EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE STOREY OFFICE
BUILDING ON OCCUPANTS’ SAFETY
CHAPTER ONE
Background of the Study
Sustainable building refers to a structure and using process that is environmentally re-
sponsible and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle: from siting to design, con-
struction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition. The concept of sustainable build-
ing is simple; build structures to be more efficient (Ji and Plainiotis, 2006). According to Yudel-
son (2008), a sustainable building is a high-performance property that considers and reduces its
impact on the environment and human health, designed to use less energy and water and to re-
duce the life-cycle environmental impacts of the materials used, and achieved through better sit-
ing, design, material selection, construction, operation, maintenance, removal, and possible re-
use.
There are many examples of inefficient building in many towns across the towns in the
world. A US department of Energy report records that most conventional buildings consume a
lot of land as well as excessive amounts of energy, water, and other resources. In the United
States in 2005, buildings share of the total energy used was 40.2 percent (U.S. Department of En-
ergy, 2011, March). Buildings are inefficient and waste valuable resources because of poor insu-
lation, leaky windows, inefficient lighting, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems
(HVAC), and poor construction techniques.
Buchanan (2011), notes that an office building’s HVAC system is a main consumer of en-
ergy; because the design of the system is to produce a cooling-dominated place. Therefore, most
office buildings have fixed and permanent window systems. Fixed windows are convenient
when designing a building’s mechanical system, but result in its occupants relying on energy-
consuming equipment for ventilation and temperature control. The continuous running of a
HVAC system results in additional maintenance costs and a shorter shelf life for the equipment.
In addition to the replacement costs, the replaced equipment ends up in the landfill.
Building and construction is linked to all other major sectors including mining, manufac-
turing, agriculture and transport. The current main environmental issue of global warming holds
particular importance to the building and construction sector. Most of the inefficient buildings
are likely to contribute to environmental pollution. This will in return lead to climatic changes
that are adverse to human and other animals as well as plants community. According to the
IPCC (2007), there is a 90 percent chance that the Earth is getting warmer, a 90 percent chance
that humans have caused it, and it is a virtual certainty that the warming will continue into the
next century. Despite these grim conclusions, the IPCC report says there is still time to slow
global warming and lessen many of its most severe consequences if we act quickly.
Most of the natural resources that exist are likely to be depleted if the conditions are not
put to control. Inefficient buildings are also an ingredient of depletion of the natural resources.
As Buchanan (2011), records, the sprawling suburbs are a major environmental concern because
site selection is done in unsustainable manner. Even a deserted piece of land can have a delicate
ecosystem with plants, animals, and organisms living together. A subdivision’s construction
activities, infrastructure, and buildings can permanently destroy an ecosystem. Therefore, many
people are against any type of development in certain areas and believe some land should remain
vacant into eternity.
Conventional building is a private good that is bought and sold and is excludable. However, its
inefficiencies and location result in negative externalities that significantly affect public goods
(i.e. clean air). To that extent, this situation makes a conventional building a public good, which
is non-excludable and non-rival in consumption, because the public breathes the dirty air regard-
less if they use the conventional building (Buchanan, 2011).
Another aspect of safer building is the presence of fire protection equipment in buildings.
Hall (2010) analyzed statistics from fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and found
that fire sprinklers save lives and are effective and reliable. For example, the statistics indicate
that the death rate per fire in homes fully equipped with sprinklers is lower by 83 percent. In ad-
dition, in reported structure fires large enough to activate them, sprinklers operated and were ef-
fective in 87 percent of fires in such properties (Hall, 2010). With these results, many authorities
estimate the cost per life saved from installing fire sprinklers. Some states posit that beneficial to
require homebuilders to install fire sprinklers in all new residential construction (2010 California
Residential Code, R313.2). This code is not likely to be in the Kenya context as many deaths
through inferno break out have been recorded in the recent past. This is evidence on the ineffi-
ciency in implementation of the building code in the towns in Kenya.
Another concern on construction industry is the social issues. The social issues of affordability,
liveability and livelihood are impacted by building and construction. These are affected in terms
of urban form and transport, social cohesion and liveable communities, quality of housing or
building product and also lifestyle (Armstrong, 2002; Engelman, Halweil et al, 2002; DHW,
2002c).
Economically, building and construction sector has a profound influence on all other sec-
tors and is often used by governments as a measure of economic growth (HIA, 2002). Economic
benefits achieved by the sector through the implementation of sustainability that will be felt by
the provision of a more superior product, will be realised directly through reduced consumption
and waste, specifically in terms of energy-efficiency measures, as well as efficiency in water use
and disposal. Other savings can be realised though the construction of more adaptable, durable,
and long-life buildings (CSIRO, 2002).
The governments in different countries have had to come up with building code which is
aimed at ensuring efficient buildings that are ‘green’ or sustainable. The building codes help fa-
cilitate safer buildings by requiring minimum standards for buildings, including foundation, roof-
ing, plumbing, electrical, and other specifications for safety and sanitation (Friedman, Harris, &
Linderman, 2004). Safety and sanitation are important elements of building codes; however,
there are other goals of building codes. According to the Sacramento County Code (2007),
building codes are meant to safeguard. They are meant to ensure no life or limb is lost as well as
ensures health, property and public welfare is secured by regulating and controlling the design,
construction, installation, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and of all buildings
and structures.
Even though these countries are determined to ensure the building codes are effectively
achieved, many barriers to achieving sustainable building are being witnessed. Several barriers
are identified in different literature ranging from lack of interest in or demand for sustainable
building from the owners or developers, lack of training and education in sustainable
construction, failure of service fee structures to account for the recovery of long-term savings,
and the higher costs (both real and perceived) of sustainable building options.
Duda (2009) states that the largest barrier facing the implementation of sustainable
building is perceived financial risk associated with event beyond the control of the owner or
unexpected due to lack of examples and research. Craig (2008) argues in line with Tyler, by
exuding that many developers want to say their buildings are ‘green’, and yet the truth of the
matter is they are motivated in just having profit. Craig further notes that there is need to have
local evidence to show them that green building pay in the long run as opposed to the short term.
Many developers would prefer low cost and lower risk building. Even though costs for
green buildings could be reduced by knowledge gained over time from experience there will al-
ways be a significant cost in the design and specification due to the nature of the treatment re-
quiring specialist input (Duda 2009). Wheeler (2009) notes the failure of developing prolific,
wide spread solar water heating in Australian dwellings to cost, the lack of direct financial in-
centives, including government funding to assist with research and development during the
design phase and lack of knowledge are a core problem in ensuring sustainable building.
One of the important roles of planners and urban designers is avoiding publicity stunt and
trends that become outdated but at the same time ensuring a high level of amenity and built
urban form that is sustainable for the longer term. Nevertheless, Duda (2009) assert that policy
makers often wait until something undesirable or catastrophic happens before they implement
controls and policy to resolve issues. By considering the potential health risks, cumulative im-
pact, potential organic waste removal issues and climatic site specific issues an attempt to avoid
a potential undesirable or catastrophic situation should be deployed. There are a number of prob-
lems that combine to make developing principles for this a significant task.
Williams and Dair (2006) note that by 2003 there was still a perception that progress in
sustainable building was insufficient, hence a ‘Sustainable Building Task Group’ was established
to identify how government and industry could improve the sustainability and quality of build-
ings. This group reported in 2004 on the steps required to accelerate a shift to a more sustainable
built environment and identified the need for a recognized code for sustainable buildings, further
changes to planning and building regulations and better information and skills, as well as fiscal
incentives for owners and occupiers of buildings (Sustainable Buildings Task Group, 2004).
Many of these recommendations are now being actioned by government (UK Government,
2005). A review of sustainable building activity found that a very small proportion of England’s
building stock can claim to be sustainable in any way, whether judged on sustainable construc-
tion, design or performance in use (Williams and Lindsay, 2005).
References
CEPMC (2013) Statement from CEPMC on the Product Environmental Footprint Guide, 26
April 2013.
Mora E. 2007. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials.
Building and Environment. 2007;42:1329–1334
Dakwale V, Ralegaonkar R, Mandavgane S. Improving environmental performance of building
through increased energy efficiency: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2011;1:211– 218
Gil-Martin M , Gonzalez-Lopez M, Grindlay A, Segura-Naya A, Aschheim M, Hernandez-
Montes E. Toward the production of future heritage structures: Considering durability in build-
ing performance and sustainability – A philosophical and historical overview. International Jour-
nal of Sustainable Built Environment. 2012; 1:269–273
Hooton R, Bickley J. Design for durability: The key to improving concrete sustainability. Con-
struction and Building Materials. 2014; 67:422–430
Fujita K, Takewaki I. Sustainable building design under uncertain structural-parameter environ-
ment in seismic-prone countries. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2011;1:142– 151
Lange D, Devaney S, Usmani A. An application of the PEER performance based earthquake en-
gineering framework to structures in fire Engineering Structures. 2014; 66:100–115
Müller H, Haist M, Vogel M. Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and concrete
structures considering their environmental impact, performance and lifetime. Construction and
Building Materials. 2014; 67:321–337
Cabeza L, Rincóna L, Vilariño V, Péreza G, Castella A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life
cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 29:394–416
Porter K. An Overview of PEER’s Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology
Department of Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Hoogmartens R, Passel S, Acker K , Dubois M. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA
as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2014; 48:27–33
76
Pajchrowski G, Noskowiaka A, Lewandowska A, Strykowskia W. Materials composition or en-
ergy characteristic? What is more important in environmental life cycle of buildings? Building
and Environment. 2014; 72:15-27
Azari R. Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office building envelopes
Energy and Buildings. 2014; 82:156–162
Ramesha T, Prakasha R, Shuklab K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. En-
ergy and Buildings. 2010; 42:1592–1600
Stephan A, Crawford R, Myttenaere K. Towards a comprehensive life cycle energy analysis
framework for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings. 2012; 55:592–600
Negro P, Mola E. Performance-Based Engineering Concepts: Past, Present and Future. 2006.
First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
Olmatia P, Petrini F, Gkoumas K. Fragility analysis for the Performance-Based Design of
cladding wall panels subjected to blast load. Engineering Structures. 2014; 78:112–120
Lagaros N, Garavelas A, Papadrakakis M. Innovative seismic design optimization with reliability
constraints. Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Engineering. 2008; 198:28–41
Contini G, Mola E, Negro P. Practical Performance-Based Assessment of an Existing Plan-Wise
Irregular Building. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China Re
