Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
As Weizsäcker et al. (2009) pointed out, the constraints to achieving gains in
resource productivity are not technological but institutional. This finding was
reinforced by the results of a survey of 100 house builders in the UK. Several firms
responded that a lack of previous experience prevented them from a wider take up
of off-site construction methods (Pan et al. 2008: 62). In short, inertia and cultural
issues are underlying barriers to change. As the chairman of Buildoffsite (a UK
organisation that campaigns for prefabrication - see Web Review on page 144 for
details) sarcastically remarked: 'This is the twenty-first century; we've flown to the
moon. Surely people can get their heads around a house that was built in Poland
and shipped to the UK' (cited in Wright 2010). This line of argument suggests that
reforming the processes of construction, or economic development generally, and
introducing a more sustainable approach is as much a challenge to our personal
values as to our political and economic systems.
Capital Costs Versus Running Costs
A significant example of inertia is the way markets tend to favour the short term
in preference to the long term. To some extent this is exemplified by the reluctance
of volume builders to construct energy efficient homes for fear that it might reduce
their profits (see earlier discussion on page 149). This type of short-termism is
particularly common whenever one person pays for the efficiency gains and another
party reaps the benefits. This is easy to see in the commercial sector, in which the
priorities of landlords and tenants are frequently regarded as distinct. An often-
quoted general rule for traditional commercial buildings is that running costs
outstrip capital costs by a ratio of 10:1 over a 25 year period. More specifically, a
study carried out on behalf of the Royal Academy of Engineering (Evans et al. 1998)
estimated that the costs for a typical commercial building over a 20 year period are
in the ratio of 1 (for construction costs): 5 (for maintenance costs): 200 (for staff
costs). Yet the present culture in the construction industry still tends to place far
greater emphasis on the initial capital cost, while demonstrating little regard for
the costs incurred by end users. In terms of efficiency, this attitude creates major
resource cost implications - indeed the figures suggest that we may be more than ten
times better at wasting resources than using them.
This line of analysis creates another opportunity for construction firms to
differentiate their products and service. An integrated approach - which fully takes
into account the end user - makes it far easier to suggest that the construction firm
is adding value to a client's future business. Yet a client seeking to place an order
for a business headquarters that makes use of natural materials, sunlight, energy
efficiency, low noise, green plants and a genuine feel-good factor for their employees
would find its choice of contractors greatly restricted.
PRODUCTIVITY
It is important that office buildings are conducive to work, yet in many cases there
is anecdotal evidence to the contrary. There are even accusations that some office
buildings cause employees to suffer headaches, feelings of lethargy, irritability and
lack of concentration - and, in some cases, can be responsible for high rates of
