AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY GREEN BUILDING ... · This paper represents a holistic effort...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 276 [email protected]

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2018, pp. 276–288, Article ID: IJMET_09_01_030

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=1

ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY

GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES IN

RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: WITH REFERENCE

TO DELHI-NCR REGION

Rajni Rathi

Assistant Professor, Amity University, India

Sanjeev Bansal

Dean FMS, Amity University, India

Suman Sharma

Principal, Lady Shri Ram College, India

ABSTRACT

This paper represents a holistic effort in establishing the sustainability & effective

means of using different managerial inputs for establishing environment friendly eco-

residential projects in Delhi-NCR region. This paper is also an effort in establishing

the totality of representing ecological inputs in to nukes & corners of managerial

effective decision making ability of builders. This will definitely help the upcoming

building projects in concluding the essential features of a Green residential project.

Here the researchers employed Chi-square test to find out the sustainable design and

construction material importance in finalizing Green Building projects. This paper

takes 500 respondents out of which 80 have come out with their response. So it is

purely and indicative research that gives ample scope to the future researchers for

developing further into other different aspects of eco-friendly Green building project.

Key words: Green Building, sustainability, construction material, raw materials

Cite this Article: Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma, An Empirical Study

on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With Reference to

Delhi-NCR Region, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

9(1), 2018, pp. 276–288.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTORY FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY:

It has been rapid growth of industrialization in the world due to the era of liberalization,

privatization and globalization from the last decade particularly in developed and developing

countries like India. By 2030, 60% of world population will be denizens of cities. For future

inhabitants there should be a collaborative harmony between city life and environment around

An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With

Reference to Delhi-NCR Region


it, otherwise the GenNext will face a tough situation to survive. Destructive compelled

industrilsation will lead to unplanned, unregulated massive destruction of agriculture occupied

land and this is creating a major shift in ecological imbalance(Das Sharma, 2008) (Pandey,

Dixit, Bansal, Saproo, & Mandal, 2017).

There is another burden in cities due inappropriate waste management system by the

government. Due to inefficient way of waste collection, it leads to health issues specially in

urban areas. Ecosystem and environment in urban areas are polluted due to inadequate of

waste collection and waste disposal. Organic waste, food, wood and coal are collected in

developing countries . Although, there is regular practices of recycling and reuse methods in

developed and developing countries. There has been poor solid waste management practices

executed and due to this excreta and vector-related diseases are to be faced(United Nations

Human Settlement Prtogram, 2008: 126). Due to radiation imbalances in urban areas directly

affects on temperature distribution. Solar radiation is occupied and shifted into heat. Those

cities are much cool those surrounding is covered by vegetated areas. Vegetated and forest

areas take longer to cool due to the sun absorbed water held in soil and leaves to evaporate,

shading of plants keep the ground cool. The urban areas have high degree of temperature than

surrounding of rural areas, this is known as heat iseland effect(United Nations Human

Settlement Prtogram, 2008) (Dixit, Mandal, Sawhney, & Singh, 2017b).

2. REASONS OF GREEN BUILDING CONCEPTS

The concept of green building is based on sustainable building that has create minimum

negative effects on environment and natural ecological system through its life. The purpose of

green building concept is to understood that efficient use of energy and natural resources in

every aspect of construction. This includes the production of building material and

architecture of building. It has been estimated that 10% of global GDP has direct and indirect

impacts on the environment and ecology system due to construction sector. It produces 23%

of global greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions, buildings are responsible for between 30% to 40%

of all material flows. Adopting of green building practices would lead to significantly reduce

negative effect on environment and ecology system.

In most of the developing and developed countries the private sector is held responsible

for construction industry, including building development, management and the supply of

appliances and energy. There is vital role of private sector in both financing and producing

green construction and increasing market share. . There is positive change in green building

councils and industry bodies just because of initiation taken by the private sector.

2.1. Indian Market Share in Real Estate

It is estimated that the Indian real estate market is expected to reach US $ 180 billion by 2020.

The housing residential sector alone contributes around 5-6 percent to the country’s GDP. It is

expected that the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is expected to 11.2% market share of

this sector by FY 2008-20. There are total of 2,17,900 new houses in six states were

sanctioned by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. Government of India under the

umbrella of Pradhan Mantri Yojana(Urban) to focused on affordable housing in the urban

areas of the country. Till 2016, the private sector investment in real estate increased 26

percent, it was nine year high investment rate and nearly Rs 40,000 crores(US$ 6.01 Billion).

There is high growth rate of Indian real estate market due to increase in demand of office as

well as residential spaces. The real estate sector in India is expected to attract investment

worth US$ 10 Billion by 2020.

Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma


2.2. Regulatory Framework for Green Building in India

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MHUPA) is held responsible for

developing policies, sponsoring, supporting and monitoring of programmes related to

Housing in India. MHUPA coordinates the activities of various central ministries, state

governments and other nodal authorities concerning all the issues related to housing in the

country. The National Buildings Organisation (NBO) is as an attached office under the

shadow of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation for technology transfer,

experimentation, development and dissemination of housing statistics.

The Ministry of Power is primarily responsible for the development of electrical energy in

the country. The ministry is concerned with perspective planning, policy formulation,

processing of projects for investment decision, monitoring of the implementation of power

projects, training and manpower development and the administration and enactment of

legislation in regard to thermal, hydro power generation, transmission and distribution. It is

responsible for the Administration of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Energy Conservation Act,

2001 and to undertake such amendments to these Acts, as may be necessary from time to

time, in conformity with the Government's policy objectives.

Bureau of Energy Efficiency(BEE) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Power,

Government of India. It was set up by the government under the provisions of the Energy

Conservation Act 2001.The mission of the BEE is to assist in developing policies and

strategies with a thrust on self-regulation and market principles, within the overall framework

of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 with the primary objective of reducing energy intensity

of the Indian economy. The states & UTs have identified State Designated Agencies (SDAs)

to assist in implementation of the various schemes and programs developed by BEE under the

EC Act. To promote energy efficiency in both existing and new commercial buildings, several

initiatives have been taken up by BEE, such as promotion of Energy Conservation Building

Code (ECBC) implementation, energy auditing and implementation of energy efficiency

measures in existing government buildings and a star rating scheme for existing buildings

based on their actual performance. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is

the nodal Ministry of the Government of India for all matters related to new and renewable

energy. The ministry has been promoting energy efficient / solar buildings in the country

since its inception through a wide range of programs.

The Planning Commission, Government of India jointly with the Indian Construction

Industry has set up Construction Industry Development Council (CIDC) as an apex

organization to take up and promote activities for the development of the Indian construction

industry. The council started functioning from August 1996 and has taken up several

important projects related to issues of concern vis-à-vis the Industry. The council provides the

impetus and the organizational infrastructure to raise quality levels across the industry. This

helps to secure wider appreciation of the interests of construction business by the government,

industry and peer groups in society.

2.3. Agenda of Green Building

Effective and efficient planning for utilization of land

Minimize the negative impact on environment and ecology system.

Design and construction of building should be as per climatic change and natural disaster

factors.

Efficient use of energy for material, construction and decommissioning respectively).




Focus on indoor environmental quality, like air, lighting and temperature.

Try to reduce consumption of building materials.

Reduce all types of pollutions.

3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

There are plenty of motivational components for undertaken this research. There is real fact

that the energy efficiency of building built during the last decades have been participated to an

inefficiency within the real estate sector, which produces to greenhouse gas emission and

other ecological and environmental hazards. There is another motivational factors from the

fact that building owner and building residents trying to reduce their energy costs, when in

times of increasing energy costs.

Green building focus on using sustainable methods and materials in the architecture and

construction of building and operations. The main purpose of green building is to lower

operations and maintenance costs including energy efficiency in lighting technologies and air

quality, developing brown field sites. Another benefit of using green roofs that allow for

runoff water to be recycled and also provide health, comfort and productivity. The overall

benefits of green buildings estimated approximately ten times greater than the average

additional cost of building(Kats, 2003; Wiley, 2008; Wiley et. al, 2010) (Dixit, Mandal,

Sawhney, & Singh, 2017a).

As far as environmental concerns, so many organizations dealing with sustainability

issues have been established commercial measures of ―green‖ building level standard, e.g.

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Australian

Building Greenhouse Rating tool (ABGR) and the United States’ Green Building Council

(USGBC). USGBC is a national non-profit membership organization that has developed the

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Several guidelines and rating

systems for green building developments are provided by the system. But still have many

issue in measure green building because substantial standard still different in each country.

The standard will show green efficient level of that building. (Robinson, 2007; May et al.,

2007)(Dixit, Pandey, Mandal, & Bansal, 2017)( Sayce 2010; Shimizu, 2010).

3.1. Sustainability

Figure:1 Three spheres of sustainability (Adapted from 2002 University of Michigan Sustainability

Assessment, Source: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainvu/images/sustainability_spheres.png)



Brandon (1999) criticize existing definition of sustainability. Sustainability is known as

balance between economic, social and environmental factors, but the key of sustainability is

equilibrium between economic, social and environmental factors (Figure 1).

―According to the nature of construction industry, there are lot of foreseeable benefits for

the contractors and/or owners.‖

Helping designers trying to reduce the risk to their investors is the CSI’s Green Format.

The green product database organized around sustainable properties. The products in the

database are entered based on the product’s ingredients, embodied energy, life-cycle

properties, and performance related to operations. The level of cooperation between

manufacturers and designers

Now-a –days human infringement is mainly responsible for most of environmental

hazards such as climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. (Zhau,

2016, Wu,2014, Hwang,2015, Ranaweera, 2010) (Sao, Singh, Dixit, Pandey, & Singh, 2017).

Since, there are limited green residential building construction project research is available,

the relevant research in generic green building construction projects keeps increasing over

recent years based on the assumption that risks in these projects are also applicable to

residential projects. This section therefore fully reviews the risks in generic green buildings

construction projects, focusing on comprehensive list of risks for green residential building

construction projects.( Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X.W. Stakeholder-associated risks and their

interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model. Build. Environ.

2014,) The construction industry has become a big energy consumer who uses 40–50% of

global energy and 40 % of global raw materials; and also a principal waste contributor who

releases 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions and produces 40% of solid waste

worldwide. (Energy and Cities: Sustainable Building and Construction, 2016.)

3.2. A History of Green Building and Green Building Rating Systems

―LEED is undoubtedly a singular program, yet it does not stand alone as the only green

building rating program available. Other programs which perform similar certification

services are quite prevalent worldwide and are becoming as commonly used and popular as

LEED. Green Globes, Energy Star, and High Performance Building Index constitute a few

alternatives to LEED.‖

The initial review of these aforementioned certification programs revealed that a desire to

environmentally-improve design and construction processes has existed among architects and

constructers for centuries. While Robert Watson solidified the modern green movement through

the formation of the USGBC, the aspiration to build in harmony with the natural environment has

existed since as early as 15BC. According to Charles Kibert, the ―green building movement and

the remarkable rise of the US Green Building Council and its counterparts elsewhere is a great

success story‖ (Kibert, 2012, p. xv) which ultimately began upon the formation of the

world’s first major cities.

With the development of the USGBC and programs such as LEED and Energy Star, the need

for environmentally-conscious design and construction was given a platform on which to

develop and grow. The initial purpose of LEED, for example, was to provide third party

verification of green building processes: certified LEED professionals could evaluate the energy

consumption of a building and thereby determine its overall environmental impact through

energy modeling. This third-party verification system led to an increased awareness of

material longevity, material composition, rate of consumption and environmental impact

as harvested and implemented. Furthermore, these programs transformed and grew into a




green building movement, whose primary concern was to reduce materials used, improve

the environmental footprint of buildings, improve infrastructure, and reduce energy

consumption (Willson 2008).

In this era, there is a controversy over sustainability in the architecture design and

construction residential structures. Residential structure are in small scale and size of structure

is depends on site to site and project to project. The existence of sustainability rating system is

negligible in India.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The aim of this research is to ―scrutinize‖ how building green is implemented by residential

builders, contractors, developers, and designers. The data collected during this research was

compiled using ―mixed research methods‖ which are appropriate for this type of research.

This approach was implemented through a survey questionnaire.

Several methods of data analysis were implemented following the closure of the survey.

The responses to each question were reviewed individually, and then reviewed collectively

as an entire report. Additionally, graphs and tables were generated to correspond to the data

received for each survey question; each question has been addressed in the data analysis portion

of this study.

The analysis methodology used for this data set is ―descriptive statistics‖ followed by an

interpretation of the results. Descriptive statistics are defined as ―descriptive analysis of

data for all independent and dependent variables in the study‖.

The survey was based on a bunch of questions to measure the sentiment of green design

and the actions taken to implement and execution green design. The questions lay down into

categorical themes: familiarity, general opinion, frequency of applications, importance, and

data was collected from web experience. Data collected was analyzed that fell into these

categories.

The data obtained from the survey helped identify the need for clarification in green

building and construction in residential projects. The information would be useful to the

residential building industry to know the best aspects, practices, and skepticism in sustainable

design. Apart from that, the study helped identify the view point of sustainability, frequency of

use of sustainability, experience with green building, knowledge with green concepts, and the

importance of sustainability within their company.

5. RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Responses from the survey were returned via the internet from developers and builders in the

Delhi-NCR region. 80 responses were received of 500 distributed by email solicitation. Of

the 80 responses, 35 responses were from developers, 40 responses were received from

builders, and five respondent did not specify trade. The response rate was 16%. The response

was lower than expected.

The typical respondent was a residential builder (50%), developer (43.75%), and one

unspecified trade (6.25%). In this research, a developer is defined as a company or person that

invests in, develops, and subdivides real estate for the purpose of building and selling homes.

The typical projects were single family homes and mixed-use projects. The average size of

residential projects was approximately 1,560 sq ft. The average annual contracted work of the

respondents was Rs 3.84 million. The range of the volume of work was Rs 1.0 million to Rs



8.0 million annually. Fifty percent of respondents provided demographic information. The

position of the respondent was the president (62%), the vice-president (13%), the owner

(13%), and the director (6%) of the company with one respondent (6%) not specifying a

position or title (Figure 2).

Figure: 2

5.1. Experience with Sustainable Practices

Table 1 contains responses to questions 1, 3, and 4 that related to experience of the

respondents with sustainable practices. The responses to these questions were used to quantify

the amount of practical application of green building done by each respondent. Questions

were posed in a 5-point Likert rating scale format (1=No Experience; 2=Barely Experienced;

3=Somewhat Experienced; 4=Experienced; 5=Very Experienced). Question 1 asked about the

level of experience with sustainable practices within the respondent’s company. Ninety-four

percent of respondents had experience in sustainability. Of those 94% respondents, 38% were

very experienced. The rating average was 4.0 or somewhat experienced in sustainability.

Questions 3 and 4 about asked the experience of the designers and contractors within the

company, respectively. Forty-seven percent of the respondents stated that their designers were

very experienced (Table 1). 93% of respondents noted that their designers had experience,

whereas, 96% of respondents indicated that their contractors had experience. The rating

average for designer experience was 4.13 and the rating average for contractor experience was

4.19. Both rating averages indicated that contractors and designers have some experience with

sustainable practices and design. Less than seven percent of respondents for both groups felt

that their designer and contractor have minimum experience. One respondent answered ―N/A‖

for the question about design experience because of their company type.

62% 13%

13%

6% 6%

Respondents Position

President

Vice President

Owner

Director

Unspecified




Table 1 Responses to Likert scale questions related to experience in sustainable practices for typical

respondents

Question

No

Experience 1

2

Somewhat

Experienced 3

4

Very

Experienced 5

Rating

Avg.

Response

Count

Q1. What level of

experience does your

company have in green

or sustainable building?

0%

(0)

6%

(1)

25%

(4)

31%

(5)

38%

(6)

4.00

16

Q3. Is (are) the

primary designer(s)

experienced with green

or sustainable practices?

0%

(0)

7%

(1)

20%

(3)

26%

(4)

47%

(7)

4.13

15

Q4. Is the

primary contractor

experienced with green

or sustainable practices?

0%

(0)

6%

(1)

12%

(2)

38%

(6)

44%

(7)

4.19

16

Note: One respondent answered ―N/A‖ to the second question

Table 2 contains responses to question 2 that related to the importance of sustainable

practices. The question was posed in a 5-point Likert scale format (1=Not Important; 2=Rarely

Important; 3=Somewhat Important; 4= Important; 5=Most Important). Forty-five (approx.)

percent of respondents felt sustainable practices were very important to their company. On the

other hand, 6.25% felt sustainable practices were not important, and 6.25% felt sustainable

practices were somewhat important. The rating average of the typical respondent was 4.13.

Table 2 Responses to Likert scale questions related to importance of sustainable practices for typical

respondents

Question

Not

Important 1

2

Somewhat

Important 3

4

Very

Important 5

Rating

Avg.

Response

Count

Q2. How important to

your company is green

design or sustainable and

building sustainable

homes?

6.25%

(1)

0%

(0)

6.25%

(1)

44.75%

(7)

44.75%

(7)

4.13

16

5.2. Opinion about Sustainable Practices Typical respondent

Table 3 contains responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 18 that related to a

respondent’s opinion about sustainable practices. Questions were posed in a 5-point Likert

rating scale format. The subcategories within the opinion group of questions were opinions on

overall company view (Q5), perceived monetary value of sustainable practices (Q6; Q8; Q15),



constructability of sustainable residential projects (Q7; Q14), and marketability of sustainable

residential projects (Q9; Q10; Q18). Question 5 asked the respondents if they believed that

sustainability was actively practiced. More than half of the respondents (56%) strongly agreed

that their company practiced sustainability. Thirty-eight percent of respondents agreed their

company actively practiced sustainability. The rating average for question 5 was 4.5 (agreed).

Question 6 asked if green practices equate to increased costs. Sixty-two percent of

respondents strongly agreed that sustainable homes equated to increased costs. All

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that green building means increased costs. Question 6

had a rating average of 4.63 (agreed). Question 8 asked if green building should be sold at a

premium. Forty-six percent of typical respondents strongly agreed while 18% of respondents

agreed home should sell at a premium. On the other hand, 30% of typical respondents agreed

that homes should not sell at a premium while 12% of typical respondents strongly disagreed.

The rating average for question 8 was 3.63, that is, on average the respondents somewhat

disagreed that homes should sell at a premium. Question 15 asked respondents how much they

agreed that rating systems were worth the extra costs. Thirty-one percent of typical

respondents agreed the rating systems were worth the increase in fees. Twelve percent of

respondents strongly disagreed that rating systems were worth the increase. Only 6% strongly

agreed the rating systems justified an increase in costs. The rating average for question 15 was

2.94 (disagreed).

Question 7 asked respondents if green design is more complicated to build than traditional

designs. Thirty-eight percent of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was more

complicated to build. Thirty-eight of typical respondents agreed that sustainable design was

more complicated, however, none of the respondents strongly agreed. Apart from that, 12% of

respondents strongly disagreed, and 31% disagreed with this statement. The rating average

was 2.81 (disagreed). Question 14 asked typical respondents about the confusion over which

sustainable rating system to use. Sixty-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that there

was confusion over the different rating systems available. However, 6% of all respondents

disagreed that there was confusion. The rating average for question 14 was 4.31 (agreed).

Question 9 asked if respondents agreed that there was increasing demand for green homes.

31% agreed that there is a rapid growing demand for green homes. Twelve percent of typical

respondents strongly agreed that there is a market, and 18% strongly disagreed. The rating

average was 3.00 (somewhat agreed). Question 10 asked if respondents agreed that consumer

demand for green homes is changing their home designs. Twelve percent of respondents

strongly agreed that sustainability demand is changing the design of their homes. Fifty percent

of typical respondents agreed that there is an effect, but 18% disagreed there was any effect of

sustainable consumer demand on the design of their homes. The rating average was 3.38

(somewhat agreed). Question 18 asked respondents if they agreed that there was a consumer

preference for sustainable residences. Thirty-one percent of typical respondents strongly

disagreed that there was a consumer preference. Thirty percent of respondents agreed that

there was a preference. The rating average was 2.69 (disagreed).




Table 3 Responses to Likert scale questions related to opinion of sustainable practices for typical

respondents

Question

Strongly

Disagree

1

2

Neutral

3

4

Strongly

Agree

5

Rating

Avg.

Response

Count

Q5. Do you agree that your

company actively incorporates

green or sustainable design?

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

6%

(1)

38%

(6)

56%

(9)

4.50

16

Q6. Do you agree that green or

sustainable practices equate to

increased costs?

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

0%

(0)

38%

(6)

62%

(10)

4.63

16

Q7. Do you agree that

green or sustainable designs are

more complicated to build?

12%

(2)

31%

(5)

18%

(3)

38%

(6)

0%

(0)

2.81

16


green or sustainable homes

should be sold at a premium?

12%

(2)

18%

(3)

6%

(1)

18%

(3)

46%

(7)

3.63

16

Q9. Do you agree there

is a growing demand for green

or sustainable homes?

18%

(3)

18%

(3)

18%

(3)

31%

(5)

12%

(2)

3.00

16


consumer demand for

sustainable homes has affected

construction and/or design of

your homes?

18%

(3)

0%

(0)

18%

(3)

50%

(8)

12%

(2)

3.38

16

Q14. Do you agree there is

increased confusion over which

green standards to use?

0%

(0)

6%

(1)

18%

(3)

12%

(2)

62%

(10)

4.31

16

Q15. Does your company agree

that rating systems are worth the

extra costs?

12%

(2)

25%

(4)

25%

(4)

31%

(5)

6%

(1)

2.94

16


there is a consumer preference

of green or sustainable homes

over traditionally or non-

green homes?

31%

(5)

12%

(2)

25%

(4)

18%

(3)

12%

(2)

2.69

16

As per table 4, Question 16 measured the frequency of using sustainable rating systems to

assess the typical respondents’ projects. Fifty percent of respondents often used a rating

system for assessing green or sustainable design. Six percent of respondents never used a

rating system, and 18% respondents sometimes used a sustainable home rating system. The



rating average was 3.88 (often). Question 17 asked about the frequency of the respondents’

company to actively train employees in sustainability. Forty-three percent of respondents

trained their employees in sustainability practices often. Twenty-nine percent of respondents

sometimes trained their employees. The rating average was 3.57 (sometimes).

Table 4 Responses to Likert scale questions related to frequency of use of sustainable practices for

typical respondents

Question

Never 1

2

Some-

times 3

4

Frequently 5

Rating

Avg.

Response

Count

Q16. How often does

your company actively use a

rating system for assessing

green or sustainable design?

6%

(1)

12%

(2)

18%

(3)

12%

(2)

50%

(8)

3.88

16

Q17. How often does your

company actively train its

employees in green techniques?

0%

(0)

14%

(2)

29%

(4)

43%

(6)

14%

(2)

3.57

14

Note: Two respondents, based on their company opinion, skipped the second question

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In general, both ―developers and builders responses did not differ significantly on the

parameters of experience, importance, opinion, familiarity, and frequency of sustainability and

green building‖. Developers had a better grasp of sustainable concepts than builders. Also,

developers actively trained their staff in sustainable practices more often than builders, but not

significantly more. ― Developers and builders agreed that the cost of sustainable design is most

important during the construction phase and disagreed that having a certified energy designer

and/or an energy rating system were least important‖.

The typical respondent was very experienced with sustainable design, with a ―rating

average of 4.00 (experienced)‖. However, developers had higher rating averages for every

question related to experience in sustainable practices as compared to builders. ―Builders had

an average of 3.75 which means that they were somewhat experienced or experienced with

sustainable practices‖.

―Each typical respondent, developers, and builders agreed that building sustainable homes

are important to their company. Based on the rating average, developers believed that

marketable design was the most important and builders believed that an aesthetically pleasing

design was foremost. During the construction phase, developers and builders ranked the levels

of importance the same‖.

The typical respondents strongly agreed that they actively incorporated green building

practices. The typical respondent strongly disagreed there was a ―consumer preference for

sustainable design‖ and, also, making their homes sell faster. The average developer

somewhat agreed to agreed to most Likert scale questions.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents, in the open-ended questions, believed there should be more sustainable

homes, but there is no market nor are the prices justified. Similarly, all respondents believed

that green homes should be sold at a premium and are more difficult to construct, but do not




help sell a home faster. The results proved there is a noted environmental benefit for

sustainable design among developers and builders, but there is not perceived financial benefit

to integration in residential projects.‖

Green Building residential projects will be essential in the future. The commitment and

dedication not only needs to come from the consumer side, but also from those designing

homes, constructing homes, and developing residential areas.‖ The study highlighted picture

of responses from developers and builders based on their knowledge, application, and

dedication towards green building. The picture proved to have valuable information into the

minds of those who control how the world lives. Taken as a whole, the respondents do have a

commitment to sustainability and building green. ― Both developers and builders believe

sustainability benefits the environment, but, at the same time, do not believe there is a

consumer preference for green homes. These contradictions in logic led to confusion of how

to build and assess their green projects.

Analyzing the responses of builders and developers on sustainable and green practices in

residences allowed for an understanding why green construction is not further implemented

into residential projects.

8. FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY

To further the research in this area, or to expand on the study, there is huge scope in this field.

Research would be to expand the sample size and research into newer rating systems and

sustainable techniques and applications on the residential scale. The needs to be designed and

established contacts to ensure the completion of the surveys by respondents, either by web

survey or paper survey. There should be an updating of recent changes in most energy rating,

green building and sustainability programs respectively that might change responses.

9. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The major limitations of the study are as follows:

It should be noted that the study was limited to respondents from Delhi-NCR region.

The survey was distributed via a web based server that presented limited responses and field

responses.

The survey was limited by 80 responses: 40 builders, 35 developers, and five ―unknown.‖

Very few of the respondents were enthusiastic about granting permission to interview for this

study.

REFERENCES

[1] Aye, L., Bamford, N., Charters, B. and Robinson, J. (1999) Environmentally Sustainable

Development: A Life Cycle Costing Approach for a Commercial Office Building in

Melbourne, Australia. Liverpool John Moores University, Association of Researchers in

Construction Management, Vol. 2, 735-42.

[2] Ellison, L. and Sayce, S. (2007) Assessing Sustainability in The Existing Commercial

Property Stock Establishing Sustainability Criteria Relevant For The Commercial

Property Investment Sector. Journal of Property Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 287-

304.

[3] Pandey, A. K., Dixit, S., Bansal, S., & Mandal, S. N. (2017). Optimize the infrastructure

design of hospital construction projects to manage hassle free services. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(10), 87-98.



[4] Dixit, S., Pandey, A. K., Mandal, S. N., & Bansal, S. (2017). A Study of Enabling Factors

Affecting Construction Productivity: Indian Scnerio. International Journal of Civil

Engineering & Technology, 8(6), 741-758.

[5] Energy and Cities: Sustainable Building and Construction. Available online:

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/focus/EnergyCities1.asp (accessed on 18 December 2016

[6] Hwang, B.G.; Zhao, X.; See, Y.L.; Zhong, Y. Addressing Risks in Green Retrofit

Projects: The Case of Singapore. Proj. Manag. J. 2015, 46, 76–89

[7] Myers, G., Reed, R. and Robinson, J. (2007) Sustainable property – the future of the

New Zealand market.Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3.

[8] Myers, G., Reed, R. and Robinson, J. (2007) The Relationship between Sustainability and

the Value of Office Buildings. Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference.

[9] New Building Institution. http://www.newbuildings.org. 1 January 2010.

[10] Ranaweera, R.; Crawford, R.H. Using Early-Stage Assessment to Reduce the Financial

Risks and Perceived Barriers of Sustainable Buildings. J. Green. Build. 2010, 5, 129–146.

[11] Dixit, S., Mandal, S. N., & Singh, S. (2017). Area of linkage between lean construction

and sustainability in Indian construction industry. International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 623-636.

[12] Wiley, J., Benefield, J. and Johnson, K. (2010) Green Design and the Market for

Commercial Office Space. Journal of Real Estate Finance Econ, Vol. 41 pp. 228-243.

[13] Wu, P.; Xia, B.; Pienaar, J.; Zhao, X. The past, present and future of carbon labelling for

construction materials—A review. Build. Environ. 2014, 77, 160–168

[14] Wu, P.; Xia, B.; Zhao, X. The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev.

2014, 37, 360–369.

[15] Sao, A., SIngh, S., Dixit, S., Pandey, A. K., & Singh, S. (2017). Quality, productivity and

customer satisfaction in service operations: An empirical study. International Journal of

Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(10), 579-596.

[16] Dixit, S., Mandal, S. N., & Singh, S. (2017). Relationship between skill development and

productivity in construction sector: A literature review. International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 649-665.

[17] Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X.W. Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex

green building projects: A social network model. Build. Environ. 2014, 73, 208–222.

[18] Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Gao, Y. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk

assessment: A case of Singapore’s green projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 203–213.

[19] D. A. Pastagia and J.E.M. Macwan, Development of Fuzzy Rating Model for Residential

Green Buildings based on Pre - occupancy & Post - occupancy Parameters. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(10), 2017, pp. 182 1 – 1828

[20] Dr. Bidyut Jyoti Gogoi and Dr. Tapas Kr Giri, Green Building Requirement in India and

Factors Driving Green Building Purchase. International Journal of Civ il Engineering and

Technology, 8(10), 2017, pp. 153 – 165.

http://www.newbuildings.org./

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY GREEN BUILDING ... · This paper represents a holistic effort...

Documents

Transcript of AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY GREEN BUILDING ... · This paper represents a holistic effort...