Introduction
Green building is currently emerging and changing the construction, the design, the renovation process and operation of existing and new buildings and it is reshaping the whole communities and its cities. The terminology currently attached to this new facility is highly performance green building. As the movement is worldwide, the idea is trending at an alarming rate, as it a topic of discussion, for actors, designers, politicians, manufacturers and academicians. This paper will give a background perspective and the development of green building in the world considering what several writers have written about green building.
Green buildings are facilities depicting a design, operated, built and renovated using ecological principles aimed at achieving a sustainable healthy environmental condition for human beings. There has been a misconception that green buildings are very much expensive and the extra cost that is put in green building is not logical and reasonable. This perception though was once true is currently wrong as apart from its low cost in comparison with conventional building, every movement in the world today is geared towards minimizing its effects to the environment and this is the vital concern of green buildings (Abbaszadeh, 2006 p 47). The financial benefits that are attached to green buildings are far more of importance than the extra cost that is incurred in green building. The operations costs, maintenance costs, the costs of water and waste movements, reduced costs of energy and movements around the building out do the extra cost that is considered unreasonable in green building.
It is important to investigate the behavior of real estates and the general building industry in the economy because of its effect to the achievement of sustainable environment. Reports indicate that a larger percentage of raw materials and energy estimated at 40% is consumed in building and construction. Other than this, building and construction consumes 55% of wood which could have been used in fuel. More significant is the fact that building and its associate construction account for green house gas emissions estimated at 30%. Energy costs are significant to building owners and tenants. In a typical office building, energy represents 30% of the total operating expenses.
However, this is the largest and the most manageable expense in an office space provision. Building operation and design in advanced societies can thus play a vital role saving energy and thus its conservation. The awareness of these important facts can be witnessed by the push by governments and building industry to have building systems being green rated. Green rating is important in assessing the energy utilization in buildings and acts as a yardstick in informing owners and tenants of buildings their energy consumption habits and their energy conservation measures and efficiency in use of energy. The slow diffusion of these rating to the world is a limiting factor to the fast implementation of this knowledge to the world. As far as environmental issues are concerned in building and construction of structures and facilities, institution investors and real estate developers are limited by the fact that, the rationale for building structures aimed at achieving sustainable environmental use are based on anecdotal evidence.
A survey to determine the extra cost that has been put forward as a barrier to continuous advocacy of green building was carried in 2003 as according to an article in the New York Times. Several building and construction representatives were assessed to determine the cost of 33 green buildings and make a comparison with the cost of conventional designs for the same buildings across the United States. A normal perception on the average premium on green building was proved wrong as the average was less than $3-5/square feet or 2%. The major part of these costs is as a result of the increased design time used by engineers and architects to model and to integrate the practice of sustainability of green buildings into the projects (Kats, 2003 p 86). It also proved that the earlier the sustainability process is integrated into a project, the lower its costs.
Energy being the largest operation costs in building; it can be managed through energy conservation related measures that are part of the green building. The US average costs of energy used in buildings was estimated $2/ square feet. At average, the green buildings use 30% of energy in building less than the conventional buildings. In addition to these a 100,000 square feet state office building worth $60,000 is estimated to be reduced every year. This is also accompanied by an estimated 5% real discount rate energy saving for 20 years. A comparison of green buildings energy efficiency gives a 25 – 30% efficiency compared to conventional buildings even during peak energy consumption seasons (Kibert, 2003 p 234). And have a higher capability of generating renewable energy on site.
The reduced energy savings associated with these green building are from the reduced demands of energy during the energy consumption peaks and the reduced electricity purchases. The energy can be generated from photovoltaic (PV) usually 2% of the energy used in such buildings and the buildings are 28% efficient in energy use. The financial benefits associated with these are 30% reduced consumption of energy at a price of $0.08/kWh average at about $0.30/ square feet per year, in addition to NPV of more than $5 per square feet (Leaman, 2007 p 665). This is more than the average additional costs that is associated with constructing green buildings. The costs of health and environmental safety associated on-site use of fuels and non-renewable power generation thus the air pollution costs are not considered when making decisions on construction of green buildings. Therefore, green buildings have far reaching advantages than conventional building.
Productivity and health costs are estimated at up to a hundred billions of dollars per year. This cannot be doubted at any ground because people using green buildings spend a significant part of their time indoors and thus there is a higher concentration of gases indoors than outdoors. Green buildings support a good worker friendly environment as the environmental conditions are uniquely modified to enhance good conditions for human living (Roper, 2006 p 98). However, health issues attributed to green buildings are difficult to measure and thus it has been submerged into the general importance of these buildings without a significant accountability being made for this. The costs poor indoors environment and the quality of air including respiratory ailments and higher absenteeism, asthma and allergies are difficult to account for.
Green building designs are associated with increased temperature control, increased ventilation control, increased lighting control in addition to increased day lighting. Increased productivity of workforce has indicated a positive correlation with increased aspects of internal environmental conditions control attainable under green building. Average measured productivity gains of up to 7% is attributed to lighting control, 1.2% with temperature control, and 1.8% associated ventilation control. These sums up to 0.5 to 34% associate benefits (Melaver, 2005 p 99). There is also a quantifiable fact about the possibility of green building in attracting and maintaining committed workforce. The design of green house buildings is aimed at maintenance of enjoyable environments that will lure and retain active and motivated workforce as stress and other psychological disorders can be reduced thus leading to healthy living of multi-disciplinary teams and hence longer living. This is achieved through a combination of factors that are aimed at reducing tenants’ exposure to pollutants that are diseases causing and have a possibility of increasing health costs.
Various reports have concluded that, green building provide financial benefits that conventional building do not provide. Financial benefits are estimated at $50 to $70 per square foot. This is over ten times more than the additional costs that have been merely attributed with green buildings. The financial benefits are in lower maintenance and operation costs, lower environmental and emissions costs, lower wastes and water costs and lower energy costs. It is therefore, worthy while concluding that green building is the future of building and construction industry as the world is moving towards environmental safety in every aspect of human living.
Bibliography
Abbaszadeh, S., et al. "Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings." (2006).
Cidell, Julie. "Building green: the emerging geography of LEED-certified buildings and professionals." The Professional Geographer 61.2 (2009): 200-215.
Cole, Raymond J. "Editorial: cost and value in building green." Building Research & Information 28.5-6 (2000): 304-309.
Council, US Green Building. "Green building facts." US GreenBuilding Council (2008).
Eichholtz, Piet, Nils Kok, and John M. Quigley. "Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings." The American Economic Review 100.5 (2010): 2492-2509.
Heerwagen, Judith. "Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity." Building Research & Information 28.5-6 (2000): 353-367.
Kats, Greg, et al. "The costs and financial benefits of green buildings." A Report to California’s (2003)
Kibert, Charles J. "Green buildings: an overview of progress." J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 19 (2003): 491.
Leaman, Adrian, and Bill Bordass. "Are users more tolerant of ‘green’buildings?." Building Research & Information 35.6 (2007): 662-673.
Melaver, Martin, and Phyllis Mueller. The Green Building Bottom Line. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008 Wilson, Alex. "Making the case for green building." (2005).
Roper, Kathy O., and Jeffrey L. Beard. "Justifying sustainable buildings–championing green operations." Journal of Corporate Real Estate 8.2 (2006): 91-103.
