Neoclassical economics have played a pivotal role in dictating sustainability in the contemporary world. Decision making in global governments has leaned towards privatization and deregulation owing to neoclassical economics. The rationale of building sustainability across all countries is to cater for environmental matters whereby the natural environment is closely watched.
Notwithstanding that the environment has been relied for wealth potential and vast natural resources, contemporary pressing issues such as global warming, emissions from greenhouses, increased pollution levels, and a decrease in the human population health has raised a global awareness that the environment has a value greater than that of the capacity to produce wealth (Roth & Bansal 2000, 717).
Neoclassical principles like value pricing mechanisms and integration equity have been put into consideration while addressing the aforementioned environmental concerns. These policies cater for; protection, management and use of the environment for future generations to access an environment devoid of degradation.
Building sustainability relies on the vital positional shift in thought from mechanisms based on price to a broader consideration of environmental and social factors. Through improved valuation, environmental factors are encompassed in a number of countries services and asset valuations.
Among these factors are levying cleanup costs of pollution on buildings responsible for pollution, and disposal of waste. Several cities in Australia such as Canberra have focused on building sustainability issues during the provision of affordable housing. The major concern for the planners in this regard is to meet the building sustainability need with socially and environmentally responsive options for housing (Kant & Berry 2005, 20).
In the building industry, several countries have different measures for sustainability. Particularly in the UK, the BREEAM scheme is widely applied to measure buildings’ environmental performance. This criterion has been adopted for homes meant to be owned by the government. In the United States, the LEED scheme serves a similar purpose while the Passivhaus scheme is popular in Europe and is becoming famous in the United Kingdom.
The Green star concept in Australia has catered for building sustainability with the main motive being to ensure that carbon emissions are mitigated in buildings (UN AGECC 2010). In all the aforementioned building sustainability assessment schemes, the basic concept is to look at the entire building measure the impacts in a variety of categories and weighing scores in a similar manner. Moreover, the assessment procedure entails adding the impacts and rating them through an overall score. Most famous categories with this regard are water and energy use, health, impact of materials, future adaptability and waste (Birkeland 2012, 14).
According to Roth & Bansal ( 2000, p. 718), the ‘green building ‘concept has undergone a transformation in the recent past from a marketing vehicle and a quantitative ideal to a defensible and quantifiable statement on building sustainability. The BREEAM rating system in the UK, the LEED system in the United States, and the Green Star system in Australia, are among the vital rating systems across the globe with the latter being the most recent to be established. These rating systems for green buildings have emerged and gained influence in the last two decades.
Kubba (2012, p. 15-20) mentions the systems for rating green buildings have expanded beyond countries of origin. Green star systems for rating sustainability in buildings exist in a number of countries albeit focusing on the national domain. Notwithstanding the numerous advantages and ubiquity of globally recognized labels, localized systems for rating sustainability in buildings have their share of benefits because of specificity on particular regions and consideration of policy objectives and technical constraints.
For example, the Pearl Rating System in United Arab Emirates is a system that places little emphasis on energy and focuses more on water efficiency, largely because of scarce water resources in the region (Bell 2000, 268).
Externalities in the Building Industry
Carbon emissions from building are projected to grow over the next 25 years by an annual rate of over 1%. The contribution of building to the increase of carbon emissions when combined with other sources of carbon emissions such as industry and transportation result in an even higher rate of carbon emission (Guy 2006, 650).
The great concern over carbon in the atmosphere is the characteristic of carbon in the form carbon dioxide to trap heat within the atmosphere leading the phenomena known as global warming. Increased temperature in the atmosphere will result to an increased rate of ice melting at the poles, stronger cyclones, and tornadoes, the faster spread of deserts and ultimately increased emissions as building attempt to maintain a conducive environment for working and living within the building environment. The most significant factor that contributes to the high rate of carbon emissions in buildings is the consumption of electricity (Dunphy, Griffiths, and Benn 2007, 58).
When other attributes of a building are considered the result is even higher carbon emissions. Buildings have a life span of 50-100 years and through this period the building emits carbon to the atmosphere. It is estimated that if new commercial buildings are built to consume 50% less energy 6 million tons of carbon dioxide would be reduced from the high contribution of buildings (Better Buildings Partnership 2010, 56).
To get a good impression of this, it can be equated to removing 1 million cars from the road annually. Without the considerations of the building environmental performance, and seeking out ways to improve this performance building will be a great contributor to the increasing carbon emissions (Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008).
Building more environmentally friendly building is referred to as building green. Building green not only reduces the carbon emissions of the building but also results in savings and the general improvement of the bottom line. Some of the ways that a building can be made more efficient include using the most efficient electronics in the building construction to improve performance.
Some of these systems including the building heating and cooling systems, another is taking advantage of the daylight to reduce the need for lighting. The primary ways in which the building meets the minimal carbon footprint emissions is through ecologically responsive design and improved energy competence (Jaramine, Biekša, and Valuntienė 2012, 23).
Governments in developed nations have started programs that are geared towards increasing the energy efficiency of existing building and those being built. In order to achieve the best possible standard a comparison of these programs must be done to determine the area each encompasses.
Recent research has shown that the Australian program green star is significantly behind those of other developed nations such as the United States and United Kingdom. The research however does not specify the sectors in which the program lags behind and how best this challenge can be tackled. Consequently, this research seeks to fill this gap in knowledge (Nandi & Basu 2008, 528; Osbourn & Greenho 2007, 14).
The general argument in favour of more energy competent buildings is that greener building is cheaper to run and provide a better milieu for the occupants. In Australia, electricity accounts for 89% of the total carbon emissions. Electricity in Australia is produced from brown coal, which is found in abundance in the country. A change from this to using gas as a source of electricity would greatly reduce the carbon emissions. This is however not likely to occur considering the social-political conditions.
The current efforts focus on the performance of the building and how specific it utilizes energy. The general consensus is that the improvement in the thermal, day lighting and natural ventilation of a building would significantly improve the energy efficiency of the building and thus the carbon footprint (Wang, Zmeureanu & Rivard 2005,1518).
Lighting, air conditioning and ventilation account for 84% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Heating the building takes the largest share of energy but whoever is not the highest production of carbon. This position is reserved for cooling which account for 13%. A focus on commercial buildings reveals that buildings are used for a number of purposes including commercial, office, recreation and communication. Office buildings are the single largest contributor to the carbon emissions of the building and it is in this section that considerable efforts need to be put (Yao, Li & Steemers 2005, 1985).
In order to make a substantial impact and reduce the production of carbon building for his purpose need to be built in a more environmentally friendly manner. The focus of the regulating programs is to reduce the energy consumption of the building and the effect is the reduction of carbon emission.
According to Roth & Bansal (2000, p. 717-718), carbon emissions from buildings has been a major source of concern because of increased estimates of energy consumption and carbon emissions by various types of buildings. Reports on this matter have led to increased knowledge of emission of Green House Gases from buildings in the quest to come up with better levels of building sustainability.
Pout, MacKenzie, & Bettle (2002, p. 5) Mention that in 2000, CO2 emissions from the use of energy in commercial buildings accounted for a quarter of all UK emissions. This emission included industrial energy use by public sector and commercial buildings. Lighting accounts for a quarter of these emissions (Xia et al 2013, 4215). Space cooling translates to about 5% of commercial and public emissions. Nevertheless, in buildings where there is installation of air conditioning, cooling can account for a large portion of carbon emissions and the use of air conditioning has increased in the recent past. (Stern 2006, 47).
Abatement curves for cost indicate contributions made at national levels with an option that is efficient in terms of energy. Moreover, saving cost to be realized after implementation is also indicated. This form of assessment reveals technical potential of saving carbon in commercial and public buildings across a number of countries. Concisely, this technical potential lies at around 35% although 20% more can be achieved devoid of cost increments. According to UN AGECC (2010, 8) there was a decrease of carbon emissions by 45 during the period between 2000 and 2010. Analogously, there was a 14% increase in consumption of energy.
Research on International Green Building Rating Systems: USA, UK, UAE
The Green Star rating system for building was formulated by the GBCA, the building council in Australia. This rating system is comprehensive in evaluating the environmental performance and design of Australia buildings based on a variety of categories. The categories in the tools for Green Star rating are; management, Energy, transport, Indoor Environmental quality, water, materials, ecology and land use, and emissions (Peters & Terri 2011,46).
The rating tool in UAE includes a number of systems for rating building sustainability in the global marketplace. Estidama Pearl Rating is a rating system is primarily adopted in assessing building sustainability in the UAE. The UAE has also adopted the use of other building sustainability rating systems such as LEED developed in the United States, and BREAM, established in the United Kingdom (Kant & Berry 2005, 56).
The Estidama rating tool is split into seven categories, vital for sustainable development. These categories include a development process that is integrated. Such a development process aims at encouraging teamwork across all disciplines with the aim of delivering solutions that are environmentally sustainable for the established environment. Also, the Estidama rating tools incorporate natural systems that conserve restore, and preserve, critical habitats and natural environments (Kubba 2012, 8).
Third, Precious Water is a concept in this rating tool catering for reduction of water demand, and encourages the use of alternative water sources. The concept of Livable Buildings in the Estidama Rating tool ensures that there are quality indoor and outdoor spaces. Further, there exists the Resourceful energy concept that promotes the conservation of energy via measures of passive design, renewable and energy efficiency (Dixon, et al 2010, 6400).
Stewarding Materials in the Estidama rating tool is important in catering for the reduction of the impact of extraction of building materials. It also caters for the manufacture, transportation and the disposal of building materials. Through Innovative Practice, the Estidama rating tool encourages cultural expression and innovation in design building and construction in order to facilitate industrial and market transformation (Guy, 1994, 33).
Identification of Trends: 1st, 2nd And 3rd Wave Companies towards Adopting Sustainability
In an attempt to attain sustainability in building, the steps have been categorized into the first, second, and the third wave. The first wave is a reference to a group of companies that were opposed to the notion of sustainability. This was evidenced by the highly effective perspective on the natural environment and the employees (Birkeland 2012, 78).
The culture of exploitation was synonymous with the first wave organizations and this was largely to blame for the failure to achieve sustainability during the time. Organizations in this era were opposed to green activists and the government’s attempts to bring about policies that would cater for sustainability in building (Olgyay & Seruto 2010, 1-8). The community was distanced from the sustainability debate with its claims being labelled by the organizations as illegitimate; this development reveals the less regard the organizations of the first wave gave to the community and the environment (DCLG 2011, 17).
According to Shove (1998), organizations in the first wave were characterized by ignorance in the form of non responsiveness. This greatly hindered and thwarted any attempts to achieve sustainability in building. Primacy was given to technological and financial factors with less regard being reserved for environmental factors.
Ignorance came in a higher degree as the workforce was condemned to be compliant of decisions made and business was conducted as usual. In the light of this, organizations during the first wave regarded environmental resources as free goods requiring little attention (Greening, Greene, & Difiglio 2000, 395).
Shove (1998), reveals that the motivation to move to the second wave stemmed from the perceived need for organizations to be compliant to legal, environmental, safety, and health requirements and the numerous expectations of the community. Business opportunities during the second wave aimed at avoiding the huge costs of failing to comply with the stipulated standards. Moreover, there was the increased need to create an efficient system to mitigate risk.
The objectives of the organizations in the second wave were to eliminate waste progressively and increase efficiency in materials and processes. The second wave was synonymous with increased attempts for reorganization and waste reduction (Harmelink, Nilsson, and Harmsen 2008, 140).
Three paths catered for efficiency in this era. These were; cost reduction, improving quality through value addition, and flexibility and innovation through the advantage of the first mover (Gann 2000, 13). An example of efficiency attained in the second wave was eco-efficiency, a concept that converged at the use of fewer resources to attain more.
This was attained through the delivery of goods that were competitively priced and services meant to satisfy the numerous human needs and foster equality in living standards (Hawkes 2010, 5981). All these developments were achieved by reduction of ecological impact and the intensity of the resources throughout the life cycle to a level that was in line with the carrying capacity of the earth.
Core eco-efficiency principles fostering efficiency in building sustainability during the second wave were reduction of material intensity, minimization of energy intensity, reduction in the dispersion of harmful substances, recycling, capitalizing on renewable resources, extension of product durability, and increased service intensity (R.S. Means Company 2011, 25)
As opposed to the first and the second wave, the third wave was synonymous with numerous achievements in building sustainability. The companies in this era went ‘green’. The need for understanding the motives behind ecological responsiveness in the corporate domain is for a number of reasons (Bell 2000, 268).
First, such an understanding is vital in helping organizational theorists to predict behaviors related to ecology. For example, if the corporations adopted practices that were ecologically responsive with the view of meeting legal requirements, the firms would engage in activities that would be in line with the legislation (Jaramine, Biekša, and Valuntienė 2012, 23).
Second, the understanding would expose mechanisms that would foster organizations with ecological sustainability. Such an attribute would allow managers, researchers, and policy makers to assess control mechanisms and command efficacy, voluntary measures, and market measures (Roodman, Lenssen and Peterson 1995, 45)
Incorporating Biomimicry into the Australian Green Star System
The need for the adoption of the Biomimicry concept into the green star system in Australia is inevitable. This need stems from an avalanche of needs and inefficiencies in the green star model that have rendered it incapable of surpassing the feats achieved by LEED and BREEAM. The main motive for the incorporation of Biomimicry is to come up with the most effective design, an energy-efficient design, environmentally responsible, energy efficient, and a model that can cater for the future requirements in building sustainability (Curwell and Cooper 2008, 17-28)
Shove (1998) reveals the benefits of the Biomimicry concept as a design that is energy efficient that integrates a variety of elements in order to achieve the goals of building sustainability. The Biomimicry concept is also important in ameliorating greenhouse emissions. With the adoption of Biomimicry, the aim is to come up with a building that is comfortable enough for the users.
The unique building emanating from the adoption of Biomimicry is a landmark project that caters for the environment in all aspects. In order to meet such levels of building sustainability demands, Biomimicry caters for the education and training of professionals and the public on socially and environmentally responsible designs (San-José et al 2007, 10-15)
The Biomimicry concept is inspired by the natural termite mound and has a design that uses the thermal mass to absorb excess heat and cooling the building at night. Air displacement is a plus as it moves the air via the natural process of the raising of hot air and distributing cool air throughout the building (Koomey, et al 2001, 1214).
Facades are used to heat and cool buildings that have shutters to respond to the sun’s position. Adopting the concept of the ‘mimicking the greenery concept on buildings’ has culminated in roof gardens and planter boxes equaling the plant area in which the building occupies (Ramanathan & Carmicheal 2008, 225).
Analysis of the underpinning factors that support the practice of sustainable building
A sustainable building is one that is designed to meet a particular ecological and resource efficient manner. The cost of building a sustainable building may be high at fast but the benefits accrued from the efficient use of energy and other resources by the building results in lower operational cost and thus more savings in the long run.
The cost saving can especially be realized when requirements of sustainable buildings are incorporated into the design of a new building. Great benefits can be reaped from the incorporation of such requirements without necessarily increasing the cost of building (Olgyay & Seruto 2010, 26).
One of the elements of green building is the setting of the building near a place where it is easily accessible by mass transit. This reduces the requirements of those coming to the building to use their own vehicles thereby reducing the emissions resulting from the transportation of people to and from the building. In the design and construction of the building much of the landscape is left unchanged and plants are planted outside the building to improve on the nature around the building (U.N. 2009).
Plants selected have low water requirements and do not require the use of pesticides therefore leading to a more environmentally friendly compound. The plants planted should have minimal trimming requirements also manure is added to the plants and mulching is done to save on time and water use (Oreszczyn 2011, 33).
Most buildings can achieve higher energy efficiency levels as the technology exists to facilitate this. New buildings are especially at an advantage as they can reach cuts of up to 50% on the energy consumed in the building. One of the ways of meeting this requirement is the passive design of the building. By building the structure in such a way that maximum benefits are reaped from the natural ventilation and solar radiation the building greatly reduces the energy consumption.
Recent studies have shown that natural lighting in a building not only reduces the operational cost of the building but also improve the productivity of the workers in the building (Pout, MacKenzie & Bettle 2002, 14). The building may also incorporate in its design highly energy efficient lighting systems that are tied to motion sensors and other such technologies that will enable the automatic dimming of lights in case the occupants are not using the room. This will greatly improve the energy use of the overhead lighting system (Mehdizadeh & Fischer 2012, 183).
There exist technologies for the construction of the building that can greatly improve the efficiency of the building and ultimately reduce the carbon footprint of the building. One of this sways is building the structure using recyclable material (Institute/International Energy Agency Workshop 2011, 2).
The building should also be constructed with materials that have low to zero gas emissions and are produced locally to save on the cost of transporting the material to the site of construction. Material from demolition site may be used to construct the base e.g. if the parking lot is costing less and reducing waste. The design of the building should also incorporate should waste management systems that reduce waste production by encouraging recycling (Sabnis 2011, 7).
Benchmark analysis of international green building rating systems: USA, UK, UAE
As pressure to cut on carbon emission mounts, the focus is on how to cut back the building’s carbon footprint since it is the biggest contributor to the carbon emissions. There is no universally accepted way of measuring the performance of a building however different countries have started programs to evaluate the energy performance of existing building and place minimal requirements for the upcoming buildings. In the United States LEED, in the United Kingdom BREEAM, and in Australia the Green Star.
Each of these initiatives have got their own assessment method however building that score better in any of the initiatives are better than those that have poor score (Roth & Bansal 2000, 731).
The assessment systems are spreading to other countries thus the necessity to compare them so as the adopting countries have a clear view of how they relate and which is best to adopt for their country. Organizations that operate internationally are also increasing asking the question of the actual differences between the systems and some have already shown interest in wanting their building assessed by another organization other than the local one.
A good example is the United Kingdom where some American companies have shown interest in wanting LEED to assess the building they run their businesses in. The green star of Australia is used in other countries such as South Africa and New Zealand. The adoption of the green star system is expected to accelerate over the next few years as more government finds it necessary to conserve the environment (Shove 1998, 1111).
Consider a hypothetical building consisting of 8 floors located in a high temperature area such as the UAE. The building has a three level parking space and all the standard facilities in an office building. The building uses the open office plan and is fully air conditioned using non-renewable (Wang, Rivard & Zmeureanu 2006,369).
When the energy use efficiency of such a building is rated using the three major assessment systems in the world; LEED, BREEAM, and Green Star the results are diverse. LEED uses a baseline building set on all the four orientations to avoid self shading (Shi 2008, 13). The actual energy prices in the locality are considered (U.N. 2009, 9).
A comparison of the three major assessment system based on the Green Star assessment categories reveal that Green Star places much weight on the indoor environment, energy, and water categories. The system however, lags behind in the ecology, emissions and materials categories. The future of sustainable building is full carbon and water accounting with a universally accepted system that covers all the important fields in the subject matter (R.S. Means Company 2011, 25)
Biomimicry Initiatives in the LEED Rating System
The need for the incorporation of Biomimicry initiatives in the LEED system stems from the fact that biological systems used in Biomimicry are highly sustainable. They efficiency emanates from incorporation of all the needed aspects in the immediate environment. There exists a balance in the biological system with animals and plants having adapted over the years through the concept of natural selection.
The beauty of Biomimicry is that the concept draws on a wealth of information to incorporate biological laws in the development of a largely successful system and human designs. Principles of green building, sustainable agriculture, industrial ecology and environmental design are based on systems of nature.
The LEED concept heavily relies on are made concepts, which are subject to flaws. In the light of this, designers in the LEED rating systems need to incorporate Biomimicry initiatives in order to gather vital information gathered by biologists and ecologists. The Velcro is a vivid example of Biomimicry that reveals the effectiveness of using Biomimicry concepts in building sustainability (Peters & Terri 2011, 46).
Identification of “loopholes” in Australia’s Building Rating Systems: Green Star and Nabers
A comparison of the Green Star to LEED in the US and BREEAM in the UK reveals that Green Star places less emphasis on some key areas that are important to the over reduction of carbon emissions in a building. One of the categories that suffer this is the land use category. Although the setting of the building is important, to minimize the emissions resulting from those who what to access the building the ecology of the building is equally important.
Green Star does not have a comprehensive measuring system of the carbon emissions of a building. By placing low emphasis on this, the result is buildings that are still contributing significantly to carbon emissions being rated highly. A building may place the assessment in the Green Star system but fail in another system such as the BREEAM for the United Kingdom (Wang, Rivard & Zmeureanu 2006, 369).
The Green Star also places low emphasis on the materials used in the construction of the building. This may be attributed to the fact that the Australia system has mostly been focused on the reduction of energy consumption in the already existing building effectively overlooking the upcoming building.
The management of the building is another sector in the Green Star system that requires attention. Proper management of the building to ensure all systems are running at their best and that the recycling of solid waste and dirty water continues to be important for the sustainability of the building and conservation of the environment (Hawkes 2010, 5978)
Closing the gap between Australia’s building rating systems and International rating certification (LEED, BREEAM).
The main purpose of this paper is to identify ways in which the Australian building rating system can be improved. In this section I will suggest possible actions that the Green Star can take in the improvement of their delivery to the Australian people and the world at large. This they will do by reviewing their categories and adding more significance to the ecology and material categories that have a major impact on the sustainability of the building.
Green star is required to develop a more comprehensive assessment system that takes into considerations the region within which a building occurs and the preferences of the occupants of the buildings (Osbourn & Greenho 2007).
The Green Star assessment criterion does not encompass a comparison with an idea building. An ideal building is a building, which has achieved the highest standards of sustainability all the factors considered. Green Star should change their assessment criteria so as building are rated in the comparable manner, which seems to provide a more reliable assessment. Green Star should be able to involve itself with the budgeting of new buildings so as to provide a more comprehensive budget take covers the measures required in the construction of green buildings (Osbourn & Greenho 2007).
The organization should seek more funding to enable the development of additional research in this sector and contingencies. Other than the use of laws to limit the minimal building standards, the country should create ways of rewarding landlords that compile with the sustainability standards.
They should also be an effective oversight in place to ensure that all buildings meet the criteria set by the government to guarantee that the efforts of cutting carbon footprints from the building sector are realized more quickly. The construction of new buildings should be such that the schedule for the building allows for frequent testing to guarantee that the standards are met not only in the operation of the new building but also in the construction phase (Wang, Zmeureanu, & Rivard 2005, 1520).
The organization should have the authority to rate and license the construction companies to guarantee that those companies have the capacity to meet requirements of building a green building. Green Star should also increase the personnel resource in the organization to ensure that there is increased capacity to come up and implement new ideas as the situation will require from time to time (Osbourn & Greenho 2007).
A Proposal to Incorporate Biomimicry Initiatives in the Green Star Model
The need for the incorporation of Biomimicry initiatives in the Green star rating system is inevitable if building sustainability in Australia is to surpass the likes of BREEAM and LEED. It is important to consider an integrated system with for high efficiency and building sustainability. Much like the biological living organism that has all organs functioning according to a specific system, the resultant building will function wholly to cater for building sustainability (Peters and Terri 2011, 46).
There exists the need for consideration of a biological synergy before the Biomimicry concept can be incorporated into the Green star model. This will entail imitating the leaf structure that caters for air processing and cleaning together with energy and heat dissipation (Yao, Li & Steemers 2005).
Another Biomimicry concept to be incorporated into the Australian model for rating building sustainability is the Growth plane. This concept is important as it considers a roof terrace supporting grasses and living plants for the inhabitants of the building to enjoy a pollution-free environment. The stem is an imitation of the biological model that can be incorporated into the Green star model because similar to the biological function of providing a network of fluids, the building has a high level control for heating, cooling and ventilation. Epidermis refers to the building’s external protection from natural elements (Peters and Terri 2011, 46).
In the proposal to incorporate Biomimicry into the Green star rating system in Australia, the termite mould model is a perfect example. This concept has been largely successful in a number of buildings across the world. Its effectiveness stems from the incorporation of systems for air-conditioning. In the termite mould, cool wind is drawn into the mould’s base through channels. Termites reside in the air ducts that coordinate with convention currents (Oreszczyn 2011, 33).
Results and Analysis
Definition of Assumptions
The project takes into considerations the rating of buildings of each particular assessment system i.e. Green Star, LEED, BREEAM. The problem with this approach is that each of this assessment system is designed for the assessment of buildings in their individual capacities. The comparison can be fraud in a number of ways as some of the aspects considered in Green Star are not considered in either the LEED or the BREEAM (Shi 2008, 13).
A single building identified for the purposes of testing this assumption is assessed using all the three assessment procedure. The results of the assessment are that LEED finds the building not fit and does not meet enough criteria to be ranked in their scale. The BREEAM finds the building environmentally friendly however, to a small extent. The Green Star however, rate the building to over half their scale due to some omission in their assessment such as the materials used (Mehdizadeh & Fischer 2012, 183).
It is clear that the Green Star needs to improve their assessment system if they are going to achieve any significant progress towards a carbon free environment. The focus of improvement should be the four major categories discussed earlier that have low significance to the Green Star Assessment when compared to the other organizations in other developed nations. The four major categories include materials, ecology, pollution and management.
Critical Pathway Network
Gantt chart showing the duration each step of the research was taking.
The Gantt chart shown above presents the project schedule and lists the tasks that were carried out. The time it took to conduct the entire project is twelve weeks. The Gantt chart clearly illustrates how long each activity took and in what order the activities were carried out.
To successfully mitigate the production of carbon into the atmosphere, the building sector is important. In the developed nation the building industry, contribute to almost 50% of the total carbon footprint of the nation. There is consensus that nations should decarbonise their building by the year 2050.
To this end, the focus is on the new upcoming buildings and the modernization of the already constructed building using the available technology to become more environmentally friendly. This paper has demonstrated that the key to the minimization to the carbon footprint from new buildings, the government, construction companies and building owners must all cooperate to achieve a carbon free building and town (Shi 2008, 13).
Carbon emissions must be reduced stopped and their effects reversed to guarantee an atmosphere habitable for future generations and the continuity of humanity. The government playing the key role in the reduction of carbon emissions and ultimately stopping the emissions more stringent laws must be made, enforced and building more regularly inspected. Funding must also be availed to the technology sector to seek out cleaner ways of energy production (Mehdizadeh & Fischer 2012, 183).
Bell, M 2000, ‘Energy efficient modernization of housing: a UK case study,’ Energy and Buildings, vol. 32. No. 3, pp. 267-280.
Better Buildings Partnership, 2010, Low Carbon Retrofit Toolkit: A roadmap to success.
Birkeland, J 2012, Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Integrated Ecological Solutions, Routledge, London.
Curwell S and Cooper I 2008, ‘The implications of urban sustainability,’ Building Research and Information, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 17-28.
DCLG 2011, Government is serious about zero carbon Housing. Web.
Dixon, RK, McGowan, E, Onysko, G, & Scheer, R M 2010, US energy conservation and efficiency policies: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 6398-6408.
Dunphy, D, Griffiths, A & Benn, S 2007, Organizational change for corporate sustainability – A guide for leaders and change agents of the future, 2 edn, Routledge, Abingdon.
Gann, DM 2000, Building Innovation: complex constructs in a changing world, Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
Greening, LA, Greene, DL, & Difiglio, C 2000, ‘Energy efficiency and consumption the rebound effect a survey,’ Energy Policy, vol. 28, no. 6-7, pp. 389-401.
Guy, S 1994, Developing Alternatives: Energy, Offices and the Environment. Web.
Guy, S 2006, ‘Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and buildings,’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 645-659.
Harmelink, M, Nilsson, L, & Harmsen, R 2008, ‘Theory-based policy evaluation of 20 energy efficiency instruments,’ Energy Efficiency vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 131-148.
Hawkes, A 2010, ‘Estimating marginal CO2 emissions rates for national electricity systems, ‘Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 5977-5987.
Institute/International Energy Agency Workshop 2011, The Reduction of Global Carbon Emissions in the Building Sector to 2050. Web.
Jaramine, E, Biekša, D, Valuntienė, I 2012, ‘ Estimating Potential and Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions in Lithuanian Buildings, ‘ Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, vol.59, no. 1, pp 1-23.
R.S. Means Company 2011, Green building : project planning & cost estimating, 3rd edn, A Wiley book on sustainable design., RSMeans : Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Kant, S, & Berry, RA 2005, Economics, Sustainability, and Natural Resources: Economics of Sustainable Forest Management, Springer, New York.
Koomey, JG, Webber, CA, Atkinson, CS, & Nicholls, A 2001, ‘Addressing energy-related challenges for the US buildings sector: results from the clean energy futures study,’ Energy Policy, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1209-1221.
Kubba, S 2012, Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Mehdizadeh, R & Fischer, M 2012, ‘Sustainability Rating Systems’, College Publishing, vol. 7, no. 2, 177-203.
Nandi, P, & Basu, S 2008, ‘A review of energy conservation initiatives by the Government of India,’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 518-530.
Olgyay, V, & Seruto, C 2010, ‘Whole Building Retrofits: A Gateway to Climate Stablization,’ ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 116, no. 2. Pp. 1-8.
Oreszczyn, T 2011, Bridging the Gap between Modelled and Actual Performance, Routledge, London.
Osbourn, D & Greenho, R 2007, Mitchell’s – Introduction to Building (4th ed.), Pearson Education Limited.
Peters, Terri 2011, ‘Nature as Measure: The Biomimicry Guild,’ Architectural Design, Vol.81, no. 1, pp. 44-47.
Pout, HC, MacKenzie, F, & Bettle, R 2002, Carbon dioxide emissions from non-domestic buildings: 2000 and beyond. Web.
Ramanathan, V, & Carmicheal, G 2008, ‘Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon, Nature Geoscience, vol.1, no. 1, pp. 221-227.
Roodman, DM, Lenssen, N & Peterson, JA 1995, A building revolution: how ecology and health concerns are transforming construction, Worldwatch Institute Washington, DC.
Roth, K & Bansal, P 2000, ‘Why Companies Go Green: A Model Of Ecological Responsiveness,’ Academy of Management Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 717-736.
Sabnis, GM 2011, Green building with concrete : sustainable design and construction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
San-José, J, Losada, R, Cuadrado, J & Garrucho, I 2007, ‘Approach to the quantification of the sustainable value in industrial buildings’, Building and Environment, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 3916-23.
Shi, Q 2008, ‘Strategies of implementing a green building assessment system in mainland China’, Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. P13.
Shove, E 1998, Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings, Energy Policy, vol. 26, no. 15, pp. 1105-1112.
Stern, N 2006, The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London.
U.N. 2009, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2009 Revision. Web.
UN AGECC 2010, Energy for a Sustainable Future. Web.
Wang, W, Rivard, H & Zmeureanu, R 2006, ‘Floor shape optimization for green building design’, Advanced Engineering Informatics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 363-378.
Wang, W, Zmeureanu, R & Rivard, H 2005, ‘Applying multi-objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimization’, Building and Environment, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1512-1525.
Xia, B, Zuo, J, Skitmore, M, Pullen, S, and Chen, Q 2013, ‘Review of Green Star Points Obtained by Australian Building Projects,’J. Archit. Eng, vol. 10, no.1061, pp. 1943-5568.
Yao, R, Li, B, & Steemers, K 2005, ‘Energy policy and standard for built environment in China,’ Renewable Energy, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 1973-1988.