3.9 Article

A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF GREEN BUILDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION WASTE MINIMIZATION USING BIG DATA IN HONG KONG

Journal

JOURNAL OF GREEN BUILDING
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 61-76

Publisher

COLLEGE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.3992/1943-4618.13.4.61

Keywords

green building; cost-benefit analysis; construction waste minimization; big data; Hong Kong

Categories

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71273219]
  2. Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC) General Research Fund (GRF) [17201917]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is generally accepted that the extra construction costs involved in the construction of green buildings will result in benefits including lower operation costs, higher sale/rental prices, and better sustainability performance. However, there has been little recognition of construction waste minimization (CWM) as one of the important benefits of sustainability performance as designated in green building. This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the cost benefit of green buildings with respect to CWM by using big data in the context of Hong Kong. The study is innovative in that it conducts a cost-benefit analysis specifically on CWM of green buildings by mining large-volume datasets. A surprise finding is that Hong Kong's green building rating system (GBRS), i.e. the BEAM Plus, has a negligible effect on CWM, while it generally increases construction costs by approximately 24%. Hence, the increased construction cost of green buildings cannot be offset by CWM if corresponding items in the BEAM Plus are not properly incentivized. This paper demonstrates the necessity of emphasizing CWM-related items in GBRSs and of taking appropriate measures to deal with them. It also provides better decision-support information on the increased construction costs and the attainable benefits of green building that developers may wish to consider when initiating a green building project.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available