Green Building Tech for Sustainable Housing Affordability in Malaysia

International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)
ISSN Print: ---------X--------- ISSN Online: ---------X---------
12
Download->http://www.ijerd.net/Journalcureentissue.asp Volume 1, Issue 1
GREEN BUILDING TECHNOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF
SUSTAINABLE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN MALAYSIA: AN
OVERVIEW
Lesley Metibogum1
, Mohammed Yazah Mat Raschid2
Faculty of Design and Architecture
Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang Selangor, Malaysia.
ABSTRACT
Sustainable or “green” building construction as interchangeably referred as fully
integrated Malaysian construction industry. Stakeholders underline construction cost overrun
as a major barrier in adopting the concept. It is therefore imperative to address this challenge
in the context of Malaysia, amidst recent flurry of research interests and encouragement from
government through many incentives. The study seeks to explore how green building can be
more affordable to Malaysian residents. It utilizes a case-study approach involving content
analysis of archival materials, publications of the Malaysian government and its agencies, and
other secondary data related to the case-study, including available green building data and
conducted interview on focus group comprising of architects, building authorities and real
estate development agencies with involvement in green building. The approach examines the
policies and classification of housing in Malaysia, it x-rays the development of green building
technology, its unique challenges in Malaysian construction industry and justifies how the
concept become imperative basis for proposing the application of sustainable construction to
create more affordable housing in Malaysia. It offers suggestion to reducing cost of green
building and concludes on the need for all stakeholders to fully engage in greater synergy on
the future of sustainable housing affordability for Malaysian residents.
Keyword: Sustainable construction; Housing Affordability; Green Building; Green Building
Index; Malaysia.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERINGINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERINGINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERINGINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (IJERD)RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (IJERD)RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (IJERD)RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (IJERD)
www.ijerd.net
Volume 1, Issue 1 July - August (2013) Pages: 12-29
ResearchResearchResearchResearch PaperPaperPaperPaper Open AccessOpen AccessOpen AccessOpen Access

13
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The recent economic down tone has an adverse effect on the building material, highly
skilled manpower and equipment in the building industry people; construction is fast
becoming expensive and if not tackled vehemently might render prospective tenants and
building owners homeless. Developing a sustainable affordable approach to housing
challenge is not only a global issue but a major concern especially in developing countries.
According to Chan (2010) Malaysia has undergone rapid economic growth since 70s while in
1996, the Malaysian economy expanded at a more sustainable pace, following a period of
rapid expansion in the last eight years. The gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 registered
a slower growth of 8.5% when compared with the 1995 figure which had a growth rate of
9.6%. The key sector that contributes to the continuous growth is manufacturing, which
recorded a double-digit growth, while the service and construction sectors are also expected
to perform better than the national average growth (Asia Construct Malaysia) further to the
growth of the GDP, the nominal gross national product (GNP) has also continued to increase
by 13.1% (RM 235.3 billion) in 1996 with the per capita income rose by 10.5% to reach
RM11, 118.00 (Chan, 2001).
The choice of the study area was based on the fact that, Malaysian Government
identified housing as basic human need and one of the important components in urban
economy. The Malaysian prime minister and also finance minister in the 2010 Budget
Speech, emphasised on the efforts to increase home ownership among the people
(http://www.epu.gov.my). Similarly, according to the 10th Malaysian Plan, the government
also give focus to developing of 78,000 affordable houses and RM500 million funds to
recover housing projects (Kerajaan Malaysia Bajet, 2010). In addition, Malaysia has come
into fresh limelight through several government initiatives and private sector in green
building development and recent flurry of research interests, as well as the growing need to
appreciate the wider implications of the concept as a unique feature of contemporary urban
change in the developing countries.
The study has become imperative a previous research on affordable housing in
Malaysia focused only on conventional buildings. There are no policy and criteria for
classifying affordable green buildings that can be used by the construction industry rather for
most research on green building in Malaysia concentrates on technological issues for high
performance “green buildings” and energy efficient non-residential buildings. Not only that,
judging from current statistic of GBI certified green buildings in Malaysia as shown table 1.0
where only 37 residential buildings out of a total of 99 certified buildings have received green
building rating and most green projects are still in the design stages.
Table: 1.0 Current status of GBI building certification /Facilitators in Malaysia
Source:(http://www.greenbuildingindex.org)
RNC NRNC NREB INC IEB
37 55 4 2 1

14
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The research method adopted is a case-study approach involving content analysis of
archival materials, publications of the Malaysian government and its agencies, and other
secondary data related to the case-study, including available green building data. These
research techniques were complemented by a review of literature on Sustainable
development, sustainability in construction and affordable housing. The data analysis
provides the evidence that justify how the affordable green building has become imperative
by conducting interview on focus group comprising of architects, building authority and real
estate development agents with involvement in green building.
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
To attain the aim of this paper, literature was reviewed along specific scopes or
activities in sustainable development, sustainability in construction and an overview of
housing affordability.
3.1 Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987).
Consideration of a greater environmental comfort within the framework of sustainable
development has been accepted by many governments, businesses, organisations and
individuals (Ofori, Briffett, Gang, & Ranasinghe, 2000).The “triple-bottom line” (economic,
social, and environmental) is a simplified way to categorize sustainability to three primary
components (Robins, 2006), sustainable development addresses three major areas;
i. People living today are entitled to justice and equal rights;
ii. Environmental degeneration must be alleviated or eliminated; and
iii. Future generations must not be impoverished as a result of current action (Robins, 2006).
Sustainable development is mainly associated with the achievement of increased techno-
economic growth coupled with the preservation of the natural capital that is comprised of
environmental and natural resources. The concept requires the development of enlightened
institutions and infrastructure and appropriate management of risks, uncertainties, and
knowledge imperfections to assure intergenerational equity, intra-generational equity, and
conservation of the ability of earth's natural systems to serve humankind (Sage, 1998).
3.2 Sustainability in Construction
Sustainable construction on the other side can be defined as a construction process
which incorporates the basic themes of sustainable development (Parkin, 2000; Chaharbaghi
& Willis, 1999; and Sage, 1998). It is about the responsibility of the construction
stakeholders to design, develop, construct and manage a project in a way that minimises
negative impacts on the environment and society (Abidin et al., 2013).Similarly, Majdalani et
al., (2005) defines sustainable construction as a way for the building industry to move
towards achieving development, taking into account environmental, socio-economic and
cultural issues. Their study explores environmentally and economically sound design and

15
development techniques to ensure that buildings and infrastructure are sustainable, healthy
and affordable. However, they analyzed and recommended how to learn from socially
responsible companies and how to improve the overall sustainable development of the
construction industry.
Sustainable buildings are considered a step toward being green. Sustainability is
measured in three interdependent dimensions: environmental stewardship, economic
prosperity, and social responsibility; referred to as the triple bottom line. Social responsibility
involves providing healthy communities and creating a safe work culture According to Kats
(2003), green or sustainable buildings are sensitive to Environment; Resource & energy
consumption; Impact on people (quality and healthiness of work environment); Financial
impact (cost-effectiveness from a full financial cost-return perspective); and the world at
large (a broader set of issues, such as ground water recharge and global warming, that a
government is typically concerned about).
Sustainable construction supports the triple-bottom line by embracing the following
objectives (DETR, 2000, p. 8:(Frost and Sullivan, 2008):being more profitable and more
competitive; delivering buildings and structures that provide greater satisfaction, well-being
and value to customers and users;respecting and treating its stakeholders more
fairly;enhancing and better protecting the natural environment; and minimizing its impact on
the consumption of energy (especially carbon-based energy) and natural resources(DETR,
2000, p. 8).This process would bring environmental responsibility, social awareness, and
economic profitability objectives to the fore in the built environment and facilities for the
wider community (Langston & Ding, 2001; Miyatake, 1996; Raynsford, 2000; Chen &
Chambers, 1999).
Similarly, in the United Kingdom UK, Government’s strategy for more sustainable
construction (DETR, 2000), key factors for action by the construction industry by widening
the basic themes were sugessted. These include design for minimum waste; lean construction;
minimise energy in construction and use; do not pollute; preserve and enhance biodiversity;
conserve water resources; respect people and local environment; and set targets, monitor and
report, in order to benchmark performance (Raynsford, 2000; Langston & Ding, 2001;
Miyatake, 1996; Addis & Talbot, 2001; Ofori et al., 2000; Cole, 2000). The experiences from
some leading construction companies have shown that there are strong business benefits for
more sustainable construction (WS Atkins, 2001).
The concept of sustainability in building and construction according to Abidin, (2009)
has initially focused on issues of limited resources especially energy, and on how to reduce
impacts on the natural environment with emphasis on technical issues such as materials,
building components, construction technologies and energy related design concepts.
Sustainable construction is seen as a way for the construction industry to contribute to the
effort to achieve sustainable development. Abidin and Pasquire (2005)interpreted the
principles of sustainability within construction industry as including:Showing concern for
people by ensuring they live in a healthy, safe and productive built environment and in
harmony with nature; Safeguarding the interests of future generations while at the same time,
meeting today's needs; Evaluating the benefits and costs of the project to society and
environment; Minimizing damage to the environmental and its resources; Improving the
quality of buildings and services and promote social cohesiveness; Using technology and

16
expert knowledge to seek information and in improving project efficiency and effectiveness
(Abidin and Pasquire,2005)
3.3 An Overview of Housing Affordability
Affordability is not a characteristic of housing but a characteristic of a housing service
as it relates to ability and the desire of consumers to pay for it (Yang and Shen, 2008).
Hulchanski, (1995) refers to “housing affordability” commonly used when examining
housing-related difficulties in terms of individual households. Kutty (2005) presents that,
Affordability is frequently interpreted as the relationship between household income (or,
more generally, means) and housing expenditure; housing is affordable if expenditure relative
to income is reasonable or moderate; it is commonly measured in terms of the ratio of
housing costs to income (also known as rent burden or owner cost burden). Over time,
thresholds of the housing cost to income ratio have been set at 25%, 30%, 40%, and 50%
(Kutty, 2005).
Affordability is concerned with securing some given standard of housing (or different
standards) at a price or a rent which does not impose, in the eyes of some third party (usually
government), an unreasonable burden on household incomes (Hancock, 1993, p.
129).However, the concept has been consistently referred to in the UK and the United State
of America, USA since the 1960s and 1980s, although notably with different policy purposes
(Hui, 2001). The UK uses the housing affordability concept based on the premise of assisting
households who are in real need of housing provision whilst moving towards a market-
oriented system of housing provision while in contrast, the USA uses the concept of housing
affordability to measure what level of financial subsidy, if any, is appropriate for low and
middle income households.
Meanwhile in Hong Kong, a threshold level for housing affordability was introduced
in 1987 by the Hong Kong housing authority in order to establish a measure for providing
subsidised housing to households in need (Hui, 2001). However, in Europe Esping-Andersen
(1990) and Ghekière (2007) developed a framework which helps to identify three main
approaches to affordable housing in the Euro area: a universalistic, a generalist and a residual
one. According to this taxonomy, Italy's approach falls within the second group, with the
central government setting income thresholds to define social groups to which its policies are
targeted. from the point of view of the housing delivery mechanism, it is worth noting that in
some Mediterranean countries including Italy, Greece and Spain, direct public provision is
still the dominant funding source in this decade (Whitehead and Scanlon, 2007; Ghekière,
2007; Lawson, 2010)
4.0 STUDY CONTEXT- MALAYSIA
4.1 Housing Affordability, Policies and Classification
Malaysia as one of the most rapidly developing countries among developing nations
has experienced accelerated housing and urban growth since the 1950’s. The housing
industry is one of the major industries that contribute to Malaysian economic growth. The
industry represents nearly 3-5% of Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provides
employment for about 10% of the total labour force (Malaysian MOF, 2009).Housing has

17
historically played an important role in policy development in Malaysia and the Malaysian
Government identified housing as basic human need and one of the important components in
urban economy.
Before the independence, precisely during the British colonial period in the First
Malaysian Plan (1956-1960) the need to ensure affordability of housing began (Aziz, 2007;
Salfarina, et al, 2010). Housing serves as part of the government’s political strategy to
achieve both social and economic goals (Aziz, 2007). It was believed that the City Hall of
Kuala Lumpur and Ministry of Housing and Local Government included the Agenda 21 and
Habitat Agenda objectives of the policies (City Hall of Kuala Lumpur [CHKL], 2000;
Ministry of Housing and Local Government [MHLG], 2001). More prority was placed on
increasing housing ownership, most especially affordable housing as an essential social need
in the 60s while in the 70s until 2000, the concentration was shifted to providing housing for
the poor and included the New Economic Policy objectives (NEP) objectives of restructuring
income and assets between the different ethnic groups, especially Malay, Chinese and Indian
(Salfarina, et al, 2010).
Increase in house price has caused household to fill difficulties in buying house
particularly in urban area. Furthermore, the increase in the property market especially in town
has reached over 30%, will cause new worker miss the opportunity to own houses (Razak,
2011).
However, according to the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020, the term ‘affordable
housing’ includes low, low-medium and medium cost housing with a selling prince between
RM 42,000 to RM 150,000 (AU$13,788 to AU$49,246) per unit. Affordable housing in
Kuala Lumpur is targeted for the low and medium income population with a monthly
household income of RM 1,500 to RM4,000 (AU$492 to AU$1,313) a month (CHKL, 2000)
Table 2.0 Prices of Low-Cost Housing based on value of land, target groups, and
typology. Source: MHLG (2002)
PRICE/UNIT
RM
LOCATION (PRICE
OF LAND/SQ FT
(RM)
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME OF
TARGET GROUP
(RM)
TYPE OF HOUSING
42,000
A
Main cities & urban
areas (RM 45& above)
1200 to 1500 Apartments
(more than 5 storey)
35,000 B
Big town &
suburban areas (RM15-
RM45)
1,000-1350 Apartment
(5 storey)
30,000 C
Suburban areas &
small towns (RM10-
RM14)
850-1200 Terrace & cluster
25,000 D
Rural Areas (Below
RM10)
750-1,000 Terrace & cluster

18
However, the current housing policy in Malaysia based its focus on meeting the needs
of the middle income groups, especially the lower middle income due to their small buying
power. From previous research (Hashim, 2010; Wan Abd Aziz et als, 2010; Suhaida et.
als.,2010). Hashim (2010) on housing affordability in Malaysia, the housing affordability can
be influenced by various factors such as allocation for house payment or mortgage payment,
family size and population, housing price, government policies and household income.
Table 3.0 Summary of Malaysian Housing Policy: Source (Various five year Malaysian
National Plan; Idrus and Siong 2008)
Phase Period Focus of attention Strategies Key
documents
Policy
analysis
Colonial
Period
Before
1957
Housing for
government staff
quarters.
Resettlement of
people
during communist
insurgencies to the
new
village.
Resettlement of
people to Felda
scheme.
Provision of
housing
especially for low
income
people in urban
areas.
Construction of
government quarters
based on department
requirement.
Building of houses in
the new settlements
with
facilities for more
than 500,000 people.
Planning and
development
of Felda scheme with
the housing and
facilities.
Setting up of Housing
Trust in 1952
Briggs Plan,
1952.
Land
Resettlement
Act, 1956.
Housing
Trust
Ordinance,
1950’s
Government
are the key
player in
housing
provision.
Physicalorien
ted.
Ad-hoc
policy.
Early
stage of
Independent
1957-
1970
Continuing the
colonial
government
policies with
minor
improvement.
Emphasis on
housing
especially for low
income group in
urban area.
Private sector
involvement in
housing
Implementation to
follow the colonial
policies with limited
budget.
Housing Trust
involved actively low
cost housing
development in urban
areas such as KL and
Penang.
Private sector to
Concentrate on
medium
and high cost housing
First and
Second
Malaya Plan
(1955-1964)
First Malaysia
Plan (1965-
1969)
Government
as key player
in housing
provision
especially
low
cost.
Private sector
to focus on
medium and
high cost
housing

19
provision.
Improvement of
basic
infrastructure.
New
Economic
Policy
1971-
1990
Eradication of
poverty and
restructure the
society.
Implementation of
Human Settlement
Concept in
housing
development
Housing for low
income group was
given priority
in national
policies.
Private sector
plays as key player
in provision.
High rate of rural-
urban migration.
Private sector was
responsible to built
large portion of
housing for people
including low cost.
Ceiling price for low
cost was set at
RM25,000 in1982.
Government
established state
agencies.
Encourage national
unity in housing
development
New
Economic
Policy, 1971
Second
Malaysia
Plan to Fifth
Malaysia
Plan (1971-
1990)
Private sector
as key player
in housing
provision
including low
cost.
National
Development
Plan
1991-
2000
Continue
implementation of
NEP policies and
strategies.
Human Settlement
Concept with
emphasis on
sustainable
development.
To ensure all
people regardless
of their income to
live in decent
house.
Private sector
continue to
responsible in
housing provision
for the people.
To build more
affordable housing
especially low and
low medium cost
housing.
Low medium cost
as major component
inhousing provision
since Seventh
Malaysia Plan
(1996-2000)
Emphasis on
Squatters elimination
by
year 2005.
Government
created new laws
and guidelines to
control private sector.
National
Development
Plan, 1991
Sixth and
Seventh
Malaysia Plan
(1991-2000)
Agenda 21
(UNCHS),
1994.The
Habitat
Agenda 1996
Private sector
still play as
key
player in
housing
provision but
government
created many
new laws and
guidelines to
ensure
quality
housing

20
Vision
Development
Plan
2001-
2010
Emphasis on
sustainable urban
development and
adequate housing
for all income
groups.
Housing
development will
be integrate with
other type of
development such
as industry and
commercial.
Emphasis on ICT
Government as
key
player in low cost
housing provision
and private sector
for medium and
high cost housing.
Continue effort to
provide the
guidelines and
inculcate the
citizen
understanding
towards
sustainable
development and
encourage citizen to
participate in
housing
development in
line with Local
Agenda 21.
Encourage more
private developers
to constructs low
medium cost
house.
Setting up Human
Settlement
Research Institute
(MAHSURI) to
encourage research
and develop
Vision
Development
Plan 2001
Eight
Malaysia
Plan 2001-
2005
Government
as
key player in
provision of
low cost
housing
provision.
4.2 Green Building Development in Malaysia
Green building focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use such as energy,
water, and materials while reducing building impact on human health and the environment
during the building's lifecycle, through better sitting, design, construction, operation,
maintenance, and removal (Green Building Index Home).It emerged as an environmentally
beneficial alternative to conventional practices (Cassidy, 2004; Dooley & Rivera, 2004; Nobe
& Dunbar, 2004). Green is commonly perceived to be the same as sustainability. Itis a term
widely used at present to describe buildings designed constructed with minimum negative
impact to the environment and with an emphasis on the conservation of resources, energy
efficiency, and healthier interior spaces (Frost & Sullivan, 2008). Green building is an
outcome of a design which focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use- energy,
water, and materials while reducing building impacts on human health and the environment
during the building's lifecycle, through better siting, design, construction, operation,
maintenance and removal (Frej and Browning, 2005).
Green building technology requires a holistic top-to-toe approach taking into account
each component and every step of the construction process designed to minimize the impact
on the wider environment and surrounding community(Ng, 2008).Green building is energy

21
and water efficient, sited to take advantage of existing trees and transportation options, and
uses materials that are recycled, recyclable and non-toxic (Ng, 2008) and must meet the needs
of the present generation without compromising with the needs of future generations(WCED,
1987).The Green Building Index (GBI) Malaysian rating tool for green building was
developed specifically for the Malaysian tropical climate, environmental and developmental
context, cultural and social needs and is created: (i) to define green buildings by establishing
a common language and standard of measurement, (ii) to promote integrated whole building
designs that provides a better environment, (iii) to recognise and reward environmental
leadership, (iv) to transform the built environment to reduce its negative environmental
impact, and (v) to ensure new buildings remain relevant in the future and existing buildings
are refurbished and upgraded to improve the overall quality of building stock (Chua and Oh,
2011).
It has been promulgated by Malaysian Architect Association and the Association of
Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM). Since its inception in 2009, it has been applied on a
voluntary basis by developers and alike for residential and commercial buildings. Recently it
has also been extended to the manufacturing buildings. The Malaysian government has
shown its support through many incentives for the implementation of GBI. (Sood et at., 2011)
The government also supports the green building initiatives through income tax deduction
equivalent to the additional capital expenditure incurred by building owners in obtaining
Green Building Index (GBI) certification from 24 October 2009 to 31December 2014, and
stamp duty exemption for the first owner of GB.Green buildings will be rated as platinum,
Gold, silver, and certified (Figure 1.0)The existing GBI as used in Malaysia is viewed to be
adequate for use in the industry with the current situation. The existing ones are as
follows:(Green Building Index Sdn Bhd)
Table 5.0 Level of GBI rating for residential buildings (Source: Green Building Index
Sdn Bhd)
GBI Points GBI rating
86 + points Platinum
76 to 85 points Gold
66 to 75 points Silver
50 to 65 points Certified

22
Table 6:0 GBI award rating criteria for residential buildings (Source: Green Building
Index Sdn Bhd)
Part Item Maximum point
1 Energy Efficiency 23
2 Indoor Environmental Quality 11
3 Sustainable Site Planning & Management 39
4 Material & Resources 9
5 Water efficiency 12
6 Innovation 6
Total score 100
Figure 1.0 Cross session of green building source:
(http://www.myfloridagreenbuilding.info)

23
4.3 Green Building and its Unique Challenges in Malaysia
There are perceptions that green building may remain a niche market because the
environment is still a cost externality in construction, because green products are
prohibitively expensive and technically unreliable, or because environmental issues are
unimportant to most consumers (Brick, 2003; Cassidy, 2004; Groonroos & Bowyer, 1999;
Loftness, 2004; Seiter, 2005). The government’s intention to reduce energy consumption by
20% birthed the green movement in Malaysia. Commercial and residential buildings account
for about 13% of energy consumption and 48% of electricity consumption (Al-Mofleh et al,
2009; Energy Commission Malaysia, 2008).
Over the years, Malaysia has proven and developed an ability to utilize energy
efficient strategies in reducing energy consumption and carbon emission in buildings,
particularly its housing sector as the government holds a lead role in providing affordable
housing to its citizens. The assessment and provision of an invaluable insight into the existing
building stock’s environmental performance is the basis for Calculating carbon emission
through building operational phase. The UNEP-SBCI’s Common Carbon Metric provides a
protocol for measuring energy use and reporting GHG emissions from building operations
(UNEP-SBCI, 2010). An examination of the greenhouse gas, GHG emission from the
existing building consequently enables a performance baseline for policy development to
reduce the emission in the industry (UNEP-SBCI, 2010).
Abidin et at. (2013) gave four major enablers as technological, institutional, internal
action and market influence which are crucial to create an industry which is prone towards
sustainable construction as government's lack of incentive programmes and the slow progress
in revising related regulations, in the cost of importing products because of the lack of
locally-produced green technology while cost factor and lack of “urgency” are the core
problems in encouraging internal action and the low demand by the potential buyers affects
market influence.Esa et at., (2011)identified lack of awareness, from architects, consultants,
and clients as the key issue to the slow progress and reluctance in getting involved in green
buildings, Low investments and participation from the government and private companies in
the green building movement, lack of competent local energy specialist to provide useful data
and advice on green building systems and concepts.
5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Previous research on affordable housing focused only on conventional buildings.
There are no policy and criteria for classifying affordable green buildings that can be used by
the construction industry rather for most research on green building in Malaysia concentrates
on technological issues for high performance “green buildings” and energy efficient non-
residential buildings. The current rating system, the Green Building Index (GBI) does not
address residential assessment for low cost housing; therefore little attention is given to
promote sustainability in low cost housing development. Energy efficient and
environmentally friendly buildings for Malaysian residents cannot be over emphasised.
Going by the fact that these buildings’ capacity of saving energy, help in reducing
maintenance cost of buildings, improve occupants well- being. It is a common perception that
green buildings cost more compare to conventional buildings though research proved that it

24
pays off at the long run. Though the concept has not got government full backing compare to
Singapore, the government in a way has to encourage the integration of green building by
initiatives like tax exemption, stamp duty. Despite these efforts, it is still not a common
practice in Malaysia construction industry. It is believed that developers, building owners and
contractors are not really keen at investing in the initiative due to cost overrun.
“The problem in Malaysia is there are no laws yet. To say you must insulate the roof. In
Europe for instance, all the laws are in place that means your glass must be double or
triple glazing because it needs to the room cool and the walls all need insulation
value. In Malaysia, there are none of these. Its only fire rating to prevent fire spread.
So the new building bye laws coming up now has all these things and its part driven
by rating tools- GBI so once the law are in place the cost will come up .So the base
building cost will be negligible. So when you say GB is expensive it’s not true”LM-
TBS 4
The above interviewee looks at reducing green building cost by enacting by-law which
seeks to address green building in Malaysia. Researcher believes construction cost of green
buildings can be reduced, while affordable green building can be achieved and presents
following enablers to achieving affordability in green building projects in Malaysian
construction industry from an architectural perspective. It is a way of carefully looking at
integrated solution in green buildings. Design simplicity and avoidance of space generosity
while fulfilling all technical and environmental standards allows for constructability.
Involvement of green building consultant at the initial design stage will help to get things
right the first time. This is buttressed by an interviewee:
“Green building consultant has to come in early and start the design process base on
the input of the consultancy you can really save money”LM-TBS 5
When building elements in a building are beginning to take multiple functions that is a
clue that it requires an integrated design approach. Building science technology and
operations are available to designers, builders and owners who want to build green and
maximise both economic and environmental performance through integration of people,
processes and technologies that deliver sustainable buildings (Paumgartten, 2003).This can be
realised engaging a consultant at the preliminary work stage.
“Green building consultant has to come in early and start the design process. Based on the
input of the consultancy you can really save money. There are some additional costs
because like I said, our benchmark is very low. Malaysian conventional building does
not have energy efficiency, water harvesting, lighting, monitoring devices all these
things cost more though the pay back is very fast. If it is a commercial building, the
pay back might be 5-6 years on most of the items except solar energy. For solar PV the
pay back is longer other than most items the pay back is very quick.”LM-TBS 10

25
An interviewee believe that passive that, emphasis should be placed on passive design-
natural ventilation and day lighting for low income low income earners to take advantage of
green building ownership.
“To make it affordable is a long process, ii requires to bias towards a passive design
approach. I am not against solar cell as such; for now, green building is only
affordable by rich and high earner in the society. We have to be very critical and have
to justifiable. Like I believe the cost that you put in the photo cell cannot be recued
within the building lifecycle” LM-TBS 2
Competence and expertise of design team members in sustainable design can
practically reduce design process duration and project resources from clients’ expected value.
Coordination and communication among design team members and green building
consultants allow for a team spirit and more collaborative effort to reducing cost and
wastages during design stages. A well-qualified green building consultant should be engaged
from the design stage. The need for an effective and critical design consultation during the
design process of green building cannot be underestimated. Green building consultants’
approach to cost effectiveness must be strong enough to critically examine how financially
viable the design is.
“ In order to do that, if the green building consultant is well aware of the rating system
he/she is using, it is better to go for a criteria that is low cost or no cost at the first
before you actually do one that will take a lot of cost. Then one can have a green
building with a very low cost” LM-TBS 8
Conducting value engineering in order to reduce cost optimising available feasible
alternatives and employ adequate measure to stay within budget reduce construction time.
Green design should be capable of reducing waste. GBI consultants training course should
place priority to training its members on cost management and even conduct fresher for its
members. As the concept is still at infant stage in Malaysia, green consultants should be
sacrificial in service fee to cut down construction cost and attract clients in a way to support
the integration and develop more green building.
“Green building does not mean it’s expensive. We have done a number of projects where the
cost movement from conventional to green building is zero so I disagree that it is
expensive” LM-TBS 2
Sufficient construction skill, technique and material amount to structural stability,
durability and architectural pleasing sustainable buildings. Conventional buildings and green
buildings have different design and construction approach. Professionals and artisans should
undergo an in-depth training in sustainable building practices before they can be engaged in
green building design and construction. A lot of construction wastages, expensive error and
technical fall- out may be averted when competent and appropriate manpower and method
are utilized while achieving quality and low cost of construction. Green building material is

26
still being imported to Malaysia which in a way causing carbon emission during transport
transportation, delay in construction and affect completion period. An indigenous building
technology could help reduce the cost of material and transportation. Locally sourced
materials should be readily available, durable and maintainable be an alternative solution to
high cost of material.It was argued by an interviewee that green building is not as expensive
developers and building owners believe:
“I don’t think all the green building should cost a lot because in the United Kingdom
now, the cost is about the same. It’s about the maturity of contractor or builder,
if they see it as an additional cost, it’s going to be an additional cost. But it they
see it as a way they can cut things, and optimise some things then. There is no
reason except they put in solar PV, looking at different energy system. Everything
is about optimisation, not optimisation purely for physical components but how
to build sustainability. I think the gap can be reduced” LM-TBS 6
Several Research have been conducted on green building relating to awareness,
perception, satisfaction, integration and rating system while only handful research has been
conducted on acceptance and affordability of green building initiative in Malaysia.
Discoveries of new ideas, products, principles, and improvement, in green practices will help
to further embrace the concept in Malaysia construction industry. Research centres, scholars
should take up this challenge and embark on investigative activities to make green building
more affordable. Stakeholders’ strong support to researchers in their search for information
will encourage and enhance more discoveries in the building industry.
6.0 CONCLUSION
This paper has discussed the issues of sustainability in construction and affordable
housing situating these within the practical and pressing context of Malaysia. It reviewed
literature elated to sustainable development, construction and affordable housing in general
and the unique challenges of green building in the context of Malaysia. The available data
from archival sources, researcher-observation and the literature depict Malaysia as capable of
causing a spontaneous evolution in sustainable building. The green building affordability in
Malaysia is thus justified as imperative. Specific infrastructure, funding, lack of awareness,
lack of skills (translating awareness into action), time and cost of pioneering new
approaches.infrastructural priorities were presented as challenges in integrating the concept.
Recommendations relating to reducing green building cost in the construction industry were
offered. However, the effort of Malaysian government and private sectors through several
initiatives should be appreciated immensely. The Malaysian construction industry and
stakeholders would benefit from new ideas, experiences, and research endeavor emanated
from this study. Green buildings are extremely complex system and solutions to the
challenges require integrated approach. It is therefore expected that stakeholders will look
inward and fully engage in greater synergy on the future of sustainable housing affordability
for Malaysian residents.

27
REFERENCES
1. Ahmad Zaki Yahya, (1997) Housing the Nation: A definite Study. Cagamas Behard.
Kualar Lumpur
2. Alias, A., T.K. Sin, W.N.A.W.A. Aziz, 2010. The Green Home Concept –
Acceptability and Development Problems. Journal of Building Performance, 1: 130-139.
3. Albert P.C. Chan (2001)” Time–cost relationship of public sector projects in
Malaysia” Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 223–229
4. A.R. Musa, N. M. Tawil*, S. M. Sood, A. I. Che-Ani, N. Hamzah, H. Basri (2011) “
Constructing Formulation of Affordable Green Home for Middle Income Group” The 2nd
International Building Control Conference 2011 Science direct Procedia Engineering 20
466 – 473
5. Asia Construct Malaysia Country Paper, The Third Asia Construct Conference,
Opportunities for Intra-Asian Cooperation, Construction Industry Development Studies and
Research Centre, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 1997.
6. Chua, S.C., Oh,T.H., (2011) Green progress and prospect in Malaysia, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp. 2850– 2861
7. Cassidy, R. (2004). Progress report on sustainability, Building Design and
Construction.
8. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
http://www.bdcnetwork.com/contents/pdfs/bdc04White_Paper.pdf.
9. DETR Report (2000), Sustainable development: What it is and what you can do,
DETR Green Ministers Report, March 2000.
10. Dooley, R., & Rivera, J. (2004, March). Green building goes mainstream.
Professional Builder, 69, 71–72
11. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Polity Press,
Cambridge, Ghekière, L. (2007), Le développement du logement social dans l'Union
12. Européenne. Quand l'intérêt général rencontre l'intérêt communautaire, CECODHAS
– USHDexia Editions, Paris
13. Economic Planning Unit, (2010) Malaysia 10th Plan, Available from:
http://www.epu.gov.my/rmk10 [Accessed 28 Jun 2011]
14. Frej, A. and W.D. Browning, 2005. “Green Office Buildings: A Practical Guide to
Development”. Urban Land Institute.
15. GreenbuildingIndex Sdn Bhd, 2011) GBI Criteria, Available from
http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/index.html [Accessed 29 Jun 2011]
16. Green Building Index Home. http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/; 2010 [accessed
29.09.10
17. Hulchanski, J.D. (1995), "The concept of housing affordability: six contemporary
uses of the housing expenditure-to-income ratio", Housing Studies, Vol. 10 No.4, pp.471-
91.
18. Hancock, K.E. (1993),"Can pay? Won't pay? Or economic principles of
affordability", Urban Studies,Vol. 30 No.1, pp.127-45.

28
19. Hui, E.C.M. (2001), "Measuring affordability in public housing from economic
principles: case study of Hong Kong", Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol.
127 No.1, pp.34-49.
20. Kerajaan Malaysia. Rancangan Malaysia ke-10. Unit Perancang Ekonomi, Jabatan
Perdana Menteri.URL: http://www.epu.gov.my/rmk10 [Visited: 17 Jun 2010] Update: 17
Jun 2010
21. Kerajaan Malaysia. Bajet 2010. Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia. URL:
http://www.treasury.gov.my [Visited: 9 Jun 2010] Update: 02 November 2009.
22. Kerajaan Malaysia. Rancangan Malaysia ke-10. Unit Perancang Ekonomi, Jabatan
Perdana Menteri.
23. Langston, C. A. & Ding, G. K. C. (2001) (Eds.), Sustainable practices in the built
environment, Langston, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
24. Lawson, J. (2010), "European housing strategies, financing mechanisms and
outcomes", Financing Social Housing after the Economic Crisis, Proceedings of the
CECODHAS Seminar, Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF), Brussels, pp.62-
6.
25. Miyatake, Y. (1996) Technology development and sustainable construction, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 23 – 27
26. Ministry of Housing and Local Government. (2002). Guideline on the Implementation
of the New Price of Low-Cost Housing (Amendment) 2002. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
27. Nazirah Zainul Abidin, Nor'Aini Yusof, Ayman A.E. Othman, (2013) "Enablers and
challenges of a sustainable housing industry in Malaysia", Construction Innovation:
Information, Process, Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, pp.10 – 25
28. Nobe, M. C., & Dunbar, B. (2004). Sustainable development trends in construction.
29. Associated Schools of Construction, ASC Proceedings of the 40th Annual
Conference. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from
http://www.ascproceedings.org/ASC%202004%20CD/2004pro/2003/MaNobe04.htm.
30. Ng, C.,(2008) “Constructing a green building”. Malaysian Business.
31. Noraliah I. and HO S. (2008) “Affordable and Quality Housing through the Low Cost
Housing Provision in Malaysia” Seminar of Sustainable development and Governance at
Department of Civil Engineering, and Architecture, Toyohashi University of Technology,
32. G. Ofori, C. Briffett, G. Gang, M. Ranasinghe (2000)“Impact of ISO 14000 on
construction enterprises in Singapore” Construction Management and Economics, 18
(2000), pp. 935–947
33. K. Kutty (2005): A new measure of housing affordability: Estimates and analytical
results, Housing Policy Debate, 16:1, 113-142
34. Parkin, S. (2000) Context and drivers for operationalizing sustainable development,
Proceedings of ICE, Vol. 138, Nov. 2000, pp. 9 – 15
35. Paumgartten(2003) The business case for high performance green
buildings:Sustainability and its financial impact ENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS
1472^5967 Journal of Facilities Management VOL.2 NO.1 PP 26–34
36. Raynsford, N. (2000) Sustainable construction: the Government’s role, Proceedings of
ICE, Vol. 138, Nov. 2000, pp. 16 – 22

29
37. Robins, F. (2006), "The challenge of TBL: a responsibility to whom? Business and
Society Review, Vol. 111 No.1, pp.1-14.
38. SC Chua, TH Oh, 2011, “Preen progress and Prospects in Malaysia” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews15 2850-2861
39. Sage, A. P. (1998) Risk management for sustainable development, IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, 1998, pp. 4815 – 4819
40. Salfarina, A.G., Nor Malina M., Azrina, H (2010). “Trends, Problems and Needs of
Urban Housing in Malaysia” International Journal of Human and Social Sciences
41. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. References
42. Whitehead, C., Scanlon, K. (2007), Social Housing in Europe, London School of
Economics and Political Science, available at:
www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSELondon/pdf/SocialHousingInEurope.pdf,
43. Z. Majdalani, M. Ajam, T. Mezher, (2006) "Sustainability in the construction
industry: a Lebanese case study", Construction Innovation: Information, Process,
Management, Vol. 6 Iss: 1, pp.33 – 46.
44. N. Abidin(2010)” Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable
construction concept by Malaysian developers” Volume 34, Issue 4, October 2010, Pages
421–426.
45. Yang Z. and Shen Y. (2008). The Affordability of Owner Occupied Housing in
Beijing. Journal Housing and Built Environment. 23. 317-335.

Green Building Tech for Sustainable Housing Affordability in Malaysia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Green Building Tech for Sustainable Housing Affordability in Malaysia

Similar to Green Building Tech for Sustainable Housing Affordability in Malaysia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Green Building Tech for Sustainable Housing Affordability in Malaysia