ABSTRACT

Construction practitioners have adopted the green building (GB) concept to restore environmental damage caused by the built environment over the last decade. However, there is inconclusive debate regarding GB savings’ potential to recover the cost of construction, maintenance, and renewals. This paper evaluates the feasibility of green-certified office buildings in Indonesia by comparing the life cycle cost and presents the cost–benefit ratio. Data were obtained from primary data and combined with reliable secondary sources for analysis. The result shows that GB requires an additional cost of 9.22% but offers energy and water savings over the building’s life cycle accounted for 58.65%. Research has shown that GB adoption reduces the cost per square metre by 41.74% over the traditional one. The cost–benefit ratio of energy, water, and carbon emissions was 2.35 and thus, justified the increased costs of investment, maintenance, and renewals of GB. This research’s findings can assist policymakers, practitioners, developers, and other interested parties in the construction sector in bringing forward regulatory changes, collaboration initiatives, capital investment, or other decision-making support.

摘要

建筑从业者采用绿色建筑 (GB) 概念来修复过去十年因建筑环境造成的环境破坏。然而，关于 GB 储蓄回收建设、维护和更新成本的潜力，尚无定论。本文通过比较生命周期成本来评估印度尼西亚绿色认证写字楼的可行性，并提出成本效益比。数据来自主要数据，并结合可靠的二手资料进行分析。结果表明，GB 需要 9.22% 的额外成本，但在建筑物的整个生命周期内提供的能源和节水占 58.65%。研究表明，采用 GB 比传统的每平方米成本降低了 41.74%。能源、水、碳排放量为 2.35，因此证明了 GB 的投资、维护和更新成本增加是合理的。本研究的发现可以帮助建筑行业的政策制定者、从业者、开发商和其他相关方推动监管变革、合作举措、资本投资或其他决策支持。