Sustainable Development: Issues Relating to Building Design - Coursework Example

Building Design Name Course Tutor’s Name Abstract The real estate industry has seen substantial strides made in sustainability integration into property decisions. The question that is strategic is if investors should consider issues of sustainability in their decisions of property. The immediate objective of this research project is to identify and comment on a series of relevant issues relating to sustainable Construction practices that will give the majority of directors of corporate real estate and asset managers having struggles in assessing their properties’ performance, identify improvement opportunities, and have necessary changes made in their organizations to make new sustainability priorities addressed. Introduction With strong progress in place, the real estate industry struggles to articulate and quantify the sustainable property investment value. Most of investment decisions, including those by sophisticated investors, are being made with an eye on simple payback or calculations on simple return on investment (ROI). Most tenants and investors understand that sustainable properties lead to productivity and health benefits, a reduction in risks, recruiting and retention advantages, but struggle to have benefits integrated beyond cost savings into their underwriting and valuations. The failure by investors in property to appropriately incorporate risks and revenue considerations into decisions of sustainable investment has led to sustainability underinvestment. Today, with the increase in government incentives and regulations and rapid growth in investor and tenant interest in sustainability, failure in properly incorporating value considerations past cost savings will result in financial results that are sub-optimal for investors. This will make the society not able to achieve its goals in carbon reduction. Financial assessment of green buildings Properly analyzing a property financially requires considerations that are explicit of the potential benefits that will come through meeting occupant, regulator, and investor sustainability thresholds. Regulators basically have a whole series of the thresholds required in ordinances and building codes in order to have their regulatory requirements met and/or obtain incentives, while occupants’ sustainability definitions might include an environmental rating such as green star company energy efficiency guidelines, or measures that are broader like the Carbon disclosure project or Global Reporting Initiative. Specific definitions or certifications required by users, regulators and investors varies dramatically by property type, country, property size, government level, tenant mix and other factors. Fortunately, while doing an evaluation of sustainable certifications from a financial perspective could be complicated, analyzing user, regulator, and investor requirements at the level of property is a primary expertise practiced for decades by valuation professionals and real estate underwriters. A general agreement has emerged on the sustainable property fundamental attributes. One of the earliest sustainability definitions was formulated in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which had sustainable development defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs”. Another good definition from yourBuilding.org website is: A building with planning, construction, design, operation and practices of management that lead to a reduction on the impact on the environment by development. A commercial building that is sustainable is also viable economically and has the potential to enhance its occupants and community’s social amenity. Community connectivity, mass transit orientation, and related planning and land-use issues are components that are critical to developing sustainable regions and communities, and buildings. Sustainable building certification and research systems have historically not addressed adequately these types of sustainable issues and concerns, focusing more on property technological and/or specific issues. Recent changes in Green star have had more priority put on site related organizations and considerations like the Urban Land Institute, which has been leading in the “Smart Growth” movement for many years, and continues to have issues pushed to the forefront. Development (“First”) Costs. An input that is important to a building project financial performance is its initial costs in construction. These first costs are immediate hence they are not discounted; they can have a significant effect on the financial performance. There is evidence from key case studies and a research analyzing the performance of sustainable properties in regard to development costs is that certified sustainable properties costs 0-2% more, with higher certification levels costing up to 10% more. Many major companies in construction publicly promote that sustainable construction should cost less, which is contrary to the research results. Davis Langdon completed a study on Cost for the Urban Green Council in November 2009, which found that high rises for LEED certified came in averagely at $440 per square foot in comparison to $436 per square foot for projects that are non-LEED. On interior commercials, $191 per square feet was basically $6 dollars lower in the non-LEED projects. This research was based on costs for construction for 25 commercial interiors in New York City and 38 high-rise multi-family buildings. A July 2009 research by Davis Landgdon: “Cost of Affordable Green Housing in Portland and Seattle” specifically looked at the costs for green housing that are affordable and concluded that no statistically significant difference existed in construction cost between the standard populations and the green-rated. The contracting community in many parts of the country has embraced designs that are sustainable, and no longer sees theses requirements as extra burdens to be catered for in their bids. Documentation costs remain a concern for some contractors and project teams, although as they become accustomed to these requirements, the concern is abated to some level. A wide variation exists in cost per square foot for buildings on a normal basis, even after ignoring sustainable design. Comparing the average cost per square foot for different buildings does not provide any profitable for the assessment of any individual project. Whole Building Performance Studies “Innovative Work Places: Benefits and Best Practices,” GSA Office of Government-Wide Policy, January 2006. The US General Services Administration (GSA) has been leading in research and promotion of improved efficiency and design for federal buildings. The GSA’s findings and conclusions are based on several years of extensive research at the workplace and tracking best practices in the industry as a whole. The GSA had the following conclusions: • Reduced absenteeism: absenteeism and sick building symptoms are reduced by a healthier environment on the indoor. A research by a Canadian showed that approximately a third of sick leave by employees can be attributed to symptoms induced by poor indoor air quality. It also found that social support and communication enabled by office plans that are open contribute greatly to healthy workplaces and lowers absenteeism. A study by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) by the Department of Energy (DOE), providing natural light and having indoor air quality improved reduces stress and illness. The CMU study showed fewer health problems were exhibited by occupants closer to windows. In addition to this, three case studies survey by the Rocky Mountain Institute had this proof that improved lighting and systems of HVAC could lead to a reduction in absenteeism from 15 to 25percent. Improved recruitment and retention: The workplace has proved to be factor in hiring and maintaining a workforce that is world-class, resulting in an enhanced rates of recruitment and retention and decreasing expenses in staff replacement. According to a report by Knoll, a HayGroup study established that half the people with plans of leaving their current employer were not satisfied with their workplace, while only a quarter of those remaining were dissatisfied. In a study by the American Society of Interior Designers also established that 51 percent of employees surveyed claimed the physical workplace would have a hand in their decision to quit their job. • Increased productivity and performance: adaptable, flexible work settings allow workers to have their workspace customized to suit their needs, providing comfort. With control over their environment, distraction is less in workers hence more productivity and satisfaction with their jobs. Fewer complaints are also reported to building management. More ergonomic and healthier workplaces can also reduce expenses and improve performance. • Greater flexibility of building services: with an improved flexibility in the workplace design, there is a reduction in the time and expenses needed for daily operations and reconfigurations and maintenance. The GSA Adaptable Workplace Lab established that making use of easily reconfigured furniture can have 90 percent of reconfiguration costs saved, and reduce time for reconfiguration from days to hours. • Efficient operations and maintenance. Workplaces that are innovative help decrease management of facility, technology and operating expenses. Vivian Loftness et al. at Carnegie Mellon has a compilation of case studies that prove that improved lighting Control and efficiency can save up to 40 percent of the total costs of building energy. “Assessing Green Building Performance, A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Twelve GSA Buildings,” Kim M. Fowler and Emily M. Rauch, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, July 2008. The intent of this measurement analysis of whole building performance was to inform GSA on how its buildings that are sustainably designed are performing compared to buildings that are traditionally designed. Building Energy Use Evidence from key studies looking at actual energy-use savings from buildings that are certified by LEED suggests that they use 15% to 40% less “site” energy than those that are non-LEED buildings. Actual savings of energy in Energy Star buildings has also been proved to be in the 30% range. While key studies show that site energy savings averagely range from 15% to 40% s, there is even wider performance variability around the mean particularly for real estate investors, actual performance of energy was not closely associated with modeled performance at the level of property, leading to an increase in uncertainty and risk in savings being forecasted. Several factors are cited to give an explanation to the forecasts variability including the energy intensity of the users and occupancy type. However, as LEED, Greenstar and other environmental definitions are becoming more sensitive to energy, and energy strategies and technologies become more tested, commentary and results from properties certified in this century’s first five years will not define what is likely or possible with renewal strategies and energy efficiency. The solution is to be a consumer of scientific research that is informed. Rating tools Rating tools have been used throughout the last decade to take care of a number of sustainability issues that occur within the building environment. Reduction of emission of gases from greenhouse buildings and energy efficiency has been the target of these rating tools. The year 1993 saw the Australian government makes commitments to environmental improvement and efficiency in energy which led to the formation of the national Housing Energy Rating Scheme (HERS). The scheme’s main aim was to promote rating of the thermal efficiency of construction and dwelling design and to help the building industry to figure out the potential for houses’ energy efficiency. The National HERS software was developed in this process and lead to software tools specific to state energy like BERS, FirstRate and AccuRate which was recently upgraded from NatHERS. These tools focused on residential dwellings’ thermal performance which relied on a programmed engine (CHENATH developed by CSIRO) with an interface that was user-friendly. But in spite of minor differences in scope, these tools have a limitation when it comes to issues related to energy. However, since the sustainability agenda emerged that emphasized focus on the triple bottom line performance of social issues and environment economic together, many other tools have emerged which allow aspects of these added impacts. Moving beyond benchmark environmental performance, energy efficiency and design tools such as LEED and BREEAM were developed in the USA and UK in addition to the challenges of the International Green Building GBTool. These tools sought to have the vertical and horizontal aspects addressed regarding the built environment to be inclusive of development’s different stages (design, construction, and operation), development’s different parts (interior and exterior) and development’s different types (commercial, retail and industrial). These benchmarks have been adapted in Australia to create rating tools that suit our own societal conditions and environmental in the form of National Australian Building Environmental Rating System (NABERS), the Australian Greenhouse Building Rating (ABGR), Green Star, the Environment Performance Guide for Buildings (EPGB) and Building Sustainability Index (BASIX). Specialist consultancies have come up with their own versions that are commercialized such as The Heilbronn Group’s EcoIndex and Arup’s SPeAR®. Efforts to have sustainability issues integrated into the assessment development process have also started with South-East Queensland’s Sustainable Housing Code and Melbourne Docklands ESD Guide. The fields of life cycle assessment (ENVEST, LISA, LCADesign , ECOTECT), zero energy developments (BEDZED) and green building materials (EcoSpecifier) have also had own versions of rating tools contributed or similar to have sustainability incorporated into the built environment. Sustainability Rating Tools by Government Australia’s majority of rating tools are voluntary and have been designed, create and funded by privately owned associations or organizations. In the past, use of rating tools was not mandatory in the regulatory planning process except for those that address efficiency in energy. In addition to this, minimal guidance has been offered during the process of development assessment in relation to sustainability performance evaluation methods on developments provided by state or local governments. In the recent years the use of government built tools that take care of many issues have been used in development assessment process. These include The Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) by the infrastructure Department , Planning and Natural Resources based in NSW; and The Melbourne Docklands ESD Guide developed by VicUrban and the Dockland’s Authority (DA). BASIX aims to assess the residential developments’ potential sustainability performance during the process of development assessment using a set of indicators of sustainability (initially energy and water with later versions that address stormwater, landscape and thermal comfort). Though funded and created by State, this tool is being used within NSW and throughout local governments as a component that is mandatory of the process of development assessment under the1979 Act of Environmental Planning and Assessment. The BASIX tool is web-based to be used by building applicants for every proposal of residential development to have a certificate produced with their DA. It gives the development a score for energy and water performance in comparison to the average of housing stock existing in NSW. BASIX also creates a simplified process for assessing homes’ sustainability performance, using a DA to document this performance and certifying and auditing local councils’ performance. The ESD Guide gives a method for applicants of building in Docklands to assess report and review on the buildings sustainability performance as part of the process of development assessment. Developers are mandated to report on indicators in line with the ESD Guide throughout the process development assessment which fits in the Melbourne scheme of Planning facilitated by the department of infrastructure in the state government getting an input from Melbourne City Council at the local government level. These examples give evidence of the pacing towards rating tools that are government-built specific to the process of development assessment. These tools are successfully enforcing the assessment of issues of sustainability via legislation in new developments opposed to voluntary methods promoted by rating tools that are privately owned. By using rating systems, these agencies of government are able to make sustainability simple within the process of development assessment and measure overall performance of issues of sustainability like resource use in a particular area by giving specific targets and benchmarks. It also puts the onus of having design elements incorporated on all developers, not just for the selected few. Most of these tools need extensive collection of data on the development impacts. They are usually concerned with the development’s detailed design phase. Those requiring minimal data collection deal with a specific sustainability aspect like energy or greenhouse gas emissions. None of the tools evaluated gave the user flexibility to alter weightings on a tool’s particular criteria. For example, hotter climates developments may weight more in the natural ventilation criteria than other criteria. Some of the tools had inbuilt criteria weightings that were automatic and adjust to the tool’s climatic region. Recommendations According to Arup Sustainability one recommendation that comprises three phases is to be considered. The philosophy behind this recommendation is the progressive integration by the city plan of sustainability which gives Council an opportunity to sustainability outcomes leveraged at every phase of the process of planning from local and strategic planning, through to assessment development. Every single phase builds on the previous task and progresses on to an integrated and an approach that is holistic to sustainability assessment. Phase 1 – Immediate System Improvements This phase responds to the immediate need of the Council to improve transparency and consistency in dealing with for sustainable developments applications. It may have the form of a DA’s standardized format to be given to checklists and applicants for the team of Development Assessment Sustainability which takes on existing information. Phase 2 – Tools Adoption This Phase involves the definition by Council of outcomes of sustainability sought for the City and directly responds to the Council’s brief requirements which is to give recommendations on a matrix tool or sustainability tools preferred for developments of different types. This phase involves the amendment of the City Plan to make it mandatory for Green Star to assess developments that are commercial and the Sustainable Housing Code to assess houses and apartments. Phase 3 – Integration This Phase provides Council with tasks that integrate sustainability throughout the process of regulatory planning, ensuring the subjection of all developments sustainability assessment and reporting. It builds on Phase 1 and 2 of the recommendation. Key tasks here include: Review and amendment of Council’s Strategic Plan so that it aligns with Southeast Queensland’s regional planning framework SEQ2021 and also with the outcomes of Council sustainability identified in Phase 2 of the recommendation; Review and align the Area and process of Assessment, City Plan Codes and Local Area Plans with the sustainability outcomes mentioned above; and to develop a system for sustainability assessment and reporting that comprises a processes that assess the amendments sustainability performance to the Strategic Plan, Assessment processes and Area, new Codes ,individual Local Area Plans, and amendments to the currently existing ones and applications for all development assessment phases. The triple bottom line benefits The framework which endeavors to balance the triple bottom line goals has ten synergistic values: 1. Site: Sustainable practices of site begin with a choice of the right location and densities, good master practices of planning, designs that lead to the nurturing eco-systems and minimize the impact of construction. 2. Energy: projects in healthcare inherently require higher consumption of energy increasing the need for design solutions that are efficient and high-performing and consider optimum massing, orientation, form, an integrated systems approach and an efficient building envelope. 3. Water: Implementing strategies that call for water reduce or reuse/recycle in buildings and the landscape around helps save the vital resource. 4. Material: choice of material impacts the environment, human health, activity and reduction of waste. 5. Response to locality: Solutions responding to context, climate, culture and ecology of a region are advancing means of practice of living sustainably. 6. Biophilic Design: Designs that give a connection to the outdoors and nature have proven to enhance healing, facilitate productivity and have the human instinct to be inclined biologically towards nature answered. 7. Social Satisfaction: Conducting post-occupancy and pre-design surveys and verifying the goals of client's sustainability from project start up ensures social satisfaction. Further, collected data helps pave the way for projects in future extending evidence based design as a practice to the realm of sustainability. 8. Healthy Environments: physical activity is encouraged by a design that allows a quality elevated indoor environmental. This fosters productivity, healing and improves the lives of the people who inhabit and interact the building. 9. Financial Success: Designing with a life-cycle on mind, an understanding of verified performance and operational savings combined with financial gains for patient satisfaction and enhanced productivity help to keep economic sustainability at par. 10. Adaptability - Longevity: projects in the healthcare development have long-term commitment on the hospital owners’ part. Flexibility should be incorporated by designers to take care of the future. Academic papers concerning sustainable constructions are available. One such paper is the Construction Innovation which is an international journal that provides high quality information on current developments in the construction industry globally. Special emphasis is given to innovation which involves information, process and management.  Papers in this publication discuss effects of technology on the construction industry, evaluate the impediments and stimulants to innovation, update the industry on the latest management research and innovation in the IT field and forecast knowledge based skills demand among other objectives. The International Journal for Construction Marketing is an academic journal that is fully refereed which is dedicated to publishing high quality papers of research papers in marketing in: construction, consulting and consultancy, subcontracting and contracting, the supply industry and building materials, project management, engineering and the design team. Marketing as a discipline embraces selling and sales; public relations, business development and strategic marketing among others. Organization, Technology & Management in Construction (OTMC) is an international journal which promotes and enhances organizational development, technology and construction management. The journal provides people from both the private and public sectors with: the latest methodologies and models, research results, research trends, case studies of best practice, and future directions. Conclusion Rapid regulator, investor change and space user regarding sustainability needs valuers and underwriters to improve their practices and increase their base of knowledge and to appropriately underwrite and value properties with sustainable certifications and features. Evaluating the sustainability of a property is not easy given the thousands of different assessment and certification systems. Underwriters and valuers can simplify this task by focusing only on those assessments that apply to the regulators, users, and investors of the property under valuation. Sustainable property performance monitoring and measurement must grow to include market performance to allow the whole value of sustainable properties to be quantified easily. References: Scott T. Fee, 2005, Sustainable construction practices: contractors' perceptions of awareness and participation, Indiana: Indiana State University. Charles J. Kibert, 2008, Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ian Cooper, S. R. Curwell, Mark Deakin, Martin Symes, 2008, Sustainable Urban Development: Changing professional practice; Volume 4 of Sustainable Urban Development, Martin Symes; Taylor & Francis Sandy Halliday, 2008, Sustainable construction, Sydney: Butterworth-Heinemann Hendriks, prof. dr. ir. Ch. F. 2001, Sustainable construction, Perth: Uitgeverij Æneas BV Robbie Rajinder Mattu, 2009, Recycled materials in sustainable construction, Toronto: Library and Archives Canada = Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Stephen A. Roosa, 2008, Sustainable development handbook, Melbourne: The Fairmont Press Liv Haselbach, 2008, the engineering guide to LEED-new construction: sustainable construction for engineers Green Source Books, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Chiel Boonstra, Ronald Rovers and Susanne Pauwels, 2000, Sustainable Building 2000, 22-25 October 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands: proceedings; Uitgeverij Æneas BV Scott R. Muldavin, 2010, Value beyond Cost Savings: How to Underwrite Sustainable Properties, London: Green Building FC. Read More