Technical Papers
Nov 12, 2021

Determinants of the Adoption of Green Building Simulation Technologies in Architectural Design Practices in Taiwan

Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 148, Issue 1

Abstract

Critical decisions about whether and how to integrate sustainability measures into the life cycle activities of green buildings are made in the early architectural design phase. To this end, researchers have advocated the use of various green building simulation technologies (GBSTs) to perform sustainability analyses to support integrated architectural design processes, cross-disciplinary communications, and evidence-based decision making. However, the adoption of GBSTs in architectural design practices remains limited. Building on the technology acceptance model, this paper investigates the determinants and mechanisms that influence the adoption of GBSTs in practice. Empirical data collected from architectural designers in Taiwan through qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey show that perceived usefulness is a strong predictor of designers’ intentions to adopt GBSTs. Job relevance, result demonstrability, compatibility, and competitive advantage are also important determinants of GBST adoption. Practical recommendations are offered to encourage greater adoption of GBSTs in architectural design practices. Theoretically, this research extends the technology adoption literature in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry by broadening and deepening the understanding of context-specific determinants of GBST adoption.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Abdelmegid, M. A., V. A. González, M. Poshdar, M. O’Sullivan, C. G. Walker, and F. Ying. 2020. “Barriers to adopting simulation modelling in construction industry.” Autom. Constr. 111 (Mar): 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103046.
AbouRizk, S. 2010. “Role of simulation in construction engineering and management.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (10): 1140–1153. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000220.
Abowitz, D. A., and T. M. Toole. 2010. “Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (1): 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026.
Adriaanse, A., H. Voordijk, and G. Dewulf. 2010. “Adoption and use of interorganizational ICT in a construction project.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (9): 1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000201.
Ahmed, A. L., and M. Kassem. 2018. “A unified BIM adoption taxonomy: Conceptual development, empirical validation and application.” Autom. Constr. 96 (Dec): 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08.017.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. “On the evaluation of structural equation models.” J. Acad. Market. Sci. 16 (1): 74–94.
Chau, P. Y. K., and P. J. H. Hu. 2001. “Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach.” Decis. Sci. 32 (4): 699−719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x.
Choi, B., S. Hwang, and S. Lee. 2017. “What drives construction workers’ acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health.” Autom. Constr. 84 (Dec): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.005.
Chung, B., M. J. Skibniewski, and Y. H. Kwak. 2009. “Developing ERP systems success model for the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (3): 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2009)135:3(207.
Clarke, J. A., and J. L. M. Hensen. 2015. “Integrated building performance simulation: Progress, prospects and requirements.” Build. Environ. 91 (Sep): 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.002.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Davis, F. D. 1985. “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management.
Davis, F. D., and V. Venkatesh. 1996. “A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments.” Int. J. Hum.-Comp. Studies 45 (1): 19–45.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. “Green building basis information.” Accessed May 17, 2021. https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/html/about.html.
Fornell, C., and J. Cha. 1994. “Partial least squares.” Adv. Methods Marketing Res. 407 (Jan): 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.” J. Marketing Res. 18 (1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
Gaetani, I., P. J. Hoes, and J. L. M. Hensen. 2016. “Occupant behavior in building energy simulation: Towards a fit-for-purpose modeling strategy.” Energy Build. 121 (Jun): 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.038.
Gefen, D., E. E. Rigdon, and D. Straub. 2011. “Editor’s comments: An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research.” MIS Q. 35 (2): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044042.
Gokuc, Y. T., and D. Arditi. 2017. “Adoption of BIM in architectural design firms.” Arch. Sci. Rev. 60 (6): 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2017.1383228.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. New York: Pearson.
Hair, J. F., J. G. T. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2017. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hong, S. W., D. Schaumann, and Y. E. Kalay. 2016. “Human behavior simulation in architectural design projects: An observational study in an academic course.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 60 (Nov): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.07.005.
Hong, T., J. Langevin, and K. Sun. 2018. “Building simulation: Ten challenges.” Build. Simul. 11 (5): 871–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0444-x.
Lee, S., and J. Yu. 2016. “Comparative study of BIM acceptance between Korea and the United States.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 142 (3): 05015016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001076.
Lee, S., J. Yu, and D. Jeong. 2015. “BIM acceptance model in construction organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (3): 04014048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000252.
Legris, P., J. Ingham, and P. Collerette. 2003. “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model.” Inf. Manage. 40 (3): 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4.
Liu, D., W. Lu, and Y. Niu. 2018. “Extended technology-acceptance model to make smart construction systems successful.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 144 (6): 04018035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001487.
Lowry, G. 2002. “Modelling user acceptance of building management systems.” Autom. Constr. 11 (6): 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(02)00010-9.
Lu, Y., Z. Wu, R. Chang, and Y. Li. 2017. “Building information modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review and future directions.” Autom. Constr. 83 (Nov): 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.024.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Moore, G. C., and I. Benbasat. 1991. “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation.” Inform. Syst. Res. 2 (3): 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Nguyen, H. D., L. D. Nguyen, Y. Y. Chih, and L. Le-Hoai. 2017. “Influence of participants’ characteristics on sustainable building practices in emerging economies: Empirical case study.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (8): 05017014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001321.
Nugroho, M. A., A. Z. Susilo, M. A. Fajar, and D. Rahmawati. 2017. “Exploratory study of SMEs technology adoption readiness factors.” Procedia Comput. Sci. 124 (Jan): 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.162.
Østergård, T., R. L. Jensen, and S. E. Maagaard. 2016. “Building simulations supporting decision making in early design—A review.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 61 (Aug): 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.045.
Park, E., S. J. Kwon, and J. Han. 2019. “Antecedents of the adoption of building information modeling technology in Korea.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 26 (8): 1735–1749. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-04-2018-0174.
Park, Y., H. Son, and C. Kim. 2012. “Investigating the determinants of construction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model.” Autom. Constr. 22 (Mar): 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.016.
Pilechiha, P., M. Mahdavinejad, F. P. Rahimian, P. Carnemolla, and S. Seyedzadeh. 2020. “Multi-objective optimisation framework for designing office windows: Quality of view, daylight and energy efficiency.” Appl. Energy 261 (Mar): 114356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114356.
Premkumar, G., and M. Roberts. 1999. “Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses.” Omega 27 (4): 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00071-1.
Purup, P. B., and S. Petersen. 2020. “Research framework for development of building performance simulation tools for early design stages.” Autom. Constr. 109 (Jan): 102966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102966.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Shi, X., Z. Tian, W. Chen, B. Si, and X. Jin. 2016. “A review on building energy efficient design optimization from the perspective of architects.” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65 (Nov): 872–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.050.
Son, H., S. Lee, and C. Kim. 2015. “What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations? An empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architects’ behavioral intentions.” Autom. Constr. 49 (Jan): 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.10.012.
Son, H., Y. Park, C. Kim, and J.-S. Chou. 2012. “Toward an understanding of construction professionals’ acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: An extension of the technology acceptance model.” Autom. Constr. 28 (Dec): 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.07.002.
Venkatesh, V., and H. Bala. 2008. “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.” Decis. Sci. 39 (2): 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.” Manage. Sci. 46 (2): 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
World Green Building Council. n.d. “About green building.” Accessed May 17, 2021. https://www.worldgbc.org/what-green-building.
Wu, C. Y., and S. F. Lo. 2018. “What makes a greener building? Lessons from Taiwan.” J. Environ. Prot. 9 (9): 957. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2018.99060.
Xu, H., J. Feng, and S. Li. 2014. “Users-orientated evaluation of building information model in the Chinese construction industry.” Autom. Constr. 39 (Apr): 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.004.
Zhang, J., N. Liu, and W. Sang. 2020. “A parametric approach for performance optimization of residential building design in Beijing.” Build. Simul. 13 (2): 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-019-0571-z.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 148Issue 1January 2022

History

Received: Mar 5, 2021
Accepted: Oct 5, 2021
Published online: Nov 12, 2021
Published in print: Jan 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Apr 12, 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Architecture, National Cheng Kung Univ., 1 University Rd., Tainan City 701, Taiwan. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0422-6950. Email: [email protected]
Associate Professor, Research School of Management, College of Business and Economics, Australian National Univ., 26 Kingsley St., Acton, ACT 2601, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6007-6790. Email: [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Architecture, National Cheng Kung Univ., 1 University Rd., Tainan City 701, Taiwan (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6935-784X. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

  • Evolutionary Game Analysis of Optimal Strategies for Construction Stakeholders in Promoting the Adoption of Green Building Technology Innovation, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-14071, 150, 5, (2024).
  • An investigation on construction companies’ attitudes towards importance and adoption of circular economy strategies, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10.1016/j.asej.2023.102219, (102219), (2023).
  • Integrated Design and Assessment for Indoor Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning in Hot Summer and Cold Winter Area: A Case Study in China, Buildings, 10.3390/buildings12111844, 12, 11, (1844), (2022).
  • The Influence of Social Isolation, Technostress, and Personality on the Acceptance of Online Meeting Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 10.1080/10447318.2022.2097779, (1-18), (2022).

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share