Search

• Construction Waste Management (CWM) credits are least sought out in green buildings. • To obtain CWM credits, one needs to pay a higher cost ranging from 0.4% to 6% • The number of credits and weightage allocated for the CWM related credits are lower. This research was motivated by the intriguing phenomena across several economies that green building clients/developers are observably lukewarm in pursuing construction waste management (CWM). Recent studies, most of them in a qualitative nature, reported that to obtain CWM-related credits is "costlier" than obtaining credits from other green building aspects such as sites, lighting, and so on. Yet, there is a clear lack of empirical analysis of such cost implications with a view to providing convincing explanation to the phenomena. This research aims to identify the cost implications of achieving CWM-related credits as stipulated in green building rating tools by focusing in Hong Kong. The costs for using materials required for green certification were calculated and compared against conventional materials by introducing a life cycle perspective. It is discovered that to obtain the CWM-related credits, one needs to pay a higher cost ranging from 0.4% to 6%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Green Building concept is very popular worldwide. The adverse impact of construction on the environment significantly promotes the development of the green building concept worldwide. Green buildings are generally termed as environmentally friendly buildings. Therefore, over the past several decades, there have been many green building rating tools developed by institutions to evaluate these buildings. However, a majority of the green buildings certified with these rating tools are assessed primarily on their design and construction. The life-cycle of a green building extends beyond these initial phases, with its full benefits becoming more apparent during the operational stages of the building. However, there is a clear lack of green building projects obtaining green certificates that evaluate the operational stages of the building. Therefore, this research aims to identify the barriers preventing the certification of green buildings in their operational stages. Initially, commonly used international green building rating tools were identified and analysed on the evaluation criteria. Following this analysis, Chinese standards on green building evaluation were also discussed in detail. Furthermore, a case study building with three-star certification for the operational stage was incorporated into the analysis. This case study building was analysed with the Chinese standards, namely Chinese evaluation standard green building (ESGB) 2014, along with other international standards such as the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design Leadership (LEED), the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), and Green Star. Structured interviews were also carried out to identify the barriers, while measures to overcome these barriers were also discussed. The inconsistency of government regulations, the inability of the market to protect developers' interests, and the inability to meet technical requirements were identified as the three main barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By influencing energy consumption, water use, and indoor environment quality, 'building service systems' are indispensable to green building. In practice, building services are chosen separately by different professions while they are literally interdependent on each other in determining the overall effectiveness and efficiency of green building. In addition, these building services are chosen at the initial stage without necessarily considering their life-cycle costs (LCC). A more holistic view to consider the interdependence of various building services throughout their life cycle is highly desired. Hence, this research aims to examine building services in green building by considering both their interdependence and costs throughout the building life cycle. The Hong Kong BEAM (Building Environmental Assessment Method) Plus is selected for a case study. Initially, the credits related to building services are identified and mapped from the BEAM Plus. Afterwards, LCC of the credits are calculated using the net present value technique. It is discovered that by considering building services' interdependence from a life cycle perspective, the choices of such building services could be much different. A significant proportion of the LCC is related to operation, maintenance and replacement of the building services, which cannot be offset by the savings of green building independently. However, there are benefits such as CO 2 reductions, which can be used to make up the LCC if they can be properly monetised. The research provides significant insights to developers and their consultants in choosing cost-effective building services with a view to better realising the value of green building. • Building services should be considered holistically when calculating the life-cycle cost of various green building options. • Mechanism for monetising the social benefits of GBs is highly desired. • Considering the maintenance costs in green building services during the design stage is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Green buildings are gaining popularity in Australia with the applications of Green Star rating scheme. However, the credit for using timber materials in the rating scheme, while timber being a significantly used material in the fast growing residential construction industry, does not adequately guide designers and builders on the selection of the best timber types for residential applications from the life cycle perspective. This research presents the analysis on the life cycle cost of timber materials in their various applications for residential buildings in Australia and thereby provides guidance on how to best meet the requirement set out in the timber credit in the Green Start rating scheme. Structured interviews were used to collect the data on the cost of timber materials in their lifetime from builders, tradesmen and other residential construction professionals. Three sets of cost information were received under each application, for the individual timber species against three conditions (low, medium and extreme weather) with reference to residential buildings. Based on life cycle cost analysis results, the most suitable timbers for different applications are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]