BUILDING - BCI Asia

Transcription

BUILDING - BCI Asia

GREEN
BUILDING
MARKET
REPORT
South East Asia
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Executive Summary
Sustainable Product Leaders
World Green Building Council:
Green Building - An unstoppable force
Green Building in South East Asia –
Analysis by BCI Economics
Green Building Report for Australia/New Zealand – Snapshot
Methodology
Disclaimer
BCI Economics Contacts
INTRODUCTION
Green building continues to gain momentum and the SE Asian region is enthusiastically getting on
board. Even though many of the countries in the region enjoy a wealth of energy resources both
renewable and non-renewable, the concern for environmental degradation, national energy security
and the world-wide need to “do more with less” have provided the motivation to adopt sustainability
principles in their construction practices.
The evidence from the World Green Building Council is most compelling – in 2002, when the WGBC
was founded it had eight member nations, none of them from Asia. Today, of the 100member
nations, 18 of them are in the Asia Pacific region and they are reporting significant achievements.
The national Green Building Council of Indonesia (GBCI), for instance, recently reported that over 100
building managers had reached out to it in order to apply for green building certification. Also the
Hong Kong Green Building Council BEAM Plus rating system, established in 2010, now has more
than 550 building projects either rated or registered.
Furthermore, Singapore has committed to fostering the continuous evolution of green architecture
with attractive incentives and a comprehensive rating system for buildings. The outcome has been
the certification of 1,534 newly constructed and 215 existing buildings as “green” since 2005.
1
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT SOUTH EAST ASIA
No wonder then that we at BCI Asia have a keen interest in the growing adoption of green building principles and practices by the building and construction industry
especially as we also share the commitment of the Green Building Councils to promote the progress of the industry to even higher standards of sustainability.
In 2014 we take great pride in celebrating seven years of our FuturArc Prize for Green Building Design and five years of the Green Leadership Awards!
Our last empirical study of attitudes toward and experiences with green building in the SE Asia region was in 2008 in conjunction with BCI Australia. It will
be instructive to see how the industry has evolved over that time especially in view of the economic and commercial challenges presented by the Global
Financial Crisis. I should like to add that this year we have extended our survey and the Green Building report for Australia (available separately) also includes
New Zealand for the first time.
As has been the case with the previous surveys conducted by BCI Economics, our analysis encompasses owners, developers, architects and engineers, main
contractors andsubcontractors across Hong Kong and 5 countries in South East Asia.
So without further hesitation, BCI Asia is delighted to present its 2014 Green Building Report on South East Asia. It adds a further dimension to our substantial
complement of products and services providing our clients in the region a greater understanding of the local and regional construction markets.
Dr. Matthias Krups
Chairman & CEO
BCI Media Group PTY Ltd.
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT SO U T H E AST ASI A
2
Executive
Summary
During the period of March through May, 2014, BCI Asia received responses from 523 developers,
architects, engineers, main- and subcontractors across South East Asia to a questionnaire about
their views on and experiences with green building. The findings are summarized as follows:
• Around 7 in 10 respondents across the region stated that they had been involved in some form
of green building during the period of 2008-2014.
• 46% of respondents said they had received official green building certification for one or more
of their construction projects. Of those, about a third stated that they had had their ventures
registered with Singapore-based “Green Mark”.
• 79% of those participating in the survey indicated they would be “somewhat likely” or “very likely”
to pursue certification from the beginning of their green building projects.
• Overall, our respondents were moderately optimistic that their enterprises would grow because
of activity in the area of green building.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The three major reasons encouraging companies in South East Asia to become engaged in green building were as follows:
• to help protect the environment and strive to alleviate the consequences of global warming
• to achieve lower lifecycle costs and
• to enhance the value and marketability of their projects.
• In turn, the biggest hurdles to the adoption of green building in South East Asia were:
• the additional costs of building materials
• the extra time and expenditure required to investigate suitable materials and
• the extra time and costs needed to undertake necessary training.
• Regarding their familiarity with certification systems, survey participants afforded the highest rating to the Singapore “Green Mark” followed by Malaysia’s GBI.
• 79% of respondents indicated that they were “somewhat” or “very” likely to pursue certification in the future.
• The top three certification systems of choice were “Green Mark” (Singapore), “GBI” (Malaysia) and “LEED” (US)
• When asked which building categories were most likely to benefit from certification, our survey participants named the top 4 categories as commercial/office,
healthcare, hospitality and education, although there was little to choose between them.
• The main obstacles to pursuing green building certification were considered to be:
• the cost of the certification process,
• the lack of information on certification requirements, and
• the gap between ‘design promises’ made with the certification and the performance reality when the building operates.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 44% of all Asian respondents indicated that they had seen “some”, even “significant” growth in their annual sales because of green building.
• There is a premium to be paid for delivering a building according to green principles with only 4% of the Asian respondents claiming there was no cost
impact. However, the spread of values for the extra costs (reflecting the different levels of certification) still compares favourably with the expectations
reported in 2008.
• In turn, the actual savings in operational costs also compare favourably with the expectations reported in the 2008 survey, with only 5% of respondents
reporting that green building had not had any impact, whereas over half claimed savings of 10% and more.
• Although 6% of our respondents claimed they had not observed an improvement in building value, 12% advised their buildings were worth at least 20%
more because of their green credentials. In all, just under a half of the responses put the increase in building value at a minimum of 10%.
• Calculating the improvement attributable to green building of the Return on Investment (ROI) on their building projects proved difficult but the results from
those respondents who managed it confirmed a positive outcome with over 40% of our respondents reporting improvements of at least 10%.
• We included a question regarding design software and our respondents advised they believed it had most relevance for:
• prediction and evaluation of natural (solar) lighting
• energy modelling/baseline analysis
• evaluation and exploration of alternative building materials
• The technologies most frequently used in green building projects in South East Asia comprised:
5
• energy efficient/intelligent lighting
• water efficient fixtures and fittings and
• insulation products.
GREEN
Actionable analytics to drive
business decisions, and share
sustainability initiatives
PRODUCT
LEADERS
Occupant comfort and productivity
while achieving energy savings in
excess of 30% on HVAC and up to
60% on lighting
Learn m
HunterDouglas
Distech Controls, the Distech Controls logo and Innovative Solutions for Greener Buildings are tradema
FALL IN
LOVE WITH
Rose Gold
The charming allure of gold’s splendor meets the subtle blush of a
delicate pink rose. Our new Rose Gold faucet finish is a tease of timeless
luxury with a touch of romantic elegance.
Kohlerasiapacific.com
The Penang Second Bridge in Malaysia, the longest bridge in South East Asia,
was officially opened on 1 March 2014. The Bridge named after the 14th
Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah of Kedah, was
assigned with the route number E28.
Totalling 24km in length, it will take motorists around 20 minutes to cross the
RM 4.5 billion bridge from Batu Kawan on the mainland and Batu Maung on
the island.
Penang island already has another bridge linking it to the mainland. The first
bridge opened in 1985 but the state’s rising population, and popularity
with visitors, meant that another bridge was needed to cope with the increasing
traffic.
The Second Penang Bridge Plus Toll Plaza achieved CBI provisional rating
gold and The Second Penang Bridge PB2X Toll Plaza achieved GBI provisional
platinum.
An
unstoppable
force
Jane Henley,
Chief Executive
Officer World
Green Building Council
Green building has become an unstoppable force.
The latest World Green Building Trends report, released by McGraw-Hill Construction in conjunction
with the World Green Building Council (World GBC), surveyed professional services firms in more
than 60 countries, revealing that green building is accelerating around the world as it is recognised
as a long-term business opportunity.
Just over half of those firms surveyed - which include architects, engineers, contractors, owners
and consultants - anticipate that more than 60 per cent of their work will be green by 2015. This is
up from a quarter of firms in 2012.
The report finds that growth of green is not limited to one geographic region or economic state;
green building is pervasive, rather than isolated to a particular region, economic condition or culture.
Interestingly, when McGraw-Hill Construction published its 2008 study of the global green building
An unstoppable force
market, “doing the right thing” was the primary driver for green building.Today, green building is increasingly seen as a business opportunity, with client and
market demand and brand recognition the dominant forces.
The potential for design, construction, consulting, auditing and manufacturing companies across the entire value chain is immense – which is why most
countries across the Asia Pacific now have a national GBC affiliated with the World GBC. The green building council model, which demonstrates why
collaboration between many can achieve greater results than leadership of a few, rests on the belief that effective solutions require a whole sector approach
across the entire supply chain.
When the World GBC was established in 2002, it had eight member nations, none of them from Asia. Today, we have 100 member nations, 18 of them in the
Asia Pacific region.
Established
Emerging
Prospective
Associated Group
Green building council with full
membership status with World GBC
Green building council working
towards full membership status
with World GBC
A group that has been officially
recognised by the World GBC as
the entity establishing a GBC in their
country, and is working towards
emerging member status
Groups that the World GBC endorses
and supports, as the organisations
are in the process of forming
councils in non-member countries
or economic zones but which do not
yet satisfy the membership criteria
Australia
Hong Kong
India
Japan
New Zealand
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Sri Lanka
Korea
Pakistan
Philippines
Bangladesh
Brunei
China
Kazakhstan
Vietnam
10
A n un s t o p p able f o r c e
Of course, opportunities and challenges vary from country to country, and vast disparities exist in terms of technology adoption, public awareness and
government engagement. In some mature markets, GBCs have driven dramatic upticks in sustainability, have well-established relationships with governments
and are boosting ‘green collar’ skills across their entire industry. They also have established rating systems which have stimulated market demand for buildings
with improved environmental performance, provided a common language for green building and promoted an integrated, holistic approach to building design.
Many countries in the Asian region are rich in energy resources - both in terms of renewable and non-renewable energy. However, driven by a concern for
environmental degradation and national energy security, many countries are developing comprehensive plans to progressively increase the use of renewable
resources and enhance building energy performance.
These national plans are being supported by regulations, fiscal initiatives, market-based mechanisms and voluntary initiatives. Examples include building
codes, energy audit requirements, funding schemes, tax exemptions, and energy labelling for appliances.
At the same time, green building rating tools are being developed and tailored to address the unique physical and socio-economic characteristics of
each country. A number of countries have well-established rating systems – from Green Mark in Singapore to Green Star in Australia and New Zealand.
The Hong Kong Green Building Council BEAM Plus rating system, established in 2010, now has more than 550 building projects either rated or registered.
The Indian Green Building Council has 540 functioning and rated green buildings, and 2,770 green building projects on the go, across the nation’s five climatic
zones. In Australia, 22 per cent of the nation’s office space is now Green Star certified.
Many organisations across the value chain are embracing sustainability as a long-term business opportunity. The World GBC’s inaugural Asia Pacific Regional
Network Leadership Awards in Green Building received 55 nominations from companies across the region in 2014 (and a further 57 nominations of green
building projects). From that pool of companies, Singapore’s City Developments Limited and Keppel Land Limited, and India’s ITC Limited – Hotels Division
were acknowledged for ‘walking the talk’ when it comes to sustainability. They also underscore that designing and delivering a green building is just the
first step on the road to sustainability – and that strong management engagement and commitment to embedding sustainability into organisational cultures
reaps rewards.
11
An unstoppable force
Financial incentives, which are very effective in promoting energy efficiency, are not widely available in Asia – but this is beginning to change. Many countries
are yet to establish financing frameworks for energy efficiency and conservation projects, and financial institutions are still hesitant to finance green projects.
However, financial initiatives are emerging. Brunei, for example, has changed its tariff structure and introduced prepaid electricity meters to encourage users to
monitor their electricity consumption. Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund provides capital at no cost to Thai banks to fund energy efficiency projects,
while the Ministry of Industry provides subsidies for the implementation of energy conservation measures.
Creative campaigns are helping to raise awareness of energy efficiency and green building across the region. In the last few years, Vietnam has held a song
writing campaign to spread the word on the efficient use of resources. A TV program in the Philippines showcased the construction of eco-friendly homes, with
tips provided by experts. The Hong Kong Green Building Council launched the “Hong Kong Green School Guide” to provide practical guidelines for principals
and school administrators to better understand how to improve building energy efficiency and engage students.The Singapore GBC led ‘Project Green Insights’
which involved installing energy meters in schools and educating students on how to read the monitors and modify their behaviour. The enthusiasm of the
students has led the Singaporean Government to invest more in green building.
So, where to from here? Certainly, the scale, speed and development, the increasing scarcity and cost of energy, and the growing need for the world to do
‘more with less’ – in Asia Pacific and the world over – is likely to continue to accelerate the adoption of green building practices. In the future, sustainability will
be seen not as an ‘add-on’ but a ‘must-have’. It will be self-evident that the upfront costs of green building will be worth the immense long-term benefits.
12
Outdoor &
indoor expert
Greenwall
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited
Rattan furniture
The Latitude
Wood Composite Decking
Jardine House, Central
Wood Composite Decking
Hong Kong Science Park
Greentins has years of experience in providing green, sustainable,
unique and lifestyling building materials and services to architectural,
design, building and construction professionals for residential, commercial,
hotel, landscaping and infrastructure projects. Our products include:
Recycled Wood Plastic Composite
Green Wall/Green Roof/Green Podium
Rattan Furniture
Bamboo Flooring
Laminated Glass
Tatami
Illuminated signs and displays
and more…
Units A&B, 31/F, E-Trade Plaza, 24 Lee Chung Street, Chai Wan, Hong Kong
T: (852) 2866 2683
F: (852) 2528 9288
Email: [email protected]
Respondents‘ profile
South East Asia
Subcontractor
5%
Owner/
developer
22%
Main
contractor,
builder
18%
Professional services:
architect, engineer,
consultant
55%
The 2014 Green Building Report in the Asia-Pacific has been drawn from the answers to a detailed
questionnaire from 523 respondents situated in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam,
the Philippines and Hong Kong. 55% of survey participants identified themselves as providers of
professional services, namely architects, engineers or consultants.
Participants represented companies of various sizes but largely from enterprises employing between
11-100 people.
Thailand
5%
Hong
Kong
3%
101 and
more
33%
Other
3%
1-10
26%
Vietnam
7%
Malaysia
26%
Singapore
18%
Philippines
19%
15
Indonesia
19%
11-100
41%
Green Building in
South East Asia
south east asia
GREEN BUILDING ACTIVITY
More than 70% of the industry professionals that completed our questionnaire
confirmed that they had in some way been involved with green building in the
time period from 2008 to 2014. As can be seen from the comparison between
the 2008 and 2014 results according to respondent type, there has been
a substantial increase in the level of activity over that period.
NO
28%
YES
72%
16
Green Building in south east asia
Owner/Developer
100%
Professional Services
100%
70%
41%
81%
80%
57%
50%
60%
0%
40%
2008
2014
2008
Contractors/Subcontractors
100%
50%
60%
25%
0%
2008
17
2014
2014
RESULTS BY COUNTRY
One can observe that in most countries the share of respondents engaging
in green building has dramatically increased over the six years since 2008.
This is especially evident for Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. However,
involvement in green building appears to have declined in the countries that
previously headed this comparison, namely Thailand (dipping from 55%
to 47%) and Vietnam (79% to 70%). No definitive explanations for these
reversals have been confirmed but we surmise that political unrest may have
contributed to the lower figure in Thailand.
indonesia
100%
60%
40%
0%
83%
2014
100%
83%
80%
45%
60%
40%
30%
20%
20%
0%
2008
malaysia
80%
60%
40%
38%
20%
HONG KONG
100%
67%
80%
2008
2014
0%
2008
2014
18
PHILIPPINES
100%
71%
80%
60%
40%
singapore
45%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
82%
45%
20%
2008
2014
0%
2008
THAILAND
VIETNAM
100%
100%
80%
80%
55%
60%
40%
47%
19
79%
70%
60%
40%
20%
20%
0%
2014
2008
2014
0%
2008
2014
GREEN BUILDING
CERTIFICATION
Although 72% of our respondents claimed an involvement with green
building, only 46% followed through to pursue official green building
certification.
NO
54%
YES
46%
For those survey participants that confirmed receipt of certification, the
Singapore-based “Green Mark” was the most widely used system, with
33% of all certificates obtained.
The Malaysian GBI and the United States LEED systems were also
reasonably well represented across the South East Asia Region.
Comparison of the relative significance of green building certification
reveals substantial differences across the national markets – from
Thailand, where only 21% of respondents had pursued and achieved
certification for their projects to Hong Kong with a figure of 90%. This may
be taken to illustrate the divergent perceptions of the importance and
merit attached to certification between the individual countries.
Others
24%
LEED
(US)
20%
BCA Green Mark
(Singapore)
33%
GBI
(Malaysia)
23%
20
G R E E N B U I L D I N G C E RT I F I C AT I O N
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hong Kong
90%
82%
Singapore
Malaysia
Vietnam
29%
Philippines
28%
Indonesia
Thailand
21
60%
24%
21%
Meet the New Standard
in Sustainable Buildings
Let us show you how our innovative building automation and energy
management solutions can help you to acheive greater results.
Actionable analytics to drive
business decisions, and share
sustainability initiatives
Optimised energy efficiency, and
reduced energy wastage
Occupant comfort and productivity
while achieving energy savings in
excess of 30% on HVAC and up to
60% on lighting
Engage occupants for increased
energy efficiency by up to 15%
Learn more at www.distech-controls.com/GREEN
Distech Controls, the Distech Controls logo and Innovative Solutions for Greener Buildings are trademarks of Distech Controls Inc. © Distech Controls Inc., 2014. all rights reserved.
Increase employee productivity by
up to 20% with appropriate lighting, up to 50% with appropriate
temperature settings, and up to
9% when provided control over
environmental settings
Improving Solid Wastes Management with Automated Refuse Collection System
Improvements






suit architectural requirements of different projects
eliminate nega ve impacts of tradi onal waste handling methods
improve unfavourable working condi ons for cleaners
no need for temporary storage of waste in public areas
improve hygienic environment
reduce noise & odours
Technology of Automated Collection








waste is disposed through refuse disposal inlets
temporarily stored above the totally enclosed discharge valves (DV)
level sensors monitor refuse storage volume and ini ate the system to start collec on process if full
DV will be opened and stored refuses will drop into underground transport pipe net by gravity
air stream transports refuses at a speed of about 70 kmh to the central refuse collec on sta on
a r separa on with air, refuses will finally se le inside refuse container
air will be treated to remove odour and dust before discharging to the atomosphere
complete collec on process is monitored and controlled by electrical control centre and supervised by
Supervisory Control and Date Acquisi on System (SCADA)
Applications
 residen al development
 office, shopping mall and commercial development
 restaurant, food court, flight kitchen and food manufacturing facili es
 hospital and laundry
 theme park and exhibi on centre
Science Park, Hong Kong
Envac Far East Ltd.
Taipei Financial Centre, Taiwan
Tamar Government HQ Building, Hong Kong
Tel : 852-28698838
[email protected]
301 Hospital, Beijing, China
www.envacgroup.com
GROWTH
EXPECTATIONS
FOR GREEN BUILDING
- BY BUILDING CATEGORY -
Overall, there are no categories that clearly offer greater opportunities
for growth but on balance, commercial and office developments,
education and multi-residential would appear to be the preferred
categories. At the other end of the scale, single residential, industrial
and retail projects were considered to have the least potential from a
green building perspective.
Although on the overall chart the variations by category appear
gradual, this is because they are averages of wider variations between
the countries.
Whereas commercial and office developments lead the growth
expectations for Singapore and Malaysia, it is the education
category that is regarded as having the most potential in Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. In contrast, the respondents from
the Philippines rated residential (multi- and single-) as having the most
no growth
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Commercial/
Office
3.3
Education
3.2
Multi Residential
3.2
Healthcare
3.1
Hospitality
3.1
Publicly funded/
Community/Legal
3.0
Single Residential
2.9
Industrial
2.9
Retail
2.8
potential.
24
G R O W T H E X P E C TAT I O N S F O R G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kong
indonesia
no growth
strong growth
(1)
no growth
(4)
Education
3.4
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Education
3.6
Hospitality
3.2
Hospitality
Publicly
funded/Community
3.2
Healthcare
3.4
Commercial/Office
3.4
Multi Residential
3.4
Multi Residential
3.0
Commercial/Office
2.9
2.8
Healthcare
2.4
Single Residential
Retail
Industrial
25
2.3
2.1
3.5
3.3
Single Residential
Industrial
3.2
Publicly
funded/Community
3.2
Retail
2.9
malaysia
philippines
no growth
strong growth
(1)
no growth
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.2
Multi Residential
3.1
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Multi Residential
3.3
Single Residential
3.3
Healthcare
2.9
Commercial/Office
3.2
Education
2.9
Education
3.2
Hospitality
2.9
Hospitality
2.8
Retail
Publicly
funded/Community
Single Residential
Industrial
2.7
2.6
2.5
3.1
Industrial
3.0
Healthcare
3.0
Publicly
funded/Community
2.9
Retail
2.9
26
singapore
thailand
no growth
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.4
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Education
3.6
3.5
Education
3.2
Hospitality
Multi Residential
3.2
Healthcare
3.3
Commercial/Office
3.3
Industrial
3.3
Publicly
funded/Community
3.0
Hospitality
2.9
2.8
Retail
Retail
3.2
3.2
Healthcare
2.7
Multi Residential
Industrial
2.7
Single Residential
Single Residential
27
no growth
2.6
Publicly
funded/Community
3.0
2.9
Vietnam
no growth
strong growth
(1)
(4)
Education
3.4
Hospitality
3.4
Healthcare
3.3
Commercial/Office
3.2
Retail
3.2
3.1
Industrial
Multi Residential
Single Residential
Publicly funded/
Community/Legal
2.9
2.8
2.7
28
AUTOMATIC
SLIDING DOOR
ST FLEX GREEN
—
Energy efficiency in an elegant design
DORMA Far East Country Offices:
Singapore
Tel: 65 6268 7633
Indonesia
Tel: 62 21 293 0376-2
Korea
Tel: 82 31 776 0051
Malaysia/Brunei
Tel: 603 7665 1683
Philippines
Tel: 632 893 4077-8
Taiwan
Tel: 886 2 2709 6611
Vietnam
Tel: 84 8 62 888748
Thailand/Myanmar/ Tel: 66 2236 4994-6
Laos/Cambodia/
www.dorma.com.sg
Cassidy Elementary | Kalamazoo, Mich.
TAKE AIM AT GREAT STYLE
WITH BIG ASS FANS
does the same. With a variety of sizes, finishes and styles, Big Ass Fans® blend form
and function to suit any space. Choose from our signature colors and wood grains, or
send us your favorite hue, and we’ll build you a fan to match. Beyond good looks, Big
Ass Fans keep you comfortable so you can use less heating and air conditioning and
enjoy lower utility bills. That’s style and savings, right on target.
VISIT OUR SHOWROOM!
Visit bigassfans.hk or call +852 2836 5808 to schedule an appointment today.
Showroom: ROOM 808, TAI YAU BUILDING, 181 JOHNSTON RD, WAN CHAI, HONG KONG
REASONS FOR
INVOLVEMENT
IN GREEN BUILDING
It is pleasing to observe that the leading motive for
South East Asia construction professionals to engage in green
building activity is out of regard for the environment – as it was
in our previous survey in 2008. Reduction in the total lifecycle
costs again rated the second most important reason but has
narrowed the gap since the previous survey. However, the
third ranked reason was an option not included in the 2008
survey – namely, the enhanced end value and marketability of
the completed building.
We are beginning to see that the “feel-good” factor is making
way for the commercial incentives to deliver environmentally
sensitive and sustainable premises. The industry is recognising
the opportunity to profit from green building rather than in spite
of it. These sentiments appear to be held fairly consistently
across the respondent roles.
The ratings for the various reasons for getting involved in green
building do show slight variations between countries but generally
are reasonably consistent with the overall results.
31
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
Contribute to the protection
of our environment/reduce
global warming
Achieve lower lifecycle costs,
e.g. through energy efficiency
and productivity increases
3.6
3.6
Achieve increased building
value/marketability
3.2
Benefit from positive publicity/be
seen as a good corporate citizen
3.2
Achieve higher return
on investment
3.0
Achieve higher sales by
attracting and retaining ‘green
building’ clients
3.0
Requirement of
developer/owner
3.0
Attract and retain talent
for my firm
Win government tenders
2.8
2.5
R E A S O N S F O R I N V O LV E M E N T I N G R E E N B U I L D I N G
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
Achieve lower lifecycle costs,
e.g. through energy efficiency
and productivity increases
Contribute to the protection
of our environment/reduce
global warming
value/marketability
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
Achieve higher sales by
attracting and retaining ‘green
building’ clients
3.1
3.0
3.1
Requirement of
developer/owner
3.0
3.0
Achieve higher return
on investment
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.3
2.4
3.2
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Attract and retain talent
for my firm
Owner/Developer
HONG KONG
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
Contribute to the protection of our
environment/reduce global warming
3.8
Achieve lower lifecycle costs, e.g. through
energy efficiency and productivity increases
3.6
Benefit from positive publicity/be seen
as a good corporate citizen
3.5
Requirement of developer/owner
3.0
value/marketability
2.8
2.7
Attract and retain talent for my firm
Achieve higher sales by attracting and
retaining ‘green building’ clients
2.5
Achieve higher return on investment
2.3
2.3
Other
2.0
Contractor/Subcontractor
32
INDONESIA
malaysia
not important
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
(1)
3.8
3.8
Other
3.4
(4)
3.5
3.4
value/marketability
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
Achieve increased building value/marketability
3.1
3.0
33
very important
2.9
2.2
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.4
Other
2.4
PHILIPPINES
not important
SINGAPORE
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
3.8
3.7
value/marketability
3.3
(1)
3.1
3.1
3.1
Other
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.4
3.4
value/marketability
3.2
3.5
3.1
(4)
very important
3.0
2.9
2.8
Other
2.7
2.5
34
thailand
not important
VIETNAM
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
3.7
Benefit from positive publicity/be seen as a
good corporate citizen
(1)
Achieve increased building value/
marketability
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.6
Other
35
(4)
3.4
Achieve increased building value/
marketability
very important
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
3.0
Other
2.8
2.5
2.4
REASONS AGAINST
INVOLVEMENT IN
GREEN BUILDING
Having surveyed the reasons for becoming involved in green
building, we next turned our attention to the obstacles getting in
the way. We found the “higher costs of building materials” cited as
the primary reason, followed by the “additional time and cost to
research materials” and the “time and costs for additional training”
in second and third place, respectively.
This overall pattern was largely reflected in the responses by
respondent role although owners and developers were particularly
sensitive to the extra materials costs and contractors showed
concern for the costs attributable to training in green building
techniques.
Consistent with our summary findings, the “higher costs of
building materials” were also found to be the major obstacle to
green building implementation across most national markets.
The “additional time and cost to research materials” also ranked
second in numerous countries while the “additional time and costs
for additional training” came in third for several markets as well.
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
3.1
Higher costs of
building materials
Additional time and
costs for additional training
2.8
Additional time and
cost to research materials
2.7
Additional time and
cost of documentation
2.7
Additional time
needed at design stage
2.6
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
3.3
Higher costs of
building materials
3.1
3.0
2.9
Additional time and
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.7
Additional time and
cost for additional training
2.9
2.8
Additional time and
2.6
Additional time needed
at design stage
2.6
2.5
2.7
Owner/Developer
2.9
36
R E A S O N S A G A I N S T I N V O LV E M E N T I N G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kONG
INDONESIA
not important
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
Higher costs of
building materials
3.09
Additional time and
2.9
very important
(1)
(4)
Higher costs of
building materials
2.8
Additional time and
2.74
Additional time and
2.5
Additional time and
Additional time and
2.5
Additional time and
2.5
Additional time
2.5
Additional time
37
2.3
2.66
PHILIPPINES
MALAYSIA
not important
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
very important
(1)
(4)
3.18
Higher costs of
building materials
2.8
Higher costs of
building materials
Additional time and
2.74
Additional time and
2.9
Additional time and
2.87
Additional time and
2.66
Additional time and
2.5
Additional time and
Additional time
2.5
Additional time
2.68
2.61
38
SINGAPORE
THAILAND
not important
very important
(1)
not important
(4)
3.23
Higher costs of
building materials
very important
(1)
(4)
3.2
Higher costs of building materials
Additional time and
2.77
Additional time and costs for
additional training
Additional time and
2.75
Additional time and cost to
research materials
2.9
Additional time and cost of
documentation
2.9
Additional time and
Additional time
39
2.71
2.59
Additional time needed at
design stage
3.0
2.7
vietnam
not important
very important
(1)
(4)
3.2
Higher costs of
building materials
Additional time and
2.4
Additional time and
2.3
Additional time and
2.1
Additional time
2.1
40
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
CONSULTING
W www.greenaconsultants.com
in GreenA Consultants
GreenA
Green building
certification - LEED,
Green Mark , Green
Building Index, Green
Reporting Initiative-GRI
& Green Globe
Environmental
studies
CFD, Daylight
Reflectance , Energy
Modelling
Development of
green building
councils and Green
Certification
Green Knowledge
Management Centre
for Research and
Corporate Sustainability Training
Consultants
Green Material
Advisory
Green Branding
FAMILIARITY WITH
CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
don’t know
expert knowledge
(1)
(4)
Green Mark (Singapore)
The responses to the question “how familiar are you with the
following certification systems” (relevant to the South East Asia
region) were naturally consistent with the answers to the earlier
question “which certification systems have you used”. Across
the region, the Singapore “Green Mark” had the highest rating
with Malaysia’s GBI just a little further back. Their high ratings
are not surprising given their countries’ level of involvement
with green building although we might have expected that
Hong Kong’s BEAM system would have rated more highly.
Mention should also be made of the “international” systems,
the US LEED, the UK BREEAM and the Australian “Green Star”
which all had high levels of awareness across the region.
Green Star (New Zealand)
43
2.6
2.3
LEED (US)
BREAAM (UK)
2.1
2.0
CGBC (Canada)
BERDE (Philippines)
1.8
Greenship (Indonesia)
1.8
1.8
BEAM Plus (Hong Kong)
CGBC (Canada)
Naturally, each country favoured their locally based agency.
However, the US LEED system and Singapore’s Green Mark
frequently took the second and third places behind them
suggesting that they may be the “benchmarks” in the region for
good green building practice.
2.7
1.7
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.6
TREES (Thailand)
1.6
f a m ili a rit y with certi f ic a tion s y ste m s
hong kong
don’t know
(1)
Indonesia
expert knowledge
(4)
BEAM Plus (Hongkong)
3.8
LEED (US)
2.9
don’t know
(1)
2.1
LEED (US)
Green Star (Australia)
2.1
2.0
CGBC (Canada)
1.7
2.7
BREAAM (UK)
expert knowledge
(4)
2.2
2.1
1.9
BREAAM (UK)
1.8
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.8
BERDE (Philippines)
1.4
1.6
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.4
TREES (Thailand)
1.6
1.3
CGBC (Canada)
1.6
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.3
BERDE (Philippines)
1.6
TREES (Thailand)
1.3
Lotus (Vietnam)
Others
1.0
Others
1.5
1.3
44
MALAYSIA
don’t know
(1)
philippines
expert knowledge
(4)
3.7
GBI (Malaysisa)
2.9
LEED (US)
2.6
BREAAM (UK)
2.3
don’t know
(1)
3.3
LEED (US)
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
BREAAM (UK)
Others
1.9
CGBC (Canada)
1.9
1.9
1.6
Others
1.6
45
expert knowledge
(4)
1.8
CGBC (Canada)
1.5
1.7
TREES (Thailand)
1.5
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.7
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.4
BERDE (Philippines)
1.4
TREES (Thailand)
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.6
1.5
Singapore
don’t know
(1)
Thailand
expert knowledge
(4)
3.8
LEED (US)
2.5
GBI (Malaysisa)
2.0
BREAAM (UK)
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
CGBC (Canada)
don’t know
(1)
expert knowledge
(4)
TREES (Thailand)
2.6
2.6
LEED (US)
2.5
2.1
Lotus (Vietnam)
2.1
1.9
BREAAM (UK)
1.9
1.5
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.9
Lotus (Vietnam)
1.5
1.9
BERDE (Philippines)
1.4
BERDE (Philippines)
TREES (Thailand)
1.4
CGBC (Canada)
1.7
Others
1.7
Others
1.3
1.8
46
Vietnam
don’t know
(1)
expert knowledge
(4)
Lotus (Vietnam)
3.5
LEED (US)
3.0
2.6
2.4
Others
2.4
2.3
BREAAM (UK)
2.0
CGBC (Canada)
1.8
GBI (Malaysisa)
1.8
BERDE (Philippines)
47
1.7
TREES (Thailand)
1.6
1.6
THE INTENTION OF SEEKING
GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION
Although less than half the respondents had indicated that they had pursued
certification, a substantial 79% indicated that they were “somewhat” or “very”
likely to pursue certification in the future. Of course, not every intention is
followed through to implementation but this is a healthy leading indicator of
growth in green building certification.
Very unlikely
3%
=
Somewhat
unlikely
9%
Somewhat
likely
38%
Not seeking for
certification,
but sticking
to Green Building
standards 9%
The results country by country were somewhat predictable. In Singapore,
Vietnam and Hong Kong, on the one hand, 92%, 91% and even the full
100% of respondents, respectively, stated that they were “very” or “somewhat
likely” to strive after green building certification. On the other hand, Indonesia,
Thailand and the Philippines appear to be still in “catch-up” mode. However
the shares of respondents with declared intentions at 75%, 69% and 72%
respectively still compare very favourably with their past actual performance
(between 21% and 28%).
hong kong
Very
likely
41%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
42%
58%
Somewhat unlikely
48
T H E I N T E N T I O N O F S E E K I N G G R E E N B U I L D I N G C E RT I F I C AT I O N
indonesia
Malaysia
9%
Very likely
18%
31%
7%
Somewhat likely
44%
49
87%
42%
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Very likely
4%
Very unlikely
37%
Not seeking for certification,
but sticking to Green Building
standards
Philippines
singapore
2%
3%
30%
15%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
42%
6%
Very likely
10%
Somewhat likely
25%
67%
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Not seeking for
certification, but
sticking to Green
Building standards
50
Thailand
5%
Very likely
27%
26%
Very unlikely
Not seeking for certification,
but sticking to Green Building
standards
51
3% 6%
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
42%
vietnam
50%
41%
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
PREFERRED GREEN BUILDING
CERTIFICATION
We have asked about familiarity with the various systems but
here we have asked bluntly of those respondents who have
indicated they are prepared to pursue green building certification,
which one will they choose? Not surprisingly, the respondents
tended to go with the systems with which they are familiar
and accordingly, the three top choices were “Green Mark”
(Singapore), “GBI” (Malaysia) and “LEED” (US).
Naturally enough, preference went to the system administered
by the country’s own agency. However, it becomes clear the
LEED system of the US and the Green Mark from Singapore are
the most important back-up choices.
0%
20%
40%
40%
GBI (Malaysia)
29%
LEED (US)
28%
17%
15%
BERDE (Philippines)
Lotus (Vietnam)
8%
7%
BREEAM (UK)
TREES (Thailand)
5%
4%
3%
52
P R E F E R R E D G R E E N B U I L D I N G C E RT I F I C AT I O N
HONG KONG
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
INDONESIA
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
BEAM Plus
(Hong Kong)
92%
Green Mark
(Singapore)
BERDE
(Philippines)
53
42%
8%
8%
50%
60%
70%
80%
80%
30%
17%
LEED (US)
LEED (US)
40%
9%
3%
GBI (Malaysia)
3%
TREES (Thailand)
3%
CGBC (Canada)
3%
BREEAM (UK)
3%
BERDE (Philippines)
2%
Lotus (Vietnam)
2%
90%
100%
philippines
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
BERDE (Philippines)
70%
80%
90%
84%
LEED (US)
55%
9%
GBI (Malaysia)
malaysia
11%
4%
2%
2%
TREES (Thailand)
2%
16%
100%
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
GBI (Malaysia)
90%
100%
32%
18%
LEED (US)
BREEAM (UK)
Others
80%
92%
7%
4%
1%
1%
BREEAM (UK)
10%
1%
2%
54
singapore
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
THAILAND
70%
80%
90%
100%
97%
LEED (US)
65%
0%
10%
33%
8%
8%
3%
Lotus (Vietnam)
8%
3%
8%
GBI (Malaysia)
3%
BREEAM (UK)
8%
CGBC (Canada)
3%
50%
42%
BERDE (Philippines)
55
40%
60%
50%
16%
3%
30%
TREES (Thailand)
LEED (US)
20%
70%
80%
90%
100%
VIETNAM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
84%
Lotus (Vietnam)
65%
LEED (US)
32%
16%
BERDE (Philippines)
3%
3%
GBI (Malaysia)
3%
CGBC (Canada)
3%
BREEAM (UK)
3%
Others
3%
56
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS
OF CERTIFICATION BY
BUILDING CATEGORY
We wished to determine whether the industry
professionals regarded certification as being more
useful for certain building categories than others. Across
South East Asia there appears little to choose between the
top 4 categories, namely commercial/office, healthcare,
hospitality and education.
Not that far behind come publicly funded projects
(including community and legal), multi residential and
industrial. However, certification does not appear to
be regarded as valuable for retail and single residential
developments.
The profiles for each country do bear some similarity with
the overall picture, however, there are some interesting
variations reflecting differences in market opportunities.
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.6
Healthcare
3.6
Hospitality
3.6
Education
3.6
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.4
Multi Residential
3.4
3.3
Industrial
Retail
Single Residential
3.2
3.0
59
P E R C E I V E D U S E F U L N E S S O F C E R T I F I C A T I O N BY B U I L D I N G C A T E G O R Y
hong kong
INDONESIA
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Education
3.5
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Hospitality
3.8
3.8
Hospitality
3.4
Healthcare
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.4
Education
3.7
Commercial/Office
3.3
Commercial/Office
Healthcare
3.3
Induastrial
3.5
3.6
Single Residential
3.2
Multi Residential
3.5
Multi Residential
3.2
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.5
Retail
Industrial
60
3.0
2.9
Single Residential
Retail
3.3
3.2
malaysia
philippines
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.5
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.6
3.6
Healthcare
3.4
Education
Hospitality
3.4
Healthcare
3.5
3.5
Education
3.2
Industrial
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.2
Hospitality
3.4
Multi Residential
3.1
Multi Residential
3.4
Retail
3.1
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.4
Industrial
Single Residential
3.0
2.8
Single Residential
Retail
3.2
3.1
61
singapore
thailand
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Commercial/Office
3.6
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Education
Healthcare
3.5
Hospitality
Education
3.5
Healthcare
3.7
3.6
3.5
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.4
Industrial
3.4
Hospitality
3.4
Commercial/Office
3.4
Retail
3.3
Retail
Multi Residential
3.3
Multi Residential
3.2
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.2
Industrial
Single Residential
62
3.2
2.7
Single Residential
3.3
3.0
vietnam
completely
useless
(1)
completely
useful
(4)
Education
3.8
Healthcare
3.7
Industrial
3.6
Commercial/Office
3.5
Hospitality
3.5
Public funded/
Community/Legal
3.4
Multi Residential
3.4
Retail
Single Residential
3.2
2.9
63
THE MAIN REASONS
FOR NOT SEEKING
CERTIFICATION
0%
20%
40%
Cost of certification process
The sheer upfront cost is clearly the favourite reason for not seeking
certification. Having considered the benefits and opportunities
afforded by achieving certification, we now need to address the
obstacles to making the commitment. Clearly our respondents
have demonstrated strong intentions for having their projects
accredited but the level of action has fallen far short.
Overall, the leading objection by a sizeable margin and cited by just
over half the respondents to our South East Asia survey, is the cost
of the certification process.
The second most frequently mentioned reason is the lack of
knowledge as to what is required to obtain certification and a close
third place was taken by the sense that design promises espoused
in the certification process do not match the performance reality
when the building is operational.
Bunched fairly close behind are the objections because of the
difficulty of the certification procedures, the length of time the
process requires and the amount of staff time that needs to be
dedicated.
A small but significant number of respondents felt that the certification
requirements were too demanding and a similar number reckoned
that their clients did not place much value on having their buildings
certified.
64
51%
Lacking information on
certification requirements
38%
Gap between ‘design promises’ and the
performance reality
37%
Difficulty of certification process
35%
Time of certification process
33%
Staff time required
Requirements too high
Lacking credit being given to certification
by our clients
60%
32%
28%
27%
Although the major objection overall, certification costs were not top of every
country’s list. In Indonesia the main obstacle elicited by our survey was the
lack of information regarding what the certification process required. The
respondents in Thailand mostly referred to the difficulty of the certification
process, whereas in Vietnam, the main objection was that there was a gap
between design promises and actual building performance.
70%
T H E MA I N R E A S O N S F O R N O T S E E K I N G C E R T I F I C A T I O N
hong kong
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Cost of certification
process
indonesia
50%
60%
50%
70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
49%
33%
Difficulty of
certification process
33%
Gap between ‘design promises’
and the performance reality
33%
Staff time required
32%
33%
Difficulty of
32%
32%
25%
25%
Lacking credit being given to
certification by our clients
25%
70%
59%
Staff time required
60%
37%
24%
6%
65
malaysia
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
process
Gap between ‘design
promises’ and the
performance reality
50%
PHILIPPINES
60%
70%
54%
44%
35%
Staff time required
0%
29%
60%
70%
61%
51%
30%
66
50%
Difficulty of
7%
40%
53%
Time of certification
process
30%
Difficulty of certification
process
31%
27%
20%
process
Time of
10%
44%
41%
37%
36%
Staff time required
34%
SINGAPORE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
process
50%
THAILAND
60%
55%
39%
Staff time required
promises’ and the
performance reality
Difficulty of
35%
32%
Time of
27%
70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
60%
53%
37%
Staff time required
promises’ and the
performance reality
32%
26%
21%
23%
21%
70%
58%
23%
9%
50%
Difficulty of
40%
21%
67
vietnam
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
promises’ and the
performance reality
35%
32%
Difficulty of
29%
29%
Lacking credit being
given to certification by
our clients
26%
Staff time required
68
23%
19%
16%
50%
60%
70%
SALES GROWTH
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
As mentioned above, there is a growing awareness of the commercial
benefits of adopting green building principles. Our survey enquired
whether this had translated into additional revenue for those companies
getting involved.
0%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11%
33%
Some
28%
Little
15%
None
13%
Don’t Know
Only 15% reported that there had not been any sales growth (with a
further 13% who could not say). A little bit of growth was noticed by
28% whereas 34% of respondents claimed some measurable growth
with a further 10% who reported the sales growth attributable to green
building to be significant
2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
16%
Significant
Analysing the results by respondent type, owners and developers
appeared to have the highest percentage of significant growth with
contractors and subcontractors notably “less fortunate”.
10%
9%
7%
35%
33%
32%
Some
23%
Little
None
33%
29%
14%
11%
Owner/Developer
20%
69
S A L E S G R O W T H A T T R I B U T AB L E T O G R E E N B U I L D I N G
HONG KONG
0%
10%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
indonesia
70%
80%
90%
8%
100%
0%
10%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
15%
14%
Little
None
24%
8%
38%
25%
5%
17%
Don’t Know
19%
Hong Kong 2014
70
56%
42%
Some
60%
Hong Kong 2008
35%
Some
14%
33%
Little
None
15%
9%
21%
Don’t Know
Indonesia 2014
8%
12%
Indonesia 2008
70%
80%
90%
100%
malaysia
0%
10%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
philippines
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
Significant
8%
20%
None
36%
43%
14%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12%
11%
Don’t Know
Malaysia 2008
35%
Little
None
5%
Malaysia 2014
60%
32%
29%
Some
30%
Don’t Know
50%
36%
27%
Little
40%
11%
53%
Some
30%
16%
14%
3%
8%
Philippines 2014
15%
Philippines 2008
71
singapore
0%
10%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Thailand
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
Significant
10%
35%
17%
19%
Little
None
33%
18%
12%
11%
Singapore 2014
72
40%
50%
60%
70%
18%
24%
34%
Little
Don’t Know
Singapore 2008
17%
Some
None
5%
Don’t Know
30%
10%
18%
Some
20%
60%
5%
0%
26%
6%
Thailand 2014
Thailand 2008
80%
90%
100%
vietnam
0%
10%
Significant
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11%
41%
35%
Some
12%
23%
Little
None
Don’t Know
41%
9%
2%
22%
4%
Vietnam 2014
Vietnam 2008
73
ADDITIONAL UPFRONT BUILDING
COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
0%
10%
An interesting observation is that in 2008, 27% of respondents could not
provide an estimate of the additional costs whereas in 2014, the “Don’t
Know” response was only 16%, affording us reasonable confidence in the
reliability of our data.
It is clear that there is a premium to be paid for delivering a building
according to green principles with only 4% claiming there was no cost
impact. However, there is a spread of values for the extra costs reflecting
the different levels of certification. At the top end, 17% of the projects
incurred at least 20% of additional costs. Another 20% of the estimates put
the incremental cost at between 15% and 20% with 20% more between
10% and 15%.
This compares favourably with the expectations reported in 2008 where
the percentage believing that costs would be in excess of 20% was up to
27%. Yes, there is a premium for building green, but the price tag is not as
scary as it was thought to be.
76
30%
17%
20% or more
15% to less than 20%
9%
Less than 5%
21%
1%
13%
10%
4%
No impact
4%
16%
Don’t Know
2014
27%
2008
10%
0%
30%
20%
16%
20% or more
14%
40%
50%
20%
21%
26%
24%
19%
21%
18%
12%
13%
5% to less than 10%
7%
Less than 5%
No impact
50%
20%
14%
5% to less than 10%
40%
27%
17%
It has always been taken for granted that green building would involve
additional building costs. It has also been frequently cited that the extra
expense was a major factor inhibiting the uptake of green building design
principles. In 2008, our survey reported on what the industry professionals
thought the extra cost might be but in 2014 we asked what their actual
experience was which gives us the opportunity to compare the reality with
the expectation.
20%
0%
1%
Don’t Know
Owner/Developer
10%
19%
14%
8%
13%
16%
13%
A D D I T I O N A L U P F R O N T B U I L D I N G C O S T S A T T R I B U T AB L E T O G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kong
0%
10%
20%
30%
indonesia
40%
50%
0%
20% or more
8%
20% or more
8%
34%
25%
5% to less than 10%
17%
Less than 5%
No impact
Don’t Know
0%
20%
40%
50%
21%
20%
17%
5% to less than 10%
7%
Less than 5%
Don’t Know
30%
17%
No impact
8%
10%
4%
14%
77
MALAYSIA
0%
10%
20%
20% or more
30%
20%
5% to less than 10%
11%
13%
Less than 5%
78
50%
0%
10%
20%
20% or more
25%
Don’t Know
40%
15%
No impact
philippines
4%
12%
28%
18%
20%
10%
5% to less than 10%
8%
Less than 5%
No impact
Don’t Know
30%
3%
13%
40%
50%
SINGAPORE
0%
10%
20%
17%
20% or more
13%
Don’t Know
0%
10%
20%
30%
3%
22%
50%
47%
10%
11%
Less than 5%
0%
No impact
0%
Don’t Know
40%
16%
5% to less than 10%
9%
Less than 5%
50%
21%
5% to less than 10%
40%
20% or more
15%
No impact
30%
THAILAND
16%
79
VIETNAM
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
3%
26%
16%
13%
5% to less than 10%
16%
Less than 5%
No impact
3%
Don’t Know
80
30%
16%
40%
50%
SAVINGS IN OPERATING
COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO GREEN BUILDING
As mentioned above, a major commercial motive for embracing
green building principles has been the belief that these would lead
to significant savings in operating costs, in particular, the lower
consumption of energy and water. Notably, in this year’s survey we
enquired as to the actual savings that had been experienced whereas
in 2008 we could only ask about the outcomes expected by the
industry professionals.
0%
10%
20%
16%
20% or more
15%
13%
15%
The comparison with the expectations we recorded in our 2008 survey
is quite favourable. As might be expected, the earlier results displayed
a degree of optimism, hence a higher percentage of respondents
(22%) anticipated savings of at least 20%. The distribution of actual
results may show a slight downwards shift but the share of respondents
reporting savings of 10% and over has been maintained.
50%
40%
50%
22%
21%
8%
8%
Less than 5%
5%
3%
No impact
23%
Don’t Know
28%
2008 Belief
0%
20%
10%
30%
17%
19%
20% or more
15%
10%
17%
16%
18%
20%
26%
11%
13%
13%
5% to less than 10%
9%
7%
Less than 5%
No impact
40%
13%
11%
5% to less than 10%
2014 Actuality
Although our conclusions are somewhat dampened by a degree
of uncertainty (we registered a “Don’t Know” result of 23%) they
are nevertheless very encouraging. Only 5% of respondents had
apparently not observed any impact, whereas over half claimed
savings of 10% and more.
30%
0%
4%
12%
10%
21%
23%
20%
Don’t Know
Owner/Developer
81
S AV I N G S I N O P E R A T I N G C O S T S A T T R I B U T AB L E T O G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kong
0%
10%
20%
17%
8%
Less than 5%
0%
10%
20%
17%
15%
14%
5% to less than 10%
12%
Less than 5%
0%
No impact
17%
Don’t Know
30%
16%
20% or more
33%
5% to less than 10%
50%
82
40%
8%
Don’t Know
30%
17%
20% or more
No impact
indonesia
5%
21%
40%
50%
SINGAPORE
0%
10%
20% or more
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
20% or more
16%
18%
5% to less than 10%
Don’t Know
40%
12%
No impact
30%
10%
Less than 5%
20%
THAILAND
4%
35%
21%
21%
5%
Less than 5%
0%
No impact
0%
Don’t Know
50%
27%
5% to less than 10%
5%
40%
26%
83
MALAYSIA
0%
10%
20%
20% or more
15%
5% to less than 10%
84
0%
10%
20%
20% or more
Less than 5%
7%
No impact
21%
Don’t Know
40%
10%
34%
15%
5% to less than 10%
10%
30%
15%
13%
Less than 5%
50%
14%
Don’t Know
40%
20%
No impact
30%
philippines
9%
14%
13%
50%
VIETNAM
0%
10%
20%
30%
20% or more
17%
23%
3%
5% to less than 10%
3%
Less than 5%
Don’t Know
50%
27%
No impact
40%
0%
27%
85
REDWOOD MAKES EVERY SYSTEM SMARTER
Optimise space and energy usage with an intelligent sensor network
Find out more with this case study and learn how one of
the highest ranked software companies in the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index used Redwood to help them achieve up to
75 percent in energy cost savings and other benefits over their
previous system.
2014 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved
www.commscope.com
0%
INCREASE IN BUILDING
VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
The second ranked commercial motivation for developing a
building to green standards was found to be the increase in value
of the end product and naturally we wanted to know the extent to
which this was realised. Again we should acknowledge a degree
of uncertainty (25% of respondents were unable to provide any
estimate) but the outcome does look to be very positive. Although
6% of the industry professionals we surveyed claimed there had
not been any impact on the building value, 12% advised their
buildings were worth at least 20% more because of their green
credentials. In all, just under a half of the responses put the
increase in building value at a minimum of 10%.
2008 results were “Expectations” may have proved somewhat
over optimistic but the reality check we have conducted in 2014
is far from disappointing.
10%
12%
20% or more
40%
18%
17%
19%
5% to less than 10%
12%
8%
Less than 5%
10%
4%
No impact
6%
2%
25%
Don’t Know
31%
2008 Expectations
2014 Actuality
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
14%
11%
11%
20% or more
18%
19%
18%
19%
19%
21%
11%
14%
13%
5% to less than 10%
No impact
9%
9%
9%
4%
7%
Don’t Know
Owner/Developer
30%
17%
12%
Less than 5%
88
20%
10%
21%
19%
25%
I N C R E A S E I N B U I L D I N G VA L U E A T T R I B U T AB L E T O G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kong
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
indonesia
30%
40%
0%
0%
10%
20%
8%
8%
5% to less than 10%
33%
28%
13%
7%
5% to less than 10%
Less than 5%
17%
Less than 5%
No impact
17%
No impact
Don’t Know
17%
Don’t Know
40%
18%
20% or more
30%
13%
1%
20%
89
MALAYSIA
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
0%
10%
15%
24%
17%
5% to less than 10%
Less than 5%
11%
9%
No impact
24%
Don’t Know
30%
19%
14%
Less than 5%
20%
16%
20%
5% to less than 10%
90
40%
20% or more
Don’t Know
30%
7%
No impact
philippines
4%
3%
17%
40%
SINGAPORE
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
THAILAND
30%
40%
0%
20% or more
4%
7%
20%
30%
15%
5% to less than 10%
15%
5% to less than 10%
Less than 5%
12%
Less than 5%
No impact
12%
No impact
35%
Don’t Know
40%
16%
Don’t Know
10%
32%
16%
10%
0%
0%
21%
91
VIETNAM
0%
10%
20% or more
17%
17%
13%
Less than 5%
Don’t Know
40%
3%
5% to less than 10%
No impact
30%
13%
92
20%
0%
37%
INCREASE IN RETURN
ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GREEN BUILDING
The extent by which green building has enhanced the ROI
of their building projects is clearly not easy to calculate with
31% of our respondents unable to provide us with an answer.
Nevertheless, this degree of uncertainty (slightly better than
the figure of 39% encountered back in 2008) is not severe
enough to detract from our confidence in reporting a positive
outcome with over 40% of our respondents reporting
improvements of at least 10%.
0%
10%
7%
20% or more
50%
19%
13%
5% to less than 10%
10%
13%
9%
7%
Less than 5%
7%
3%
31%
Don’t Know
0%
39%
2008 Expectations
2014 Actuality
20% or more
40%
15%
11%
No impact
30%
17%
10%
5%
20%
30%
40%
50%
10%
9%
20%
13%
As with the previous two survey topics, the industry’s
optimism may have been tempered in the light of experience
but was by no means ill-founded.
20%
18%
14%
18%
21%
13%
14%
5% to less than 10%
10%
10%
8%
11%
10%
9%
Less than 5%
No impact
16%
22%
26%
23%
Don’t Know
Owner/Developer
93
I N C R E A S E I N R E T U R N O N I N V E S T M E N T ( R O I ) A T T R I B U T AB L E T O G R E E N B U I L D I N G
hong kong
0%
20% or more
10%
30%
40%
94
0%
17%
41%
16%
14%
5% to less than 10%
13%
Less than 5%
No impact
17%
No impact
Don’t Know
17%
Don’t Know
30%
24%
20%
0%
8%
10%
7%
20% or more
5% to less than 10%
Less than 5%
50%
0%
20%
indonesia
0%
26%
40%
50%
MALAYSIA
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
50%
0%
10%
18%
20%
Less than 5%
9%
No impact
33%
Don’t Know
50%
28%
14%
5% to less than 10%
8%
40%
15%
16%
30%
14%
11%
5% to less than 10%
Don’t Know
40%
20% or more
No impact
30%
5%
Less than 5%
philippines
7%
6%
16%
95
SINGAPORE
0%
20% or more
10%
20%
Less than 5%
No impact
40%
0%
10%
20% or more
7%
20%
30%
40%
16%
16%
37%
10%
5%
5% to less than 10%
6%
12%
10%
47%
Don’t Know
96
50%
2%
5% to less than 10%
30%
THAILAND
Less than 5%
0%
No impact
0%
Don’t Know
26%
50%
VIETNAM
0%
10%
20% or more
20%
13%
3%
10%
Less than 5%
Don’t Know
50%
17%
No impact
40%
10%
5% to less than 10%
30%
7%
40%
97
With clients in numerous locations, operating in
differing environments, Fugro is best able
to meet their needs through a decentralized
and client oriented organizational structure,
offering a broad scope of services in a variety
of operating environments and conditions,
delivered from a global network of offices and
facilities. Our clients include many Government
departments, private developers, architects
and planners, utility companies, oil and gas
companies, contractors and other consulting
engineering firms.
FUGRO BUILDING THE FUTURE
Fugro’s sustainable building design team has
extensive experience in carrying out work in the
following key areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fugro (Hong Kong) Limited
7/F., Guardian House, 32 Oi Kwan Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Tel:
+852 2577 9023
Fax:
+852 2895 2379 / 2895 3499
Email:
[email protected]
Green Building Consultancy and Certification
Low Carbon Building Design
Sustainable Building Services Consultancy
Air Quality Monitoring and Management
Carbon and Energy Management
Corporate Sustainability
Fugro also provides other environmental
consultancy services to support building and
infrastructure developments. For details, please
visit our website: www.fugro.com
THE IMPORTANCE OF DESIGN
SOFTWARE TO OPTIMISE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Given the development advances in computer aided design (CAD) and building
information modelling (BIM) software, these digital tools have achieved wide
acceptance within the South East Asian construction industries. Therefore, we
wanted to investigate in which ways they are contributing to the adoption and
integration of green building principles.
We posed the question “how important is the use of design software to
optimize the environmental performance of your projects?” and nominated
seven key tasks to be rated from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important). At the
end of the day, there was little to choose between those tasks in terms of the
benefit to be derived from using design software, although, overall in South
East Asia, prediction and evaluation of natural (solar) lighting and energy
modelling (baseline analysis) were the two areas benefitting the most from the
digital tools available.
The overall results are instructive but represent the averaging across the
countries in the region with their individual preferences. There are some
similarities between the profiles for each country, however, the differences
are instructive as they represent the local influences of the various climactic
conditions, the relative costs of power, water and other resources and,
to some extent, product availability.
100
not important
(1)
very important
(4)
Predict and evaluate
natural (solar) heating
3.1
natural (solar) heating
3.1
Energy modelling/
baseline
3.0
natural ventilation
2.9
Evaluate and explore
alternative building
2.9
HVAC operating costs
2.9
Specify material
quantities
2.8
0%
TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYED IN
GREEN BUILDING PROJECTS
To assess the relative significance of the various technologies
available for achieving green building credentials, we asked our
respondents to indicate what they had actually used at least
once in any of their projects.
Overall in South East Asia, the most frequently mentioned
items were:
• Energy efficient/intelligent lighting
• Water efficient fixtures and fittings
• Insulation products
• Rainwater and stormwater management/retention
However, sitting just behind this group with around 50%
frequency of mention were:
• Energy efficient appliances
• Use of recycled or renewable materials
• Sustainable roofing solutions (including reflective and
green roofs)
• Renewable energy systems
20%
40%
60%
80%
Energy efficient/
intelligent lighting
68%
Water efficient
fixtures and fittings
67%
Insulation products for roofs,
ceilings, walls and pipes
62%
Rainwater and stormwater
management/retention
58%
Energy efficient appliances
51%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
51%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
51%
49%
Renewable Energy Systems
High efficiency packaged
HVCA systems
34%
Sustainable wastewater
management
33%
Energy management Systems (EMS)
32%
26%
Whole building energy simulation
Water sub-metering and leak
detection systems
24%
Responsible sourcing of bio-based and
renewable (raw)materials
21%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
Co-generation and
tri-generation
100%
18%
8%
101
TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYED IN GREEN BUILDING PROJECTS
hong kong
0%
20%
40%
60%
indonesia
80%
100%
83%
75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Energy efficient/
64%
Water efficient
63%
Water efficient
67%
59%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
67%
59%
Energy efficient/
58%
49%
58%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
49%
58%
management
49%
50%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
50%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
HVCA systems
50%
HVCA systems
33%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
50%
33%
management
42%
30%
detection systems
detection systems
33%
33%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
18%
34%
31%
33%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
43%
102
80%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
24%
16%
9%
100%
MALAYSIA
0%
20%
40%
PHILIPPINES
60%
80%
79%
100%
0%
67%
Energy efficient/
67%
Water efficient
63%
40%
60%
69%
67%
60%
56%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
Sustainable
roofing solutions
55%
51%
55%
51%
46%
40%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
37%
42%
management
42%
Responsible sourcing of bio-based
and renewable (raw)materials
management
28%
24%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
18%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
17%
6%
49%
HVCA systems
28%
detection systems
52%
Sustainable roofing solutions
21%
18%
detection systems
15%
13%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
13%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
100%
75%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
80%
Energy efficient/
Water efficient
20%
8%
103
SINGAPORE
0%
20%
40%
60%
THAILAND
80%
100%
0%
20%
60%
Water efficient
79%
Energy efficient/
79%
53%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
53%
53%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
74%
57%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
55%
Water efficient
47%
55%
Energy efficient/
47%
43%
42%
detection systems
39%
37%
28%
HVCA systems
26%
41%
35%
29%
29%
24%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
24%
management
22%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
12%
22%
Sustainable wastewater management
12%
detection systems
12%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
Co-generation and
tri-generation
11%
7%
HVCA systems
80%
71%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
104
40%
6%
100%
VIETNAM
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Water efficient
79%
Energy efficient/
72%
72%
69%
Sustainable
roofing solutions
55%
HVCA systems
55%
52%
52%
Use of recycled or
renewable materials
48%
Whole building energy
simulation
38%
34%
Intelligent HVCA
monitoring systemst
34%
31%
Sustainable wastewater management
31%
detection systems
31%
Co-generation and
tri-generation
100%
3%
105
Green
Building
Products and Technologies Brand Recognition
We asked our respondents to
nominate 2 to 3 brands for each
of the technologies that we had
previously identified. We then collated
the responses and have listed the
brands according to the frequency
of mention.
Lafarge;
Lamitak;
SCG Trading;
Forbo Flooring; JOE
Green; Samwoh; TPPS; Arcrete;
LDG Architects; Jotun; General Electric;
Aatomo; Conwood; Boral; Interface; Akzo
Nobel / ICI Paints; Maxwood; White Horse; Super
Timber; StoneworksAsia; UrbanStone; Vert Solcon;
Eco-Brick; Dulux; ENVIRO2; Marmoleum; Brentwoord
Door; James Hardie; APO Floors; Puyat Steel; Mariwasa;
Biomass Ecobrick; Envirowall; CRUPE; MATIMCO; CT Wood
Nippon; Shera Inovar; YTL Cement; Rockwool; Eviro
Floors and Walls; Idea Green; Acotech;
EnGro; Armstrong; Kianson;
Rockmann; Gymsum
General
Electric; Schneider;
Jaman; Honeywell;
Voffman; Watersave;
Elster Water Metering
LDG Architects; General
Electric; CONWOOD; Bach
Khoa; Vincye; ENiTo; Linh
Khánh Vy; BASF
Responsible
sourcing of
bio-based and
renewable (raw)
materials
IES Pink Batts;
EnergyPlus (incl. gEnergy,
SketchUp, OpenStudio); Autodesk;
Philips; DesignBuilder; eQUEST;
Ecotect; Artelia; Carrier; Johnson
Daikin; Mitsubishi;
Controls; TAS; Schneider;
Trane; Carrier; York;
Top-Mix Durable Concrete; Nil;
Elmich; Somfy; Trane; DOE;
Panasonic; LG VRF; Johnson
MYBIM; Elite; Mitsubishi;
Controls; PowerPax; Sharp;
Simons; Allwn; ArchiCAD;
Samsung; Toshiba; Siemens;
Veritas; Jones Lang LaSalle
Ree; McQuay; Kelvinator;
Leechui; Forsspac
Whole
building
energy
simulation
Use of recycled
or renewable materials
BioKube;
BioFill; Poloplast
(Polymutan); Latham Engineering;
Fast Flow; HumeCeptor; Mitsubishi;
BioCycle; Filtrex; Elmich; Hitachi; Biotech;
Bioseptic; Cty Hóa Chất Việt Mỹ;
Composite Linh Phát; An Am Phát
Energy efficient/
intelligent
lighting
Intelligent HCVA
monitoring systems
Water
sub-metering
and leak detection
systems
L EA DE RS
WA NT E D!
Sustainable
wastewater management
Energy management
Systems (EMS)
Sustainable
roofing solutions
Bacfree; Emerald Pipes; WaterCare; Rainwater
management/
HOG; Elmich; Fast Flow; Stormwater 360; Monier;
retention
Syfon; Wisy; Grundfos; Mitsubishi; Kohler; Pentair;
Hitchins; Moog CSA Engineering; I-Control; I-Water;
Water efficient
PAINPISCO; JOVEN; SISTEM VAKUM;
ACO Building Drainage;
Aura-Lite; Ecogen;
Toto; American
Folder-2;
Standard; Rigel; Grohe;
Energy
efficient
appliances
Energy
efficient/
Kohler; HCG; Hansgrohe; Johnson
intelligent
Suisse; Duravit; LIXIL / INAX; DOE; Caroma;
WELS; Clayton; Regal; Rheem; Geberit;
lighting
Samsung;
Panasonic; Unnamed GWA brand; LG;
Philips; Panasonic;
WIKA; Groundforce; JEC; Premtex;
Mitsubishi; General Electric;
Picenza; Babu & Company;
LG; Daikin; AC/AHU/Aircon;
Philips;
COTTO; Villeroy & Boch;
Hitachi; Energy Star; Sharp;
General Electric; LED;
NEA; PUB; Sloan;
Bosch; Electrolux; Carrier;
Osram, Sylvania; T5;
Solahart; General Electronics; โซ
Saniton;
Firefly; Elek; Legrand;
108
Daikin;
Johnson
Controls;
Mitsubishi; Trane;
Siemens; Panasonic;
Honeywell; Schneider; Sharp;
Samsung; Carrier; Fujitsu; McQuay;
Delta; Inncom; Brandt; Campbell;
Lennox; Uniden; Yanmar; Alerton
GCB; TROX; Lennox;
Concepcion Industries;
Fujitsu
ล่าเซลล์; Sony; Toshiba; Sub-Zero;
Thorn; Schneider, Clipsal;
Danfoss; Big Ass; Aerotron/Aeratron
Megaman; Global Energy
(?); Fisher & Paykel; Akari Energy;
Services (GES); Panasonic;
Osram; Clipsal; Kelvinator; Condura;
Mitsubishi; Samsung; Siemens;
Toto; LTi; Vert Solcon; Delonghi;
ABB; Inncom; Davis; Brightlux;
Zanussi; Grundfos; KONE;
Cree; Akari; L&E; AZ e-lite;
Domus; York; Rheem;
Vert Solcon; Organic Response
BabuMegasun;
Lighting; Tal; R&C DECO LIGHTING;
Tsmart;
Fumaco; Jung; Luxlite; Aztech; Erco;
Greenlamp; EVN; MegaSun;
Anh Phuong Nam
Reflective
roofing materials,
green roofs
Insulation
Johnson
Controls; Honeywell;
Siemens; Schneider; General
Electric; Alstom; Trane; Uniwell; Asahi
Glass; Delta; LinkCycle; SGS; Cworks; AZZO;
Mitsubishi; Greensense; Switch Automation;
Somfy; Osram; AZ e-lite; Inncom
BlueScope/Lysaght; Monier; Kingspan;
Sika; DECRA; Roxul; Roofmac; Davies
Roofshield; Lafarge; Solatube; Spar
Roofing; Skyrise Greenery; SCG Trading;
S.E.A. Olympus; Hitchins; Onduline;
Bauder; Firestone; Ritek; LCP; Alpolic;
Zack’s; Cattuong Corp; Lê Vỹ; Hoa Sen
Group; Gutal; Bituruv; Taso
Bluescope/
Lysaght; Monier;
Terreal; SCG Trading; Hitchins; Sika;
Kawara; Jotun; Uniseal (PlanterCell); Garden and
Landscape Decks; Tropical Environment; Elmich; Hoa Sen
Group; Galvalume; Flex Seal; Supersonic; DN Steel;
Rockwool;
Spar Roofing; GreenSeal; Insuladd; Superlume;
Boral; BlueScope/
OzoProtect; Penten; CertainTeed; HMT;
Lysaght; Kingspan; SCG
MetalPlas;Puyat Steel; Kamak; EcoTrading; Armacell; Roxul; CSR
Roofs; Green Turf; Alpolic; ZinCo;
Bradford; Ecowool; Aeroflex; Knauf; CSR
Bradford; Fletcher; Thermobreak; Wilhams;
Tra Chang; Firestone; Phát
Autex; Armacell; MetalPlas; YKK; Hoa Sen
Lộc; Việt Pháp
products for
roofs, ceilings,
Renewable
walls and pipes
Energy
Systems
Solahart; Schneider;
Phoenix Solar; Canadian
Group; I STEEL; POLYGLASS; 3D Panel
Solar; General Electric;
Systems; Jardine Davies; Dwightsteel; Camel;
Wika; Solatube; Polymeur
Cycleworld; Coolmax; Par Sag; CSI Insulation;
Dow; Bostik; Sika; Monier; Thermac/Aerofoil; Pink
Sun; Toshiba; Bosch; Kyocera;
Batts; Vert Solcon; Union Foam; Apo; Parsec; S.E.A.
Sole S.A.; REN Industries;
Olympus; C&S Insulation; C.P.A.C. Insulation;
Edward Marcs; One Renewable;
Neltex; Celotex; China Equipment;
PHESI; Urban Green Energy;
Cát Tường; ORCA; Zincalume;
Tonmat; GYMBROC; Gabus;
QuietRevolution; REC Solar; Tri
IKA; Wavin; Jaya
Solar; SMA Solar Technology;
Board
Solenergy; Cookes Renewable Energy;
Energy Matters; Mercury Energy; Alpha
Renewables; Joven; Bach Khoa;
Handal
GREEN BUILDING MARKET REPORT FOR
AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND 2014
While BCI Economics was surveying the green building market in South East Asia, we were
also analysing responses from 243 developers, architects, main- and sub-contractors in
Australia and New Zealand to a questionnaire about their views on and experiences with
green building.
In this survey, we found that virtually 90% of respondents in Australia and just over 80% in
New Zealand have been involved in a project that entailed “green” building elements during
the period 2008-2014.
In contrast with their South East Asian counterparts, only 34% of Australian and 24% of
New Zealand respondents were prepared to proceed with green building certification.
Attitudes for and against the adoption of green building principles in general as expressed
by the Australian and New Zealand respondents were fairly comparable with those in
South East Asia with the additional costs incurred in green building being balanced against
the perceived commercial benefits. Interestingly, although the additional upfront costs were
perceived to be lower in Australia and New Zealand than in South East Asia, the financial
benefits were also seen to be proportionately less.
Across the countries, water efficient fixtures and fittingsstood out as being frequently
incorporated into green building projects together with energy efficient/intelligent lighting and
insulation products although the individual rankings did vary. And, as has been done for
South East Asia, we have reported the popular brands identified by the participants in the
Australia and New Zealand survey.
If we have sparked your interest you can easily access the results of the survey by logging
on to:
http://www.bciaustralia.com/bci-economics/green-building-market-report-2014/
GREEN
BUILDING
MARKET
REPORT
Australia
N ew Z e a l a nd
2014
Atondadvise
we are happy
that the
report may be
downloaded
free of charge!
109
METHODOLOGY
Research for this report was conducted under the supervision of Dr Matthias Krups PhD, Chairman
of BCI Media Group and spearheaded by Petra Berning, General Manager of BCI Economics.
The survey was taken online and analysed by BCI Economics’ in-house analysts. Between March
and May of 2014, invitations to participate in our online survey were sent out to a random sample
of contacts drawn from BCI’s highly sophisticated industry database. Given that the decision to
participate in the survey was out of interest in the topic of green building, it is fair to assume that our
sample would be likely skewed in favour of sustainability principles.
In order to compare the 2014 results with the results ascertained in the prior surveys in 2008, we
utilised a questionnaire that was similar to the previous surveys. A few changes were made to take
account of the new conditions in the market.
For those issues where value judgements were canvassed, a 4 or 5 point Likert scale was adopted
with ‘1’ representing a very negative rating and ‘4’ or ‘5’ a very positive rating.
110
DISCLAIMER
Information utilised in this report is current as of 1 September 2014. This information has been prepared without
taking your specific needs or objectives into account. Because of this you should consider its appropriateness
with regard to your objectives or needs before acting on this information. BCI Asia does not warrant the
accuracy or completeness of the information in this publication, and accepts no, and disclaims all, liability
for any loss or damage whether occasioned by reliance on such information or otherwise. The information is
subject to change without notice and BCI Asia is under no obligation to update the information or correct any
inaccuracy which may become apparent at a later date.
BCI Economics
CONTACTS
Matthias Krups PhD
Robert Krups
CEO BCI Media Group
E: [email protected]
P: 0421 381 000
Petra Berning
COO BCI Asia
General Manager BCI Economics
P: (02) 9432 4142
P: (+49) 2501 809875
Don Smith
Sally Kheng
Senior Analyst BCI Economics
Regional Research Director
P: (02) 9432 4124
P: (+65) 6536 7197

BUILDING - BCI Asia

Transcription

Similar documents

oc pepper spray certification course

China 2006 July 7 - 18 Beijing, Xi`an, Shanghai and Hong Kong

Petal Recognition - International Living Future Institute

Please contact our Global Event Associate, Thu Thao Nguyen: E

certificate - Dietze + Schell

Various Carbuilders EC Certification in Accordance with TSI CR

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

May-June 2011 - Arts of Asia

APPS GAMES WEBSITES

annual report - BRSI — Belgian Road Safety Institute