Chapter– II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A survey of literature was undertaken to be familiar with the subject matter

concerned with the present research problem, which proved helpful in
planning and execution of the study. A green building is a practice of creating
structures using utmost natural resources making it environmentally friendly.
The green building concept has been gaining prominence in India as well as
in other countries too. Various experts and agencies have given definition and
meaning of the term “Green Buildings”. There are certain features and
benefits of green buildings. On the other hand there are some misconceptions
related to Green buildings identified and presented in this chapter. The
reviewed literature also highlights builders and consumers motivations factors
for going green in buildings. Builders also face barriers in adopting the green
building concept which governs their opinion regarding green buildings. The
major areas of related literature, survey scholarly articles, books, and other
sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a
description, summary and critical evaluation of each work are presented in
this chapter. In order to make the review clear and understanding, the present
chapter is divided into following sections:

2.1 Theoretical Orientation

2.1.1Sustainable Development and Green Buildings

2.1.2Need of Green Buildings
2.1.3Concept of Green Buildings Defined and Explained
2.1.4Green Buildings in India
2.1.5Aspects of Green Buildings
2.1.6 Benefits of Green Buildings
2.1.7Building Environmental Assessment Methods
2.1.8 Misconceptions regarding Green Buildings
2.1.9Drivers to Green Building Construction
2.1.10 Barriers and Challenges in implementing Green Building Concept

17
2.1.11 Retrofitting: Going Green in Existing building
2.2 Empirical Studies

2.2.1 Building Materials

2.2.2 Energy Efficiency in Green Buildings
2.2.3 Green Building Rating Systems
2.2.4 Indoor Environment Quality in Green Buildings
2.2.5 Productivity in Green Buildings
2.2.6 Motivation in Adopting Green Building Design and Construction
2.2.7 Benefits of Green Buildings
2.2.8 Barriers in Adopting Green Building Design and Construction
2.2.9 Perception Related to Green Buildings
2.2.10 Awareness Regarding Green Buildings
2.2.11 Incentive Programmes for Green Buildings
2.2.12 Comparative Studies Between Conventional and Green Buildings
2.2.13 Water Efficiency in Green Buildings

2.3 Conclusion of review of Literature

2.1 Theoretical Orientation

This section describes the theories related to Green Buildings.

2.1.1 Sustainable Development and Green Buildings

Growing Human activity has increased the concern for sustainability even
more in recent times. Sustainability in real estate context is not only limited to
energy conservation, but also includes resource usage, impact on the
neighbouring environment and working conditions for tenants (Roy and
Gupta, 2008). Among the other production and manufacturing sectors,
building and construction sectors occupies the first place as the largest
contributor to pollution and natural resource consumption (Levine et. al., 2007;
Plank, 2008). In order to control the effects of construction on the environment
to improve the performance of the built environment in terms of health and
environmental aspects, “green” or “sustainable” buildings were introduced

18
(Kibert, 2012).The green building concept broadly integrates many interests
and aspects of sustainability emphasising reduction of environmental impacts
through a holistic approach to land and building usage and construction
strategies (Roy and Gupta, 2008;Dwaikat and Ali, 2014).

Green building and sustainability are often used interchangeably, but the
terms are far from synonymous. Sustainability, a very broad and far reaching
concept, is the underlying principle of green building (Timothy, 2010).

A green building uses less energy, water and natural resources than a
conventional building. It also creates less waste and provides a healthier living
environment for people living inside it compared to a conventional building.
Green building incorporates several sustainable features such as efficient use
of water, energy-efficient and eco-friendly, use of renewable energy and
recycled/recyclable materials, effective use of landscapes, effective control
and building management and indoor environment quality for health and
comfort. The overall benefits of green buildings mostly depend upon the
extent to which the sustainable features are addressed during the initial
planning and design. A green building is most likely to succeed in its
objectives if sustainable features are envisioned and incorporated right at the
design stage. The design has to take into consideration the entire supply
chain – from material sourcing, energy modelling, resource reuse, basic
amenities and waste disposal to tenant education (Roy and Gupta, 2008).
Over the last several years, there has been a rapidly growing concern about
environmental issues and a rising interest in sustainable practices.
Sustainability is one of the basic concept that interest people in the field of
construction who are trying to apply its technology and strategy according to
the architects and industrial progress (Matar, 2015). Companies across all
industries have launched Green initiatives to improve their environmental
performance and respond to the concerns among their workers, customers
and the communities where they operate. The rising environmental
consciousness has led to a rapid increase in Green construction. Real estate
owners are increasingly interested in Green construction since many
recognize that sustainable building features lead to lower operating costs and

19
improved financial performance. Owners are also finding that corporate
tenants are more likely to rent space in buildings that incorporate green
features. Green buildings can be less expensive to operate due to their lower
energy and operating costs, while workers satisfaction and productivity is
higher. Finally, there is the “prestige” factor of owing or occupying a Green
building. Investors are also becoming more focused on investing in Green
buildings (Turner Green Building Market Barometer, 2008).

There are a number of motives to building green, including environmental,

economic, and social benefits. However, modern sustainability initiatives call
for an integrated and synergistic design to both new construction and in the
retrofitting of an existing structure. Green building brings together a vast array
of practices and techniques to reduce and ultimately eliminate the impacts of
new buildings on the environment and human health. It often emphasizes
taking advantage of renewable resources, e.g., using sunlight through passive
solar, active solar, and photovoltaic techniques and using plants and trees
through green roofs, rain gardens, and for reduction of rainwater run-off. Many
other techniques, such as using packed gravel or permeable concrete instead
of conventional concrete or asphalt to enhance replenishment of ground
water, are used as well. Green Building requires combined efforts of the
government and community (Fazil and Faridi, 2011)

2.1.2 Need of Green Buildings

During the late 20th century, awareness of the impact of technology and the
expanding human population on the earth increased. More people are moving
to the city causing a significant increase in the construction of buildings and
skyscrapers, and hence a booming in the city economy but with great
repercussions in the environment (Conte and Yepes, 2012). People started to
expand their efforts to reduce their environmental impacts and buildings
started to be recognized as major contributors to the world’s energy usage,
landfill waste and diminishing green space (IFMA Foundation, 2010).Green
building practices are not new phenomena. A handful of buildings integrating
environmental design aspects were erected as early as the late 19th and early

20
20th centuries(Cassidy, 2003).A unified green design movement did not begin
to emerge until the 1970s, when design and building practices first became a
focus of environmental advocates(IFMA Foundation, 2010).

Buildings are one of the heaviest consumers of natural resources and account
for an important portion of the greenhouse gas emissions (Yi-Kai, et. al.,
2010). With the growing evidence that the phenomena of global warming and
climate change are caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it
has become necessary to take immediate action to avoid dangerous
consequences for suture generation (Taleb and Sharples, 2011). Buildings
not only use resources such as energy and raw materials but they also
generate waste and potentially harmful atmospheric emissions (Alnaser et.
al., 2008).

The Indian construction industry is experiencing a fast rate of growth with a

continual increase in gross built-up area of 10% per annum over the last
decade (Indian Green Building Council, 2013).Demand for housing,
expansion of organized retail, commercial office spaces by multinationals, the
setting up of special economic zones (SEZs), are all increasing. Two of the
greatest challenges currently facing the global population are climate change
and social and economic inequality resulting from resource scarcity. The built
environment has a vast impact on the natural environment, human health, and
the economy. Significant increases in chemical sensitivity have been linked to
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in building materials and consumer
products. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is a syndrome in which a
sufferer experiences multiple symptoms upon exposure to minute amounts of
everyday chemicals, producing some level of un-wellness all the time.
Although there are a multitude of triggers for MCS, the products related to the
building industry include chemicals emitted by carpets, particleboard, and
paints, as well as sealants and adhesives.

The examples above illustrate that humans face a range of negative impacts
linked to the way buildings are designed, built, and maintained. The
construction and operation of buildings, specifically residential buildings,

21
requires significant input of energy, water and raw materials. Buildings are
also responsible for considerable quantities of waste and emissions, including
greenhouse gases (Winter, 2008). Energy consumption and associated
greenhouse gas emissions will therefore continue to rise unless actions to
direct the construction industry towards sustainable consumption and
production are taken urgently (Mehta and Porwal, 2013)

Green buildings address these challenges by integrating the key areas of

environmental and human health, protection of ecosystems, and preservation
of natural resources (including water, agricultural land, timber, minerals, ore,
quarry products and fossil fuels), reduction of atmospheric pollutants
associated with energy use and materials manufacturing and creation of safe,
non-toxic indoor environments. A ‘whole-building’ approach to residential
design and construction combines sustainable site design, water
conservation, energy efficiency, environmentally preferable materials and
superior indoor environmental quality to achieve a green end product that
meets basic human needs for shelter without compromising safety, security
and health needs(Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Green building is
not a matter of choice or luxury but a necessity for the environmentally
conscious industry professionals, owners, developers, government officials
and rest of the stakeholders (Pedini and Ashuri, 2010).

Healthy, low-emitting alternative materials and superior ventilation are two of

the characteristics of green buildings that improve the health of occupants,
and in turn lessen the financial burden on families, employers, and insurers
(Winter, 2008).By adopting green building strategies, we can maximize both
economic and environmental performance. Green construction methods can
be integrated into buildings at any stage, from design and construction, to
renovation and deconstruction.3

At the micro level, the need for green housing may be propagated by an
individual’s health concerns; on the macro level, the need is driven by the
climate change crisis facing humanity, and the social unrest and violence
resulting from resource scarcity. When integrated with improved

22
transportation and eliminating hunger and drought, green building can
become a key component to solving the world’s greatest challenges (Winter,
2008).

2.1.3Concept of Green Buildings Defined and Explained

The term ‘Green building’ or “Sustainable Building” are used interchangeably

and are defined by different authors as follows:

By ‘green’ it means building that have been created with

explicit intent to include environmentally sustainable
design (ESD) features and principles.

Leaman et al., 2007

“Green” or “Sustainable” building use key resources like

energy, water, materials and land more efficiently than
buildings that are just built to code. With more natural
light and better air quality, green buildings typically
contribute to improved employee and student health,
comfort and productivity.

Mehta and Porwal, 2013

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of USA defines green building as

follows:
“Green building is the practice of creating structures and
using processes that are environmentally responsible
and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle
from sitting 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.”

“Green buildings practices are commonly defined by the

areas of the environment they affect: energy, water, site,
air quality and materials”.

Wilson, 2006

23
Green building concept, in broader terms, involves a building, which is
designed, built operated, maintained or reused with objectives to protect
occupant’s health, improve employee productivity, use wisely natural
resources and reduce the environmental impacts (BEAM society, 2004).
Green building is also known as a sustainable or ‘high performance’ building
(Environmental Protection Agency).

Green Buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting

occupant’s health, improving employee productivity, using energy, water and
other resources more efficiently, and reducing overall impact to the
environment (Zigenfus, 2008; Mathew, 2015).It maximizes the use of efficient
building materials and construction practices, optimizes the use of onsite
sources, uses minimum energy to power itself, uses efficient equipment to
meet its daily consumer consumption, maximizes the use of renewable
sources of energy, uses efficient waste and water management practices, and
provides comfortable and hygienic indoor working conditions (Mohanty et.al.,
2010).The building may be simple compared to a lot of creative designs that is
seen at the moment, but its beauty lies in its objectives, these buildings
combine the creation of designer and splendour of nature and greenery which
gives the design the beauty of the scene. This practice expands and
complements the classical design of the building with respect to the economy,
benefits, and the durability and comfort (Zaid, 2011).

2.1.4Green Buildings in India

India’s economic growth can only be sustained with corresponding to growth

in infrastructure. Presently, the growing demand is being met by crumbling
infrastructure, such as road networks, city transport, water and sanitation etc.
A solution to the contradiction requires a massive enlargement of urban
infrastructure which will further require newer green and sustainable
techniques for building this infrastructure. These newer techniques
encapsulate the foundation of green buildings (Ramesh and Khan, 2013).

24
Green building construction has taken off significantly over last decade in
India. Several institutional and government bodies have come forward to build
sustainable buildings(Mehta and Porwal, 2013). The green building movement
in India started with the establishment of the IGBC in 2001, which was an
initiative of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) along with the World
Green Building Council and the USGBC. The first green building in India, CII-
Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre in Hyderabad, was inaugurated on 14
July 2004. This was a great symbolic achievement. Since then, the number
and volume of green buildings in India has been phenomenal(Roy and Gupta,
2008). However, capacity building for green building professionals, green
building materials and technologies is needed to achieve the goals of
sustainable construction in India. Emerging green building technologies and
new green materials market is estimated to be around 40 billion USD and it is
expected to grow (Kats, 2003). The green building concept has been gaining
prominence in India with an increasing number of initiatives, primarily by
Indian Green Building Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), striving to impart
knowledge, offering advisory services to the industry on environmental
aspects and practices for green buildings (Times of India, 2015).

2.1.5 Aspects of Green Buildings

The aspects of green building are described as below:

Sustainable Site: It refers to a site that would pose the least environmental
threat during construction phase. The sites have access to basic amenities
thereby, reducing pollution caused because of transportation. The landscape
design should be such that it preserves all existing trees and restore natural
topography, use drought resistant trees. Optimize the use of on-site storm
water management treatment and provision for ground water recharge.
Measures are adopted to preserve top soil through effective methods (Gupta
and Shrivatava, 2015).

Water Efficiency: The main goal here is to increase water efficiency use
within the building, thereby reducing the amount of water needed for

25
operations. Some methods which can be adopted for this include efficient
landscaping techniques and use of innovative wastewater management
technology (Gupta and Shrivatava, 2015). Technologies for reuse of water
such as Rainwater Harvesting, Wastewater treatment plant, for conservation
of water waterless urinals are installed (Elattar and Ahmed, 2014).

Energy Efficiency: It involves the installation of various methods of on-site

renewable energy production can reduce the overall footprints of the building
and other means of using green power. The optimization of building
orientation, massing, shape, design and interior colours and finishes is done
which maximizes the use of natural day lighting. This reduces the
dependence on artificial lighting energy. Window frames, sashes and curtain
wall system are so designed to optimize energy performance. Use of BEE
rated electrical equipments is encouraged (Gupta and Shrivatava, 2015).
CFC-free refrigerants are used in Air conditioners and refrigerators are
installed. Renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal etc.
are used to reduce the electricity loads (Elattar and Ahmed, 2014).

Material Selection: As a result of increased use of some materials they are

threatened to deplete (Elattar and Ahmed, 2014).Therefore, this aspectis
mainly concerned with the reusing, reducing and recycling of the waste.
Maximizes the use of recycled content materials, re-usable, renewable,
sustainably managed, bio-based materials. Ways are identified to use high-
recycled content materials which range from blended concrete using fly ash,
slag, recycled concrete aggregate or other admixtures to structural steel,
ceiling and floor tiles, carpeting, carpet padding etc. Bio-based materials and
finishes such as various types of agriboard made from agricultural waste and
by products including straw, wheat, barley, soy, sunflower shells, peanut
shells etc.(Gupta and Shrivatava, 2015). Reuse of household waste in the
form of bio gas is also a feature of this aspect. Segregation of household
waste is followed.
Indoor Environment Quality: In order to enhance the well-being of the
occupants, design of a building is such that materials with low emission are
used. Building is designed to maximize the use of natural light for all

26
occupants. Bio degradable and environment friendly cleaning agents are used
that do not release VOCs or other harmful agents and residue. There should
be a provision for cross ventilation and enhanced ventilation system (Gupta
and Shrivatava, 2015).

2.1.6 Benefits of Green Buildings

In today’s scenario, Green building is accepted worldwide in the recent past

but there is still a vast community that either is unaware of sustainable design
concept, indifferent to its cause, or unconvinced of its benefits. To convince
owners, builders, and designers (or other stakeholders) about the benefits of
sustainable design, it is necessary to make them understand the numerous
advantages of green building concept. To do that it is very important to
understand the opinion of each group based on their selling points. To an
owner, the bottom line may be financial. To an architect it might be
environmental and to the engineer it might be performance (Devi and
Lakshmi, 2010).

There are many reasons to build green which will provide sustainable design;
architects should be equipped to provide a suitable argument relevant to the
particular audience. Udechukwu and Johnson (2008) classify green building
benefits into three areas viz. environmental, economic and social. Devi and
Lakshmi (2010) gave environmental and economic benefits of green
buildings. Sarma (2014) highlighted benefits of green building as economic,
reduced energy consumption, reduced water consumption, cost efficient to
run and reduced greenhouse gases. Several benefits of green buildings can
be found in the literature of (Kats, 2003, 2006, 2010; Kats et.al, 2003; Turner
Construction, 2005; Madew, 2006; Ries et.al, 2006; Davis Langdon, 2007;
Bowman and Wills, 2008; McGraw-Hill Construction, 2008;Yudelson, 2008;
Choi, 2009; Kibert, 2012). These benefits are represented in significant
energy and water saving, reduced maintenance cost, increased property
value, higher occupant satisfaction, improved productivity, health benefits,
and reduced CO2 and waste emissions. The benefits of adopting green
building concept synthesised from the literature are discussed as follows:

27
i. Global Environmental Benefits: Since buildings use such vast
amounts of resources in their operation and since they are made of
materials that need to be extricated, processed, and manufactured, it is
no wonder that approaching their design in a sustainable way could
have global impacts on the environment. Sustainable design offers
significant advantages in the areas of energy and water use reduction,
air quality improvement, and increased material efficiency.

• Reduced Energy Consumption: One goal of sustainable

design is to reduce the amount of energy required to cool, heat,
and light our buildings. By utilizing passive strategies such as
day lighting, thermal mass, and shading, or by utilizing high
performance systems, there is significant reduction in energy
demand of the mechanical systems. This translates into a
reduced need for extricating dwindling fossil fuels and power
plant operation.

• Reduced Water Consumption: Most of the Asian countries are

water stressed and in country like India, the water table has
reduced drastically over the last decade (IGBC, 2012). With
water efficient design, green buildings can reduce the amount of
water consumption. Efficient landscape and roof designs can
also mitigate storm water runoff thereby lessening the burden on
our storm and sewer systems. This will positively affect local,
regional, and global waterways by reducing pollution and
supporting natural watersheds.

• Reduced Air Pollution: Fossil fuel is a slowly depleting

resource, world over (IGBC, 2012).There are a number of
indirect (relative to buildings) sources of pollution such as
vehicle pollution from the transport of building products and the
manufacturing of building products. There are also direct

28
 pollutant sources such as HVAC refrigerants and the toxic
emissions from our finishes. All of these have impacts on global
warming, ozone depletion, and air pollution. Green Building
construction and design helps to overcome the problem to some
extent.

• Increased Material Efficiency: Due to the mining,

transportation, and manufacturing processes, using local and
natural materials in our buildings has a direct benefit on all three
of the above strategies. In addition, utilizing recycled, reclaimed,
or salvaged materials can lessen the burden on landfills by
reducing the need for dumping.

• Handling Household Waste: Handling of waste in residential

buildings is extremely difficult as most of the waste generated is
not segregated at source and has a high probability of going to
land-fills. This continues to the municipalities which need to be
addressed. Green buildings intents to address this by
encouraging occupants of green buildings to segregate the
household waste (IGBC, 2012).

ii. Economic Benefits: There are some clear economic advantages to

sustainable building. Reducing the consumption of energy and water
would lessen the financial burden of building operations. In the case of
passive heating and cooling systems, this also means a reduction in
maintenance costs. And by improving the comfort for buildings'
occupants, employee turnover can be reduced. The economic benefits
of sustainable design can be realized in the short term, long term, and
in the added value projects.

• Short Term Benefits: Sustainable buildings can offer

immediate savings in the area of utility costs. Whether from
reduced electrical energy and water usage, or from reduced cost

29
 of storm water mitigation infrastructure, green buildings have the
opportunity to lessen the cost of running utility bills. In addition,
buildings with efficient layouts can reduce the cost of building
materials and construction waste. Also, if a building utilizes
smaller HVAC equipment and relies more on passive strategies
for heating and cooling, then the first cost of equipment could be
less. There could also be financial incentives from local utility
companies for buildings utilizing sustainable design strategies.

• Long Term Benefits: Utility cost savings over the long term
could pay for possible upfront cost increases. While the payback
duration on items like photovoltaic panels is debatable, some
other measures may realize quick pay-offs. Passive systems
may need little to no ongoing maintenance; therefore a building
owner could save on the building operations budget. This
translates into the landscape designs as well. Natural
landscapes generally require less maintenance than
conventional ones. Another benefit is the churn rate. Buildings
designed for flexible layouts can reduce the costs of
reconfiguration.

• Added Project Value: Many owners are now using "Green

Design" as a selling point. For leasing or re-selling property,
sustainable buildings can attract new audiences and a new
market. This could translate into quicker sales and higher rents.
In addition, recruiting new employees (and keeping them) can
be made easier by offering attractive and healthy facilities in
which to work. Studies are showing that employees working in
healthy environments work more productively, take less sick
days, and tend to remain loyal with the firm.

iii. Increased Productivity and Health Benefits: Productivity is an

important success factor for all organizations. Improvement in
productivity has been recognized to have a major impact on economic

30
 growth and higher standard of living. The direct measurement of
increased productivity is ability to monitor things like ability to focus and
think, synthesize and add value to the organization, work efficiency and
output. Most common indirect measures such as absenteeism, hours
worked, tardiness, safety rule violations, number of grievances filed,
employee turnover (Kemppila and Lonnqvist, 2003), reduction of
number of sick days (Dunckley, 2009) are used to measure
productivity. Health and well-being of occupants is the most important
aspect of Green buildings (IGBC, 2012). Green Building promotes
healthier work environments are much lower source emissions from
measures such as better sitting and better building materials source
controls, better lighting quality including more day lighting, use of
shading devices, greater occupancy control over lights levels and less
glare, improved thermal comfort and better ventilation and use of
measurement and verification, and Carbon di oxide monitoring to
ensure better performance of systems such as ventilation, heating and
air conditioning. The presence of all these factors in a building reduces
illness symptoms, reduced absenteeism and increased productivity.

2.1.7Building Environmental Assessment Methods

Cole et. al., (2000) define building environmental assessment methods as

tools for evaluating building performance with respect to a broad range of
environmental considerations, organized into assessment criteria. That is,
building environmental assessment methods have emerged as a means to
evaluate building performance across a broad range of environmental
considerations. There are many assessment systems in different countries. It
is hard to say one system is better than the others because they are all
designed based on a national background, which includes the limited
utilization of these systems (Shi, 2008).
Ratings are largely voluntary schemes that are expected to stimulate market
and consumer interest in green buildings. In fact, in most regions voluntary
building rating schemes have often preceded regulatory mandates and have
also helped in defining standards. The green buildings require a complex set

31
of sustainability criteria related to a wide range of resource and material use.
The advantage of the rating system is that it helps to disseminate green
building practices outside the realm of regulations that are often impeded by
structural and institutional barriers. Green building rating is a practice that has
the potential to become the standard. But it needs to be widely understood by
building owners, architects, building managers and occupiers to make an
effective impact. Ratings help the consumer to compare buildings and make
the appropriate choice. This creates incentives for resource efficient buildings
that are urgently needed to reduce the resource impacts. Rating is a
legitimate way of changing practice and influencing change. It can also be a
powerful tool in mainstreaming a large number of green measures that can
collectively make the impact(Winter, 2008).

Globally, large numbers of rating tools have evolved in a number of regions

that are influencing property markets towards more sustainable practices.
They are based on local climates and geographical conditions(Winter, 2008;
Elias and Lin, 2015). The predominant ones are:

BREEAM- Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

Method, which is widely used in the UK.

LEED- Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which was

developed by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) and used in the
US.

Green Star- developed by the Green Building Council of Australia and

used in Australia.

CASBEE- Comprehensive Assessment System for Building

Environmental Efficiency, which was developed by Japan Sustainable
Building Consortium and is used in Japan.

Green Mark- used in Singapore and mandated by the Building and

Construction Authority for all new development and retrofit works.

NABERS- National Australian Built Environment Rating System managed

by the NSW (New South Wales) Department of Environment and Climate

32
 Change. The only rating system to measure ongoing operational
performance.

Green Globes System (GGS)- This environmental assessment and

rating system evolved out of BREEAM, which was brought to Canada as
BREEAM Canada for Existing Buildings in 1996 and finally became Green
Globes.

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-

BEAM)- developed in 1996 by the BEAM Society.

Several of the prominent green regional programs in the United States are
described below.

Austin Energy Green Building Program® was the first green building
program and is today the most successful utility-sponsored program in the
nation. Its top tier is among the most stringent of all US green home
programs, though the program offers three additional tiers at more
accessible levels.

Built Green® Colorado was introduced in 1995. The program was

created through partnership between the Home Builders Association of
Metro Denver (HBA), The Governor's Office of Energy Management and
Conservation (OEMC), Xcel Energy, and E-Star Colorado. Built Green® is
acclaimed within the industry for its advertising campaigns geared toward
both builders and homebuyers.

Earthcraft HouseTM is a partnership between Southface Energy Institute

and the Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association. Southface adheres to
a thorough verification process that requires a visual inspection of each
certified home. The National Association of Home Builders named
Earthcraft HouseTM “Green Building Program of the Year” in 2004. In
2005, residential green building standards entered the national stage for
the first time with the following programs.

33
NAHB Model Green Home Building Guidelines developed by the
National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) were released early in
2005. The NAHB announced in Spring 2007 its intention to turn the
Guidelines into a national rating system, implemented by local
Homebuilder Association chapters. The Guidelines serve as a solid
educational piece for builders less familiar with green building concepts.
To ensure that builders achieve a balanced, green residence, the NAHB
guidelines set Bronze, Silver, and Gold performance levels in each of the
major categories (including site, water, energy, and so on). The guidelines
heavily emphasize durable construction techniques based on building
science research. They target the mainstream builder audience, rather
than those in favor of more stringent green home standards. NAHB and
the International Code Council (ICC) announced in February 2007 their
intention to jointly develop an American National Standard for residential
green building based on the NAHB Model Green home Building
Guidelines, a major development in the US green housing scene.

LEED for HomesTM, currently in pilot phase, represents the US Green

Building Council’s (USGBC) first Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) product focused on residential buildings. LEED for Homes
targets the top 25 percent of homes with best-practice environmental
features. Usually these are built by builders who have already mastered
whole-house energy performance at ENERGY STAR Labelled Home
levels (a prerequisite of LEED for Homes) and are interested in raising the
bar in other areas of sustainability, including water conservation, indoor
environmental quality, and materials selection. In addition to meeting all
mandatory requirements, builders select from a list of optional credits to
earn points toward a Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum rating. LEED for
Homes can be applied to a range of housing types, from single-family
residences to mid-rise multi-family buildings. As of June 2007, 393
builders around the country had enrolled approximately 6,300 housing
units in the green building program, and 220 housing units had been
officially certified.

34
The green rating systems followed in India are:

LEED India- administered by the Indian Green Building Council

(IGBC).According to IGBC, 2012, The LEED rating system, developed by
the USGBC, is a recognised and popular international green rating
system. It has been adopted by the IGBC to suit Indian green building
requirements. This is purely a private initiative which is run by the Indian
Green Building Council (IGBC) in India. The IGBC, which is part of the
Confederation of Indian Industries - Sohrabji Godrej Green Business
Centre (CII-GBC), has been promoting Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) now for a decade. According to IGBC
website, LEED India works on a whole-building approach to sustainability
by recognizing performance in the five key areas namely sustainable site
development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and,
indoor environmental quality. LEED-INDIA programme includes LEED
India for New Construction (LEED India NC) and LEED India for Core and
Shell (LEED India CS). Core and Shell buildings are those where the
owners or developers do not control all aspects of the building's design
and construction. These are leased or rented spaces, for example an IT
park. IGBC also has its own set of ratings for homes, townships, SEZ,
green factory buildings and green landscapes. The system is designed to
be comprehensive in scope and simple in operation.

There are credits for each criterion under the broad categories. These
criteria credits are earned by addressing the specific environmental
impact in design and construction. Different levels of green building
certification are awarded based on the total credits earned. A total of up to
61 credits can be earned. The credit requirement for different levels of
rating is as follows:
Ratings Credit points
LEED certified 23-27
LEED Silver 28-33
LEED Gold 34-44
LEED Platinum 45-61

35
The number of points needed to achieve a specific LEED certification
rating is the same across rating systems, but the credit prerequisites and
categories for points vary by the rating system. The number of points
awarded for a specific credit is determined on the basis of the relatively
importance of the building related environmental impact that a specific
credit addresses. For each credit, two or more options for fulfilling the
credit requirements are typically given in the rating system reference
guide along with potential technologies and strategies.

LEED Rating and Certification Process

A formal application review is initiated once the completed application has

been received, with slightly different application review processes for each
rating system and review path. In general, a preliminary review is first
conducted in which all documentation are examined for completeness and
forms are designated as “approved” or “not approved”. Each prerequisite
and credit is also reviewed and designated as “anticipated”, “pending”, or
denied” and accompanied with technical advice from the review team.
Once the preliminary review has been completed, the project team may
either accept the results as final or choose to submit a response with
additional documentation for an optional final review. After the final review
process has been concluded, the project team can either accept or appeal
the final decision within 25 days and with additional appeal fees. If
certified, the LEED certified project receives a formal certification of
recognition and information on how to order additional marketing material.
The project team also has the option to have the project listed in the
online LEED project directory and the U.S. Department of Energy’s High
Performance Building Database. For the LEED for Existing Building
Operations and Maintenance rating, projects can apply for recertification
as frequently as every year but must be recertified at least once every five
years.

36
TERI-GRIHA Rating System

According to GRIHA, (2015), the alternative system that soon followed

LEED rating system is the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat
Assessment (GRIHA) which has been conceived by the The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI) and jointly developed by Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE) as the national rating system for buildings.
GRIHA was adopted as the National Rating System (NRS) under the
MNRE, as of 1 November 2007. It is a green building ‘design evaluation
system’, and is suitable for all kinds of buildings in different climatic zones
of the country. TERI’s green rating system GRIHA (Green Rating for
Integrated Habitat Assessment) has been developed as an instrumental
tool to evaluate and rate the environmental performance of a building.
GRIHA attempts to quantify aspects such as energy consumption, waste
generation, renewable energy adoption, etc. so as to manage, control and
optimise the same to the best possible extent. It is a 100 point system
with a set of 34 criteria of which some are mandatory. Minimum qualifying
score is 50 and rating given in 1 – 5 stars, 1 star for every 10 points over
50. The rating can be applied to new and existing buildings of various
uses. The rating system is based on national and international energy and
environmental principles. The guidelines or criteria appraisal will be
revised every three years to take into account the latest scientific
developments during this period.

GRIHA has derived inputs from the codes and guidelines developed by
the Bureau of Energy Efficiency, the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy
Sources, MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forest), Government of
India, The Bureau of Indian Standards. The rating system aims to achieve
efficient resource utilization, enhanced resource efficiency, and better
quality of life the buildings.

37
 GRIHA Rating and Certification Process

According to The Energy and Resource Institute and GRIHA Council,

2015 following is the process of rating and certification process:

Master plan Rating: It includes step by step process of Registration of

the project, Half day workshop for the project team, Access to online
documentation tool, Receipt of completed documentation by GRIHA
Council, Review of documentation by GRIHA Council and comments sent
to Project team, Receipt of revised documentation by GRIHA Council,
Documentation sent to External Evaluators by GRIHA Council, Comments
of External Evaluators forwarded to Project team, Revised documentation
from Project team shared with External Evaluators, Master plan rating
awarded by GRIHA Council based on points and feedback of External
Evaluators

Rating of Each Phase: The following steps followed for rating of each
phase starts from Registration of the project phase (First phase would be
registered with Master plan rating), Half day workshop for the project team
(Workshop of First phase and Master plan Stage would be done together
at Master plan Rating stage), Access to online documentation tool,
GRIHA Council to conduct 3 site visits to the site during the course of the
construction of the phase, Receipt of completed documentation by GRIHA
Council, Review of documentation by GRIHA Council and comments sent
to Project team, Receipt of revised documentation by GRIHA Council,
Documentation sent to External Evaluators by GRIHA Council, Comments
of External Evaluators forwarded to Project team, Revised documentation
from Project team shared with External Evaluators, Master plan rating
awarded by GRIHA Council based on points and feedback of External
Evaluators

Both GRIHA and LEED-INDIA are operating at the national level. Both these
ratings have a checklist of criteria and points that are assigned to these
criteria based on their relative importance. Demand for voluntary rating is still

38
very small and nascent in India. Though the two rating system are around for
a while – LEED since 2001 and GRIHA effectively since 2007, – the number
of buildings that have come forward to get rated is a small drop in the ocean.
The total number of buildings registered with GRIHA is 179 and that with
LEED is 1505. The number of buildings actually rated is still much smaller – 8
for GRIHA and 223 under IGBC. It is clear that the Indian building sector has
yet to warm up to the voluntary rating system.

2.1.8Misconceptions regarding Green Buildings

Green Building is a relatively new idea, so there are quite a few

misconceptions that keep people from pursuing the development of a green
building or home. They are listed as below:

Green Building is a Fad: The upcoming generation of homebuyers is

more concerned about their carbon footprint than any previous generation.
The debate over climate change continues and industry experts expect
more regulatory stipulations on building materials and methods.
Consumers will always look for ways to save on energy cost, regardless of
whether the fuel is nuclear energy, coal-fired plants or natural gas. Green
Building strives to be healthier for human habitation while releasing fewer
pollutants and using fewer fossil fuels. Focusing attention on renewable
resources will help to build a strong, sustainable society that can be
around for hundreds or thousands of years from now. The concept of
green construction is not going away. Being informed of all available
options and methods is the best approach to stay current with the every
changing market. Green Building is better for the planet and better for the
prosperity. It’s not a fad, it’s a way of responsibly maintaining our
environment and a high quality of life.4

Green buildings are expensive: There are some additional costs during
the construction phase of building green. But the operational and
maintenance cost of a green-built home are significantly less. A building
designed with passive solar and high-efficiency windows require less

39
energy to heat and cool, less workload on units also results in lower repair
cost and a more years of service. Green buildings use up less materials
and are built better so they have higher value and will not need constant
replacement of costly materials. Factors that affect building cost are the
level of green materials and technology that is incorporated in the
building. Other factors may be the sustainable practices and methods that
builder will adopt.4The additional upfront cost of green construction is
typically recouped within the first five years of ownership through lower
maintenance and energy cost.5Energy savings alone outweigh the initial
cost premium in most green buildings (Good Energies, 2008).

Green building is all about landscaping: While this may not be entirely
wrong, landscaping is only a part of the whole green building concept.
Integrating landscaping in site development provides shading for homes
and buildings to help reduce energy. Plants inside homes and offices can
help reduce carbon dioxide, thus improving indoor air quality. Large open
green spaces help reduce urban heat island effect caused by too much
concrete surfaces. This misconception is probably common due to the
constant advertisement of realtors and developers showing a lot of green
space, thus giving the impression that green building is all about
landscaping. 5

To be truly green, buildings need solar energy: There are basically two
ways to approach the design of green buildings. The first is through
passive design which simply means making the building energy-efficient
and thermally comfortable without the use of mechanical or electrical
systems. The second way, after incorporating passive means, is through
active design which means the addition of electrical and mechanical
systems to complete the building. Many people are so captivated by the
idea of getting energy from solar panels that if a building does not have
this feature it is not green. Following this argument, then, the most
inefficiently designed building can be made ‘green’ simply by installing
solar panels. The right approach is passive design first, then active design
next. 5

40
The green concept is not for old buildings and homes: On the
contrary, old buildings and homes would benefit from the green building
concept. By maintaining or preserving old structures, a large amount of
embodied energy can be saved. Embodied energy means the energy
required for the extraction, production or manufacture, transport,
construction and disposal of building materials. Old buildings, retrofitted or
renovated help the environment by minimizing the need for producing new
building materials that require expensive energy to produce. It also means
fewer materials disposed in landfills.5

Green homes are less appealing: The components used in green

construction are engineered to last longer and require less maintenance.
Building green also involves leaving more trees on the lots and less
modification to terrain. When sustainability and environmental
considerations are implemented in the design of a home, the result is a
more harmonious and comfortable design that blends with its
surroundings.6

Green Building is just about “Saving the Environment”: Various green

building rating tools have various approach on their definition of ‘green’,
but it is not distinctively different as they all share the similar
fundamentals. All the rating tools share the same principal of energy
usage reduction, water usage reduction, minimizing construction materials
waste, good indoor working environment, sustainable site management
and also innovation segment where credits the unique strategy of different
projects in achieving ‘green’.5

Green Building is just about the Green Design of the

Building/Project: The approach of green building is definitely more than
the building on its own. It is beyond merely packing in green features into a
building and expecting it to work universally. What matters most of a green
building isn’t what is built but how it operates, and this is easily fated by
how well the design team understands the functionality of their design

41
 feature. Various office work culture will potentially affect building design
outcome.6 So it is certainly more than the design itself to determine the
performance of the green building.

Going Green ‘dictates’ the Design of the Project: Going Green

holistically improvise the design of the project instead, in respect to the
problem solving skill of the design team. Instead, going ‘green’ facilitates
the design of the project. Aesthetic has its limit to be played with. Architect
has to be true to themselves and professional in participating the
aspiration for a better built environment by holistic means, not purely
aesthetic. A pyramid shape building with huge clear windows in the
window (for example) may look aesthetically nice but yet it’s non-functional
as it doesn’t provide thermal and visual comfort.5

Corbett (2012) a green educator mentioned and cleared some

misconceptions small business owners might have about going green.

The only reason to go green is to save or make money: Business

owners tend to overlook the benefits that going green can have beyond
the bottom line especially when it comes to attracting young talent. Young
people want to work in a green, healthy office, especially ones that are
designed differently to allow for collaboration. “Builders and office space
designers that work with businesses recognize that green and energy
efficient building and layouts are important because natural light and open
layouts allow for employees to be more productive, happier and healthier.”

2.1.9 Drivers to Green Building Construction

Bond and Perrett (2012) ranked the drivers that lead green real estate
development, tenant satisfaction and productivity was ranked the highest
followed by superior building performance, rising energy costs, competitive
advantage, lower lifecycle costs, industry rating systems, government policy,
building code, education and awareness and availability of green products.

42
Morri and Soffietti (2013) found that higher green premium in green building
investment is due to factors viz. cost saving, high occupancy rate, cap rate
reduction, and green labelling. Usman and Gidado (2015) pointed economic,
social, technological and cultural factors as drivers for green building
adoption. Some of the drivers to green building construction mentioned by
various authors are presented here:

i. Consumer Demand: It indicated that “doing the right thing” was the
primary motivator for interest in green building, but consumer demand
was the primary trigger for translating those motivations into action.
Soaring gas prices, extreme weather, crippling power outages and
mounting scientific evidence of the harmful effects of greenhouse gas
emissions have raised public awareness and concern about the
environment and the long-term effects of economic growth and
development. More companies are beginning to embrace the benefits
of sustainable design and construction.

ii. Energy Cost Increase: Consumers cited energy cost increases as the
primary driver for seeking out energy efficient green homes. The net
cost of home ownership of a green home over time is lower due to
savings from energy and utility bills as well as decreased maintenance
costs.

iii. Superior Building Performance: It results from durable, healthy

green homes which was a significant driver to increased residential
green building.

iv. Positive Publicity: Green homebuyers feel substantially happier with

their homes than other homebuyers, and green home builders receive
positive publicity and perceived competitive advantages over
conventional builders.

v. Incentives: Consumers and builders both receive financial incentives.

While incentives for high performing homes have typically been

43
 energy-based and funded by utilities or tax credits, municipalities are
starting to offer incentives for compliance with local green home
standards. Some utility and technology-based organizations are
providing grant money to support green building in affordable housing
projects.

vi. Codes and Regulations: They are another significant driver. Many of
the countries have adopted sustainability through regulation with its
stringent energy code. Many other municipalities are actively
investigating the adoption of mandatory green home standards.

vii. Green Certification Programs: In the commercial sector, green

certification programs are largest trigger to green building (McGraw-Hill
Construction, 2005). Regardless, the number of green home programs
started by utilities, homebuilder associations, environmental
organizations, and municipal groups continues to grow. Builders
operating in multiple markets or those builders who are confused by
competing regional green home certification brands may find that the
relatively new national certification programs are better able to serve
their needs.

viii. Lending Industry: The lending industry has an important role to play
in promoting green home building and, institutions have been slow to
embrace this concept of packaged mortgages for buildings that meet
specific energy use and environmental benchmarks. Some financial
institutions offer creative incentive products for green building,
including lower-rate mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) now offers a program for borrowers to purchase new energy-
efficient homes or to make upgrades that improve the efficiency of
existing homes by including additional costs of green features into the
mortgages when they can provide evidence that the improvements will
lead to energy savings.

44
With heightened public awareness and concern about global warming and
ongoing increase in energy costs, Green Buildings have gained mainstream
acceptance. Smith, (2007) gave some more drivers to the development of
Green Buildings. They are as follows:

ix. It’s Easy Becoming Green: While developing and retrofitting buildings
to green standards still pose many challenges, it’s getting easier and
cheaper to build green. This presupposes, however, that the decision
to build green is given forethought and fully incorporated into the
design process.

x. Risk Management: As the market share of green buildings increases

and sustainable development becomes more mainstream, owners of
non-green buildings could face increased risks on several fronts. The
most obvious market risk could be the functional obsolescence of a
non-green building in an increasingly green world. One can certainly
envision a day when the green standing of a building will be one of the
dimensions that distinguishes Class-A from Class-B space. Because
retrofitting existing buildings to green standards is almost always more
complicated and more costly than new green development, capital
expenditures (and cap rates) for non-green buildings could be much
higher.

2.1.10 Barriers and Challenges in implementing Green Buildings

Concept

The major barrier or challenges to implement green building concept were

discussed by Choi (2009);Issa, Rankin and Christian (2010); Zhang, Platten
and Shen (2011). They identified high initial cost of construction and lack of
communication as barriers for implementing green building concept. Hamidi
(2010) pointed out lack of green expertise to initiate green design strategy
from early stages of building design and planning. The slow recovery of long
term cost saving hinders the progression of green building development as
identified by Issa et.al. (2010). Yoke (2011) found that there is no significant

45
enforcement in applying green standards in green building construction as a
barrier. With recent drive initiated by private and government stakeholders,
green building development is expected to pick up momentum in India. But
the implementation of this concept has so many hurdles in its path (Winter,
2008).Some of the barriers as stated by various authors are listed and
discussed as below:

i. Higher perceived First Cost: The most significant barrier to residential

green building most cited by industry professionals and the public is
higher perceived first cost. The added cost of incorporating green
building features into residential projects depends largely on local factors
such as climate, local building customs, and labor skill levels. The up-
front costs may discourage investment, particularly where the benefits
are long-term or are externalised beyond the individual organisation
making the investment (Saunders and Schneider, 2000). Homebuyers in
India, are still quite averse to pay an extra premium (Times of India,
2015).

ii. Lack of Knowledge: Another barrier to residential green building is a

lack of knowledge, including biases in perception, apathy, and lack of
understanding about benefits of green residential building. This lack of
knowledge appears pervasive at all levels of the industry, including
lenders, realtors, builders, general contractors, home inspectors, buyers,
suppliers, and regulatory officials (United Nation Environment program,
2010).

iii. Lack of Widely used Standards: The third major challenge to green
residential design and construction is the lack of widely used standards
to consistently define criteria for a “green” product, service, or building.
While some standards have emerged for specific product categories
(such as the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label Plus criteria for
chemical content or the Green Seal limits for volatile organic compounds
in paints), builders and consumers cite concerns over “green washing”
as an obstacle to evaluating products or residences marketed as green.

46
 With over 80 different regional green home rating systems operating in
the United States, some builders imply that confusion over which
standard to follow, or the difficulty in adhering to different local programs
in multiple markets, is a deterrent from undertaking green building.

iv. Scarcity of Products and Expertise: A fourth barrier to more

widespread green housing design and construction is the scarcity of
products and expertise. While environmentally preferable products and
high performance residential equipment and systems are increasingly
available at the national level, many markets are still underserved by
manufacturers of green products and by industry professionals
knowledgeable in green means and methods. Even where products or
personnel are available, the lead times can be extraordinary, as demand
for green outstrips the supply capacity.
v. Lack of Implementation of Energy Conservation Building Code
(ECBC): Implementation of Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC)
is the first and the foremost requirement. Till now, ECBC is currently
voluntary, but in the future, either the central or state governments
should decide to adopt it as a mandatory standard. No states have
adopted it yet. Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) is working closely with
national and state-level government agencies to promote ECBC. Once
ECBC becomes mandatory at either the central or state level, one can
assume that the implementation and enforcement approach will be
similar to that employed for other mandatory building codes.

vi. Lack of Seriousness and Leadership: All these initiatives towards

conservation measures taken by the government remained as an
appendix to the long term energy policy. All the measures which taken
were reactive to certain events, not proactive by nature. Moreover, even
after three years of its formation, BEE remained almost non operational.
Until September 2005, it did not even have a full time head. A more
mobility is needed from administration side so that long term goal of
India as an energy efficient, developed economic giant can be traced on
realistic grounds even if in short term we have to pay for it.

47
vii. Awareness for Global Marketing Needs: Signs of improvement in the
energy intensity figures were only observed with the opening up of the
economy during the last one and half decades. Increased competition
both at home and abroad, has compelled the business leaders to look
into alternative options to save energy cost. In this new century, when
most of the industries were gearing up to boost exports, they realized
that the cost of energy was robbing off their competitive edge in the
international market. In India, the cost of power has escalated three fold
in the last ten years. This probably can explain better why the green
buildings which are estimated to reduce energy cost by 40% are likely to
be the fighting front in the global markets.

viii. Addressing with Economics Perspective: It was recently observed

that, to minimize environmental impacts by significant orders of
magnitude requires the blending of good engineering with good
economics as well as changing consumer preferences. Recent
experiences, provides a valuable lesson on how to avoid the common
pitfall of “green buildings myopia”. While noble, the benefits of the
concept appealed to only the deepest green niche of consumers. In
practice, green appeals are not likely to attract mainstream consumers
unless they also offer a desirable benefit, such as cost-savings or
improved product performance.

ix. Risk and Uncertainty: Although investments and interest in green

building are growing rapidly, a number of complex and varied reasons,
financial case for green building has not yet firmly taken hold in real
estate and development community. There are many risks that exist in
real estate community regarding green building. They are as follows:
• Uncertainty over reliability of green building technologies
• Uncertainty over costs of developing green real estate
• Uncertainty about the economic benefits of green real estate
• Uncertainty about green building performance over time

48
 x. Lack of Experienced Workforce: Another main problem which is faced
by India in implementing and making the customers accept the concept
of green building is lack of experienced workforce. India is lacking in
having many experienced consultants in the area of green building who
is well explored in the literature and research in the rapid growing
industry. Expansion in this industry is threatened by lack of experience
workforce. It increases more risk of inexperienced and untrained service
providers entering the green building market in search of a premium on
their services.

xi. Multi Dwelling Homes: These kinds of homes where collective decision
making the necessary pose a particular challenge to green building
refurbishment (Golove and Eto, 1996).

xii. Lack of Effective Enforcement of Policies: It was reported in United

Nations Environment program(2010) that there was lack of effective
enforcement of policies by the government was found as one of the
great barrier.

xiii. Lack of Financial Incentives: Due to lack of financial incentives was

faced as barrier as reported by United nations Environment program
(2010).

xiv. Resistance to change: This is a natural human tendency and not

unique to the green building movement. People are reluctant to change
old habits and ways of thinking. Just because green buildings seems
“new” at the moment, it doesn’t mean everyone is going to jump on the
bandwagon in the near future (Prouty and Glover, 2010).

xv. Process of certification: Those working in green building industry think

that the LEED process is very time consuming and bureaucratic.
Sometimes the builders want to build green but are turned off by the
LEED system (Prouty and Glover, 2010).

49
Development of green building can be expected to increase, if the
construction cost could be reduced and the benefits be increased. The drivers
influencing demand and supply of green buildings are still being developed
and further research is required on the beneficial characteristics of these
buildings (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2007). A comprehensive efforts should be
made through raising public awareness and by government agencies in
providing green incentives and regulatory policies to ensure a steadily
increasing demand, improved functionality and quality of green buildings (Isa
et.al., 2015).

2.1.11 Retrofitting: Going Green in Existing Building

Retrofitting refers to the addition of new technology or feature to older

systems to make the building green or environment friendly. The concept of
retrofitting of buildings is new activity for most structural engineers. The
retrofitting of a building requires an appreciation for the technical, economic
and the social aspect of the issue in hand. Changes in construction
technologies and innovation in retrofits technologies present added challenge
to engineers in selecting a technically, economically and socially acceptable
solution (Moe and Simon, 1999). This technology is often the best solution,
and that means everything from more efficient appliances and lights to
vegetative surfaces on the roof and even walls to renewable on-site energy
generation and water systems (Carter, 2008).

In the commercial building sector everyone knows about the benefits of

reducing energy usage and increasing efficiency, the number of energy
efficiency retrofits is growing. Plenty of attention is paid to the construction of
highly efficient green buildings, the reality is that the vast majority of buildings
are already built- and many are hugely inefficient. Since buildings typically
have a long lifespan, often 50-100 years, they continuously consume energy
and are therefore responsible for large amounts of CO2 emissions over their
life span. Given these dynamics, it can be concluded that the market for green

50
retrofits will grow strongly, particularly as the concept of green building
continues to move into the mainstream. Volatile energy prices, government
mandates/incentives, and rising demand from building owners and tenants
are the primary driving forces behind making existing building greener. As the
green building retrofit market expands, energy efficient solutions (including
both products and services) will represent the single largest opportunity for
companies. Because energy costs represent the single largest expense for
building property owners, there is usually a high degree of motivation to
undertake a green retrofit. Still there are other motivations that can come into
play when property owners decide to begin a green retrofit project. The other
factors include expectation for increased property value, reduced time to
lease retrofitted space, higher building occupancy, higher rents, and general
environmental and social reasons(Prouty and Glover, 2010).Because many
existing buildings will remain in use, it also requires retrofitting existing
buildings with energy efficient and renewable technologies (ILO, 2011).

Kavani and Pathak (2014) have given certain points of retrofitting and some
additional points have noted by the researcher. The following
recommendations can be implemented to retrofit the existing Building.

Site Selection: In order to reduce heat island effect the shade should be
provided on at least 30% of non-roof impervious surfaces on the site,
including parking lots, walkways, plazas, etc. Open-grid pavement system for
a minimum of 50% of the parking lot area should be used. Painting roof tops
with white paint and plantation on roofs are some of the other ways of
reducing heat island effect. The existing and mature trees should be
preserved. They provide excellent shading in walkways, parking areas as well
as on the walls of the house. They are also reservoir of fresh oxygen and
keep the surrounding cool. Organic manure should be used for the plants.
Bonsai, vertical gardens, terrariums and terrace garden are some of the
techniques for growing indoor plants where there is lack of space (Times of
India, 2015). Measures to reduce soil erosion should be adopted such as
permanent and temporary seeding, mulching etc. The open available area
should be landscaped.

51
Water Efficiency: The rainwater collected on the terrace is let to runoff and
drain into the drainage pipeline. This water can be diverted to the garden and
to the toilets through a suitable system of pipelines. Rainwater pipes from the
terrace can be connected into the overhead tank above the toilet for storage
of water. The overhead tanks are already designed for enough capacity. The
leaking faucets and pipes in the toilets, wash areas and laboratories should
be repaired immediately. Also select low flow shower, water closet, Urinals
and wash basin. A sewage treatment plant should be installed and the treated
water can be reused for landscaping. Efficient irrigation methods such as Drip
Irrigation, Sprinklers, and Porous pipes should be installed. Water level
controller should be installed in the overhead and underground water tanks.
Plant those trees and plants that require less water for their growth.

Energy Efficiency: In order to reduce the energy loads, install solar water
heating systems in the house. Solar panels should be installed as per the
conditions and suitability of the site along with the current rates of solar panels
for generating power. Replace conventional tube lights with LEDs, T5 or T8
tube lights or CFLs. Install BEE rated and CFC free equipments. Use solar
reflective paints on the exterior walls which reduces the inside temperature.
Material Selection: After the building is already constructed, construction
waste produced will only be that from the repair or renovation work and also
alteration work if any. Such waste materials or the leftover construction
materials should be reused if possible or sent to a recycling plant. These
wastes are utilized in the filling of plinths in the various construction projects
going on in campus. Separate the household waste which can be recycled
and reused. These wastes can be used to produce bio gas also.

Indoor Environment Quality: Exhaust fans and turbo ventilators should be

installed for effective ventilation. Low VOC paints should be used to on interior
walls of the house.

52
2.2 Related Researches

The research studies were grouped under the following heads. The
researchers conducted within and outside India are presented together.

2.2.1 Building Materials

Singh(2006) carried out the research on organic building materials in

residential construction with the objectives to find out the extent of use of
organic building materials in residential construction, to assess problems
experienced in care and maintenance in the selected residential construction,
to find out the health problems perceived by the residents due to use of
organic building materials, to ascertain the knowledge and satisfaction level of
residents regarding organic building materials and to assess level of human
performance in the selected residential buildings with organic building material
construction. Multistage purposive cum random sampling design was used to
select 200 residential buildings in Uttaranchal. The findings revealed that
wood was the mostly used organic building material in all the areas of the
house in the hilly areas. Care and maintenance of the house required a lot of
time, energy and money. Roofs and walls required least maintenance and
floor required the utmost care, cleaning and maintenance. Deformity in walls,
dampness, flaking off, dust release, termite and heating up were the problems
experienced in the selected houses. Lethargy, fatigue and symptoms of
humidified fever were the main health symptoms reported by the respondents.
Most of them showed low level of knowledge regarding organic building
materials used in their houses. Regarding satisfaction, organic building
materials were ranked first on safety and care and maintenance. The poorer
concentration level was shown by the respondents living in non-wooden
houses than the wooden houses. The level of fatigue was reflected more by
the respondents living in non-wooden houses. The percentage increase in
temperature from outdoor to indoor environment was more in non-wooden
houses than the wooden houses.

53
Elattar and Ahmed(2014)evaluated the green building material system in
Egypt and proposed methodology to evaluate materials in the Egyptian
environment by analysing green building material’s rating systems to achieve
the requirements of green buildings. It was concluded that material rating
systems help the designer to choose the right materials, draft of green
pyramid rating system in Egypt ignores some important elements, such as the
reuse of materials, so it has to be developed. It was also found that all rating
systems have points to evaluate the use of local materials, indicating its
importance.

Wahi (2014)conducted a study on status of green building materials, aimed at

finding out the usage, acceptability and awareness of green building materials
among building professionals and promotional strategies used by the
company’s manufacturing these materials. The study also took into account
the hindrance and catalysts faced by building professionals while using green
building materials. For the study 30 building professionals
(architects/builders/civil engineers/green building consultants) who were using
green building materials in NCR, Delhi was interviewed. In addition, marketing
heads executives of ten companies manufacturing green building materials
were interviewed in order to understand the promotional strategies used by
them and how useful these strategies had proven for them. It was found that
fly ash based materials (fly ash bricks, blocks, AAC blocks, PPC) were most
commonly used by the professionals as compared to other materials as these
materials were easy to procure at competitive price. Insulation materials, FSC
certified wood, salvaged wood and straw board, because of their high prices
and low availability were not in much use and were found to be preferred by
those professionals whose projects were going for LEED/GRIHA rating. The
study showed that availability of some green building materials like FSC
certified wood, straw board, insulation materials, pre-fabricated materials was
less as compared to conventional building materials because of less demand,
less number of manufacturers and high cost. Also, one of the reasons was
difficulty in getting these materials in the required form. Delivery time was
found to be more in case of green building materials due to less number of
manufacturers as compared to conventional building materials and location of

54
the dealers and manufacturers. It was also found that the major catalyst
behind using green building materials was reduced environmental impacts
and gaining large number of points in LEED/GRIHA certification. As far as
hindrances were concerned they were increase in project cost and limited
availability of green building materials. The study also provided suggestions
to overcome these hindrances which include mandatory usage of green
building materials in all new construction, more incentives for building
professionals and manufacturers which will encourage more number of
manufacturers to manufacture these materials and bring down their cost.

Mokal et.al.(2015) studied features of all construction material which are

socially and economically benefits for construction industry and human health.
Green building materials such as lime, sand lime bricks, eco-friendly bricks,
coloured lime plaster and reflectasol glass reduces side effect on environment
by decreasing the environmental pollution content and health hazards arising
with the use of conventional building materials. Lime reduces the internal
temperature of a room by 4 to 5˚ as compared to cement as well as its
manufacturing uses less energy as compared to cement production. The
compressive strength of sand lime bricks was more as compared to
conventional bricks. Similarly eco-friendly tile uses less energy in its
manufacturing and are locally available. Coloured lime plaster requires zero
maintenance as compared to cement plastering and paint work, is water proof
and odourless. Reflectasol glass reduces the amount of heat transfer in the
room. Hence a need was focused on the use of these eco-friendly materials
for the better tomorrow and health life of coming generation.

2.2.2 Energy Efficiency in Green Buildings

Mayer(2007)carried out a study aimed to perform a payback period analysis

on options to make a home more energy efficient. The study examined
photovoltaic, appliances, solar hot water, geothermal heat, windows and
insulation to determine which version of each was the most efficient and cost
effective. For determining the heating load of the house, the energy lost due
to each of the three components: the walls, the ceilings and windows were

55
calculated. In case of insulation payback period a derived formula was used to
compute the energy lost per hour and cost benefits analysis was done for
appliances and photovoltaic. For insulation low e – glass with argon should be
used, other options include using 2×6 cellulose wall and cellulose insulation in
the ceiling. The study concluded that photovoltaic is not feasible in the short
run. However, given their entire lifespan they would pay for themselves. In
case of appliances like ceiling fans, lighting fixtures, etc. the payback period is
3 years, for washing machines, etc it is 5 years, for computer, copiers etc.
payback period is less than one year. In case of solar water heaters, while flat
plate collectors are slightly less expensive than the evacuated tube ones, but
the former have a better chance of reaching the ideal 75% efficiency. The
study concluded that majority of these technologies are feasible. The
exceptions to this are Icynene insulation and photovoltaic panels which
require additional subsidies in order to become affordable in residential
building.

A study was conducted by Mittal(2009)on Energy efficient buildings features

in hotels of Delhi to assess the extent of energy and water conservation
measures adopted in the hotels, which are the largest consumers of these
resources. Audit of 5 hotels in New Delhi was carried out to gain insight into
the energy efficient features installed and compare them. Seventy five
employees formed a part of the sample to understand their awareness levels
regarding energy efficient practices followed in their respective hotels. The
findings revealed that many energy efficient features were installed in all five
hotels. All the hotels had efficient HVAC systems with variable sped drive.
They also had separate window and split air conditioning units for office use.
However, none of the equipments used in any of the buildings was energy
star rated. Well protected building envelopes through proper thermal
insulation, water proofing, light coloured external walls, fixed windows and
shading devices on windows ensured comfort to the guests and occupants.
All the hotels used energy savers in their lighting fixtures through CFLs, T5
lamps and LEDs, lighting dimmers and lighting timers. ITC was the only
buildings with occupancy sensors in all guest rooms and solar panels for
external lighting. All the hotels used energy efficient equipments like washers

56
and dryers in their laundry units except The Maidens, which outsourced its
laundry. However, Maidens was the only hotel to have installed a solar water
heater to reduce power load. For water conservation, sensor based urinals,
and single and dual used flush toilets with reduction in water flow were used.
Rainwater Harvesting system, effluent treatment plant for treating kitchen and
laundry wastewater were installed in all the hotels. ITC Maurya received the
highest score on the checklist used to assess the energy efficient and water
efficient features in the hotels.

O’Mara and Bates(2012)in their research study made an effort to study the
reasons for investing in high performance green buildings. The reasons
highlighted the need to reduce climate change, to ensure energy crises and
reliability, to mitigate risk of energy price volatility and supply security and to
meet energy efficiency and sustainability regulations, incentives etc. Further it
revealed two facts; firstly, intelligent tools and processes at the design phase
facilitate successful integrated design/ build outcomes and secondly, ongoing
monitoring, analysis and improvements drive sustained performance. It was
suggested that smart buildings should be connected with smart grid thus
allowing two-way energy flow between the grid and load (building) thereby,
distributing energy intelligently across a region to manage the load better. The
research highlighted the necessity and added benefits of green buildings
whether offices or homes. With the advancing need developers are coming up
with new projects on Green Buildings. IGBC is formulating the required
guidelines e.g. IGBC Green Homes Rating System or ‘to be launched’ IGBC
Landscaping Rating System.

Bhutia et. al. (2014) designed Photovoltaic Module using MATLAB simulink
for Green building installation. It measures the current and voltage and can be
interfaced directly with any power electronics or inverter. It can be installed on
roof top to generate power for residential and commercial Green buildings.

Khosla and Singh(2014) undertook a study for the newly constructed and
existing buildings in order to assess its potential and capacity to save energy.
Various energy saving concepts which can be incorporated at the time of

57
planning, designing, construction and execution stage to have energy
efficiency in building keeping in mind the cost perspective are discussed in the
study. For this some green buildings have been conceptualized incorporating
various parameters for energy savings and modelled in the software Autodesk
Revit. These buildings were analyzed in Autodesk Green building Studio to
assess its energy efficiency, so that various measures could be optimized.
Thus, it was concluded that appropriate knowledge and technology is
available for creating energy efficient and green buildings but behavioural,
organizational and financial barriers need to be overcome for achieving
desired results.

Walls covered by vegetation or garden helps to reduce the penetration of heat

in the house. This increase the energy efficiency in the building. Some studies
concerning vertical garden/ gardening have been reported here.

Wong, 2009 carried out a research on thermal evaluation of vertical greenery

systems for building walls. The 8 different vertical greenery systems (VGSs)
were studies installed in Hort Park to evaluate the thermal impact on the
performance of buildings and their immediate environment based on the
surface and ambient temperatures. The results reflected the potential thermal
benefits of vertical greenery systems in reducing the surface temperature of
building facades in the tropical climate, leading to a reduction in the cooling
load and energy costs. By limiting the diurnal fluctuation of wall surface
temperatures, the lifespan of building facades is prolonged, slowing down
were and tear as well as savings in maintenance cost and replacement of
façade parts. The effects of vertical greenery systems on ambient
temperature are found to depend on specific vertical greenery systems.
Given the preponderance of wall facades in the built environment, the use of
vertical greenery systems to cool the ambient temperature in building canyons
is promising. Furthermore, ait intakes of air-conditioning at a cooler ambient
temperature translate into saving in energy cooling load.

58
Bjerre, 2011 conducted a research on green walls with an objective to find
out the need to build green walls. It was found that living walls are inspired by
nature, the diverse benefits attributed to the structures, and functions of
vertical gardens such as their capacity to absorb and degrade greenhouse
gases, their cooling effect on buildings, their possible use as an kitchen
garden. Finally it was found that possible evolutions of vertical garden in the
food production in cities and their contribution towards tomorrow’s
architecture. This helped to understand the green wall as a useful new
technology with a bright future.

Shiah, 2011 carried out a research on the application of vertical garden at the
new SUB Atrium with an objective to see after assessment of social,
environmental and economic impacts of vertical garden on the new SUB at
the University of British Columbia. It was concluded that the vertical garden is
beneficial in social, environmental and economic aspects. The vertical garden
implemented at the New SUB will inspire UBC students and visitors by the
green features of the vertical garden. The benefits of installing vertical garden
will motivate to apply the concept. Consequently, more vertical gardens will
help in achieving the goal of improving the environment.

Pavasiya, 2014 aimed at the designing of the vertical garden for the
residence of Vadodara city. For the purpose 33 residences were selected
purposively who had vertical garden and 30 architects and 30 interior
designers were selected through convenience sampling technique. The
findings revealed that the homeowners and interior designers had high extent
of awareness regarding vertical garden whereas the architects had moderate
extent of awareness. Majority of the homeowners experienced moderate
extent of problems in using vertical garden. A Residential vertical garden was
proposed as per the findings and climatic conditions of the Vadodara city.

2.2.3 Green Building rating Systems

A study conducted in 2002 by the National Association of Home Builders

(NAHB) Research Center identified and analyzed 26 residential green

59
building programs throughout the country (NAHB, 2002). The NAHB wanted
to focus on residential building, and so deliberately excluded commercial
green building programs. The study divided each program into categories,
summarizing the rating structure, certification method, level of certification,
year of inception, number of builders, incentives offered, and number of
homes constructed to date. Homebuilders associations administered the
majority of programs, leaving only five that were city- or county run. Also, not
a single one was a state wide program. While the focus of this study was
mostly on local, residential programs, it can still help complement or
supplement a useful framework of criteria by which analysis of state-run
programs could be conducted.

Janak(2009) examined three of the most longstanding state-run green

building programs in the country: CA, NY, and MN. Through a thorough
literature review, in-depth case study of each state, and surveys/interviews of
key people involved with the programs, the importance of the subject was
established, and the structure, elements, and progress of each program is
examined. A primary goal was to provide insight for other states that were
looking into, or in the process of, starting their own green building program. It
was found that high-level support for the program could be critical in its initial
implementation, and that passing legislation was not necessarily superior to
issuing an executive order. Accountability was agreed to be a crucial
component in all three states. It was determined that measuring progress or
success is not as simple as counting the number of completed projects, but
also involves types of assistance available, level of government support,
outcome potential (e.g. long-term building efficiency, performance), etc.

Elmeligy (2014)presented a comparative review to understand the

differences in using different types of evaluation systems, particularly in
categories of each one, and performance of their impact as applied to
sustainability, both from the view point of general information, applicability,
certification levels, usability, categories and present a case study as well as a
sample of on-line evaluation. It was concluded, although there is a
considerable degree of commonality between different rating systems which

60
was presented in the paper (BREEM, GBCA, GPRS, GRIHA, LEED), in terms
of their aims, approach and structure, but there were significant differences in
terms of scope of the environmental issues addressed, metrics and
performance standards. Thus, it was suggested that it is necessary that the
selection of suitable rating system is done according to its categories.

Khanna et. al. (2014)conducted a comparative study on Green building rating

programs of U.S. and China. It was found that both the green building rating
programs were voluntary but U.S. LEED program is administered by the
USGBC, a non-governmental body whereas the China GBEL is administered
entirely by central and provincial government agencies. In particular, the
LEED rating systems are developed and updated in a consensus-based
process through a committee of USGBC members from a diverse array of
professional backgrounds, including architects, real estate agents, building
owners, lawyers, environmentalists and industry representatives. LEED
project registration and certification is then administered by the Green building
certification Institute, a third-party organization established with the support of
the USGBC to provide independent oversight of professionals credentialing
and project certification. On the other hand the development of China GBEL
evaluation standards as well as the label application and certification, in
contrast, are all administered by government organizations within MOHURD’s
Building Energy Efficiency and Technology Division. In terms of the scope of
the rating systems, the China GBEL program differentiates between
residential and public buildings, but does not include rating systems unique to
specific building types as LEED does. LEED requires a performance period of
only 3 month but China’s operational GBL requires 1 year of occupancy and
performance for all credits. In addition to differences in the green building
rating systems of US and China also faces different barriers and policy
landscapes through there are some similarities. In both the countries
government bodies that supervise health, fire safety, land and other public
operations can be slow to revise codes to accommodate green buildings and
the cost more to design and build due to greater system integration and the
need for more building controls and measurement points. Lastly in both the
countries, the building industry has many established practices that

61
discourage various stakeholders from trying new or different approaches. It
was also found that the subcontractors in the construction process often view
green technology as inherently risky and therefore worry about the liability of
installing such technologies in project they are ultimately responsible for. The
lack of green building professional accreditation process similar to the LEED
Accredited Professionals process limits green building workforce capacity
development in China. Secondly, financial barriers are perhaps even more
pronounced in China than in US. Developers cite higher incremental cost as
one of the biggest barrier to investment in green buildings.

Nduka and Sotunbo(2014) conducted a study to assess the awareness

status of green building rating systems as well as the most preferred rating
system for possible adoption in Nigeria. A structures questionnaire was used
to collect information from various respondents who were construction
professionals. Random sampling techniques were used to select 150
respondents out of which 91 were used for data analysis. Seven well known
green building rating systems and 25 perceived benefits of green building
factors were identified from the literature. The results indicated that most of
the building industry professionals in Nigeria were familiar with green building
rating systems and preferred Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) for possible adoption in Nigerian construction projects

2.2.4 Indoor Environment Quality in Green Buildings

Singh et. al.(2010) investigated the effects of improved indoor environmental

quality (IEQ) on perceived health and productivity in occupants who moved
from conventional to green office buildings. Two cases were studied in which
those employees (case 1, n=56; case 2, n=207) were followed who moved
from conventional office buildings to LEED rated buildings in Lansing,
Michigan. Pre-move and post-move surveys were conducted with web based
survey. In two retrospective –prospective case studies it was found that
improved IEQ contributed to reductions in perceived absenteeism and
affected work hours as a result of perceived improvements in health and well
being. The employees also perceived a positive effect of their new work

62
environment in their productivity. The findings also suggested that perceived
improvements in asthma and respiratory allergies could provide 1.75
additional work hours per year to each employee with a medical history of
these conditions. Similarly, employees with a medical history of depression or
stress might gain 2.02 additional work hours per year because of reductions in
their perceived work hours affected by these conditions. Finally, the
improvements in perceived productivity were fairly substantial and could result
in an additional 38.98 work hours per year for each occupants of a green
building.

Kanika(2014)carried out a research on interior environmental assessment of

Green Buildings in two districts i.e. Gurgaon and Panchkula for checking the
satisfaction level of the occupants of green buildings. It was found that
considering all the IEQ data of green and conventional buildings, green
buildings were far better than that of conventional buildings in all the IEQ
aspects except the humidity level. The noise level in conventional building
was less than that of green building. The occupants of green buildings were
highly satisfied. There was increase in knowledge of the urban and rural areas
respondents after the intervention program.

Allen et. al. (2015) examined the state of evidence on green building design
as it specifically relates to indoor environmental quality and human health.
Seventeen research studies that specifically focused on exploring
relationships between green buildings and health were searched from internet
and reviewed. Overall, the initial scientific evidence published to date
indicated better measured and perceived indoor environmental quality and
health on green buildings versus non-green buildings. For indoor
environmental quality, green buildings had lower levels of VOCs,
formaldehyde, allergens, ETS, NO2, and PM. Many of these environmental
contaminants that have been linked to adverse health effects are explicitly
addressed in green building design credits, so these early findings suggest
that the design elements targeted at improved IEQ translated to significant
reduction in actual exposure. The IEQ benefits in green buildings translate to
better self-reported health outcomes across several indicators. This includes

63
fewer sick building syndrome symptoms, fewer respiratory symptoms reports
in children, and better physical and mental health. Occupants also report
benefits that indicate improved work productivity in green buildings, fewer
absenteeism and fewer work hours affected by asthma and allergic in green
buildings. Green buildings were associated to lower employee turnover and a
decrease in the length of open staff positions.

Abbaszadeh, et.al (2006) conducted a research on occupant satisfaction with

indoor environmental quality in green buildings. A total of 181 buildings of
United States, Finland and Canada and 33,285 respondents were surveyed
through a web based questionnaire containing self reported productivity in
nine Indoor Environmental Quality categories. It was revealed from the
findings that occupants in green buildings are on average more satisfied with
their air quality and thermal comfort, lighting and acoustic quality in green
buildings do not show a significant improvement in comparison to non-green
buildings.

2.2.5 Productivity in Green Buildings

Leaman, et.al. (2007)conducted a post-occupancy evaluation, based on

occupants surveyed of 22 ‘green design intent’ buildings and 23 conventional
buildings in Australia. The result showed that while the best green buildings
consistently outperformed the best conventional buildings from the occupant’s
perspective. It was assumed that the first generation of Australian green
buildings may be underperforming on some indoor environment variables. It
was concluded that the green buildings that were designed properly have
positive environmental outcomes and delivers positive feedback for comfort
and productivity. The significant association between perceived productivity
and overall comfort (lighting, ventilation, thermal comfort and noise) and
between perceive productivity and thermal comfort in particular were
identified.

Miller et. al. (2009) conducted a research on green buildings and productivity.
The research examines green buildings in the United States from the

64
operations and management perspective—a perspective that has so far been
lacking in the growing field of sustainable real estate research and one that is
critical to commercial market participants who have expressed scepticism on
the topic. With a national sample collected from a survey of office buildings
managed by CBRE, the operating expenses and management of 139 green
buildings were compared with 103 buildings that do not have a green label.
The results showed that green buildings were more energy-efficient— with
savings on electricity, gas, and water costs—when compared with their non-
green counterparts. The average total operating expenses of the green
building group was higher than the non-green building group. This suggests
that ENERGY STAR buildings may incur additional non-energy-related
expenses. Even more striking are the findings that point to the importance of
the ENERGY STAR score—over the ENERGY STAR label—in judging the
‘‘greenness,’’ or even the energy efficiency, of a building. The results reveal
that a building’s operating performance is more highly correlated with its
ENERGY STAR score, and not the ENERGY STAR label. Thus, the higher a
building’s score, the lower its operating expenses. Likewise, in terms of green
practices—implementing green cleaning, installing restrictive plumbing
devices, and motion-controlled lighting—it was found that a higher percentage
of buildings that meet the ENERGY STAR standards but have no label have
implemented green practices, compared with those that do carry the
ENERGY STAR label. This seemed to suggest that the ENERGY STAR label
is not a good indicator of the ‘‘greenness’’ of a property and that all green
buildings are not, in fact, created equal.

In a Survey conducted by Turner Construction Company (2008) on green

issues on a sample of 754 executives working in real estate, it was found that
almost one half of the executives felt that worker productivity was greater in
Green buildings than in non-Green alternatives.

2.2.6 Motivation in Adopting Green Building design and Construction

Dhingra(2010)conducted a study on adoption of Green Building concepts

among two corporate houses in Noida and Gurgaon, Delhi to find out the

65
reasons for the adoption of green buildings by the corporate houses, factors
motivated them to become green, benefits achieved so far by the companies
by adopting this concept, to check the awareness level of the employees
regarding green buildings, to study its impacts on employee health, safety and
productivity, initiatives by government and non-government organizations.
The two corporate houses involved in the study were ITC Green Centre office
in Gurgaon and Spectral Services in Noida. The data were collected from 60
respondents through questionnaire, checklists, informal discussions, interview
schedule. It was found that all the employees working in green building offices
were well aware of the concepts of green buildings. They were well versed
with green building guidelines, about platinum rated LEED certifications their
company has, the benefits achieved by the company in terms of physical and
operational costs. To sustain company’s position at the top most level, to earn
carbon credits, to become internationally recognized, for branding, reduce
greenhouse effect, global warming, and the effect of environmental change
were among the factors that motivated them to become green. Employees
were also well aware of all the features that are installed in green buildings.
The benefits achieved by these companies were saving electricity, water and
cost, zero water wastage, and more productivity. It also helped in maintaining
an eco-friendly environment, maintaining better occupant’s health, helped in
recognition, fame. Majority of the respondents also agreed that their
productivity increases with better indoor environmental quality. Many of the
employees were not well aware of the government initiatives.

2.2.7 Benefits of Green Buildings

A report by the Tellus Institute and the Green CDCs Initiative

(2003)identified the range of benefits that greening affordable housing can
provide, discussed the limitations of conventional project financial analysis
focusing almost exclusively on “first cost” and suggested the use of life-cycle
costing techniques. Through a series of case studies it was found that the
incremental cost of developing green versus traditional affordable housing is
very small, on the order of 1-2% and the net present value of operational

66
savings of green affordable housing is far greater than the additional up-front
cost, often 5-10% or more of initial development costs.

Kats, 2008in a survey of ‘A landmark international study on the costs and

benefits of green buildings’ based on extensive financial and technical
analysis of 150 green buildings across the United States and in 10 countries.
The major key findings of the survey were that energy and water savings
alone outweigh the initial cost premium by an average of 33% in most green
buildings and that green buildings cost roughly 2% more to build than
conventional non-green buildings. This stands in contrast to public perception,
such as a 2007 survey by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, which found that business leaders believe green buildings to be
on average 17% more expensive than conventionally designed buildings. The
study also found that productivity and health benefits are the major motivating
factor for building green.

A survey conducted by Turner Construction Company in (2008)Green

Building Market Barometer surveyed 754 executives on Green building issues
through an online questionnaire. The executives surveyed represented a
broad spectrum of organizations involved with facilities including developers
(37%), owners of rental buildings (31%), brokers and other firms providing
real estate services (27%), architectural, engineering and construction firms
(22%) and corporate owner-occupants and tenants (10%).among the
executives who worked for owners of rental real estate, 49% reported that
they had Green buildings in their portfolios, while 59% of the corporate
respondents said that they owned or leased Green buildings. Most executives
saw Green buildings as having lower operating costs, while still generating
more benefits to their owners and tenants. Green buildings were considered
to be less expensive than non-Green buildings for several key measures of
cost. The broadest consensus was on energy, where 84% of executives said
that Green buildings had lower energy costs, including 29% who said they
had much lower energy costs. Considering all operating costs, 68% of
executives said Green buildings had lower operating costs than non-Green
buildings. The benefits of Green buildings are not only financial. In fact, 76%

67
of the executives said that occupants of Green buildings enjoy greater health
and well-being, first among the seven attributes rated. Although 87% of
executives believed that Green building cost more to construct, roughly 73%
said these higher costs would be paid back through lower operating costs,
with a median estimated payback period of seven years.
Ries et.al. (2009)conducted a case study to measure the benefits of green
building construction. The method included building performance surveys and
interviews with management. A framework for evaluating the benefits of green
building design and construction was developed for and used on a
manufacturing facility, Castcon Stone, Inc. in Saxonburg, Pennsylvania.
Castcon Stone’s performance in their new green facility was compared to their
performance in their previous facility. The framework compared pre-move and
post-move data and included collecting and analysing company data on
production in the manufacturing facility, absenteeism, construction costs,
utility and maintenance costs. The results indicated that the employees
generally agree that the indoor environmental quality of the new facility was
superior to the old and that productivity was enhanced by the view to the
outdoors, the size of the work areas, the temperature, and the relative
humidity. It was found that the new facility offered advantages in daylight, air
quality and thermal comfort.

Yu et. al. (2011) conducted a research on green retrofitting and benefits. The
study aims to examine the costs and benefits of retrofitting existing
commercial buildings in Singapore and analyses their implications for owners
and occupiers. Empirical data of about 20 properties categorized into office,
retail, and hotel were studied with regards to the cost of retrofitting, the
savings in energy consumption after retrofits as well as other physical
characteristics were provided by the Building and Construction Authority in
Singapore. The main findings revealed that retrofit projects typically represent
only about 3% of the current cost of construction for new commercial
buildings. The savings in energy consumption and its attendant savings in
utility cost are significant and represent some 10-20% of the typical operating
expenses of the maintenance of the commercial properties. It was also found
that the inertia to retrofit existing commercial properties has often been

68
attributed to the general lack of awareness of the cost and benefits amongst
owners.

Kumar(2013)ascertained significance and relevance of Green affordable

homes with special reference to the Indian scenario to examine and analyze
the affordability, attitudinal and other aspects of green affordable homes from
the perspectives of users of such homes and lastly to make suggestions for
sustainable development of green affordable homes for mutual benefit of all
the stakeholders. The target population of the study was from moderate and
low income group residing in Ernakulam City of Central Kerela. The study has
employed a descriptive analytical research approach. Both primary and
secondary data were used for the research. The green homes selected for the
study had taken the issue of “affordability” issue into consideration since the
idea development stage of the building. It was observed that people were
unaware and unprepared to make heavy investments in constructing green
buildings, therefore, awareness is required. Further the study suggested that
housing finance institutions and other lending agencies should insist on
compliance with green standards while extending their credit facilities. Green
finance should be encouraged always by all concerned. Policy makers should
incorporate green compliance as one of the essential pre-conditions for
regulatory clearance of all residential projects.
Matar et. al.(2015) studied the environment friendly buildings (green
buildings) especially in the state of Jordan and its benefits. Descriptive
qualitative method was used to gain knowledge of the green buildings and its
benefits. Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The
results showed that regular buildings are characterized by three major
characters, which are the drain energy and resources, polluting the
environment through emissions and fumes, liquid or solid waste, and the
negative impact on the health of the users of buildings as a result of the use of
different chemicals and other pollutants. It was also found that the impact of
constructing an ordinary building on the amount of using energy, water and
building materials resources which has lead to the fear of depletion of these
resources, and based on these negatives, the principles of the

69
environmentally friendly buildings carry ideas and theses which are able to
overcome the drawbacks mentioned above.

Sass and Smallwood (2015) conducted a study to interrogate green building

and construction ergonomics related issues with the objective to investigate
the need for green building to address construction worker ergonomics and
H&S, to find out the causes of construction workers becoming stressed, to
determine the frequency at which construction workers experience ergonomic
problems, and to discover why workers experience WMSDs. It was found that
construction workers were exposed to many ergonomic and H&S hazards
which can cause them to become ill, experience stress, experience WMSDs,
experience injuries and in some cases death, and also be absent from work.
Therefore, even though buildings may be rated ‘green’, it can be concluded
that from a construction worker perspective they may not be ‘green’ per se.
The range of ergonomic problems experienced by construction workers have
their origins in design, the nature of the construction process and activities,
and work organization. Therefore, it can be concluded that a range of
stakeholders trigger and contribute to the existence of ergonomic hazards.
The various factors that contribute to workers experiencing stress have their
origins in the structure of the construction industry, design, the nature of the
construction process and activities, and work organisation. The construction
industry is a very hazardous industry to work in, the range of ergonomic
problems experienced by construction workers and the factors that contribute
to them experiencing stress have their origins in the structure of the industry,
design, the nature of the construction process and activities, and work
organisation, and it has yet to be realised that construction worker H&S and
wellbeing is an integral aspect of sustainability and ‘green’ building.

2.2.8 Barriers in adopting green building design

According to 3rd Annual Allen Matkins/CTG/Green Building Insider “Green

Building Survey” (2008) with 900 respondent’s who were design
professionals, Contractors/Subcontractors, Construction Planning Manager,
Consultants, Owner/Developers. The results suggest that the respondents

70
unanimously indicated that it is worth the time and effort to build green, LEED
certification was perceived as attractive by just two-third of green supporters.
Respondents also said that the risk of LEED/green construction were either
the same or greater than the risks in traditional construction projects. The
majority of the respondents felt that the cost premium for green construction
over traditional construction was less than 4%. Further, given the recent
increase in energy costs, 74% of the respondents said that they were more
likely to incorporate sustainable elements into their future projects. When
asked about the greatest risk for green construction respondents reported
“design and construction defects”, “impacts to the owners” and “not recouping
capital costs”.

Turner Construction Company (2008) conducted a survey of 754

executives working in real estate on green issues where executives were
asked to rate the factors discouraging the construction of Green building. At
the top of the list was the amount of documentation and additional cost to
have a building become LEED certified, as rated by 54% of executives
followed by higher construction cost and payback too long (50%) and lack of
awareness of benefits of Green construction (48%).

Griffin, et. al. (2010)conducted a research to find out the barriers in

implementing sustainable structural materials in green buildings. The
researchers interviewed building design professionals in Oregon, United
States. It also identifies the gaps in information as well as gaps in access to or
availability of sustainable materials. The survey process was divided into two
phases. Phase I was a series of eight exploratory interviews with individuals
who assisted in refining questions and identifying potential participants in the
focus group discussions of Phase II. Phase II, expert opinion about barriers to
implementing sustainable structural materials was collected through
interviews conducted in four focus groups. Twenty two professionals from
architecture, engineering, construction and development field participated in
the interview. The primary barriers to implementing sustainable structural
materials were the perceived increase in cost, regulations that do not
recognize new green materials and systems, and the availability of the

71
materials themselves. The lack of readily accessible and reliable information
comparing alternative structural materials and systems also poses a
significant barrier during the design and selection process. The study also
reaffirmed the need for strong collaboration between stakeholders that are
experienced and knowledgeable about green building strategies.

Elias and Lin (2015) studied the green building implementation from the
perspective of housing developers. The data were gathered through a face to
face semi structured interview, photo collections and some observation with
housing developers on a sample of 22 respondents involved during the data
collection period from two home and property exhibitions. The findings
revealed that 77 per cent were aware of green residential concept while the
other 23 per cent of the respondents realized about the green residential
concept and the perceived benefits but indistinguishable. All the respondents
agreed that the lack of technology transfer and the knowledge of developing
nation have prevented the local housing developers to embrace green
technology in their task. Secondly, housing developers have faced a limitation
of finance in order to upfront the green technology costs into the initial
housing development. Majority of the respondents showed no interest in
making use of recycled materials for the house construction projects. Very few
developers showed a potential desire to use the rainwater harvesting for
housing project in near future. Many of the house developers were not able to
grab ‘green’ opportunities due to internal organizational problems. More than
three fourth of the respondents mentioned about the difficulty to achieve a
standard or performance when it is driven by the context of development, the
climate conditions and the location of the construction site.

2.2.9 Perception regarding Green Buildings

A survey conducted by Turner Construction Company(2004)on Green

building perceptions and issues, solicited the views of more than 700 U.S.
executives involved with buildings either as an owner of rental buildings,
owners-occupants, developers, consultants, designers or builders through a
self-administered questionnaire distributed over the internet. The important

72
findings are that three quarters of executives at organizations currently
involved with Green buildings reported that these buildings had lower
operating costs, Ninety one per cent of executives said that they produce
greater health and well being among occupants, eight four per cent of
executives believed that Green construction yielded higher building values,
three quarter of the executives said that they generated a higher return on
investment than non-Green buildings and nearly one half of the executives
expected the number of Green Buildings in their organization’s workload to
increase substantially over the next three years. Sixty five per cent of the
executives reported that the health and well being of the occupants of Green
buildings were much higher than that in non-Green buildings. Seventy per
cent of the executives rated higher construction costs, sixty per cent rated
lack of awareness of its benefits as very or extremely significant factors
discouraging Green building activity. Executives also believed that
construction costs were fourteen per cent higher than those for other
buildings. Ninety four per cent of the executives who believed Green buildings
had higher construction costs said that these buildings pay back these higher
construction costs through lower operating costs and other benefits. Ninety
three per cent of the executives were aware of the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System, which is a voluntary set of
national standards for the design and construction of sustainable buildings.
The executives perceived that the costs and benefits of Green Buildings differ
across the country.

The Turner Construction Company, Green Building Market Barometer in

(2005) conducted survey to find out the views of executives working at
educational facilities, both K-12 and higher educational facilities. It was found
that executives at organizations involved with Green K-12 facilities (987%)
and executives involved with Green College and University facilities (90%)
rated community image as benefit of Green Buildings. Executives involve with
K-12 and college and University facilities said that the greatest obstacles to
Green construction were a perception of higher construction costs, cited by
74% and 66% of the executives respectively as a very or extremely significant
obstacles and a lack of awareness of their benefits, cited by 67% and 59% of

73
the executives respectively. Executives who were at least somewhat familiar
with the LEED system were asked about the most important benefit of LEED
Certification, forty five per cent of the K-12 school executives reported that the
independent confirmation of meeting recognized Green standards as most
important benefit of LEED certification, compared to 33% of executives who
named it as most important for college and universities.

USGBC and the Sustainable Rhythm in (2010) conducted a survey

“Opening the Door to Green Building” to analyse the market transformation,
engaged multiple perspectives in the building industry to examine issues of
the overall market, the perception of the financial investment, the role of
certifications and finally how the benefits of green building are being
communicated among building design and construction professionals. The
survey was distributed through an online tool to 200 participants, 90% of
which were based in Ohio. The participants included owners/Facility
managers/Real estate (17%), Service firms (59%), Product companies (17%)
and Government advocacy (7%). It was found that 62% of the respondents
indicated that there is a significant premium to build green with 46% of that
group believing the premium is above 10%. Only 21% of the respondents
indicated an understanding of the current certification and accreditation
options in the market place. Respondents indicated that it is “highly confusing”
or “rarely understandable” (42%). Standards and certifications are impacting
the product market; the study indicates that over 40% of the respondents
believe certifications are relevant to their product purchasing process.

Mansour and Radford(2014) proposed a framework for the mechanism of

people’s perception of green building. The perception model is based on
Peattie (2001) matrix, there are some intrinsic differences between green
consumers and green building users. in case of a commercial or office
building, the user will not buy this building, so that when discussing
laypeople’s behaviour as green consumers, economic factor is not on the
same scale of importance in a green purchasing situation. These two factors
affect the perception of building users in a positive sense because they do not

74
have to pay a premium, so that they are willing to give higher degree of
compromise and they might have higher level of confidence based on their
belief in sustainability. The four factors that affect the perception of green
buildings are degree of belief in sustainability, degree of green certification,
the congruity of design with the existing schema of similar conventional
buildings, and users’ personal experience of green building. Occupant’s belief
in sustainability and a building’s degree of green certification are the major
drivers of laypeople’s judgement on a green building. More deeper or final
judgement depends on one’s evaluation of building’s design schema and its
congruity with the existing schema in conventional buildings, and one’s
experience of building systems over period of time. Occupants’ experience
can be categorized in to five categories of experience; task performance,
social territories, way finding, cultural expression and visual and non-visual
aesthetics (Doxtater, 2005). The environmental and experimental factors
constitutes certain judgement, which influence the level of confidence one has
in green building, this degree of confidence is similar to the confidence one
has for a green product.

2.2.10 Awareness regarding green buildings

Green building awareness survey(2007)aimed to find out the consumer

interest and awareness of green building in Washington State on a sample of
268 respondents (Northwest-16%, Southwest-40%, Central-10% and Eastern-
35%). Data indicated that Energy Star was the most recognized of all of the
residential green home certification programs. Interviewee consistently said
that green building was more environmentally friendly and used less waste.
Respondents indicated the education on what is meant by green building is
still needed. Additional resources are needed for real estate agents and sales
offices on green home options. Respondents felt that green buildings are
more environmentally friendly than conventional buildings. Majority of the
respondents understand that green buildings are at least somewhat more
energy efficient than non-green certified buildings (74%). Only 53% of
respondents indicated that they believed green homes to conserve water than
conventional buildings. Additionally 31% respondents indicated that they

75
didn’t know whether green homes had water conservation benefits. Majority of
the respondents appeared to understand that utility costs of green certified
buildings were less than those of non-green buildings. One half of the
respondents indicated that they thought green buildings were more energy
efficient, yet only 36% indicated that utility costs were much less.
Respondents indicated that buildings built to green standards were
environmentally friendly than were energy efficient (78%). Respondents also
indicated that they didn’t know whether or not green buildings were
constructed with higher quality materials than non-green buildings (31%).
Forty per cent of the respondents reported that green buildings were either
much or somewhat better built than non-green buildings. Only 66% of
respondents thought that green buildings had a much or somewhat higher
resale value than buildings not built to a green standards.

Teig(2007) conducted a survey on “Why Green Buildings has Staying Power?

The survey drew responses from 218 corporate users and 166 developers of
commercial real estate. The findings revealed that 52% of corporate
respondents and 39% of developer’s respondents currently own, manage or
lease at least some “green” properties. Respondents are most likely to be
involved in office and retail. Among developers, 55% own or manage retail,
followed by office (48%) and mixed-use and hospitality (35%). On the
corporate side, 51% of the respondents own or lease office space, followed by
industrial (42%) and retail (25%). Corporate users and developers anticipated
that the amount of green facilities they own or lease will more than double
from 9% to 21% in the next five years. About one half of the corporate users
(46%) and developers (51%) considered green design either important or
extremely important. Only 17% of corporate users say green design is not at
all important in the site selection process, while just 10% of developers said
that it is not at all important to their company for current or future
development.

Shenzhen Fountain Corporation in (2008) conducted a survey on Green

Building Awareness and Sustainability, Changsha, Hunan Province. Survey
was conducted on a sample of 374 respondents of city of Changsha, China.

76
With a large percentage of respondents (18.38%) in the real estate industry, a
fairly high level of awareness of Green buildings could be witnessed within the
sample. Majority of the respondents were familiar with the China Green label
Program (58.29%). Majority of the respondents associated environmental
friendliness with Green buildings. The vast majority of the respondents
perceived Green buildings to be much more energy efficient than non-green
buildings (67.3%). Over 77% of the respondents perceive Green buildings to
be more environmentally friendly than non-green buildings. More than one
half of the respondents feel that Green buildings are built with much higher
quality materials. Utilities and maintenance cost in Green buildings was
perceived to be much lower by 35.77% of the respondents. The vast majority
of respondents (68.33%) perceive a green building to be built to much higher
quality standards than a non-green building. Over 45% of the respondents
think that Green building has a much higher resale value compared to non-
green building. More than one half of the respondents think that a green
building can conserve much more water than a non-green building. Majority of
the respondents think that their next home should be “green” as it is extremely
important. Nearly 30% of the respondents would not be willing to pay any
additional premiums for Green homes.

Fleming(2009) in a survey National real Estate Investor on Doubling down on

Green comprising developers, corporate real estate executives and city and
country government officials. The findings showed an overwhelming majority
of developers (88%) and corporate executives (86%) indicated that they
consider green design to be as important or more important. A majority of
developers said that they have previously retrofitted properties for greater
energy efficiency, are in the process of retrofitting, or are considering
retrofitting properties to make them more energy efficient. Government
officials also jumped on the bandwagon to lower utility bills with 78%
indicating that they are upgrading or planning to upgrade one or more
products in the coming years including HVAC, lighting or water controls in
public buildings. Survey findings also showed that more state and local
governments (56%) would consider using performance contracts to improve
energy efficiency in their facilities. Only 34% of the respondents said that the

77
federal stimulus influenced their decisions. Respondents differ on how long it
takes to recoup the costs for energy retrofits. Corporate executives and
developers indicated that it takes between three to four years to recover
costs, while government respondents reported that it takes five or longer to
recoup costs. A majority of the developers believed that green requirements
will eventually become part of required building codes. Developers and
corporate respondents indicated that they have taken advantage of few
government incentives. Nearly 23% of the developers reported that they have
taken advantage of tax incentives, 16% said they have taken advantage of
rebates and discounts on environmental products and 9% have taken
advantage of grants, tax incentives (16%), rebates and discounts (11%), and
permit zone fee reduction (5%). Almost 85% of corporate executives and 76%
of developers said that they are at least familiar with the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED program. A slightly lower percentage of government officials
(59%) are familiar with LEED. A majority of both corporate and developer
respondents report that they believe LEED to be an effective system for
energy savings and environmentally friendly buildings.

Conte and Yepes (2012) had conducted a study on Green Buildings:

Analysis of State of Knowledge. The purpose of this study was to analyse the
state of knowledge up-to-date. The study was conducted through a literature
research and a subsequent process and analysis of the papers found. A total
of 124 articles were selected for review. It was found that there was lot of
information available on Green Buildings. It was also concluded that
everyday, more people, groups, associations, governments, countries are
interested in joining the “Green Movement”, mainly aware of the importance it
has on the environment and also helped by the economic benefits that are
available and the prestige and recognition that this brings. United States was
the country with more papers published and this could be attributed to the fact
that LEED Rating Systems is the most internationally recognized certification
rating system, developed by US Green Building Council. To implement the
energy savings measures is necessary to use materials, devices, green
technology and other aspects. The initial cost increment in green building is
the most common barriers. The energy efficiency is the most interest topic to

78
researchers, because involve in a directly or indirectly way others green
building aspects (design, materials, water saving, cost).

Rashid, et. al. (2012) conducted a study to investigate the mechanism for the
effects of environmental design features of a green building on occupants’
environmental awareness and organizational image. The data were collected
from 175 occupants of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED)-certified green building using a questionnaire instrument. There were
two sets of questionnaire, one questionnaire investigated workspace related
questions such as background, workplace design, and individual and
organizational outcomes. The other questionnaire was related to departmental
space including questions on some environmental features of individual
workspaces, and other on departmental spaces or common amenities. The
finding of the study suggested that the occupants certainly appreciated the
environmental design features of the buildings. These environmental design
features also made the occupants more environment conscious, even though
these features did not help improve their assessment of organizational image.
In other words, even in a case where the “green” building and the organization
that occupies it are treated as an integrated system with the occupants being
aware of the environmental friendliness of the building, the building may not
help improve the occupants’ awareness of organizational image. The study
found no evidence for direct relationships between the occupant’s
assessments of individual workspace and departmental space features and
their assessments of environmental awareness and organizational image. The
study, however, found some evidence for indirect relationships showing that
the occupant’s assessments of individual workspace and departmental space
features had affected their satisfaction with individual workspaces and the
building, which affected the occupants’ assessment of environmental
awareness and organizational image.

Campwala(2013)conducted a descriptive research on NET Zero buildings

with a sample of 20 architects and 20 civil engineers of Vadodara city
selected through purposive sampling technique through a questionnaire. The
findings revealed that a little more than one-half of civil engineers had

79
moderate extent of awareness whereas majority of the architects had
moderate extent of awareness regarding net zero buildings. It was found that
out of the two categories civil engineers were more aware about net zero
building. For the present research study the investigator had mainly focused
on the design of the net zero building with the solar panels and the materials.
The designing was done using AutoCAD software.

2.2.11 Incentives related to Green buildings

The NAIOP Research Foundation retained Yudelson Associates in (2007)

to investigate local government incentive programs, specifically for green
buildings. Through an extensive literature review, Yudelson Associates
identified and characterized local and state incentives for green building
construction by the private sector. Three
separate online surveys of developers, architects and local government
officials, with email and telephone interviews used to supplements survey
results. Of the total number of survey respondents, 48 per cent had
experienced five or more green building projects, 95 per cent were members
of the USGBC, 75 per cent were LEED Accredited Professionals and 78 per
cent had personally participated in a LEED registered project. In terms of
geographic location of projects, 60 per cent were in the West or Southwest
and only five per cent represented Canadian projects. Finally, 45 per cent had
developed or worked in a location that offered green building incentives. In
terms of green building achievements, 69 per cent of respondents had
secured a LEED Gold or Platinum designation for at least one project.
However, 28 per cent thought that green buildings carried a four per cent or
more cost premium. Additionally, 48 per cent thought that perceived cost
increases were the biggest barriers to building more green buildings. The
most significant barrier to the rapid growth of green buildings is perceived cost
increase (41%). The most successful green building incentives are in Chicago
(13%) and Portland, Oregon (9%). Respondents believe that the most
significant incentive or trigger that has been effective in promoting green
building is an internal philosophy to build green (44%). Density bonuses

80
(83%) was considered as incentives that developers indicated would be the
most significant for them and that they would like to see implemented.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA, 2007) undertook a study of

municipal green building programs in 2007. Their goal was to analyze the
growth and effectiveness of green building policies in cities of 50,000 people
or more. They identified a notable lack of current, comprehensive data on
green building programs as the impetus for their study, and hoped that their
report would provide invaluable information for other municipalities to follow.
Their main methodology was to survey representatives from each community.
Among their questions were the number of years that the green building
program existed; the extent of the program; whether it applied to just public
buildings or all buildings; types of incentives offered by communities; and
what the regional strengths and weaknesses were. They created a “Quick
Reference Matrix” organized by state and municipality. The case study
reflects a diversity of long standing policy. Many have been established for
several years, therefore offering an opportunity to see what has worked well
and which adjustments were needed. It was also found that incentives and far
reaching programs were largely concentrated in California and D.C – to –
Boston. These studies are going beyond standard concepts of green design
by incorporating green requirements into all buildings. Many of the policies are
either just now getting off the ground or being phase in over the next few
years. It was also concluded that the current state of green building law is not
consistent.

2.2.12 Comparative Studies between Conventional and Green Buildings

According to a survey conducted by U.S. Green Building Council 2009 on

Regional Green Building case study project analysed the post occupancy
performance of green buildings conducted for 12 consecutive months. The
element that were measured were energy efficiency, greenhouse gas
emission, water efficiency, commute transportation, construction and
operating cost, green premiums, health and productivity and occupants
comfort. It was found energy performance was better than conventional

81
buildings. The median calculated greenhouse gas emission in pounds of
carbon di oxide was less in green building rather than conventional buildings.
The water usage in green building was 7.7 gallons/ square foot/year and 5.9
gallons/occupants/day. This is less than the water usage in conventional
buildings. People residing in green buildings participated in optional
transportation commute and median vehicle miles travelled (9.2 miles) via
passenger’s vehicle was less as compared to people residing in conventional
buildings (12.1 miles). The study noted reduced asthma, less absenteeism,
less sick time. Occupant satisfaction is high, especially related to indoor air
quality and lighting. The lowest ratings given by occupants were related to
temperature and acoustics, but still generally positive.

Bhardwaj, 2014 carried out a study on IGBC Green Homes and Mughal
Heritage Buildings to gain an insight about IGBC Green Homes and Mughal
Heritage buildings in terms of energy efficiency, water efficiency, site
selection, material efficiency and indoor environmental quality and to compare
both kind of buildings and evaluate whether these parameters are appropriate
for Mughal Heritage Buildings or not. The research was carried out in
Delhi/NCR as it is in houses large number of LEED certified buildings and
Mughal Heritage buildings out of which 5 both type of buildings were selected.
It was found that Gurgaon (TATA), Gaur city (Gaursons) and Cape Town
(Supertech) had pre certified gold rating whereas Lotus Boulevard (3C
Company) was just registered and was aiming at silver rating and lastly,
Ecociti (Supertech) received pre certified platinum rating. Thus, it is evident
that these projects since their inception have always strived to protect the
environment and have taken enormous efforts to implement various
sustainability and green measures within their interior as well as exterior
spaces. The roofs and walls, energy and water features, vegetation and
choices of materials are all intended to create a micro-climate of a moderated
and comfortable environment. The Mughal buildings show a uniform pattern
both in structure and character. The main characteristics features of Mughal
architecture are the bulbous domes, the slender minarets with cupolas at the
four corners, large halls, massive vaulted gateways, a recessed archway
inside a rectangular fronton, and park like surroundings and delicate

82
ornamentation. Features like water storage, irrigation management, heat
island effect control, building orientation, daylighting, cross ventilation etc.
were present in these Mughal buildings. In spite of being sustainable sites,
having good indoor environment quality, orientation and planning, these
buildings falls short in fulfilling IGBC parameters.

2.2.13 Water Efficiency in Green Buildings

Chanan et.al. (2003) reviewed two studies on sustainable water management

in commercial buildings undertaken by Institute of Sustainable Future, for
Sydney Water Consumption to determine the potential water savings from
various water management options in a typical commercial high rise building.
Both the study showed the reduction of up to approximately 80% of water
demand and 90% of sewage discharge achieved through the integration in
innovation water efficiency measures, rainfall capture and use, treated effluent
reuse and evapotranspiration through roof gardens.

Ahn and Pearce (2013) adopted a case study approach to identify and
analyze green design and construction practices that create a green and
luxurious environment without damaging the hotel’s financial position. Two
LEED Platinum rated hotels were selected and data collected on their green
design and construction practices. It was found that to enhance the water
efficiency, both hotels installed high efficiency fixtures and fittings, including
water closets, dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, and low-flow showers that
reduce water consumption in the hotel. Since those fixtures are known to be
closely related to guest satisfaction and a vital part of luxurious bathroom
environment, the design team considered not only the need to reduce water
consumption but also quality and design of fixtures in the two hotels. By
implementing these water saving strategies, a reduction of about 34% of
portable water was achieved compared to conventional hotels. In addition,
major strategies adopted for landscaping the hotels’ surroundings were to
plant native and adapted plants, to install drip irrigation systems, and to avoid
using turf grass anywhere on either site. They use a non-portable water
source for plant irrigation and also installed refrigerators in the hotel kitchen

83
that used geothermal energy instead of water cooled systems, providing
significant water saving.

Khan, 2015 conducted a case study to evaluate the extent of satisfaction

among users of rainwater harvesting systems in Vadodara city. For this 9
cases were selected from various types of building from different area of
Vadodara city. The findings revealed that all the users who had installed the
Rainwater Harvesting System since minimum past 3-4 years and maximum 7-
8 years and were still using it were highly satisfied by the specific features of
Rainwater Harvesting System, its installation, its initial cost and its utilization
for future use. The users faced the problems to a high extent at the time of
cleaning and maintenance of the Rainwater Harvesting System chambers,
changing the sand, gravels and pebbles as there was difficulty in getting the
labour for getting this work done. The researcher proposed the design of
Rainwater Harvesting System as to provide ease to the users in cleaning and
maintaining the Rainwater Harvesting System by providing an outer covering
of the chambers which will keep it clean and will consume less time in
cleaning before the arrival of monsoon.

Conclusion

The review of literature revealed that much efforts has been made to research
area of “Benefits of Green Buildings”, “Green Building materials”, “Green
Building and Productivity”, “Vertical gardens”, “Net Zero buildings”, Indoor
Environment Quality in Green Building”, “Green Building rating Systems”,
“Barriers and Challenges in adopting Green Building concept” in India as well
as outside India. An overview of the researches highlighted that majority of
the studies focused on buildings already constructed on the principles of
Green Building Rating Systems and awareness of people residing or working
in green buildings. The researcher did not find any study focusing on
awareness of homeowners of existing (non-green buildings) regarding green
buildings and also the assessment of it for the extent of its greenness.
Opinion of the builders also needs to be assessed in Indian context.

84