5/12/20 (FINAL DRAFT) Reader's response

In the article “Top Sustainable Technologies in Green Construction” by ConstructionClimateChallenge (2019) states that 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