Construction Innovation

Investigating sustainable practices in the Malaysian office building developments

Zalina Shari Veronica Soebarto

Article information:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Zalina Shari Veronica Soebarto , (2013),"Investigating sustainable practices in the Malaysian office building
developments", Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 17 - 37
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CI-12-2012-0064
Downloaded on: 16 June 2015, At: 01:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 571 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Nazirah Zainul Abidin, Nor'Aini Yusof, Ayman A.E. Othman, (2013),"Enablers and challenges of a
sustainable housing industry in Malaysia", Construction Innovation, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 10-25
Yeong Liang Sim, Frederik Josep Putuhena, (2015),"Green building technology initiatives to achieve
construction quality and environmental sustainability in the construction industry in Malaysia", Management
of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 233-249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
MEQ-08-2013-0093
Nurul Sakina Mokhtar Azizi, Suzanne Wilkinson, Elizabeth Fassman, (2015),"Strategies for improving
energy saving behaviour in commercial buildings in Malaysia", Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 73-90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2014-0054

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:376953 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

Investigating sustainable
practices in the Malaysian office
building developments
Zalina Shari

Investigating
sustainable
practices
17

Department of Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia, and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

Veronica Soebarto
School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design,
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Abstract
Purpose Economically, Malaysia has one of the fastest growing construction industries in the
world; however, the necessary balance between socio-economic and ecological systems to avoid
further environmental damage has not yet been reached by the industry. This paper aims to explore
the extent of sustainable development practices (socially, environmentally and economically) in the
Malaysian construction industry, focusing on the office building sector.
Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 stakeholders from
various backgrounds of the Malaysian construction industry are used to explore their challenges and
motivations for pursuing sustainable outcomes.
Findings The study finds that economic issues are the first priorities among stakeholders in any
decision-makings for building projects and cost becomes one of the major reasons for the slow
progress in implementing sustainable practices in building projects. Socially, there is still a wide gap
of knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues among stakeholders, explaining the lack of
commitment in achieving sustainability.
Research limitations/implications The sample size is only adequate to enable internal
generalisation; hence, further research is required to test the generalisability of the findings in this
research.
Practical implications This paper informs the government and regulatory stakeholders, research
and education sector, private sector, and clients of the building industry, where the authors currently
are and the gaps that the authors have to bridge in order to make sustainability more socially
acceptable and integral in the local construction industry.
Originality/value There have been very limited studies on exploring the views from various
groups of stakeholders regarding all the three components of sustainable development in the
Malaysian construction industry.
Keywords Qualitative research, Malaysia, Office buildings, Building stakeholders,
Design and construction, Sustainability and green buildings
Paper type Research paper

The authors wish to acknowledge that part of this work was published in the Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference Socio-political and Technological Dimensions of Climate Change
(STDCC2012), 19-21 November 2012, Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp. 51-62. The authors are especially
thankful for the contribution by Associate Professor Terence Williamson, who was the
Co-Supervisor of the first author during her PhD studies. The Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia are also acknowledged for the award of scholarship to
conduct this research. The authors would like to thank 30 interviewees who contributed to this
research.

Construction Innovation
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2014
pp. 17-35
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1471-4175
DOI 10.1108/CI-12-2012-0064

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

18

Introduction
The construction industry is one of the productive sectors that constantly contribute to
the economy in Malaysia. Malaysia has one of the fastest growing construction
industries in the world (Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (ABCSE),
2007); and is currently categorised as a newly industrialised country (Mankiw, 2008)
or an emerging market/economy (Dow Jones Indexes, 2011), indicating its economic
success. The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b)
however asserted that the construction industry has been emphasising mostly on
providing buildings with the best possible (lowest) cost often at the expense of quality.
This current trend of minimising possible initial costs has taken its toll on various
environmental issues in the country. The exploitation of resources, uncontrolled, and
improperly planned development has resulted in the deterioration of the environment
such as land pollution due to uncontrolled solid wastes disposal, as well as soil erosion
and silting of water course, which in turn causes water pollution, flooding in low-lying
areas and flash floods in urban areas (Aiken et al., 1982; Begum et al., 2006; Department
of Environment Malaysia, 1997; Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia, 2005; Sani, 1999).
The building sector has also contributed to the depletion of non-renewable fossil-fuel
and deterioration of air quality due to its huge amount of electricity consumption.
According to the Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia (2001), buildings in
Malaysia consume about 12.85 percent of the total energy consumption and 47.5 percent
of the countrys electricity consumption. As such, based on the production levels in 2005,
it is estimated that the oil reserves in Malaysia is yet to last only another 15 years,
while gas reserves is estimated to last for just another 29 years (APEC, 2006). Malaysia is
now ranked 25th in the global list of human-made carbon dioxide emissions
(Mohd Yunus, 2007), second highest in Asia after Japan, and the highest in South-East
Asia (Praveena et al., 2010).
The industrys emphasis on low cost resulted in relying on cheap foreign labour has
also led to several effects on the social image of the industry. Much criticism has been
directed toward low quality end-products, low level of productivity, and lower incentive
to invest in more productive and modern technology (Chan, 2009; CIDB Malaysia,
2007b). Since foreign workers are usually unskilled[1], occupational safety is normally
compromised (Abdul-Aziz, 2001; CIDB Malaysia, 2007b). Between 1999 and 2003, the
construction industry had the highest fatality rate compared to other sectors in Malaysia
(CIDB Malaysia, 2005). This is unsurprising as there are only six (as of end 2007) out of
thousands construction companies in Malaysia that have OSHMS/OHSAS[2]
certifications (CIDB Malaysia, 2007a).
These predicaments suggest the benefits of development may be negated by the costs
of environmental and social impacts. In the process of economic and infrastructural
development, social obligations have often been side-lined and environment has not
been given its due respect which leads to further social problems and degradation of the
environment. If this is the case, then the current Malaysian construction and building
practices appear to be not sustainable. The adoption of sustainable development in
Malaysian construction industry is therefore very timely and crucial.
There are a large number of definitions of sustainable development, however the
most prominent and universal definition lies in the Brundtland Report where it is defined
as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987, p. 8). Agenda 21, the key

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

outcome of the Rio Summit in 1992, highlights that the key components of sustainable
development are the protection of the environment, social equity, and economic
development. The World Summit on Sustainable Development report explains that
these three components are interdependent and mutually supportive elements of
long-term development (UN, 2002). This means, decision makings to support
sustainable development must be based on a balanced and holistic approach
(ICLEI, 1996).
In responding to sustainable development in the construction industry, Malaysia
has a plethora of policies and legislations. Malaysia has one of the best sets of
environmental legislations, comparable even with those of some developed countries
(Sani and Mohd Sham, 2007). The thrusts of government development plans, such as
Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 (KLCH, 2004) and Construction Industry Master
Plan 2006-2015 (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b), place priority on sustainable development as
the path in strategising the development of cities or the country as a whole. In other
words, it is the priority of the country in general, and the construction industry in
particular, to strike the necessary balance between the socio-economic and ecological
systems to avoid further environmental damage. As such, one might question: given
such a strong policy drive in Malaysia, why are there increasing problems related to,
the environment in Malaysia? What is stopping sustainable building developments
from being realised in practice?
These questions were among those addressed in three-year research that aimed to
develop an appropriate assessment framework to enable sustainability to be addressed
and incorporated in building development in Malaysia (Shari, 2011). The focus of the
research is on the office building sector as office buildings are identified to be
intensive users of energy (Yeang, 1998). This paper particularly aims to explore the
extent of sustainable practices (socially, environmentally, and economically) in
the Malaysian office sector to define gaps that need to be bridged to promote
sustainable building development. It was hypothesised that a new framework could be
made acceptable and integral part of the local building practice if it reflects an
understanding of the local stakeholders primary concerns in pursuing sustainable
office building development.
The paper first outlines the method used in the research. It then presents the extent
of economic, environmental and social practices as described by the stakeholders. The
paper concludes with some thoughts on how to address the problems identified and
develop approaches to improving sustainability in the construction industry,
particularly in the office building sector.
Research methodology
The study was undertaken from the constructive principles to value
multiple perspectives from different stakeholders and gain a deeper understanding
of sustainability issues in the Malaysian construction industry. Constructivist
researchers rely upon the participants views of the situation being studied with an
intention to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have and generate or
inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings (Creswell, 2003, p. 9) throughout
the research process.
To capture different views from different stakeholder groups, the research was
conducted through in-depth interviews. Patton (2002, p. 348) states that:

Investigating
sustainable
practices
19

CI
14,1

20

[. . .]the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to capture how those being interviewed view
their world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their
individual perceptions and experiences.

In-depth interviews offer a greater opportunity to ask probing questions and give data
with higher comprehensiveness or depth than any other data-collection method
(Bryman, 2008).
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007, p. 289) pointed out that:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

[. . .]sample sizes in qualitative research should not be so small as to make it difficult to

achieve data saturation, theoretical saturation, or information redundancy. At the same time,
the sample should not be so large that it is difficult to undertake a deep, case-oriented
analysis.

Therefore, a total of 50 commercial building stakeholders from various professions

currently practicing in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya were invited to be
participants. There were 30 stakeholders agreed to be interviewed consisting of
12 consultants, five developers/owners, three builders, four facility managers,
and six regulators/policy makers. The interviews were conducted from early January
to early March 2009. Table I is a summary of the profiles of the interviewees. A sample
size of 20-30 is deemed adequate to enable internal generalisation in a qualitative study
(Leech, 2005); however, the findings may not be employed to make inferences on other
construction industry stakeholders not included here.
The purposive sampling, particularly judgement sampling, was used to provide the
means to investigate a specialised population of stakeholders who have experienced in
the relevant field for more than ten years. Purposive sampling provides the opportunity
to gain insight and understanding from well-situated participants and those who are
relevant to the research questions (Neuman, 2006; Bryman, 2008). In this case, the
samples were focused on individuals who were knowledgeable in delivering sustainable
office buildings but not necessarily had the related experience. Those were recognised
through their green or sustainable building projects, sustainability-related
talks and publications, or their involvements in sustainability-related policies,
guidelines, and other government initiatives. Building-owners group of stakeholders,
on the other hand, were those who worked in an organisation that owned at least an
energy-efficient purpose-built office building.
The study employed a semi-structured interview to allow the respondents more
freedom and creativity to respond to the questions. Each interview, which last for
approximately 45 minutes, was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The
interview questions can be found in the Appendix. The data were then analysed by
using content analysis (Patton, 2002) performed on individual cases and cross cases.
It also involved a process of comparing the themes and categories and using a number
of cross-case analysis techniques, including text units (sentences) counts for each
theme across the cases. No statistical analysis was employed in the study as all views
were taken as valid and a new understanding was then constructed, which was in line
with the constructivism approach. The verification procedures included member
checking, rich and thick descriptions of the cases, presenting negative or discrepant
information that runs counter to the themes, and academic advisers auditing (Creswell
and Miller, 2002). The analytical process was done conventionally without the use of
any analytical tool or software programme.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

Position of interviewees

Type of company/organization

Private sector
Consultants
Principal architects
Architectural consultant
Architects
Architectural consultant
Managing director
Engineering consultant and trading
Managing director
Engineering consultant
Mechanical engineer and director
Building environmental consultant
Developers/building owners
Head of property management
Major real estate developer and investor
Project coordination manager
Major real estate developer and investor
Executive director and head of corporate Major real estate developer and investor
investment
Senior general manager
Major real estate developer and investor
Project director
Bank/building owner
Builders
Managing director
Major property contractor
Executive director
Major property contractor
General manager
Major property contractor
Facility managers/building operators
Property maintenance manager
Major real estate developer and investor
Chief executive officer
Facility management
Operation manager
Property management
Public sector
Facility managers/building operators
Principal assistant secretary
Ministry of Energy, Water and Communications
Assistant director
Independent, non-profit making research organisation
Government projects implementer
Branch director
Public Works Department
Policy makers/regulators
Principal assistant director
Statutory Body under Ministry of Federal Territories
Senior architect
Local Authority under Ministry of Federal Territories
Senior manager
Statutory Body under Ministry of Works
Senior technical advisor
Statutory Body under Ministry of Energy, Water and
Communications
Total

n
23
7
2
1
1
1

Investigating
sustainable
practices
21

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30

Note: n 30

Results
Interviewees responses are grouped into current economic, environmental and social
practices. Even though findings are grouped and discussed separately under these three
issues, many aspects are interrelated; hence, cross-references are made whenever necessary.
Below are the results reported based on the questions asked during the interviews.
Current economic practices
Have economic issues been the stakeholders first priorities? Majority of the interviewees
(77 percent) believed that they had always considered economic issues as the first
priorities in any decision-makings for office building projects (Figure 1). The most
common economic issues cited was the economic return especially when the projects

Table I.
Summary of interviewees

CI
14,1

100%

22

Frequency

80%

60%
5
40%

23

20%

al
To
t

s
or
ul
at

Fa
cil
ity

Re
g

M
gr

s
er

rs

De
ve
lo
p

Figure 1.
Frequency distribution
of interviewees who have
and have not considered
economic issues as the
first priorities

Bu
ild
e

sig
n

er

0%

De

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

Different groups of stakeholders

Economic issues have not
been the priorities

Economic issues have

been the priorities

Note: n = 30

involved clients who build to sell. For owner-occupied buildings, corporate social
responsibility was cited as the driving factor in decision makings apart from
economic considerations. Most local developers and building owners, however, were
only concerned about having their buildings met the minimum mandatory standards
enforced by the approving authorities and built at minimum cost without giving so
much thought about energy efficiency as it was considered an economic waste due to
heavily subsidised electricity tariffs.
Others who believed economic issues were not their first priorities did not include
developers and cited health and well-being of building users and deliver on time and
in good quality instead. Only one architect cited that economic issue is equally
important as environmental and social issues.
Capital cost, operational cost or both? Would sustainability guarantee higher market
value? Majority (60 percent) of the interviewees had always regarded minimising the
initial capital cost as more important than the long-term operational costs (Figure 2).
Generally the local building industry was less concerned about the operational and
maintenance costs as these costs were perceived to be the tenants problem. In cases
where unawareness and unwillingness were not an issue, developers admitted that
they were improperly and inadequately advised by consultants to consider both initial
and future costs and benefits (savings) of an investment to facilitate the effective choice
between different building alternatives or to select more competitive technologies.
Those who supported the importance of minimising the long-term operational costs
believed that this consideration was important in two circumstances. First was when the
project was to be rented/leased and managed by the client (speculative developer or
owner-occupier). Second was when developers/owners were absolutely certain that their
property market/rental values would be much higher in the future. Unfortunately, all six

100%
3

Percentage

80%

0
Minimizing the capital cost is LESS
IMPORTANT than minimizing the
operational cost

1
2

1
2

2
60%

Minimizing the capital cost is

EQUALLY IMPORTANT with
minimizing the operational cost

40%
7

23

20%

Minimizing the capital cost is

MORE IMPORTANT than
minimizing the operational cost

Figure 2.
Frequency distribution of
interviewees with different
priorities between capital
and operational costs

0%
Builders Developers

Facility
Mgr

Regulators

Different groups of stakeholders

Note: n = 30

developers/building-owners interviewed perceived that there had been no relationship

between sustainability and property market values in the Malaysian context due to:
.
lack of local empirical data to prove the economic benefits of green or sustainable
buildings to local investor; and
.
lack of awareness amongst market participants about the benefits of sustainable
design in general.
Current environmental practices
What are the stakeholders perceptions on the recently built office buildings? Interviewees
were asked to make some general comments on office buildings being built in
Malaysian cities (during 2005-2009). The various comments were grouped into
13 categories (Figure 3). Generally, the comments touched issues related to the
environment, social and/or economy; however, the negative comments outnumbered
the positive ones as explained below.
Category of general comments

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

Designers

Investigating
sustainable
practices

Overall design
Landscape
Mechanical and electrical services
Indoor environmental quality
Building site
Methods of construction
Materials and solid waste
Energy efficiency
Testing and commissioning
Spatial planning
Economic issues
Operation and maintenance
Building envelope

1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
6
7
11
0

6
Frequency

Note: Total comments given by 30 interviewees = 46

10

12

Figure 3.
Frequency distribution
of interviewees
comments (in categories
of issues) about recently
built office buildings in
Malaysian cities

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

24

Most commonly cited responses (25 percent) were about the building envelope, cited by
all stakeholder groups with the exception of facility managers. The majority of the
comments were however negative, for example, the building envelopes were non-climatic
facade designs, attractive but no due respect to energy issues, commercially driven
with corporate image, and had unnecessary features and decorations. Only one
interviewee from a local authority suggested that office buildings built during that period
were greener in their architectural design than those built previously.
The second most cited issue concerned operation and maintenance. Most interviewees
commented that many of existing buildings were poorly operated and maintained.
Preventive maintenance was rarely practiced and building energy consumption was rarely
monitored because building owners or tenants normally refused to employ energy manager
especially during economic downturn.
Comments regarding economic issues were the third most commonly cited.
An architect interviewee suggested that, most of our developers are concerned with
dollars and cents. Nothing is considered from the environmental and social aspects.
spatial planning and testing and commissioning were the fourth commonly cited
comments. Two issues raised under the former category were:
(1) do not facilitate sub-divisions; and
(2) without due consideration on the impact on energy use.
The latter category of comments was mainly raised by mechanical engineers and
facility managers who stated that although testing and commissioning were
commonly practiced but only recently, they were still improperly done.
Other comments were related to energy efficiency, materials and solid waste,
methods of construction, building site, indoor environmental quality, and
mechanical and electrical services. An architect interviewee informed that: typical
office buildings in Malaysia use 265 kWh/m2/year [. . .]. We should try to reach 140-150
if we can. An interviewee from the CIDB lamented on the improper waste disposal
management among local builders. One builder admitted that environmentally
destructive methods of construction were a normal practice:
It is a common practice among contractors to flatten the whole site, chop [down] all the trees
and bare the land during site clearance. Even though the building footprint is small but the
site area covers for operation is huge.

Undoubtedly, this response was consistent with that of the interviewee from the CIDB,
who specifically said:
In terms of managing the environment at the earthwork stage, I think it is still not up to the
standard. Thats why we still have flash floods, river sedimentation and so on.

To what extent do stakeholders implement sustainable waste management? Half of the

interviewees had never specified or experienced using reused components or recycled
materials. Only eight interviewees claimed the opposite; however, waste recycling was still
seen in terms of fly-ash, timber and steel reuse. None of the interviewees acknowledged the
experience of using recycled concrete aggregate in new concrete. This confirms the
views given by two builders which indicated that concrete was not being recycled in
Malaysia.

Investigating
sustainable
practices
25

Consultants and builders were then asked to explain how the reduction of waste was
considered in their design or construction activities. Most interviewees (73 percent) believed
that industrialised building systems (IBS) were one of the most appropriate methods to be
adopted. However, IBS were unfavoured by most as they require higher initial capital
investment and tremendous need for technical know-how than does the traditional system.
To what extent do stakeholders utilise ecologically friendly and healthy
products/materials? The interview also examined the uptakes of ecologically friendly
and healthy materials/products (e.g. certified timber products, products with low- or
zero-pollutant off-gassing). It was found that although there was virtually unanimous
agreement among interviewees from both sectors that these products/materials needed
to be exploited in the building industry, most indicated their concerns that these
products/materials did not carry any certification or eco-label to designate them as
being preferable. The reasons mentioned were:
.
no authority to certify them locally, except for local timber products;
.
mostly imported or certified by other countries; and
.
lack of demand from clients.
There were also doubts on the adequacy of existing eco-labelling system to show the
environmental profile of products.
Why is there a lack of interest in seeking ISO 14001 certification? As construction is
an important industry in any economy, it has an obligation and the potential to make a
Category of concerns about using reused
components and recycled materials

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

The slow uptakes of utilising reused and recycled materials or components in the
Malaysian construction industry is reflected by the interviewees three major concerns,
namely:
(1) cost;
(2) lack of availability; and
(3) perception of low quality (Figure 4).

Concerns about technical know-how

Concerns about facilities

Concerns about key players

Concerns about public awareness

Concerns about environmental labelling

3
4

Concerns about demand

Concerns about government initiatives

Concerns about quality

10

Concerns about availability

10
17

Concerns about cost

0

10
Frequency

Note: Total comments given by 30 interviewees = 59

15

20

Figure 4.
Summary of interviewees
concerns that impede the
widespread usage of
reused components and
recycled materials

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

26

significant contribution to sustainable development through implementing ISO 14001.

The ISO 14000 standards have been developed to stimulate better environmental
management practices by businesses. The standards provide a mechanism that links
the concept of sustainable development with the construction procurement process
(Department of Standards Malaysia, 2005). Hence, it is important to see the extent to
which construction companies seek to acquire registration with ISO 14001.
It was found that ten out of 12 interviewees had never worked with ISO 14001 EMS
certified construction companies in their professional career. One asserted that none
of the clients insisted on this requirement. This was confirmed by three out of five
developers who mentioned that ISO 14001 had never been in their contracts
requirement. An interviewee from the CIDB asserted that only multinational
construction and real estate development companies who ventured overseas were
motivated and could afford to seek ISO 14001 registration and maintain the
certification.
Current social practices
Does universal design matter? Answers to the current state of accommodating
universal access in office building designs varied. A small number of the interviewees
acknowledged that the minimum requirements had already been spelt out in two
important documents:
(1) The uniform building by-law (UBBL), issued to set a standardised building
regulations for the whole of Malaysia and applicable to all local authorities and
building professionals (Laws of Malaysia, 2008).
(2) The Malaysian Standard MS 1184: code of practice on access for disabled
people to public buildings, aimed at systematically improving the living
conditions of disabled persons and helping them to achieve their full
development potential (Department of Standards Malaysia, 2002).
Nevertheless, some others further clarified that accessibility was only mandatory for
government and semi-government buildings; and only to a certain limit for private
buildings; however, mandatory compliance was still depending on local authorities
and their level of enforcement. Others argued that universal accessibility had only been
considered after being demanded by foreign investors and tenants, while some linked
accessibility to the current practice of only complying with the minimum requirements
of UBBL and MS 1184. More responses, however, seemed to think that many
consultants still chose not to conform to universal design guidelines.
What is the place of education and training in sustainability issues? Realising the fact
that there was still a wide gap in knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues in
Malaysia, interviewees unanimously supported the importance of relevant education
and trainings. When investigated in terms of the interviewees usage of tools to assist
their sustainable design, construction, development or maintenance, it was found that
57 percent had never used any (Figure 5). Only three architects and one
building environmental consultant had used building simulation tools while many
of them still preferred to make decisions and assess their building performance using
intuition.
Can the culture of feedback be practiced more widely? In use, buildings do not always
work as intended. Different things happen which nobody anticipated; therefore,

80%

60%

0
1

0
1

2
0

2
40%
6

20%

1
0

13

ite
ch

Energy monitoring
Building environmental
rating tool

Investigating
sustainable
practices

Building simulation tools

ASHRAE guidelines/Malaysian
Standards/procedures/
checklists
None

Bl

Ar

ct
s
En
dg
gi
.E
ne
nv
er
.C
s
on
su
lta
nt
Bu
ild
er
D
s
ev
el
op
er
s
Fa
ci
lit
y
M
gr
.

0%

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

0
1

3
4

27

To
ta
l

Percentage

100%

Stakeholders

Notes: Total number of responses given by 23 interviewees = 27; total number of tools
given by 23 interviewees = 14

the stakeholders were asked whether it was important to know how the building that
they had designed, built, or developed, performed during its occupancy period or how
satisfied occupants were with the buildings indoor environmental quality. This part of
interview aimed to investigate the extent of post occupancy evaluation (POE) been
undertaken by design and building teams in the country.
There was virtually unanimous agreement that feedbacks that could help clients
obtain information on the performance of their completed projects were very
important. Three reasons were mentioned:
(1) to provide a continuous learning process;
(2) to eliminate the current poor practices of building maintenance; and
(3) to maintain good reputation.
There was a tendency to initiate programmes of monitoring and benchmarking either
by owners or design teams, as part of a culture of feedback, service and continuous
improvement.
It was found, however, that POEs were far from being a mainstream activity
because it was not a requirement or of interest to the client. One example is typical of
the reluctance among private clients: Only multinational companies would request
[for POE] and they pay for it [. . .] Locally [. . .] the awareness is not there. The
interviewees recognised that in practice, most private organisations were unable to
cope with feedbacks and could not (or thought they could not) afford it. Similarly, the
culture of feedback was not easy to be created in government organisations due to the
lack of specific budget allocated for effective operation and maintenance.
Discussion
Current economic practices
The study reveals that majority of the interviewees had regarded the initial cost to be
more important than the long-term operational cost, due to lack of awareness among

Figure 5.
Percentage distribution
of tools used by the
interviewees

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

28

the clients on the long-term financial benefits of building green and lack of knowledge
on life cycle costing among consultants to effectively advise their clients on choosing
different green design alternatives. Long-term operational costs were more important
to speculative developers or owner-occupier who developed office buildings to be
rented/leased and managed by themselves than clients who built to sell. According to
Bordass (2000), although speculative developers are always interested in saving
money, capital cost is not always the biggest thing because what counts is the return
on investment. The study also highlights that the lack of demand on green building
has resulted in an absence of green criteria on value component when undertaking a
valuation of a commercial office building. Assimakopoulus et al. (2003) point out that if
inputs required by valuation professionals do not comprise the clients wish to take
advantage of the benefits of sustainable buildings, then property professionals will
have no basis for including sustainability issues into their estimates of market value.
Hence, it is sensible to suggest that at present, the local market has not yet accounted
for property characteristics which add values to the user and the environment. This
phenomenon is confirmed by Rahman (2011) who noted that, in Malaysia:
[. . .] the difference in rental rates between green and non-green buildings is not so much due
to the green features, but more on supply and demand factors within the specific location.

Current environmental practices

The current state of environmental practices was marked by the interviewees criticisms
toward the recently built office buildings in Malaysian cities. The building envelopes
were criticised as non-responsive to local climate, focusing only on aesthetics and
corporate image. This finding supports Bordass (2000, p. 343) findings that the market
is often driven by features and fashions rather than functionality and glassier buildings
without apprehending the notion of big windows can mean big problems! Building
maintenance seems not to have gained the level of attention it warranted. Reactive and
preventive types of maintenance were rarely practiced and energy consumptions were
rarely monitored. Space planning was geared towards gaining economic returns with no
consideration to suit different and changing tenancy situations. Environmentally
destructive methods of construction were still considered a normal practice among
contractors in Malaysia.
Using reused components or recycled materials still remain unpopular while waste
recycling was still seen only in terms of fly-ash concrete, timber and steel reuse. This
can be attributed to the fact that, recycling of concrete and other building materials is a
relatively new concept compared to recycling steel scrap, paper, plastics, or glass
(Ozkan, 2000). Construction and demolition waste treatment or recovery were yet to be
commonly practiced, and disposing unseparated and reusable construction wastes in
landfills was certainly a common on-going practice. Compared with the early study
carried out by Mohd Nasir et al. (1995), the situation remains unchanged, leading to the
suggestion that, for these stakeholder groups at least, the progress of implementing
sustainable waste management in the local construction industry has been too slow,
let alone reaching its tipping point. This notion is further supported by Begum et al.
(2009) who found that majority of contractors in Malaysia did not practice source
separation and source reduction, reuse or recycling at construction sites.
With regard to the current practice of reducing wastage, majority believed that IBS
were one of the most appropriate methods to be adopted; however, since IBS required

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

higher capital investment and tremendous need for technical know-how, majority
hesitated to give their full support on IBS. Though the builder group of stakeholders
did practice waste segregation on site, the practice is still inefficient and uncoordinated.
There were doubts among the interviewees that all of the segregated wastes on site had
actually been sent for recycling instead of ending up in the landfills.
The uptakes of ecologically friendly and healthy products/materials were slow, and
one of the major reasons related to environmental certification or eco-labelling. There
were doubts on the adequacy of existing eco-labelling system; hence, cohere with the
argument by Lavagna (2006) that consultants need to know the environmental profile of
the product. SIRIM Berhad, a wholly-owned company of the Malaysian Government
under the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, has recently developed green label
schemes that identify products that are more environmentally preferable than other
similar products (SIRIM Berhad, 2012). This move can be considered as a
supplier-driven (Ronning and Vold, 2006, p. 11) strategy. This research however
shows that it would not be possible to achieve the results hoped for with the
buyer-driven strategy due to the lack of resources and competence on the purchasing
side; therefore, Malaysia needs to focus on the supplier-driven strategy, where the
supplier or producer becomes more active in understanding the requirements and taking
responsibility for developing and updating criteria and documentation.
Majority of the interviewees had never worked with ISO 14001 certified construction
companies in their professional career. As of the end of 2007, there were only two
construction companies out of 598 accredited organisations in Malaysia that obtained ISO
14001 (CIDB Malaysia, 2007a; Tsujii, 2007). Tan (2005) also revealed that ISO 14001 has not
become an integral part of the local construction companies culture especially those who
concentrate solely on the local market in which sustainable construction is still relatively a
new concept. Those who produce environmental-friendly certified products and services
in the country were heavily geared towards fulfilling the foreign market demands
especially in developed countries where the growth of green consumerism are higher.
Clearly, if a nation is slow in accepting ISO 14001, it is likely that it will lose out in
the competition with other nations that are more ready to accept and implement the
system. This may have been realised by the government through their
recommendation for introducing tax incentives for the adoption of ISO 14001 as one
of the key action steps to promote environmentally-friendly construction practices in
Malaysia (CIDB Malaysia, 2007b).
Current social practices
This study found that despite the clear requirements for a barrier-free built environment,
many consultants chose not to conform to universal design guidelines. This is because
the use of the Malaysian Standards in designing and building physical development of a
city is voluntary unless the regulatory authority of a particular city regulates it as
mandatory. The consultants neglect of the universal design might be the result of lack of
knowledge on how to design built environment in compliance with the requirement of
the universal design (Heylighen, 2008). Clearly, universal design in Malaysia is still
perceived as a pedagogical process, rather than legally enforceable compliance practice
(Abdul Rahim and Abdullah, 2009, p. 50).
Almost all interviewees supported the importance of sustainability-related education
and training indicating their positive attitude towards improving their knowledge

Investigating
sustainable
practices
29

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

30

and understanding. Haron et al. (2005) point out that the more environmentally
knowledgeable respondents tend to have more positive environmental attitudes, which in
turn increased their environmental behaviour and participation. Surprisingly however,
many of them still made decisions based on intuition rather than assisted by building
simulation tools. This can be attributed to the fact that the usage of predictive and
assessment tools are costly, not easy and time consuming (Papamichael, 2000). It was also
perceived that investigations using such tools could be done by energy specialists
engaged by the clients, though unfortunately, in Malaysia, these specialists are very
limited in number.
On the positive side, the interviewees acknowledged that in order to improve the
overall building performance in a changing market, the industry and its clients needed
to identify opportunities and pitfalls by means of rapid feedback (POE). Despite this,
the local construction industry was unable to cope with the feedbacks and unable to
afford it. Zimmerman and Martin (2001) argue that this is because consultants are
almost never paid to go back and review the outcomes of their design decisions,
particularly when the clients are not the tenants of the building who have little
financial benefits of refurbishment to save energy bills.
Conclusion
This paper has drawn on in-depth qualitative research undertaken with 30 stakeholders
from various backgrounds in the Malaysian construction industry to gauge their
different views on the extent of sustainable practices in the country with the focus on
office building development. It has highlighted the most crucial social and
environmental impacts as a result of the Malaysian construction industry prioritising
economic issues alone. The Malaysian Governments sustainability agenda has
prioritised the balance between socio-economic and ecological systems to avoid further
environmental damage; however, such balance has not successfully been reached due to
the construction industrys continuing contributions to social and problems.
The study generally finds that in Malaysia, there is a wide gap of knowledge and
awareness on sustainable building practices. Most stakeholders mainly prioritise on
economic issues rather than taking a balanced approach to economic, environmental
and social sustainability. Cost also appears to be one of the reasons for the lack of
interest in seeking ISO 14001 certification as well as demanding for POE studies to be
conducted. These findings reinforced the findings by Shafii and Othman (2007) that the
greatest barrier to achieve sustainable buildings in the South-East Asian construction
industry is the lack of understanding of the need for sustainable design due to the lack
of awareness among stakeholders. These findings are also echoed by Du Plessis (2001,
p. 32) that ignorance, lack of access to information, and education on environmental
topics, especially those related to sustainable construction, are present at all levels. It
can be concluded that the progress to develop the culture of sustainability among local
building stakeholders in Malaysia is rather slow. Although concerns for sustainability
are now embedded in many government policies and initiatives, they are still not
integrated into the Malaysian property development and investment practices.
To close the current gaps of sustainable building practices and to reach
significantly higher performance levels in a broader range of performance issues than
just energy, it is recommended that specific issues highlighted in this paper be
collectively addressed by the government and regulatory stakeholders, research and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

education sector, private sector, and clients of the building industry. One possible
solution is for a building sustainability assessment framework to be developed to make
sustainability more socially acceptable and integral in the local construction industry
(Shari, 2011). Internationally, efforts have been made in developing such systems to
assist in the decision-making process and to assess the performances of buildings.
Research community and relevant government agencies have viewed these systems as
one of the most effective methods of market transformation (Cole, 2000; Theaker and
Cole, 2001). While Malaysia has developed and implemented its building assessment
system call GBI (Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd, 2012), the scope of this system,
however, is on the environmental impact of the building itself (Shari, 2011); hence, a
new framework shall take into account a combined assessment of environmental,
social, and economic issues as formulated in ISO CD 21931-1 (ISO/TS 21931-1, 2006;
Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2006). It is expected that this initiative will potentially
encourage a continuous learning process, enhancing stakeholders understanding of
their roles and responsibilities in supporting sustainability throughout the life cycle of
their projects, and stimulating needed changes in the Malaysian construction industry.
Notes
1. Overall, unskilled (general) workers make up almost half of the total workers registered with
CIDB and outnumber semi-skilled and skilled workers by more than two-to-one
(CIDB Malaysia, 2007b).
2. OHSAS 18001 is an internationally used and recognised standard for occupational health
and safety management systems, while MS 1722 (Department of Standards Malaysia, 2003)
is a Malaysian Standard on occupational safety and health management systems (OSHMS).

References
ABCSE (2007), Renewable Energy in Asia: Malaysia Report, ABCSE, Klagenfurt.
Abdul-Aziz, A.-R. (2001), Foreign workers and labour segmentation in Malaysias construction
industry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 789-798.
Abdul Rahim, A. and Abdullah, F. (2009), Access audit on universal design: the case of Kota
Kinabalu Water Front, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 49-57.
Aiken, S.R., Leigh, C.H., Leinbach, T.R. and Moss, M.R. (1982), Development and Environment in
Peninsular Malaysia, McGraw-Hill International, Singapore.
APEC (2006), APEC Energy Demand and Supply Outlook, available at: www.ieej.or.jp/aperc/
2006pdf/Outlook2006//ER_Malaysia.pdf (accessed 10 January 2011).
Assimakopoulus, V., Pagourtzi, E., Hatzichristos, T. and French, N. (2003), Real-estate appraisal:
a review of valuation methods, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 383-401.
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J. and Jaafar, A.H. (2006), A benefit-cost analysis on the
economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 86-98.
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J. and Jaafar, A.H. (2009), Attitude and behavioral
factors in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 321-328.

Investigating
sustainable
practices
31

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

32

Bordass, B. (2000), Cost and value: fact and fiction, Building Research and Information, Vol. 28
Nos 5/6, pp. 338-352.
Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chan, T.K. (2009), Measuring performance of the Malaysian construction industry,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1231-1244.
CIDB Malaysia (2005), Master Plan for Occupational Safety and Health in Construction Industry
(2005-2010), CIDB Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
CIDB Malaysia (2007a), Annual report 2007: building today for tomorrow, available at: www.
cidb.gov.my (accessed 10 June 2010).
CIDB Malaysia (2007b), Construction Industry Master Plan Malaysia 2006-2015, CIDB Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur.
Cole, R.J. (2000), Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction
practices, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 949-957.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches,
2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J.W. and Miller, D. (2002), Determining validity in qualitative inquiry, Theory into
Practice, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 124-130.
Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia (2001), Statistics of Electricity Supply
Industry in Malaysia, Department of Electricity and Gas Supply Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Department of Environment Malaysia (1997), Environmental Quality Report 1996, Ministry of
Science, Technology and the Environment, Department of Environment Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur.
Department of Standards Malaysia (2002), MS 1184:2002 - Code of Practice on Access for
Disabled Persons to Public Buildings, 1st ed., SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.
Department of Standards Malaysia (2003), MS 1722:2003 Occupational Safety and Health
Management System Guidelines, 1st ed., SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.
Department of Standards Malaysia (2005), MS 14001:2004 Environmental Management
Systems Requirements with Guidance for Use, SIRIM Berhad, Kuala Lumpur.
Dow Jones Indexes (2011), Country Classification System, available at: www.djindexes.com/m
dsidx/downloads/brochure_info/Dow_Jones_Indexes_Country_Classification_System.pdf
(accessed 30 September 2011).
Du Plessis, C. (2001), Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries:
first discussion document, CIB and CSIR-Boutek, available at: www.sustainablesettlem
ent.co.za/docs/a21_discussiondoc.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).
Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia (2005), Energy Outlook Report for Discussion, available at:
www.ptm.org.my (accessed 15 October 2007).
Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd (2012), Green Building Index, available at: www.
greenbuildingindex.org (accessed 29 November 2012).
Haron, S.A., Paim, L. and Yahaya, N. (2005), Towards sustainable consumption: an examination
of environmental knowledge among Malaysians, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 426-436.
Heylighen, A. (2008), Sustainable and inclusive design: a matter of knowledge?, Local
Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 531-540.
ICLEI (1996), The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, Toronto.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

ISO/TS 21931-1 (2006), Sustainability in Building Construction Framework for Methods for
Assessment of Environmental Performance of Construction Works Part 1: Buildings,
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.
KLCH (2004), Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 Towards a World Class City, Kuala Lumpur
City Hall, Kuala Lumpur.
Lavagna, M. (2006), EPD use in building assessment to support design strategies, Proceedings
of the SETAC Europe 13th LCA Case Study Symposium, Environmental Product
Declarations (EPD) with Focus on the Building and Construction Sector, Haus Der
Wirtschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, 7-8 December, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Brussels, pp. 14-20.
Laws of Malaysia (2008), Uniform Building By-Laws, Act 133, 15th ed., MDC Publishers Sdn
Bhd, Kuala Lumpur.
Leech, N. (2005), The role of sampling in qualitative research, Academic Exchange Quarterly,
available at: www.thefreelibrary.com/Theroleofsamplinginqualitativeresearch.a0138703704 (accessed 2 January 2010).
Lutzkendorf, T. and Lorenz, D. (2006), Using an integrated performance approach in building
assessment tools, Building Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 334-356.
Mankiw, N.G. (2008), Principles of Economics, 6th ed., South-Western Cengage Learning,
Natorp Boulevard, OH.
Mohd Nasir, H., Rakmi, A.R., Zamri, I. and Saifullah, R. (1995), Existing Solid Waste
Management and Problems in Malaysia: Privatisation of Solid Waste Management in
Malaysia, Tabung Haji Technologies, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohd Yunus, M.I. (2007), All must play their part to curb pollution, New Straits Times, 18 May.
Neuman, W.L. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2007), Sampling designs in qualitative research: making
sampling process more public, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 238-254.
Ozkan, S.T.E. (2000), Recovery and reuse of demolition waste: recycling rubble for concrete
components, unpublished PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Papamichael, K. (2000), Green building performance prediction/assessment, Building Research
and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 394-402.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Praveena, S.M., Abdullah, M.H. and Aris, A.Z. (2010), Towards a low carbon society: carbon
emissions and the transport sector, IMPAK, Vol. 2, p. 1, available at: www.doe.gov.my
(accessed 15 June 2010).
Rahman, D.A.R. (2011), A green look at property value, The Star, 30 April, available at: http://
biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file/2011/4/30/business/8555914&secbusiness
(accessed 31 May 2011).
Ronning, A. and Vold, M. (2006), How can EPDs contribute to creating demanding customers?,
Proceedings of the SETAC Europe 13th LCA Case Study Symposium, Environmental
Product Declarations (EPD) with Focus on the Building and Construction Sector, Haus Der
Wirtschaft, Stuttgart, Germany, 7-8 December, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Brussels, pp. 11-13.
Sani, S. (1999), Environmental Management Issues and Challenges in the Next Millennium
in Malaysia, Environmental Management Programme, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, Bangi.

Investigating
sustainable
practices
33

CI
14,1

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

34

Sani, S. and Mohd Sham, A. (2007), Environmental management in Malaysia: changing

concerns and approaches, IMPAK, Vol. 3, pp. 4-6, available at: www.doe.gov.my
(accessed 29 June 2010).
Shafii, F. and Othman, M.Z. (2007), Keynote: sustainable buildings in South-East Asia:
opportunities and implementations, Proceedings of the Conference on Sustainable
Building South East Asia (SB07SEA), Kuala Lumpur, 5-7 November, Institute Sultan
Iskandar of Urban Habitat and Highrise, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 1-9.
Shari, Z. (2011), Development of a sustainability assessment framework for Malaysian office
buildings using a mixed-methods approach, unpublished PhD thesis, School of
Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
SIRIM Berhad (2012), Environmental technology, available at: www.sirim.my/web/core/resea
rch/environmental#Green_Label (accessed 29 August 2012).
Tan, L.P. (2005), Implementing ISO 14001: is it beneficial for firms in newly industrialized
Malaysia?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 397-404.
Theaker, I.G. and Cole, R.J. (2001), The role of local governments in fostering green building:
a case study, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 394-408.
Tsujii, K. (2007), Worldwide number of ISO14001, available at: www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/
english/analy14k.htm (accessed 4 January 2010).
UN (2002), Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa,
available
at:
www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/131302_wssd_report_
reissued.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).
WCED (1987), Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Yeang, K. (1998), Research information: designing the green skyscraper, Building Research and
Information, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-141.
Zimmerman, A. and Martin, M. (2001), Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 168-174.
Appendix. Interview questions
A. To investigate the current economic practices of office building design and development:
.
Based on your experience, have economic issues always been the first priorities in
any decision-makings for office building projects (or operation and maintenance)?
If yes, what are these economic issues: economic return, or minimising running cost,
or minimising construction cost? If not so, what issues have always been the first
priorities?
.
Has minimising the capital/construction cost always been considered more important
than minimising the long-term operational costs of the building? Or both have been
considered equally important?
.
Do you think there is a relationship between sustainability and property market
value in the Malaysian context? Why?
B. To investigate the current environmental practices of office building design and
development:
.
What are your general comments on office buildings being built in Malaysian cities
since five years ago?
.
Have you heard about reused components or recycled materials? Would you specify
(or encourage designers/the industry to specify) them in your office building projects,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

and why? Do you think there is an opportunity for these components/materials in the
Malaysian office building sector, and why?
.
How is the reduction of construction waste considered in your work?
.
Have you heard about ecologically friendly and healthy products/materials? Would
you (or encourage designers/the industry to) specify them in your office building
projects, and why? Do you think these products/materials are widely available and
easily recognisable in the local market, and why?
.
Have you had any experience working with ISO 14001 EMS certified contractors?
Or have you ever awarded any projects to contractors certified with ISO 14001? If yes,
how different was their performance compared to non-certified ones? Has your
company been certified with ISO 14001 EMS? Why?
C. To investigate the current social practices of office building design and development:
.
What is your view of universal design, which accommodates the needs of all people
regardless of age and ability?
.
What is the place of education and training in order to increase knowledge and
awareness in sustainability issues in general and green/sustainable
design/construction/operation and maintenance in specific? If important, how do
you achieve that in your organisation? Does your organisation allocate an annual
budget for this purpose? Do you use any tool(s), i.e. software, guideline to help you
designing or constructing a green/sustainable building? If yes, name the tool(s).
.
Is it important for you to know how the building that you have designed/built
performs during its occupancy period or how satisfied occupants are with the
buildings indoor environmental quality? Why? If important, could this be widely
practiced in the Malaysian building sector?
About the authors
Dr Zalina Shari is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra
Malaysia. She received her Master in integrated construction project management at Universiti
Teknologi MARA Malaysia in 2002 and a PhD in architecture at the University of Adelaide,
South Australia in 2011. Her research interests include sustainable building design and
assessments, and post-occupancy evaluations. She is currently the Co-Editor of the International
Journal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice, the Co-Editor of the International
Conference on Sustainable Tropical Environmental Design (SusTED13), and an Academic
Member of the Malaysian Green Building Confederation (MGBC). Zalina Shari is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: zalinashari@putra.upm.edu.my
Veronica Soebarto is an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, School of
Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design. She received her Master of architecture
in 1992 and PhD in architecture in 1996 from Texas A&M University, USA before joining
The University of Adelaide in 1998. Her research interests include thermal/energy simulation of
commercial and residential buildings, environmental monitoring, sustainable building design
and assessments, and human thermal comfort. She has supervised 15 PhD students in these
areas, many of whom have completed. She is a member of the Editorial Board of Journal of
Building Performance Simulation and Architectural Science Review.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Investigating
sustainable
practices
35

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA At 01:12 16 June 2015 (PT)

1. Wallace Imoudu Enegbuma, Uche Godwin Aliagha, Kherun Nita Ali. 2014. Preliminary building
information modelling adoption model in Malaysia. Construction Innovation 14:4, 408-432. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]