Property Max Results Ltd.




Posted on 13 February, 2016 at 16:40


Legislation: The treat of legislation according to Sarah, S., Louise, E., & Philip, P., (2005), in a survey conducted across UK has been described as the first driver of sustainability in property sector, in the report summary, treat by legislators in various countries (UK for instance) has been observed to be the key driver in changing attitude of investors to possibly understand the financial worth implication of sustainability agenda. Furthermore, the last decade has seen substantial shift in attitudes towards sustainability, not only has sustainable development gained more attention within political debate between national and international level but has also become an important part of co-operate agenda in development economics. (Sarah, S., Louise, E., & Philip, P., (2005)). ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Energy efficiency is another driver for sustainability in property sector, because the ability for a building to perform or rather its efficiency is limited to how the building is designed, engineered constructed, operated and maintained. In order to achieve greater energy efficiency in a building depends on so many factors which include the building envelop, system types, energy end use, e. plugs loads and the operation of the building with regards to maintenance practices. (IFMA 2010). In their report of survey in 2010, IFMA foundation established that simple strategies to reduce heating and cooling loads include appropriate insulation, optimizing window glazing area, minimizing the filtration of air outside and the use of opaque roofing materials. Depending on how much daylight penetrates through the window into the interior space, the report mentioned that using common design features will give room for the enhancement of natural daylight into the building through the use of skylight, light shelves tubular day lighting and other means of day light harvesting will not only sustain a building but will also reduce the cost of energy consumption. (IMFA 2010) Similarly, in comparison IMFA report in 2010 on energy efficiency of a building has assumed that the energy cost of a building can be driven by so many factors among which are: Geographical, Climate and building type location. Even though energy cost has been argued by many professionals to the most controlled able expenses of any property unlike other expenses like taxes and insurance but if sustainability in this sector find its way globally we would not only pay less on energy consumption we might have a lot energy saved for the generations to come. For instance CEBECS (2003) in their energy saving survey arrived at the consumption of energy is about $1.09 per sq. ft. for all US building, $11.73 per sq/m for office building, various survey in US on energy saving assumed prices of energy has increased over the last 7years. CIOCHETI & McGowan (2009) rated the average commercial energy cost to have increased by 25% since 2000.Hence it's clear that the energy efficiency in a building is a pressing issue globally which according to IMFA (2010) report confirmed that building and industry energy consumption is growing even more intense and there is a call for sustainability in this regards OCCUPIER: The agitation of occupiers on sustainable homes cannot be overlooked when talking about drivers of sustainability in real estate. Occupiers according to Wittneben (2014) in a survey where over 100 stakeholder in real estate investment participated Emphasized that as liquidity improve on both the investors and occupier market a trend toward sustainability is seeing,. For occupiers as long as energy costs are very small fraction of rental value, they are not likely to be a crucial decision in their selection. See,Y., & TU (2011) in their survey report on Singapore property market have seen occupiers willingness to pay more on sustainable building once delivered and lived in, since they can verify the ''green'' claims by checking the electricity bills which implies that most of the occupiers in Asia, (or in Singapore precisely) are willing to pay for sustainable building after physical delivery and testing of the unit, so on the part of the investor it might likely to have a green lease with conditions if possible. The stand of occupiers would be discussed further in the circle of blame. THE CIRCLE OF BLAME Source: (World Green Building Council, 2013) Occupier. ‘We would like to have more sustainable buildings but there is too little choice’. This statement is the general opinion of occupier of real estate globally which has resulted in so many survey carried out across the world just to verify and affirm the position of occupier on sustainable buildings. Taking the report of Lasselle (2008) in a survey where over 400 occupiers participated globally it's clearly known that occupiers want sustainable buildings they are even willing to pay more for sustainable property but the availability is viewed by occupiers as sporadic. According to Jones Jang survey where over 47% of occupiers responded globally it was seen that the need for sustainable building by occupiers is not the question anymore, it's even the question of when will it be a critical issue, the answer to the 47% respondent is that sustainability is already a critical issue to them right now. To over quarter of remaining respondent arguing that sustainability will be an issue to them in short time, basically in 2 years’ time. As regards to whether or not sustainable buildings would cost more and what it's like to be the additional cost, according to their report Lassele (2008) said that occupiers are pragmatic in respect of the additional cost incurred by owners and developer in designing, delivering and certifying a building to BREEAM or LEED standards. Their survey report further expressed that 70% of North American respondent assumed that sustainable building will cost up to 10% more than the traditional building, a few percentage according to their report suggested that the cost for delivering a green building might be in excess of 10%, 11% of the total respondents maintained that sustainable building might actually cost less or more than conventional product. But whatever the case of how much it cost, occupiers showed a huge interest in sustainable property acquisition globally, evidence of which is shown in the report of this survey where two-third of respondent from North America, Asia Pacific, Australasia and EMEA are willing to pay a premium for sustainable buildings. 77% of occupiers who responded from North America are willing to pay a premium of 1-10%, a small percentage from this region are willing to pay a bit more in excess of 10%.Due to the market scarcity of sustainable property in Pacific Asia, 16 % of respondent from this region are even willing to pay double digit premium.( Lassele 2008 )

Categories: None

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.