In the article “Top Sustainable Technologies in Green Construction” by
ConstructionClimateChallenge (2019) statesthat
green construction “makes buildings more energy-efficient and sustainable”.
This article focuses on introducing sustainable construction technologies that
enhance the environment. Three main topics that the article is focusing on are the materials, applications, and design. Firstly,
the technologies under materials including “cool
roofs”, “electrochromic smart glass”, “rammed earth bricks”, “green
insulation”, “biodegradable materials”, and “sustainable resource sourcing”
suggest that it helps in the reduction of “heat absorption” and the harmful
impacts on the environment by using recycled or sustainable raw materials. Applications such as "water efficiency technologies", "sustainable indoor environment technologies", and "solar powers" are intended to conserve resources and discourage the use of substances
and materials that cannot be renewed while reducing damaging impacts on the
environment. The last point is on design, which includes “low energy house and zero-energy building design”, “self-powered building” and “the use of smart
application”. The applications are designed to conserve and produce energy for the building to generate
sufficient power. Green construction not only makes
buildings more sustainable by using resource-efficient and environmentally
friendly processes but also reduces costs for building owners.
While I agree
with ConstructionClimateChallenge’s main assertion, despite having
accessibility to a wide variety of sustainable construction technologies
available today, I feel that Singapore’s non-residential built industry has
not become much more environmentally sustainable because of three reasons:
construction practices, weather and space constraints, and cost. Cheong (2018) has stated that "Although Singapore aims to have 80% of buildings to be certified "green" by 2030, as of 2017 only 30% of the buildings were green."
First of all,
non- residential construction practices are one such reason why Singapore’s
non-residential construction practices have not become much more
environmentally sustainable. As stated by Yang (n.d), “Most builders or owners
are used to traditional building methods and do not know about the maintenance
savings”. In my opinion, builders or owners should adopt and be educated by having a more long-term perspective on
the importance of the entirety of the construction processes needing to be
environmentally-friendly by using materials and resources that are readily
available and are sourced sustainably. Chew (2010)
pointed out that “Sustainable construction focuses on the adoption of materials
and products in buildings and construction that will consume less natural
resources and increase the reusability of such materials and products of the
same or similar purpose”. Rising methods of sustainable construction such as
usage of green concrete or the implementation of environmental management practices
should be adopted. This will help to reduce the use of raw materials and waste
produced during the construction process as the entire lifespan of a green
building should be optimized to reduce its negative impact on the environment.
Secondly,
weather and space constraints are of another concern in the Singapore
construction industry. Singapore is in a unique geographical position that
makes it hard to utilize alternative energy. As Singapore is a small country
with limited land area, it is very hard to implement the use of renewable
energy sources such as solar energy and wind power, with solar energy being the
only potential source of renewable energy that could make an impact on the
energy grid. Alternative sources of renewable energy such as wind turbines in
Singapore is impossible because of the amount of wind speed needed to move the
turbines and because of the lack of space. Tan(n.d) pointed out that “wind
turbines take too much space.”
Lastly, the
initial cost of being environmentally friendly is seen to be expensive. Yong
(2018) stated that although “the return of investment can be recuperated within
three to six years within the typical lifespan of a building's mechanical
assets”, the initial start-up cost is expensive as these green products have to
meet certain strict requirements so as to achieve the required green
certification standards. Aside from the initial product cost, consultancy and
construction fees have to be taken into account, BCA (2017) has stated that
there is “green building recertification fees that recur every 3 years”.
Although there are government incentives provided to help accelerate the
adoption of environmentally-friendly green building technologies and building
design practices, there are still not many building owners that are willing to
make the change.
Despite its land
constraint, Singapore’s achievement of having 30% of the non-residential building certified
“green” is
impressive. Singapore has grown into a beautiful garden city, with the effort to be sustainable. I feel that Singapore needs to decrease the usage of non-renewable sources to truly be sustainable.
Reference
Building
and Construction Authority. (2017, September). Re-certification of green mark
buildings. https://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/others/EB_recert.pdf
Cheong.
Y. W. (2018, August 21). The missing piece in Singapore's green building puzzle
[Editorial]. Eco-Business. https://www.eco-business.com/news/the-missing-piece-in-singapores-green-building-puzzle/
Chew.
K. C. (2010, April 30). Singapore's strategies towards sustainable
construction. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19373260.2010.491641#:~:text=In%20Singapore's%20context%2C%20Sustainable%20Construction,the%20same%20or%20similar%20purpose
Tan. G
(n.d). A case study of Singapore: A garden city that is not so green. https://globuswarwick.com/2018/11/29/a-case-study-of-singapore-a-garden-city-that-is-not-so-green/
Yong.
R. A. (2018 January 10). Green buildings cost up to 5 per cent more, but
savings 'more than offset' costs. Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parliament-green-buildings-cost-up-to-5-per-cent-more-but-savings-more-than-offset-costs