IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5731-d277264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Construction Project Management (SCPM) Evaluation—A Case Study of the Guangzhou Metro Line-7, PR China

Author

Listed:
  • Na Dong

    (College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Yanting Fu

    (College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Feng Xiong

    (College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Lujie Li

    (College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
    Avic Chengdu Aircraft Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610091, China)

  • Yibin Ao

    (College of Environment and Civil Engineering, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China)

  • Igor Martek

    (School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia)

Abstract

As a pillar industry of the Chinese national economy, the construction sector needs to improve its level of management to embrace sustainable development. Sustainable construction project management (SCPM) performance evaluation can help to raise the level of management. However, the existing evaluation system that takes into account both the sustainable development and the dimension of traditional project management is meager. In order to address this problem, this study sets out an integrated sustainable performance evaluation method for SCPM, along with a comprehensive analysis of both traditional and future management directions. Through literature review and enterprise data analysis of the relevant factors of finance, schedule, quality, and safety, etc., indicators are filtered and classified. In order to determine the strength of each indicator, a questionnaire is administered to construction professionals within a large construction enterprise (group). From the result of the weight with an improved Group-G1 (iG1) method (finance 0.206, schedule 0.206, quality 0.185, safety 0.134, informatization 0.134, and greenization 0.134), it indicates that finance, schedule and quality management are still top three important dimensions in SCPM. However, amazingly, the greenization and informatization management is as significant as safety management. Finally, based on set pair analysis, the Guangzhou Metro Line 7 project is used as a verifying case, affirming the validity of the sustainable performance evaluation model. The above SCPM evaluation model can not only provide a guideline for construction companies’ sustainable management in China, but also serve as reference cases for other countries/regions to carry out relevant research work.

Suggested Citation

  • Na Dong & Yanting Fu & Feng Xiong & Lujie Li & Yibin Ao & Igor Martek, 2019. "Sustainable Construction Project Management (SCPM) Evaluation—A Case Study of the Guangzhou Metro Line-7, PR China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5731-:d:277264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5731/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5731/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guofeng Ma & Jianyao Jia & Jiyong Ding & Shanshan Shang & Shan Jiang, 2019. "Interpretive Structural Model Based Factor Analysis of BIM Adoption in Chinese Construction Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Yue Liu & Ying Qu & Zhen Lei & Han Jia, 2017. "Understanding the Evolution of Sustainable Consumption Research," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(5), pages 414-430, September.
    3. Azar, Elie & Nikolopoulou, Christina & Papadopoulos, Sokratis, 2016. "Integrating and optimizing metrics of sustainable building performance using human-focused agent-based modeling," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 926-937.
    4. Rose, David C. & Sutherland, William J. & Barnes, Andrew P. & Borthwick, Fiona & Ffoulkes, Charles & Hall, Clare & Moorby, Jon M. & Nicholas-Davies, Phillipa & Twining, Susan & Dicks, Lynn V., 2019. "Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 834-842.
    5. Trotta, Gianluca, 2018. "The determinants of energy efficient retrofit investments in the English residential sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 175-182.
    6. Amato, A. & Becci, A. & Birloaga, I. & De Michelis, I. & Ferella, F. & Innocenzi, V. & Ippolito, N.M. & Pillar Jimenez Gomez, C. & Vegliò, F. & Beolchini, F., 2019. "Sustainability analysis of innovative technologies for the rare earth elements recovery," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 41-53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Luis Fuentes-Bargues & Mª José Bastante-Ceca & Pablo Sebastián Ferrer-Gisbert & Mª Carmen González-Cruz, 2020. "Study of Major-Accident Risk Assessment Techniques in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Mahmoud Owais & Abdou S. Ahmed & Ghada S. Moussa & Ahmed A. Khalil, 2020. "An Optimal Metro Design for Transit Networks in Existing Square Cities Based on Non-Demand Criterion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-28, November.
    3. Ji-Wei Zhu & Li-Nan Zhou & Liang Li & Wajhat Ali, 2020. "Decision Simulation of Construction Project Delivery System under the Sustainable Construction Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Langevin, J. & Reyna, J.L. & Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S. & Sandberg, N. & Fennell, P. & Nägeli, C. & Laverge, J. & Delghust, M. & Mata, É. & Van Hove, M. & Webster, J. & Federico, F. & Jakob, M. & Camaras, 2020. "Developing a common approach for classifying building stock energy models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2021. "Adoption of retrofit measures among homeowners in EU countries: The effects of access to capital and debt aversion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Gianluca Trotta & Kirsten Gram-Hanssen & Pernille Lykke Jørgensen, 2020. "Heterogeneity of Electricity Consumption Patterns in Vulnerable Households," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Wang, Ran & Lu, Shilei & Feng, Wei, 2020. "A three-stage optimization methodology for envelope design of passive house considering energy demand, thermal comfort and cost," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Bonfante, Mariele Canal & Raspini, Jéssica Prats & Fernandes, Ivan Belo & Fernandes, Suélen & Campos, Lucila M.S. & Alarcon, Orestes Estevam, 2021. "Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in rare earth magnets production: A review on state of the art and SWOT analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Shelly Gupta & Sanjay Dhingra, 2022. "Modeling the key factors influencing the adoption of mobile financial services: an interpretive structural modeling approach," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(2), pages 96-110, June.
    8. Carmen Bălan, 2020. "How Does Retail Engage Consumers in Sustainable Consumption? A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, December.
    9. Guangdong Wu & Guofeng Qiang & Jian Zuo & Xianbo Zhao & Ruidong Chang, 2018. "What are the Key Indicators of Mega Sustainable Construction Projects? —A Stakeholder-Network Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Lin, Haiyang & Wang, Qinxing & Wang, Yu & Liu, Yiling & Sun, Qie & Wennersten, Ronald, 2017. "The energy-saving potential of an office under different pricing mechanisms – Application of an agent-based model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 248-258.
    11. Katarina Bäcklund & Marco Molinari & Per Lundqvist & Björn Palm, 2023. "Building Occupants, Their Behavior and the Resulting Impact on Energy Use in Campus Buildings: A Literature Review with Focus on Smart Building Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Matheus Koengkan & Nuno Silva & José Alberto Fuinhas, 2023. "Assessing Energy Performance Certificates for Buildings: A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) of Portuguese Municipalities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, April.
    13. Yanmei Tang & Shuangzhou Chen & Zongjin Yuan, 2020. "The effects of hedonic, gain, and normative motives on sustainable consumption: Multiple mediating evidence from China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 741-750, July.
    14. Yupei Lai & Yutong Li & Xinyi Feng & Tao Ma, 2022. "Green retrofit of existing residential buildings in China: An investigation on residents’ perceptions," Energy & Environment, , vol. 33(2), pages 332-353, March.
    15. de Oliveira, R.P. & Benvenuti, J. & Espinosa, D.C.R., 2021. "A review of the current progress in recycling technologies for gallium and rare earth elements from light-emitting diodes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Ionuț-Alexandru Spânu & Alexandru Ozunu & Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2022. "A Comparative View of Agri-Environmental Indicators and Stakeholders’ Assessment of Their Quality," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Margarida Pimentel & Amílcar Arantes & Carlos Oliveira Cruz, 2022. "Barriers to the Adoption of Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry: A Combined ISM and MICMAC Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Matheus Koengkan & José Alberto Fuinhas, 2022. "Heterogeneous Effect of “Eco-Friendly” Dwellings on Transaction Prices in Real Estate Market in Portugal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    19. Md.Salamun Rashidin & Sara Javed & Bin Liu & Wang Jian, 2020. "Ramifications of Households’ Nonfarm Income on Agricultural Productivity: Evidence From a Rural Area of Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    20. Muhammad Awais & Tanzila Samin & Muhammad Awais Gulzar & Jinsoo Hwang & Muhammad Zubair, 2020. "Unfolding the Association between the Big Five, Frugality, E-Mavenism, and Sustainable Consumption Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5731-:d:277264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.