Capítulo 1. El caso analizado y su contexto
2.2. Fuente 1: edición digital del diario El Comercio
As a form of comparison, the results from this survey were compared with existing data from existing international research from McGraw Hill Construction (United States) and Building Construction Interchange (Australia). However due to the significant differences between the contexts of each study the results should only be interpreted as a precursor for New Zealand’s future. For example, the United States and Australian studies for example were conducted with their respective BSRT already well established in the industry, whereas in New Zealand, Green Star NZ had yet to be officially launched. Furthermore, due to these differences some criteria did not fit the New Zealand model, and was either modified to allow comparison or removed completely from the analyses (refer to Appendix D for all comparative results, including individual results from the United States and Australia).
The questions which allowed this comparison were:
- At what stage of the building process is sustainable building most likely triggered?
- What do you think are the main drivers for sustainable building?
- What are the obstacles to sustainable building?
- What are your reasons for being involved in sustainable building?
- What do you believe are the economic reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
- What do you believe are the environmental reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
- What do you believe are the social reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
- What is your level of satisfaction with current information about sustainable building?
5.1.1 Trigger Stage for Sustainable Building
Question: At what stage of the building process is sustainable building most likely triggered?
From Figure 5-1, it can be seen in New Zealand sustainable building is more likely to be considered earlier in the design sequence (refer to Appendix D.1.1). Almost 50% of the respondents expressed sustainable building is most likely triggered during the
‘preliminary inquiries’. In comparison, 36% of the United States, and 43% of the Australian respondents believed sustainable building was triggered at this stage.
Table 5-1: Definition of answer choices to reasons for involvement in sustainable building to when sustainable is most likely triggered (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition Option A I don't know Option B Preliminary inquiries Option C Pre-design
Option D Design development
Option E Construction development process Option F Commissioning
Option G Construction
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-1: Overall international comparison of when sustainable building is most likely triggered (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
The results show there is a difference at the ‘pre-design’ stage, with 37% of the New Zealand respondents said this was when sustainable building was most likely triggered, whereas it only achieved 16% in the United States and 17% in Australia. It should be noted though that in both Australia and United States several other options were available but not included in this research (refer to Appendix D.1.1.1 and D.1.1.2). While this could explain some of the differences between the countries, the emphasis in the design stage for New Zealand is certainly encouraging and reinforces the perception of the client as a main driver for sustainable building.
5.1.2 Drivers for Sustainable Building
Question: What do you think are the main drivers for sustainable building?
In most cases the level of importance placed on the drivers (refer Table 5-2) to sustainable building by the New Zealand building industry were lower than those perceived by the United States and Australia (refer to Figure 5-2 and Appendix D.1.2). For example Option E,
‘independent rating system’ only accounts for 13% of the New Zealand respondents, whereas in the United States and Australia records figures of 58% and 53%. This result emphasises the differences between the studies, but more importantly, how with experience and application of Green Star NZ the perceptions of the New Zealand building industry may elevate in the future.
That is, continued use of Green Star NZ should create greater demand for sustainable building.
Table 5-2: Definition of answer choices to drivers for sustainable building (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition Option A Rising energy costs Option B Government regulation Option C Lower life-cycle costs Option D Client demand
Option E Independent rating system Option F Government rating systems Option G Competitive advantage Option H Superior performance Option I Increased education Option J Environmental conditions Option K Attraction and retention of staff Option L Increased emphasis on productivity
Option M International trends show it is smart business Option N Disruptive/enabling technology
0%
Figure 5-2: Overall international comparison of drivers for sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.1.3 Obstacles for Sustainable Building
Question: What are the obstacles to sustainable building?
In all three studies ‘perceived higher upfront costs’ were seen to be the main obstacle for sustainable building, with New Zealand having an almost identical figure to the United States of 64% (refer to Figure 5-3 and to Appendix D.1.3). Likewise, ‘lack of awareness’ and lack of education’ provided similar numbers. At the lower end, ‘different accounting methods’ was seen to be the least important from a New Zealand perspective, whereas in the United States and Australia it recorded figures of 45% and 38% respectively.
Table 5-3: Definition of answer choices to obstacles for sustainable building (in order asked in survey New Zealand)
Option Definition
Option A Perceived higher upfront costs Option B Lack of education
Option C Lack of awareness Option D No fiscal incentive
Option E Different accounting methods Option F No coordination or consistency Option G Politics
Option H Payback periods
Option I Education of non 'green' people
0%
Option A Option C Option B Option D Option H Option I Option F Option G Option E
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-3: Overall international comparison of obstacles for sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
This result suggests while New Zealand understands the more basic elements of sustainable building, its comprehension of more complex theories may be limited due to the lack of knowledge and experience of sustainable building in the industry. Again, this may become more evident over time as sustainable building development evolves in New Zealand.
5.1.4 Reasons for Involvement in Sustainable Building
Question: What are your reasons for being involved in sustainable building?
According to Figure 5-4, 73% of the United States respondents perceived ‘achieving lower life cycle costs’ and 72% of the Australia respondents perceived ‘being part of an industry the values the environment’ and as the most important reason for being involved in sustainable building (refer to Appendix D.1.4). Again, due to the context of the New Zealand study it would seem the reasons for sustainable building are yet to be fully realised. Although as the New Zealand building industry evolves, adapts and adapts Green Star NZ, the reasons for sustainable building should become clearer.
Table 5-4: Definition of answer choices to reasons for involvement in sustainable building (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition Option A I am not involved
Option B Being part of an industry that values the environment Option C Achieving lower life-cycle costs
Option D Contract requirement (e.g. Government tenders) Option E Expanding my business with 'green' building clients Option F Benefit from publicity
Option G Triple bottom line reporting Option H Attraction and retention of talent Option I Green product information Option J Awards for green building
Option K Higher return on investment on resale
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Option A
Option B Option C Option E
Option F Option G
Option I Option D
Option J Option H
Option K
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-4: Overall international comparison of reasons for involvement in sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.1.5 Economic Reasons for Sustainable Building
Question: What do you believe are the economic reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
Overall New Zealand’s perceptions of the economic reasons for sustainable building compare well against the United States and Australia, even though these countries had their respective BSRTs already well established. According to Figure 5-5, New Zealand views
‘lower operating costs’ just as important as ‘lower lifetime costs’, yet in the United States and Australia ‘lower operating costs’ are valued higher (refer to Appendix D.1.5).
Table 5-5: Definition of answer choices to economic reasons/benefits for sustainable building (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition
Option A Lower operating costs Option B Lower lifetime costs Option C Higher building value Option D Enhanced marketability
Option E Helping to transform the market Option F Increase staff productivity and retention Option G Higher return on investment
Option H Reduced liability and risk
0%
Option B Option A Option D Option C Option F Option E Option G Option H
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-5: Overall international comparison of the economic reasons/benefits of sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.1.6 Environmental Reasons for Sustainable Building
Question: What do you believe are the environmental reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
According to the results, environmental reasons are more clearly understood by the building industry, with a similar level of response for each environmental option in New Zealand and Australian findings (refer to Figure 5-6 and Appendix D.1.6). Evident is also the lack of comparison to the United States. The reason for this lack of comparison were the options given by the United States research, which in this case were determined not to be environmental reasons but rather economic and social reasons (refer to Appendix D.1.6.1). Overall New Zealand understanding is certainly encouraging, and is perhaps an emphasis on our own perceptions of being a ‘clean and green’ country.
Table 5-6: Definition of answer choices to environmental reasons/benefits for sustainable buildings (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition
Option A Protection of the environment
Option B Reducing climate change and emissions Option C Minimising ecological impact of buildings Option D Scarcity of natural resources
Option E Improving indoor environment quality Option F Waste reduction
0%
Option C Option B Option A Option F Option E Option D
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-6: Overall international comparison of the environmental reasons/benefits of sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.1.7 Social Reasons for Sustainable Building
Question: What do you believe are the social reasons/benefits of sustainable building?
Harder to measure are the intangible, social reasons/benefits of sustainable building. In all three contexts, ‘greater health and well-being’ was seen to be the most important issue, however corresponding figures from the United States and Australia are significantly higher. As stated previously the differences between New Zealand the United States and Australia were the periods of each study and most significantly with the New Zealand study Green Star NZ was yet to be officially launched (refer to Figure 5-7 and Appendix D.1.7). Again, as experience with Green Star NZ develops and matures these societal reasons should increase with our greater understanding of sustainable building.
Table 5-7: Definition of answer choices to social reasons/benefits for sustainable buildings (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition
Option A Greater health and well-being
Option B Improved learning and healing environments Option C Tenant productivity
Option D Support for applicable economy (NZ, USA, AUS) Option E Moral imperative of being 'green'
Option F Aesthetically pleasing
0%
Option A Option E Option B Option D Option C Option F
Percentage
NZ USA AUS
Figure 5-7: Overall international comparison of the social reasons/benefits for sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.1.8 Sustainable Building Information Requirements
Question: What is your level of satisfaction with current information about sustainable building?
Surprisingly the United States and Australian information requirements were still substantially high, even though these countries have had BSRTs available and created more sustainable buildings, the demand for information has not decreased (refer to Figure 5-8 and Appendix D.1.8). Although, it is not necessarily the responsibility of a BSRT to fulfil this demand for more information, rather these results should be used in a way to propose further research and the employment of techniques to satisfy these information gaps.
Table 5-8: Definition of answer choices to information requirements regarding sustainable buildings (in order asked in New Zealand survey)
Option Definition Option A Green products
Option B Environmental and economic cost benefit case studies Option C Green building emerging trends
Option D Green projects
Option E How-to design a 'green' building
Option F Reviews and profiles of applicable BSRT buildings Option G Engineering or scientific information
Option H How-to market a 'green' building Option I Applicable BSRT accreditation course Option J How-to manage a 'green' building Option K 'Green' players (services guide) Option L Applicable BSRT players
Option M Business management information Option N Curriculum for senior executives Option O Curriculum for line staff
0%
Figure 5-8: Overall international comparison of information requirements regarding sustainable building (in order of highest to lowest in New Zealand)
5.2 Discussion
The purpose of the comparative analyses was to investigate the differences and similarities of the results found in this study, against findings from the United States and Australia. For example when compared to the United States (36%) and Australia (43%), almost 50% of the respondents in this survey expressed sustainable building was more likely to be considered during the
‘preliminary inquiries’.
Again in comparison, the importances placed on the drivers to sustainable building by the New Zealand building industry were lower than those of the United States and Australia studies.
For example ‘independent rating system’ accounted for 13% of the New Zealand respondents, whereas in the United States and Australia it recorded 58% and 53% respectively.
In all three studies ‘perceived higher upfront costs’ were seen to be the main obstacle for sustainable building, with New Zealand having an almost identical figure to the United States of 64%. While in other instances the New Zealand survey recorded similar levels of response, New Zealand’s views were often seen to be less important. For example ‘different accounting methods’ recorded a response of 10%, whereas in the United States and Australia it recorded figures of 45% and 38% respectively. Likewise in respect to the reason for sustainable building,
‘being part of an industry the values the environment’ recorded 72% in both the United States and Australia, but in New Zealand acquired a figure of 50%.
New Zealand’s demand for sustainable building information was significant, yet in both the United States and Australia the demand for this information doesn’t seem to have decreased, even though these countries have had BSRTs available and created more sustainable buildings.
However this could be a result of the longer availability and use of LEED and Green Star (Australia) in their respective markets, hence they have created a greater demand for sustainable building information.
While the comparative analyses identified both similarities and differences between the three countries, the results should be interpreted as a precursor for New Zealand’s future and not as an identical comparison. That the United States and Australian research were conducted with their respective BSRT already well established in the industry, whereas in New Zealand, Green Star NZ was yet to be officially launched.