Holistic sustainability evaluation methods including the ...
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SUSTAINABILITY GREEN BUILDING ... · This paper represents a holistic effort...
Transcript of 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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 277 [email protected]
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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 278 [email protected]
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).
An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With
Reference to Delhi-NCR Region
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 279 [email protected]
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)
Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 280 [email protected]
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
An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With
Reference to Delhi-NCR Region
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 281 [email protected]
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
Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 282 [email protected]
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
An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With
Reference to Delhi-NCR Region
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 283 [email protected]
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),
Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 284 [email protected]
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).
An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With
Reference to Delhi-NCR Region
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 285 [email protected]
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
Q8. Do you agree that
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
Q10. Do you agree that
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
Q18. Do you agree that
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
Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 286 [email protected]
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
An Empirical Study on Sustainability Green Building Practices in Residential Projects: With
Reference to Delhi-NCR Region
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 287 [email protected]
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.
Rajni Rathi, Sanjeev Bansal, Suman Sharma
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 288 [email protected]
[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.