See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232415515

Sustainability Criteria for Industrialised Building Systems (IBS) in Malaysia

Article  in  Procedia Engineering · December 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.200

CITATIONS READS

36 666

2 authors, including:

Riduan Yunus
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
39 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Economies of Scale (EOS) in Construction Industry View project

BIM-GBI Assessment framework View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Riduan Yunus on 28 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598

The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction

Sustainability Criteria for Industrialised Building Systems

(IBS) in Malaysia
Riduan Yunus1, 2a, Jay Yang3
1
PhD Candidate, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
3
Professor, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane

Abstract

As the sustainability awareness rises globally, the construction industry is under increasing pressure to
improve efficiency and project delivery. The implementation of Industrialised Building Systems (IBS), for
which utility components are built offsite, has the potential of promoting sustainability deliverables. This
can be achieved by better control of production environment, minimising construction waste, using
efficient building material energy, and stabilising work conditions. As a unique building technology, IBS
has not been effectively implemented in Malaysia. Possible reasons may include limited understanding
among stakeholders on the IBS potential and its relevance to sustainability. This warrants studies on the
sustainability issues of IBS design, construction, operation and maintenance, A framework is being
developed through research to assess performance criteria related to sustainability, which should be
considered during IBS design and application in the most consistent and systematic way. This paper
discusses how these sustainability performance criteria are examined in a continuing research project and
the processes conducive to implementing sustainable IBS in Malaysia. Existing tools, indicators and
guidelines are reviewed, analysed and grouped according to characteristics and application. The research
also hopes to produce guidelines for stakeholders to incorporate sustainability issues and concepts into IBS
applications.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Sustainability, Industrialised Building System (IBS), attribution, decision-making.

a
Corresponding author: Email: r.yunus@student.qut.edu.au

1877–7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.200
 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598 1591

1. Introduction

In Malaysia, the construction output is estimated to be approximately RM 50 billion. This represented

3-5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product per annum (CIDB 2007). Simultaneously, the industry also
provides job opportunities for 800,000 people that represented 8% of total workforce (CIDB 2007).
Hussein and Hamid (2008) state that the construction industry plays a significant role in a progressive
country by working together with other industries, such as materials manufacturing and property services .
Hence, to ensure the continuation of this state of affairs, the developers ought to handle and utilise the
natural resources efficiently as well as to educate the authorities or stakeholders about sustainable
constructions. By doing so, any possible negative impacts on the country and its people could be prevented
and controlled rather easily and effectively.
Sustainability in construction developments must result in the creation and responsible maintenance of a
healthy built environment, based on ecological principles, and by means of an efficient use of resources
(Kibert 2007). Clearly, sustainability in construction offers first-rate response to the present environmental
and socio-economic problems. Besides, it would be an admirable move to emphasise on this way of
constructing the country as the conventional on-site construction methods have long been criticised for
imposing rigorous labour, human health and safety risk, as well as causing significant environmental
destruction (Jaillon and Poon 2008). Hence, sustainability construction would be the most suitable
performance criteria in IBS.
Meanwhile, IBS can be perceived as an alternative option in maintaining sustainability in construction.
It can better control human resources and cost, shorten construction period and increase the quality of
buildings, and enhance occupational health and safety (Blismas et al. 2005; Luo et al. 2008). In addition, the
most advantageous solutions to reduced construction waste are based on IBS (Jaillon et al. 2009; Baldwin et
al. 2009). Hence, by examining these advantages, IBS can easily be considered as one of the most
appropriate ways to serve sustainable building projects.
On the other hand, according to Luo et al. (2008), without a well defined decision making tool, the
potential for IBS cannot be optimised. Chen et al. (2010) observed that problems such as changing orders,
delays in production or construction and over budgets may be encountered due to defective decisions in
implementing IBS. For that reason, the IBS will not be performing as its intended functions. Wrong
decision and consideration on the IBS matter will ultimately alter the performance, outcomes and quality of
the projects.
Accordingly, the authors are conducting research with an attempt to establish the framework of
sustainable performance criteria as well as to highlight the positive effects by putting the IBS into service.
The paper will commence by identifying the correlation between IBS and sustainability, and then continue
to discuss the limitation of the current decision tools and guidelines on sustainability. Finally, the paper will
look at the new research possibilities on IBS sustainability, and it will also analyse and reflect on the current
status of this on-going research project. A list of the attributes based on the sustainable performance criteria
i.e., economic, social, environmental and institutional will be presented. They will provide a better
understanding on the potential performance of the IBS methods, as well as to facilitate the sustainable
development and performance of the constructed surroundings.

2. IBS Implementation and Sustainability

According to Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) (2003), IBS is defined as a

construction technique, which components are manufactured in a controlled environment (on or off site). At
the same time, they are transported, positioned and assembled into a structure without too much extra site
works. Meanwhile, as stated again by (CIDB 2005; Hamid et al. 2008) the five standard characteristics of
1592 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598

IBS are prefabrication, offsite production, mass production, standardised components and design using
modular coordination. These characteristics have the potential to enhance sustainability performance for
the building constructed. However, proper planning and strategies are required in dealing with this to
prevent unnecessary additional cost, unpleasant community disturbance and decrement of environment
performance. As Spangenberg (2002) points out that the effective compliance of sustainable development
should include environmental, economic, social, and institutional criteria.
One of the main environmental benefits of IBS is that construction processes can be transferred from the
site to a much better controlled factory condition (Gorgolewski 2005). As commonly agreed, one of the
natural aspects of conventional on-site work is the intense activities, which cause constant nuisances to
local communities such as disorganized environment, traffic chaos, noise and air pollution (Yee 2001).
Jaillon et al. (2009) put across that the average wastage reduction level through the implementation of IBS
is about 52 %. This is a rather remarkable rate compared to constructions without IBS operation. On the
whole, IBS is accountable for the significant reduction of wastages and this can be the catalyst to the
sustainability in construction as well as the way to reduce the natural resources consumption. Subsequently,
the environment and its inhabitants will be the fortunate beneficiary of this well planned, considered and
managed system.
Meanwhile, Shen et al. (2007) believe that amongst the objectives of a construction project are to ensure
the financial affordability to the stakeholders and clients, employment opportunities, competitiveness, and
maintain the needs of future generations. This can certainly be achieved by incorporating IBS in the project
as IBS does not only benefit the environment, it also promises profitable returns to the stakeholders and
clients. Yee (2001) states that IBS projects can be more profitable than the non-IBS ones as they can reduce
the use of concrete and reinforce the structural components. Simultaneously, IBS can provide a good
collaboration between the participants, who can be anywhere in the world. According to Richard (2006) the
global organisations can have the continuous production using the same methods, knowledge and
experiences, which have the possibility of reducing the involved cost. Although some may think that the
critical investment in the early process is very high, once the break-even point is attained, the benefits from
the industrialisation will significantly increase with the number of units produced (Chen et al. 2010; Tam et
al. 2007). Therefore, it is possible for the developers or stakeholders to decrease their expenditure so that
they have extra money in their bank account as well as the future profits.
The IBS also contributes to the social aspect by improving the quality of human life, skills training and
capacity enhancement of the disadvantaged. Besides, it also seeks fair and equitable distribution of
construction social costs and intergenerational equity (Shen et al. 2007). In agreeing to this Gibberd (2008)
mentions that the IBS has the potential to support local communities by diversifying the economy and
creating more local employment opportunities. This can happen through the production of the building
materials and components in the factory. This process will without doubt, reduce the amount of time on-site
and lead to fewer detrimental impacts and disruption on the locality (Gorgolewski 2005). In the meantime,
IBS has also been identified by the researchers as an approach to lessen the transportation frequency and
on-site labours during the construction stage. Evidently, sustainability in construction and IBS technique
are beneficial to the people, particularly and the country, on the whole. This can happen in countries like
Malaysia where due to the shortage of labours, the construction industry is forced to import huge numbers
of unskilled workers, who could unfortunately cause some problems such as incompetency, delays in
completion of the projects, social problems and wastages (Hamid et al. 2008). As a solution to this, Pasquire
and Connolly (2002) confirm that IBS can bring about the labour reduction and site co-ordination activity.
Hence, on account of the above advantages it is possible to say that IBS is one of the main strategies to
overcome most of the problems in development projects and it can also promote the sustainability in
construction (CIDB 2007).
 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598 1593

3. The Current Sustainability Guidelines and Limitations of IBS Studies

Despite the potential of IBS to promote sustainability, reports show that only 15% of construction
projects utilised IBS in 2003 and only 10% in 2006 (Hamid et al. 2008). This mean the majority of the
construction companies are still unconvinced about adopting IBS. One of the major reasons for this
reluctance is that they find it hard to foresee the benefits of IBS due to insufficient information to support
feasibility for change (Hamid et al. 2008). To contractors, IBS is not always the best option in regards to
on-site construction methods based on various projects characteristics and available resources (CIDB 2007).
Problems such as changing orders, long delays in production, substantial cost overruns and constructability
conflicts may be encountered in the use of IBS due to inappropriate method selections (Chen et al.
2010). Briefly, there are five major problems that should be addressed to incorporate sustainability in IBS
construction. The problems are:
x Poor understanding of IBS - Most decision made in the construction method and IBS were based on
rules of thumb and the experience of the design team (Idrus and Newman 2002). For instance in
Malaysia, the assumption is that higher IBS scores mean more ‘sustainable construction’ (CIDB 2005).
IBS Scoring is a well structured assessment system to measure its percentage used in the construction
instead of the level of sustainability.
x Lack of assessment tools - Most of the available assessment guidelines and tools are only used after the
design of the project is almost completed (Soebarto and Williamson 2001). Hamid et al. (2008) states
that there is a lack of cooperation among key stakeholders especially at the design stage. For example,
IBS manufacturers are currently only involved when the design has been completed. As a result, if they
need to redesign the project, it will have to be done at an additional cost. Consequently, IBS is seen by
the stakeholders as a burden instead of a helping hand.
x Focus on macro level - Many initiatives to date tend to focus on the macro level and decelerate any effort
to promote sustainability at the project level (Ugwu and Haupt 2007). This could mean that the key
stakeholders are struggling to integrate sustainability into IBS implementation due to the vague and lack
of guidelines or tools regarding to their criteria selection (Chen et al. 2010). In the meantime, Yang et al.
(2005) affirm that all levels of perspectives are required while identifying the issues and problems of IBS
and sustainability. Nevertheless, this could be accomplished by understanding the overall philosophy of
sustainability and facilitating the integrated solution.
x Existing tools focus on economics - Blismas et al. (2006) state that most of the assessment tools for IBS
only take material, labour and transportation cost into account when comparing various construction
methods. They often disregard other costs related items and also some issues, which are perceived as
insignificant such as, life cycle, health and safety and effects on energy consumption.
x Different issues and attributes - Sustainable construction has different approaches as well as priorities in
different countries. According to Adler (1998), it is important that the local and regional characteristics
in the physical environment are taken into account when measuring the level of sustainability. A
systematic description of preconditions and restrictions based on local conditions would be amongst
important elements in the building processes to the physical surroundings and community environments.
Polat et al. (2006) express that the issues studied in developed countries are unlikely to be applicable or
even relevant to developing countries. However, it is rather complicated to stop modeling on these
studies as most of the existing ones are carried out based on the developed countries such as the United
States of America, the United Kingdom and some other developed European countries.
Verily, these limitations show the significance and necessity to firmly introduce sustainability principles
into IBS so that it will restore and maintain the harmonization between the environment and construction.
Besides, this effort will also create solutions that affirm human dignity and gratification as well as increase
the economic ability for the developing country.
1594 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598

4. New Research on IBS Sustainability

The intended research aims to formulate sustainability guidelines for IBS implementation from the
perspective of the designer by critically examining the relationship between sustainability and IBS.
The research also hopes to:
x Determine the relationship between the current implementation and sustainable IBS construction.
x Identify the sustainability elements in IBS, which are still not the primary concern to key stakeholders in
making decision before a construction project commencement.
x Develop guidelines to facilitate the designer in enhancing sustainable delivery in IBS construction.
Based on these aims and objectives, the authors are conducting the research using a mixture of
quantitative and qualitative methodologies to collect and analyse the data, which are being collected from
the Malaysian construction industry. A literature review has been conducted to clarify the concept and the
need of research conversant with the latest research project (McMurray et al. 2004). The review ensured
that important variables are not ignored and facilitate the creative integration of the information gathered.
The authors summarised a series of preliminary attributes in persuading the audiences towards adopting the
sustainable IBS and will use this information as the basis of survey to the key stakeholders in Malaysia.
Questionnaires surveys are being administered to identify the crucial sustainable attributes in the IBS
implementation. Results be analysed quantitatively before the initial preliminary decision and support on
the guidelines are developed. Quantitative approaches such as structural equation modelling will be used to
investigate the relationship in terms of descriptive, behavioural and attitudinal data (Rea and Parker 2005).
On the other hand, multiple case studies will be used to test and evaluate the guidelines to ensure the
completion of holistic, valid and reliable results. This method is selected to ensure the results are more
compelling to collaboratively support the data (Proverbs and Gameson 2008).

5. Results to Date

The authors have developed potential sustainability attributes to IBS implementation. The attributes are
adapted from an extensive review of past research, which was reported in 42 papers (Blismas et al. 2006;
Chen et al. 2010; Nelms et al. 2007; Luo et al. 2008; Pasquire et al. 2004; Shen et al. 2007; Song et al. 2005).
In addition, existing IBS decision making tools such as PPMOF (Prefabrication, Preassembly,
Modularization and Offsite Fabrication), IMMPREST (Interactive Method for Measuring PRE-assembly
and Standardisation), PSSM (Prefabrication Strategy Selection Method), CMSM (Construction Method
Selection Model) are used as a benchmark in developing these attributes. The attributes are categorized
according to economic, social, environmental and institutional criteria (Table 1).
From the economic criteria, a total of fifteen attributes were identified. The economic consideration
needs to be expanded including in terms of flexibility, adaptability and local or domestic economic
situation. For example, Pasquire and Connolly (2002) stated that majority of stakeholders, especially the
clients, made the decisions based on cost analysis.
From the social criteria, twelve attributes have been identified relating to IBS sustainability which
includes health and safety, occupant comfort and site attributes. Communal impacts such as local
disturbances, labour availabilities and economic developments have direct impact to those who resides in
the surrounding area. The workforce for the IBS comes from the surrounding locality, and their standard of
living would be directly improved because of these factories.
Nine sustainability attributes have been identified based on the environmental criteria. A major
attribute from the environmental criteria is the reduction of waste and minimization of resource usage
(Jaillon et al. 2009). Factory productions have the potential to incorporate solar energy and reduce
 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598 1595

dependency on fossil fuel. Furthermore, the energy consumption is reduced because IBS simplifies the
production process.
The forth criteria concerns with the role of institution. This important criteria that resulted from
interpersonal processes are the establishment of institutions. In this study, the authors have identified five
attributes including population, public awareness and building capacity that have the potential to improve
sustainability. These attributes represent institutional criteria for IBS implementation.
In addition, with the encouragement and support from the Malaysian government, a consensus among
key stakeholders could be achieved and enhanced sustainable deliverables for IBS implementation in
Malaysia. The support provides a catalyst to the implementation of the sustainable IBS and called as an
‘enabler’.
It should be noted that these criteria, IBS characteristics and enabler are put together to reflect the whole
implementation of IBS. Using these three components, the authors have developed a preliminary model that
improving sustainable deliverables for IBS construction (Figure 1). Then, the significance attributes are
identified from industry and use as a benchmark to develop guidelines for IBS designer.

Table 1: Preliminary Sustainability Attributes for IBS Implementation

Environmental
Area of Application Economic Criteria Social Criteria Institutional Criteria
Criteria
Long term cost Principles and values Site disruption Population
Availability Local community Land use Public awareness
Local economy Market Pollution Disaster awareness
Planning and urban
Profitability Knowledge and skills Performance Public participations
development
First cost Education
Legal bindings and Technology
relationship Participation and control
Constructability Architectural impact Preservation Building capacity
Design Inclusive environment
Design integration
Improved occupant
comfort
Quality Health and safety Energy and gas
Time Site attributes Materials
Schedule Water
Efficiency Waste
Construction and
manufacturing Transportation and
lifting requirements
Production
Adaptability and
flexibility
1596 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598


Figure 1: Preliminary sustainable IBS model.

6. Conclusion

The unique characteristics of IBS will help promote sustainability in construction. Before wider
adoption of this alternative construction method, particularly in Malaysia, there must be a better
understanding on the potential of IBS in enhancing sustainability. An integrated assessment process and
effective collaboration between designers, planning constructors and building authorities on the key
attributes and evaluation of sustainability criteria will work towards sustainable IBS delivery. This paper
reported an on-going research aimed at formulating sustainability guidelines from the perspective of the
designer by critically examining the relationship between sustainability and IBS. It is believed the
developing framework of sustainable IBS will unearth the sustainability elements agreeable among key
stakeholders on the IBS construction. The next phase of research will produce guidelines for sustainable
IBS design and construction to aid the designers making project level decisions, as well as examining
sustainability performance levels.

References

[1] Adler, P. 1998. In search of a better way of building. In Open and Industrialised Building. ed. A. Sarja. New York: E & FN
Spon.
[2] Baldwin, A., C. S. Poon, L. Y. Shen, S. Austin and I. Wong. 2009. Designing out waste in high-rise residential buildings:
Analysis of precasting methods and traditional construction. Renewable Energy 34 (9):2067-2073.
[3] Blismas, N., C. Pasquire and A. Gibb. 2006. Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction. Construction
Management and Economics 24 (2):121 - 130.
[4] Blismas, N. G., M. Pendlebury, A. Gibb and C. Pasquire. 2005. Constraints to the use of off-site production on construction
projects. Architectural Engineering and Design Management (1):153-62.
[5] Chen, Y., G. E. Okudan and D. R. Riley. 2010. Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete
buildings. Automation in Construction 19 (2):235-244.
[6] Construction Industry Development Board. 2005. Manual for IBS Content Scoring System (IBS SCORE). Kuala Lumpur:
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia.
 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598 1597

[7] Construction Industry Development Board. 2007. Construction Industry Master Plan 2006-2015 Kuala Lumpur: Construction
Industry Development Board.
[8] Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia. 2003. Industrialised Building Systems (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010. Kuala
Lumpur: CIDB Malaysia.
[9] Gibberd, J. ed. 2008. Sustainable building assessment tool: integrating sustainability into current design and building processes.
World Sustainable Building Conference, 21-25 September Melbourne, Australia.
[10] Gorgolewski, M. T. 2005. The potential for prefabrication in UK housing to improve sustainability. In Smart & Sustainable
Built Environment. eds. J. Yang, P.S.Brandon and A.C.Sidwell, 121-128: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[11] Hamid, Z. A., K. A. M. Kamar, M. Z. M. Zain, M. K. Ghani and A. H. A. Rahim. 2008. Industrialised Building System (IBS) in
Malaysia: The Current State and R&D Initiatives Malaysian Construction Research Journal (MCRJ) 1 (2):1-11.
[12] Hussein, J. and Z. A. Hamid. eds. 2008. Issues and challenges in sustainable construction in the built environment: Malaysian
construction industry initiatives. 1st regional conference on sustainable development: local solutions for global problems,
Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
[13] Idrus, A. B. and J. B. Newman. 2002. Construction related factors influencing the choice of concrete floor systems.
Construction Management and Economics 20 (1):13 - 19.
[14] Jaillon, L. and C. S. Poon. 2008. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong
Kong case study. Construction Management and Economics 26 (9):953 - 966.
[15] Jaillon, L., C. S. Poon and Y. H. Chiang. 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building
construction in Hong Kong. Waste Management 29 (1):309-320.
[16] Kibert, C. J. 2007. The next generation of sustainable construction. Building Research & Information 35 (6):595 - 601.
[17] Luo, Y., R. Riley, M. J. Horman and G. O. Kremer. eds. 2008. Decision Support Methodology for Prefabrication Decisions on
Green Building Projects. Symposium on Sustainability and Value Through Construction Procurement, 29 November – 2
December 2006. University of Salford.
[18] McMurray, A. J., R. W. Pace and D. Scott. 2004. Research: a commonsense approach. Sydney, Australia: Thomson.
[19] Nelms, C. E., A. D. Russell and B. J. Lence. 2007. Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies: a framework and its
application. Building Research & Information 35 (3):237 - 251.
[20] Pasquire, C., A. Gibb and N. Blismas. 2004. Off-site Production: Evaluating the drivers and constraints. In International Group
for Lean Construction, Denmark.
[21] Pasquire, C. L. and G. E. Connolly. eds. 2002. Leaner construction through off-site manufacturing. Proceedings 11th Annual
Conference, International Group for Lean Construction, Gramado, Brazil,.
[22] Polat, G., D. Arditi, G. Ballard and U. Mungen. 2006. Economics of on-site vs. off-site fabrication of rebar. Construction
Management and Economics 24 (11):1185-1198.
[23] Proverbs, D. and R. Gameson. 2008. Case study research. In Advanced research methods in the built environment. eds. A.
Knight and L. Ruddock, 99-110. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
[24] Rea, L. M. and R. A. Parker. 2005. Designing and conducting survey research:a comprehensive guide. Third ed. United States
of America: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
[25] Richard, R. B. 2006. Industrialised, flexible and demountable building systems: quality, economy and sustainability In
CRIOCM2006: International Research Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, Beijing,
China, 11: Rotterdam (Netherlands) in-house publishing 2006.
[26] Shen, L. Y., J. L. Hao, V. W. Y. Tam and H. Yao. 2007. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction
projects. Journal of civil engineering and management XIII (4):273-281.
[27] Soebarto, V. I. and T. J. Williamson. 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of building performance: theory and implementation.
Building and Environment 36 (6):681-690.
[28] Song, J., W. R. Fagerlund, C. T. Haas, C. B. Tatum and J. A. Vanegas. 2005. Considering Prework on Industrial Projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (6):723-733.
[29] Spangenberg, J., H. . 2002. Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of the institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of
indicators for monitoring their effectively. Sustainable Development 10 (2):103-115.
1598 Riduan Yunus and Jay Yang / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 1590–1598

[30] Tam, V. W. Y., C. M. Tam, S. X. Zeng and W. C. Y. Ng. 2007. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Building
and Environment 42 (10):3642-3654.
[31] Ugwu, O. O. and T. C. Haupt. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability--a
South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment 42 (2):665-680.
[32] Yang, J., P. S. Brandon and A. C. Sidwell. 2005. Introduction - bridging the gaps in smart and sustainable built environments. In
Smart & Sustainable Built Environment. eds. J. Yang, P. S. Brandon and A. C. Sidwell, ix-xviii: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[33] Yee, A. A. 2001. Social and environmental benefits of precast concrete technology. PCI Journal 5-6:14-20.

View publication stats