Economic sustainability of green buildings: a comparative analysis of green vs non-green

Abstract

Purpose

In Sri Lanka, a limited number of buildings have been certified for incorporation of green features and the reasons are attributed to green building investors who continue to perceive that green buildings are expensive. Further, the green building investors fail to appreciate the subsequent benefits received by those buildings during the operational phase. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to compare the life cycle cost (LCC) of green certified industrial manufacturing buildings with a similar form of the conventional buildings to establish the economic sustainability of green buildings.

Design/methodology/approach

The study involved a comparative case study analysis of two green buildings and a similar natured conventional building. The data required to perform the LCC analysis were extracted through documentary analysis.

Findings

The comparative analysis shows that the construction cost of a green industrial manufacturing building is 37 per cent higher than that of a similar natured conventional building while operation, maintenance and the end life cost of green buildings result in 28, 22 and 11 per cent savings, respectively. This results in an overall cost saving of 21 per cent in green buildings.

Originality/value

The current study provides an assessment of the total LCC of green industrial manufacturing buildings. In Sri Lanka, green industrial manufacturing buildings offer LCC saving of 21 per cent over its lifetime compared to similar natured conventional buildings. Thus, comparative analyses would enable green investors to make informed decisions before commissioning their investment in green facilities and thereby promote sustainable construction in Sri Lanka.

Citation

Weerasinghe, A.S. and Ramachandra, T. (2018), "Economic sustainability of green buildings: a comparative analysis of green vs non-green", Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 528-543. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-10-2017-0105