Benchmark Study on Green Buildings - Royal Architectural Institute ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Along with the perception that green technologies are more costly and risky than conventional equipment, there is also the common perception that green development is more expensive because it takes longer to implement. From seeking qualified professionals, to obtaining approval for an unconventional design, to finding the right kinds of materials, many people see obstacles at every stage of the development process that can only lengthen the implementation period. The perception is that the implementation process for green development will be longer than for a standard building, and therefore costlier and less appealing. Often, a barrier to green buildings is that there is insufficient support and leadership by various levels of government. This includes insufficient government incentives, inconsistent or uncoordinated regulation, or the simple fact that the government may not be adequately pushing for green development. Because governments are usually the largest single owner of buildings in a country, they need to be very supportive of green building and encourage this type of development in any way they can. Implementing green practices in their own buildings is a great way for governments to demonstrate leadership and environmental responsibility. The lack of incentives and initiatives, both governmental and non-governmental, acts as a barrier to green buildings. Incentives and programs make the creation of green buildings more appealing to developers, who will then be more likely to build them. With more green buildings and homes available, more people will experience the benefits of these facilities. This helps increase awareness of the benefits of sustainable construction and green buildings. So, increasing incentives and programs to encourage the manufacturing of green buildings is likely to help increase public awareness, and begin to breakdown the knowledge barrier. Lack of investment in green buildings is also a huge barrier to their widespread adoption. The building industry is a significant component of any national economy, but there is still very little Canadian investment in innovative building practices and green technologies. For instance, the European Union spends 6 times more than Canada on research concerning the built environment and new building technologies. 8.1.3 Technology, Products & Materials: Uncertainty about new and emerging green technologies is another barrier to the widespread implementation of green buildings. Since many environmental technologies are relatively new, with less market history than conventional technologies, many property owners and developers are concerned that payback will not be as promised and that these technologies will end up not being as effective or reliable as the wellunderstood conventional equipment. Indeed, cost-benefit analysis of many green technologies is still being defined and the value in building green is often intangible, and is typically excluded from developers’ own cost-benefit analyses. Developers generally look for a payback period of between 3 and 7 years. However the payback period required with green technologies can be quite long, and considerably longer than many 25
people would find acceptable. For example, the payback period for some renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, can be around 15 and 30 years, respectively. The construction of green buildings requires the use of locally produced materials, sustainable products, sustainably-produced products, reused or reuseable materials, or combinations of these materials. If these products are not available to the industry, then chances are green buildings will not be created. Having readily available or locally manufactured green building products reduce the time required by developers to find and obtain these materials, and would increase their use through convenience. Slow market penetration is a major reason green building practices and technologies have not experienced extensive uptake. According to a study by the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH), it takes 10 to 25 years for a new housing technology to achieve full market penetration. This is due to lack of awareness of the new technology, or a resistance to change and preference of older, established methods. 8.1.4 Building Industry: Outdated and inconsistent building codes can also be a barrier to green building because they can prevent or discourage the use of alternative and innovative building materials, methods and designs, which are essential in the creation of modern sustainable buildings. It is usually provincial or municipal governments who design and update these codes, so this is another area where regular governmental activity is key. Another barrier to green buildings is the building industry’s resistance to change and innovation. Although the reasons behind this cannot be fully explained, it is partly due to established contractors and industry professionals designing and building structures the same way they did when they started in the business. So, there has been relatively little change in the building industry over the past couple decades, and buildings continue to be built essentially the same way they were 25 years ago. The building industry itself is also structured so that information exchange is limited. The industry is largely dominated by SMEs and subcontractors, who often choose not to share new design techniques and technologies because these are what set them apart from rival firms. Additionally, the geographic spread of these firms across Canada does not help in making awareness of these practices common knowledge. Another concern is about “green-washing,” which is marketing a technology or practice as being green when the actual environmental benefits may be negligible. Green development is a complex field, and it is difficult for consumers to be able to determine the true environmental impact of their properties and homes. Many people have noted the need for independent evaluation and standards for green technology, to reduce these perceived risks and to help purchasers choose amongst the growing number of green products. 26
Page 1: Benchmark
Page 4 and 5: Appendix A: Green Building Council
Page 6 and 7: B-4 Japan……………………
Page 8 and 9: • The Housing Corporation……
Page 10 and 11: sustainable buildings in these coun
Page 12 and 13: Levels of Certification LEED BREEAM
Page 14 and 15: Incentives for Use Other Comments L
Page 16 and 17: US Green Building Council (USGBC):
Page 18 and 19: Government of Canada, and is a foun
Page 20 and 21: 7.2 Canada: Upon the review of Cana
Page 22 and 23: 7.4 Japan: Japan is one of the worl
Page 24 and 25: TrustMark scheme was introduced to
Page 28 and 29: 8.2 Recommendations & Areas for Imp
Page 30 and 31: Even in world-leading green buildin
Page 32 and 33: desires the greener development. Se
Page 34 and 35: know that they are not acting alone
Page 36 and 37: environmental quality, health and p
Page 38 and 39: A-3 Germany: Currently, Germany doe
Page 40 and 41: own jurisdictions) to be applied ex
Page 42 and 43: product approval (CE mark on a prod
Page 44 and 45: green buildings and technologies. E
Page 46 and 47: the rest of the SAI program is set
Page 48 and 49: groups. The ACEEE is not a membersh
Page 50 and 51: encourages students to apply the le
Page 52 and 53: conditions, and eventually they are
Page 54 and 55: companies conceive, propose and exe
Page 56 and 57: een called upon to reduce their ene
Page 58 and 59: 2005. The expanded program will hel
Page 60 and 61: voluntarily report on results. The
Page 62 and 63: the purchase and installation of a
Page 64 and 65: into a clean energy future and requ
Page 66 and 67: Energy Star & various rebates: The
Page 68 and 69: smaller-scale municipal infrastruct
Page 70 and 71: NGO & NPO programs and incentives:
Page 72 and 73: council has said that the municipal
Page 74 and 75: Deutsche Energie-Agentur (DENA) Nat
Page 76 and 77:
natural open space caused by develo
Page 78 and 79:
government covering a portion of th
Page 80 and 81:
took place in 1998 and 1999 togethe
Page 82 and 83:
ECCJ reduced rate loans: The ECCJ a
Page 84 and 85:
standards would be that computers m
Page 86 and 87:
ensure that lights are not on and t
Page 88 and 89:
ebates for homeowners who install p
Page 90 and 91:
product is stamped with the BCJ mar
Page 92 and 93:
esulting in about one-third the car
Page 94 and 95:
initiatives proposed include accele
Page 96 and 97:
the Australian Academy of Sciences.
Page 98 and 99:
or enabling renewable energy techno
Page 100 and 101:
home more energy efficient. It can
Page 102 and 103:
energy, gas-fired generation and en
Page 104 and 105:
active solar technologies and passi
Page 106 and 107:
ecological footprint of Australian
Page 108 and 109:
sustainable living and technologies
Page 110 and 111:
work. As a non-profit association,
Page 112 and 113:
enewable energy target (MRET). This
Page 114 and 115:
electricity and invest it in clean
Page 116 and 117:
only single body able to speak with
Page 118 and 119:
Other CABE initiatives and awards i
Page 120 and 121:
these Smart Meters could help users
Page 122 and 123:
under this system include office eq
Page 124 and 125:
themselves to be living somewhere s
Page 126 and 127:
energy-saving technologies. With Lo
Page 128 and 129:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Ene
Page 130 and 131:
British Columbia Ministry of Provin
Page 132 and 133:
The Sustainable Condo website. Acce
Page 134 and 135:
Japan for Sustainability Informatio
Page 136 and 137:
Energyrating.gov.au. Accessed Augus
Page 138 and 139:
Energy Saving Trust website. Access
Page 140 and 141:
Environmental Choice Program inform
show all

Benchmark Study on Green Buildings - Royal Architectural Institute ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?