codes”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1213-1239, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-09-2022-0210.
Rasheed, E.O. and Rotimi, J.O.B. (2024), “The green office environment: New Zealand workers' perception of IEQ”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1240-1259, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-09-2022-0204.
Rashidi, A., Najafi, M., Arashpour, M., Moehler, R., Bai, Y. and Rahimian, F. (2024), “Guest editorial: embracing the future construction project lifecycle: education and training for construction 4.0”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 757-762, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-07-2024-407.
Rodriguez Trejo, S., Najafi, M. and Rahimian, F. (2024), “Editorial: breaking the mold, circular construction for a greener and more efficient built environment”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 241-245, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2024-380.
Sandanayake, M.S., Vrcelj, Z., Bouras, Y., Chau, H.-W. and Hastings, P. (2024), “Simplified rating tool to evaluate sustainable practices of small-scale infrastructure projects in Australia – a comparative review”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1260-1280, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-05-2022-0089.
Tajani, F., Anelli, D., Di Liddo, F. and Morano, P. (2024), “An innovative methodology for the assessment of the social discount rate: an application to the European states for ensuring the goals of equitable growth”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1281-1309, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-12-2022-0274.
United Nations (2015), “Sustainable development goals”, United Nations, available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed 19 July 2024).
van Tonder, F. and Rwelamila, P.D. (2024), “A comparison of low-cost housing units for varying climatic regions in South Africa: a knowledge management approach”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1310-1329, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-11-2022-0237.
Velasco, E. and Segovia, E. (2024), “Effectiveness of equipping bus stop shelters with cooling and filtering systems in a city with tropical climate”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 1330-1345, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2023-0063.