Book contents
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Organizations and the Natural Environment
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Advancing a Perspective of Green Market Transformation
- 2 The Architecture of Green Building Policies and Practice
- 3 Choose Your Own Adventure!
- 4 The Labeling Building Challenge
- 5 The Public and Private Benefits of Green Building
- 6 Tossing a Pebble in a Pond
- 7 Demonstrating Innovation in Green Buildings
- 8 Keep Raising the Bar
- 9 It’s Not Easy Being Green
- 10 A Blueprint for Green Market Transformation
- 11 Conclusions
- Index
- References
9 - It’s Not Easy Being Green
Environmental and Equity Impacts of Green Building
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2022
Book contents
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Organizations and the Natural Environment
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market Transformation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Advancing a Perspective of Green Market Transformation
- 2 The Architecture of Green Building Policies and Practice
- 3 Choose Your Own Adventure!
- 4 The Labeling Building Challenge
- 5 The Public and Private Benefits of Green Building
- 6 Tossing a Pebble in a Pond
- 7 Demonstrating Innovation in Green Buildings
- 8 Keep Raising the Bar
- 9 It’s Not Easy Being Green
- 10 A Blueprint for Green Market Transformation
- 11 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews potential concerns of green building, including the environmental impact of the buildings, equity impacts, and environmental justice implications of ecolabeled buildings. These concerns typically revolve around the ultimate environmental impacts of green buildings and the equity implications of how we transition to a greener built environment. Green buildings may not be as green as we expect or want, and price premiums for green buildings work against affordability. Our green market transformation story is not a naïve, romantic, idealized story of perfectly sustainable practices overtaking our foolish old ways. This transformation story is messy, fraught with imperfections, and leaves ample room for improvement. In fact, that is part of the essence of this story: Iterative, ongoing improvements, building momentum toward a more sustainable system. Openly drawing our attention to these concerns and shortcomings can help us turn them into opportunities for continued gain and building on that momentum. Market transformation does not happen overnight, and it does not stop after a singular change. It is an ongoing evolution. This chapter reviews some of the shortcomings and concerns about this otherwise positive evolutionary path for green buildings.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecolabels, Innovation, and Green Market TransformationLearning to LEED, pp. 235 - 255Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adekanye, Oluwatobi G., Davis, Alex, and Azevedo, Inês L.. 2020. “Federal Policy, Local Policy, and Green Building Certifications in the US.” Energy and Buildings 209: 109700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, Xudong and Pivo, Gary. 2020. “Green Buildings in Commercial Mortgage‐backed Securities: The Effects of LEED and Energy Star Certification on Default Risk and Loan Terms.” Real Estate Economics 48, no. 1: 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asensio, Omar I. and Delmas, Magali A.. 2017. “The Effectiveness of US Energy Efficiency Building Labels.” Nature Energy 2, no. 4: 1–9.Google Scholar
Aydin, Erdal, Brounen, Dirk, and Kok, Nils. 2020. “The Capitalization of Energy Efficiency: Evidence from the Housing Market.” Journal of Urban Economics 117: 103243.Google Scholar
Braun, Thomas, Cajias, Marcelo, and Hohenstatt, Ralf. 2017. “Societal Influence on Diffusion of Green Buildings: A Count Regression Approach.” Journal of Real Estate Research 39, no. 1: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruegge, Chris, Deryugina, Tatyana, and Myers, Erica. 2019. “The Distributional Effects of Building Energy Codes.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 6, no. S1: S95–S127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusselaers, Jan, Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, and Buysse, Jeroen. 2017. “Green Public Procurement of Certified Wood: Spatial Leverage Effect and Welfare Implications.” Ecological Economics 135: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chegut, Andrea, Eichholtz, Piet, Holtermans, Rogier, and Palacios, Juan. 2020. “Energy Efficiency Information and Valuation Practices in Rental Housing.” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 60, no. 1: 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Eugene. 2010. “Green on Buildings: The Effects of Municipal Policy on Green Building Designations in America’s Central Cities.” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 2, no. 1: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darnall, Nicole and Aragón-Correa, J. Alberto. 2014. “Can Ecolabels Influence Firms’ Sustainability Strategy and Stakeholder Behavior?” Organization & Environment 27, no. 4: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figge, Frank and Thorpe, Andrea Stevenson. 2019. “The Symbiotic Rebound Effect in the Circular Economy.” Ecological Economics 163: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst, Franz, Kontokosta, Constantine, and McAllister, Patrick. 2014. “Determinants of Green Building Adoption.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41, no. 3: 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerarden, Todd D., Newell, Richard G., and Stavins, Robert N.. 2017. “Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap.” Journal of Economic Literature 55, no. 4: 1486–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtermans, Rogier & Kok, Nils. 2019. “On the Value of Environmental Certification in the Commercial Real Estate Market.” Real Estate Economics 47, no. 3: 685–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Jing, Qiu, Yueming, and Hu, Ming. 2019. “Mind the Energy Performance Gap: Evidence from Green Commercial Buildings.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 364–377.Google Scholar
Lindström, Hanna, Lundberg, Sofia, and Marklund, Per-Olov. 2020. “How Green Public Procurement Can Drive Conversion of Farmland: An Empirical Analysis of an Organic Food Policy.” Ecological Economics 172: 106622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simcoe, Timothy and Toffel, Michael W.. 2014. “Government Green Procurement Spillovers: Evidence from Municipal Building Policies in California.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 68, no. 3: 411–434.Google Scholar
Simons, Robert, Choi, Eugene, and Simons, Donna. 2009. “The Effect of State and City Green Policies on the Market Penetration of Green Commercial Buildings.” Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 1, no. 1: 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, Huilan. 2003. “Eco‐labelling Scheme, Environmental Protection, and Protectionism.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique 36, no. 3: 608–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USGBC. 2020. Equity Summit Report – June 2020. Available at: www.usgbc.org/resources/usgbc-equity-summit-report-june-2020Google Scholar
Yeganeh, Armin Jeddi, McCoy, Andrew Patton, and Hankey, Steve. 2019. “Green Affordable Housing: Cost-Benefit Analysis for Zoning Incentives.” Sustainability 11, no. 22: 1–24.Google Scholar
Zhao, Shuang, Zhou, Shan, and Noonan, Douglas S.. 2019. “Environmental Justice and Green Schools: Assessing Students and Communities’ Access to Green Schools.” Social Science Quarterly 100, no. 6: 2223–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar