The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost and Valuation in Indonesia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Green Building Variables to Project Finance
2.1. Appropriate Site Development
2.1.1. Building Shape and Orientation Design
- Triangle and square;
- Round, ellipse, and trapezium;
- Pentagon, hexagon, octagon, and polygon;
- The combination of the above forms.
- Increasingly to over, the size is large;
- the higher the building, the smaller the shape;
- The stable period.
2.1.2. The Use of Green Roof
2.2. Energy Efficiency and Conservation
2.3. Water Conservation, Material Resource & Recycle, and Indoor Air Health & Comfort
3. Methods
3.1. Empirical Study
3.2. Building Valuation Modelling
+ {annual energy cost × [P/A. i%, years]}
+ {annual operating and maintenance cost × [P/A, i%, years]}
+ {replacement cost × [P/F, i%, years]}.
4. Results
4.1. Profile Respondents
4.1.1. Current Position
4.1.2. Types of Green Building Project Ever Built
4.1.3. Experience in Green Building Project
4.2. Descriptive Result
- X1:
- The building has a span that extends vertically (more than 10 floors), not extending any more than 27.5 m, which serves to facilitate cross ventilation in the building.
- X2:
- The building has a span that extends horizontally (not more than 10 floors), not extending more than 27.5 m, to facilitate cross ventilation in the building.
- X3:
- Natural lighting is lighting sourced from nature which is commonly known as sunlight. It is viewed from the direction of the opening which mostly faces the north–south side (not in the direction of the movement of the sun). The amount of light that enters is according to the recommended table of daylight factor. For example, for office buildings, the daylight factor for the general room is 1.9%, while for the drawing room it is 3.8%.
- X4:
- The roof of the building is partially or completely covered with vegetation and growing media, planted on a waterproof membrane. It can also include additional layers such as root barriers, drainage, and irrigation.
- X5:
- A type of glass that has a low emissivity that can reduce heat from the outside with savings of up to 30%, with a maximum dimension of 2134 mm × 3048 mm.
- X6:
- Air conditioning system planning must consider the most efficient design. For example, a VRV AC inverter with one outdoor for several indoor units.
- X7:
- The light is turned off automatically by the motion sensor and lux sensor. Planning artificial lighting in office buildings using dimmers to save electricity consumption.
- X8:
- Solar panels/solar cells are used for partial lighting (in this case using DC direct current) and require an inverter (battery) to be used to power AC devices.
- X9:
- The building elements that surround the building are transparent or non-transparent walls and roofs where most of the thermal energy is transferred through these elements. In order to streamline the air conditioning load, the building envelope planning must plan the building envelope by calculating the Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV) not exceeding 45 W/m2.
- X10:
- Serves to treat dirty water and used water so that it can be reused for secondary water consumption (flushing toilet/plant watering system).
- X11:
- Material that resembles concrete and has strong properties, is water and fire-resistant, durable and is made in a factory, lightens the burden of building structures, and the price is relatively more expensive than red brick.
- X12:
- If the paint emits a strong odor, it means that it contains high levels of VOCs. If there is an odor but it is not too strong, it means that the paint contains solvent, but it is not too high. Paints that are completely solvent-free should absolutely not emit an odor. Does not contain timbel (Pb) and mercury.
4.3. The Effect on Green Application to Building Valuation
4.3.1. The Effect of Thin Building Design Vertically (X1)
4.3.2. The Effect of Thin Building Design Horizontally (X2)
4.3.3. The Effect of Direction of the Opening Area for Natural Lighting (X3)
4.3.4. The Effect of the Use of a Green Roof (X4)
4.3.5. The Effect of the Use a Low-E Architectural Glass (X5)
4.3.6. The Effect of the Use an Energy-Saving Air Conditioning (X6)
4.3.7. The Effect of the Use a Smart Lighting System (X7)
4.3.8. The Effect of the Use of PV Solar Panels (X8)
4.3.9. The Effect of the Use a Building Envelope with Secondary Skin (X9)
4.3.10. The Effect of the Use a Recycled Water Systems (X10)
4.3.11. The Effect of the Use a Material of Environmentally Friendly (X11)
4.3.12. The Use of a Low-VOC in Wall Paint (X12)
4.4. The Result of the Effect to Building Valuation
5. Discussion
5.1. The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost
5.2. The Influence of Green Building Applications on High-Rise Building Valuation
5.2.1. Analysis of the Effect of the Implementation of Green Building Concept on the Increase in Construction Costs
5.2.2. Analysis Effect of the Implementation of Green Building Concept on Reducing Operational Costs
5.2.3. Analysis Effect of the Implementation of Green Building Concept on Increasing Property Value
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, Z.; Hong, T.; Li, H.; Ann Piette, M. Predicting city-scale daily electricity consumption using data-driven models. Adv. Appl. Energy 2021, 2, 100025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Executive Summary. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34572/GSR_ES.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2022).
- Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Wang, Z.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. A review of operating performance in green buildings: Energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction. Energy Build. 2019, 183, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, R.H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Global Construction Industries. In Proceedings of the Creative Construction Conference (CCC 2021), Budapest, Hungary, 28–30 June 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Meena, C.S.; Kumar, A.; Jain, S.; Rehman, A.U.; Mishra, S.; Sharma, N.K.; Bajaj, M.; Shafiq, M.; Eldin, E.T. Innovation in Green Building Sector for Sustainable Future. Energies 2022, 15, 6631. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.H.; Der Lin, M.; Tsai, K.T.; Deng, M.J.; Ishii, H. Multi-objective optimization design of green building envelopes and air conditioning systems for energy conservation and CO2 emission reduction. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 64, 102555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoud, A.S. Overview of Green Roof Technology as a Prospective Energy Preservation Technique in Arid Regions. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 8982–8989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moghaddam, F.B.; Mir, J.M.F.; Yanguas, A.B.; Delgado, I.N.; Dominguez, E.R. Building orientation in green facade performance and its positive effects on urban landscape case study: An urban block in barcelona. Sustainability 2022, 12, 9273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Chang, R.; Shabunko, V.; Lay Yee, A.T. The implementation of building-integrated photovoltaics in Singapore: Drivers versus barriers. Energy 2019, 168, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cannavale, A.; Zampini, G.; Carlucci, F.; Pugliese, M.; Martellotta, F.; Ayr, U.; Maiorano, V.; Ortica, F.; Fiorito, F.; Latterini, L. Energy and daylighting performance of building integrated spirooxazine photochromic films. Sol. Energy 2022, 242, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latief, Y.; Berawi, M.A.; Basten, V.; Budiman, R.; Riswanto. Premium cost optimization of operational and maintenance of green building in Indonesia using life cycle assessment method. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1855, 020007. [Google Scholar]
- Berawi, M.A.; Miraj, P.; Windrayani, R.; Berawi, A.R.B. Stakeholders’ perspectives on green building rating: A case study in Indonesia. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Razali, M.N.; Md Yunus, N.; Zainudin, A.Z.; Lee Yim Mei, J. Sustainable property development by Southeast Asian property companies. Prop. Manag. 2017, 35, 109–126. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Rong, Y.; Ahmad, U.M.; Wang, X.; Zuo, J.; Mao, G. A comprehensive review on green buildings research: Bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46196–46214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwaikat, L.N.; Ali, K.N. Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy Build. 2016, 110, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uğur, L.O.; Leblebici, N. An examination of the LEED green building certification system in terms of construction costs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1476–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plebankiewicz, E.; Juszczyk, M.; Kozik, R. Trends, costs, and benefits of green certification of office buildings: A Polish perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, M. Does zero energy building cost more?—An empirical comparison of the construction costs for zero energy education building in United States. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onuoha, I.J.; Aliagha, G.U.; Rahman, M.S.A. Modelling the effects of green building incentives and green building skills on supply factors affecting green commercial property investment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 814–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.; Wu, J. Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers’ perspective. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2014, 47, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, K.; Chan, E.H.W.; Chau, C.K. Costs and benefits of implementing green building economic incentives: Case study of a Gross Floor Area Concession Scheme in Hong Kong. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azizi, N.S.M.; Wilkinson, S.; Fassman, E. Do occupants in green buildings practice better energy saving behaviour in computer usage than occupants in conventional buildings? J. Green Build. 2015, 10, 178–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojo-Fafore, E.M.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W.; Remaru, P. Green Finance for Sustainable Global Growth: Costs and Benefits of Green Buildings Compared With Conventional Buildings. In Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Well-Being Considerations in Buildings and Architecture; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 373–393. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.; Yuan, X.; Yang, W.; Hao, X.; Li, C. A Review on Research and Development of Healthy Building in China. Buildings 2022, 12, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isa, M.; Rahman, M.M.G.M.A.; Sipan, I.; Hwa, T.K. Factors Affecting Green Office Building Investment in Malaysia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 105, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chakravarthy, P.R.K.; Suganya, R.; Nivedhitha, M.; Parthiban, A.; Sivaganesan, S. Barriers and project management practices in green buildings. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 52, 1131–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Lu, Y.; Kua, H.W.; Chang, R. The economics of green buildings: A life cycle cost analysis of non-residential buildings in tropic climates. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiegel, R.; Meadows, D. Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Huo, X.; Yu, A.T.W.; Wu, Z. A comparative analysis of site planning and design among green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.C.; Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Wang, M.; Sun, J.; Ning, X. Green performance evaluation system for energy-efficiency-based planning for construction site layout. Energies 2019, 12, 4620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, Z.; Xu, J.; Han, Z.; Guo, J. Few-Shot Building Footprint Shape Classification with Relation Network. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, L.; Sun, S.; Song, C.; Wang, Y.; Xu, Y. Recognizing surface urban heat ‘island’ effect and its urbanization association in terms of intensity, footprint, and capacity: A case study with multi-dimensional analysis in Northern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 372, 133720. [Google Scholar]
- Abbasipayam, S.; Mokrova, N.V. Fuzzy logic and intelligent control of engineering systems of buildings. Vestn. Astrakhan State Tech. Univ. Ser. Manag. Comput. Sci. Inform. 2022, 1, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackburne, L.; Gharehbaghi, K.; Hosseinian-Far, A. The knock-on effects of green buildings: High-rise construction design implications. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2022, 13, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vyas, G.S.; Jha, K.N.; Rajhans, N.R. Identifying and evaluating green building attributes by environment, social, and economic pillars of sustainability. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2019, 36, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bungau, C.C.; Bungau, T.; Prada, I.F.; Prada, M.F. Green Buildings as a Necessity for Sustainable Environment Development : Dilemmas and Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshbakht, M.; Rasheed, E.; Baird, G. Do Green Buildings Have Superior Performance over Non-Certified Buildings? Occupants’ Perceptions of Strengths and Weaknesses in Office Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasinta, R.B.; Utomo, C.; Rahmawati, Y. A Literature Review of Methods in Research on Green Building Cost Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil Engineering Research (ICCER 2020), Surabaya, Indonesia, 22–23 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Alqahtani, L.A.H.; Elgizawi, L.S.E. The effect of openings ratio and wall thickness on energy performance in educational buildings. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2020, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athienitis, A.; Santamouris, M. Thermal Analysis and Design of Passive Solar Buildings, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Abidin, N.Z.; Azizi, N.Z.M. Soft cost elements: Exploring management components of project costs in green building projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 87, 106545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshboul, O.; Shehadeh, A.; Almasabha, G.; Al Mamlook, R.E.; Almuflih, A.S. Evaluating the Impact of External Support on Green Building Construction Cost: A Hybrid Mathematical and Machine Learning Prediction Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raouf, A.M.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Managerial practitioners’ perspectives on quality performance of green-building projects. Buildings 2020, 10, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Source | Land Development Suitability Theory | Regarding Design & Material Aspects | Variables |
---|---|---|---|
[29] | Designing the building to rise upwards so that it has a smaller building footprint. | Minimize building footprint | (X1) Thin building design vertically (X2) Horizontal thin building design (X3) Direction of the opening area for natural lighting (X4) Use of green roof |
[30] | The location of the building is in accordance with regulations, land use and function, avoiding negative environmental impacts. | Designing buildings | |
[31] | Designing while minimizing the building footprint. | Minimize building footprint | |
[32] | Use and restoration of existing buildings or sites; reduce the development footprint; reduce construction waste/garbage and reduce the heat island effect. | Reduce the development footprint and reduce the heat island effect |
Source | Theory | Regarding Design & Material Aspects | Variables |
---|---|---|---|
[35] | Better use of insulation, more efficient air conditioning & glass, motion sensor for lighting & HVAC, maximizing ventilation, and natural lighting. | The use of low-E glass material, energy-saving air conditioning, and natural lighting design. | (X5) Use of Low-e glass (X6) Use of energy-saving air conditioning system (X7) Use of a smart lighting system (X8) Use of photovoltaic solar panels (X9) Use of building envelope with secondary skin |
[36] | The passive design of buildings (orientation and shaping of buildings to maximize natural lighting, passive cooling, and natural ventilation). | The passive design of the building for natural lighting and ventilation and the use of environmentally friendly technologies. |
Source | Theory | Regarding Design & Material Aspects | Variable |
---|---|---|---|
[3] | Reduce, reuse, and recycle water. | Use of recycled water | (X10) Use of a recycled water system |
[25] | Minimize wasted water, efficient use of fixtures, and use of recycled water. | Use of recycled water | |
[28] | The use of appropriate water equipment for discharge capacity, and the use of alternative sources of clean water. | Utilization of alternative sources of clean water |
Source | Theory | Regarding Design & Material Aspects | Variable |
---|---|---|---|
[3] | Minimize energy used. | Environmentally friendly materials. | (X11) Use materials of environmentally friendly. |
[25] | Minimize wasted water, efficient use of fixtures, and use of recycled water. | Use of recycled water. | |
[28] | The use of materials by minimizing the energy used, environmentally friendly and safe. | Safe and environmentally friendly materials. |
Source | Theory | Regarding Design & Material Aspects | Variable |
---|---|---|---|
[3] | The right air temperature, stable air flow, and humidity and the use of low VOC materials. | the use of low VOC materials. | (X12) Use of low-VOC materials in wall paint. |
[25] | The right air temperature, stable air flow, and humidity and the use of low VOC materials. | use of low VOC materials in furniture/finishing. |
Profile Respondent | Percentage | Number | |
---|---|---|---|
Current position | Project Manager | 29% | 61 |
General Manager | 24% | 51 | |
Design Manager | 14% | 29 | |
Property Manager | 12% | 24 | |
BOD | 11% | 23 | |
CEO | 10% | 10 | |
Type of green building project ever built | Hotel/Apartment | 37% | 73 |
Residential | 15% | 29 | |
Office | 14% | 28 | |
School/Campus | 12% | 24 | |
Mall | 12% | 24 | |
Hospital | 8% | 16 | |
Etc. | 2% | 4 | |
Experience of respondent | <5 years | 45% | 88 |
5–10 years | 32% | 64 | |
10–15 years | 10% | 20 | |
15–20 years | 8% | 16 | |
>20 years | 5% | 10 |
Code | The Variables of Green Building Applications | The Variables of Building Valuation (Y) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Increased Construction Costs (Y1) | Reduction in Operational Costs (Y2) | Increased Property Value (Y3) | ||
X1 | Thin building design vertically | − | + | − |
X2 | Thin building design horizontally | + | + | + |
X3 | The direction of the opening area for natural lighting | + | − | − |
X4 | The use of green roof | + | + | + |
X5 | The use of Low-E architectural glass | − | + | + |
X6 | The use of energy-saving air conditioning | − | + | + |
X7 | The use of a smart lighting system | + | + | + |
X8 | The use of solar panels | − | + | + |
X9 | The use of building envelope with secondary skin | + | + | + |
X10 | The use of a recycled water system | + | − | + |
X11 | The use materials of environmentally friendly | − | − | + |
X12 | The of low-VOC materials in wall paint | − | − | + |
+ show a direct influence | − show the opposite influence |
Study Title: Commercial Building MARR (Minimum Attractive Rate of Return) is 6%, Life Cycle is 10 Years, and Present Time is Year 2022 | Estimated Cost (USD) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Green | Non-Green | ||
Initial Cost | Planning cost | 343,349 | 343,349 |
Land cost | 10,477,161 | 10,477,161 | |
Building cost | 13,733,960 | 8,550,350 | |
Fixed equipment cost | 961,377 | 961,377 | |
Cost of green building features | 3,518,189 | 0 | |
Professional service | 1,510,350 | 1,200,000 | |
Mobile equipment costs (furniture) | 2,060,094 | 2,060,094 | |
Administration cost | 1,258,625 | 1,258,625 | |
Other costs | 3,775,875 | 3,775,875 | |
Total initial cost | 37,638,981 | 28,030,670 | |
Energy Cost | EE lighting cost | 103,499 | 425,000 |
Daylighting cost | 52,725 | 471,278 | |
Cost of AHU fans | 193,816 | 325,000 | |
Cost of air-con system | 15,134 | 2,134,000 | |
Cost of water usage | 3373 | 1,316,500 | |
Total energy cost | 368,550 | 4,671,778 | |
Operation and Maintenance Cost | Operational cost | 760,500 | 3,250,000 |
Cleaning fee | 5,003,736 | 6,350,000 | |
Costs of work safety and security | 1,072,229 | 1,505,000 | |
Building equipment maintenance costs | 2,621,004 | 4,779,718 | |
Cost of environmental control | 1,429,638 | 5,213,765 | |
Cost of garden maintenance (green area) | 1,072,229 | 1,072,229 | |
Rainwater harvesting maintenance costs | 1282 | 20,235 | |
Total operational and maintenance cost | 11,960,840 | 22,190,947 | |
Replacement cost | Energy equipment replacement | 6177 | 326,000 |
Water equipment replacement | 1282 | 82,000 | |
Environmental control replacement | 540 | 5400 | |
Other replacement | 2,494,273 | ||
Total Replacement cost | 13,226 | 3,503,833 | |
LCC | Total Life Cycle Cost (Present worth) | 49,981,597 | 58,397,229 |
Cost Category | Green Buildings | Non-Green Buildings | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
LCC (USD) | % | LCC (USD) | % | |
Initial cost | 37,638,981 | 75.27% | 28,030,670 | 48% |
Energy cost | 368,550 | 0.7% | 4,671,778.33 | 8% |
Operational and Maintenance cost | 11,960,840 | 24% | 22,190,947.1 | 38% |
Replacement cost | 13,226 | 0.03% | 3,503,833.75 | 6% |
Total | 49,981,597 | 100% | 58,397,229.2 | 100% |
Features | Green | Non-Green | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Illustration | Average Initial Cost (USD) | Illustration | Average Initial Cost (USD) | |
Roof | Green roof | USD 22,000 150 m2 | Conventional roof | USD 8000 150 m2 |
AC | E-save AC VRV System | USD 25,000 150 m2 | Conventional System | USD 4000 150 m2 |
Lighting | Smart lighting (Smart LED) system | USD 2400 150 m2 | LED conventional system | USD 670 150 m2 |
i | % Cumulative Change in i | Green Buildings | Non-Green Buildings | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total LCC (USD) | % Cumulative Change LCC | Total LCC (USD) | % Cumulative Change LCC | ||
7.80% | 30% | 49,939,970 | −5.20% | 66,497,954.37 | 7.4% |
7.20% | 20% | 49,953,245 | −3.50% | 61,916,158.64 | −4.1% |
6.60% | 10% | 49,967,109 | −1.80% | 59,477,577.94 | −1.85% |
6.00% | 0% | 49,981,597 | 0.00% | 58,397,229.20 | 0.00% |
5.40% | −10% | 49,996,743 | 1.90% | 57,252,643.51 | 1.96% |
4.80% | −20% | 50,012,586 | 3.80% | 55,594,162.20 | 4.8% |
4.20% | −30% | 50,029,164 | 5.90% | 53,783,848.09 | 7.9% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Utomo, C.; Astarini, S.D.; Rahmawati, F.; Setijanti, P.; Nurcahyo, C.B. The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost and Valuation in Indonesia. Buildings 2022, 12, 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122180
Utomo C, Astarini SD, Rahmawati F, Setijanti P, Nurcahyo CB. The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost and Valuation in Indonesia. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122180
Chicago/Turabian StyleUtomo, Christiono, Sulfiah Dwi Astarini, Fitri Rahmawati, Purwanita Setijanti, and Cahyono Bintang Nurcahyo. 2022. "The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost and Valuation in Indonesia" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122180
APA StyleUtomo, C., Astarini, S. D., Rahmawati, F., Setijanti, P., & Nurcahyo, C. B. (2022). The Influence of Green Building Application on High-Rise Building Life Cycle Cost and Valuation in Indonesia. Buildings, 12(12), 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122180