Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)

Published online 26 November 2009 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.442

Implementing Sustainable Development in the

Construction Industry: Constructors’ Perspectives
in the US and Korea
Hyojoo Son,1 Changwan Kim,1* Wai Kiong Chong2 and Jui-Sheng Chou3
1
Department of Architectural Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea
2
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
3
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT
Concern about the devastating impacts of on-site construction processes on the environ-
ment (e.g., consumption of energy and materials, generation of waste and dust, and pol-
lution of air and water) has led to a heightened awareness of the need for sustainable
construction practices. Constructors in the construction industry in the US and Korea were
surveyed on their level of awareness of sustainable construction measures that could be
implemented during the actual construction phase, and on their level of preparedness to
implement such measures. The results of the survey indicate a fairly high level of awareness
of and preparedness for sustainable construction and a positive outlook for the future of
sustainable construction in both countries. The results of this study indicate that construc-
tors should have more responsibilities and get involved at an earlier stage of a construction
project – during the design phase – in order to exploit their knowledge. Copyright © 2009
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 10 August 2009; revised 19 October 2009; accepted 22 October 2009

Keywords: sustainable development; sustainability; sustainable construction; construction industry; constructor; LEED

Introduction

E
NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS DETERIORATING AS A RESULT OF UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH, RAPID POPULATION
growth, urbanization and industrialization, and unbridled utilization of natural resources. Unsustainable
development leading to environmental destruction and economic loss has become an increasingly critical
issue in the construction industry as the demand for construction and development has increased (Roodman
and Lenssen, 1995; Lippiatt, 1999).
Statistics show that the construction industry is a major contributor to unsustainable development and its envi-
ronmental and economic impacts. Worldwide, the construction industry consumes 40% of total energy production,
40% of all raw materials and 25% of all timber, and is responsible for 16% of total water consumption and 35%
of CO2 emissions. In the US alone, construction activities generate 136 million tons of waste annually (USEPA,
* Correspondence to: Changwan Kim, Assistant Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.
E-mail: changwan@cau.ac.kr

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
338 H. Son et al.

1998) and consume nearly 30% of all raw materials (USGBC, 2002). The corresponding figures for Korea are 53
million tons of waste and 50% of raw materials (MLTM, 2009).
It is widely known that tasks performed during the construction process are a major source of damage to public
health and the environment. Numerous toxic wastes are produced during the course of construction (Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, 1996), and the pollutants released can cause illness in humans (USEPA,
2002; Rohracher, 2001). For example, toxic gases produced in the process of welding and painting are discharged
into the air (Plank, 2005).
Sustainability is a worthy goal, but can be achieved only through the efforts of everyone involved. Furthermore,
to make a significant impact, sustainability must be incorporated into the entire life cycle of a construction project,
starting with the concept phase, because different environmental, social, and economic considerations come into
play at different stages in the development of a project.
Constructors are a major player in the construction ‘food chain’. However, there has been an implicit assump-
tion that designers and clients hold the key to sustainable development, since certification standards that are used
to estimate the environmental effects of construction projects are applied during the planning and design phases –
and decisions regarding green building practices are driven by the clients’ commitment to sustainability (Bunz et
al., 2006). Thus, there has been a tendency to look upon constructors as passive agents (Chong and Low, 2006).
As a result, the role of constructors in pursuit of sustainability has traditionally been minimal – concentrated
mainly on the design aspects of construction, despite the fact that constructors are the ones who implement the
sustainable practices that constructors and clients devise during the design stage of a construction project.
There is currently greater awareness and understanding of the negative impacts of the construction phase on
sustainability than there was in the past. Efforts to address the importance of the constructor’s role in sustain-
ability and to enhance this role have been the focus of significant research. Previous studies have discussed the
influence of the roles of constructors on sustainability, how to actively engage constructors in sustainable projects,
and areas in which constructors can contribute to the success of sustainable projects (Drilling, 2003; Riley et al.,
2003). Even though the constructor’s role has been researched in various ways, the constructor’s awareness of and
preparedness for sustainability, which is inevitably needed to successfully deliver a sustainable project, has not
been the focus of previous studies.
The primary purpose of this study is to examine constructors’ overall perceptions of sustainable construction
and their potential to contribute to the achievement of sustainability in the construction phase. The authors believe
that constructors would be in a better position to fulfill the intentions of designers vis-à-vis sustainable construc-
tion if they had greater knowledge of sustainability and its benefits. In this study, constructors’ overall level of
awareness of sustainable practices and their preparedness to deliver sustainable construction were assessed by
means of a survey based on green building certification criteria. In addition, differences between the US and Korea
were analyzed in terms of constructors’ awareness of and preparedness for sustainable construction, since there
are differences in construction management practices in those two countries.

Sustainability and the Construction Industry

The notion of sustainable development, which was introduced at a meeting of the UN Environment Program in
1982 in response to widespread environmental problems, was crystallized by ‘Agenda 21’ and the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development promulgated by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
(WCED, 1987; International Council for Building (CIB) and United Nations Environment Programme – Interna-
tional Environmental Technology Centre (UNEP-IETC), 2002; Gambatese and Rajendran, 2005; Shelbourn et al.,
2006). The notion of sustainable development was later expanded to include the concept of sustainable construc-
tion, because construction is the industry with the greatest impact on the environment and national economies.
The term ‘sustainable construction’ was broadly defined so as to encompass social, economic, biophysical and
technical aspects, and incorporated principles that in some cases could not be easily categorized (Hill and Bowen,
1997; Rwelamila et al., 2000). Among other things, it includes site planning and organization, selection and recy-
cling of materials, conservation of energy and natural resources, preservation of the natural environment and
provision of the kinds of amenity that people have come to expect (Wyatt, 1994; Langston and Ding, 2001).

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry 339

Since the construction industry generates environmental damage over the entire course of a project, sustain-
ability measures should be undertaken throughout the whole process, from planning to the deconstruction phase,
and all parties to the project should be involved (Dahl et al., 2005). Soil, water and air quality are affected by the
production and transport of construction materials, energy is used in significant quantities, noise is generated and
various pollutants, such as deadly construction wastes and dust, are discharged into the environment (Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, 1996; Rohracher, 2001; DTI, 2006; Sev, 2009). Moreover, the degree of
damage that occurs during the construction phase of a project affects environmental conditions during the opera-
tions and maintenance phases as well (Chen and Chambers, 1999; Drilling, 2003). The need to mitigate and
prevent the negative effects of construction activity calls for the implementation of sustainable construction prac-
tices and the exercise of sound management principles (Pulaski and Horman, 2005).
Recognition of the importance of constructors and their proper role in the overall construction enterprise
facilitates progress in sustainable construction (Beyer, dissertation submitted for degree of B.S.; Emison, 2001;
Yue and Au, 2003; Myers, 2005; Riley et al., 2005; Shen et al., 2005). A fair amount of progress has already been
made on this front. Recently, 40% of US construction projects have been carried to completion in the design–build
mode (Solomon, 2005), which shows that the role of constructors is being expanded. In other words, the efficiency
of sustainable construction practices can be improved by bringing critical construction knowledge into design
(Rohracher, 2001; Dahl et al., 2005; Riley et al., 2005). Further improvements in this regard could presumably be
realized in a systematic manner through the imposition of legal regulations. However, perhaps the most important
factors in bringing about sustainability are awareness of the impact of sustainable construction on the environment
and knowledge of how to deliver sustainability – during the construction phase as well as in building maintenance
and operation – on the part of all the stakeholders in the life cycle of a building (Beyer, dissertation submitted for
degree of B.S.; Khalfan et al., 2003; Yue and Au, 2003; Myers, 2005; Shen et al., 2005).
The contribution of constructors to sustainability can be substantially enhanced through field monitoring, judi-
cious management of waste materials, salvage and recycling of construction materials, control of erosion and
sedimentation, minimization of site disturbance and management of indoor air quality during the construction
phase (Pulaski, 2004). Without a solid understanding of sustainability concepts, constructors cannot deliver sus-
tainability during the construction phase (Beyer, dissertation submitted for degree of B.S.; Yue and Au, 2003;
Myers, 2005; Shen et al., 2005).

Research Methodology

The benchmark used for sustainable construction in the US is the set of guidelines known as Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) (USGBC, 2002), while in Korea the construction industry has adopted a set of
standards known as the Green Building Rating System (Bunz et al., 2006). Though there is room for improvement
in LEED, it is a widely accepted standard for sustainable construction in the US as well as in Korea. Thus, the
questionnaire developed for the survey conducted in this study used LEED green building certification criteria as
a basis for collecting data on constructors’ level of awareness of sustainability practices and their level of prepared-
ness to deliver sustainable construction. The survey also provided a means by which to compare the difference
between the sustainability knowledge of US constructors and that of their Korean counterparts.
The questionnaire was sent to 200 US and 100 Korean constructors. Responses were received from 158 con-
structors in the US and 66 in Korea. Table 1 shows the background characteristics of the respondents. About 54%
of the US respondents and 41% of the Koreans had more than 10 years of experience as construction constructors.
These same percentages apply to respondents with experience in construction projects worth more than $10
million. Especially noteworthy is that 82% of US respondents and 32% of Korean respondents reported having
experience in green building construction, as shown in Table 1. These figures suggest that sustainable construction
is becoming more widespread. In fact, the sustainable construction market is projected to expand from $12 billion
in 2008 to $60 billion in 2010 (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2008).
The questionnaires were distributed through direct contact or e-mail to personnel in charge of sustainable proj-
ects undertaken by their contracting firms. The questions used in the survey to sample awareness of green build-
ing certification criteria and preparedness to deliver sustainable construction were grouped into five categories

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
340 H. Son et al.

Experience Frequency (number) Percentage (%)

US Korea US Korea

Years of experience as construction constructors

More than 10 years 85 27 53.8 40.9
Less than 10 years 73 39 46.2 59.1
Experience in construction projects (worth more than $10 million)
Yes 86 27 54.4 40.9
No 72 39 45.6 59.1
Experience in green building construction
Yes 130 21 82.3 31.8
No 28 45 17.7 68.2
Total 158 66 100 100

Table 1. Characteristics of the survey respondents

according to LEED criteria: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources and
indoor environmental quality. The specific items within each category were carefully selected according to criteria
set forth in Version 2.2 of LEED (USGBC, 2005).
For each item, the respondents rated themselves on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). In this survey, the
terms ‘awareness’ and ‘preparedness’ are used and the meaning of these terms is explained in the survey; ‘aware-
ness’ means that the respondents are knowledgeable about how to deliver sustainability and ‘preparedness’ refers
to the level of readiness of constructors for sustainable construction, not only technically and managerially but
also in terms of training of construction staff in the properties of sustainable materials and the use of sustain-
ability technology. The measure of the level of awareness of green building certification criteria used in this study
(the awareness rate) is the percentage of respondents who rated themselves either moderate, high or very high,
and similarly for the measure of the level of preparedness to deliver sustainability (the preparedness rate).
The results were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows 12.0.1. Frequency data were used to
analyze responses to questions about general awareness of and preparedness for sustainable construction, and the
chi-square test was used to determine the degree of correlation between awareness and preparedness. Also, within
each category, the LEED items that are directly related to the construction phase (those for which constructors
have direct responsibility) were identified on the basis of criteria reported by others (Shen et al., 2005), and the
levels of awareness and preparedness for only these items were examined and compared with the levels for the
entire set of LEED items chosen for this study from the same category.

Results and Analysis

For each category and item, the survey responses were tallied to determine the level of awareness of green build-
ing certification criteria and the level of preparedness to deliver sustainable construction, and the degree of cor-
relation between awareness and preparedness was computed. The results for US and Korean constructors were
investigated separately, and differences between the two groups of constructors were identified. The results for
respondents who have experience in green building construction were differentiated from those who do not.

Level of Awareness of Green Building Certification Criteria

To measure constructors’ awareness of sustainable construction, the percentage of respondents who rated them-
selves as either moderate, high or very high is used. Based on the survey results, the awareness rate for US and
Korean constructors in all categories is high, at more than 50%. Interestingly, the overall awareness rate for
Koreans is a little higher than for US constructors in every category except sustainable sites.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry 341

As shown in Table 2, US constructors have an awareness rate of about 72% in the sustainable site category. The
other four categories, in descending order of awareness, are energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, water
efficiency and indoor environmental quality. Moreover, the awareness rates among US constructors for the items
within the sustainable site category that are directly related to the construction phase are remarkably high: pollu-
tion prevention, 96.84%; development density & community connectivity, 95.57%; brownfield redevelopment,
93.04%; ability to construct links to alternative transportation, 92.83%, and control of erosion and sedimentation,
91.14%.
For Korean constructors, the category with the highest awareness rate is water efficiency, at about 72%. The
other four categories, in descending order of awareness, are materials & resources, energy & atmosphere, indoor
environmental quality and sustainable sites. In the water efficiency category, the items with an awareness rate of
at least 50% for Korean constructors are innovative wastewater technology (58.82%) and adoption of standards
and available technology for water use reduction (55.88%).

Items Directly Related to the Construction Phase

The awareness rates shown in Table 3 for each category were computed by including only the items that are directly
related to the construction phase (i.e. the items for which constructors have direct responsibility).
In this scenario, the awareness rate for US constructors in the sustainable site category is 82%, while the aware-
ness rate in each of the other four categories is less than 60%. As stated earlier, the high awareness rate among
US constructors in the sustainable site category can be explained by the high awareness rates for the items within
this category that are directly related to the construction phase.
The categories with the highest awareness rates for Korean constructors (when only the items pertinent to the
construction phase are taken into account) are generally high, with water efficiency at more than 80%. Within the
water efficiency category, the only item that has an awareness rate above 80% among Korean constructors is adop-
tion of standards and available technology for water use reduction, at 84.85%.

Category Awareness rates (%)

US Korea

Sustainable sites 72.09 68.38

Water efficiency 51.91 74.51
Energy & atmosphere 63.31 73.11
Materials & resources 57.44 73.95
Indoor environmental quality 51.60 73.69
Average 59.27 72.73

Table 2. Awareness of green building certification criteria

Category Awareness rates (%)

US Korea

Sustainable sites 81.92 70.48

Water efficiency 46.41 85.29
Energy & atmosphere 55.97 70.59
Materials & resources 54.65 73.53
Indoor environmental quality 53.39 74.45
Average 58.47 74.87

Table 3. Awareness of green building certification criteria: items directly related to the construction phase

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
342 H. Son et al.

These results show that among Korean constructors the awareness rate in all categories is higher when the only
items included are those that are directly related to the construction phase, whereas in the case of US constructors
the awareness rate when only the directly related items are included is higher in the sustainable site and indoor
environmental quality categories. In addition, the results show that the awareness rate for items directly related
to the construction phase is lower for US constructors than for their Korean counterparts, the sole exception being
the sustainable site category.

Level of Preparedness to Deliver Sustainable Construction

To measure the constructors’ preparedness to deliver sustainability, the percentage of respondents who rated
themselves either moderate, high or very high in preparedness is used. Based on the survey results, preparedness
rates for US and Korean constructors in all categories are relatively high, at more than 40%. Similar to the case
of the awareness rate, the overall preparedness rate for Koreans is a little higher than that for US constructors in
every category except sustainable sites. Moreover, in both Korea and the US, the overall level of constructors’ pre-
paredness to deliver sustainable construction is lower than the overall level of awareness of green building certi-
fication criteria. It can thus be concluded that constructors are aware of sustainability concepts to some degree,
possibly because of the increasing concern about environmental problems generally, but that the actual know-how
for putting sustainability concepts into practice is lacking.
As shown in Table 4, the category with the highest preparedness rate among US constructors is sustainable
sites, at about 70%. The other four categories, in descending order of preparedness, are energy & atmosphere,
materials & resources, indoor environmental quality and water efficiency. The preparedness rate of US construc-
tors for certain items within that category is remarkably high: development density and community connectivity,
95.57%; ability to construct links to alternative transportation, 90.93%; pollution prevention, 89.87%; brownfield
redevelopment, 84.18%, and control of erosion and sedimentation, 76.58%.
Among Korean constructors, the category with the highest preparedness rate is water efficiency, at about 69%.
The other four categories, in descending order of preparedness, are materials & resources, sustainable sites, indoor
environmental quality and energy & atmosphere. In the water efficiency category, the items with the highest pre-
paredness rates for Korean constructors are innovative wastewater technology (77.27%) and adoption of standards
and available technology for water use reduction (75.76%).

Items Directly Related to the Construction Phase

The preparedness rates shown in Table 5 for each category were computed by including only the items that are
directly related to the construction phase.
In this scenario, the category with the highest preparedness rate among US constructors is sustainable sites, at
about 75%, while the rates in each of the other categories are below 50%. Within the sustainable site category,
several of the items have preparedness rates above 75%: development density and community connectivity (95.57%),

Category Awareness rates (%)

US Korea

Sustainable sites 69.68 66.50

Water efficiency 44.06 69.61
Energy & atmosphere 53.29 63.45
Materials & resources 48.87 66.81
Indoor environmental quality 45.35 67.65
Average 52.25 66.80

Table 4. Preparedness to deliver sustainable construction

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry 343

Category Awareness rates (%)

US Korea

Sustainable sites 74.57 68.91

Water efficiency 47.68 73.53
Energy & atmosphere 44.67 63.24
Materials & resources 47.72 70.00
Indoor environmental quality 45.72 68.75
Average 52.07 68.88

Table 5. Preparedness to deliver sustainable construction: items directly related to the construction phase

Category Correlation
(construction
Correlation related only)

US Korea US Korea

Sustainable sites 0.824 0.804 0.715 0.791

Water efficiency 0.550 0.909 0.787 0.928
Energy & atmosphere 0.667 0.833 0.604 0.841
Materials & resources 0.695 0.695 0.742 0.681
Indoor environmental quality 0.736 0.764 0.736 0.768

Table 6. Summary of results of chi-square test for the correlation between awareness and preparedness

ability to construct links to alternative transportation (90.93%), pollution prevention (89.87%), brownfield
redevelopment (84.18%) and control of erosion and sedimentation (76.58%).
The category with the highest preparedness rate for Korean constructors (when only the items pertinent to the
construction phase are taken into account) is water efficiency, at more than 75% each. In each of the other four
categories, the preparedness rate among Koreans is above 60%. Within the water efficiency category, the item
with the highest preparedness rate is adoption of standards and available technology for water use reduction, at
75.76%.
These results show that among Korean constructors preparedness rates for individual categories are generally
higher when the only items included are those that are directly related to the construction phase, whereas in the
case of US constructors the preparedness rate when only the directly related items are included is higher in the
sustainable sites, water efficiency and indoor environmental quality categories. In addition, the results show that
preparedness rates for items directly related to the construction phase are lower for US constructors than for their
Korean counterparts, the only exception being the sustainable site category. Overall, the data show that, although
the level of awareness of green building certification criteria among constructors in both countries is relatively
high, the level of preparedness to deliver sustainable construction lags somewhat behind the level of awareness.

Correlation of Awareness with Preparedness

As stated earlier, the chi-square test was used to determine the degree of correlation of the level of awareness of
green building certification criteria on the part of US and Korean constructors with their level of preparedness to
deliver sustainable construction. Correlation coefficients for US and Korean constructors are presented separately
in Table 6, and are broken down by category. Within each category, data are given for all items as well as separately
for the items that are directly related to the construction phase.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
344 H. Son et al.

For US and Korean constructors, the level of awareness correlates fairly well with the level of preparedness in
all five categories, since the correlation coefficients are all positive and greater than 0.5. For Korean respondents,
the category with the highest degree of correlation, whether for all items or for just the items directly related to
the construction phase, is water efficiency. In the case of US respondents, the category with the highest degree of
correlation when all items are considered is sustainable sites, but this is replaced by water efficiency when only
the items directly related to the construction phase are included. Interestingly, when all items are considered, water
efficiency becomes the category with the lowest degree of correlation.

Rates of Awareness and Preparedness versus Experience

As stated earlier, 82.3% of US respondents and 31.8% of Korean respondents reported having some experience in
green building construction. Among respondents with some experience, the awareness and preparedness rates
are 69.75 and 59.86%, respectively; the corresponding figures for those with no experience are 58.23 and 50.63%.
Thus, the level of awareness of green building certification criteria is relatively high among both experienced
constructors and those without experience. The level of preparedness of constructors with experience in green
building construction is also relatively high, as is that of constructors with no such experience.
Among US constructors with experience in green building construction, the awareness and preparedness rates
are 63.57 and 52.31% (Table 7), respectively, while the corresponding figures for their Korean counterparts are
84.55 and 77.94% (Table 8). For US constructors with no experience in green building construction, the awareness
and preparedness rates are 56.34 and 46.95%, respectively, while Korean constructors with no experience have an
awareness rate of 62.78% and a preparedness rate of 59.45%. These data show that, on the whole, the level of
preparedness lags behind the level of awareness, and that for both US and Korean constructors levels of awareness
and preparedness are higher among those with experience.

Category Experienced Inexperienced

Awareness Preparedness Awareness Preparedness

rates (%) rates (%) rates (%) rates (%)

Sustainable sites 59.57 64.64 53.65 57.81

Water efficiency 69.46 45.95 55.00 48.75
Energy & atmosphere 55.73 39.25 52.98 32.14
Materials & resources 78.78 64.59 67.50 61.88
Indoor environmental quality 54.33 47.10 52.55 34.18
Average 63.57 52.31 56.34 46.95

Table 7. Rates of awareness and preparedness versus experience: US constructors

Category Experienced Inexperienced

Awareness Preparedness Awareness Preparedness

rates (%) rates (%) rates (%) rates (%)

Sustainable sites 79.36 74.87 60.12 59.33

Water efficiency 93.66 84.13 63.33 61.85
Energy & atmosphere 78.23 78.24 64.76 52.69
Materials & resources 83.67 74.15 66.66 66.34
Indoor environmental quality 87.83 78.31 59.01 57.03
Average 84.55 77.94 62.78 59.45

Table 8. Rates of awareness and preparedness versus experience: Korean constructors

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry 345

For US constructors with experience in green building construction as well as for those with no experience in
green building construction, materials & resources is the category with the highest awareness rate, indoor envi-
ronmental quality is the category with the lowest awareness rate, and the category with the lowest preparedness
rate is energy & atmosphere. For the experienced Korean constructors, water efficiency is the category with the
highest awareness and preparedness rates. Among Korean constructors with experience in green building con-
struction, the category with the lowest awareness rate is energy & atmosphere, and the category with the lowest
preparedness rate is materials & resources. Among inexperienced Korean constructors, the category with the
highest awareness and preparedness rates is materials & resources, the category with the lowest awareness rate is
indoor environmental quality and the category with the lowest preparedness rate is energy & atmosphere.

Further Analysis
The results of the survey presented herein indicate the perceptions of the respondents from the US and Korea in
regard to sustainable construction, but it cannot be assumed that the survey respondents are representative of the
entire ensembles of construction professionals in their respective countries. The results were in the expected direc-
tion in that there was a relatively high level of awareness on the part of the survey respondents in regard to the
importance of adopting sustainability practices.
It is worth pointing out that prior experience with sustainable projects affected the responses of the constructors
who completed the survey. On the whole, the levels of awareness of and preparedness for sustainable construction
in terms of issues directly related to the construction phase were relatively high. Moreover, the more experienced
constructors who completed the survey tended to have a greater recognition of their role in achieving sustainabil-
ity. Education and practice in sustainable concepts and methods have an important role in fostering the adoption
of sustainability (Manoliadis et al., 2006). Based on the findings of this survey, gaining a better understanding of
the role and responsibility of constructors in sustainable construction could facilitate and accelerate the achieve-
ment of sustainability in the construction industry.
As noted earlier, there are some differences between US and Korean constructors in terms of the categories
with the highest and lowest rates of awareness and preparedness. These differences could be attributable to a
number of factors, such as differences in construction practices and the role of government in the construction
industry (as regards, say, environmental regulations and policies). In the sustainable site category, for example,
the levels of awareness and preparedness are higher among US constructors than among their Korean counter-
parts. A number of the items in this category (e.g., site selection, brownfield redevelopment and development
density & community connectivity) include a significant component related to the planning phase of a construction
project. Examination of the construction practices of the respondents from the two countries revealed that the
percentage of constructors from the US who participated in this survey and are involved in the design phase of
construction projects is much higher than the corresponding figure for the Korean constructors who participated.
This could explain the low levels of awareness and preparedness in the sustainable site category for Korean con-
structors compared with those from the US.
Also, the levels of awareness and preparedness in the water efficiency and materials & resources categories are
higher for the Korean constructors than for their US counterparts. In the case of water efficiency, this could be a
result of differences in the availability of water in the two countries. Korea has experienced significant water short-
ages together with a growing demand for water, a situation that the US has not yet had to face to any significant
degree. In the materials & resources category, the difference in the levels of awareness and preparedness in the
US as compared to those in Korea may be due to differences in the role of government in the construction indus-
try in the two countries, especially in terms of environmental regulations and policies. For example, the Korean
government enacted legislation (the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources Act) to facilitate practical
use of limited resources and to effectively promote and systematically support the recycling of construction waste.
Moreover, the Korean government has strongly enforced the laws and regulations that pertain to use of materials
and resources in the construction industry. In the US, there are laws regulating the use of construction materials
that contain toxic substances such as lead, asbestos and other volatile organic compounds that adversely affect the
environment, but regulations of this type are less likely to be enforced in the US than in Korea (USEPA, 1998;
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2009).

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
346 H. Son et al.

Conclusions

The results of this study reveal that constructors in both countries are knowledgeable enough to deliver sustain-
ability. Overall, the level of awareness of and preparedness for sustainable construction among constructors is
relatively high in both countries. The results of this study indicate that constructors should have more responsi-
bilities and get involved at an earlier stage of a construction project – during the design phase – in order to exploit
their knowledge. The strengths of constructors’ knowledge lie in materials, other resources and water efficiency,
which suggests that constructors know where to search for the best materials and how to transport them to their
sites more efficiently, thereby resulting in less pollution and a smaller impact on society. Even though constructors
are not responsible for the design of energy-efficient equipment, they know how to procure and install such
equipment.
The results of this study also show that both clients and designers should involve constructors as early as pos-
sible in a construction project. As clearly highlighted in the analyses, the constructors have know-how such as
(1) where to procure sustainable materials, (2) where to recycle such materials, (3) whether a design is practical
for a given region, (4) the supply chain of the materials delivery process and (5) construction processes that
produce less pollution on site and minimize the impact on local communities.
Government policy and local environmental and social issues also have a significant impact on the sustainabil-
ity knowledge of constructors. In the two countries studied, there are differences of awareness and preparedness
on the part of constructors in regard to sustainable construction, with higher rates of awareness and preparedness
among Koreans than among US constructors in every category except sustainable sites. Such differences could
be explained by differences in environmental regulations and other governmental policies between the two
countries.
A wide variety of strategies and programs for sustainable construction already exists in the construction indus-
try, but they will not see widespread use unless there is a sufficiently high level of know-how among constructors.
An increase in the level of awareness of sustainable construction practices can have a positive influence on the
nature and extent of sustainability achieved in the construction industry. The contributions of constructors to
sustainable construction in the construction phase can be expanded by improving awareness of sustainability
concepts through education and public information, providing constructors with appropriate training in green
building practices, formulating environmental policies and certification systems etc. A follow-on study of ways in
which practices in the construction industry in the US and Korea influence the awareness and preparedness of
constructors is planned.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the research fund from Korea Sanhak Foundation in 2007.

References
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. Pollution Prevention for the Residential Construction Industry. Pollution Prevention Unit:
Phoenix, AZ.
Bunz KR, Henze GP, Tiller DK. 2006. Survey of sustainable building design practices in North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Archi-
tectural Engineering 12(1): 33–62. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2006)12:1(33)
Chen JJ, Chambers D. 1999. Sustainability and the impact of Chinese policy initiatives upon construction. Construction Management and
Economics 17(5): 679–687. DOI: 10.1080/014461999371286
Chong O, Low SP. 2006. Latent building defects: causes and design strategies to prevent them. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
20(3): 213–221. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:3(213)
Dahl P, Horman M, Pohlman T, Pulaski M. 2005. Evaluating Design–Build–Operate–Maintain Delivery as a Tool for Sustainability. Construction
Research Congress 2005, San Diego, CA. DOI: 10.1061/40754(183)27
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 2006. Sustainable Construction Strategy Report 2006. DTI: London.
Drilling J. 2003. The Role of the Contractor on Green Buildings, technical report. Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence, Pennsylva-
nia State University: Torrance, CA.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Implementing sustainable development in the construction industry 347

Emison GA. 2001. Civil engineers and future environmental policies. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 127(3):
130–138. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2001)127:3(130)
Gambatese JA, Rajendran S. 2005. Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Material Waste Generation of Roadways. Construc-
tion Research Congress 2005, San Diego, CA. DOI: 10.1061/40754(183)21
Hill RC, Bowen PA. 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment. Construction Management and Economics
15(3): 223–239. DOI: 10.1080/014461997372971
International Council for Building (CIB), United Nations Environment Programme – International Environmental Technology Centre (UNEP-
IETC). 2002. Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries: a Discussion Document, Boutek Report Bou/E0204. Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR): Pretoria, South Africa.
Khalfan MMA, Bouchlaghem NM, Anumba CJ, Carrillo PM. 2003. Knowledge Management for Sustainable Construction: the C-SanD Project.
Construction Research Congress 2003, Honolulu, HI. DOI: 10.1061/40671(2003)47
Langston CA, Ding GKC. 2001. Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Lippiatt BC. 1999. Selecting cost-effective green building products: BEES approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 125(6):
448–455. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:6(448)
Manoliadis O, Tsolas I, Nakou A. 2006. Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: a Delphi study. Construction Management
and Economics 24(2): 113–120. DOI: 10.1080/01446190500204804
McGraw-Hill Construction. 2008. Key Trends in the European and U.S. Construction Marketplace, SmartMarket Report. McGraw-Hill Construc-
tion: New York.
Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM). 2009. http://www.mltm.go.kr/ [19 October 2009].
Myers D. 2005. A review of construction companies’ attitudes to sustainability. Construction Management and Economics 23(8): 781–785. DOI:
10.1080/01446190500184360
Plank RJ. 2005. Sustainable Construction – a UK Perspective. 2005 Structures Congress and 2005 Forensic Engineering Symposium, New York.
DOI: 10.1061/40753(171)142
Pulaski MH. 2004. Field Guide for Sustainable Construction. US Department of Defense, Partnership for Achieving Construction Excellence:
Arlington, VA.
Pulaski MH, Horman MJ. 2005. Constructability knowledge management in sustainable design. In Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
Blackwell: London; 234–244.
Riley D, Pexton K, Drilling J. 2003. Procurement of sustainable construction services in the United States: the contractor’s role in green build-
ings. United Nations Program on the Environment (UNEP) Industry and Environment 26(2/3): 66–69.
Riley D, Sanvido V, Horman M, McLaughlin M, Kerr D. 2005. Lean and Green: the Role of Design–Build Mechanical Competencies in the Design
and Construction of Green Buildings, Construction Research Congress 2005. ASCE: San Diego, CA. DOI: 10.1061/40754(183)23
Rohracher H. 2001. Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings: a socio-technical perspective. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management 13(1): 137–150. DOI: 10.1080/09537320120040491
Roodman DM, Lenssen N. 1995. A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction, Paper 124. Worldwatch
Institute: Washington, DC.
Rwelamila PD, Talukhaba AA, Ngowi AB. 2000. Project procurement systems in the attainment of sustainable construction. Sustainable
Development 8(1): 39–50. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1719(200002)8:1<39::AID-SD127>3.0.CO;2-Z
Sev A. 2009. How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development
17(3): 161–173. DOI: 10.1002/sd.373
Shelbourn MA, Bouchlaghem DM, Anumba CJ, Carillo PM, Khalfan MMK, Glass J. 2006. Managing knowledge in the context of sustainable
construction. Information Technology in Construction 11: 57–71.
Shen LY, Lu WS, Hong Y, Wu DH. 2005. A computer-based scoring method for measuring the environmental performance of construction
activities. Automation in Construction 14(3): 297–309. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.017
Solomon NB. 2005. The hopes and fears of design–build. Architectural Record 193: 167–174.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. http://www.hud.gov/ [19 October 2009].
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States, Report EPA530-R-98-010. Office of Solid Waste, USEPA: Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construc-
tion and Development Category, Report EPA-821-R-02-009. Office of Water: USEPA, Washington, DC.
US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2002. Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC), Version
2.1. USGBC.
US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2005. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – Rating System, Version 2.2. USGBC.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Wyatt DP. 1994. Recycling and Serviceability: the Twin Approach to Securing Sustainable Construction. First International Conference of CIB TG
16 on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL.
Yue CH, Au VWY. 2003. Role of Government in Sustainable Construction. Second Symposium on Built Environment (Sustainable Construction),
Hong Kong.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 337–347 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/sd