CRITICISM ON QUALITATIVE APPROACH ON GREEN BUILDING

CONCEPT IN INDIA

A DISSERTATION REPORT

Submitted by

ABDULLAH.S.MASHOOD

(Register No: 17239006)

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

of

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE
(EXECUTIVE)

supervised by
Dr.V.NAGARAJAN

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

CHENNAI 603 103

NOVEMBER 2019
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this dissertation report titled “Criticism On Qualitative

Approach On Green Building Concept In India” is the bonafide work of
Abdullah.S.Mashood (17239006) who carried out the dissertation work under
my supervision during the academic year 2019.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT GUIDE

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

Name: Name:

Designation: Designation:

Institution Name:

Dissertation Viva - voce conducted on

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation titled ““Criticism On Qualitative

Approach On Green Building Concept In India” is the result of my
original work and prepared by me under the guidance of Dr.V.Nagarajan
and that it has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma,
associateship or fellowship of any other university or institution
previously. Due acknowledgements have been made wherever anything
has been borrowed from other sources.

DATE SIGNATURE OF THE CANDIDATE

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, the Head of the Department Dr.Sheeba
Chandran, Dr.V.Nagarajan the faculty member and supervisor Dr.V.Nagarajan for granting
me permission to take up this dissertation and make it a success. My Guide and Supervisor
Dr.V.Nagarajan , who has been very helpful, supportive, understanding, enlightening and
maneuvering me all the way through my dissertation.
 ABSTRACT

Green building design approach initiated with good sense of leading towards
sustainability. The level of application and practicality is a big question mark.The
research aims to evaluate the level of satisfaction and change it has conveyed to the
environment.The intension of green building practice is highly appreciable, but during
the process of application the purpose diminishes. The ratio of existing buildings with
green concepts are the strong proof of it, which would instigate to formulate methods
and policies for strong implication of green concept.
The primary purpose of building certification is to ensure the health, safety and
welfare of people in and around buildings. The achievement of certification benefits to
environment but which is now looked as marketing strategy and business development.
There are many ways for this to be done and more ways are being developed
rapidly. As these new developments arise, the cost reward for green building becomes
more logical for the consumer.
The building construction industry produces the second largest amount of
demolition waste and greenhouse gases (35-40%). The major consumption of energy in
buildings is during construction and later in lighting or air-conditioning systems. While,
various amenities like lighting, air conditioning, water heating provide comfort to
building occupants, but also consume enormous amount of energy and add to pollution.
Further, occupant activities generate large amount of solid and water waste as well.
There is the need for sustainable maintenance for green buildings. Sustainable
maintenance is a maintenance system that meets the value system of the present users
without compromising the ability of meeting the value system of the future users.
Maintenance contributes to sustainability by holding noxious to the bare minimum
level, reducing energy and resources emission by ensuring the durability and availability
of the building facilities, and providing information to the designers on the features of
already installed components. The maintenance of green buildings does not only impact
operations cost but also affect social and environmental aspects.
This study deals with the faults and failures that occur in green buildings although
there are numerous ways that convince the clients to go about sustainable construction.
There has been environmental effects too which are neglected due to the scale which
these buildings are built. The strategic reports provide an insight of the awareness of
public in building and its concepts.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

1. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Aim & Objectives
1.3. Scope
1.4. Methodology
1.5. Limitations
1.6. Hypothesis

2. CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION

2.1. Introduction to green buildings
2.1.1. Parameters defining green building design
2.1.2. Green building certification systems in India.
2.1.3. Comparison between green building systems around the world.
2.1.4 Green Rating Problems
2.1.5. Challenge in Green Rating.
2.1.6. Green buildings and Low risk buildings
2.1.7. Impacts of Green Building on Users
2.2 Relationships between Green Building Design and Sustainable Behaviors
2.2.1 Energy and Water
2.2.2 Indoor Environmental Quality
2.2.3 Transportation
2.2.4 Waste Treatment
2.3 Visual Persuasion of Green Building and Green Design
2.4 Results of the literature reviews on green building–green occupant studies

3. CHAPTER 3 –GREEN BUILDINGS PIT-FALLS

3.1 Risks in Green buildings.
3.1.1. Technical Risks in Green buildings
3.1.2 Material Risks in Green buildings
3.1.3. Insulation Risks in Green buildings
3.1.4. Ventilation Risks in Green buildings
3.1.5. Moisture Risks in Green buildings
 3.1.6. Building owners, designers, and contractors
3.2.Social problems of green buildings.
3.3. Identifying potential pitfalls

4. CHAPTER 4 –LITERATURE STUDY

4.1. Potential Impact of LEED Credits on Building Enclosure Performance
4.2. Examples of Green Building Enclosure Failures
4.2.1 Overview of study
4.3 Possible Strategies
4.4. Planning for Durability
4.4.1 Design Phase
4.4.2 Construction Phase.
4.4.3 Operation phase.
4.5 Inference from study
4.6 Flawed energy efficiency modeling
4.7 Green Building Operations and Maintenance Issues
4.8 Green Building Operations and Maintenance Issues in Malaysia
4.8.1 The Study Methodology
4.8.2 Inference from Study
4.8.3. Summary of Findings

5. CHAPTER 5 –ANALYSIS
5.1 Significant impacts on the environment.
5.2 Problem Determination
5.3 New Urbanism

6. CHAPTER 6– STRATEGIC SURVEY

6.1 Three “x-ability” of a green building
6.2 Individual consciousness and behaviors.
6.3 Socio-political acceptance.
6.4 Community acceptance
6.5 Market acceptance

7. CHAPTER 7– INFERENCE
7.1 Basic understanding of green building
7.2 Understanding the concept of Green Building
7.3 Energy efficiency
7.4 Practicing green building strategies.

8. CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: India’s green building market estimate.

Figure 2: Relationship between society and technology

Figure 3: Functions of Bureau of Energy Efficiency

Figure 4: The three dimensional configuration of sustainability

Figure 5: Occupant studies

Figure 6: Roof case study

Figure 7: High performance window case study

Figure 8: Floor case study

Figure 9: Summary of findings

Figure 10: Individual consciousness- social & human needs

Figure 11: socio-political acceptance

Figure 12: Community acceptance

Figure 13: Market acceptance

Figure 14: Pie chart indicating the familiarity in concept of green buildings

Figure 15: Pie chart indicating Concept of green buildings

Figure 16: Pie chart indicating the percentage of people living in green buildings
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Criteria and point allocation in green building standards.

Table 2: Examples of LEED rated building in India

Table 3: Comparison between green building systems around the world.

Table 4: Comparison between green building and low risk building

Table 5: A detailed description of the three equations for measuring Ab, SN, and PBC
in the TPB

Table 6: Waste categorization

Table 7: Visual and conceptual-only green design

Table 8 : LEED Credits on Building Enclosure Performance

Table 9: Citizens' basic understanding of green building and purchase intentions.

 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
With growingconcernsaboutclimatechange,
healthyindoorenergyanduseful thing/valuable supply,
greenbuildingsarequicklymovingfrombeinganewly-visible
toapossiblemainstreamoption. Agreenbuildingisonewhichuseslesswater,
optimizes energy, conservesvaluable things from nature,
createslesswasteandprovideshealthierspacesforpeople,
ascomparedtoanordinarybuilding. The Green Building project differs from
conventional building projects by assigning equal priorities to economic, social,
and environmental goals. It has now been universally accepted that it is critical
to the design of environmentally responsible buildings for sustainable
development.
The newspaper article on The Hindu, Business Line stated that India’s
green building market is estimated to double by 2022 at 10 billion sq.ft., driven
by increasing awareness level, environmental benefits and government support.
Considering this, Green housing or eco-friendly homes are an approach towards
the bad effects of construction on and healthier living for people and building
contracting firms agree that to remain competitive they must move/change
toward green buildings, including the use of green building products.

Figure 1:India’s green building market estimate.

 A certification is a confirmation that a product meets defined judging
requirements of a standard. ISO defines certification as any activity concerned
with figuring out directly or indirectly that needed things are satisfied. The
process of getting green building certifications adds responsibility for behavior
and to the product developer or building project team.
When it is applied to individual buildings the net result is good wherein
on a collective platform the result is not to the expanse.

1.2 AIM & OBJECTIVE

The research aims at analysing the extent of green building by-laws and
its implementation in building industry. Examining the methodology and
understanding the public awareness in green building concepts; thereby analysis
the pitfalls in green building construction along with the awareness to pubic.

1.3 SCOPE

 Identifying the loop holes that misguiding the construction industry

in the name of sustainability.
 Comparative study of the level of authentication of various green
building organization.
 Analyse the public awareness with respect to green building
concepts.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

• Study the existing green building trends and rating criteria

• Analysing the pitfalls in green buildings

• Studying the environmental impacts.

• Analyzing the human psychology and the ways to remove their blinds to
provoke and engage their minds.
 •

1.5 LIMITATIONS

• The study is mainly focusing on the awareness of public with respect to

green buildings and concepts

• Although there are numerous positives to green buildings on the whole,

there is not ample benefit if it is done to a small scale.

1.6 HYPOTHESIS

• Relations between society and technology are compared in three ways;

technical deterministic view suggests that technology shapes society;
social deterministic view suggests that society shapes technology; and a
more recent concept of domestication approach seeks a middle ground.

Figure 2: Relationship between society and technology

 CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION

2.1. Introduction to green buildings

While the definition of what constitutes a green building is constantly

evolving, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive offers a useful
working definition. This agency defines this term as: the practice of
(1) Increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use energy,
water, and materials, and
(2) Reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through
better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal—the
complete building life cycle.

Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines green

building as follows:

“The practice of creating structures and using processes that are

environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s
life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance,
renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and complements the
classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and
comfort. Green building is also known as a sustainable or ‘high performance’
building”.

Both of these definitions mention life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is the
investigation and valuation of the environmental, economic, and social
impacts of a product or service. In the context of green buildings, LCA
evaluates building materials over the course of their entire lives and takes into
account a full range of environmental impacts, including a material’s
embodied energy; the solid waste generated in its extraction, use, and
disposal; the air and water pollution associated with it; and its global-
warming potential.
More than 4,300 projects with about 4.7 billion sq ft of built-up area had
registered for green technology as of September 2017.LCA is an important
tool because it can demonstrate whether a product used in a green building is
truly green.

2.1.1. Parameters defining green building design

There are several parameters on which a building is evaluated before

being given a green rating:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy

 Building orientation to take advantage of solar access, shading, and
natural lighting
 Effects of micro-climate on building
 Thermal efficiency of building envelope and fenestration
 Properly sized and efficient heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) system
 Alternative energy sources
 Minimization of electric loads from lighting, appliances, and
equipment
 Utility incentives to offset costs

Direct and indirect environmental impact

 Integrity of site and vegetation during construction
 Use of integrated pest management
 Use of native plants for landscaping
 Minimization of disturbance to the watershed and additional non-point-
source pollution
 Effect of materials choice on resource depletion and air and water
pollution
 Use of indigenous building materials
 Amount of energy used to produce building materials

Resource conservation and recycling

 Use of recyclable products and those with recycled material content
 Reuse of building components, equipment, and furnishings
 Minimization of construction waste and demolition debris through
reuse and recycling
  Easy access to recycling facilities for building occupants
 Minimization of sanitary waste through reuse of grey-water and water-
saving devices
 Use of rainwater for irrigation
 Water conservation in building operations
 Use of alternative wastewater treatment methods

Indoor environmental quality

 Volatile organic compound content of building materials
 Minimization of opportunity for microbial growth
 Adequate fresh air supply
 Chemical content and volatility of maintenance and cleaning materials
 Minimization of business-machine and occupant pollution sources
 Adequate acoustic control
 Access to daylight and public amenities

Community issues
 Access to site by mass transit and pedestrian or bicycle paths
 Attention to culture and history of community
 Climatic characteristics as they affect design of building or building
materials
 Local incentives, policies, regulations that promote green design
 Infrastructure in community to handle demolition-waste recycling
 Regional availability of environmental products and expertise

In a nutshell, Green Buildings use less energy and water, generate fewer
green-house gases, use materials more efficiently, and produce less waste
than the conventional buildings over their entire life cycle.

2.1.2. Green building certification systems in India.

There are three primary Rating systems in India.

1. GRIHA
2. IGBC
3. BEE
Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA)
Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) is India’s own rating
system jointly developed by TERI and the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy, Government of India. It is a green building design evaluation system
where buildings are rated in a three-tier process. The process initiates with the
online submission of documents as per the prescribed criteria followed by on site
visit and evaluation of the building by a team of professionals and experts from
GRIHA Secretariat.
GRIHA rating system consists of 34 criteria categorized in four different
sections. Some of them are
(1) Site selection and site planning,
(2) Conservation and efficient utilization of resources,
(3) Building operation and maintenance, and
(4) Innovation.

The five ‘R’ philosophy of GRIHA states the following:

 Refuse: To blindly adopt international trends, materials, technologies,
products, etc. Especially in areas where local substitutes are available.
 Reduce: The dependence on high energy products, systems, processes, etc.
 Reuse: Materials, products, traditional technologies so as to reduce the
costs incurred in designing buildings.
 Recycle: All possible wastes generated from the building site, during
construction, operation and demolition.
 Reinvent: Engineering systems, designs and practices such that India
creates global examples that the world can follow rather than India
following the international examples.

Commonwealth Games Village, New Delhi, Fortis Hospital, New Delhi, CESE
(Centre for Environmental Sciences & Engineering) Bldg, IIT Kanpur, Suzlon
One Earth, Pune and many other buildings has received GRIHA rating.

Indian Green Building Council (IGBC)

The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is the rating
system developed for certifying Green Buildings. LEED is developed by the
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the organization promoting
sustainability through Green Buildings. It is effective in India from 1st Jan
2007.It is based on professional reference standards like NBC, ASHRAE, and
ECBC etc.
LEED is a framework for assessing building performance against set
criteria and standard points of references. The benchmarks for the LEED Green
Building Rating System were developed in year 2000 and are currently available
for new and existing constructions.

The Important criterions and Point allocation

S.NO CRITERIONS POINTS

Prerequisites 8
1 Sustainable Sites 13
2 Water efficiency 6
3 Energy and atmosphere 17
4 Materials and Resources 13
5 Indoor Environmental quality 15
6 Innovations and Accredited Prof. 5
Points
Total 69
Table 1: Criteria and point allocation in green building standards.

Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) formed the Indian Green Building

Council (IGBC) in year 2001. IGBC is the non- profit research institution
having its offices in CII-Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre, which is itself a
LEED certified Green building. Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) has
licensed the LEED Green Building Standard from the USGBC. IGBC facilitates
Indian green structures to become one of the green buildings. IGBC has
developed the following green building rating systems for different types of
building in line and conformity with US Green Building Council.

Till date, following Green Building rating systems are available under IGBC;
1. LEED India for New Construction
2. LEED India for Core and Shell
3. IGBC Green Homes
4. IGBC Green Factory Building
5. IGBC Green SEZ
 6. IGBC Green Townships

Some examples of LEED rated building in India

Platinum rated (52-69 points) CII –Godrej GBC ,Hyderabad
ITC Green Center, Gurgaon
Wipro Technologies, Gurgaon
Gold Rated (39-51 points) IGP Office, Gulbarga
NEG Micon, Chennai
Grundfos Pumps, Chennai
Silver Rated (33-38 points) L&T EDRC , Chennai
World Bank, Chennai
Table 2: Examples of LEED rated building in India

Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)

BEE developed its own rating system for the buildings based on a 1 to 5
star scale.More stars mean more energy efficiency. BEE has developed the
Energy Performance Index (EPI). The unit of Kilo watt hours per square meter
per year is considered for rating the building and especially targets air
conditioned and non-air conditioned office buildings.

Functions of the Bureau are as follows:

 The process and energy consumption standards required to be notified;
 The labeling of certain equipment requiring some input of energy,
along with the prescription about the display of standards upon
such labels;
 To notify users or class of users as ‘designated consumers’ under this
law.
 Figure 3: Functions of Bureau of Energy Efficiency

The Bureau according to its functions under the law has to take suitable steps to:

 Create awareness and disseminate information for efficient use of

energy and conservation
 Training of personnel;
 Strengthen consultancy services;
 Promote research and development in the field of energy efficiency
 The develop good testing and certification procedure;
 Promote use of energy efficient process, equipment, devices and
systems;
 Promote innovative financing of energy efficiency projects; etc.
The Reserve Bank of India’s buildings in Delhi and Bhubaneswar, the CII
Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre and many other buildings have
received BEE 5 star ratings.
2.1.3. Comparison between green building systems around the world.

Building rating systems are becoming more popular tools to confirm green
credentials as office and retail tenants demand sustainable space to fit into their
global environmental policies. This is commendable but before signing up to any
old building that passed a 10 point plan, understand how the rating systems
actually work in that particular environment and whether the building would still
pass the test today.
Lack of information about green building rating systems cannot possibly
be the reason that commercial and government buildings across the Asia Pacific
region are not rated. All main markets have a rating system that is both easily
understood and fairly simple to implement.
Most rating systems are applicable across a range of building types and
can be applied to both new building projects and existing buildings. Fewer
systems apply to interiors of spaces, however, causing problems for many of the
companies wanting to benefit from them.
Different rating systems apply differently in different climates and
geographical conditions. Soil conservation and erosion are concerns in Taiwan
so that is specifically addressed in this scheme.
Other systems take into account factors that are not relevant in all
environments. For example North American LEED is designed for climates with
cool winters and rates buildings with energy efficient heating systems this is not
relevant in most Asian markets.

1. Leadership in New Construction: Existing Building:

Energy & a) Sustainable sites: 1 a) Sustainable sites:
Environmental prerequisite + 14 credits, 2 prerequisite + 14
Design (LEED- b) Water efficiency: 5 credits, credits, b) Water
United States) c) Energy & atmosphere: 3 efficiency: 2
 Green Building prerequisite + 6 credits, prerequisite + 5
Council (GBC) d) Materials & resources: 1 credits, c) Energy &
 New Construction & prerequisite + 14 credits, atmosphere: 3
Existing Building e) Indoor environment prerequisite + 14
 16-24 months after quality: 2 prerequisite + 15 credits
occupancy & best used credits,
on large building over f) Innovation & design
50,000 sqft process: 5 credits
 *Certified: 26-32 points;
Silver: 33-38 points; Gold:
39-51 points; Platinum: 52-69

2. Leadership in a) Sustainable sites: 1

Energy & prerequisite + 14 credits,
Environmental b) Water efficiency: 5
Design — credits,
Canada c) Energy & atmosphere: 3
(LEEDS- prerequisite + 17 credits ,
Canada) d) Materials & resources: 1
prerequisite + 14 credits,
e) Indoor environment
quality: 2 prerequisite + 15
credits,
f) Innovation & design
process: 5 credits

*Certified: 26-32 points;

Silver: 33-38 points; Gold:
39-51 points; Platinum: 52-70
3. Green Star Office Design/ Office as Office Interior:
(Australia) Built: a) Management: 6
 Green Building a) Management: 7 clarifications,
Council Australia clarifications, b) Indoor
(GBC) b) Indoor environment environment quality:
 Office Design/ Office quality: 16 clarifications, 15 clarifications,
as Built & Office c) Energy: 7 clarifications, c) Energy: 4
Interiors d) Transport: 4 clarifications, clarifications,
e) Water: 5 clarifications, d) Transport: 3
f) Materials: 8 clarifications, clarifications,
g) Land use and ecology: 5 e) Water: 1
clarifications, clarification,
h) Emission: 9 clarifications, f) Materials: 11
i) Innovation: 3 clarifications clarifications,
g) Land use and
 *4-star Green star (score 45- ecology: 6
59) [Best practice]; 5-star clarifications,
Green star (score 60-74) h) Emission: 2
[Australian excellence]; 6-star clarifications,
Green star (score 75-100) i) Innovation: 3
[World leadership] clarifications

*4-star Green star

(score 45-59) [Best
practice]; 5-star
Green star (score 60-
74) [Australian
excellence]; 6-star
Green star (score 75-
100) [World
leadership]
4. Building Design Stage checklist Management and
Research a) Management: 4 criteria, Operation checklist
Environment b) Health: 13 criteria, a) Management: 4
Assessment c) Energy: 4 criteria, criteria,
Method d) Transport: 4 criteria, b) Health wellbeing:
Consultancy e) Water: 4 criteria, 15 criteria,
(BREEAM) f) Materials: 7 criteria, c) Energy: 8 criteria,
(United g) Land use: 6 criteria, d) Transport: 5
Kingdom) h) Pollution: 8 criteria criteria,
Applicable to e) Water: 6 criteria,
different * Pass (Points 25); Good f) Materials: 3
situation: (Points 40); Very Good criteria,
industrial; multi- (Points 55); Excellent (Points g) Pollution: 7
residential; 70) criteria
office and retail * Pass (Points 20);
etc Good (Points 35);
 Two pre-assessment Very Good (Points
estimators: Design 50); Excellent
Stage & Management (Points 65)
and Operation
 Points system
 Design Stage checklist
calculates (i) Core
section and (ii) Design
& Procurement section
and Design Stage
assessment can be
applied 12-month
occupancy
 Management and
Operation checklist
calculates (i) Core
Building Performance
and (ii) Management
and Operation
5. Building New Buildings Existing Buildings
Environment a) Site aspects: 26 credits, a) Site aspects: 26
Assessment b) Materials aspects: 23 credits,
Method- Hong credits, b) Materials aspects:
Kong (HK- c) Energy use: 68 credits, 14 credits,
BEAM) d) Water use: 14 credits, c) Energy use: 106
 Two BEAM e) Indoor environment credits,
standards: (1) quality: 49 credits, d) Water use: 12
New Buildings f) Innovation and credits,
and (2) Existing performance enhancement: 5 e) Indoor
Buildings credits environment quality:
 Scale *Overall 40% – Bronze 45 credits,
measurement (above average); 55% – Silver f) Innovation and
points system (good); 65% – Gold 9very performance
good); 75% – Platinum enhancement: 5
(excellent) credits

6. Comprehensive Two assessment area: Internal

Assessment and External
System for  Internal: improving living
Building amenity for the building
Environment users
Efficiency  External: negative aspects
 (CASBEE) of environmental impact
(Japan) which go beyond the
hypothetical enclosed
space to the outside (the
public property)
 Assessment by two
factors: Quality (Q) and
Loading (L)
 Quality: evaluates
‘improvement in living
amenity for the building
users, within the private
property’
 Loading: evaluates
‘negative aspects of
environmental impact
which go beyond to
outside or the public
property’
 Four assessment aspects:
(1) Energy Efficiency; (2)
Resource Efficiency; (3)
Loading Environment and
(4) Indoor Environment
 Building Environment
Efficiency (BEE) = Q
(building environmental
quality and performance)
/ L (building
environmental loadings)
 BEE ranges from 0.5
(Class B-); 1.0 (Class
B+); 1.5 (Class A) and
3.0 (Class S)

7. The Green Green Building System

Globe Rating a) Project Management
 System (United (Policies and Practices): 50
States) points,
 Green Building b) Site: 115 points,
Initiative c) Energy: 360 points,
d) Water: 100 points,
e) Resource, building
materials and solid wastes:
100 points,
f) Emission and other
impacts: 75 points,
g) Indoor environment: 200
points
*Verification: 1-globe (35%-
54%); 2-globe (55%-69%); 3-
globe (70%- 84%) and 4-
globe (85%-100%);
8. Ecology, a) Biodiversity ,
Energy Saving, b) Greenery,
Waste c) Soil water content,
Reduction and d) Daily energy saving,
Health e) Carbon dioxide (CO2)
(EEWH) emission reduction ,
(Taiwan) f) Waste reduction,
 Taiwan Green g) Indoor environment,
Building Council h) Water resource,
 Nine aspects is i) Sewage and garbage
assessed and approved improvement
for ‘Green Building’
9. BCA Green New Buildings Existing Building
Mark a) Energy efficiency: 14 a) Energy efficiency:
(Singapore) prerequisite & 21 additional 14 points,
points, b) Water efficiency:
b) Water efficiency: 6 15 points,
prerequisite & 9 additional c) Site & project
points, management: 25
c) Site & project additional points,
management: 5 prerequisite d) Indoor
 &15 additional points,
d) Indoor environment quality
and environment protection: 5
prerequisite & 10 additional
points,
e) Innovation: 15 additional
points
* Points 50-70 (Green Mark
Certified); Points 70-80
(Green Mark Gold); Points
80-85 (Green Mark Gold-
plus) and Points 85-100
(Green Mark platinum)
environment quality
and environment
protection: 15
additional points,
e) Innovation: 20
additional points
* Points 50-70
(Green Mark
Certified); Points 70-
80 (Green Mark
Gold); Points 80-85
(Green Mark Gold-
plus) and Points 85-
100 (Green Mark
platinum)

10. Green Building Multi-unit residential building Office Building

Council a) Land development and a) Land
(Korea) commuting transportation: 27 development: 7
 Two categories: Multi- points, points,
unit residential b) Energy and resource b) Commuting
building and Office consumption and environment transportation: 5
Building loads: 41 points, points,
c) Ecological environment: 18 c) Energy: 23
points, points,
d) Indoor environment d) Materials and
quality: 14 points, resource: 21 points,
e) Supplement articles: 20 e) Water resource:
points 14 points,
*65 points (excellent); 85 f) Atmosphere
points (best) pollution: 6 points,
g) Management: 10
points,
h) Ecological
environment: 19
points,
i) Indoor
 environment quality:
31 points

*65 points
(excellent); 85 points
(best)

11. India Green  LEED India

Building Measurement is five
Council areas:
1) Sustainability site
development;
2) Water savings;
3) Energy efficiency;
4) Materials selection and
5) Indoor environment
quality
12. Australia  Energy Efficiency Design
Greenhouse Review
Building  Program-based and
Rating (AGBR) energy-calculation
assessment system
 Divided into three areas:
Tenancies; Base Buildings
and Whole Building
 Tenancies: Light and
power requirements for
tenants occupying space in
buildings where central
services are supplied by
the building
 Base Buildings: Building
central services including
air conditioning, common
area lighting and lifts etc.
 Whole Building: a
combination of base
 building and tenancy
energy consumption
 Rating systems: 4-stars,
4.5-stars and 5-stars

Table 3: Comparison between green building systems around the world.

2.1.4. Green Rating Problems.

Griha has been designed to suit Indian conditions and in particular for
non-air-conditioned buildings, unlike international rating systems like us -based
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (leed), which is designed for
energy efficiency measures in air-conditioned buildings only. But V Raghu
Raman, principal adviser and chief co-ordinator, energy environment and natural
resources, Confederation of Indian Industry, says, " leed is far ahead of griha.
A rating system is not just about energy consumption of a building but
many other things like recycling and natural habitat. There are 30 buildings
certified with leed under India. Griha has 32 criteria for rating buildings, with a
total of 100 points. A building needs to score at least 50 to apply for
certification. Preserving landscape during construction; soil conservation after
construction; reducing air pollution are some of the qualifying criteria. Buildings
will also need to quantify energy consumption in absolute terms and not
percentages alone.
The "social" aspect, which is "most important", is missing
in griha and leed as well. "The basic issues are same in most rating systems. The
Japanese system takes into account rehabilitation of displaced people;
accessibility for the old or people with special needs. Rating should look at the
reuse of old buildings by developing them rather than making new ones,
especially for rehabilitation.

2.1.5. Challenge in Green Rating.

The challenge is to generate typology of buildings and urban form in its
three dimensional configuration--environmentally, socially and economically
sustainable. But none of the rating systems can help generate such typologies."
Griha does list minimum disruption of natural ecosystem as a rating criterion.
But then the system has agreed to rate the Commonwealth Games Village
coming up on the bed of the Yamuna river in Delhi.

Figure 4: The three dimensional configuration of sustainability

2.1.6. Green buildings and Low risk buildings

The great irony of building green is that the very concepts that are
intended to enhance a building's performance over its entire lifetime are many
of the same things that make a building highly susceptible to moisture and mold
problems during its first few years of operation. While green buildings have
many positive benefits, there is also strong evidence to suggest a direct
correlation between new products/innovative design and building failures.
Simply put, departing from the "tried and true" often means increasing the risk
of building failure. Two strong characteristics of most green buildings are the
use of innovative, locally produced products and the implementation of new
design, construction, and operation approaches that are intended to reduce
energy usage and be environmentally sound.

Lower-risk buildings do not exceed industry guidelines on mechanically

introduced outside air but emphasize humidity control (especially in hot, humid
climates). Green buildings, conversely, reward the introduction of more outside
air than current industry standard minimums, which can lead to indoor humidity
problems and mold growth.

Green building environmental goals are typically organized around a set

of nationally accepted benchmark guidelines such as those of Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the guideline established by the
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED certification is a checklist and
point system of recommended practices where achieving various point levels
can certify the building as having achieved silver, gold, or platinum status.
These practices involve such issues as efficient water and energy use, the reuse
of waste materials, and the use of renewable and regionally produced products.

The overall goal of these new materials and procedures is to achieve a

structure with reduced negative environmental impact -- both during
construction and throughout the building's life. The intent of building green is
unquestionably noble and good, and should be aggressively pursued. However,
because of the dramatic change that this will present to the design and
construction industry, its implementation will present new risks that are likely to
be both technical and legal in nature.

GREEN BUILDING LOW-RISK BUILDINGS

Emphasizes energy conservation Emphasizes dehumidification
Stress VOC reduction – Emphasises Minimises VOC concern- Rejects
exhaust – Building flush out building flush out.
Attention to new and innovative Attention to proven materials
materials
Focus on carbohydrate based materials Focus on hydro carbon based materials
Table 4: Comparison between green building and low risk building

2.1.7. Impacts of Green Building on Users

Studies on the impacts of green buildings on occupants are most widely

carried out as Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) studies. Topics covered include
office layout, furnishing, workspace, thermal comfort, air quality, lighting,
acoustics, cleaning & maintenance, accessibility, IT/data projection, security
(Blyth and Gilby 2006, CBE 2015). Evaluation methods vary from interview,
focus group, workshop, to questionnaires (Blyth and Gilby 2006). Center for
Built Environment (CBE) at UC Berkley maintains a large commercial database
on occupant indoor environmental quality survey. Another POE methodology is
the UK’s Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology, it also maintains a
commercial database of 650 non-domestic buildings from 17 countries and 50
domestic projects from the UK (Arup 2015).
Many specific studies have looked at occupants’ satisfaction on green
buildings (Abdul-Muhmin 2007, Lee and Kim 2008, Altomonte and Schiavon
2013, Hua et al. 2014, Liang et al. 2014). Ouf et al. (2013) composed a set of
indicators measuring occupant satisfaction, health, and productivity, and the
satisfaction indicators include beauty, serenity, and color, which are not
commonly measured by other methodology. Another group of studies looked at
the impacts that green buildings have on the well-being of occupants, including
mental and physical health, productivity at the green workplace (Lee 2007,
Singh et al. 2010, Gou et al. 2014). Biophilic architects proposed that integrating
natural contents (e.g., calm water features and vegetative elements) in the built
environment could counter the negative effects on human functioning (e.g.,
reducing stress) due to reducing opportunities for contact with natural contents in
modern urban life (Joye 2007).
The relationships between the green buildings and occupants are mostly
studied by focusing on how the occupants’ behaviors impact on green building
performance (Kashif et al. 2013, Lee and Malkawi 2014), instead of the other
direction – the influence that green buildings have on the occupants’ behaviors.
Many have identified that, due to the actual behavior of occupants, the actual
performance (e.g., electrical consumption) of green buildings could not meet the
initial forecast (Browne and Frame 1999, Hoes et al. 2009, Masoso and Grobler
2010). A new building science called occupancy analytics was proposed by
Bacon (2013), recognizing the need to understand the poor performance of
current building stocks when society has invested significantly in improved asset
specification.
Zeiler et al. (2013) proposed a human-in-the-loop strategy to integrate the
occupants into the buildings’ performance control loop, to solve the occupants’
complaints on comfort and unnecessary high-energy consumption of HVAC
system.

2.2. Relationships between Green Building Design and Sustainable

Behaviors

A possible theoretical explanation for the relationships between green

building designs and pro-environmental behavior is the perceived behavioral
control–one of the antecedents in predicting behavioral intention and behaviors.
Perceived behavioral control measures how the person perceives the easiness of
conducting a certain behavior. In the green building context, this question
applies to whether a particular green design can facilitate a corresponding
behavior.
The relationships between typical green designs and their corresponding
sustainable behaviors are illustrated. To identify relevant studies, an eco-centric
viewpoint is considered when referring to sustainable behaviors, following
several main focus of existing green building programs on energy, water,
transport, waste, indoor environmental quality issues.
Specifically, sustainable behaviors include for example: those aiming at
contributing to a reduction in energy and water consumption; reduction of
automobile dependency; promotion of the 3R principle (reduce/recycle/reuse) of
waste treatment, except correctly categorize waste; and maintaining their
satisfaction of indoor environmental quality while not increasing energy cost
indirectly.
Different names for physical environment were used in previous studies:
contextual factors (Wu et al. 2013), situation factor (Tang et al. 2011), and
microscopic factors (Lee et al. 2015). For the review in this section, sustainable
physical environment regarding structure and elements that are part of a building
and its surrounding site that are designed to work together with the
corresponding sustainable behavior are identified.

2.2.1 Energy and Water

The housing design variables were indicated by a dummy variable and

were not further categorized into different aspects. The interaction effects
between the two independent variables might be more of interest to investigate.
A further correlation analysis carried out in the study showed that pro-
environmental attitudes of occupants were significantly correlated with the
sustainable housing design O'Callaghan et al. (2012).
This multicollinearity issue was not further explored though, which could
be studied through the mediating effect of sustainable housing design on
attitudes of occupants. Other studies included the physical environment as
control variables.
For example, the apartment type (studio, 1/2/3 bedrooms) was found to
have predictive power for electricity consumption (Hewitt et al. 2016). Andersen
et al. (2009) found that the presence of a wood-burning stove had a large impact
on the control of the heating in Danish dwellings.

2.2.2 Indoor Environmental Quality

Earlier studies indicated that design features such as a spacious common

room and access view to the natural environment reduces occupants’ stress level
and increases work productivity (Azizi et al. 2015). Heerwagen and Diamond
(1992) examined the three types of behavior adjustments (personal,
environmental, psychological) in green buildings.
Advocates for personal adjustments believe that it not only helps reduce
energy consumptions in buildings, but also creates healthier personal actions for
the occupants since there is more muscle movement (Healey and Webster-
Mannison 2012).
The findings showed that the green buildings encouraged more personal
adjustments than environmental adjustments, thus indirectly reducing the energy
consumption from the environmental adjustment. Azizi et al. (2015) found that
within the same building, more personal adjustments were made in spaces where
occupants had limited access to the control systems, such as in open plan space;
whereas in private offices, the occupants made more environmental adjustments
than personal adjustments.

2.2.3 Transportation

A wide range of sustainable transportation technologies and alternative

fuel options have been proposed by previous studies (Paudel and Kreutzmann
2015). Lee et al. (2015) studied the physical environment that could boost
pedestrian volume for the development of sustainable cities; it was found that the
planning factors at a neighborhood scale, such as domain attributes (diversity),
the network attributes (global and local integration) and the accessibility
(distance to and number of public transportation) affected pedestrian volume.
Building attributes such as the form of the ground level and façade of the
building also had a significant effect on pedestrian volume.

2.2.4 Waste Treatment

People chose the correct disposal bins more often in a sustainable building
than in a conventional building. However, the detailed green building design was
not measured and related to the disposal behavior. Instead, it raised a hypothesis
that taking the availability of bins into account would result in a larger gap
between proper disposal rates between green building and the conventional
building. The behavior observation implies further design of waste bins could
encourage the correct disposal of waste. An example is provided by Greaves et
al. (2013), where transparent bins are implemented in an office building to make
clearer and visual instructions on users’ waste categorization behaviors.

The available space to store recyclables in a household is found to be a

significant predictor for recycling participation both in western societies and in
rural Chinese villages. The physical proximity of containers (e.g., to provide
curb side collection for the household) is a determinant that justifies the
recycling behavior (Ludwig et al. 1998). On the contrary, Rhodes et al. (2014)
found that proximity to the recycling depot did not relate to behavior. Although
they found that those who lived closer to the depot had larger planning-behavior
relations than those who lived further away.These studies concerning
relationships between green designs and sustainable behaviors were grouped.
Combining these studies, a sample checklist for facilitating sustainable behaviors
through green designs are prepared. Only green designs with a corresponding
behavior are identified.

A wide range of passive technologies defined during the design phase

such as appropriate orientation, ventilation path, and raised roof will not be
included. More examples include such as installation of photovoltaic (PV) panel,
which is also not listed since the PV operation relies less on user’s behavioral
inputs. Another example is the installation of rainwater harvesting systems that
might have a less behavioral input while the successful implementation of low-
flow showerheads and toilets requires a corresponding behavioral response (e.g.,
whether people are taking longer showers or flush toilet multiple times as
counter-effecting). On the contrary, the presence of solar shading could be a
potential green design as building users directly control the solar shading.

2.3 Visual Persuasion of Green Building and Green Design

A visual object is anything that has to do with vision, it is communicative,

symbolic, culturally representative, and deductive by the viewer (Barnes 2007).
It could be mediated visuals (e.g., graphic designs, paintings, photographs, films)
or unmediated lived-in visuals, such as natural landscape and/or man-made built
environments. Joffe (2008) highlighted the ‘vividness effect’ – where visual
materials appear to be especially memorable and the salience that this confers
may make it particularly forceful. McKenzie-Mohr (2000) applied vivid
communication in promoting sustainable behaviors by using community-based
social marketing.
 It is argued that buildings are a form of lived-in visuals and communicate
themselves with a visual persuasion. Persuasion refers to ‘messages that are
designed to change attitudes, beliefs, values and behavior’ (Ragsdale 2011). A
framework was proposed by Ragsdale (2011) to assess the effectiveness of the
visual persuasiveness of a wide variety of architecture, such as museums,
cathedrals, performing halls, government buildings, and universities, but not
green buildings.
Two kinds of green design were identified in section 4.2: the visually-
evident green design and the conceptual-only green design. Visual green design
vividly speaks of a building’s green status (e.g., on-site renewable energies,
interior design elements, interpretive signage, transparent waste bins, green-
roofs/spaces, calm water features and vegetation (Joye 2007)). The conceptual-
only green design is more difficult to be recognized, does not have the vividness
effect, and might be weaker in the persuasive effect. The conceptual-only green
design may be implemented throughout any stages of a green building’s life
cycle, such as implementing a waste management plan, using low-emitting
materials during construction, or controlling indoor pollutants during operation
(USGBC 2010). Lyman (2007) showed that the more visual elements used, the
more evident a green building would become. Both visually-evident and
conceptual-only green designs discussed here are passive instruction. On the
other hand, with the wide adoption of multi-media techniques, active instruction
tends to combine visual aids frequently.
The persuasive power of a visual object was demonstrated in few studies, though
not combining green design with visual persuasion. O'Brien and Gunay (2014)
identified the visibility of energy use as an important factor that adjusted the
occupants’ behavior in office. Bartram et al. (2010) showed the potential of
visualization real-time feedback of energy use in influencing occupant
conservative behavior. They piloted informative art into existing designs by
using ambient canvas to visualize energy use. These studies demonstrated the
value and necessity in further understanding visual persuasion in green building–
green occupant relationships.
The basic layout of the TPB is originated from Ajzen (2005). Following
the definition of active and passive instruction given in this study, dashed-lines
indicate that the informational background factor (i.e. passive instruction)
studied here does not necessary influence beliefs.
Solid bold lines indicate an established causal relationship in the TPB.
The active instruction (i.e. deliberate intervention) is designed to alter the beliefs
– the necessary antecedents of Ab, SN, and PBC. bi: behavioral belief; ei:
subjective evaluation; ni: normative belief; mi: the motivation to comply; ci:
control belief; pi: the power/importance. A detailed description of the three
equations is provided.

.
Table 5: A detailed description of the three equations for measuring Ab,
SN, and PBC in the TPB

2.4 Results of the literature reviews on green building–green occupant

studies

Figure 5: Occupant studies

Sample questionnaire designed for measuring the effectiveness of active
instruction, using the example of waste categorization as a targeted behavior.

Table 6: Waste categorization

Note:
1. Suppose the reference group is coworkers in a green office building.
2. Suppose an example control factor for the waste categorization behavior is
the provisions of waste categorize bins.
3. The descriptive normative belief (what others do) are included other than
injunctive normative belief (what you are supposed to do).
Sample questionnaire designed for measuring the effectiveness of passive
instruction, differentiating visual and conceptual-only green design.
 Table 7: Visual and conceptual-only green design
Possible results of studying the effects of active or passive instruction, or an
interaction between active and passive instruction.

Table 8: Effects of active or passive instruction

 CHAPTER 3 –GREEN BUILDINGS PIT-FALLS

3.1 Risks in Green buildings

Some of the legal risks are fairly obvious, such as the risk of not meeting
a building owner's expectation of achieving a certain level of LEED
certification. Other risks are more obscure, such as the following:
 The failure of new products to meet their promoted performance
levels, which is more likely with new materials compared to
proven materials found in traditional buildings.
 Accepting the higher standard of care that a green building might
present -- what is currently considered "best practices" may
become the new expected "standard of care."
 Failing to recognize (or prepare for) the unknowns in cost and
schedule impacts that a green building might present.

It is even unclear whether a LEED-certified building can be built under a

design-build method of construction without the construction team assuming
huge amounts of unknown risks because of the vague definition of what is
considered "green."
Historically, the building industry has been conservative, relying on time-
proven construction materials and methods. The introduction of new materials
and methods has not always proven to be successful and sometimes has resulted
in notable building failures, especially those related to moisture intrusion and
mold contamination. Many of the time-tested materials found in lower-risk
buildings are hydrocarbon based.
The long-term efficacies and performance levels are unproven for some
of the new carbohydrate-based materials being promoted for green buildings.
The proliferation of new products and innovative building approaches related to
green development is challenging the design and construction community in a
dramatic fashion.
These changes virtually guarantee an increase in building failures and
lawsuits. Past experience indicates that many of these failures will be
predictable and some are likely to be catastrophic
3.1.1. Technical Risks in Green buildings

Moisture intrusion, whether bulk water intrusion through the building

envelope or a relative humidity increase due to the heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system, results in a large percentage of construction
claims in the United States. Moisture intrusion not only results in building
deterioration, but it has been linked to occupant comfort and health issues,
especially in those buildings that become contaminated with mold.3 Sustainable
building practices, some of which are part of the LEED accreditation process,
can increase the potential for moisture intrusion if not carefully considered and
implemented. Examples include the following:

 Vegetative roofs, which are riskier than conventional roofs due to

constantly wet conditions and must be carefully designed, constructed,
and monitored after construction.

 Improved energy performance through increased insulation and the use of

new materials, which may change the dew point location in walls,
resulting in damaging condensation and a reduced drying potential for
wall assemblies. Lower-risk buildings emphasize the drying potential of
the envelope over increased insulation. While it is desirable to increase
insulation for energy savings, the designer also must evaluate moisture
impacts.

 Reuse of existing buildings or recycled components, which may not

provide optimum water-shedding performance in new configurations or
may not be readily integrated to the adjacent new materials.

 Use of new green construction materials that have not been field-tested
over time. The designer needs to assess new materials and their risks
compared to traditional materials found in lower-risk buildings.

 Increased ventilation to meet indoor air quality (IAQ) goals that

unintentionally may result in increased interior humidity levels in hot,
humid climates. The designer must consider the increased energy load
(and cost) and HVAC equipment sizing required to properly dehumidify a
building when exceeding the minimum outside air requirements
 recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-conditioning, Engineers (ASHRAE).

 Building startup procedures, such as "building flush out," which could

result in increased humidity levels and mold growth. Lower-risk
buildings rely almost exclusively on source control, which is also a green
building goal, rather than relying on "flush-out" and increased building
exhaust. Building "flush out" and building "bake-out" were concepts
developed in the late 1980s by the IAQ industry, which often caused
more problems than they solved.

3.1.2 Material Risks in Green buildings

New green construction materials are entering the market at a staggering

rate. Because many of these products help achieve multiple LEED credits,
designers working on green buildings are eager to specify these products. The
risk to contractors is that many of these new products are not time-tested, and
designers often do not have the time to fully research the efficacy of these
products. If the new product fails, it may be difficult to determine if it is a
design error, an installation error, or a product defect. Additionally, general
contractors must rely on subcontractors to install new materials that they are
inexperienced in installing.

3.1.3. Insulation Risks in Green buildings

Some of the expandable foam insulation products are examples of green

materials that pose increased risks. The water-absorption properties of these
insulation materials can be quite different than what designers expect with
traditional insulation. Additionally, some of the carbohydrate-based foam
insulation materials may retain more water than traditional hydrocarbon-based
foam insulation. Increased absorption of water into the insulation could
negatively affect the wall performance. This is not to say that such materials
should not be used; however, their properties need to be recognized and
accommodated in the design.
3.1.4. Ventilation Risks in Green buildings

The amount of ventilation (outdoor air) necessary for occupant health and
comfort has been debated for decades. Although there are sound arguments on
both sides of the debate, the emphasis on increasing ventilation to achieve
LEED environmental quality credits has increased the incentive to add more
outdoor air to a building through its HVAC system (a minimum of 30 percent
more outside air above ASHRAE recommended minimums is recommended
by)
Increased ventilation is especially risky in the southeastern U.S., where
outdoor relative humidity levels are elevated for a good part of the year.
Experience in the Southeast, as well as other areas of the country with humid
summers, has shown a direct correlation between the number of moisture
problems and increased ventilation rates.

3.1.5. Moisture Risks in Green buildings

To effectively minimize the risk of moisture problems while increasing

ventilation, designers may need to increase the complexity and capacity of the
HVAC components and control systems to achieve proper dehumidification.
This adds to contractor risk because complex systems historically fail more
often than simple systems. Additionally, the complexity of the system operation
can result in unintended pressurization relationships where local
depressurization causes humid outdoor air to be drawn into interstitial building
cavities, causing condensation and mold growth.

3.1.6. Building owners, designers, and contractors

Building owners, designers, and contractors all assume more risk when
they deal with complex, and possibly untried, technologies not generally found
in traditional buildings. Pinpointing whether the problem is design- or
construction-related may be very difficult after problems already have occurred.
Building startup procedures to meet LEED credits include a credit flush-
out of indoor containments using increased outdoor air either at the end of
construction or during the initial occupancy period. The intent is to remove
pollutants from off gassing of volatile organic compounds from new materials.
The amount of air needed to meet the flush-out requirements places a building
at increased risk because of the amount of moisture introduced with the
increased outdoor air. Under LEED, at least 14,000 cubic feet per square foot of
floor area is required for flush out.
This presents multiple problems. Most HVAC systems are not designed
to dehumidify that amount of outdoor air, which, in a 100,000-square-foot
building, is 1.400 million cubic feet of outside air. Depending on outside
conditions at the time of the flush-out, as much as 240,000 gallons of water can
be added to a 100,000-square-foot building. This added moisture will get
absorbed into building materials, finishes, and furnishings, increasing the risk of
mold growth.
Most specifications put the general contractor in charge of the flush-out,
including controlling the relative humidity levels during flush-out. If the system
is not designed to handle the loads, the contractor is faced with a difficult
challenge that may require the addition of a temporary and extremely costly
dehumidification system. Lower-risk buildings tend to avoid flush-out.

3.2. Social problems of green buildings

In the past few decades, scholars have conducted research and held
discussions on green building to highlight their vital significance in addressing
environmental, economic and social challenges. It is recognized that public
attitudes and views towards green building may affect its application in daily
lives, although studies on consumers‫ ׳‬cognition are rarely carried out.
The social problems related to green building such as consumers‫ ׳‬basic
understanding, purchase intention, social and humanistic needs, public attitudes
and behaviors, rebound effects and furthermore social acceptance are therefore
studied, based on three research methods including literature review,
questionnaire and inductive analysis. Through the analysis, following results
can be obtained:
(i) Green building‫׳‬s sustainable design has quite important
influence over consumers‫ ׳‬decision making process. The
general public maintains a high regard for the advantages of
green building, where better ventilation and lighting is a major
benefit, saving energy and water are the second rated, and then
land and construction material saving.
 (ii) Although the general public is not being familiar with the
concept of green building, the majority of participants would
pay more for green buildings over the standard building when
they know the environmental impacts of them.
(iii) Green building should not only be limited to energy
performance-oriented, but also be user-oriented, the social and
humanistic needs model is thus well established based on
Maslow‫׳‬s Hierarchy of Needs. In the life cycle of green
building, social and humanistic needs show a trend of dynamics,
which means social processes with consumer engagement and
participation needs to be considered in aspects of conceptual
design, planning and design, operation and maintenance to
improve users‫ ׳‬happiness and productivity.
(iv) Current user-oriented solutions to green building are always
based on a hypothesis that consumers are readily motivated or
prefer expensive goods for reducing energy use, to really reflect
preference and influenced actions, social acceptance should be
analyzed to fully gauge interest and perspective of the people.
(v) Rebound effects of post-occupant building performance,
including energy performance, human comfort, indoor
environmental quality, greenhouse gas emission and workplace
productivity can be divided into two stages. At present, it is
necessary to establish appropriate samples, methods and
parameters for an unbiased and valid post-occupant evaluation
system. In addition, the social acceptance of green building
framework is established based on Wüstenhagen et al. triangular
model for renewable energy innovation. All the explorations to
social problems of green building in this article are expected to
provide a healthy social basis for the development of this green
strategy.

3.3.Identifying potential pitfalls

There are elements pointing toward a correlation between new green

building designs and observed failures (Odom et al. 2008a, 2008b). A look at
examples of failures could therefore validate this relationship and help identify
some common pitfalls. The first issue to address is defining what actually
makes a building green. Is it using only all “natural” materials (e.g., straw bale
walls)? Integrating some complex and fancy high-tech gadgets to an otherwise
conventional building? Installing a green roof? Also, do green buildings need to
have a specific look, which would lead the designer to base important decisions
solely on aesthetic criteria? It is hard to find an absolute and definitive
definition that everyone will agree with.
However, the way a team approaches or perceives a green building
project has a significant impact on its long-term performance. According to the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2009), green building (or green
construction or sustainable building) is defined as “the practice of creating
structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and
resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design,
construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction.
This practice expands and complements the classical building design
concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort.” The general concept is
that green buildings should have a lesser impact on the environment than non-
green (i.e., conventional) buildings, over their whole life. But the questions
remain as to how to actually do this and how to evaluate the greenness of
specific projects.
4.1.Potential Impact of LEED Credits on Building Enclosure Performance

Table 8 : LEED Credits on Building Enclosure Performance

4.2.Examples of Green Building Enclosure Failures

Study 1:
The implementation of some green strategies may require that standard
components or assemblies be adapted, as this example illustrates. In this case, a
green roof was incorporated into the design of the building, as shown in Figure
1. Within two years, water infiltration was reported. The investigation revealed
that the aluminum base of the plumbing vents was perforated, at the junction
with an extension sleeve. To accommodate the extra height due to the planting
medium, it had been necessary to extend the plumbing vents. The problem is
that the sleeves were made of stainless steel, which is a noble metal in
comparison to aluminum.
 Figure 6: Roof case study: aluminum drains are perforated at the base (top
pictures); lack of anti-root membrane leading to root growth and deterioration
of the waterproofing membrane (bottom left picture); and mechanical
equipment located in a cluster (bottom right picture).

The combination of these two metals with a very moist environment (the
planting medium) led to galvanic corrosion. Other issues were also identified.
As visible in the figure, there was no membrane in the system to inhibit root
growth. The waterproofing membrane was then directly exposed to the roots,
reducing its service life. Furthermore, all the mechanical equipment was located
close together, making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve proper
waterproofing and to maintain it in this area.
The implementation of a green roof, a popular strategy in green buildings,
is by no means revolutionary. Systems with good performance records are
available and have been installed successfully. However, there are specific
considerations such as a potentially wetter environment, living components as
part of the assembly, and, although the membrane is protected from UV rays,
increased difficulty in accessing the membrane for maintenance and
replacement. The selected components should therefore take these constraints
into account. One can also see that coordination with the mechanical engineers
and long-term vision are paramount

Study 2:
An exterior cladding system with glass and metal shading fins in front of
the windows was installed on a green building. In this particular case, it is
impossible to remove the cladding system without damaging the other
components of the assembly, and the shading fins also cannot be easily removed
to give access to the windows. High-performance windows were installed in this
wall assembly. After a few years, unsightly bitumen streaks were reported at the
window head. An exploratory opening performed at the head of the window
revealed that the self-adhered membrane had been applied over a polyurethane
sealant. The bitumen of the membrane was completely gone, but the sealant was
still in good condition. Eventually, the disintegration of the flashing membrane
would have led to water infiltration.

Figure 7: High performance window case study: Bitumen streaks on the

window frame (top); disintegrated flashing membrane but fairly intact sealant
with water accumulation and infiltration at head of the window (bottom).
 Although it had not gone inside, water was found to have accumulated at
the head of the window. In this example, building science principles, namely
taking into account compatibility between materials, were not properly applied.
The materials themselves and the issue are not specific to green buildings.
However, maintenance and remedial work were greatly complicated by the
configuration of the cladding system and shading fins, which had been selected
as green features. Here, the improper application of building science principles
is complicated by a lack of an integrated and long-term vision.

Study 3.
The last example relates the case of a linoleum floor installed on a slab on
grade with an adhesive without formaldehyde. After a few years, problems with
the adhesion of the floor were reported, which were found to be caused by the
presence of moisture under the flooring material. When portions of the flooring
were removed to investigate, extensive mold growth was observed: the adhesive
that had been used did not have formaldehyde but it also had nothing to inhibit
the growth of mold.

Figure 8: Floor case study: blistering of the linoleum flooring (top) and mold
growth under the flooring material (bottom)
 This example highlights how important it is to understand products’
properties. Greener versions of existing products are available, but it is
important to understand their properties and make sure they will be suitable for
their exposure conditions. In this case, the adhesive may be fine for an upper
floor where there would be no danger of water, but was probably too sensitive
for application on a slab on grade (which had a moisture problem to begin
with). The specifier should have asked questions of the representative about
installation, location, properties, adhesion, etc.

4.2.1Overview of study
From the overview of the LEED credits and examples of failure in the literature,
problems can generally be linked to the following issues:
• Disregarding building science principles when designing a green
building. The principles that apply to conventional building envelope
should not be omitted because the building aims for sustainability
objectives. It is not a “one or the other” type of issue.
• Designing a green building with a configuration that is not adapted to its
actual exposure conditions (perhaps because of a preconceived idea of
what a green building should look like, how complicated it should be, or
how many gadgets it should have).
• Using materials in the wrong places and/or for the wrong purposes
because they meet certain ecological criteria. There is not one “greenest”
recipe, no assembly or material that could be used everywhere.
• Using new materials without knowing all their relevant characteristics.
Materials should not be considered by themselves but always in relation
to the other materials of the assembly and their exposure conditions.
• Lack of long-term vision. What is the life expectancy of each component?
What maintenance will be required and in what sequence? If one
component needs to be maintained or replaced, will it require the removal
and discarding of other components that do not need to be replaced?
• Lack of quality control. If the design, installation, and performance of the
building enclosure and its components are not validated at all stages of
the project, how can we be confident they will perform over time?

4.3Possible Strategies
From looking at some green building strategies and examples of failure,
some potential pitfalls were identified. From this exercise, it stands out that
taking into account the context and applying basic building science principles
accordingly is crucial.
The climatic context (i.e., the specific outdoor and indoor environmental loads)
should obviously be at the core of the design decisions. In addition, those design
decisions should be taken within a global vision. Checking items off a list or
“point shopping” is not sufficient. It can actually lead to complete aberrations,
not only in terms of building enclosure performance and durability but also, for
example, in terms of energy consumption.
A credit-based system can be— and is—very useful, with the condition
that all decisions are always considered from a more global perspective and in
relation to one another; in other words, that an integrated design process (IDP)
be adopted. The IDP helps to avoid a fragmented design process, and allows
development of the optimal solution for the specific project by identifying
conflicts as well as opportunities. The traditional linear process, in which the
engineers are stuck with decisions already taken by the architect and client,
makes this virtually impossible.
Finally, there should be a way to validate the design, construction, and
performance of installed components, with the whole life cycle of the building
in mind. The problems illustrated through the examples may have been avoided
not only if building principles and basic knowledge of material behavior had
been applied, but also if there had been a validation process at all stages for
durability.
These elements of building science principles, integrated approach, and
quality assurance process at all stages of a project actually constitute good
practice, whether the building aims to be green or not. They can also constitute
the basic elements of a comprehensive strategy for building durability. In fact,
implementing such an approach, which considers the whole life cycle of the
building and integrates context, building science, and quality control at all
stages of the project, would result in a building with less environmental impact
even if this is not the initial objective.

4.4.Planning for Durability

The intent of this credit is to “minimize materials use and construction waste
over a building’s lifetime resulting from premature failure of the building and
its constituent components and assemblies,” namely the building enclosure. The
expectations for quality be defined for each project states the three main
elements to achieve quality:
 • Provide the required quality of design
• Use the required quality of materials throughout
• Provide the required quality of workmanship throughout
The standard, and thus the LEED durable buildings credit, requires that a
table presenting all the information relevant to the project and about each
component be completed. Although the development and implementation of
such a building durability plan cannot guaranty that the building will be durable,
it at least provides some assurance that it has been designed and built to be
durable and that the whole life cycle of the building enclosure and its
components has been considered.
In Canada, it is estimated that approximately 25% of buildings seeking
LEED Canada certification are striving to achieve the durable building credit
(Marshall 2008b). One explanation for this low number is that the credit is
perceived as being expensive to achieve. This can be especially true in projects
where the capital costs for construction and operation/ maintenance costs are
managed by different departments or entities.
In those cases, there is the temptation for the team responsible for initial
construction to reduce their costs, even if it means increased costs later on. In
reality, however, a durability plan has the potential to save a lot of problems as
well as money at all stages of a building’s life cycle. In the province of Quebec,
no buildings have obtained the credit so far. However, the authors are currently
involved as building envelope consultants in two LEED projects going for
MRc8: one in Montreal, Quebec, and the other in Ottawa, Ontario. The
construction of both buildings was set to begin in the spring of 2010.
The general methodology being implemented at the various phases of these
projects is described below. It should be mentioned that these elements have
already been applied to numerous projects outside the context of LEED
certification. They were simply adapted and coordinated to meet the
requirements of MRc8 and CSA Standard S478-95 (R2001). Such quality
control measures have proven invaluable in identifying potential problems at a
stage when they could easily be fixed. This way, the odds for increased
durability are improved and costs may be minimized.

4.4.1 Design Phase

At the beginning of the design phase of the projects, meetings and
discussions were held with the project team. These meetings were used to
gather information such as the needs and intentions of the client, validation of
the overall context (environmental loads, economic, occupancy, etc.) and
objectives, identification of opportunities for synergy with other credits sought,
etc. The assemblies and components were then reviewed and evaluated against
the criteria set out in CSA Standard S478-95 (R2001), for synergies with other
LEED Canada-CS credits, as well as for potential problems related to air
leakage, water infiltration, condensation, sequencing, ease of access, required
maintenance, etc. Also, the fit between the global context and the proposed
assemblies and details was validated. The comments were submitted to the
architect and the client. The quality control measures to be implemented during
construction were also defined at this stage (e.g., number of visits; number,
types, and location of field tests; mock-ups to be built). Note that, at this stage,
hygrothermal performance computer simulations may be performed if the
conditions or requirements are particularly challenging.

4.4.2 Construction Phase.

The implementation of the durability plan involves quality control during
the construction of the building to ensure that the components and assemblies
have been built and perform according to the specifications and requirements of
the durability plan. This is done through punctual visits during construction,
field testing and mock-up construction. During the visits, any variation of the
building envelope from the elements of the durability plan is reported promptly
to the architect, who then communicates corrective measures to the contractor.
If necessary, consultations are conducted jointly with the consultant,
architect, client, and contractor, in order to find a solution consistent with LEED
MRc8. As part of the quality control, in-situ testing is performed to determine
whether the selected component and/or assembly meets the specified
performance requirements, particularly in terms of vulnerability to water and/or
air infiltration. Corrections can be implemented right away if necessary,
avoiding problems after completion of the building. Mock-ups of specific
building envelope sections are also built to identify any problem and make sure
all workers involved understand what has to be done.

4.4.3 Operation phase.

A maintenance program, mainly in the form of Table B, Service Life and
Maintenance of Components, is prepared and submitted to the client. This way,
there are no surprises and the client knows what maintenance work has to be
done to ensure that the building enclosure and its components perform over
time. It is important that each step be fully documented and also that all relevant
information be circulated through the defined communication channels for the
whole duration of the project.
At the end, all this information, including the description of the various
steps, their results, and analysis, is put together and provided to the client. It
should be noted that these steps should not be seen as a recipe. The plan and
methodology presented here would need to be adapted according to the
complexity of the project, severity of the loads, or any other particular
constraint.
4.5Inference from study
There is a growing consensus that it is desirable, even necessary, to at
least minimize the environmental impact of buildings on the environment.
However, we have seen that some green building strategies can increase the risk
for premature failure of the building enclosure, and that such failures do indeed
occur. This actually increases the environmental impact of the building on the
environment. The first question this paper attempted to answer is why green
building enclosures fail. From a literature review and a look at some examples,
it was found that failures were linked to a poor understanding or application of
basic building science principles, a lack of an integrated and long-term vision,
no plan for durability that would involve third-party revision of the building
enclosure design and construction, and lack of planning for the required
maintenance.
These problems are not limited to green buildings. However, the fact that
they were designed as green buildings led to choices or exposure conditions that
were potentially more problematic. Durability is important for all buildings, but
especially if sustainability is stated as a goal. The second question then is what
can be done to minimize the risks of premature failure. Basic elements of a
strategy for building durability, namely building science principles, integrated
approach, and quality assurance process at all stages of a project, were
identified. These actually constitute good practice regardless of whether the
building aims to be green, and implementing such an approach would actually
result in a building with less environmental impact even if this is not the initial
objective. To achieve durability, a durability plan incorporating specific steps at
all stages of the project is needed. The LEED Canada-NC 1.0 durable building
credit (MRc8) provides a framework on which such a durability plan can be
built. Elements of durability plans being implemented in actual projects at the
design, construction, and operation phases have been presented.
 Experience with a similar methodology, based on quality control
measures at all stages of a project, has demonstrated that it can help avoid
problems and minimize costs, even outside the scope of green building or
LEED certification. It is therefore surprising that there is so much hesitation in
seeking MRc8 credit.
Since durability of the building envelope is essential to its sustainability,
a durability plan should actually be a prerequisite. Such a plan cannot guaranty
durability, but at least it provides some assurance that the building has been
designed and built to be durable and that the whole life cycle of the building
enclosure and its components has been considered. This type of approach is
taken for mechanical systems, for which commissioning is required under the
LEED rating system.
Why not the building envelope? This being said, the success of a green
project is also a question of how a team approaches such a project. An
important issue is that green buildings and performing, durable buildings should
not be seen as opposite goals but rather as complementary and indivisible
objectives. It is not a choice between the two; it is not because a building is to
be green that building science principles should be forgotten or neglected. The
understanding and application of building science principles should always be
integral to the design, construction, and operation of sustainable buildings. In
fact, this should come before green design criteria.
Furthermore, being green does not depend strictly on looks or
technological gadgets, or even the number of points achieved under a specific
rating system. Rather, a holistic, integrated approach, with the building and its
systems designed specifically for its global context, is required. This implies
applying building science to evaluate and find welladapted solutions. This also
means that there is no one-sizefits-all solution. And there is no single, ideal
product that can be used everywhere. Buildings in Vancouver, Edmonton
Montreal, and Yellowknife, for example, need to be designed differently, as
each climate has its own challenges.
In closing, many green buildings are success stories, and the fact that
some problems were encountered should not deter us from trying to design and
build buildings that use resources in a more responsible manner. Knowing what
we know now, it becomes obvious that all buildings should be sustainable and
that therefore, green strategies should be integrated to conventional practices
while respecting building science principles and good practices.
4.6.Flawed energy efficiency modeling
The reason many green buildings fail to live up to expectations on energy
efficiency, according to a U.K. researcher is Flawed energy efficiency
modeling. David Coley, a University of Bath specialist, led a team that surveyed
108 architects, engineers, and energy consultants who routinely use energy
performance models. They asked participants to look at a typical British semi-
detached home recently updated to meet current building codes. Then they
asked test subjects to rank which improvements made the most difference to
energy performance.
Their answers didn’t match up with reality, suggesting a performance gap
between modeling and the real world. There were cases where the modelers
produced a savings measure that was more than the energy use of the house.
Energy models showing unreasonable results are evident at the
preliminary stage on half of projects going through the LEED certification
process, according to a U.S. Green Building Council official. Designers have a
tendency to accept outputs without evaluating the reasonability of the results,
she said.
Part of the reason for the performance gap is that modelers do not usually
go onsite to see how the building operates and compare that to the design.
Typically there is no expectation that they’ll even talk to the building manager
at year one and ask how energy usage compares with the original model.

4.7. Green Building Operations and Maintenance Issues

There is the need for sustainable maintenance for green buildings.

Sustainable maintenance is a maintenance system that meets the value system of
the present users without compromising the ability of meeting the value system
of the future users. Maintenance contributes to sustainability by holding noxious
to the bare minimum level, reducing energy and resources emission by ensuring
the durability and availability of the building facilities, and providing
information to the designers on the features of already installed components.
The maintenance of green buildings does not only impact operations cost but
also affect social and environmental aspects. A building that is not well
maintained will affect the quality and productivity of the users and the
environment. People’s comfort and productivity is relative to the performance
of the building they live, learn and work in.
4.8Green Building Operations and Maintenance Issues in Malaysia
The Malaysian government expressed interest in greater implementation
of green
buildings though Malaysia is still very much lacking behind in green building
developments as compared to other Asia Pacific countries. The GBI rating tool
merely assesses the “greenness” of green buildings based on the design and the
actual building after completion.
There are many researches and studies about building maintenance. Some
of researchersemphasized the main factors that lead to building O&M problems
such as faulty design,financial factors, faulty construction and maintenance
related defects Saghatforoush et al. (2012) categorized all the issues and
problems during the operations and maintenance stage of building into five
aspects namely technical defects (design problems; construction related defects;
maintenance related defects; and building characteristics); managerial problems
(project management; economic and financial; resource management; and
maintenance management problems); environmental and biological effects;
social and cultural problems (cultural practices; third party vandalism; and user
related defects); and political and legal factors (political and government
restrictions and standards; and contractual defects)

4.8.1 The Study Methodology

A preliminary survey was conducted to probe further into the factors that
lead to green building O&M problems. A questionnaire was prepared based on
the theoretical factors discovered from the literatures. The reliability of the
questionnaires was tested by conducting a pilot test that involved 30 selected
respondents ranging from academicians to professionals in the construction
industry. A Reliability Test was carried out and a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.768
was achieved for the questionnaires, indicating that the instrument is reliable for
the following survey.
The questionnaires were then sent to two groups of respondents
comprising 50 respondents from green building maintenance management
teams in Malaysia and 50 respondents from GBI accredited facilitators, via post
and electronic mail. A total of 30 questionnaires were successfully returned. 21
of the response were from green building maintenance management teams in
Malaysia and 9 from GBI accredited facilitators. The data was then analyzed
using frequency calculation. This was then followed by criticality index
calculation to rank the factors according to level of criticality.
 The findings of the survey indicate that technical defect is the most
critical aspect that leads to green building O&M problems in Malaysia. This is
followed by the managerial problems; social and cultural problems; political
and legal factors; and environmental and biological effects. The criticality of the
factors were then determined and the result indicates that design problems in
technical defects aspect is the most critical factor that leads to green building
O&M problems.

4.8.2 Inference from Study

The preliminary study has shown that a successful green building is more
than just green design and technology. In order for a green building to truly be
“green”, O&M should also be carried out in a “green” way. The critical factors
that lead to green building O&M problems identified in this study will shed
light on the priorities for a successful green building. Design for maintainability
needs to be given the utmost attention as suggested by the result of the
preliminary survey.
This study also calls for the GBI rating tool to include green O&M for
green building certification. Assessment that goes beyond green design,
construction and technology is vital to ensure that Malaysian green buildings
are totally “green” in its life cycle. The result from the preliminary survey
clearly indicates that technical defects are the most critical aspect that leads to
green building O&M problems. Design problems have been identified as the
most critical factor that leads to green building O&M problems. Other aspects
and factors though less critical should also be considered in the O&M of green
buildings.
4.8.3. Summary of Findings

Figure 9: Summary of findings

 CHAPTER 5 –ANALYSIS

Green building was supposed to be the road to the Promised Land, where
good design meshed with stewardship for the benefit of all, while the bottom
line remained intact. Membership in the U.S. Green Building Council has
grown to 6,000 since its founding in 1993.
Some of the reasons for the slow pace of the movement’s growth are
obvious:
 Cost;
 Cultural and structural resistance;
 Lack of talent or expertise;
 Lack of research, funding, and awareness;
 Perceived trade-offs between quality or security and sustainability.
But there are two less obvious reasons to consider.
The first is that stakeholders are afraid to challenge the myth that green
building is cheap and easy. Once you’ve gone through the process, you’re
scared to point out the warts, because your work is now a model, getting
enormous publicity. But ultimately, the lack of willingness to admit failure
prevents the industry from learning from its mistakes. Until that changes —
until there are conferences about mistakes and pitfalls, not brilliant successes —
the learning curve will remain flat. As renowned green architect William
McDonough said after Environmental Building News reported on problems
with the environmental studies center he designed for Oberlin College, these are
new projects. The point isn’t that they work perfectly at first, it’s that they
eventually work well. And, I would add, that we learn as we go.
The second reason green building hasn’t become more mainstream is that
it’s often discussed in a secret language, the code of a cabal. For instance,
“biomimicry” — the idea that buildings should be modeled on natural systems
— is nearly inescapable. But as Michael Brown, an environmental consultant
and editor at the Journal of Industrial Ecology, points out, bio mimicry seems
mainly to be about making something straightforward (avoid toxics, strive for
closed loops, minimize energy) into something that requires a consultant.

LEED, the U.S. Green Building Council’s certification system, has its own
cabal-like nature too. But LEED is not a blueprint. If it’s treated as one, then
certification concerns begin to trump performance, and drive the process.
5.1 Significant impacts on the environment.

Sustainable or “green” buildings are becoming more and more popular.

This is a positive trend, since buildings have very significant impacts on the
environment. According to the US Green Buildings,buildings in the United
States are responsible, among other things, for

• 39% of primary energy use

• 72% of electricity consumption
• 38% of all CO2 emissions
• Energy consumption related to the R-value, airtightness, and
configuration of the enclosure (e.g., amount and orientation of
fenestration, thermal bridges)
• The embodied energy of materials included in the building enclosure
(energy needed for the extraction and delivery of raw materials, and
fabrication, delivery, and installation of the material or component)
• Use of resources (destruction of habitats, creation of pollution)
• Waste sent to disposal sites

It is thus clear that minimizing the environmental impact of buildings

requires that their enclosure also be conceived and realized according to
ecological principles. This may involve, for example, increasing the level of
insulation and airtightness to improve energy efficiency, using materials with
recycled content to minimize the impact related to resource use, or using
materials manufactured locally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it
appears that these green building enclosures are not always durable (Yost 2009).
Indeed, there are reports in North America of many green buildings having
suffered major building enclosure failures after only a few years. One example
is the Philip Merrill Environmental Center, recognized as the first building to
achieve the platinum rating under the USGBC LEED rating system, which is
cited extensively in the literature

5.2 Problem Determination

Environmental difficulties such as fresh water supply and global warming

have become much more of a concern, which is why sustainablebuildings or
environmentally friendlyprinciples have becomecommon in the past. Research
results clearly show that buildings are responsible for major energy
consumption and water use worldwide. People spent much of their lives in
buildings during work, rest, etc. All these reasons make the front scene
environmentally friendly, sustainable, and more efficient and low - energy,
namely green buildings. In the past decade, the importance of green buildings
and sustainability have increased significantly due to high natural resource
consumption in the buildings. This high consumption tends to harm the
environment, such as changes in the ecosystem and global warming. In the US,
for example, buildings consume about 40 percent of all energy, 72 percent of all
electricity, and about 39 percent of primary greenhouse gas emissions.

The location of buildings is also affected by building structures such as

the spring, the air quality and the transport system around them. It is estimated
that 45 percent of the energy generated for power and maintenance, 5
percent for buildings, and 70 percent of all wood is used for buildings .

5.3 New Urbanism

At the heart of New Urbanism is the design of neighborhoods, which can be

defined by 13 elements, according to town planners Andres Duany and
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, two of the founders of the Congress for the New
Urbanism. An authentic neighborhood, which is what New Urbanism seeks to
establish, contains most of the following 13 elements (New Urban News):

• The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a

green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop
would be located at this center.
• Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an
average of roughly 2,000 feet.
• There are a variety of dwelling types – usually houses, row houses and
apartments – so that younger and older people, singles and families, the
poor and the wealthy may find places to live.
• At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of
sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of the household.
• A small ancillary building is permitted within the backyard of each house.
It may be used as a rental unit or place to work (e.g., office or craft
workshop).
• An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk
from their home.
 • There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling – not more than
a tenth of a mile away.
• Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which
disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes
to any destination.
• The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows
traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street,
creating a welldefined outdoor room.
• Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated
to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys.
• Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the
neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites
for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities.
• The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association
debates and decided matters of maintenance, security, and physical
change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community.

Examples of New Urbanism can be found throughout the world. In the

United Sates, Seaside, Florida is among the first and best known. The success
behind New Urbanism is most telling in its name recognition. One does not
have to be an architect, planner, or work within the real estate industry to have
heard of the concept. Green building, however, has not enjoyed the same
popularity. Nonetheless, the concepts at the core of New Urbanism run parallel
to those of green building, namely the promotion of walkable communities;
green spaces; and efficient, durable buildings.

The primary distinction between the two movements is that New

Urbanism is a large scale planning approach while green building is or can be
applied to a single building. The Congress for the New Urbanism Charter does
highlight green building concepts such as conserving energy and conserving
environmental resources. It also states that “Natural methods of heating and
cooling can be more resource-efficient than mechanical systems.” Unlike green
building, New Urbanism does not specify materials and operating procedures
for individual buildings. Nonetheless, the two movements both advocate a more
efficient, sustainable living environment.
 The similarity between the two initiatives and the contrasting saliency
and acceptability begs the question: Why has the acceptance of New Urbanism
not carried over to green building? Advocates of narrow thoroughfares, more
parks, and transit alternatives - the component parts of New Urbanism - are not
simply promoting aesthetic ideals. Those in favor of these techniques also
support the end goal of resource conservation. Less time spent in automobiles,
which is a key tenant of New Urbanism, also conserves energy resources and
prevents further damage to air quality. Green building is merely an extension of
these principles including healthier homes, more efficiently operated buildings,
and the ability to conserve resources without a daily conscious effort.

Despite the fact that the green building concept has been around for over
15 years, there is little evidence of public opinion, no national political agenda,1
and little talk of it outside a small fraction of the building industry. The issue of
green building techniques has not evolved, nor has it become part of public
debate over environmental and energy conservation issues. Some might claim
that movements, such as green building that requires significant change will
take decades to reach mainstream acceptance. Yet, with rolling blackouts and
rising gas prices, it is conceivable that in the near future, issues concerning
resource conservation and quality of life will be more prominently discussed.
 CHAPTER 6– STRATEGIC SURVEY

6.1 Three “x-ability” of a green building

The focus of this study is to extract following three “x-ability” of a green
building, with an extension to future importance:

1) The “aware-ability”—testing the awareness—whether the building users are

aware of the building being green?

2) The “know-ability”—testing the knowledge—whether the green building

facilitates the generation of green building knowledge among the users? In
detail, the study answers:

2.1) what is the knowledge level about green buildings among the users;
and

2.2) whether it is independent from the awareness?

3) The “perceive-ability”—asking the perception—which green design features

are mostly perceived by the building users? Similar to the two affordances
proposed in (Koutamanis, 2006),

People can perceive the green design from the building product and/or the
building space. The perceive-ability indicates the order of how different green
designs catch one’s attention, in other words, which green design(s) are more
perceivable among all those selected by the users. In detail, the study answers:

3.1) what are the most perceivable green designs and how users perceive
them differently according to their spatial scales within the building—
product-related vs. space-related green designs; and

3.2) whether people perceive green designs differently according to their

awareness?

6.2 Individual consciousness and behaviors.

When it comes to green building, its environmental impacts rather than

user's options and choices obtain great attention. some researchers however
argue that design cannot exist without the use of consumers, we come to realize
that research on green building should not be limited to energy performance-
oriented, but also be user-oriented The user-related green building research that
includes individual options and choices might be deemed just to bring benefits
to consumers, by means of gathering their individual feelings and then
maximizing their satisfaction and productivity. As for designers and investors,
on the other hand, they could indirectly collect the data and form a media
catalogue about the bidding and the buying model, which reflected by
individual consciousness and behaviors.

Figure 10: Individual consciousness- social & human needs

6.3 Socio-political acceptance.

Figure 11: socio-political acceptance

As for green building, socio-political acceptance is derived from three parts;

policy-makers, investors and public. Furthermore, public opinion determines
whether the information policy-makers obtained is the accurate or not. At
present, most of the green labeled buildings exist in the form of individual
buildings, not large-scale communities, and therefore this determines that
general public plays an absolute role in providing feedback. It is well
acknowledged that green building throughout the world only account for a small
proportion of the total built environment, and therefore governments have
begun many green pilot projects to promote their development.
Currently, policy-makers universally suggest the government to supply
funding and subsidies, but the result is basically the same. This is an
unfavourable method in establishing systematic green building policies.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive problem remains that minimal data can be found
to reveal the post-occupancy performance of green building, and therefore, it is
difficult to provide positive, useful comments and evaluations for the public.
However, in the long run, green building should be preferred method in the
building industry and gradually extended to residential buildings.
This would provide the necessary precedent to investigate the attitudes
and opinions of the public in the implementation of green building.
Stakeholders, including investors and producers, not only care about pollution
emissions and energy solutions, but also attach importance to economic benefits
created by green building. At present, sustainable development is encouraged
and stimulated by the government and could obtain more ways to increase the
acceptance of the green building development is high. The roles of policy-
makers include:
(i)Understanding the demand and promotion in the general public.
(ii)Green building stimulation for investors.
(iii)Rating system establishments for green building

6.4 Community acceptance

Figure 12: Community acceptance

 Communityacceptanceisrecognized asthesecondaspectofsocial
acceptance.Debatesof “NIMBY” towardsgreenbuildingareamajor possibility.

The critical solution of this question cannot only narrow the gap between
the general public's resistances but also enhance people's acceptance and the
development speed of new projects. The local policy-makers have been working
on how to formulate feasible economic stimulus methods based on regional
economic level, living habits and geographical characteristics. The local
developers, accordingly, also need to control building cost to realize its dual
role of benefits in energy savings and the economy. As for the local residents,
factors related to social problems are mainly reflected in citizen participation
and media publicity.
Nevertheless, compared with general public, consumers in the community
are more concerned about overall excellent performance, including economic,
ecological and social benefits. As a kind of commodity, green building often
cost more and there- fore, they have to perform better in reducing
environmental impact, building comfort and creating a sustainable society.
Through media publicity, green building are usually expressed as reducing
energy and resources' consumption, however, the goal of energy efficiency and
good comfort have not been well proved according to the current investigation.
6.5 Market acceptance

Figure 13: Market acceptance

 The third dimension of social acceptance is market acceptance, mainly
involving the consumers and investors. The economic subsidies and tax
preferential policies adopted by policy-makers are considered as the external
influencing factors, which make consumers' purchasing decision more complex.
In the context of construction industry, based on the traditional non-green
building, consumers can shift attention to green building for benefits in
sustainability. For consumers purchasing behaviors, the voluntary principle is
adopted. If these buildings maintain good performance, the green building
market will expand to influence the balance of supply and demand. In general,
market acceptance is dominated by social acceptance, but the level of market
acceptance will differ due to regional economic levels and green building
awareness. To some extent, there- fore, the market acceptance will in turn affect
the socio-political and community acceptance.
 CHAPTER 7 – INFERENCE

7.1 Basic understanding of green building

A questionnaire was prepared and the report was analysed from common people
to relate their basic understanding of green building and its concepts. In the survey of
green buildings, some of the public indicated not being familiar with the concept of
green building. About 1.5 % of participants selected that the concept of green building
refers to the color green, or the color of outdoor or indoor plants. About 38% of
respondents were somewhat or very familiar with green building. Only 14% indicated
being very familiar with the green building concept. Therefore, about 60% of the
sample was unfamiliar with this type of building. Over 90% of participants were also
unaware of green building labels. This result offers evidence that shows the social
understanding of green building is still in the early stage.
The social familiarity with the concept of green building is essential for the
success of future sustainable building. Without the knowledge of green building, the
public and consumers are not able to make informed decisions. Green building is more
expensive and challenging for investors and designers, therefore the greatest incentive
for companies to pursue this sustainable method is social advocacy to create motivation
to pay more.
The sustainable future idea adopts on the understanding and the involvement of
individual, as well as on the awareness of the implications of people action. The
government and non-public sector are started to take measures recognizing the value of
sustainability and green building. The rate of success towards sustainability in
construction would depend mainly on enhancing awareness, knowledge and
understanding of the influences of people action.
The objective of the survey was to investigate the degree involving public
awareness about green building concept, and what is their anticipations of the outcome
and impression of this concept in foreseeable future. For the purpose of this research
questionnaire have been used to determine a baseline of the public’s awareness
of green buildings and also what encourages people to participate in green
building programs. Surveys may also be used to determine current awareness
levels. Identifying the opinion of publics is established with the use of a one page
survey instrument.
An online survey is the most appropriate tool to obtain wide representation of
all sectors. The online survey will not only serve as a baseline for campaign
measurements, but will be used to develop a comprehensive campaign plan with
techniques designed to achieve maximum results. The research should also guide
development of messages and creative tools.
The analysis from the questionnaire is as follows:

S.No Question Options Percentage

Not at all familiar 32.4
Please indicate how you are Not very familiar 14.7
1 familiar with green
buildings Somewhat familiar 38.2
Very familiar 14.7
Green color 1.5
Green plants indoor 7.4
Green plants outdoors 10.3
What do you think is the Healthy and comfortable 14.7
2
concept of green building? Electricity/Energy/Water/Thermal
60.3
savings
Swachh Bharat 2.9
Land saving and material saving 2.9
Are you aware of green Yes 41.2
3
building labels? No 58.8
Are you willing to buy Yes 63.2
4
green building? No 36.8
Not at all 30.9
Don't mind the price if it performs
29.4
well
Are you willing to pay more 1% - 3% increase in cost 14.7
5 while buying a green
3% - 5% increase in cost 13.2
building?
5% - 10% increase in cost 7.4
10% - 20 % increase in cost 2.9
above 20% 1.5
Have you felt the difference Yes 27.9
7 in being physically present No 47.1
in a green building? Sometimes 25
Yes 57.4
Do you reside in a green
8 No 10.3
building?
I'm not aware 32.4
Would you like reside in a Yes 45.5
9
green building in India? No 4.5
 Maybe 30.3
Not aware if there are green
19.7
buildings in India
Would you prefer to live in Yes 89.7
10
an energy efficient home? No 10.3
Yes 36.8
11 Do you recycle your water?
No 63.2
Yes 38.2
12 Do you recycle your waste?
No 61.8
Does your house have Yes 60.3
13 Landscaping with native
plants No 39.7
Yes 61.8
Have you been to buildings
14 No 19.1
that saves/ conserve water?
Maybe 19.1
Have you been to buildings Yes 45.6
15 that protect and enhance the No 30.9
site it is built on? Maybe 23.5
Yes 44.1
Have you been to buildings
16 No 39.7
that manages their waste?
Maybe 16.2
Table 9: Citizens' basic understanding of green building and purchase intentions.

At present, many advanced, innovative building technologies are generally being

used in green buildings, pushing the cost of green buildings to be much higher than the
conventional alternatives. However, about 89% agreed and strongly agreed respectively,
to being more willing to live in a green building.
7.2 Understanding the concept of Green Building
A clear understanding of the concept of green buildings are understood by nearly
60 % although 14.7% believed that the concept was based on a healthy and comfortable
environment.

Figure 14: Pie chart indicating the familiarity in concept of green buildings

A brief percentage believed that it has some relevance to Land saving, material
saving and Swachh Bharat. A small group of people consider it has something to do
with plants in and out of the building. Almost 40% of the people are unaware of the
exact concept of green buildings according to the survey.

Figure 15: Pie chart indicating Concept of green buildings

The survey portrays 58.8% who are unaware of green building labels while the 2% of
people are in the stage where they are not able to comprehend the exact definition of
green buildings.
7.3 Energy efficiency
In the survey, almost 46 % states that they are willing to reside in a green
building, although, 20% were not aware if there were green buildings in India. A
considerable percentage of people have stated no to living in green buildings.

Figure 16: Pie chart indicating the percentage of people living in green buildings

In contradiction to this, almost 90% stated that they would live in an energy
efficient home. It is evident that the concept of energy efficiency has been accepted by
the people unlike green buildings still stands aloof.

7.4 Practicing green building strategies.

From the survey it is evident that although people are aware of green building
strategies, they are not aware of the benefits that it gives eventually. It is noted that,
nearly 40% recycle water, 60% have native landscaping in their residence and 38%
recycle waste. It is also noted that around 60% have visited buildings that conserve
waste but nearly 20% were not able to identify the condition of the building.
 CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSION.

From the analysis done from survey it is evident thatmajority of the people
understand what green buildings are in a vague manner but do not understand the
concept of green buildings completely. Although some people understand the principles
and also practice it in a regular manner, they are unaware of the fact that it contributes
to environment on the whole. The whole process of making green buildings should
evolve from educating people about the benefits when this is practiced individually and
then go to the commercial sectors where it is done in a large scale.
From the study is it inferred that the concepts of green buildings will be
beneficial when it is practiced by a community or done in a large scale; failing which
the results that it provides may not be recognizable with a major impact. Also, there has
not been much awareness given to the public who are the major contributors to the
society. Considering the fact that awareness messages are portrayed in the media about
tax payments and other economic issues, it is necessary that the concept of green
buildings should be educated to the people through media and other social platforms.
The concepts like rainwater harvesting has become mandatory according to the
building norms. The same can be initiated for green building concepts as well. In this
case not only would the general public be aware of the concepts we would eventually
create an array of green buildings by which environment can be benefitted.

As more developers, owners, consultants, designers and vendors are

participating in the globally green building movement, the action is getting rapid
pace. The mixed effort of people and organizations to switch towards green buildings is
having a remarkable impact The humankind has influenced so much on the worldwide
natural environment to twist its stability. As a result, nowadays, as the dependents
of the environment, at whatever stage in the community you and everyone, this is
a timely responsibility of all of us to wide open our sight in the direction of
transforming our perceptions and the way of living. Start specific, imagine simple and
light but utilize to a great extent, when require one, make use of just one not really two,
provide the acquired benefits/losses with the individual next to you and make
contributions towards a sustainable environment.

Base on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are put forward for
consideration.
1) Green movement need to be the only alternative for the society to
accomplish sustainable natural environment.
2) Distribution of the strategies, components and methodologies for the green
building need to be accepted on a broader level.
3) Adjustment in way of life and understanding about the “Green building” is
necessary for advancement of “Green Building” concept.
4) Developing public awareness to transform way of life to help save resources
of water and minimize waste, also to assist and enhance guidelines and
approaches for realistic implementation.
5) Mass media, scientific community, NGOs, and policy creators will need
to operate collectively in order to generate awareness amongst public.
 CHAPTER 9 – BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Odom, J. David and DuBose, George H. Mold and Moisture Prevention.

Washington, D.C.: National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 2005.
2. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They're Built. New
York: Viking, 1994.
3. http://constructionclaims.com/Content_Free/102909part1.aspx
4. https://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/conf-
archive/2010%20B11%20papers/164_Desmarais.pdf
5. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/green-rating-problems-6964
6. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/real-estate/indian-green-building-
market-to-double-by-2022/article23391602.ece#
7. D.-X. Zhaoetal./RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews51(2015)1594–1609
8. Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social
acceptance. Dong-XueZhao a, Bao-JieHe a,n,1, ChristineJohnson b, BenMouc
9. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/real-estate/indian-green-building-
market-to-double-by-2022/article23391602.ece#
10. Determined the Level of Green Building Public Awareness: Application and
Strategies Usman Aminu Umar, M.F.Khamidi
11. Kansal, R. and Kadambari, G., 2010. Green Buildings: An Assessment of Life Cycle Cost. IUP Journal of
Infrastructure, 8(4).
CHAPTER 10 – APPENDIXES

Survey Questionnaire