INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PERFORMANCE OF A NON-GREEN MARK RATED BUILDING IN RELATION TO STAKEHOLDERS � COMMITMENT, GREEN ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND LEGISLATIONS

Abstract

Due to a small percentage of the total points are allocated to Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in the Green Mark Scheme (GMS), the notion where GM accredited building would provide better IEQ for a healthier and more productive workplace than a non-accredited building might be flawed. This had been supported through the results of previous studies conducted on a GM Platinum and a non-GM certified building. The objectives identified for this study are: (1) determine the stakeholder’s commitment on managing the building and office in terms of IEQ, (2) identify other factors in overseas green assessment tools not included in GMS and consider the impact they could have on IEQ, and (3) determine the impact of legislation and ACOP on IEQ performance in office buildings in Singapore. The research hypotheses are: (1) stakeholders tend to focus their resources on energy performance over IEQ performance, (2) there are underlying factors not assessed under GMS that had an impact on the IEQ performance and (3) the IEQ performance is guided by and performed to the minimum requirement stipulated in the legislations and ACOP.

Secondary sources such as results from past dissertations, local and overseas green assessment tools as well as legislation are analyzed. These are supplemented by primary sources from interviews with the tenant and Facilities Manager.

The findings show insufficient evidence to show that the stakeholders place more resources on energy performance over IEQ performance. Also, although it can be proven that there are indeed other factors in overseas green assessment tools not assessed under GMS, there is a lack of such factors in the non-GM certified building. Lastly, comparisons showed that IEQ performances need not be guided by and perform to the minimum requirement of the ACOP.

Limitations of this study include the scope of study which is only limited to one building and hence could not be extended to all cases. Also only two overseas green assessment tools were compared and there might be other factors not identified. Lastly, the lack of quantitative data due to the sensitivity of such information makes it hard to quantify the commitment of stakeholders.