Sustainable Development Issues and Built Environment HBP, USM – 18 July 2007

1. Sustainable Development Issues and Built EnvironmentHBP, USM – 18 July 2007 Mohd. Faris Khamidi Ph.D. Department of Construction & Real Estate Management, Faculty of Technology Management, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (U T H M) Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor Darul Ta’zim

2. UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA (UTHM)

3. Where we are? UTHM Main Campus

4. …cont. Where we are? UTHM City Campus UTHM Main Campus

5. …cont. Where we are? UTHM City Campus Here, We are! UTHM Main Campus

6. PREAMBLE “When there is LOVE, there is LIFE…”Mahatma Gandhi

7. PREAMBLE Relationship between National GDP and Construction Industry

8. CONCEPT (1)

9. CONCEPT (2)

10. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (1) “Sustainable design recognizes the interdependence of the built and natural environments; it seeks to harness natural energy flows and biological processes, eliminate reliance on fossil fuels and toxic materials, and improve resources and efficiency. In the short run, the impact of these changes will reduce the environmental impact of our designs. In the long run, the goal is to create buildings that are not only not harmful but actually part of natural systems and restorative of those systems. Sustainable design is concerned with the quality of our environment as a whole system”

11. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (2)

12. MODEL Is this the ONLY possibility?

13. Challenges ahead in The Built Environment URBANIZATION • More people means;More houses, shops, work-places, roads etc.More demand of products and servicesGreater demand for land • More People = More Cities • => More Impact • New Ideas, New Paradigms, New Approaches to Building and Construction are URGENTLY needed.

14. Other industries Production of (62.7%) materials for construction (10.9%) Transportation related to Operation of construction Building (5.0%) (10.2%) Construction work (1.3%) Operation of Business facilities (9.9%) Energy Consumption of Building & Construction

15. Building Life Cycle

16. The REAL Challenge GLOBAL WARMING

17. Ecological Outlook Figure 4.1 Emission of CO2 – From fossil fuels

18. Ecological Outlook Figure 4.2 Emission of CO2 – From cement production

19. Ecological Outlook Figure 4.3 Total final energy consumption

20. i n n o v a t i o n s

21. ¤Part I DBHS AS AN ‘ADAPTABLE BUILDING’ MODEL

22. Background Definition 1: “Adaptable Building” • In principle is a building that can last while its part gradually change thus place lighter load on natural and human resources and provide value to future generations. Kendall and Ando (2004)

23. Background Definition 2: “Adaptable Building” • Also means that a particular building system is capable of adapting to a particular situation or use; such as regional and climatic variances that include social, cultural and technical differences. Kibert, C.J., et. al (2002)

24. Background Definition: “Adaptable Building”model • A building system that is worthy of emulation. • DBHS as an example of “adaptable building” model is a building system that is worth to be emulated for sustainable housing scheme among developing countries.

25. Building related waste generation in Japan C&DW amounts to 20% of all the industrial waste and this amounts to 70% of illegal dumping. Increment of C&DW in JAPAN 1995 12 million tonnes 2010 42 million tonnes 2025 56 million tonnes In 2000, Japan achieved 26% of recycling rate for C&DW

26. Solid waste generation Unlike Japan, there is no compilation of C&DW amounts in Malaysia, Indonesia, China and India; however statistics show increase projection Of MSW data: Table 2: 1995 and 2025 Urban Per Capita MSW generation in Selected countries in Asian region

27. DEMOLITION REFURBISHMENT STAGE G O A L BM REUSE DFR DFD ACTION BM RECYCLE RESULT CW REDUCE DW REDUCE C&DW REDUCE Sustainable Strategy for C&DW minimization BUILDING PROCESS CONSTRUCTION USE SITING DESIGN WASTE PRE-VENTION + + source control Fig. 6: A sustainable strategy that emphasises C&DW minimization

28. Sustainable Strategy for C&DW minimization Waste Avoidance Most Desirable REDUCE Waste Minimization REUSE RECYCLING Waste Treatment RECOVER WASTETRANSFORMATION(physical, biological or chemical processes,e.g. composting incineration) Waste Disposal Least Desirable LANDFILLING Fig. 7: Hierarchy of Integrated Solid Waste Management plan

29. Dry-Masonry Brick House System (DBHS) To enable reduce, reuse and recycle of building materials becomes easier, as a condition to provide more flexibility in structural engineering, is proposed. Effective Use of Resources Demolition a system in which materials of different kinds (heterogeneous) shall not be bonded Construction scrap Reduce Scrap SRB-DUP Structure

30. Dry-Masonry Brick House System (DBHS) • Dry-Masonrymeans a dry method of constructing brick house where mortar is not required but instead “Steel Reinforced Brick construction based on Distribution of Unbonded Prestress (SRB-DUP) theory is used. Fig. 8: Double-storey DBHS Experimental House and 3D-view of clay brick used in the project. 2nd Experimental House

31. 乾式煉瓦造第３期実験棟 （建設地：福岡市東区香椎浜３丁目地内） 建築面積：83.66ｍ2 延床面積：156.40ｍ2 最高高さ：9.49ｍ 3rd Experimental House

32. Unbonded Structural System Structural composition of SRB-DUP Method consists of 6 main components, where vertical & horizontal reinforcements elements provide high strength quality in the seismic resistant DBHS wall Fig. 9: Structural Composition of DBHS Wall with SRB-DUP Method

33. Prestressed Unit for SRB-DUP Brick ・Larger Hole = Nut Hole ・Smaller Hole = Bolt Hole ・Including Joint Part in Vertical and Header Side ・Uniform Unit Size bｙ Grinding

34. Building Technology for Sustainability Outline of SRB-DUP Construction Method

35. Outline of SRB-DUP Construction Method Using vertical reinforcing element （Bolts and Nuts) and horizontal reinforcing plates, each unit is bolted and fixed (prestressed). DUP structure is constructed with breaking joint.

36. Sustainable Housing System • DBHS is a dismantle-able building system (structure) that incorporates DFD and DFR in its design-stage. • Achieve high Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and low Life Cycle Cost (LCC) performance. • During construction of DBHS experimental house in Kumamoto Pref., 98.34% of bricks used in the construction can be REUSED and the balance 1.66% can be RECYCLED. • Other parts like steel bolts, nuts and plates can 100% be RECYCLED caused they can be easily recovered and separated. Takasu and Khamidi (2001)

37. Summary of Conclusions ¤Part I • Growth in construction activities increases the rate of C&DW generation, thus its reduction becomes important. • A dismantle-able building system (structure) that incorporates DFD and DFR can be used as a sustainable housing scheme that emphasizes C&DW minimization. • Promotes 3R–reduce-reuse-recycle; enhances its application as an ‘adaptable building’ model. • Developing countries throughout Asian region highly regards brick as the main building material, therefore adapting DHBS is relevant and significant.

38. ¤Part II MALAYSIA GREEN BUILDING INITIATIVE: The Innovative Way Forward

39. Building Assessment Tools ¤Comparative Analysis ItalyTools Name: Potocollo ITACA (Federal Assesment for Italian Region)Main Attributes:indoor environmental quality, resource consumption, loadings, outdoor environment quality,management quality, quality of service, transportDeveloper:ITACA (Federal Assesment for Italian Region)Developed since: 2003Rating givem: negative(-2), minimum(0), good practice(+3), best practice(+5) South KoreaTools Name: Green Building Certification System(GBCS) of KoreaMain Attributes: Use of land, commuting transport, energy, materials & resource, water resource, atmosphere pollution, management, ecological powerment, indoor environmental qualityDeveloper: Korean Institute of Energy Research(KIER)- for office buildingDeveloped since: 2000Accrediation: 25 projects CanadaTools Name: GBToolMain Attributes: site selection, energy resource & consumption, environmental loadings, indoor environmental quality, functionality, long-term performance, social economic aspectDeveloper: Natural Resources Canada, handed to International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE) in 2002,Developed since: 1998Rating given: negative(-2), minimum(0), good practice(+3), best practice(+5) JapanTools Name: Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental & Efficiency (CASBEE)Main Attributes: indoor environment, quality of service, environmental loadings, outdoor environment on site, energy, resource & materials, off-site enviroment Developer: Japan Sustain Building Council(JSBC)Developed since: 2001Rating given:BEE>3=“s”(sustainable), 2.5<BEE<2.9=A,, 2.0<BEE<2.4=B+, 1.5<BEE<1.9=B-, 0.9<BEE<1.4=C United States of AmericaTools name: Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Main Attributes: Location, sustainable, water efficiency, indoor environment quality, materials and resource, energy and atmosphere, homeowner awareness, innovation & design process.Developer: United States Green Building Council (USGBC)Rating given: Platinum, gold, silver, bronze FranceTools name: High Environment Quality (HQE)Main Attributes: Construction, products & facilities, build with environment, water management, air qualityDeveloped since: 1996 United KingdomTools name: Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method(BREEAM)Main Attributes: Energy, transport, pollution, water, materials, land use & ecology, health & well-beingDeveloper: Building Research Establishment (BRE)Developed since: 1990Rating given: pass(25-39), good(40-54),very good (55-69), excellent(70-100) SpainTools Name: VerdeMain Attributes: Resource & environmental impact, environmental quality, social & economic impactDeveloper: Arquitectos, Urbanistas e Ingenieros Asociados, S.L..URating given: 0 to +5 Australia & New ZealandTools Name: GreenstarsMain Attributes: Management, indoor environment quaity, energy, water, materials, land use & ecology, emissionDeveloper: Green Building Council Australia (GBCA)Developed since: 2004Rating given: 4 stars(best practice), 5 stars(Australian excellence)

40. Building Assessment Tools ¤Comparative Analysis Table 4.1 Key Attributes in Ecological Dimension

41. Building Assessment Tools ¤Comparative Analysis Table 4.2 Percentage covered by ‘Possible Scores accumulated from Key Attributes in Ecological Dimension’ of ‘All Possible Scores accumulated from All Attributes of All Dimensions’ Total 96 attributes Total 85 attributes Total 122 attributes Total 51 attributes Derived from all possible scores accumulated

42. Building Assessment Tools ¤Comparative Analysis Table 4.3 Ecology attributes based on ‘Ecology of The Sky’ Eco-mimetic Figure 4.4 Images of completed Office Buildings based on ‘Ecology of The Sky’

43. B U I L D I N G P R O C E S S Malaysian Construction Industry Stakeholders ¤Result of Semi-structured Interview DEMOLITIONrefurbishment DESIGN USE SITING CONSTRUCTION VITAL STAKEHOLDERSDeveloper, Architect, Planner, QS, Manager etc. Figure 5.1 Stakeholders during Design Phase of building process

44. Malaysian Construction Industry Stakeholders ¤Result of Semi-structured Interview • Awareness of sustainable building and construction.- 80% said that law & legislation is the key • Awareness of Building Assessment Tools.- 100% believed it’s critical to improve building performance

45. Malaysian Construction Industry Stakeholders ¤Result of Semi-structured Interview iii) Importance of ecological attributes in Building Assessment Tools.□ design with local characteristics 100%□ indoor environment quality 60%□ site selection & building materials 40%□ impact on site & heat island 20%- % ecological attributes should be covered in BAT = 1/3 iv) Role that can be played to promote green building.- 100% agreed that involvement during the pre-construction phase is vital

46. Summary of Conclusions ¤Part II • Ecological attributes should at least covered 1/3 of the total attributes in Building Assessment Tool. • Building Assessment Tools is a critical check list/quality rating to improve building performance among Purposed Built Offices in Malaysia.

47. o n – g o i n g r e s e a r c h

48. IntroducingB E ES T A R I Building Environmental Efficiency as Sustainable Tool for Assessment and Rating Initiative

49. References Richards, I. (2001). “T.R.Hamzah & Yeang: Ecology of the Sky.” Australia: The Images Publishing Group Japanese Sustain Building Council. (2006). “Structure of CASBEE-NC Tool: Assessment of CASBEE.” Retrieved online from http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/method2E.htm. U.S. Green Building Council. (2001). “LEED Rating System Version 2.0.” Retrieved online from http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/LEED_RS_v2-1.pdf. Cole, R. J. & Howard, N. (2005). “Building Environmental Assessment Tools: Current and Future Roles.” Retrieved online from http://www.sb05.com/academic/4&5_IssuePaper.pdf. Fowler, K. M. & Raunch, E. M. (2006). “Sustainable Building Rating System Summary.” Retrieved online from http://www.usgbc.org/showfile.aspx?DocumentID=1915. Australia Green Building Council. (2007). “Green Star – Office Existing Building EXTENDED PILOT Rating Tool.” Retrieved online from http://nolog.gbcaus.org/gbc.asp?sectionid=89&docid=953. International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment. (2002). “GBTOOL V1.81.” Retrieved online from http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/sbc2k8/sbc2k8-start.htm. Sinou, M. & Kyvelou, S. (2006). “Present and Future of Building Performance Assessment Tools.” Management of Environment Quality: An International Journal. 17 (5). pp 570 – 586. Kawazu, Y., Shimada, N., Yokoo, N. & Oka, T. (2005). “Comparison of the Assessment Results of BREEM, LEED, GBTOOL and CASBEE.” Proceedings of The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference – SB05. Tokyo: SB05 Tokyo National Conference Board.

50. Green Built Environment is one way to make a difference.