105 年 8 月 2 日
報告人姓名 陳奉瑤 服務機構
及職稱
國立政治大學地政系 教授
時間 會議 地點
2016.7.6-2016.7.9 西班牙 Alicante
本會核定 補助文號
MOST 104-2410-H-004-198
會議 名稱
(中文) 2016 年 AREUEA 國際研討會
(英文) 2016 AREUEA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 發表
論文 題目
(中文) 為何台灣有高的綠建築溢價普及率卻不高?
(英文) Why is Green Premium High But Penetration Rate Low in Taiwan
表 Y04
一、參加會議經過
今年會議由美國不動產和都市經濟協會(AREUEA) 和阿利坎特大學(Alicante University)聯合舉辦，此次會議相當具學術性，報告人和評論人都有備而來，對主題的 討論，此外由Edward Coulson, David Ling, Piet Eichholtz等三位教授分享其研究、簡報與 投稿經驗給即將畢業的博士生，例如:主題必須有趣、慎選合作作者、簡報需移動並目視 聽眾、投稿失敗後往上/下投稿等，雖然見解與經驗未必一致，但這對未來學術界新人的 發展影響很大，可以減少摸索、碰壁的時間，此可供國內辦理相關學術研討會的參考。
後續兩天主要是三位 keynote speakers 的演講與 169 篇文章的發表，keynote speaker 的演講內容分別是: London School of Economics 教授 Christine Whitehead 演講 “Is social and affordable housing in jeopardy?”；CBRE 兼 The University of Reading 教授 Richard Barkham 演講“Where are we in the current cycle?”，以及 Ohio State University Don Haurin 教授分享“International perspectives on homeownership and home equity extraction by senior households” ，顯見社會住宅、銀髮住宅是現在必須正視的課題。
兩天共有 35 個分組議程，在投稿的 169 篇文章中，有 128 篇排入分組議程，此次 跨學校或跨國合作的文章非常多，平均一篇文章有 2.4 位作者，可見國際溝通合作在當 今普遍盛行。
會議一共有80個場次，主題包括：Green Value and Housing Markets、REITs 、
Land Market and Zoning Issues、Spatial Analysis、Urbanization in Asian Countries (ADBI SESSION)、Housing Afford-ability、Housing Price Dynamics and Risk 、
Search Analysis and TOM、Housing Issues、Corporate Real Estate、Macro and Housing Prices、Commercial Real Estate、Credit and Housing、Risk、Housing Price Reactions、Real Estate Miscellaneous、Mortgages、Market and Arbitrage、Leases and Rents、Housing Prices and Neighbourhood Influences、Home-ownership、Real Estate Investment Vehicles、
International Real Estate Capital Markets、Housing, Retirement and Demo-graphics、Housing Needs and Public Policy、Housing Debt and Crisis、Home-ownership and Segregation、
Revealed Housing Preferences、Housing Market。藉此機會可與全球相關學者互相切磋，
對本研究之成果發表，將有深層的助益。
表 Y04
二、與會心得
參加國際研討會藉由文章發表可吸引國際學者對台灣制度、不動產市場的興趣，
本次發表文章的場次由Piet Eichholtz教授主持，Eichholtz教授在綠建築方面的研究與 發表經驗豐富，個人發表的文章亦由他進行評論，他指出以台灣為名的主題必須與國 際文章有所連結，以凸顯其”有趣”；另外一些我認為理所當然的敘述，但就國外學者 而言是陌生與不了解的部分，需要強化描述，例如:資料的篩選、台灣與其他國家綠 建築特色的差異性、文獻回顧不能只限於住宅類型等等，個人收穫頗豐富。此外也獲 得Professor Ben-Shahar Danny, Tel Aviv University、Professor Devine Avis, University of Guelph以及Mr. Odilon Costa提供具體建議，他們對台灣綠建築中的垃圾冷凍儲藏設備 感到好奇，這些疑問事實上呈現了國度間對綠建築的需求差異，提醒文章定位的重要 性與方向，對後續發表有很大的幫助。
三、建議
AREUEA相對其他國際會議屬於較為嚴謹的學術會議，大會主席、各場次主持人 在會前會確認論文報告人是否已提供文章給評論人，也確認評論人已收到，大家在有 所準備的情況下參與討論，而且聚焦在如何使文章變得更有可看性，這對國際發表而 言很有效益。個人以為，後續舉辦學術研討會，確認文章已完成才接受發表，比發表 或參與人數的多寡更值得重視。
四、攜回資料名稱及內容
2016 AREUEA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROGRAM 會議手冊及會議文章的隨身碟。
keynote speaker Christine 演講 keynote speaker Barkham 演講
報告人簡報 報告人評論
Why is Green Premium High But Penetration Rate Low in Taiwan* Fong-Yao Chen
National Chengchi University [email protected]
Contact author Jen-Hsu Liang Chinese Culture University
[email protected] Charles Tu
University of San Diego [email protected]
Yin-Yu Liang University of San Diego [email protected]
* This is part of 104-2410-H-004-198-.
II
Abstract
Energy depletion and Ecological sustainability are two global-wide issues most countries are solemnly concern about, and construction industry takes a big share of energy consumption and ecological damage; therefore, the promotion of green buildings becomes the trend and leads the direction of national policy. EEWH, the Taiwanese green building certification system, was established in 1999 by the Taiwanese government to serve this purpose.
This research is an on-going inspection on the effect of EEWH system and the green building trend in Taiwan. Most foreign literature shows promising premium and fast advancement in this global-wide green building trend, but looking back these past fifteen years only 113 EEWH certified residential constructions were conducted in Taiwan. We took a closer look at the data in New Taipei City and ran regression model on over ninth thousand condominium transaction data. The result shows that EEWH certified buildings gains an average of 6.2% premium and it varies at different rating levels: 4.2%, 5.5% and 10.4% for qualified, bronze and silver respectively. In terms of location, the buildings in downtown obtain higher green premium than those in the outskirts. Thirdly, Low-price transactions have significantly higher premium of 18% comparing to High-price transactions of 1.4%. We believe higher premium is seen in low-price transactions due to the extra marketing green certification have for these buildings. We then utilize our past method to analyze consumers’ perception of green buildings based on triple bottom line concept and found that users do see their property excel in “planet” aspect but not “people” or
“profit”. This finding hinted that support for premium is in a less-desired way and could very possible be the reason behind low EEWH penetration rate seen throughout cities in Taiwan. We conclude with a suggestion to the policy makers to reform EEWH system and regulations to keep up with the pace of advanced countries in sustainability.
Current Version: June 28, 2016
1. Introduction
Energy depletion and Ecological sustainability are two global-wide issues that most countries are solemnly concern about. Numerous researches have pointed out that construction industry one of the main causation for high energy consumption and ecological damage. Therefore, the promotion of the green building gradually becomes the trend and leads the direction of national policy. EEWH (Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction and Healthy), the Taiwanese green building certification system, was established in 1999 to combat this global issue. However, despite its early establishment, only 113 residential buildings were certified with EEWH by June of 2014. Besides new-built public buildings that are require to obtain EEWH and the luxury apartments incorporating concept of green design, the promotion of green residentials for general public is not popular in Taiwan.
Eichholtz et al. (2010) pointed out that Green Building, Energy Star label and LEED certification show significant impact on price. The three respectively increased sales price of office buildings by 13.3%, 12.9% and 11.1%. RICS (2010) indicated green buildings were sold at an average of 16% premium. Pivo (2010) found that buildings with Energy Star labels could increase rent by 5.2% and occupancy by 1.3%. Aroul and Hansz (2012) studied city of Frisco and McKinney and found that green buildings receive a 2% premium on sales price. In addition, Andrea et al. (2012) also showed that buildings with BREEAM label received 30.5% premium on sales price in London.
Chen et al.(2014) first had an empirical study in Taiwan and found green premium exist in high-end housing.
Most literature indicates that green buildings can improve the effectiveness and bring a premium. Is this the case in Taiwan? Would the green premium be different at different geological location? How would the market react if bonuses are given to green buildings?
2. Literature Review 2.1 Green premium
Reviewing literature, there are positive effect and negative impact on real estate price. RICS (2010) indicated green buildings were sold at a 16% premium. Fuerst and McAllister (2011) also found a price premium of 25% for LEED rated commercial buildings and 26% for ENERGY STAR buildings. Ramya and Andrew (2012) showed 2% premium for transactions with green residential building characteristics. Aroul and Hansz (2012) also found sales price increase 2% on urban buildings. Eichholtz et al. (2010) pointed out that green building, Energy Star and LEED certification show significant impact on price. The three certification respectively increased sales price by 13.3%, 12.9% and 11.1%. Yongheng et al.(2013) studied Singapore’s green
4
buildings and found that the market premium of GM-rated units is about 10% at the resale stage, compared to about 4% during the presale stage. It showed that green building effectiveness is significant and accepted by consumers so that it could reflect the energy-saving utility on the sale price.
Most of the researches have a positive premium result. However, Yoshida and Sugiura (2012) pointed out green-labelled buildings resulted in a 5% discount. Zheng et al.(2011) indicated that greenest building in Beijing hit premium of 17.7% at presale but a 11% discount at resale.
In Taiwan, Chen (2011) investigated 120 appraisers to their awareness of green building prices by questionnaire. It shows 87% appraisers agreed green building has a positive impact on sale price theoretically and 66% believed they will react positively in the market but the impact less than 10%. Chen et al. (2014) conducted multiple regression analysis in Taipei University District from 2009 to 2012. However, the empirical result was not significant.
2.2 Green features
Green premium is based on green features. Simons et al.(2014) examined how green building attributes are considered by office building tenants in terms of economic(profit), social(people), and environmental(planet) benefits which basic concept of the triple bottom line was coined by Elkington (1999).
“Profit” is defined as economic values created by green building features. The most important is to save operating costs, such as use of LED light and energy-saving central air-condition etc. Federal Facilities Council (2012) pointed out that the operating costs about 60% to 80% of the whole life cycle cost, and energy-saving design takes only 5% to 10% of the cost. There are significant cost savings for the help in the long run. Lewis (2004) compared the energy-related operating costs of green building and non-green construction. He found a reduction of approximately 25% to 40%, while also reducing waste, sewage treatment and other expenses.
“People” is defined as social benefits created by green building features, such as lighting, air quality etc. The features of “social” is to increasing operational benefits efficiency while “economy” focuses on operating costs reduction. Kats (2003) found employee’s productivity was up by 1% over those of other non-green building, and the greener label the higher productivity. Furthermore, the better and the more types of green features, the more value is receptive to users because of their experience. Questionnaire of users’ willingness to pay to green building and non-green building features was carried by Chau et al. (2010). They adopted the order logit analysis and found that both parties believe that energy efficiency is the most important, followed by indoor air quality, noisy reduction, landscape and water
5
recycling. Wiencke (2013) investigated to green building users in Swiss. He used tobit model and the findings pointed out that the highest price users willing to pay for is
“people” features. Simons et al. (2014) had a questionnaire to office user, the results also pointed out that “social” is the most important green feature users care about.
Above researches indicated social green characteristics give users direct and substantial utility.
“Planet” is defined as environmental benefits created by green building features, such as water content, Use of renewable building materials, etc. Environmental sustainability is a consensus, but less price related researches were conducted.
Simons et al. (2014) survey found that users were more concerned about “social”
green features, followed by the “economic”, and less for “environmental” aspect.
Green premium maybe be due to developer’s rising costs, maybe from theusers’
green cognitive or experience. Conversely, if developers provide green characteristic and only green to green and unable bring utility to users; green premium will gradually disappear in the long term.
3. Methodology 3.1 Model
We exams the price effect of the green label with hedonic regression model in New Taipei City. The basic empirical model is as following,
Ln(Pi) = α0+ ∑ βj coefficient of green building variable; Gi is dummy variable for green building, and 𝜀𝑖：residual of ith normal distribution.
We consider property characteristics from literatures and the information Actual Price Registration supported in hedonic regression model. Dummy variables include green building variables (Eichholtz et al, 2010;. Yongheng et al, 2013;. Reichardt et al, 2012), the building materials rating (Leopoldsberger, 2011; Pivo, 2010), frontage condition, presale or not (Yongheng et al, 2013), compartements, transaction year (Reichardt et al, 2012), management organization. Continuous variables include property age (Reichardt et al, 2012;. Aroul and Hansz, 2012), transfer floor (Lorenz et al, 2006.), property floor, and location factor (Eichholtz et al, 2010.). Green building variable is the most important observation variable and the others are control variables.
6 Qualified, 6 Bronze, 12 Silver, and 3 Gold buildings. We refer to Eichholtz et al.(2010) and gathers transactions within 500 meters from green buildings as comparable properties. Totally of 9414 transactions in high-end condos, with 2,916 EEWH (32.33%) and 6,104 non-EEWH (67.67%) within 500 meters and property age in 3 years, from January 2012 to December 2014. We adopt cluster analysis to separate transactions into 11 groups to control spatial difference. The transaction data description is as Table 1.
Average transaction price of EEWH building is NT$377,840 per ping and non-green building is NT$329,100. If we only focus on the aspect of price, average price of EEWH buildings is around 14.8% higher than non-EEWH buildings. If we subdivide EEWH buildings into different levels as Qualified, Bronze, Silver and Gold, the average transaction prices are NT$328,640 thousand, NT$378,850 thousand and NT$444,220 respectively. It seems that higher green level result with higher transaction price. The price distribution is shown in Table 2.
4. Empirical results
4.1 The impact of EEWH label on housing price
The result shows an average premium of 6.2% for EEWH certified buildings in New Taipei City (see Model 1 in Table 3). In Model 2, we find that average premium of Qualified, Bronze and Silver level are 4.2%, 5.5% and 10.4% respectively. The result was as expected that higher level of EEWH does yield higher premium. The EEWH Gold and Diamond level was an exception as we excluded it from our research due to lack of samples. Besides the high premium, building silver seems to be optimal because of the 6% FAR incentive for the urban renewal developers in New Taipei City.
4.2 The premium effect in different housing price
To understand whether the EEWH impact is different at different price level. We adopt the quantile model; 10 quantile, 25 quantile, 50 quantile, 75 quantile, and 90 quantile of the price level; to estimate green premium (see Table 4). It shows that the premium of EEWH building is 18.0%, 12.5%, 4.7% and 1.4% respectively from 10
7
quantile to 75 quantile. They are at significant level of 1% to reject the non-null hypothesis that green label has no impact on housing prices. There is an inverse relationship between premium and price level. The lower price level is, the higher green premium. In the 90 quantile price level is even negative but not significant.
We suggest price is more strongly influenced by location in high-price level property and the impact of EEWH on building is relatively small. On the contrary, EEWH effect is more useful at low-price level property.
4.3 The premium effect in different location
The EEWH buildings in New Taipei City has the average premium of around 6%. To analyze location effect of EEWH we grouped properties into two groups: downtown group with cluster 1 to 4 are drawn from Banqiao and Xinzhuang District, and suburban group with cluster 8 to 11 are drawn from the Tamsui, Sansia, Shulin, Linkou and Yingge District. The empirical results are shown in Table 5. The average premium of EEWH buildings in downtown is 7.6%, while suburb average is 5.4%. It
The EEWH buildings in New Taipei City has the average premium of around 6%. To analyze location effect of EEWH we grouped properties into two groups: downtown group with cluster 1 to 4 are drawn from Banqiao and Xinzhuang District, and suburban group with cluster 8 to 11 are drawn from the Tamsui, Sansia, Shulin, Linkou and Yingge District. The empirical results are shown in Table 5. The average premium of EEWH buildings in downtown is 7.6%, while suburb average is 5.4%. It