This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted
for publication in the following source:
Nguyen, Hong Trang & Gray, Matthew
(2016)
A review on green building in Vietnam.
Procedia Engineering, 142, pp. 314-321.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/221210/
© Copyright 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative
Works 4.0
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.053
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Sustainable Development of Civil, Urban and Transportation Engineering conference
A review on green building in Vietnam
Hong-Trang Nguyena*, Matthew Graya
a
Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
Abstract
Following market reforms in 1986 Vietnam has transformed from a poor closed economy to a low middle income economy. Like
other developing countries, economic growth has placed significant pressure on both infrastructure and environment, particularly
the pressure of increasing housing demand, energy consumption, and waste and pollution management. In response to the
development challenges and the green movement globally, the government has initiated actions to promote green building to
promote more sustainable development. However, green building adoption in Vietnam is still criticised as being slow and lacking
governmental support. This paper proposes that promoting green building could solve three inter-connected challenges hindering
sustainable development, and provides a comparative review of progress.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016.
Keywords: green building; Vietnam;sustainable development; climate change.
1. Introduction
Vietnam is a developing country located in South East Asia. The country has a total mainland of 330,966.9km2,
which stretches from North to South along the Gulf of Tonkin with 3,260km of coastline, and consists of two typical
topographies, “small but very productive areas, such as the Mekong- and Red River deltas and large areas of less
productive, mountainous terrain” [1-3].
The one-party Communist state went through a political and economic reform in 1986 [4], achieved a fast and
remarkable development, and became one of the success stories in the world in terms of both economic growth and
poverty reduction [5, 6]. Since then, the country has transformed from a poor closed economy to a low middle
income economy with 1755 US dollars per capita in 2012 [The World Bank 2014, as cited in 6], and maintained a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-449-796-958.
E-mail address:
[email protected]1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016.
2 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000
growth rate at approximately 7.3% per year between 1995 and 2008 [7].
However, the economic growth has significantly increased pressure on both the infrastructure and environment,
particularly pressure of increasing demand for buildings, energy consumption, and waste and pollution management.
The green movement in the world has placed green building in a high priority as it is able to meet the building
demand while mitigating the negative impacts of construction industry. Following the movement to deal with its
own development problems, Vietnam necessitates green building in its pathway to sustainability.
2. Inter-connected challenges Vietnam is facing on its pathway of development
2.1. Overgrowing population and urbanisation leading to increasing demand for buildings
Since the 1986 reforms, urbanisation has accelerated and its population begun to grow, corresponding with the
economic development. Like other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa, the country has also experienced
over-urbanisation concerning the fast pace and scale of urbanisation without correspondingly benefits the urban
production [8, 9]. In both theory and statistical data, this phenomenon is directly related to the proportion of
population living in urban areas [10, 11]. The current population of Vietnam is 90.7 million and it is predicted to
grow up to 108.7 million in 2049 with 58.8% of the population residing in urban areas [3, 12]. As there is a two-
sided link between population and housing [13], this growth in population and over-urbanisation will create a huge
demand on buildings in the coming years. Construction statistical data showed that each year, the average of
housing floor areas constructed increased by 115.9% from 2005 to 2013, presented in Fig. 1. [14]. In 2014,
according to Ministry of Construction, 92 million m2 housing floor was built, increasing the average floor per people
to 20.6m2, in which, the average one in urban areas is 23m2/pp and in rural areas is 19.5m2/pp. Up to 2014, the total
area of housing floor constructed is approximately 1,873.65 million m2.
100000
90000 Mekong River Delta
80000
South East
70000
Thousand m2
60000 Central Highlands
50000
40000 North Central and Central
coastal areas
30000
Northern midlands and
20000 mountain areas
10000 Red River Delta
0
2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fig. 1.: Areas of housing floor were constructed from 2005 to 2013 [adapted from 14]
2.2. Predicted insecurity of energy supply
High growth rate of the economy, industrialisation, over-urbanisation and increasing population are believed to be
the drivers of energy demand. Total demand increased by 9.3 per cent annually between the years 1990 – 2007; and
it is estimated to increase by 5.5 per cent annually up to the year 2025. Currently, energy production relies primarily
on fossil fuel, including coal, oil, gas, followed by hydro and other renewable energy [15]. The reliance on fossil
fuel has made the energy system of Vietnam carbonised even faster than the world average, China’s and newly
industrialised countries’ (Fig. 2.a).
However, reserve of oil and gas will not be enough for energy production beyond 25 year time-horizon, according to
Minh Do and Sharma [16]. Additionally, due to limited reserve generation capacity and rain-fall dependency of
hydro, the national electricity system has experienced power shortages relatively frequently in the dry season. In a
long term, studies since 2011 have pointed out that Vietnam will become a net importer of energy in a decade when
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000 3
the demand surpasses the domestic energy production around 2015 (Fig. 3) [7, 15, 16]. It is also projected that in
2025, the nation will need to import approximately 49 per cent of its total primary energy needs. Scholars have
suggested that the government should promote energy efficiency, develop market-based energy pricing and
incorporate energy plans with other programs to form a long-term policy package [15, 16]. Even an increase as
small as US 7.5 cent/kWh in the electricity tariff would drive up the prices of all other factors, thus, it is hard to
implement at one time, especially when Vietnam is facing a high inflation rate [17]. Therefore, in the meantime,
energy efficiency would be one of the main solutions to deal with the energy shortage.
(a) (b)
Fig. Error! No text of specified style in document..: (a) Carbon intensity; (b) Energy intensity (PPP) over time for Vietnam, China, newly
industrialised countries (NIC) and the global average [adapted from 18]
Fig. 2.: Primary energy demand and supply balance [adapted from 16]
2.3. Environmental detriment and negative impacts of climate change
Vietnam has witnessed environmental detriment due to “economic development, urbanisation, industrialisation,
energy consumption and consumption of natural resources” [6]. Economic growth effects, industrialisation, energy
intensity and growing population release pollution and increase CO2 emission [19-21]. Currently the electricity
prices for manufacture are low and subsidised; it has made Vietnam more appeal to those industries that are high
energy intensity such as steel and cement [16]. This contributes to the energy intensity of the economy and carbon
emission (Fig. 2. b). There is also evidence of a positive relationship between urbanisation and emissions although it
is argued that the impact of urbanisation on CO2 emission is not statistically significant [20, 22, 23]. The pollution is
predicted to be persistent along with the economic growth as the relationship between GDP and pollution remains
positive in both short and long term, proven that the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis does not exist in the
country’s context [6].
Due to the excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, the world is experiencing climate change and global
warming. Vietnam’s long coast line in addition to low-lying and densely populated delta regions make it vulnerable
to present climate extremes and future climate changes [24]. Currently, the country is suffering from more frequent
strong typhoons during the monsoon season, volatile rainfall patterns and droughts in different extents and locations
[25, 26]. In the near future, it is also forecasted to be one of the five nations in the world most severely impacted by
rising sea-levels and one of six countries in Pacific-Rim region most vulnerable to climate change [2, 27, 28]. As
4 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000
most areas are within 60km of the coastline, Carew-Reid [2] predicted that inundation from a one meter sea level
rise will result in the loss of 4.4% of Vietnam’s territory, which include coastal areas and the Mekong river delta
region, affecting 6 million people in 2100. Since the economy backbone of the nation falls in its coastal zone and the
lowlands near the coast, which are rich in natural and socio-economic assets, the loss will directly impact its wealth
and standard of living [26].
Additionally, more severe droughts, storm intensity, flooding and changes in rainfall pattern as consequences of
climate change will affect aquaculture, agriculture and food production [2, 29]. Agriculture plays an important role
in the Vietnam economy, making up 21% of GDP, the climate related damages will directly threaten food security
and social welfare [30]. Rural areas – where almost all of the agricultural activities take place and which have low
adaptive capacity – are extremely vulnerable to natural disasters. The change in climate pattern and frequency of
climate shocks has negative effects on household income and expenditure, threatening their livelihood [31]. This
adds to the economic pressure that has pushed people in rural areas seeking for employment and education
opportunities in the cities to diversify their income from agriculture dependency – a livelihood strategy called rural-
urban migration [32]. Census data revealed that the rural-urban migration strongly influences the urban population
and also over-urbanisation, creating a greater demand for buildings [11].
3. The green building movement as a solution to mitigate the negative impact of the construction industry
3.1. Impacts of the construction industry and buildings
Given the large demand for buildings in Vietnam in the near future, the construction industry is predicted to gained
more focus and investment. However, this industry is unarguably one of the main contributors to global warming
and the largest polluters affecting the environment. Its impacts on climate change have been addressed by numerous
scholars and researchers [33-35]. The construction industry produces half of worldwide CO2 emissions and
consumes almost 50% of all global resources [36]. 36% of total electricity usage in Vietnam is reportedly consumed
by this section [37]. Ortiz, Castells [38] cite a number of research accusing the industry of “high-energy
consumption, solid waste generation, GHG emissions, external and internal pollution, environment damage and
resource depletion”. Although it makes the development path more challenging, this industry is considered as
having a great potential to contribute to sustainable development through improvements in its long lasting products
[39, 40].
Buildings affect humans and the environment in countless ways [41]. As we spend about 90% of our time in indoor
activities, buildings can positively and negatively impact on our living environment [U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, 2004, as cited in 42, Klepeis; Tsang & Behar, 1995, as cited in 43]. They provide shelter and protect us
from natural extremes [41], however, buildings release volatile organic compounds which pose serious risks to our
health [42]. Buildings consume 50% of energy generated and 70% of all timber as well as a considerable proportion
of raw materials globally [36, 39, 44]. A significant amount of wastes is also produced during their lifecycle, from
construction, operation and demolition processes [39, 44]. Buildings contribute to air pollution, noise pollution,
waste pollution and water pollution [34].
3.2. The green building movement
Green building (hereinafter referred to as GB) is defined by US Green Building Council [2007, as cited in 41] as the
“practice of creating and using healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation,
maintenance and demolition”. Kibert (2004) further defines green/sustainable buildings as “the facilities which are
the outcomes of sustainable construction for the purpose of promoting occupant health and resource efficiency,
minimizing the impacts of the built environment on the natural ecology system” [as cited in 45]. A more specific
definition stated by Hu, Geertman [46] refers to green housing as environmentally-friendly buildings which are
resource-efficient, energy-saving, heath-improved and comfortable for living. In this study, green buildings are
those embrace the principles of lower environmental impacts through greater energy efficiency, lower energy
demand, reduce water usage, improve indoor quality and minimise construction waste [O'Leary, 2008 as cited in
47].
The GB movement started in 1970s in Europe and US. It is first considered as a solution to reduce energy
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000 5
consumption to deal with instable energy markets after an oil embargo imposed by Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) [48]. Gradually, GB gained serious attention from government, industry players and
scholars as a promising innovation to mitigate building related environment problems such as excessive
consumption of energy and water [Retzlaff, 2009, as cited in 46, Nelms et al. 2005, Sparks, 2007 as cited in 49, 50].
Consequently, GB is now considered as a means to achieve low carbon construction towards sustainability [41, 51,
52].
From those purposes, GB is often designed to achieve positive environment performance and assessed by GB rating
tools, which also comprise environment related criteria such as sustainable sites and transport, energy and water
efficiency, environmentally friendly materials, indoor air quality improvement [33, 53, 54]. The benefits of GB are
generally accepted as resource efficiency, health improvement of occupants and waste reduction during the building
lifecycle [36, 55]. GB has been believed to bring direct economic benefits to their owners as they are able to save
lifecycle costs, improve occupant productivity and performance, and increase their competitive advantage [56]. As
an innovation, GB is proved that it has increased average rents and prices’ value of early adopters more than that of
later entrants [57]. Furthermore, it would also bring indirect economic and environmental benefits to the
surrounding communities [57, 58]. A GB market report by BCI Economics [59] showed that buildings certified by
Green Star—the sustainable building assessment tool used widely in Australia and New Zealand—bring significant
positive effects. Those buildings only emit one third of GHGs, use a third of electricity, consume half of portable
water compared to average Australian buildings, and also recycle almost 96% of demolition waste. GB practices,
thus, are able to contribute greatly in reducing greenhouse gas, mitigating climate change impacts and maintaining
energy security.
As GB brings both tangible and intangible benefits, the movement is gaining momentum and has become a global
trend [36, 41, 60]. The Green Building Council network and Green Building Certifications are now present in 93
states and tertiaries worldwide and has significantly accelerated global GB practices [61, 62]. From a comparative
study of global GB evaluation tools, Reed, Wilkinson [60] show a considerable increase in the number and maturity
of international sustainable building organisations through a large number of projects registering and seeking
certificates in last 10 years, illustrating the successful progress of this initiative.
In Southeast Asia, Green Building Councils were formed in six countries with their associated green building rating
systems, including Brunei, Green Ship of Indonesia, Green Building Index of Malaysia, Building for Ecologically
Responsive Design Excellence of Philippines, Green Mark of Singapore and LOTUS of Vietnam [62] with an
increasing number of buildings being certified. However, scholars point out that the concept of sustainability is still
relatively new in the region, many important stakeholders in the construction industry are not aware of the GB
concepts [63].
In Vietnam, Solidiance and VGBC [64] claim that the development of the GB market is still in its initial stages
although it has obtained increasing attentions from both the industry and government, and become a topic of recent
real estate fora and conferences [50, 65]. After the first building was certified in 2008, GB can now be seen in large
cities throughout the country, mainly in two major metropolitan areas – Hanoi and HoChiMinh City. In terms of
organisation setting, the Vietnam Green Building Council was established in 2007 and joined World Green Building
Council Network as an Associated Group. The Council has played a considerably important role in promoting GB
practices such as engaging construction experts in developing LOTUS - a GB certification developed for Vietnam’s
conditions - and organising regular nationwide training courses about green buildings’ solutions. Comparing
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) and LOTUS, industry leaders point out that LEED is
considered having higher recognition while LOTUS has higher applicability and lower implementation cost [64].
The LOTUS assessment tools include: LOTUS-NR for non-residential buildings; LOTUS-R for residential
buildings; LOTUS-BIO for Building in Operation; and LOTUS Interiors and LOTUS Homes are under
development. In 2013, there were 21 LEED projects and 9 LOTUS projects in the total of 41 projects certified as
Green building. Until now, there are 34 LEED projects and 14 LOTUS projects. Based on the small ratio of the
number of GB projects on the area of floors constructed each year, the adoption of GB is still in its initial stages
(Spot A in Fig. 4.). It shows a stronger trend towards the international certification and limited recognition of
LOTUS - the localised sustainability assessment tool. This could be the result of majority of GB projects’ investors
being multinational companies while domestic ones still hesitate about investing in GB [64].
6 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000
Fig. 4.: The adoption curve for green construction [adapted from 66]
Another organisation - Green Building Council Vietnam (GBCVietnam) - was established in 2011 as a national
government-sponsored council, demonstrating an official advocacy for GB adoption [67]. This council consists of
19 academia and scholars who are experienced in GB’s attributes. They are developing the National Green Building
Development Strategy for 2020-2030 and a Green Building Assessment Criterion System under contracts with a
government agency. Those documents will form an important legal foundation for the development of GB. Pham
[67] – as the vice chairman of GBCV - also believes that GB movement in Vietnam is still at its infancy without an
adequate attention from the public.
Comparing the number of GB with other peer countries in the region such as Indonesia with 23 LEED projects and
105 GREENSHIP projects or Philippines with 142 LEED projects [68, 69] illustrates a slow progress of green
building adoption in Vietnam. While Vietnam has limited programs addressing renewable energy and energy
efficiency, and has yet provided GB regulations, the other two countries have implemented numerous financial and
advocacy incentives to encourage investment in renewable energy and GB, including feed-in-tariff, net metering,
soft loan schemes for renewable energy producers and environmentally friendly investment, and GB guidelines [70].
It is argued that the Vietnam government necessitates stronger actions to promote GB provided the worsen effect of
climate change and all the development challenges.
4. Conclusion
With all the benefits that GB could bring, it should be considered as a solution for the development related
challenges and increasing demand for buildings in Vietnam, including growing population and over-urbanisation,
predicted insecurity of energy supply, and environmental detriment and negative impacts of climate change.
However, the GB adoption in Vietnam is still criticised as being slow and lacking governmental support. It is
recommended that the government needs to take stronger actions such as ratifying regulations or offering incentives
to promote GB towards sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a part of a Doctorate degree undertaken in Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The
authors would like to express the deepest gratitude towards the sponsorship of QUT and the support of IEEE,
Vietnam. The authors also appreciate comments of two anonymous reviewers in preparing this paper.
References
[1] A.W. Thulstrup, Livelihood Resilience and Adaptive Capacity: Tracing Changes in Household Access to Capital in Central Vietnam. World
Development. 74 (2015) 352-362.
[2] J. Carew-Reid, Rapid Assessment of the Extent and Impact of Sea Level Rise in Viet Nam. Climate Change Discussion Paper 1, ed. P.-J.
Meynell, ICEM–International Centre for Environmental Management, Brisbane, Australia, 2007.
[3] General Statistics office of Vietnam. Average population by province. 2015; Available from:
https://www.gso.gov.vn/SLTKE/pxweb/en/02.%20Population%20and%20Employment/-/E02.03-
07.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=5a7f4db4-634a-4023-a3dd-c018a7cf951d.
Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000 7
[4] L. Steer and K. Sen, Formal and Informal Institutions in a Transition Economy: The Case of Vietnam. World Development. 38(11) (2010)
1603-1615.
[5] F. Tarp, D. Roland-Holst, and J. Rand, Economic structure and development in an emergent Asian economy: evidence from a social
accounting matrix for vietnam. Journal of Asian Economics. 13(6) (2003) 847-871.
[6] U. Al-Mulali, B. Saboori, and I. Ozturk, Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy. 76 (2015) 123-
131.
[7] K.T. Pham, M.B. Nguyen, and H.D. Nguyen, Energy supply, demand, and policy in Viet Nam, with future projections. Energy Policy. 39(11)
(2011) 6814-6826.
[8] J. Beall and S. Fox, Cities and development, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, 2009.
[9] Y.W. Bradshaw, Urbanization and underdevelopment: a global study of modernization, urban bias, and economic dependency. American
Sociological Review. 52(2) (1987) 224-239.
[10] N.V. Sovani, The analysis of" over-urbanization". Economic Development and Cultural Change. (1964) 113-122.
[11] General Statistics Office of Vietnam, Vietnam Population and Housing Census 2009 - Migration and Urbanization in Vietnam: Patterns,
Trends and Differentials, Ministry of Planning and Investment, Editor. 2009.
[12] Ministry of Planning and Investment, Population projection for Vietnam 2009-2049, G.S. Office, Editor. 2011.
[13] C.H. Mulder, Population and housing: A two sided relationship. Demographic Research. 15 (2006) 401-412.
[14] General Statistics office of Vietnam, Area of housing floors constructed in the year by region, G.S.o.o. Vietnam, Editor. 2015.
[15] D.L. Nguyen, A critical review on Energy Efficiency and Conservation policies and programs in Vietnam. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. 52 (2015) 623-634.
[16] T. Minh Do and D. Sharma, Vietnam's energy sector: A review of current energy policies and strategies. Energy Policy. 39(10) (2011) 5770-
5777.
[17] K.Q. Nguyen, Impacts of a rise in electricity tariff on prices of other products in Vietnam. Energy Policy. 36(8) (2008) 3145-3149.
[18] A. Zimmer, M. Jakob, and J.C. Steckel, What motivates Vietnam to strive for a low-carbon economy? — On the drivers of climate policy in
a developing country. Energy for Sustainable Development. 24 (2015) 19-32.
[19] Z.H. Lee, et al., An overview on global warming in South East Asia: CO2 emission status, efforts done and barriers. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 28 (2013) 71-81.
[20] I. Martínez-Zarzoso and A. Maruotti, The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: Evidence from developing countries. Ecological
Economics. 70(7) (2011) 1344-1353.
[21] R.M. Shrestha, G. Anandarajah, and M.H. Liyanage, Factors affecting CO2 emission from the power sector of selected countries in Asia and
the Pacific. Energy Policy. 37(6) (2009) 2375-2384.
[22] P. Poumanyvong and S. Kaneko, Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecological
Economics. 70(2) (2010) 434-444.
[23] Y. Li, et al., Does urbanization lead to more direct and indirect household carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from China during 1996–
2012. Journal of Cleaner Production. 102 (2015) 103-114.
[24] W. Neil Adger, Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam. World Development. 27(2) (1999) 249-269.
[25] S. Lohmann and T. Lechtenfeld, The Effect of Drought on Health Outcomes and Health Expenditures in Rural Vietnam. World
Development. 72 (2015) 432-448.
[26] V. Hoang, Housing and Climate Change: Adaptation Strategies in Vietnam, in: B. Yuen and A. Kumssa, Editors, Climate Change and
Sustainable Urban Development in Africa and Asia, Springer Netherlands, 2011.167-192.
[27] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M.L. Parry, et al., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007.
[28] Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. Climate Change Is A Global Mega-Trend For Sovereign Risk. May 2014 [cited 2015 September
1]; Available from:
https://www.globalcreditportal.com/ratingsdirect/renderArticle.do?articleId=1318252&SctArtId=236925&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sou
rceObjectId=8606813&sourceRevId=1&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20240514-20:34:43.
[29] M.R.M. van Dijk, W. van Rooij, and H. Hilderink, Land Use Dynamics, Climate Change, and Food Security in Vietnam: A Global-to-local
Modeling Approach. World Development. 59 (2014) 29-46.
[30] The World Bank Group. Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change - Vietnam. 2011; Available from:
http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportalb/doc/GFDRRCountryProfiles/wb_gfdrr_climate_change_country_profile_for_VNM.pdf.
[31] M. Arouri, C. Nguyen, and A.B. Youssef, Natural Disasters, Household Welfare, and Resilience: Evidence from Rural Vietnam. World
Development. 70 (2015) 59-77.
[32] L.D. Nguyen, K. Raabe, and U. Grote, Rural–Urban Migration, Household Vulnerability, and Welfare in Vietnam. World Development. 71
(2015) 79-93.
[33] M. Samari, et al., The Investigation of the Barriers in Developing Green Building in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science. 7(2) (2013) 1.
[34] L.Y. Shen and V.W.Y. Tam, Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong construction industry. International Journal
of Project Management. 20(7) (2002) 535-543.
[35] C.M. Tam, V.W.Y. Tam, and W.S. Tsui, Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong
Kong. International Journal of Project Management. 22(7) (2004) 563-571.
[36] R. Thilakaratne and V. Lew, Is LEED leading Asia?: An analysis of global adaptation and trends. Procedia Engineering. 21 (2011) 1136-
1144.
[37] Vietnam: Construction sector goes green, in Asia News Monitor Bangkok. Feb 2015.
[38] O. Ortiz, F. Castells, and G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA.
Construction & Building Materials. 23(1) (2009) 28-39.
[39] A. Sev, How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development. 17(3)
(2009) 161-173.
[40] J. Pinkse and M. Dommisse, Overcoming barriers to sustainability: an explanation of residential builders' reluctance to adopt clean
8 Author name / Procedia Engineering 00 (2016) 000–000
technologies. Business Strategy and the Environment. 18(8) (2009) 515-527.
[41] E.H.W. Chan, Q.K. Qian, and P.T.I. Lam, The market for green building in developed Asian cities—the perspectives of building designers.
Energy Policy. 37(8) (2009) 3061-3070.
[42] S. Kim and E. Paulos, inAir: measuring and visualizing indoor air quality, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous
Computing, ACM Orlando, Florida, USA. 2009.81-84.
[43] L.E. LaRosa, T.J. Buckley, and L.A. Wallace, Real-Time Indoor and Outdoor Measurements of Black Carbon in an Occupied House: An
Examination of Sources. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 52(1) (2002) 41-49.
[44] C.K. Chau, M.S. Tse, and K.Y. Chung, A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay
for green building attributes. Building & Environment. 45(11) (2010) 2553-2561.
[45] M. Xiaoping, L. Huimin, and L. Qiming, A comparison study of mainstream sustainable/green building rating tools in the world, in
International Conference on Management and Service Science. 2009.1-5.
[46] H. Hu, S. Geertman, and P. Hooimeijer, The willingness to pay for green apartments: The case of Nanjing, China. Urban Studies. 51(16)
(2014) 3459-3478.
[47] Z. Yang and J. Yang, Sustainable housing implementation through mutual benefits to stakeholders : a decision making approach., in
CRIOCM2009 International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate Nanjing, China. 2009.
[48] R. Retzlaff, Developing policies for green buildings: what can the United States learn from the Netherlands. Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy. 6(1) (2010) 29-38.
[49] X. Zhang, S. Liyin, and Y. Wu, Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing development: a China study. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 19 (2011) 157-167.
[50] Vietnam: Vietnam buildings set to go green, in Asia News Monitor Bangkok. Jun 2015.
[51] S. Mensah, J. Ayarkwa, and G. Nani. Framework for modeling sustainable construction practices towards low carbon construction. in
Proceedings 8th Construction Industry Development Board (cidb) Postgraduate Conference. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
South Africa. 2014
[52] K.J. Oneill and D.C. Gibbs, Towards a sustainable economy? Socio-technical transitions in the green building sector. Local Environment.
19(6) (2014) 572-590.
[53] J.A. Todd, Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G., Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green
Building Challenge. Building Research & Information. 29(5) (2001) 324-335.
[54] K.H. Ting, Tropical green building rating systems: a comparison between Green Building Index and BCA Green Mark. Business
Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium. (2012) 263-268.
[55] Y. Mao and G. Yang, Sustainable development drivers for green buildings: Incremental costs-benefits analysis of green buildings. Advanced
Materials Research. 374 (2012) 76-81.
[56] A. Nalewaik and V. Venters, Cost benefits of building green. Cost Engineering. 51(2) (2009) 28-34.
[57] A. Chegut, P. Eichholtz, and N. Kok, Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Urban Studies. 51(1) (2014) 22-43.
[58] G. Kats, Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies, Island Press. 2009.276.
[59] BCI Economics, Green Building Market Report Australia/New Zealand 2014, Australia. 2014.
[60] R. Reed, et al., A comparison of international sustainable building tools–An update., in The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society
Conference Gold Coast. 2011.16-19.
[61] Green Building Council of Australia. World Green Building Council. Jan 2009; Available from:
https://www.gbca.org.au/about/international/world-green-building-council2/.
[62] R. Reed and A. Krajinovic-Bilos, An Examination of International Sustainability Rating Tools: an Update, in 19th PRRES Pacific Rim Real
Estate Society Conference Melbourne, Australia. 2013.1-23.
[63] F. Shafii and M.Z. Othman. Sustainable buildings in South-East Asia: Opportunities and implementation. in Proceedings of the Conference
on Sustainable Building South-East Asia (SB04SEA). 2006
[64] Solidiance and VGBC, Is there a future for green buildings in Vietnam? August 2013.
[65] Vietnam: Vietnam developers told to start thinking 'green', in Asia News Monitor Bangkok. Nov 2011.
[66] A.J. Hoffman and R. Henn, Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green Building. Organization & Environment. 21(4)
(2008) 390-419.
[67] D.N. Pham, Phát triển công trình xanh ở Việt Nam – Thực trạng và đề xuất [Developing green building in Vietnam - status quo and
recommendations], in Tạp Chí Kiến Trúc Việt Nam [Journal of Vietnamese Architecture] Hanoi. 2015.
[68] U.S. Green Building Council. Project Directory. 2015 [cited 2015 September 9]; Available from: http://www.usgbc.org/projects.
[69] Green Building Council Indonesia. Rating Tools. 2015 [cited 2015 September 2]; Available from: http://www.gbcindonesia.org/2012-08-
01-03-25-31/2012-08-02-03-43-34/rating-tools.
[70] H.-T. Nguyen, M. Gray, and M. Skitmore, Comparative study on green building supportive policies of Pacific-Rim countries most
vulnerable to climate change, in 22th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference Sunshine Coast, Australia. January 2016.
