Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273457707

"Green" building in India: A comparative and spatial analysis of the LEED-


India and GRIHA rating systems

Article  in  Asian geographer · March 2015


DOI: 10.1080/10225706.2015.1020065

CITATIONS READS

11 4,129

1 author:

Russell M. Smith
Winston-Salem State University
37 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cities of Color: Exploring the Intersection of Race and Place View project

The ‘Smart’ Cities Mission: An Initial Assessment of India’s Newest Urban Development Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Russell M. Smith on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


This article was downloaded by: [Russell Smith]
On: 13 March 2015, At: 10:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Geographer
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
Click for updates http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rage20

“Green” building in India: a


comparative and spatial analysis of the
LEED-India and GRIHA rating systems
a
Russell M. Smith
a
Department of History, Politics and Social Justice, Winston-
Salem State University, 601 S. MLK Jr. Dr., 108 Coltrane Hall,
Winston-Salem, NC 27110, USA
Published online: 11 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: Russell M. Smith (2015): “Green” building in India: a comparative
and spatial analysis of the LEED-India and GRIHA rating systems, Asian Geographer, DOI:
10.1080/10225706.2015.1020065

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2015.1020065

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Asian Geographer, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2015.1020065

“Green” building in India: a comparative and spatial analysis of the


LEED-India and GRIHA rating systems
Russell M. Smith*

Department of History, Politics and Social Justice, Winston-Salem State University, 601 S. MLK Jr. Dr.,
108 Coltrane Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27110, USA
(Received 29 October 2014; accepted 13 February 2015)

With an urban population exceeding that of the entire USA, India has two systems for
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

encouraging environmentally sustainable growth for its rapidly growing urban population.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-India is associated with the
internationally known LEED program, which is administered in India by the Indian Green
Business Council. Meanwhile, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy and The Energy
and Resource Institute (TERI) developed GRIHA (the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat
Assessment). This indigenous green building standard is similar to the LEED system in
recognizing development that meets certain environmental and sustainable development
practices. This paper seeks to provide an overview of the LEED-India and GRIHA
programs and examine the spatial dynamics of projects developed under LEED-India and
GRIHA requirements. In the end, this analysis will provide important insight into these two
competing urban sustainability programs in India and begin a discussion of the merits of each.
Keywords: urban sustainability; green building; GRIHA; LEED-India; India

Introduction
Urban scholars have declared the twenty-first century as the “urban century”. According to United
Nations (UN) estimates, more than half of the roughly seven billion people inhabiting the planet
lived in urban settings by the end of 2008 (Associated Press 2008). Additional estimates forecast
that by 2050 more than 6.3 billion people around the globe will live in cities (United Nations
2011). The sheer volume of humanity that will migrate or be born into city life is enough to
force one to examine if we can develop better means by which to accommodate the growth of
our cities. In all, 6.3 billion urban dwellers bring with them challenges for housing, transportation,
education, health care and a myriad of public utility related infrastructures.
The problem of urban growth is especially acute in India. In 2014, India had 53 urban areas
with populations greater than one million. Mumbai has an estimated population of 18 million resi-
dents; Delhi’s population is estimated at 16 million and Kolkata more than 14 million people
(IIHS 2012). With approximately 17.5% of the entire world’s population and an urban population
of 372 million (larger than the entire US population), India faces monumental challenges related
to urban growth.

*Email: smithrm@wssu.edu

© 2015 Hong Kong Geographical Association


2 R.M. Smith

A potential solution to the enormous challenges facing urban areas across the planet is creating
more sustainable patterns of urban development. Since the release of “Our Common Future” by the
Brundtland Commission in 1987, sustainability and sustainable development have been increas-
ingly associated with cities. Many urban scholars believe that mankind has the ability to make
the greatest impact on developing a more sustainable world through practicing urban sustainability
(Owen 2009; Glaeser 2011). To this end, several rating systems to encourage sustainable develop-
ment have been authored and applied around the globe including: Building Research Establishment
(UK/Europe), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED; the USA and affiliates
around the globe), GBAS (China), DGNB (Germany) and Green Star (Australia) to name a few.
In India, two programs have been developed to create a more sustainable pattern of develop-
ment: LEED-India and GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment). These pro-
grams seek to create more efficient urban forms through better planning, design and
engineering. Additionally, these programs hope to use India’s limited resources more efficiently
and improve residents overall quality of life.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, this analysis will discuss the background and major
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

characteristics of the two systems of “green” building that are currently utilized in India: LEED-
India and GRIHA. This will include a discussion of the major features of each system and how the
systems have been developed. Second, this paper will explore the spatial distribution of projects
developed under these two green systems to determine if green projects are evenly distributed
across India. In the end, it is envisioned that a more complete understanding of the two
systems for encouraging urban sustainability will be developed through this exploratory analysis.

Literature review
Scholarly interest in urban sustainability has resulted in a plethora of research related to “green”
building. This work can be categorized into a few broad categories for consideration including
examinations/comparisons into specific rating systems, evaluations of the costs and benefits of
“green” buildings, case studies of urban sustainability efforts in specific cities and challenges
to implementation of green practices. Reed et al. (2009) provide an international comparison
of green rating systems that offers an excellent starting point for understanding the differences
and similarities among the various rating systems. Likewise, Bunz, Henze, and Tiller (2006)
examined green building standards in North America (Canada and the USA), Europe (the UK,
Germany and the Netherlands) and Asia (Japan, Hong Kong and Korea). Cidell (2009) provides
an excellent overview of the LEED system standards in the USA as part of her spatial analysis of
certified green buildings and certified green professionals. Smith et al. (2006) completed a com-
parison of the LEED system and Green Globes system in the USA. Finally, Smith (2014) recently
completed a thorough spatial analysis of LEED-ND projects in the USA.
Many scholars have explored the costs and benefits of implementing green building standards
(Von Paumgartten 2003; Edwards 2006; CoStar Group 2008; Eichholtz, Kok, and Quigley 2009).
These studies have determined that green building standards had positive impacts on reducing
energy costs. Additional benefits included lower levels of employee absences and a more
productive workforce. Buildings constructed following green standards also experienced
higher sales and rental prices as well as lower rates of vacancy. Additionally, Miller, Spivey,
and Florance (2008) and Fuerst and McAllister (2011) found that the profit and energy savings
realized by using green building techniques is worth the expense. Lee and Burnett’s (2008) exam-
ination into the efficiency of green buildings in Hong Kong provides a benchmark for comparing
green building schemes across the globe.
Case study examinations into urban sustainability efforts in particular cities have been com-
pleted around the globe. While, Jonas, and Gibbs (2004) provide an overview of urban
Asian Geographer 3

sustainability efforts in Manchester and Leeds in the UK. Although not specifically examining a
green rating system, the authors provide an interesting account of environmental efforts in these
two archetypal UK cities. Theaker and Cole (2001) examined local efforts in implementing sustain-
able practices in two US cities (i.e. Santa Monica, CA, and Austin, TX). More recently, Boschmann
and Gabriel (2013) explored the use of LEED in Denver and Boulder, CO, in the USA. Barredo and
Demcheli’s (2003) analysis of urban sustainability in cities within developing countries, specifically
Lagos, Nigeria, highlights the importance of local efforts across the globe. Newman (2010) pro-
vided another account of local efforts in implementing urban sustainable programs with his exam-
ination of Singapore. Newman (2010) concludes that “green urbanism for the city of the future is
becoming an agenda that cannot be neglected as the global concerns accelerate over climate change,
peak oil, water, waste, biodiversity and urban quality of life” (168).
Some work has focused on the barriers and challenges to implementing green building prac-
tices and standards. Retzlaff (2009) determined that cost was a major issue in implementing the
LEED program as a standard for communities. Additionally, she found that a lack of expertise
regarding the standards by local officials was a major impediment. Jain, Mital, and Syal
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

(2013) found additional obstacles with the implementation of green standards (specifically the
LEED-EB standard) in India including: lack of awareness among stakeholders, lack of technology
in India, standards that were created specific to the USA and not applicable to India, lack of
skilled professionals and high renovation costs associated with existing buildings. Jain, Mital,
and Syal (2013) did find that an increase in the prestige of the project and reduced operating
costs were catalysts motivating the greening of existing buildings. However, no research has
attempted to explore the spatial distribution of LEED-India and GRIHA projects.

Research methodology
Previous research into the spatial distribution of green buildings has revealed an uneven pattern to
green development in the USA (Cidell 2009). It is hypothesized that this uneven spatial distri-
bution of green projects will also exist in India as certain locations draw a disproportionate
share of green projects. The amalgamation of green projects in certain locations may be partially
explained by market forces and government interventions.
To explore this research question, data were collected from the Indian Green Building Council
(IGBC) on LEED-India projects and from the Association for Development and Research of
Sustainable Habitats (ADaRSH) for GRIHA projects. After collecting data on all green projects
that are either under review or have been certified by one of the rating systems from the respective
organizations, each project was reviewed to determine its geographic location (i.e. state or union
territory) and type of project (e.g. residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Note that the data pre-
sented in this analysis were current as of November 2013 and new projects continue to be regis-
tered and certified. In the end, 810 projects were allocated to a specific geography and classified
by type. These projects were then mapped using ArcGIS 10. Supporting documentation and back-
ground information on the respective green rating systems were also collected for each
organization.

Overview of LEED-India and GRIHA


LEED-India is associated with the internationally known LEED program, which is administered
in India by the IGBC. Started in 2001 as an offshoot of the United States Green Building Council
(USGBC) LEED program, the India Green Building Council currently boasts more than 1600
IGBC members spread across 13 local chapters (2013a). The vision of the IGBC is “To enable
4 R.M. Smith

a sustainable built environment for all and facilitate India to be one of the global leaders in sus-
tainable built environment by 2025” (2013e).
LEED-India is a privately managed green rating system that seeks to encourage the construc-
tion of sustainable buildings in India. In general, the LEED system is the preferred method of
green certification by western companies and the private sector in India. The rating system
itself is based on encouraging sustainable design and construction techniques in the development
of new buildings. Points are awarded to projects based on performance related to sustainable site
development, water savings, energy efficiency, material selection and indoor environmental
quality (IGBC 2013d). Similar to other LEED systems, LEED-India awards certification along
four different levels: Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum.
LEED-India is a voluntary program and, in order to be eligible for LEED certification, a pro-
posed project must go through several steps including registration, credit interpretation, certifica-
tion and documentation, and certification award. If a project does not get certified, there is an
appeal process (IGBC 2013b). In sum, the cost of obtaining LEED status can be thousands of
dollars. However, the marketing of a green/LEED building and the operationalized cost
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

savings may well be worth the cost.


LEED-India is the benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance
green buildings and focuses on five main areas: sustainable site development, water savings,
energy efficiency, material selection and indoor environmental quality. These key areas are
tackled by LEED-India through the administration of rating systems for a variety of project types.
For residential development, IGBC offers the Green Homes Rating System that specifically
focuses on energy and water savings. For larger projects, IGBC has created the Green Townships
Rating System. “The ‘IGBC Green Townships Rating System’ is designed to address the issues of
urban sprawl, automobile dependency, social and environmental disconnect. Developments are
evaluated on the following broad aspects: environmental planning, land-use planning, resource
management and community development” (IGBC 2013c). Finally, the IGBC has developed a
program for industrial buildings called the Green Factory Building Rating System in an effort
to bring sustainable design to the workplace. This voluntary and consensus-based program was
launched in July 2009.
GRIHA is a quasi-public system for promoting sustainable building practices and techniques
in India. Developed in the early 2000s and available for project certification beginning in 2005,
GRIHA is an indigenous green rating system that hopes to overcome the shortcomings of LEED
programs. Specifically, GRIHA focuses on the sustainability of projects after they are constructed
by requiring ongoing reporting of performance factors as part of GRIHA recognition. GRIHA
utilizes a 1–5-star rating system that focuses on energy/power consumption, water consumption,
water generation and renewable energy integration (ADaRSH 2013a). These factors are different
than LEED standards and are tailored to the Indian context.
Similar to LEED-India certification, GRIHA is a voluntary program although it should be
noted that the Ministry for New and Renewable Energy has mandated that all government build-
ings be constructed to GRIHA standards in order to receive funding support (Vasandani 2010). In
general, GRIHA has become the preferred and mandated green certification program and process
for public entities.
The process for achieving GRIHA recognition is also similar to the LEED program. GRIHA-
certified projects must follow the following steps: registration, certification fee determination,
submission of documentation and evaluation. The cost of certification is comparable to that of
the LEED program. One interesting carrot that is offered as part of GRIHA certification is the
potential to “fast-track” environmental clearance procedures that is a requirement of many
large projects and could end up saving a developer months of waiting (Turab 2013).
Asian Geographer 5

GRIHA, India’s indigenous green building standard, which is also the national rating system
for India, is similar to the LEED system in recognizing development that meets certain environ-
mental and sustainable development practices. GRIHA was developed beginning in 2000 as a
national alternative to the systems developed in other mostly western countries with very different
climate conditions and resource limitations (ADaRSH 2013a).
GRIHA’s motto is “What gets measured, gets managed” and alludes to the focus on examining
the performance of buildings and projects over the entire life cycle of the development. Specifi-
cally, GRIHA measures energy/power consumption, water consumption, water generation and
renewable energy integration. By placing emphasis on measureable factors, GRIHA seeks to
reduce natural resource consumption patterns, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
the use of renewable energy sources.
Currently, GRIHA has three programs for the application of these ideals. First, the standard
GRIHA system exists that examines projects with a built-upon area of greater than 2500
square meters along 34 criteria. This original program awards points along a continuum of
0–100 with 5 points needed for minimum 1 star certification (ADaRSH 2013c). SVAGRIHA
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

or Small Versatile Affordable GRIHA is another program developed specifically for projects
with a built-upon area of less than 2500 square meters (ADaRSH 2013d). This system is appli-
cable for rating any building that meets the built-upon area limitation except for a factory build-
ing. Finally and most recently, GRIHA for Large Developments (LD) has been developed.
GRIHA LD designation requires a built-upon area greater than or equal to 1,500,000 square
meters and/or a total site area of greater than or equal to 50 hectares (ADaRSH 2013b).
GRIHA LD projects are evaluated along six different factors including site planning, energy,
water and wastewater, solid waste management, transport and social issues. Through the admin-
istration of these three programs, The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) and the Ministry for
New and Renewable Energy hope to positively impact urban sustainability efforts in India.

Characteristics and spatial distribution of LEED-India and GRIHA projects


Numerous green projects have been submitted for certification or have been certified in India under
the LEED umbrella or through the GRIHA system. These projects range from individual residential
developments to large developments upwards of 50 hectares (123 acres). In the following section,
this paper will explore the spatial and project characteristics of developments submitted for green
recognition under LEED and GRIHA standards. Note that while the two programs have similar
goals, they cannot always be compared equivalently due to differences in terminology and criteria.
In sum, 810 green projects are under review or have been certified by the two rating systems in
India according to data collected from the respective organizations. LEED-India had 445 projects

Table 1. Comparison of green rating system projects by type.


Rating
system Development type
Green Green Green Green Total number of
homes buildings factories SEZ projects
LEED- 199 229 16 1 445
India
Residential Commercial Mixed Institutional
use
GRIHAa 89 52 53 109 365
a
62 GRIHA projects were not officially designated in the data reviewed for this analysis.
6 R.M. Smith

registered for certification, while GRIHA has 365 projects under consideration for certification
(Table 1). LEED-India’s larger total number of projects (22%) is not surprising given the name
recognition that is clearly associated with the LEED product and its earlier implementation
date. However, GRIHA does have an inherent advantage with its government support and
mandate for compliance with the GRIHA standard for certain projects.
Of the 445 projects associated with LEED-India, the majority (229 projects or 51.4%) of them
are characterized as green buildings and include commercial, office and industrial developments
(Table 1). Almost 45% of LEED-India projects are identified as green homes for residential use
and may include single-family residences or multi-unit developments. Less than 4% of LEED-
India projects are classified as green factories or green Special Economic Zones, two of
LEED-India’s newest designations.
GRIHA’s projects are more evenly distributed along the range of development types (Table 1).
The largest percentage of GRIHA-identified projects is classified as institutional (29.9%). This is
not an unexpected finding given the government support for the program and the mandate that new
public structures meet GRIHA standards. The government of India has mandated that all new
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

national government projects obtain a GRIHA rating (A. Vij, personal communication, February
18, 2014). GRIHA also has 89 residential projects (24.4%) under review or recently certified.
Finally, approximately 14.5% of GRIHA projects are classified as mixed use or commercial.
The spatial distribution of the 810 green projects highlights an uneven and complex geogra-
phy (Figure 1). In total, the state of Maharashtra had the greatest number of green projects in India

Figure 1. Total number of green projects in India by state/union territory.


Source: IGBC, ADaRSH and author’s calculations.
Asian Geographer 7

Table 2. Top 10 states/union territories for green projects.


LEED- % of total % of total % of total
India LEED-India GRIHA GRIHA Total green green
State projects projects projects projects projects projects
1. Maharashtra 160 35.95 124 33.97 284 35.06
2. Tamil Nadu 80 17.97 12 3.28 92 11.35
3. Karnataka 49 11.01 18 4.93 67 8.27
4. Andhra 42 9.43 17 4.65 59 7.28
Pradesh
5. Uttar Pradesh 23 5.16 23 6.30 46 5.67
6. Haryana 22 4.94 21 5.75 43 5.30
7. Delhi 7 1.57 34 9.31 41 5.06
8. Gujarat 16 3.59 20 5.47 36 4.44
9. West Bengal 9 2.02 13 3.56 22 2.71
10. Rajasthan 8 1.79 13 3.56 21 2.59
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

with 284 green buildings or 35.06% of all green projects under development in India (Table 2).
The majority of these projects are located in the Greater Mumbai metropolitan region. The state of
Maharashtra may have a large portion of green projects due to local government incentives that
reward green building standards (Sustainable Initiatives – News 2014). The state of Tamil Nadu is
the second most popular location for green buildings in India with 92 green projects (11.35%).
Although the majority of Tamil Nadu’s green projects are LEED-India projects (80 out of 92
green developments). According to a 2011 report by realism.IN, Chennai, a major city in the
state of Tamil Nadu, has a high concentration of certified green buildings due to a climate of cor-
porate social responsibility, high return of investment and low operating costs associated with
green buildings (Sharma and Agarwal 2012). Surprisingly, Delhi is the seventh-ranked state/
union territory for green building activity. It was expected that Delhi would rank higher on the
overall rankings of green building activity due to its large population size (second largest popu-
lation in India) and the large impact of government projects that must meet green standards in the
region.
Twelve states and/or union territories did not report any green building activity under the
LEED-India and GRIHA programs. These states and union territories include Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Jammu and
Kashmir, Lakshadweep, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Sikkim and Tripura. The
Union Territory of Chandigarh only had one green project reported. In general, these 13 areas
are located on the periphery of the country, away from the urbanizing megapolitan regions of
India. Additionally, many of these places are also near contested political boundaries that may
limit the opportunity or desire for investment.
Further examination of the spatial distribution of green buildings in India reveals another
unique pattern. In general, LEED-India projects tend to be concentrated in the western and
southern part of India with almost 75% of all LEED-India projects being located in four
western and southern states (Figure 2). Specifically, LEED-India buildings are plentiful in the
states of Maharashtra (35.95%), Tamil Nadu (17.97%), Karnataka (11.01%) and Andhra
Pradesh (9.43%). Surprisingly, Delhi only accounted for 7 LEED-India projects or 1.57% of
total LEED-India activity.
GRIHA projects are more evenly distributed throughout the states of India (Figure 3).
However, the state of Maharashtra has a large concentration of GRIHA projects with 124 devel-
opments or 33.97% of the total GRIHA activity in India. There is also a slightly higher concen-
tration of GRIHA projects in the states of northern India. This is especially true around the capital
8 R.M. Smith
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

Figure 2. Total number of LEED-India projects in India by state/union territory.


Source: IGBC and author’s calculations.

region of Delhi. Delhi (9.31%), Uttar Pradesh (6.30%) and Haryana (5.75%) account for more
than one-fifth of the total number of GRIHA projects. This finding may be the result of central
government requirements that link a GRIHA rating to all new government projects.
A geographical analysis of green building in India has revealed an uneven and complex spatial
distribution to sustainable building practices. Several states (i.e. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka) generated a disproportionate share of green building within India, while
other states/union territories did not experience any green building during the study period
(e.g. Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, etc.). Several explanations can be
offered for these findings including the role of foreign investment (i.e. Multinational Corporations
(MNCs)/Transnational Corporations), government incentives and regulations, and local environ-
mental and infrastructure pressures.
Foreign investment and the preference by MNCs for green buildings may be driving some of the
green buildings in several states including Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The IT boom
taking place in Bangalore, located in the state of Karnataka, has infused a great amount of capital
into the city and a preference for green buildings. One example of this is WIPRO which is located
on the outskirts of Bangalore and has shown an affinity for green building practices.
Local governments in some states are also offering additional incentives to developers that
utilize green building standards. Pimpri-Chinchwad, a suburb of Pune in the state of Maharashtra,
has provided numerous incentives to green developments (TNN 2013). Additionally, Noida and
Greater Noida (near Delhi) offer incentives for both GRIHA- and LEED-rated projects (Kaushika
2010; TNN 2011). Numerous other locales are also considering adopting green incentive
Asian Geographer 9
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

Figure 3. Total number of GRIHA projects in India by state/union territory.


Source: ADaRSH and author’s calculations.

programs and/or regulations that could further impact the spatial distribution of green develop-
ments (Staff Reporter 2012; Mehta 2013). These incentives and/or regulations may be driving
some of the green development within specific geographies.
Finally, local environmental and infrastructure conditions may be contributing to the loca-
tional variability of green building projects. For example, acute water shortages in the city of
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, spurred a local rain harvesting movement (Sharma and Agarwal 2012).
The now mandatory rainwater harvesting provision for all developments in Chennai is also
part of the LEED rating system and may be leading some developers to consider green building
practices. Additionally, limited electricity in some part of the country has resulted in a movement
to solar energy. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation explored the use of green building
practices as a way to solve some of their energy shortages and encourage the use of alternative
energy sources (Staff Reporter 2012).

Summary of findings
India has two primary methods for encouraging and developing green buildings within the country.
LEED-India is an internationally recognized system that was created by developed countries and is
easily marketed around the globe. Meanwhile, GRIHA is a locally developed system of encoura-
ging green building in India and builds upon some of the success of LEED. Additionally,
GRIHA has included a requirement for the ongoing evaluation of certified buildings as they
become operational in an effort to chart the long-term benefits of green buildings.
10 R.M. Smith

The analysis conducted within this study outlines some of the major differences in the two
programs related to project characteristics and geography. LEED-India is the preferred system
of the private development with a large percentage of its buildings being residential and com-
mercial in characterization. Meanwhile, GRIHA has been largely employed by the public
sector for the development of institutional projects. The spatial analysis of projects revealed
a large disparity between LEED-India projects and GRIHA projects across the county.
Specifically, GRIHA projects tend to be more prevalent in the capital region of Delhi,
while LEED projects are more prevalent in the booming growth areas of Mumbai, Bangalore
and Chennai. Maharashtra is a major center of both types of green activity accounting for
35% of all green building activities in India (35.95% of LEED-India projects and 33.97%
of GRIHA projects).

Conclusions
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

In 2003, India only had 20,000 square feet of green building area. Today India has 1.1 billion
square feet and is the second largest producer of green space in the world, only behind the
USA with over three billion square feet of green building space (Moloney 2013a). As the
market for green buildings has grown, the cost associated with planning and constructing
green buildings has also decreased. In the early 2000s, a green building costs approximately
18% more to construct compared with a traditional building in India. Today, the difference
between the two building types is only 5% more (Moloney 2013b). As the benefits of
green buildings become more apparent and the cost difference between traditional and
green constructions decreases, the green building movement of LEED-India and GRIHA
will march on.
As urban development migrates to greener building practices, developing a more thorough
understanding of these green rating systems is of critical importance to practitioners and aca-
demics. The work completed in this paper begins to help build a more robust body of knowl-
edge through examining the differences and similarities between the green programs and
identifying best practices. Second, the spatial analysis highlights the role of policy decisions
in encouraging certain green rating systems in specific geographies. Specifically, the role of
government mandates and/or incentives is clearly showcased in the locational variation
between LEED-India and GRIHA developments. Finally, the lack of green development pro-
jects in certain areas of India clearly articulates the need for a more uniform policy related
to sustainable development – if creating a more sustainable pattern of development is truly
desired.
In conclusion, an estimate by the IGBC shows that two billion square feet of green space
could be developed by as soon as 2015. It will be interesting to see if the spatial patterns identified
in this analysis persist into the future, as both green programs are relatively young or if one
program will win out.1 Future analysis of green building patterns and trends in India should
include an examination of specific case studies and government incentives related to green build-
ing programs. Cities are the future and the successful implementation of sustainable development
is key to protecting the environment, providing livable spaces for people and conserving precious
and limited natural resources.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Asian Geographer 11

Note
1. In July 2014, TERI and the USGBC announced that they would partner to accelerate the development of
high performance buildings in India.

References
ADaRSH (Association for Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats). 2013a. “About GRIHA.”
http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73.
ADaRSH (Association for Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats). 2013b. “GRIHA for Large
Development.” http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93.
ADaRSH (Association for Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats). 2013c. “GRIHA Rating.”
http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87.
ADaRSH (Association for Development and Research of Sustainable Habitats). 2013d. “SVA GRIHA.”
http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86.
Associated Press. 2008. “UN Says Half the World’s Population will Live in Urban Areas by End of 2008.”
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

International Herald Tribune, February 26.


Barredo, J. I., and L. Demicheli. 2003. “Urban Sustainability in Developing Countries’ Megacities:
Modelling and Predicting Future Urban Growth in Lagos.” Cities 20 (5): 297–310.
Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: World Commission on Environment and
Development.
Boschmann, E. E., and J. N. Gabriel. 2013. “Urban Sustainability and the LEED Rating System: Case
Studies on the Role of Regional Characteristics and Adaptive Reuse in Green Buildings in Denver
and Boulder, Colorado.” The Geographical Journal 179 (3): 221–233.
Bunz, K. R., G. P. Henze, and D. K. Tiller. (2006). “Survey of Sustainable Building Design Practices in
North America, Europe, and Asia.” Journal of Architectural Engineering 12 (1): 33–62.
Cidell, J. 2009. “Building Green: The Emerging Geography of LEED-Certified Buildings and
Professionals.” The Professional Geographer 61 (2): 200–215.
CoStar Group. 2008. “Commercial Real Estate and the Environment.” http://www.costar.com/
uploadedFiles/Partners/CoStar-Green-Study.pdf.
Edwards, B. 2006. “Benefits of Green Offices in the UK: Analysis from Examples Built in the 1990s.”
Sustainable Development 14: 190–204.
Eichholtz, P., N. Kok, and J. Quigley. 2009. “Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings.” http://
www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/seminar20090130.pdf.
Fuerst, F., and P. McAllister. 2011. “Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Effects of Environmental
Certification on Office Values.” Real Estate Economics 39 (1): 45–69.
Glaeser, E. L. 2011. Triumph of the City. New York: The Penguin Press.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2013a. “Annual Review: 2012–2013.” http://www.ezinemart.com/
igbc/annualreview/home.aspx.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2013b. “Certification.” http://www.igbc.in/site/igbc/testigbc.jsp?
desc=22968&event=22869.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2013c. “Green Townships.” http://www.igbc.in/site/igbc/testigbc.
jsp?desc=267002&event=267001.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2013d. “LEED-India.” http://www.igbc.in/site/igbc/tests.jsp?event=
22869.
IGBC (Indian Green Building Council). 2013e. “Vision.” http://www.igbc.in/site/igbc/index.jsp#.
IIHS (Indian Institute for Human Settlements). 2012. “Urban India 2011: Evidence.” http://citiesalliance.org/
sites/citiesalliance.org/files/IUC%20Booklet%20on%20Indian%20cities.pdf.
Jain, M., M. Mital, and M. Syal. 2013. “Obstacles and Catalysts Associated with Implementation of LEED-
EB® in India.” Environment and Urbanization Asia 4 (2): 349–363.
Kaushika, P. (2010). “Noida Looks at Incentive to Promote Green Buildings.” http://archive.indianexpress.
com/news/noida-looks-at-incentive-to-promote-green-buildings/699825/.
Lee, W. L., and J. Burnett. 2008. “Benchmarking Energy Use Assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and
LEED.” Building and Environment 43 (11): 1882–1891.
Mehta, R. 2013. “Developers Welcome Centre’s Move to Promote Green Buildings.” http://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/city/thane/Developers-welcome-Centres-move-to-promote-green-buildings/articleshow/
26870098.cms?referral=PM.
12 R.M. Smith

Miller, N., J. Spivey, and A. Florance. 2008. “Does Green Pay off?” Journal of Real Estate Portfolio
Management 14 (4): 385–400.
Moloney, C. 2013a. “Green Building in India: Indian Market Is Second Largest After U.S.” http://www.
green-buildings.com/content/782338-green-building-india-indian-market-second-largest-after-us.
Moloney, C. 2013b. “India Expects to Reach 2 Billion Square Feet of Green Building by 2015.” http://www.
green-buildings.com/content/782575-india-expects-reach-2-billion-square-feet-green-building-2015.
Newman, P. 2010. “Green Urbanism and Its Application to Singapore.” Environment and Urbanization Asia
1 (2): 149–170.
Owen, D. 2009. Green Metropolis: Why Living in Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to
Sustainability. New York: Riverhead Books.
Reed, R., A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson, and K. W. Schulte. 2009. “International Comparison of Sustainable Rating
Tools.” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1 (1): 1–22.
Retzlaff, R. C. 2009. “The Use of LEED in Planning and Development Regulation.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 29: 67–77.
Sharma, D., and M. Agarwal. 2012. Why Does Chennai Have the Largest Number of Certified Green
Buildings? Gyanism: White Paper Series of Realism.IN. II(1), January. http://www.realism.in/drupal/
exclusive.
Smith, R. M. 2014. “Planning for Urban Sustainability: The Geography of LEED®-Neighborhood
Downloaded by [Russell Smith] at 10:25 13 March 2015

DevelopmentTM (LEED®-NDTM) Projects in the United States.” International Journal of Urban


Sustainable Development. doi:10.1080/19463138.2014.971802.
Smith, T., M. Fischlein, S. Sangwon, and P. Huelman. 2006. Green Building Rating Systems: A Comparison
of the LEED and Green Globes Systems in the US. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Staff Reporter. 2012. “Tax Incentives for ‘Green Buildings.’” The Hindu, April 26.
Sustainable Initiatives. 2014. “Incentives Framework for GRIHA and SVAGRIHA Rated Buildings in
PCMC.” http://www.sustainability-initiatives.org/site1/incentives-framework-for-griha-and-svagriha-
rated-buildings-in-pcmc/.
Theaker, I., and R. Cole. 2001. “The Role of Local Governments in Fostering ‘Green’ Buildings: A Case
Study.” Building Research and Information 29 (5): 394–408.
TNN. 2011. “Master Plan for a Better Noida Unveiled.” http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011–
11–26/news/30444464_1_master-plan-greater-noida-noida-authority.
TNN. 2013. “PCMC Wants All New Buildings to be Eco-friendly.” http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/
pune/PCMC-wants-all-new-buildings-to-be-eco-friendly/articleshow/18142503.cms?referral=PM.
Turab, Y. 2013. “LEED-India vs. GRIHA: What Is the Cost of Green Building Certification in India?” http://
www.green-buildings.com/content/782359-leed-india-vs-griha-what-cost-green-building-certification-
india.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division, Population Estimates and
Projections Section. 2011. “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision.” http://esa.un.org/unup/.
Vasandani, B. 2010. “LEED vs GRIHA – Putting Indian Developers in a Quandary.” http://bharatvasandani.
wordpress.com/tag/leed-vs-griha/.
Von Paumgartten, P. 2003. “The Business Case for High-Performance Green Buildings: Sustainability and
Its Financial Impact.” Journal of Facilities Management 2 (1): 26–34.
While, A., A. E. G. Jonas, and D. Gibbs. 2004. “The Environment and the Entrepreneurial City: Searching
for the Urban ‘Sustainability Fix’ in Manchester and Leeds.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 28 (3): 549–569.

View publication stats

Вам также может понравиться