2007, Volume 5, Number 1
Green Building in Hawai’i: Akamai Stewardship of our Land, or Just an Expensive Mainland Fad?
Green Building in Hawai’i:by LeAna Gloor
Akamai Stewardship of our Land, or Just an Expensive Mainland Fad?
The State of Hawai’i stands at a pivotal epoch. Out of all the states in the union, we pay the most for our energy costs. We also have scarce supplies of freshwater and finite options for waste disposal, and we are the most reliant on outside resources to be shipped across the Pacific Ocean. Considering those issues, we have reason to be a good model for sustainable development. Or, at least we should be heading towards sustainability. However, Hawai’i trails behind many other states in addressing basic environmental strategies and has been known to fluctuate hesitantly when it comes to adopting and enforcing restrictive environmental mandates. That tide may be turning for Hawai’i because the state has recently addressed the issue of sustainable building standards. Whether Hawai’i continues to lag behind progressive states or no depends largely on how effectively it adapts to the sustainable building standards that are quickly becoming industry standards for the rest of the country.
What exactly is sustainable building and why does it matter? Sustainable building is often called green building (it is also sometimes referred to as environmental building), and generally refers to a method of building strategies that are intended to significantly reduce the environmental and social impacts of a development. In a nutshell, the objectives of green building are:
To significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and on the building occupants, green building design and construction practices address: sustainable site planning, safeguarding water and water efficiency, energy efficiency, conservation of materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. (USGBC)
To illustrate why a strategy that evaluates sustainable building methods is advisable, consider that, “in the United States, buildings account for: 36% of total energy use/65% of electricity consumption, 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, 30% of raw materials use, 30% of waste output/136 million tons annually, [and] 12% of potable water consumption (USGBC). Improving those statistics could greatly reduce our overall ecological footprint.
Green building proponents claim that the environmental benefits of green building “enhance and protect ecosystems and biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce solid waste, [and] conserve natural resources (USGBC). On the economic side, green building is intended to, “reduce operating costs, enhance asset value and profits, improve employee productivity and satisfaction, [and] optimize life-cycle economic performance” (USGBC). Other factors, not to be overlooked, are the health and social benefits of green building. Green building focuses attention on the community in ways that traditional building methods never consider. Green building projects are reported to “improve air [quality], [provide for] thermal and acoustic environments, enhance occupant comfort and health, minimize strain on local infrastructure, and contribute to overall quality of life” (USGBC).
In May of 2006, Hawai’i Governor Linda Lingle signed a law requiring that all new state construction projects be built “green” according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, (referred to henceforth as LEED) Silver certification (Dowling). This law is a large progressive planning step for the State of Hawai’i, and a significant move towards sustainable development. While often private entities adopt green building strategies to reflect their ethics and visionary commitment, “when a public entity builds green, it reflects an entire community’s efforts to support and promote sustainability, and the public commitment has the opportunity to educate society and build momentum for the cause” (Busch). By signing this bill into law, Governor Lingle put Hawai’i on the map towards becoming a sustainable model for responsible development. This paper will examine the implications of that law, and explore exactly what green building is all about in order to answer the fundamental question: is this tool right for Hawai’i? LEED standards for sustainable buildings are stipulated by the U.S. Green Building Council (referred to henceforth as the USGBC). The USGBC is a nonprofit organization of professionals whose core purpose “is to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life” (USGBC). In 2000, the USGBC launched LEED to serve as “a voluntary certification program for building owners and developers. . . that stresses state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality” (Switzer).
According to the USGBC website, the “LEED Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. . .[and] provides a roadmap for measuring and documenting success for every building type and phase of a building lifecycle” (USGBC). As a design/ construction tool, it uses a 4-tiered approach to certify buildings as Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum - depending on the number of credits the project earns toward a sustainable rating.
What is noteworthy about this organization is that it is just that, a private organization and not a regulatory governmental agency. In fact, there is no such governmental entity that is focused on regulating the building industry in regards to sustainability. While various governmental agencies may have some influence into what goes into the Uniform Building Code, overall, the U.S. government has taken a backseat approach to ensuring that construction design and materials are sustainably developed. Considering the nation’s energy shortage and the subsequent rising costs of energy, the health considerations with toxic building syndrome, the implications of global warming, and our copious amounts of solid waste build-up, it seems obvious that the government should take an active role in stipulating that environmentally sound building strategies be practiced. However, so far organizations like USGBC are leading the way towards sustainability and not waiting for the federal government to catch up. It is cities and states that have shown the most willingness and interest in adopting green building standards, and it is with cities/states that we are seeing progressive sustainable planning initiatives that are redefining industry standards across the nation.
As previously noted, Hawai’i’s new law stipulates that all new construction projects for state buildings will need to be LEED Silver Certification. This regulatory mandate is seen as a legislative tool to pave the way for Hawai’i’s private industries to be introduced to green building strategies. By requiring that state building projects be built green, it necessarily requires that green building materials be developed and available locally, and Hawai’i professionals will be introduced and trained in green building techniques. The public will also be introduced, educated, and possibly influenced by the success of such building projects. According to an industry observer, “the lessons derived from these standard-setting public buildings have an opportunity to reverberate throughout a much larger community of individuals than a private building might influence” (Busch).
Is Governor Lingle going out on some political limb in mandating green building? If she is, she’s not out there alone. Lingle has brought Hawai’i into good company, as states such as Oregon, New York, Maryland, and Nevada already offer tax credit programs for high-performance buildings. If a recently introduced bill passes in the district of Washington D.C., it will become the first major city in the United States to require that private developers build green on all large commercial and city-funded residential construction (Stewart). Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Austin, Madison, Wis., Portland, Ore., and New York City have specific offices dedicated to green building that provide resources such as guidelines, education, advocacy, and direction towards financial incentives (Dowling). Despite the lack of federal mandates, the federal government has been an ardent LEED proponent. The U.S. Navy, Air Force, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, and the Department of State all reference LEED standards with a total of 7% of LEED’s projects being owned by the federal government (“Army” 9). The Army is also making a sustainable commitment by announcing that it will be changing its standards from its own Sustainable Project Rating Tool to LEED standards as of 2008 (“Army” 9).
However, if green building is much healthier and more sustainable, why isn’t everyone doing it? The largest obstacle to adopting green building at the industry and private level has been misconceptions about the costs. While ten years ago the up-front costs for building green were estimated around 15%-20% more than conventional construction, now the estimates range from only 2%-4% higher upfront, with a payback of energy savings estimated to take around 3-5 years (Switzer). Other estimates put the range at 10% less to 2% more than conventional buildings (Switzer). The new thinking is that green building, over the course of the life of the building, is actually more economical than conventional techniques; however, the myth that green building costs more is alive and well and remains a major obstacle to the green building movement. According to a recent survey:
The majority of executives (70%) queried indicated that they “perceived” higher construction costs as the biggest hindrance to adopting green building practices. Conversely, two-thirds of the executives with actual experience in green building reported a higher return on investment (ROI) for green buildings over conventional buildings. (Switzer)
This disparity between reality and professional perceptions has been an impediment to green building but it is slowly changing. According to a 2003 report by California’s Sustainable Building Task Force, “a 2% upfront investment in green building design results in 20% savings on total construction costs” (Switzer). While the life cycle cost factors, including improved health, environmental sustainability, and community enrichment, are not typically quantified in traditional cost-benefit analysis models, the idea that green building is good for business is helping to drive new interest in LEED standards. According to the founding chairman of the Opus Group, a $1.4 billion dollar real estate developer that builds sustainable buildings routinely, even despite their clients preferences, “Sustainable design is good business from an operational standpoint” (Switzer). The investment community is also being won over to the green building revolution and is developing a major pension fund that will consist exclusively of LEED projects because “buildings with better amenities and better working environments will ultimately be more attractive to tenants over the longterm, making them more valuable than those which are less environmentally friendly” (Switzer).
How do these numbers translate to Hawai’i concerns? One of the main factors that can drive up the costs of green building is the learning curve involved in exploring the technologies and products involved. When the learning curve is diminished by training and experience, there are zero cost differences between green building and conventional, or green building often comes out cheaper (Oliver). Another factor that can drive up costs is finding a general contractor that is interested in it. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the number of U.S. builders enrolled in green building programs are around 1,000 - and though they are growing, this still represents a tiny fraction of the housing industry (Weber). Temporarily, while Hawai’i struggles to catch up with the new techniques, the costs of building green may prove to be higher than conventional standards. Even in this case, we should view the higher costs as the natural growing pains that are to be expected as we adapt to a new model, and not as signs of the inherent failures of green building strategies. It is noteworthy to remember that financial concerns are not the primary drive behind green building; sustainability is about more than dollar signs.
The primary drive behind the green building movement is a fundamental shift towards sustainable values. This shift is not a new direction for Native Hawaiians, but more of a return to traditional philosophies that were practiced for thousands of years before the Anglo invasion of the Hawaiian islands. According to a nonprofit Hawaiian organization on the island of Hawai’i, Kanu o ka ‘Äina Learning ‘Ohana, they are choosing to build green because it supports the traditional value system of “malama ‘aina” and “aligns with the ancient wisdom of our ancestors who perfected systems that preserved resources and fed millions” (Marshall). Kanu o ka ‘Äina Learning ‘Ohana is currently in the process of designing and constructing a three-phase green project in Waimea, including a Community Center, and two Hawaiian schools.
There are already other impressive green building structures in the State of Hawai’i. On the island of Oahu, Iolani School’s Weinberg-Multipurpose Building is a multistory educational building designed to save 28% on its annual electric bill of $32,000 by designing the rooms to reflect sunlight indirectly into the interior spaces, thereby reducing the need for electrical lights. It is expected that these design improvements will lead to payback in savings in as little as 8-9 years if energy costs do not continue to rise (Kaneshiro). Another school that went green is Hawai’i Baptist Academy, which will save 45% on their annual electric bill by using 20 to 30% less water through waterless urinals and rainwater catchment for irrigation of its grounds (Kaneshiro). The Big Island’s Natural Energy Laboratory has a building called Gateway Center, which has the distinction of being the only building in Hawai’i with the Platinum LEED rating - the highest rating possible. This building serves as a site for research and meetings on renewable energy, modeling such advanced technologies as cold/deep seawater for their air conditioning units, an advanced solar array, and an overall design that works like a thermal chimney in drawing the hot air up out of the building (TenBruggencate). Even the moisture that condenses on the exterior of the cold water pipes from the coast is used to irrigate the vegetation around the building (TenBruggencate).
This is only the beginning for Hawai’i. There are numerous other projects in various stages of design and construction that demonstrate sound environmental strategies. The new law requiring state buildings to be built to LEED Silver rating will mean that we will see more municipal green buildings leading the way towards sustainability, which will in turn become the model for the private sector. Green building is good for Hawai’i. According to the Deputy Planning Director for Hawai’i County, Brad Kurokawa, green building is not a fad and isn’t going to go away. Trained in LEED standards, Kurokawa believes that green building is an industry standard that Hawai’i will have to spend some time catching up with in order to remain competitive with mainland states (Kurokawa). However, more important to Kurokawa than the business bottom-line is the overall philosophy behind green building that connects back to the traditional Hawaiian value of cherishing the ‘aina - the land. The ethical philosophy behind sustainable building is the bottom-line for many adherents to the movement. Especially in our island state of Hawai’i, where the benefits of conserving our finite resources are clear, where improvements to our overall health and satisfaction are drastically needed, and where the development of a sustainable model worthy of our keiki is in line with traditional Native values ��“ green building represents what is best for our communities on every level. We must reduce our dependence on outside sources for energy and goods. We must develop an akamai stewardship approach to our land if we are to live up to our state motto:
Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono
The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.
Works Cited
“Army Moving to LEED.” Indoor Environmental Quality Strategies. September 2006.
TenBruggencate, Jan. “‘Green’ building gets Honor.” The Honolulu Advertiser. 9 January 2006.
23 October 2006
Busch, Jennifer Theile. “Take the Leed.” Editorial. Contract. April 2006: 48.4.
Dowling, Everett. “Government must practice Sustainability.” The Honolulu Advertiser. 19 October 2006 23 October 2006
Kaneshiro Charles. “For New Buildings, “Green” Means Buck$.” Building Management Hawai’i. February 2005. < http://www.buildingmanagementHawai’i.com/205f_green_means.htm >.
Kurokawa, Brad. Personal Interview. 6 March 2006.
Marshall, Kehaulani. E-mail to the author. 20 November 2006.
Oliver, Felicia. “It’s Not Expensive Being Green.” Professional Builder. 8 August 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 2 November 2006. Path: Green Building.
Stewart, Nikita. “D.C. Moves to Become Pioneer in Forcing ‘Green’ Construction. Washingtonpost.com. 16 November 2006. 5 December < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501624.html >.
Switzer, Toccoa. “Altruistic or Opportunistic?” National Real Estate Investor. July 1, 2006. Lexis-Nexis 2 November 2006. Path: Green Building.
USGBC. 20 November 2006
Weber, Cheryl. “Growing Green: Cultivating a Sustainable Practice Doesn’t Always Come Naturally.” Residential Architect. 1 March 2006. Lexis-Nexis. 2 November 2006. Path: Green Building.
The paper was written as a research paper for ENG 315: Advanced English Composition.