Sustainable buildings for healthier cities: assessing the co-benefits of green buildings in Japan

Accepted Manuscript Sustainable Buildings for Healthier Cities: Assessing the Cobenefits of Green Buildings in Japan Osman Balaban, Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira PII:

S0959-6526(16)00135-9

DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.086

Reference:

JCLP 6674

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 4 March 2015 Revised Date:

17 December 2015

Accepted Date: 27 January 2016

Please cite this article as: Balaban O, Puppim de Oliveira JA, Sustainable Buildings for Healthier Cities: Assessing the Cobenefits of Green Buildings in Japan, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.086. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Sustainable Buildings for Healthier Cities: Assessing the Cobenefits of Green Buildings in Japan

RI PT

AUTHOR 1: Balaban, Osman -City and Regional Planning Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 06800, TURKEY Email: [email protected]

SC

AUTHOR 2: Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A.

M AN U

-Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), São Paulo School of Business Administration (FGV/EAESP) and Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration (FGV/EBAPE), Brazil -COPPEAD Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPEAD/UFRJ), Brazil -School of International Relations and Public Affairs (SIRPA), Fudan University, China -United Nations University International Institute for Global Health (UNU-IIGH), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustantability (UNU-IAS), Tokyo, Japan

E-mail: [email protected]

TE D

-MIT-UTM Malaysia Sustainable Cities Program (2015-2016)

AC C

EP

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to both institutes for the support of the the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNUIAS) through their postdoctoral research programmes. We thank the interviewees for providing invaluable information and two anonymous reviewers, who gave constructive comments in the reviewing process.

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract

High concentrations of people and economic activities in urban areas have strengthened the links between cities, health and the environment. Cities are not only responsible for

RI PT

environmental and health problems but also they hold the key for a greener economy and a sustainable future. Urban built environment is a policy field where appropriate policies and actions could yield human and ecological benefits. Among different elements of urban built

SC

environment, buildings deserve particular attention due to their large contribution to

environmental and health problems. The concept of sustainable (green) building is a recent

M AN U

response to address the problems that stem from the building sector. However, the widespread implementation of the concept is hindered by significant challenges. This paper argues that manifestation of multiple benefits that sustainable buildings deliver could help overcome these challenges. The paper presents the extent to which green buildings could generate co-

TE D

benefits, and underlines the opportunities and barriers to push green building agenda forward.

The results indicate that green and sustainably renovated buildings could yield significant

EP

benefits in terms of energy and CO2 reduction, cost savings, and improved health situation for building users. The case study buildings with the best two performances are found to achieve

AC C

33% and 26% reduction in energy use intensity, and 38% and 32% reduction in CO2 emissions intensity in comparison to benchmark values. Reduction in energy consumption in the top two buildings corresponds to an energy cost saving of $ 1-1.5 Million per year per building. Furthermore, the top two buildings are found to provide improved health situations due to improved indoor and ambient air quality, better thermal comfort and more natural lighting indoors. Making more explicit the multiple benefits of sustainable buildings needs further consideration in this regard. We recommend that the public sector could take key

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT actions to accelerate the number of green buildings including fiscal support, technical

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

assistance and policy reforms.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Title of the manuscript: Sustainable Buildings for Healthier Cities: Assessing the Cobenefits of Green Buildings in Japan

RI PT

1. Introduction: Sustainable Buildings for Healthier Cities

Cities now accommodate more than half of the world’s population and the majority of its crucial economic activities. High concentrations of people and economic activities in urban

SC

areas have strengthened the links between cities, health and the environment, including

climate change (Costello et al., 2009). On the one hand, cities are responsible for between 67-

M AN U

76% of global energy use and considered to be both the causes and victims of local and global environmental problems (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2011; Balaban, 2012a; Seto et al., 2014). On the other hand, urban life is associated with a growing number of people with certain noncommunicable health problems, such as diabetes and cardio-vascular diseases related to high

TE D

levels of obesity, bad eating habits and lack of physical activities (Bai et al., 2012). The increasing role of cities in shaping global environmental and health outcomes has increased the attention on urban policies to address those challenges. Such policies mostly refer to

EP

interventions into key spatial elements in cities, and range from regional scale to building

AC C

scale (Balaban and Puppim de Oliveira, 2014).

The co-benefits approach addresses climate change mitigation concerns, while also addressing specific local problems or helping achieve specific development targets. The approach emerges as a win-win strategy or a means to achieve more than one outcome with a single policy (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013b). While one of these outcomes is definitely reduction in GHG emissions, the others can range from improved air quality or health conditions in cities to economic benefits and savings. Improving urban built environment could definitively

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT yield a series of the co-benefits above. The delivery of a local co-benefit along with the climate co-benefit is believed to be helpful in engaging policy and decision-makers to take action for climate change mitigation, which is normally not in their top priority list, especially

RI PT

in developing nations.

Strengthening the governance of different urban sectors is key to generate co-benefits and achieve a greener economy and healthier cities (Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013a). Among

SC

different sectors of urban development, the building sector deserves particular attention due to its contribution to environmental problems, especially global warming and low air quality.

M AN U

Urban buildings are among major sources of excessive resource use and energy consumption, and thereby potentially are large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. Moreover, buildings shape human health directly, as urban dwellers spend large part of their lives inside buildings.

TE D

The building sector is the largest energy consumer exceeding industry and transport sectors in many cities and regions, such as the European Union (EU) and the United States (Wang et al., 2012, Juan et al., 2010). Buildings’ share in total final energy use is 39% in the UK and 37%

EP

in both the EU and the US (Juan et al., 2010, Perez-Lombard et al., 2008). Forecasts and analyses indicate that energy use in built environment will grow by 34% by 2030, in which

AC C

shares of domestic and non-domestic sectors will be 67% and 33% respectively (PerezLombard et al., 2008). High use of energy in the building sector has increased the sector’s share in total GHG emissions. The sector is responsible for 15% of global GHGs, in which shares of commercial and residential buildings are 2/3 and 1/3 of this value respectively (Baumert et al., 2005). In the EU, energy consumption in building stock contributes to 25% of its total CO2 emissions (Uihlein and Eder, 2010). Share of buildings in total energy use and associated GHG emissions are lower in most developing countries, though the building sector

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT in China was already responsible for 25% of total energy consumed in the country in the last decade (Jiang and Tovey, 2009). Developing countries will surpass developed ones in energy use in urban buildings, as future urban population growth will take place mostly in developing countries. The annual growth rate of new building construction was around 7% in China and

RI PT

5% in India, as opposed to only 2% in the developed world in mid 2000s (Baumert et al., 2005). Proliferation of energy use and GHG emissions in urban built environment have made energy efficiency and saving strategies a policy priority particularly for developing building

SC

regulations in many countries (Perez-Lombard et al., 2008).

M AN U

Along with GHG emissions, building sector is also known to be responsible for health or wellbeing related problems in cities. In developing nations, the many of the urban poor live in low-quality buildings that are highly vulnerable to adverse environmental impacts due to either being located on hazardous sites or without adequate services in slum areas. Poor

TE D

residents of slums are exposed to various health risks and illness originating from unsanitary housing and indoor air pollutants (Ahmad and Puppim de Oliveira, 2015). For example, a cholera outbreak due to ground water contamination from insufficient sanitation measures

EP

resulted in death of 1,500 slum residents in 1988 in Delhi (Roy, 2005). Health-related impacts of buildings are not limited to slums. Previous research has shown that design of office

AC C

buildings may have significant influence on their occupants’ health and wellbeing (WorldGBC, 2014). An investigation on the relationship between view quality, day lighting and sick leave of employees in administration offices of Northwest University (Washington State, USA) has concluded that employees in offices with better daylight and views took 6.5% fewer sick days (Elzeyadi, 2011). Another study concluded that good indoor air quality led to reduction in absences of employees due to health problems. Milton et al. (2000) have found that short-term sick leave was 35% lower in offices ventilated with greater supply rates of

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT outdoor air. A case study conducted in Singapore indicated that naturally ventilated buildings had caused lower thermal discomfort when compared to air-conditioned buildings, which were overcooled and caused up to one-third of their occupants to experience cool thermal comfort sensations (De Dear et al., 1991). Thus, relevant policies in building sector not only

RI PT

help mitigate global and local environmental problems but also help improve health and living conditions of people living in cities.

SC

The concept of sustainable (or green) building is a recent response to address environmental and health problems that stem from buildings and reduce impacts of the building sector on

M AN U

natural environment, as well as on people. Although definitions vary, sustainable building refers to application of sustainability principles to design, construction and management of buildings so as to mitigate environmental footprints of building sector and its surroundings, and consequently on humans (Balaban, 2012b; Tan et al., 2011). More specifically,

TE D

sustainability in building construction and operation aims at minimization of environmental impacts and resource utilization as well as maximization of utility and investment returns in the building sector (Ding, 2008). There are two major strategies for making buildings more

EP

sustainable or greener. The first one is the construction of new (green) buildings, which represents a key policy to achieve urban sustainability by changing the built environment

AC C

(Cidell and Cope, 2014). The second strategy is the sustainable renovation of existing buildings, which is an alternative to new construction given high investment costs of new buildings (Juan et al. 2010). In the last decades, the attention on construction of green buildings and renovation of existing buildings with green technologies has grown considerably. Major outcomes of this attention are the establishment of green building councils and introduction of certification systems to assess environmental performance of buildings and certify best practices.

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Despite the progress in development of sustainable building concept, greening buildings has not taken place on a wider scale in both developed and developing countries (Rode et al. 2011). The widespread implementation of green building construction and renovation is

RI PT

hindered by various challenges. Some of the challenges are related to fundamental factors of building construction and renovation like cost, maintenance and operation (GhaffarianHoseini et al. 2013). Furthermore, institutional and policy challenges like low awareness on green

SC

buildings, confusion over implementation process and low coordination among key agencies

M AN U

have proved to limit green building activity (Van Schaack and BenDor 2011).

The manifestation of benefits that green and renovated buildings deliver, particularly in health, could help overcome the challenges towards sustainable buildings. So far, most research has focused on energy performance of buildings in consideration of increased energy

TE D

use in built environment. Assessment of building energy performance can help ascertain and monitor the efficiency of energy use in buildings as well as motivate building owners and tenants to improve the energy performance of their buildings (Wang et al. 2012, Ding 2008).

EP

Various methods, such as performance-based and feature-specific approaches; measurementbased and calculation-based methods; indicators as primary energy use and environmental

AC C

load, have been developed to evaluate building performance with regard to energy and sustainability aspects (Wang et al. 2012, Juan et al. 2010, Heiselberg et al. 2009). Yet, there is no “one size fits all” solution and no unanimous agreement on which method to choose and employ (Wang et al. 2012). Conversely, with the incorporation of new concepts like carrying capacity, and user comfort and satisfaction into building sustainability assessment, the assessment methods are becoming more diverse (Bendewald and Zhai, 2013, Gou et al. 2013). Thus, this paper is also an attempt to provide new insights into assessment of green and

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT renovated buildings based on the co-benefits approach. The paper departs from the idea that mainstreaming of co-benefits approach into building performance assessment can help manifestation of other benefits than energy savings, such as economic returns, resource

RI PT

security and improved health situations.

The co-benefits approach, as applied in this research, is different from the Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA), which is a method to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product

SC

through all stages of its life cycle. The LCA methodology aims at assessing the environmental impacts of a system from “cradle to grave” (EPA, 2006). However, the co-benefits approach

M AN U

usually aims to find out the multiple benefits of an intervention to a system at a particular part of the life cycle of that system. In building sector, for instance, LCA includes the entire life cycle of a building including design, construction, operation and demolishing stages, and attempts to assess the total environmental impacts of the building in terms of energy and

TE D

material uses as well as environmental releases. However, the co-benefits approach in this research focuses only on the operation stage of a building, which is generally responsible from 80% of the total energy use in a building’s life cycle (Ramesh et al., 2010), and attempts

EP

to manifest the multiple benefits of green design techniques and technologies utilized in a building. Moreover, co-benefits approach deals with reduction in energy use and its other

AC C

associated benefits, whereas LCA evaluates resource and material use along with energy consumption.

Currently, the use of co-benefits approach in performance assessment of buildings is limited to some recent research (Ardentea et al. 2011, Jiang et al. 2013) and thus not sufficiently covered in the literature. This paper aims to contribute to this emerging approach by applying it to the assessment of sustainability performance of both green and renovated buildings using

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the case of green buildings in the Greater Tokyo Area (GTA)1 in Japan. In order to understand co-benefits in buildings, this paper sets out to (a) apply the co-benefits approach to building performance assessment and manifest the major environmental, economic and health benefits of the case study buildings, (b) discuss the most common green design techniques and

RI PT

technologies used in the Japanese building sector, and (c) highlight the opportunities and barriers to promote sustainable (green) buildings as part of urban ecological infrastructure for

SC

healthier cities.

2.1. The Context of Japan

M AN U

2. Research Methodology

GHG emissions in Japan increased 9% from levels of 1990, reaching 1.37 billion tons by

TE D

2007 (Takemoto, 2011). Residential and commercial buildings are major sources of increasing emissions. For instance in Tokyo, residential and commercial buildings were responsible for almost half of the CO2 emitted in 2008 (TMG, 2011a). Therefore, one major

EP

focus of climate policy in Japan is the building sector, in which city and sub-national

AC C

governments have been leading many initiatives (Puppim de Oliveira, 2011).

Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) has taken the lead in Japan in addressing buildingsrelated environmental problems. At present, the Cap and Trade Program and the Green Building Program are the most important policy frameworks that regulate energy efficiency in building sector in the GTA. The roots of both policy frameworks date back to early 2000s, since then reduction of CO2 emissions has become an important policy goal for TMG. The 1

Greater Tokyo Area (GTA) is a large metropolitan area centered around the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) including several prefectures containing cities like Yokohama and Kawasaki. It is the world’s largest urban area with a population estimated in 38 million inhabitants (UNDESA, 2014).

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Cap and Trade Program (Tokyo CTP) was launched in April 2010, as the world’s first citybased cap and trade program including buildings (Roppongi et al., 2016). Tokyo CTP is a mandatory emissions reduction system and covers 1,300 large CO2-emitting facilities2 in commercial and industrial sectors (Nishida and Hua, 2011). Almost all of the high-rise

RI PT

buildings in Tokyo are included in the Tokyo CTP, which requires targeted facilities to reduce their emissions by 25% in two five-year periods from 2010 to 2020. The program also

includes an emission trading system that enables facility owners to sell their excess reductions

SC

or purchase others’ excess reductions (Nishida and Hua, 2011).

M AN U

While the Tokyo CTP targets existing buildings, the Tokyo Green Building Program (Tokyo GBP) focuses on new buildings with the aim of improving environmental performance of new building construction. The program requires owners or developers of all new buildings with total floor space exceeding 5,000 m2 to conduct an environmental performance evaluation and

TE D

publish the Building Environmental Plan, which presents the evaluation results on TMG’s website (TMG, 2011a, TMG, 2011b). The major aims of the Tokyo GBP are to encourage building owners to apply environmentally-friendly design principles based on TMG

EP

guidelines and to create a market to value green buildings highly (TMG 2011a and 2011b).

AC C

Furthermore, Japan has its own green building evaluation and rating system named the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE). It is a voluntary and non-regulatory program developed by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium during the early 2000s to promote sustainable buildings. The CASBEE system evaluates a building in terms of its environmental quality and performance (Q), and its environmental load on the external environment (L). In 2008, the CASBEE was revised in a way to add an explicit CO2 reduction target to the system. Yokohama City in GTA has

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT introduced the CASBEE Yokohama in 2005. According to the CASBEE Yokohama, owners of buildings exceeding a total floor space of 2,000 m2 are obligated to conduct selfassessments based on the CASBEE Yokohama guidelines and report the results to city government during the planning stage of construction. The city also introduced the CASBEE

improve environmental performance of their buildings.

SC

2.2. Data Collection

RI PT

certification system, which is of voluntary nature, in order to encourage building owners to

This paper is based on a case study research method (Ragin & Becker, 1992), which is

M AN U

appropriate to analyze problems in social sciences that need in-depth understanding of the context and cannot be addressed with quantitative data only. The research was carried out in several steps. First, a literature review on the relationship between the building sector and environmental issues including human health was made. In addition to the literature review,

TE D

the policy and legal frameworks that regulate sustainable (green) buildings in Japan were examined. During these steps, necessary information was obtained from various academic

EP

publications, governmental and nongovernmental documents between 2012 and 2015.

The data and information used to analyze the case studies in the buildings were obtained

AC C

through semi-structured interviews. We have conducted 11 interviews with 24 people in order to collect quantitative data and qualitative information. Interviewees were (a) owners of the case study buildings, (b) managers of the case study buildings, (c) design and construction experts of the case study buildings, (d) officials of Yokohama City and Tokyo Metropolitan Government, and (e) academic experts who are specialized on building energy efficiency in Japan. The interviews were semi-structured and interviewees were allowed to bring up new issues in line with the general discussion during the interviews. Most of the interviews were

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT conducted in 2012 but we had follow-up correspondence with some of the interviewees via emails and follow up recent in the literature between 2013 and 2015 in order to get additional information. Although we did not follow a rigorous set of questions, certain inquiries were raised during the research interviews. These inquiries were as follows: Current status of green and sustainable building construction in Japan,

•

Major policy and legal frameworks that regulate construction and renovation of green

RI PT

•

buildings in Japan,

Most common green design techniques and technologies currently applied in the

SC

•

Japanese building sector,

Major opportunities and challenges to promote sustainable (green) buildings in

M AN U

•

Japanese cities,

Quantitative data on energy consumption in case study buildings.

2.3. Case Study Selection

TE D

•

Seven case study buildings located in Greater Tokyo Area (GTA) were examined in the

EP

research. The reasons to focus on GTA in this research are two-fold. Firstly, it is the largest

AC C

and the richest urban agglomeration in the world, where crucial economic activities, powerful public and private institutions and key international organizations are concentrated. The headquarters of the biggest Japanese companies together with regional branches of some multinational corporations are located in GTA. Secondly, the governments of Tokyo and Yokohama are some of the leaders among Japanese cities to develop innovative policies for urban development and environmental management. Therefore, GTA showcases Japan in many aspects including new and innovative urban policies and state-of-the-art urban technologies. Moreover, after being elected as an Olympic City in 2020, Tokyo plans to show

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT case its green initiatives. Considering the current developments in green building construction and renovation in Tokyo Metropolitan Government and City of Yokohama, GTA has been selected as the case study area of the research.

RI PT

Case study buildings were identified based on certain features, such as occupation status, dominant function and size in order to facilitate a sound analysis, as well as access to the building information. In the case selection, priority was given to buildings with green

SC

certification or undergone sustainable renovation processes. We aimed to analyze both green and renovated buildings to see the differences in their performances. Four of the case study

M AN U

buildings (A, B, C and D) were designed and constructed as certified green buildings. These four buildings had been evaluated and certified by the CASBEE system. The remaining three buildings (E, F and G) were renovated as green buildings, i.e. these buildings have gone through renovation processes in which they were equipped with some green technologies to

TE D

increase their energy and resource efficiency. We have also given priority to large office buildings in selection of case study buildings. Although urban buildings show a greater variety (including offices, industrial buildings, residential apartments, sports halls and

EP

convention centers and hotels), large office buildings deserve particular attention due to their high energy and resource use. Besides, urban residents spend most of their time in their work

AC C

places and it is mainly the service sector and office buildings, where people in cities are employed. So, if there is a link between human health and urban buildings, office buildings are among the most appropriate places to focus on. Therefore, the dominant use of the case study buildings is office use but in most of them additional public or commercial functions exist. Table 1 presents the key information on case study buildings.

Table 1 around here

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Data availability and accessibility has limited the selection of case study buildings, even though we collected general information about the building sector in Japan from the interviews. Building owners and managers in Japan usually regard quantitative data on energy

RI PT

and resource consumption in their buildings as commercial information and tend not to share such data with third parties. Furthermore, there were challenges to reach quantitative data on energy and resource consumption through city governments, as building owners usually add

SC

confidentiality notice for such data they submitted to municipalities. These challenges made it difficult to increase the sample size of the case study research. Owners or managers of various

M AN U

green or renovated buildings in GTA were contacted in order to make research interviews and collect data. Some of them did not accept our request to interview them due to concerns over commercial confidentiality. Thus, priority was given to buildings with accessible contact persons and required data, and we ended up with 7 cases. Given the limitations on sample

TE D

size, we are not in a position to make generalizations for the entire Greater Tokyo Area and for all types of buildings in the GTA. However, the sample size of this research is sufficient to provide new insights on how effective green and renovated buildings are in generation of co-

EP

benefits. There are published papers in the literature, which are based on empirical research with lower samples (see Ardentea et al. 2011; Bendewald and Zhai, 2013; Jiang et al. 2013).

AC C

Moreover, many of the interviews addressed general questions about the building sector in Japan that went beyond the specific buildings.

2.4. Methods for Data Analysis

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The co-benefits of case study buildings were calculated or manifested in terms of environmental benefits, economic benefits and health benefits. Environmental benefits comprise of reductions in (a) energy use intensity and (b) CO2 emissions intensity. Economic benefits originate from cost-savings from reduced energy consumption in a building. There

RI PT

are other co-benefits of green and sustainable buildings, such as the health improvement. Health benefits are inevitable outcomes of green and sustainable buildings, even though the

SC

benefits may not be quantifiable because of their nature or lack of data.

The green technologies that are applied to make buildings more sustainable also enable the

M AN U

occupants of these buildings to live in healthier indoor and outdoor environments. Four main health benefits are observed in case study buildings based on the use of sustainable strategies and green technologies. These health benefits are (a) better indoor air quality, (b) more natural lighting indoors, (c) better ambient air quality and less heat to pedestrians and (d) improved

TE D

thermal comfort. Health benefits are not very easy to quantify. Long-term in-depth research are required for sound quantification of health benefits delivered by sustainable buildings. Due to lack of available data from the case study buildings, we could not make a precise

EP

quantification of the health benefits of the case study buildings. On the other hand, an assessment of the health benefits could be made on the applied green strategies (Table 2). By

AC C

considering the green strategies applied in case study buildings, we identified the health benefit(s) delivered by the buildings (Table 3). For each health benefit that a case study building delivers, a plus (+) sign is given in Table 3. Therefore, each plus (+) sign corresponds to one of the likely four health benefits. For instance, the building with four plus signs was found to provide all of the four health benefits from (a) to (d) specified above, whereas the building with one plus sign provides only one of the four health benefits.

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Energy use intensity, which is the total energy use per square meter per year in a building, was calculated as per the equation given in Box 1. There are three major sources of energy use in the case study buildings. The first is the electricity consumption for lighting, ventilation, appliances, hot water supply, etc. The second and third sources are for heating and

RI PT

cooling of the buildings based on the consumption of heated water and cold water from

District Heating and Cooling Centers (DHCS). We collected the numerical data on electricity, heated water and cold water consumption from building owners or managers during the

SC

fieldwork. The energy data collected during the fieldwork belonged to 2010 and 2011. In order to calculate the total annual energy use of a building in a single unit, we used the

M AN U

conversion factors for electricity, heated water and cold water specified in the Energy-Saving Law of Japan. The conversion factors are 9.76 MJ/kWh for electricity and 1.36 MJ/MJ for district heat and cold water. These factors are widely used in Japanese building sector by building owners and managers to calculate total energy use of buildings and compare energy

given in Box 2.

TE D

performances of buildings. Details of calculation of total annual energy use of a building are

EP

BOX 1 and BOX 2 and BOX 3 around here

AC C

Likewise, CO2 emissions intensity was calculated per square meter per year based on total energy use in a building that consists of annual electricity consumption and annual heated water and cold water consumption. To make this calculation, specific CO2 emission factors for electricity and natural gas reported by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Tokyo Gas were used. According to the TEPCO Environmental Indicator Performance Record, CO2 emission factor for Tokyo electricity (including Yokohama) is 0.384 kg-

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CO2/kWh for 2009.2 Likewise, Tokyo Gas Group CSR Report 2011 indicates the CO2 emission factor for Tokyo electricity as 0.384 kg-CO2/kWh for 2010. Besides, in the latter report, CO2 emission factor of steam and cooling water in Tokyo (including Yokohama) is listed as 0.057 kg-CO2/MJ for the period of 2007–2010.3 Total CO2 emissions and CO2

RI PT

emissions intensity of case study buildings were calculated as per the equation given in Box 3.

The energy use intensity and CO2 emissions intensity figures of the case study buildings were

SC

evaluated against benchmark levels in order to see the extent to which energy consumption and CO2 emissions had been reduced in the buildings. Benchmark levels are the average

M AN U

values of annual energy consumption per square meter and CO2 emissions per square meter in office buildings in Greater Tokyo Area for the years 2011 and 2012 respectively. Benchmark values were taken from official documents provided by the TMG and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). The benchmark value for energy use intensity (2,306 MJ/m2/yr)

TE D

was determined through a comprehensive research titled the “Database for Energy Consumption of Commercial Buildings” between 2007 and 2011 (JSBC, 2012a; JSBC 2012b). The benchmark for CO2 emissions intensity was determined by the TMG based on

EP

the reports submitted in accordance with the Tokyo Carbon Reduction Reporting Program for Small and Medium-scale Facilities (TMG, 2012). The CO2 emissions benchmark, which is

AC C

99.6 kg/m2/yr, is the value that applies to semi-large-sized buildings that include complex commercial facilities for the year 2012 (TMG, 2012). Since we had difficulties in finding updated benchmark values for CO2 emissions intensity of large-scale office buildings in the GTA, we had to use the benchmark for semi-large sized mixed-use buildings.

2 The report can be found on the following link: http://www.tepco.co.jp/corporateinfo/company/annai/shiryou/images/kankyo.pdf 3 The report can be found on the following link: http://www.tokyo-gas.co.jp/csr/report_e/environment/06_09.html

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT As one of the major co-benefits of green buildings, monetary gains were calculated by using total amount of energy savings in case study buildings. This calculation was based on assumptions that energy savings bring monetary benefits to users of buildings. In order to calculate economic benefits, unit prices of electricity, steam and cold water (for indoor

RI PT

heating and cooling) were used. Unit prices of electricity (JPY18/kWh) and heating and

cooling energy (JPY5.6/MJ) were taken from reports by the Energy Conservation Center of Japan (ECCJ) and the Minato Mirai 21 District Heating and Cooling Company respectively.4

SC

Box 4 presents the details of calculations of economic benefits.

M AN U

BOX 4 around here

3. Results of the Research in the Case Study Buildings

TE D

3.1. Sustainable Strategies and Green Technologies in Case Study Buildings

Green or renovated buildings are equipped with design strategies and advanced integrated

EP

technologies to reduce energy and resource consumption as well as to increase living and comfort conditions. There are two basic design paradigms of strategies and technologies

AC C

applied to buildings in order to make them green and sustainable; “passive design” and “active design” (Rode et al. 2011). In passive design, natural elements such as air-flow and sunlight are used to provide a comfortable indoor environment while reducing energy demand for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) applications. Conversely, active design is based on the use of newer technology and state-of-the-art systems to improve energy 4 (a) For unit price of electricity, please see the report titled “Guidebook on Energy Conservation for Buildings: 2010/2011” by the ECCJ from the following link: http://www.asiaeec-col.eccj.or.jp/brochure/pdf/guidebook_for_buildings_20102011.pdf (b) For unit price of heating and cooling energy, please see the report titled “MinatoMirai 21 District Heating and Cooling” prepared by the Minato Mirai 21 District Heating and Cooling Company. Same information can be found on the company’s website from the following link: http://www.mm21dhc.co.jp/english/faq/index.php#qes6

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT efficiency and reduce energy demand and resource consumption in buildings. The mainstream approach in Japanese building sector is to apply both paradigms to new building construction and building renovations. In all of the case study buildings, application of both paradigms has been observed, although with varying degrees. Table 2 presents the common design strategies

RI PT

and integrated technologies observed in case study buildings. The use of strategies and

technologies listed in Table 2 has led to the sustainability performance of case study buildings shown in Table 3 and explained in section 5.2. Moreover, these strategies are known to

SC

provide a better indoor air quality, thermal comfort and more daylight in buildings, which in

Table 2 and Table 3 around here

M AN U

turn may influence the health and wellbeing of the occupants in positive ways.

TE D

3.2. Co-Benefits of Case Study Buildings

The results of the case study analysis are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that green buildings can yield significant environmental, economic and health benefits. The case study

EP

building with the best performance in this research (Building A) has an energy use intensity of 1,537 MJ/m2/yr, which is 33% less than the average energy use intensity of office buildings in

AC C

the GTA in 2011. Likewise, CO2 emissions intensity in this building is calculated as around 62 kilograms per square meter, 38% less than the average of semi-large sized mixed-use buildings in Tokyo in 2012. Based on the reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions, the case study building with the best performance is found to yield an annual economic benefit of approximately JPY 183 Million (approximately USD 1.5 Million in 11/2015) to its occupants, corresponding to JPY 2,000 per square meter. Building B, which has the second best performance, also delivers substantial amount of environmental and

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT economic benefits like the Building A. Furthermore, the two case study buildings with the top two performances are also found to provide all of the likely four health benefits (Table 3).

When average values of all case study buildings are considered (last row of Table 3),

RI PT

important environmental and economic benefits are also observed. The energy use intensity in all case study buildings analyzed is 2,043 MJ/m2/yr, which corresponds to 11.4% reduction compared to the benchmark level. The associated CO2 emissions of average annual energy

SC

consumption in case study buildings are calculated as 85 kilograms per square meter, 14.6% less than the benchmark (Table 3). Furthermore, the average economic benefit yielded by all

M AN U

case study buildings is calculated as JPY 116 million per year, corresponding to around JPY 1,000 per square meter. Finally, in all case study buildings, there is at least one health benefit that emerges from active and passive design strategies applied.

TE D

Among the case study buildings examined, best performances mostly belong to green buildings, especially the ones that are already in use. The top two performances belong to Building A and Building B, which were designed and built as green buildings and have been

EP

in use for some years. They are followed by another green building, Building C, which was about to be occupied at the time of the fieldwork. On the other hand, it has been observed that

AC C

existing renovated buildings may perform as well as green buildings. This is mostly due to wider implementation of District Heating and Cooling Systems (DHCs) and Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) in Japan. Building F is a good example of an energy-efficient renovated building, as energy use intensity and CO2 emissions intensity in this building are respectively 15.5% and 21.6% lower than benchmark values. When health benefits are considered, renovated buildings are found to score lower than green buildings. Building F, which has the top performance among renovated buildings, provides its occupants with two health benefits

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (indicated with two plus signs), which are more natural lighting indoors and improved thermal comfort.

Actual performances of green buildings are better than their planned performances mainly

RI PT

because of good energy management during operation phase. Efficient use of energy in large commercial buildings has for some time been a policy priority and a significant concern for national and local governments as well as building owners and managers in Japan. The energy

SC

shortage caused by the accident in Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant after the Tohoku

Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 has increased such concerns over energy consumption in the

M AN U

building sector. Owners and managers of large commercial buildings within the supply area of Tokyo and Tohoku power companies were asked by national and local governments to reduce energy consumption in their buildings by 15%. In line with this request, several measures and strategies were introduced to cut down energy use in large commercial

TE D

buildings in the GTA. For instance, managers of Building A have introduced three particular strategies in this respect: lunch-time darkening, turning off the lights at 8pm and 9pm every night so as to darken the offices with no staff and shutting down heating and cooling system at

EP

6pm every day. The first two strategies were calculated to reduce electricity consumption for lighting by 17.4%. In sum, such measures and strategies have been effective in improving

AC C

energy efficiency of green buildings, leading to better actual performances than planned.

Another interesting finding is that owner-occupied buildings had better performance than tenant-occupied ones. Although there is only one owner-occupied building (Building A) among the case study buildings, better performance of owner-occupied buildings was also verified by the interviewees during the fieldwork. Considering the monetary gains from energy and resources savings, buildings owners do not hesitate to invest in green technologies

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT in owner-occupied buildings. Monetary benefits constitute significant returns on their investments. Yet, in tenant-occupied buildings, building owners tend not to invest much in such technologies, as monetary gains would go to tenants.

RI PT

Performance of case study buildings in terms of reduced energy and resource consumption is based mainly on efficiency improvements. Cleaner and renewable energy sources are not in place yet. In all case study buildings, share of renewable energy in total energy supply was

SC

either non-existent or very marginal. However, increasing attention on use of geothermal energy and ground source heat pumps in building sector may be an opportunity for future

M AN U

initiatives in Japan. Despite limited progress in use of renewable energy in the building sector, performances of green and renovated buildings in major Japanese cities are superior to their international counterparts. For instance, in Jiang and Tovey’s research (2010), the CO2 emissions intensity in their case study buildings were 178 kg CO2/m2/year in Beijing and 119

TE D

kg CO2/m2/year in Shanghai, whereas the average CO2 emissions in case study buildings in

4. Discussion

EP

this research was 85 kg CO2/m2/year.

AC C

4.1. Challenges or Barriers to Sustainable Buildings

The interviews conducted during the fieldwork helped us identify the major barriers that hinder widespread implementation of sustainable (green) buildings in Japan. According to the interviewees, initial investment costs are the main barrier to promote sustainable buildings in Japan at present, as green technologies and measures generally result in high investment costs. There are not many incentives from the Japanese government for real estate and construction

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT companies in this respect. Therefore, the major benefit to building owners is the cost savings from reduced energy consumption overtime for the occupants and trading opportunity in case of emission reductions. Companies, which are interested in constructing a green building or retrofitting their buildings, have to bear the upfront costs by themselves, and wait for the

RI PT

payback period to get returns on their investments. As per our interviewees, payback period of green building technologies in Japan is around ten years, which may be long for companies with limited resources. For this reason, main players in green building market in Japan are

SC

now big companies with sufficient resources. At present, green buildings in the GTA are

either the HQ buildings of large corporations or leasehold buildings of big construction and

M AN U

real estate firms.

As an outcome of the previously situation, owner-occupied buildings seem to have advantages over leasehold buildings, as concerns over return in investment are higher in case of the latter,

TE D

as the owner itself benefits from energy savings. For this reason, pioneers and the leading examples of green buildings, such as building A, are generally owner-occupied ones. However, green building construction for rental purposes is increasing in recent years in

EP

Japan. The interviewees confirmed that big construction companies are investing in green building construction for rental purposes, as there is also a growing interest in the demand

AC C

side (tenants), so as to develop technologies and innovative solutions to export later.

Fragmentation of legal and institutional frameworks is another significant barrier. Several policy and legal frameworks have been developed by different public bodies in Japan with regards to green and renovated buildings, making the entire system too complicated to follow and comply with. The interviews have shown that companies with limited financial and human resources have many difficulties in this respect. Furthermore, there are various public

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT authorities involved in the system and in some cases responsibilities are divided among them in not always efficient ways. For instance, responsibilities regarding energy consumption in buildings are divided between the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) based on stages of

RI PT

construction. MLIT is responsible to deal with energy-related issues before and during the construction of buildings and then METI is in charge of the same issues when construction is over and the building is put in use. In Japan, the institutional complexity is known to hinder

SC

the achievement of energy efficiency goals set by policy and legal frameworks, as widely

M AN U

confirmed by our interviewees.

The complicated nature of policy frameworks hinders promotion of sustainable buildings in Japanese cities. Policy frameworks related to building energy and environmental efficiency, such as the Tokyo CTP and the CASBEE, are complicated and time-consuming. Our

TE D

interviewees have mentioned that a certain level of in-house expertise was required to follow and comply with these frameworks. Therefore, companies with limited resources are discouraged to implement green technologies in their new building construction investments.

EP

Moreover, most initiatives are on voluntary basis. Regulatory and mandatory programs are very recent and they stem from policy frameworks that are not specifically for building

AC C

construction. Some of the interviewees noted that there were no mandatory regulations or standards regarding energy and environmental efficiency in the Building Act of Japan.

4.2. Opportunities for Sustainable Buildings

Our interviews also provided us with information to discuss the key opportunities for wider and better implementation of sustainable (green) buildings in Japan. Political will and

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT commitment can be considered as one of the major success factors in promotion of green and renovated buildings in Japan. There is a general consensus among public and private agencies that in order to tackle global environmental problems and energy scarcity the focus should be on crucial sectors of urban development. The building sector is one of them, where policy

RI PT

initiatives to address environmental problems including climate change have been introduced by public authorities. Tokyo’s Cap and Trade Program (Tokyo CTP) was negotiated during many years and required political commitment from the authorities and other stakeholders

SC

(Roppongi et al., 2016). The interviews conducted during the fieldwork have shown that

public officials are well-aware of the problem and have significant motivation for further

M AN U

improvements.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) of private sector companies is common among private companies in Japan. Many companies undertake voluntary actions to address environmental

TE D

problems like climate change as part of their CSR. All building owners and managers interviewed have confirmed that good company image and improving their CSR were among the main motivations behind their actions regarding green building construction or building

EP

renovation for sustainability.

AC C

Lastly, competition in the sector seems to be effective in promoting green and sustainable buildings in Japan. As new green buildings are coming to the market with superior design strategies and technologies, this motivates construction and real estate companies to construct green buildings or renovate their buildings in order to attract tenants displaying their technologies. Japan has at least five big construction companies that have high institutional and innovative capacity. These companies tend to develop and import new green technologies

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and therefore are willing to invest in green buildings, which is an important opportunity for future.

RI PT

5. Conclusion

In order to achieve sustainable development goals, a large urban transformation is necessary (McCormick et al., 2013). Sustainable or green buildings, as application of sustainability

SC

principles to building sector, can be an effective strategy to address adverse environmental impacts and fundamental to create healthier and more ecological cities. This research presents

M AN U

the extent to which green and renovated buildings could generate co-benefits, and underlines the opportunities and barriers to push sustainable buildings agenda forward. The research was limited to buildings in the GTA, what limits the scope of the study. Nevertheless, because GTA is one of the leading urban regions in the world in terms of building policies, many of

TE D

the lessons and recommendations can be useful for cities and countries that are starting to develop green building initiatives. Based on the results of the research, following points are drawn as major conclusions, policy implications and recommendations to eliminate barriers

EP

and utilize opportunities.

AC C

Construction of green buildings or sustainable renovation of existing ones can help mitigate carbon emissions by reducing energy demand and increasing energy efficiency in buildings. Furthermore, green and sustainable buildings can also provide their inhabitants with healthier living and working environments with improved thermal comfort and more natural ventilation and lighting. Along with environmental and health benefits, higher returns on investment in green buildings are also very likely to occur. However, there are various challenges to overcome in order to deepen the co-benefits of green and sustainable buildings.

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Certification systems alone are not enough for a widespread development of green buildings. Support mechanisms of various sorts should be introduced to help companies with limited human and financial resources to advance in the construction and rent of green buildings.

RI PT

Financial support and incentive mechanisms are crucial in this respect, as well as proper

regulations. Financial support should be provided to assist companies during the payback period of their green investments. Particularly, tax incentives and long-term loans that will be

SC

paid back by cost-savings could be a plausible policy option. As part of supportive

mechanisms and coordination among agencies (Van Schaack and BenDor 2011), revisions

M AN U

should be made to policy and legal frameworks to make them less complicated, straightforward and well-integrated to facilitate policy implementation.

Building owners are in a better position to green buildings compared to tenants, so better

TE D

communication between owners and tenants could help latter become more aware and knowledgeable about legal frameworks to achieve energy and environmental efficiency. Governments should develop mechanisms to increase owner and tenant communication and

EP

collaboration. In a similar direction, mechanisms are needed to raise awareness of and provide more information to basic consumers within the building sector. Finally, regarding building

AC C

green codes and certifications we recommend based on the literature (World GBC, 2014; Elzeyadi, 2011; Milton et al., 2000) that they go beyond the typical environmental criteria and include other issues such as health (e.g., natural light, ventilation and indoor quality) as well as incentives to physical activity of the occupants, such as using the stairs for short internal trips, as well as behavior change in the use of energy or water.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References

Ahmad, S. and Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., 2015 (in press). Fuel switching in slum and nonslum households in urban India, Journal of Cleaner Production.

RI PT

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.072

Ardentea, F., Beccali, M., Celluraa, M. and Mistretta, M., 2011. Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew. Sustain. Energy

SC

Rev., 15(2011), 460–470

Bai, X., Nath, I., Capon, A., Hasan, N. and Jaron, D., 2012. Health and wellbeing in the

M AN U

changing urban environment: complex challenges, scientific responses, and the way forward. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(2012), 465–472. Balaban, O., 2012a. Climate change and cities: a review on the impacts and policy responses. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 29(1), 21-44.

TE D

Balaban, O., 2012b. The negative effects of construction boom on urban planning and environment in Turkey: unraveling the role of the public sector. Habitat International, 36(1), 26-35.

EP

Balaban, O. and Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., 2014. Understanding the links between urban regeneration and climate-friendly urban development: lessons from two case studies

AC C

in Japan. Local Environ.: The International J. of Justice and Sustainability, 19(8),

868-890.

Baumert, K.A., Herzog, T. and Pershing, J., 2005. Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Bendewald, M. and Zhai, Z., 2013. Using carrying capacity as a baseline for building sustainability assessment. Habitat International, 37(2013), 22-32

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Cidell, J. and Cope, M.A., 2014. Factors explaining the adoption and impact of LEED-based green building policies at the municipal level. J. of Environ. Plan. and Management, 57(12), 1763-1781. Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N.,

RI PT

Johnson, A., Kett, M., Lee, M., Levy, C., Maslin, M., McCoy, D., McGuire, B.,

Montgomery, H., Napier, D., Pagel, C., Patel, J., Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. et al., 2009. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College

SC

London Institute for Global Health Commission. The Lancet, 373 (2009), 1693–1733. De Dear, R.J., Leow, K.G. and Foo, S.C. 1991. Thermal comfort in the humid tropics: field

Biometeorot, 34, 259-265.

M AN U

experiments in air conditioned and naturally ventilated buildings in Singapore. Int J

Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable construction – the role of environmental assessment tools. J. of Environ. Plan. and Management, 86(2008), 451-464.

TE D

Elzeyadi, I.M.K., 2011. Daylighting-bias and biophilia: quantifying the impact of daylighting on occupants’ health. Available at:

http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/OR10_Daylighting%20Bias%20and%20Bio

EP

philia.pdf Accessed 15.02.2015.

EPA (2006), Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. EPA/600/R-06/060, May 2006,

AC C

Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

GhaffarianHoseini, A.H., Dahlana, N.D., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N. and GhaffarianHoseini, M., 2013. Sustainable energy performances of green

buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 25(2013), 1–17. Gou, Z, Prasad, D. and Lau, S.S.-Y., 2013. Are green buildings more satisfactory and comfortable? Habitat International, 39(2013), 156-161.

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Heiselberg, P., Brohus, H., Hesselholt, A., Rasmussen, H., Seinre, E. and Thomas, S., 2009. Application of sensitivity analysis in design of sustainable buildings. Renew. Energy, 34(2009), 2030–2036. Jiang, P. and Tovey, N.K., 2009. Opportunities for low carbon sustainability in large

RI PT

commercial buildings in China. Energy Policy, 37, 4949-4958.

Jiang, P. and Tovey, N.K., 2010. Overcoming barriers to implementation of carbon reduction strategies in large commercial buildings in China. Building and Environ., 45(4), 856-

SC

864.

Jiang, P., Donga, W., Kung, Y. and Geng, Y., 2013. Analysing co-benefits of the energy

M AN U

conservation and carbon reduction in China’s large commercial buildings. J. of Clean. Production, 58(2013), 112-120.

Juan, Y.K., Gao, P. and Wang, J., 2010. A hybrid decision support system for sustainable office building renovation and energy performance improvement. Energy and

TE D

Buildings, 42(3), 290-297.

JSBC, 2012a. DECC: Database for energy consumption of commercial buildings. JSBC, Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. Available at:

EP

http://www.jsbc.or.jp/decc_english/pdf/decc-pamphlet.pdf Accessed 14.11.2015 JSBC, 2012b. DECC: Database for energy consumption of commercial buildings: organized

AC C

statistical data. JSBC, Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. Downloadable from: http://www.jsbc.or.jp/decc_english/index.html Accessed 14.11.2015

McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., Neij, N., 2013. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1-11. Milton, D.K., Glencroos, P.M. and Walters, M.D., 2000. Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification and occupant complaints. Indoor Air, 10, 212221.

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Nishida, Y. and Hua, Y., 2011. Motivating stakeholders to deliver change: Tokyo’s cap and trade program. Building Res. and Inf., 39(5), 518-533. Perez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J. and Pout, C., 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 394-398.

RI PT

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., 2013. Learning how to align climate, environmental and

development objectives: lessons from the implementation of climate cobenefits

initiatives in urban Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier), 58(1): 7-14. DOI:

SC

10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.009

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., 2011. Why an air pollution achiever lags on climate policy? The

M AN U

case of local policy implementation in Mie, Japan. Environment & Planning A, 43(8), 1894-1909.

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Doll, N.H., Balaban, O., Jiang, P., Dreyfus, M., Moreno-Peñaranda, R., Dirgahayani, P., 2013a. Governance processes to steer the greening of the urban

TE D

economy. Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier), 58(1): 138-152. Puppim de Oliveira, J.A., Doll, C.N.H., Kurniawan, T.A., Geng, Y., Kapshe, M. and Huisingh, D., 2013b. Promoting win–win situations in climate change mitigation,

EP

local environmental quality and development in Asian cities through co-benefits. J. of Clean. Production, 58(1), 1-6.

AC C

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Balaban, O.; Doll, C.N.H.; Moreno-Penaranda, R.; Gasparatos, A.; Iossifova, D.; Suwa, A., 2011. Cities, Biodiversity and Governance: Perspectives and Governance Challenges for the Convention on Biological Diversity at the City Level, Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1302-1313. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. 1992. What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K., 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 1592-1600. Rode, P., Burdett, R. and Soares Goncalves, J.C., 2011. Buildings: investing in energy and resource efficiency. In United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Towards a

RI PT

Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, 331-74.

Roppongi, H., Suwa, A. and Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. 2016. Innovating in sub-national

SC

climate policy: The mandatory emissions reduction scheme in Tokyo. Climate Policy (forthcoming)

M AN U

Roy, D. 2005. Urban poor increasingly made homeless in India’s drive for more ‘beautiful’ cities. City Mayors. Accessed 14.02.15.

Seto K. C., S. Dhakal, A. Bigio, H. Blanco, G. C. Delgado, D. Dewar, L. Huang, A. Inaba, A.

TE D

Kansal, S. Lwasa, J. E. McMahon, D. B. Müller, J. Murakami, H. Nagendra & Ramaswami, A. (2014). Human settlements, infrastructure and spatial planning. In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group

EP

III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,

AC C

A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel & J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter12.pdf].

Takemoto, K., 2011. Measures to address climate change in Japan and overseas. In T. Onishi and H. Kobayashi (Eds) Low-Carbon Cities: The Future of Urban Planning, Gakugei Shuppan-Sha, Kyoto, Japan, 33-58.

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Tan, Y., Shen, L., and Yao, H., 2011. Sustainable construction practice and contractors’ competitiveness: a preliminary study. Habitat International, 35(2), 225-230. TMG - Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2011a. On the Path to a Low-Carbon City: Tokyo Climate Change Strategy, International Environment Cooperation Section, Bureau of

RI PT

Environment, TMG, Environmental Document No:23026, Tokyo, Japan.

TMG - Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2011b. Low Emission Buildings Top 30 in Tokyo, International Environment Cooperation Section, Bureau of Environment, TMG,

SC

Environmental Document No:23025, Tokyo, Japan.

TMG - Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2012. Handbook on self-assessment indicator (CO2

M AN U

Emission Benchmark) (Brief Version). Bureau of Environment, TMG, Tokyo, Japan. Uihlein, A. and Eder, P., 2010. Policy options towards an energy efficient residential building stock in the EU-27. Energy and Buildings, 42(6), 791-98.

UNDESA - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

TE D

(2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).

Van Schaack, C. and BenDor, T., 2011. A comparative study of green building in urban and

EP

transitioning rural North Carolina. J. of Environ. Plan. and Management, 54(8), 1125–1147.

AC C

Wang, S., Yan, C. and Xiao, F., 2012. Quantitative energy performance assessment methods for existing buildings. Energy and Buildings, 55(2012), 873- 888.

WorldGBC, 2014. Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices: The Next Chapter for Green Building. Report by the World Green Building Council, Available at: http://www.worldgbc.org/activities/health-wellbeing-productivity-offices/ Accessed 15.02.2015.

31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Basic Features of the Case Study Buildings Quality

Total Floor

Name

Status

Status

Space

A

Owner

Green

92,000 m2

Occupied

Building

Green

Occupied

Building

95,220 m2

Green

Building*

Building (Certified)

D

New

Green

Building*

Building (Certified)

Occupied Tenant

F

Occupied

90,134 m2

Building

Renovated 82,602 m2

AC C

Yokohama

Office Building with

Yokohama

Commercial Facilities

Office Building with

Yokohama

Commercial Facilities Office Building

Tokyo

Office Building

Tokyo

Building

Tenant/Owner Renovated 25,331 m2 Occupied

Yokohama

Shopping Mall

Renovated 393,000 m2

EP

G

114,539 m2 Office Building with a

TE D

Tenant

E

Office Building with

M AN U

New

Yokohama

Commercial Facilities

(Certified) C

Office Building with

SC

Tenant

Location

Public Gallery

(Certified) B

Functional Status

RI PT

Building Occupation

Building

*These building were not in use at the time of the fieldwork, but were supposed to be rented out soon after.

Note: Due to the request by owners and managers of the case study buildings, names of the buildings are undisclosed and each case study building is named with a letter.

Design paradigm

Table 2: Sustainable Design Strategies and Green Technologies in Case Study Buildings

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Design strategy

Definition and major benefits of the strategy

Use of Observed strategy environmental in case benefit buildings Energy saving: Electricity saving of 15% is achieved in Building B

M AN U

SC

Energy saving: Triangular pillars bring 3 times more natural lighting indoors than rectangular ones Louvers on building façades are used to avoid the direct Exists in Energy saving: entrance of solar radiation into indoor environment. The A&C Louver system of louver system helps reflect sunlight into the building in Building A delivers appropriate ways to prevent the building from overheating. a reduction of The need for indoor cooling and associated energy use is thus 115,400 kgCO2 in reduced. Some louver systems encourage the diffused 2009 by controlling reflection of natural light towards the ceiling surface to sunlight entrance increase illumination efficiency with the help of daylight into the building sensors that control the lighting equipment. Green surfaces on rooftops, also applied to existing buildings Exists in Energy saving: as part of renovation schemes. Most buildings also have A, B, C, Natural cool down greenery on site. Plantation of greenery on rooftops and sites D & E effect on buildings help carbon sequestration, air quality improvement and also help cool down the building by reducing the UHI effect.

EXTERNAL LOUVERS

Healthier indoor environment: More natural lighting

Healthier indoor environment: More natural lighting

Healthier outdoor environment: Better ambient air quality and less heat to pedestrians nearby

Healthier Pavements that retain water on rooftops and on site. The Exists in Energy saving: strategy aims to mitigate UHI effect and cool down buildings A, B & D Natural cool down outdoor naturally and reduce energy use for indoor cooling. effect on buildings environment: Better ambient air quality and less heat to pedestrians nearby

AC C

WATER RETAINING PAVEMENTS

All Energy saving: buildings Efficient use of connected energy for indoor to DHCS heating and cooling Computerized energy management systems that reduce energy Exists in Energy saving: BUILDING use effectively without any adverse impact on internal comfort A & B Efficient use of ENERGY and safety. energy for indoor MANAGEMENT heating and SYSTEMS (BEMS) cooling LED lights are better than normal lighting appliances, as they Exists in Energy saving: provide same amount of illumination with lower energy use. all Reduced energy LED LIGHTS buildings use for indoor lighting Double-glazed glass panes sandwich air for insulation and a Exists in Energy saving: LOW-E DOUBLE-GLAZED special metallic film coating behind the glass pane enhances B, C & D Reduced energy DISTRICT HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS (DHCS)

Active design

Healthier indoor environment: Better indoor air quality and more natural lighting

EP

ROOFTOP AND ON-SITE GREENERY

TE D

Passive design

RI PT

An empty channel in the middle of the building, designed to Exists in bring more natural light and fresh air into the building. Eco- A & B void systems are combined with sun-tracking sensors and mirrors on rooftop to catch the sun’s movement and send more ECO-VOID sunlight down the void. The system is also supported with SYSTEM automatic lighting, which change intensity to minimize electricity consumption when sunlight is sufficient to light up each floor. Eco-voids also serve as ventilation systems where used air is pushed out of the building by using temperature and pressure differences. Vertical pillars on facades are designed accordingly not to Exists in block the diffusion of natural light from openings to indoor A, B, C, D&F SPECIAL FAÇADE environment. In some façade designs, vertical pillars are triangular rather than rectangular in shape in order to get more DESIGNS sunlight through windows. Pillars are also kept as thin as possible to bring in more natural lighting.

Health benefits

Central systems that provide buildings with steam for indoor heating, cold water for indoor cooling and hot water supply. Due to collective generation of steam and cooling water, DHCSs are more energy efficient than stand-alone ones, and help achieve large energy savings and internal space savings.

Healthier indoor environment: Improved thermal comfort Healthier indoor environment: Improved thermal comfort

Healthier indoor environment:

WINDOWS

insulation performance. The system allows sunlight into the building but insulates excess heat and reduces energy use.

use for indoor cooling

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ON-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Exists in Energy saving: A, C & D Building A generate 43.800 kWh of electricity per year These systems are used to save water. Harvested water is used Exists in Water saving: in toilets and for irrigation of rooftop or on-site gardens. A, B, C, Reduced water use D, E & G

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS

Solar PV panels on rooftops aim to replace part of nonrenewable energy use with clean energy. Yet, electricity generated by PV systems is minimal at present.

Improved thermal comfort

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Results of the Analysis of the Case Study Buildings Environmental Benefits

Building Name

Rank

Total Annual

Energy Use

Energy Use

Intensity

Rate

Total CO2 Emissions (tons/yr)

Emissions Reduction Cost Savings b) natural lighting Intensity 2

(kg/m /yr)

Rate

141,379

1,537

33.4%

5,680

61.7

Building B

2

161,615

1,697

26.4%

6,478

68.0

Building C

3

217,595

1,900

17.6%

8,730

76.2

Building F

4

161,008

1,949

15.5%

6,448

Building D

5

182,542

2,025

12.2%

7,289

Building E

6

No Data

No Data

Building G

7

79,877

3,153

0%

3,204

Av.

157,336

2,043

11.4%

6,305

c) ambient air quality

38.0%

183 million

++++

31.7%

145 million

++++

23.5%

118 million

+++

78.1

21.6%

73 million

++

80.9

18.8%

60 million

+++

103.1

0%

No Saving

++

126.5

0%

No Saving

+

85.0

14.6%

116 million

Not Applicable

M AN U

Values

(Yen)

d) thermal comfort

1

Average

Benefits a) indoor air quality

Building A

No Data No Data

Benefits

CO2

SC

(Thousand MJ/yr) (MJ/m2/yr)

Reduction

CO2 Emissions Reduction

Health

RI PT

Energy Consumption Reduction

Economic

*Reduction rate as compared to benchmark values determined by TMG and JSBC for the years 2011 and 2012.

AC C

EP

TE D

Benchmark values are 2,306 MJ/m2/yr for energy use intensity and 99.6 kg/m2/yr for CO2 emissions intensity.