대한건축학회논문집 (Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea)

  • 제39권8호
  • /
  • Pages.255-266
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2733-6239(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-6247(eISSN)
대한건축학회 (Architectural Institute of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

교육시설 사례를 통한 모듈러 건설의 사회적 수용성 조사

Social Acceptability of Modular Construction through the Case Study of Education Facilities

  • Seo, Wonkyoung (Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Inho (Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kang, Youngcheol (Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2023.04.21
  • 심사 : 2023.07.14
  • 발행 : 2023.08.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of this study is to investigate the social acceptability of modular construction for the education facilities. Modular construction has recently garnered significant attention as a promising solution to enhance productivity in the costruction industry. While many studies have explored various aspects of decision-making processes related to the adoption of modular construction, the majority of them have centered around the perspectives of project owners and general contractors. Recently, Ministry of Education enforces green smart school policy. Based on the policy, there are plans to construct or renovate many schools using model construction methods. Unfortunately, some of these plans were rejected due to strong opposition from users. This study examines the social acceptability of modular construction for education facilities, focusing on four key factors: rational factors, emotional factors, communication, and trust. A survey was conducted among potential users of these facilities, specifically parents, generating a dataset of 75 responses. The findings indicate that rational factors, emotional factors, and trust exhibit strong correlations with social acceptability, with variations observed between the group that has engaged in discussions regarding the installation of modular classrooms for their children and the group that has not. The results of this study can identify the factors that hinder the widespread adoption of modular construction and contribute to the expansion of its implementation.

키워드

과제정보

이 연구는 2021년 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임. 과제번호: NRF-2021R1F1A1050519

참고문헌

  1. Afifi, M., Al-Hussein, M., Abourizk, S., Fotouh, A., & Bouferguene, A. (2016). Discrete and continuous simulation approach to optimize the productivity of modular construction element. In ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (Vol. 33, p. 1). IAARC Publications. 
  2. Azhar, S., Lukkad, M. Y., & Ahmad, I. (2013). An investigation of critical factors and constraints for selecting modular construction over conventional stick-built technique. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9(3), 203-225.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2012.723115
  3. Barbosa, F., Mischke, J., & Parsons, M. (2017). Improving construction productivity. 
  4. Chen, H., & Samarasinghe, D. A. S. (2020, February). The factors constraining the adoption of prefabrication in the New Zealand residential construction sector: Contractors' perspective. In Proceedings New Zealand Built Environment Research Symposium (p. 172). 
  5. Cho, S., & Oh, S. (2002). A Theoretical Approach to Derive Perception Indicators Influencing the Acceptability on Nuclear Energy Facilities & Policies (In Korean). Energy Engineering Journal, 11(4), 332-341. 
  6. Choi, J. O., Chen, X. B., & Kim, T. W. (2019). Opportunities and challenges of modular methods in dense urban environment. International journal of construction management, 19(2), 93-105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382093
  7. Choi, Y. (2016). A study on the factors affecting the social acceptance of the nuclear power (In Korean). Korea University. 
  8. Chung, J. B., & Kim, H. K. (2009). Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(1), 8-16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.005
  9. Chung, W., Mok, J. W., & Kim, B. J. (2018). A Experimental Study of Acceptance on Nuclear Energy: Moderating Effects of Types of Massager, Nuclear Energy Knowledge, and the Proximity of Living aroung a Nuclear Facility (In Korean). Korean Society and Public Administration, 28(4), 111-137.  https://doi.org/10.53865/KSPA.2018.02.28.4.111
  10. Dixit, S., Mandal, S. N., Thanikal, J. V., & Saurabh, K. (2019). Evolution of studies in construction productivity: A systematic literature review (2006-2017). Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 10(3), 555-564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.10.010
  11. Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Sharda, A., Bai, Y., Ngo, T. D., & Mendis, P. (2022). Construction Industry Transformation Through Modular Methods. In Innovation in Construction (pp. 259-276). Springer, Cham. 
  12. Gibb, A. G. (1999). Off-site fabrication: prefabrication, pre-assembly and modularisation. John Wiley & Sons.) 
  13. Hamza, M., Shahid, S., Bin Hainin, M. R., & Nashwan, M. S. (2022). Construction labour productivity: review of factors identified. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(3), 413-425.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1627503
  14. Hasan, A., Baroudi, B., Elmualim, A., & Rameezdeen, R. (2018). Factors affecting construction productivity: a 30 year systematic review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 
  15. Huijts, N. M., Midden, C. J., & Meijnders, A. L. (2007). Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy policy, 35(5), 2780-2789.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.007
  16. Hwang, S., & Nam, Y. (2020). The Analysis of the Mediating and Moderating Effects of Perceived Risks on the Relationship between Knowledge, Feelings and Acceptance Intention towards AI (In Korean). The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 20(8), 350-358. 
  17. Jeong, J.-H., Cho, J.-Y., & Ahn, Y. (2021). Modular Risk Analysis for deriving temporary school management elements using Relocatable Modular building (In Korean). Autumn Annual Conference of Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK), 492. 
  18. Jiang, L., Li, Z., Li, L., & Gao, Y. (2018). Constraints on the promotion of prefabricated construction in China. Sustainability, 10(7), 2516. 
  19. Kamali, M., & Hewage, K. (2016). Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 62, 1171-1183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.031
  20. Kermanshachi, S., & Rouhanizadeh, B. (2020, July). Modular Construction vs. Traditional Construction: Advantages and Limitations: A Comparative Study. In Creative Construction e-Conference 2020 (pp. 11-19). Budapest University of Technology and Economics.) 
  21. Khalfan, M. M., & Maqsood, T. (2014). Current state of off-site manufacturing in Australian and Chinese residential construction. Journal of Construction Engineering, 2014(164863), 1-5.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/164863
  22. Kim, D.-J., Chung, B., & Chang, J. (2013a). A Comparative Analysis of Social and Personal Level Acceptance of Nuclear Energy : Centered on Implications for Building Public Relations Strategies (In Korean). Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies (KJJCS), 57(5), 214-238. 
  23. Kim, D.-S., Kim, K.-R., Cha, H., & Shin, D. (2013b). A Study on the Strategy for Creating Demand of Modular Construction through Case Analysis by Building Type (In Korean). Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 14(5), 164-174.  https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2013.14.5.164
  24. Kim, H.-C., Shin, D., Cha, H. S., & Kim, K. (2015a). Application Effect Analysis of The Modular Construction Method in The Extension Works (In Korean). Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 16(6), 101-111.  https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2015.16.6.101
  25. Kim, J. K., Go, D. Y., Kim, Y. G., & Song, H. Z. (2014). An Empirical Study on Factors that Influence Social Acceptability of Nuclear Energy : Focusing on the Mediation Effectiveness of ROK-US Atomic Energy Agreement (In Korean). Korean review of crisis & emergency management, 10(3), 1-24. 
  26. Kim, J., & Shim, J. (2011). The Effect of Transparency on Policy Acceptance Mediated by Trust in Nuclear Power Plant Operating Company (In Korean). Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 21(3), 149-178. 
  27. Kim, S., Choi, S. O., & Kim, D. (2010). Searching for Determinants for Acceptance of New Science Technology and Policy Implication (In Korean). The Korea Association for Policy Studies, 19(1), 211-244. 
  28. Kim, Y.-G., Kim, J.-K., & Choi, I. (2015b). A Study on Obtaining the Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power for Conflict Resolution (In Korean). Dispute Resolution Studies Review (drsr), 13(2), 41-76.  https://doi.org/10.16958/drsr.2015.13.2.41
  29. Kim, Y., Chang, S., Soh, Y., Kim, D., Ahn, H., & Park, C. (2000). A Plan to Increase Social Acceptance of Nuclear Power (In Korean). Korea Energy Information Culture Agency.
  30. Kim, Y., & Jung, Y. (2005). "Framework Convention on Climate Change and Social Acceptance of Nuclear Power (In Korean)." Nuclear Industry, 25(5), 26-35. 
  31. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919
  32. Lee, H.-J., Huh, S.-Y., Woo, J., & Lee, C.-Y. (2020). A Comparative Study on Acceptance of Public and Local Residents for Renewable Energy Projects - Focused on Solar, Wind, and Biomass. Innovation studies, 15(1), 29-62.  https://doi.org/10.46251/INNOS.2020.02.15.1.29
  33. Lee, J., Chang, H., & Park, Y. Il. (2018). Influencing Factors on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles and Policy Implications (In Korean). Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 21(2), 715-737. 
  34. Lee, J., Kim, Y., & Jung, Y. (2007). Analyzing the Decision Factor of the Social Acceptance in te Various Power Systems (In Korean). The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 16(2), 189-218. 
  35. Lee, S., & Yun, S. (2015). Review of measures to enhance local acceptance of renewable energy projects (In Korean). Environmental Law and Policy (Env.L.P.), 15, 133-166.  https://doi.org/10.18215/envlp.15..201509.133
  36. Mandoki, R., & Orr, J. (2021). The social acceptance of mass produced residential buildings among Hungarian young adults. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1-15. 
  37. Mark Lawson, 2014, Design in Modular Construction, page 1 
  38. Mckinsey & Company, 2019, Modular construction: From project to product, page 8 
  39. Otway, H. (1992). Public wisdom, expert fallibility: Toward a contextual theory of risk. 
  40. Pan, W., & Hon, C. K. (2020, June). Briefing: Modular integrated construction for high-rise buildings. In. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer, 173(2), 64-68. Thomas Telford Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.1680/jmuen.18.00028
  41. Pan, W., Gibb, A. G., & Dainty, A. R. (2007). Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management and Economics, 25(2), 183-194.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058
  42. Park, C. H., & Kim, S. (2015). The Role of Knowledge in Acceptance of Nuclear Power: A Focus on Objective and Subjective Knowledge (In Korean). Korean Journal of Public Administration, 53(3), 117-150. 
  43. Park, S., Ryu, S., & Kim, H. (2021). A Study on the Revitalization of OSC Industry through the Perception Survey Analysis on the Modular School Building Installation - Focusing on the Seoul Green Smart Future School Remodeling Project (In Korean). Autumn Annual Conference of Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK), 583-584. 
  44. Schoenborn, J. (2012). A case study approach to identifying the constraints and barriers to design innovation for modular construction (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech). 
  45. Shin, J., Moon, S., Cho, B. H., Hwang, S., & Choi, B. (2022). Extended technology acceptance model to explain the mechanism of modular construction adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 342, 130963. 
  46. Shin, Y., & Ahn, C. (2009). A Study on the Social Acceptance of Nuclear Facility Siting: Focusing on Moderating Effect of Policy Capacities in Local Government (In Korean). Korean policy sciences review, 13(3), 189-211. 
  47. Sjoberg, L., & Drottz Sjoberg, B. M. (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk analysis, 11(4), 607-618.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00650.x
  48. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of educational research, 70(4), 547-593.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547
  49. Tsz Wai, C., Wai Yi, P., Ibrahim Olanrewaju, O., Abdelmageed, S., Hussein, M., Tariq, S., & Zayed, T. (2021). A critical analysis of benefits and challenges of implementing modular integrated construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-24. 
  50. Vaardini, S., Karthiyayini, S., & Ezhilmathi, P. (2016). Study on cost overruns in construction projects: a review. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11(3), 356-363. 
  51. Velamati, S. (2012). Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction in high rise development in the United States: a developer's perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 
  52. Von Wartburg, W. P., & Liew, J. (1999). Gene technology and social acceptance. University Press of America. 
  53. Wang, J., & Kim, S. (2013). Analyzing the Change in Acceptance and Perception of Nuclear Power after Fukushima Nuclear Accident (In Korean). Korean Public Administration Review, 47(2), 395-424. 
  54. Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., & Burer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy 
  55. Young, B. E., Seidu, R. D., Thayaparan, M., & Appiah-Kubi, J. (2020, April). Modular construction innovation in the UK: The case of residential buildings. In The 10th Annual Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) Conference. IEOM Society. 
  56. Zhao, D. X., He, B. J., Johnson, C., & Mou, B. (2015). Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 1594-1609.al model of housing choice, Urban Studies, 19, 22-23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.072