The Fourth Annual Green Building Survey by Allen Matkins, Constructive
Technologies Group (CTG) and the Green Building Insider reveals surprising
results regarding green construction. The Green Building Survey, completed by
more than 1,600 design and construction professionals from across the nation,
addressed current attitudes toward green building, its risks, costs,
certification processes and trends.
“We do not expect a significant change in carbon offsets unless mandatory
carbon mitigation programs are adopted at the state or federal level”
Despite the recession, the Survey found a surprisingly large majority of
respondents continue to strongly endorse green building (96 percent in 2007,
93.5 percent in 2008 and 92.3 percent in 2009). At the same time, support for
LEED1 certification slipped 11 percent in 2008 and 4.7 percent in
2009 to 62 percent. Cost is a major driver for green building in this economic
downturn, with the gap between support for green construction and LEED
certification growing over the past two years. Nonetheless, the level of support
for LEED certification remains high, compared to the US Green Building Council’s
original mission statement: LEED was launched as a market transformation tool,
with a goal of representing the top 25 percent of all construction projects.
While the recession no doubt challenged the volume of green construction, it
pushed projects to look for financial advantage: Saving energy and other
operating expenses was the number one reason for building green projects.
Green building is perceived to have greater construction risks than non-green
construction, despite the fact that LEED-mandated building tests known as
commissioning actually reduce the risk of building system failure. According to
the survey, the top strategies to reduce the risks of green building are 1)
retaining green consultants (such as LEED-AP consultants), 2) measurement and
re-commissioning, 3) periodic testing, and 4) contractual risk shifting.
More than half of all respondents indicated that a LEED Gold rating increased
project costs by 4 percent or more, while nearly 30 percent of respondents
reported the costs of LEED Gold rating at significantly lower than 4 percent.
Possible explanations for the difference in reported cost premiums include 1)
the variety of local codes and professional experience in certain regions that
raise the minimum standards close to LEED Gold standards, and 2) the varying
degree of difficulty in achieving a LEED Gold rating on different building
types, such as hotels vs. office buildings.
The purchase of carbon offsets, which is largely voluntary today, hovered
near 7 percent. "We do not expect a significant change in carbon offsets unless
mandatory carbon mitigation programs are adopted at the state or federal level,"
said Bryan Jackson, chair of Allen Matkins’ Green and Sustainable Construction
Practice Group, Adjunct Professor at USC teaching Green and Sustainable
Construction, and editor of the Green Building Update.
"As in previous years, our Green Survey provides an excellent barometer of
opinions regarding the importance, risks and costs relative to the green
building industry," said Jackson. "The survey, which covers the fastest-growing
sector of construction, is one of the broadest surveys of green-building
professionals in the industry."
1 The U.S. Green Building Counsel’s Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design certification programs for green and sustainable
construction.
