The green future of buildings

by Thor Kerr

A survey of architects and construction professionals in Australia, Southeast Asia and China asks how committed they are to the cause of green buildings, and what they understood by it. Revealing the present state-of-the-mind on the issues, this landmark survey examines how each country fares within itself and in comparison to others in the region.

On the eve of the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, German sociologist Ulrich Beck wrote about a new epoch in which society must reduce the risks of ecological devastation before it actually occurred. By the time his book Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity went to print in 1986 reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine had exploded killing 56 plant workers, poisoning the surrounding environment and contributing to the early deaths of at least 4,000 other people. Within a year of the disaster, Beck’s publisher had completed four print runs to meet demand for a book that asked whether people would become aware of major environmental threats in time to challenge the routines of industrialisation creating them.

A year after Chernobyl, Our Common Future—otherwise known as the Brundtlant Report—was published by the World Commission on Environment and Development highlighting the growing threats of industrialisation including global warming. The report provided a clear vision for a new era of economic growth “based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base”. This vision was based on the core assumption that humanity could “make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The concept of ‘sustainable development’ being the answer to a whole host of industrial threats was enshrined in the Rio Declaration of the 1992 Earth Summit and it became the key idea guiding subsequent international conferences, commissions, conferences and treaties dealing with industrial threats to the environment. Gradually the general public has come to accept that sustainable development is an appropriate response to these threats. This acceptance has been reinforced in recent years by television images of Hurricane Katrina, other climate-related disasters and by Al Gore’s popular film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

One of the greatest contributors to global warming and other forms of environmental destruction is the building industry. Worldwide buildings account for 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 30–40 percent of the world’s energy consumption and 40–50 percent of raw materials used, according to the World Green Building Council. The council’s chairman, Kevin Hydes, and other leaders in the architectural and construction professions have been calling on the building industry to adopt principles and practices of ‘green building’ as a step towards sustainable development. But how keen is the building industry to take this first step towards sustainable development? Who has taken it and what are the implications? If a firm is considering designing or constructing a green building, what factors drive or hamper this decision?

FuturArc’s publisher, the BCI information service, set about investigating these questions in the second half of 2007 through a broad survey of architects and other construction professionals in Australia, Southeast Asia and China.

Twelve hundred building professionals cared enough about the issue of green building to respond to this survey, a response rate of 3.5 percent to 12.6 percent depending on the region. Nearly all respondents said they wanted to be part of an industry that valued the environment. Therefore an analysis of the response rate could say something about varying levels of commitment to green building by region (see Graph 1). This response rate by country indicated that professionals in Indonesia were the most concerned about green building in the survey region and those in Vietnam were least so. These varying national levels of interest in green building were reflected in the attendance numbers at BCI Asia’s FuturArc Forum 2008 conference series earlier this year: 580 participants attended the forum in Jakarta in February, more than twice the attendance of the forum in Ho Chi Minh City.

Something is in the air in Indonesia, and it’s not just pollution. Green building architects are becoming celebrities. At the FuturArc Forum in Jakarta, architect Ridwan Kamil showed off his house made of recycled materials to the delight and applause of other professionals, students and mainstream media. The growth potential for green building is higher in Indonesia than in any other country of the survey region (see Graph 5). Despite its popularity, a sustainable approach to modern building is a new mainstream phenomenon in Indonesia; only 38 percent of survey respondents in Indonesia have any experience with green buildings or their technologies (see Graph 2). However, they are desperate to learn more about green building in order to reduce building operating costs, protect the local environment and improve the health of building occupants. While concerned about the perceived upfront costs, respondents expected that green building would have a major impact on future sales and profits through private-sector demand for green residences and resorts. Ridwan said Indonesia’s cities could be saved through compact development, high-density living, transit-oriented urban plans, promotion of ecology in the city and green buildings. Part of Ridwan’s popularity may lie in his holistic, inclusive approach to sustainability which resonates well in the public imagination.

In Malaysia, respondents have less experience with green building although the concept was seen as being important in light of the threats of rising energy prices, environmental damage and natural resource limits. Growth in demand for green buildings is expected to come from the hospitality and educational sectors, but perceived high upfront costs as well as insufficient awareness and education are major barriers to growth. This lack of awareness and commitment to green building may be resolved quickly as natural resources, particularly oil, become more expensive. Malaysia was a key diplomatic player in ensuring that sustainable development and not some other primary environmental goal was adopted in the Rio Declaration, arguing that new industrial technologies would be invented to guarantee economic growth as natural resources were depleted. The government has lived up to its diplomatic promise by commissioning the design and construction of several low-energy and zero-energy buildings. Malaysia has also produced Dr. Ken Yeang, Southeast Asia’s most famous green building architect.

Almost half of the respondents in Singapore have some experience with green building design or construction. The two main drivers for green buildings are rising energy costs and regulation by government, which has been actively promoting its Green Mark rating system in mainstream media and through educational seminars run by Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority. Besides commissioning a refit zero-energy building, the authority has even greened its slogan as a shaper of a ‘sustainable and friendly built environment’. On a broader level, the government has created a S$50 million fund for research and development to boost development of green building technologies. Despite the government’s efforts, the biggest barrier to green building in Singapore is perceived high upfront costs, which is a major issue across the survey region. Fortunately, the survey indicates that the perception of high upfront costs diminishes as the level of green building experience increases. It is therefore likely that there will be a rapid shift to green building on the back of current government initiatives and growing demand for green educational facilities and corporate offices.

Respondents in Australia recorded the highest level of experience with green building (85 percent) across the survey region and the greatest commitment to it by their employers (see Graph 3). The number of building projects certified by the Green Building Council of Australia has jumped from 26 to 50 in the last year and the number of building projects registered for certification has more than doubled from 200 to 460. Respondents in Australia believe the upfront cost of a green building to be about 12 percent higher than a normal building but that its value is more than 7 percent higher and its operating costs 12.7 percent lower. Rising energy prices are seen as the principal driver for green building, while demand for green is expected for government and corporate office buildings.

In the Philippines, where a green building council was formed last year, the private sector is expected to drive demand for green buildings in the residential, education and hospitality sectors. In a country stricken by typhoons, floods and pollution it is not surprising that deteriorating environmental conditions was cited as a key driver for green building. Rising energy costs was another key driver while ignorance was listed as the principal barrier. The green building council has its work cut out in establishing education systems and certification tools for green building once it overcomes the first hurdle of setting up a formal, functioning secretariat. Strong demand for certified green buildings is indicated by the fact that 56 percent of respondents in the Philippines see significant future sales growth in this sector (see Graph 4).

Thailand’s government is seen as playing a key role in promoting green building, through demand for green educational buildings, and through the building code and other forms of regulation. However, the issue of perceived higher upfront costs is the principal barrier preventing growth of green buildings. Meanwhile, the universities are playing a leading role in researching and promoting learning about green building and its institutions for building professionals are in a strong position to promote sustainable development should they choose to get behind this concept. To the east there is a deep level of experience (see Graph 2) and commitment to green building among the small group of professionals who responded to the survey in Vietnam, where a green building council was formed earlier this year. A key motivator for designing a green building is to increase the building’s value for the client. Seventy percent of respondents asked for a national standard for green buildings as well as more educational materials and access to performance data on existing green buildings.

Growth in demand for green building in Mainland China is expected to be driven by the residential sector, but only if appropriate economic incentives and government regulations are put in place and upfront costs contained. China’s building sector has a massive impact on the environment with more than 1.5 billion square metres of floor area reportedly being completed each year. The construction ministry is setting out to green China’s buildings through recently introduced regulations to promote efficiency in terms of energy consumption, urban land use, construction material use, water use and environmental protection. These government initiatives are important given the lack of instinctive commitment to green building among companies and institutes within China’s building industry.

Respondents in Hong Kong have the most green building experience and commitment to it in any country outside Australia. They expect the government to play a major role in the growth of green buildings through demand for education and office buildings as well as through environmental regulations and building codes. Respondents also looked for fiscal incentives reducing the barrier of upfront costs for green building. Like Singapore, Hong Kong respondents expect the government to play a leading role (see Graph 6) in the shift to green building because it has the skills, organisational ability, resources and, perhaps, vision to make it happen.

Across the survey region, the highest rates of growth in green building are expected in educational and corporate-office sectors, followed by the residential sector (see Graph 8). Growth rates are expected to be significantly higher for government buildings than for private sector buildings, particularly in China (see Graph 7). Reducing the life cycle or operating costs of buildings is seen as the prime business reason for developing a green building. Respondents expect that a green building’s return on investment will be 13 percent higher than that of a standard building because the expected 16 percent higher upfront cost of the green building will be more than offset by a 13 percent reduction in building operating costs as well as a 3 percent higher occupancy rate, a 3 percent higher rental rate and a 14 percent increase in the building’s value. With sufficient time horizon, respondents believe that the building industry can have its greed and green it too.

Table of Contents