Search results

The purpose of the study is to mainstream the disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster resilience measures into the GreenSL® building rating system in Sri Lanka to demonstrate a more holistic approach in achieving sustainability with resilience.

First, a comprehensive literature review was carried out on green building practices and rating tools, natural hazards and DRR and global and local frameworks. Next, criteria were developed incorporating the disaster resilience aspects through eight expert committee meetings and included the rating tool in three levels. Finally, 11 green-certified buildings from the Green Building Council of Sri Lanka were reevaluated using the new disaster resilient GREENSL® rating system for built environment as a validation for the new tool and to analyze the new certification levels.

All the green-certified buildings in hazard-prone areas dropped their certification by one level while the buildings in nonhazard-prone areas remained in the certification after being evaluated by the new DRR-incorporated rating system, which recommends the use of new tool for the buildings in hazard-prone areas. But due to the rapid changes in climate and the unpredictable trends of natural hazards, the use of new DRR incorporated GREENSL® rating system for built environment for the certification of buildings is highly endorsed.

This is the first research study based on the GREENSL rating system. And it is the first effort to incorporate DRR aspects to any rating tool in Sri Lanka. The projects that were evaluated for the validation of the new tool are the actual projects which obtained green building certification. Also, it is apparent that this study has gone some way towards enhancing the understanding of blending the sustainability and resilience in rating systems for built environment.

Green office buildings have recently taken on increased significance in institutional property portfolios in Australia and globally. The key issue from an institutional investor perspective is the assessment of whether green office buildings add value. Using an extensive portfolio of green office buildings, the purpose of this paper is to empirically assess the level of energy rating premiums in the property performance of green office buildings in Australia.

Using a portfolio of over 200 green office buildings in Australia benchmarked against a comparable portfolio of non-green office buildings, the level of energy rating premiums in the property performance of green office buildings in Australia is empirically evaluated. Hedonic regression analysis is used to account for differences between specific office buildings and to explicitly identify the “pure” green effect in identifying the level of energy rating premiums in several commercial property performance characteristics (e.g. office value, rent).

The empirical results show the added-value premium of the 5-star National Australian Built Environment Rating Scheme (NABERS) energy rating scheme and the Green Star scheme in the property performance of green office buildings in Australia, including office values and rents. Energy rating premiums for green office buildings are evident at the top energy ratings and energy rating discounts at the lower energy ratings. The added-value “top-end” premium of the 5-star vs 4-star NABERS energy rating category is clearly identified for the various property performance parameters, including office values and rents.

This paper empirically determines the presence of energy rating premiums at the top energy ratings in the performance of green office buildings, as well as energy rating discounts at the lower energy ratings. This clearly highlights the added value dimension of energy efficiency in green office buildings and the need for the major office property investors to prioritise the highest energy rating to facilitate additional property performance premiums. This will also see green office buildings become the norm as the market benchmark rather than non-green office buildings.

This paper highlights energy performance premiums for green office buildings. This fits into the context of sustainability in the property industry and the broader aspects of corporate social responsibility in the property industry.

This paper is the first published property research analysis on the detailed determination of energy rating premiums across the energy rating spectrum for green office buildings in Australia. Given the increased focus on energy efficiency and green office buildings, this research enables empirically validated and practical property investment decisions by office property investors regarding the importance of energy efficiency and green office buildings, and the priority to achieve the highest energy rating to maximise property performance premiums in office values and rents.

The global market for sustainable buildings is growing, albeit from a slow start, as awareness of the consequences of climate change begin to influence the corporate decision makers seeking new office accommodation. Research has shown that a circle of blame has prevailed in recent times resulting in few sustainable buildings being developed. The recent growth of the Green Star and NABERS rating schemes is testament to the need to establish market recognisable measures of environmentally sustainable development (ESD) against which developers, occupiers, and owners can benchmark their sustainability credentials. The developer's and owner's dilemma that has emerged from the uncertainty as to what a sustainable building is, has been one of; can I afford the added cost of ESD or, more particularly, can I afford not to build ESD? A more precise question that is being asked is how many green stars do I actually need? This paper aims to examine the growth of the rating systems in Australia and the issues facing developers, owners and valuers in establishing the viability of ESD.

This study examines the growth of the environmentally sustainable building rating systems in Australia and the issues facing developers, owners and valuers in establishing the viability of environmentally sustainable design (ESD). It explores the occupiers'/corporate real estate perspective looking at workplace and triple bottom line performance as well as issues relating to green leases in ESD premises.

Results from this study suggest that building owners and developers are seeking to develop and own buildings with ESD credentials and that there is a growing demand for these buildings from occupiers. The study shows that currently there is a focus on rating buildings at the design stage rather than as constructed, and that there is a need to develop consistent rating tools to enable valuers to evaluate buildings on a like for like basis.

This study analyses data on green building ratings and evaluates the growth of ESD rating systems in the Australian market.

The research investigates valuers' understanding of the value of sustainability in property and its' consideration in valuation practice in Australia. This paper explores valuers' perceptions of the relationships between sustainability and market values, sustainability and valuation variables, and the value influence of industry sustainability certification schemes. Further, this paper tracks prevalence of certified buildings in Australian commercial markets and the evolution of valuers' knowledge of sustainability certifications used in Australia.

This paper reports on the next rendition of a longitudinal study examining valuers’ practice in Australia. This research explores the evolution of Australian valuers' perception and knowledge of sustainability in valuation practice. The survey data has been periodically collected from practising valuers from 2007 to 2021. The survey questions investigate valuers' knowledge development, understanding, reporting and consideration of the relationship between sustainability and market value.

The results have identified the evolution of the influence of normative research on valuers' perceptions of the relationship between sustainability and value; with a clearer understanding emerging over time of where the value relationships are identified in valuation variables. Greater alignment between empirical Australian studies and valuers' perceptions of the influence of sustainability ratings on value, demonstrate the value connection for higher rated buildings under NABERS (energy rating) and Green Star. Whilst only 41% of the study's participants are including sustainability in their valuation reports, they include a higher level of commentary on building descriptions and initiatives, building ratings, and reporting of owner and tenant objectives, than in previous studies. Knowledge development relating to sustainability certification tool, NABERS was identified. This is likely linked to the introduction of mandatory disclosure legislation. This has also led to increased awareness and valuers' knowledge of the differences between the two key rating tools used in Australia.

The research has several limitations: firstly, recruitment of valuers and the number of valuers' responses has varied over time; secondly, due to collection methods respondents have a greater likelihood of having an interest in and knowledge of sustainability creating potential for positive bias; thirdly, respondents may have responded to the survey in different years, but due to anonymity there has been no ability to track this. The results provide insights into the Australian valuation profession but may not be fully representative of the profession overall in Australia.

The broader agenda of net zero, climate change, mitigation and carbon requirements, whether driven by market forces or government legislation, are generating changes in property markets as investors' reconsider their positions and model the implications of carbon emissions on their bottom lines. Introductions of policy and legislation over time in the Australian context have led to changes in valuation practice and increasing consideration of energy efficiency and ratings in the valuation of assets. However, further guidance and research still is required in Australia to assist in the knowledge development of valuers, and their ability to consider the emerging effects of sustainability, net zero and other market driven objectives including legislation, and how these may affect or influence their evaluation of market evidence and thus property values.

The research has tracked valuers' understanding, knowledge, and consideration of sustainability and energy efficiency in valuation practice since 2007. In that time the research has found that, as the market has evolved and more rated buildings are built (or retrofitted), so too has valuers' knowledge and consideration in valuation practices evolved. Valuers are more engaged with industry rating tools such as NABERS. This suggests that the Australian mandatory disclosure policies have contributed to changes in the market, which are then interpreted by valuers and reflected in their perceptions and consideration of energy ratings in valuation practice.

There is an increasing level of recognition of the pressing issues associated with climate change and resource depletion. As a result, it is well recognised that higher education institutions bear responsibilities to promote “sustainable development”. Many universities have adopted green building practices in the construction of their building infrastructure. A variety of Green Building Rating Tools (GBRTs) have been designed to facilitate green building developments. Thus, the aim of this research is to identify mechanisms to improve current GBRTs in terms of waste management (WM) practices by using green star accredited educational buildings in Australia.

A qualitative approach was adopted in this study to achieve the research aim by conducting three case studies of educational buildings in South Australia. Thirty three interviews were carried out in a face-to-face, semi-structured manner and project documentations were reviewed. The participants were asked to provide their expert opinions on the GS initiative and its ability to minimise waste generation, the impact of the GS initiative on solid WM practices and problems associated with the implementation process of the GS initiative. Data was analysed using code-based content analysis using the NVivo software package. Tables and figures were used as the visualization technique to present an expedient understanding in a holistic manner.

Findings showed that the Green Star (GS) initiative drives change in the way current practices are performed in the Australian construction industry. However, this study revealed that WM targets outlined in the GS initiative are not challenging enough. Thus, suggestions are provided in this research to improve the WM aspects of GS initiatives by looking beyond a focus on “sustainability” and “waste minimisation” towards a focus on regenerative environments.

These findings are valuable for practitioners and policymakers seeking to improve WM practices and to address issues associated with climate change and resource depletion.

The concept of green buildings (GBs) in contemporary building design has risen in popularity with the rapid economic development resulting from globalization. The primary objective of this research is to provide an impetus to improve the methods of green technology adaptation, taking the Russian Federation as an example.

Globally, the first green building rating systems were implemented in the 1990s. The Russian Federation had launched its national green building rating systems apart from the international green building rating systems that were implemented in the country.

Based on qualitative analysis, a common approach in the Russian market for certifying green construction was identified. The collected information can be considered evidence of market entry and aid in preparation for possible market shocks.

Furthermore, the study determined seven significant rating measures that were generally applied by various green building rating systems, and the most influential rating measure was “energy,” followed by “site,” “indoor environment,” “land and outdoor environment,” “material,” “water” and “innovation.” Additionally, this study determined the primary research endeavors of the analyses of contemporary green building rating systems and presented the scope for future research.

The damage humans caused to the environment post the industrial revolution fostered developing sustainability-rating systems – a number of evaluation instruments that focus on various factors to evaluate buildings and small-scale urban developments. Nevertheless, no buildings are certified in Bahrain, the environmentally challenged country in the Arabian Gulf. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study assesses 11 sustainability-rating systems: LEED, Green Globes, BREEAM, DGNB, SBTool, WELL, CASBEE, Green Star, HQE, GSAS and the Pearl Rating System (PRS). These were selected because of their international applicability, popularity and importance. The study adopts a system of criteria using a comparative review and cross-comparisons to draw conclusions on the compliance of the selected systems to the Bahraini context and assesses the need and importance of a customised sustainability-rating tool.

The study concluded that LEED is the most comprehensive, international and versatile sustainability-rating system. It is also the most popular. Nevertheless, the PRS is the most relevant to the Bahraini context and is the easiest to access.

This paper provides a deep understanding of sustainability-rating tools and introduces a methodology of comparison that can be used as a reference when choosing between tools.

This paper aims to develop an efficient measurement index evaluation system towards assessing suppliers' green performance practices. Apart from estimating overall performance index, the paper also aims to highlight application of decision‐support tools for selection of appropriate candidate supplier in green supply chain management context.

In order to tackle incompleteness and imprecision arising from assigning appropriateness rating as well as priority weights against subjective performance criteria‐attributes, use of grey numbers was proposed. An efficient grey‐based supplier appraisement platform was established. Application of Grey‐Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and COPRAS‐G method were reported to solve the supplier selection decision‐making problem. The theory of grey numbers was utilized here to facilitate such decision modeling.

Over the last two decades, growing concerns about ecosystem quality have stimulated to a renewed interest in environmentalism. Purchasing professionals should also be concerned and need to rethink purchasing strategies which have traditionally neglected environmental impacts. The “green” purchasing‐packaging in reducing and eliminating waste is a major concern in recent days. In order to help foster environmentally concerned purchasing strategies, this paper presents the findings of supplier evaluation strategy in an enterprise with enhanced degree of awareness and frequent applications of “green” purchasing. Environmental factors are identified that may reshape supplier evaluation decisions. The concept of grey numbers set has been adopted in this work. A case study reflects effectiveness of exploring grey relation theory in the context of green supplier evaluation.

The major contributions of this work have been summarized as follows: development and implementation of an efficient decision‐making tool to support green supplier evaluation; an overall green performance index evaluation platform has been introduced; concept of grey numbers has been efficiently explored to facilitate this decision‐making; the appraisement index system has been extended with the capability to search ill‐performing areas which require future progress; and the proposed appraisement system is capable of reducing the number of green attributes towards computing grey appropriateness index thereby transforming into lesser number of green capabilities, thus, facilitating applying decision‐making tools like grey‐TOPSIS and COPRAS‐grey method for appropriate supplier selection from a set of candidate suppliers.

The purpose of this paper is to address the apparent slow acceptance on the part of developers located in the USA to seek green certifications. If green-certified construction costs more than non-green construction, then is there a financial reason for not seeking a green rating. Do green buildings perform better than non-green buildings financially? The paper develops and presents a discounted present value model for doing a cost-benefit analysis for building green. This model enables an investor to determine the feasibility of constructing a new green-certified building instead of a conventional non-green building. Non-green buildings are not certified by a rating agency such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Energy Star or Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). Real estate permits are granted by local municipalities in the USA. This means that local government mandates requiring green construction that significantly adds to the initial cost of a project could have the unintended result of encouraging new non-green construction just outside their municipal boundaries.

The paper collects publically available research data for office buildings located in the USA, and inputs this information into an income statement. It tests the hypothesis: is green-certified construction a financially feasible choice for an investor? An incremental approach using a 15-year holding period is presented. This time period takes into account equipment wear and tear. Heating/cooling systems and other green-technologically based operating systems have a limited life and do not last for 30 or 40 years. They are likely to need replacement after 15 years have lapsed.

The negative net present value (NPV) results and high payback periods indicate that increased rents for green construction, a tax credit for the present value loss and/or property-tax reduction covering the shortfall is needed as an incentive to commercially build green. The implication of a negative NPV is that green office buildings will be built by government agencies where green is mandated, corporations that want a green image and benefit from this image, where local ordinances mandate green construction features and where local and federal tax incentives are available increasing a construction project's feasibility.

The limitation of any cost-benefit study is that analytical models and/or data used to forecast energy and water consumption savings in green-certified buildings compared to conventional buildings can be inaccurate. Forecasting models can understate or overstate the actual savings realized from green construction especially in the long-term given the difficulty of predicting equipment wear and tear, net rents and energy costs. The modeled percentage cost associated with green new construction features could remain constant or grow through time. Tables I and II results assume energy and water expenses remain a constant percentage over the 15-year period. The agency costs associated with obtaining a LEED or BREEAM certification was not calculated as an upfront cost. Certification by LEED or BREEAM increases the upfront cost associated with building a green building.

The length of the payback period estimates coupled with negative NPV for green certified compared to non-green construction suggests that developers do not have an incentive to build green. Higher WACC rates would result in green-certified projects being less feasible to build.

The LEED certification point system may need to be reviewed. Points are assigned for features that improve occupant satisfaction, but may have little impact on reducing energy usage.

A model is presented for determining whether green-certified construction is financially feasible. The model enables the investor to determine the size of a tax incentive that is needed to enable new green construction to be economically feasible to build. The higher the negative NPV the larger the income or property tax incentive or other financial incentives needed. Prior research studies compared green and non-green buildings, but did not compare the energy savings generated to the additional construction and upfront costs incurred using a discount rate. They assumed the energy savings justified the additional initial cost associated with building a new green certified.