3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS …epublication.fab.utm.my/351/1/SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THE...3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ... be achieved by recognising

272

3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC

RESEARCH ( 3rd ICBER 2012 ) PROCEEDING

12 - 13 MARCH 2012. GOLDEN FLOWER HOTEL, BANDUNG, INDONESIA

ISBN: 978-967-5705-05-2. WEBSITE: www.internationalconference.com.my

SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: THE WAY FORWARD FOR HILLSIDE AREAS

Farah Salwati Ibrahim1 & Nur Emma Mustaffa2

Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

[email protected] and [email protected]

ABSTRACT Development of housing on hillside in Malaysia has increased tremendously for the last 15 years due to depletion of flat land and other influencing factors like beautiful scenery, fresh air, exclusiveness, etc. Over the years, rapid hillside developments have caused many natural disasters especially landslides which caused substantial loss of human life and damages to property and infrastructure. In Malaysia, even though there are numerous legal instruments to regulate the laws, acts and procedures related to hillside development, but tragedies still happen. Therefore, a sustainable housing development for high risk areas is necessary especially on the Class III hillside areas. This paper reviews the theoretical framework for sustainability housing development and the parameters involved are the evolution of sustainable development definition, the elements that promote sustainable development, the characteristics of sustainable housing, the indicator to measure the sustainable housing, and Malaysia’s approaches on sustainable housing. To create a successful sustainable housing development, it will depend on the knowledge and involvement of all players in the housing industry especially the developers who are the key players for housing development. Likewise, effective measurement of sustainability should also be taken into consideration which encompasses the complete triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance because there is interdependency between them. Keyword: Sustainability, sustainable housing, developers, hillside development. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 Introduction Buildings and structures enable mankind to meet their social needs for shelter, attain economic needs for investment and satisfy their corporate objectives. It changes people’s lifestyle and standard of living apart from modernizing a community (Zainul Abidin & Jaapar, 2008). Without doubt, the building and construction sector is one of the key sectors that contribute to sustainable development (Shafii et al, 2008). According to the Department of Statistic Malaysia (2011), construction sector is one of the five key sectors of which housing development is an important engine of economic growth for the country and generates domestic demand, which in turn offers a conducive environment for both local and foreign investment. Housing is a human basic need and it is a very important issue in people’s everyday life (Abu Bakar et al., 2009). In 1948, the United Nations, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stated that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services....” This statement has proven that housing is a major need in human life and housing provision is one of the major challenges faced by many other developing countries, and Malaysia is not excluded. In the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1999 – 2000) and Eight Malaysia Plan

273





(2001- 2005), the Malaysian government has shown strong commitment in providing adequate, affordable and quality housing for all Malaysians. Thus, housing policy is one of the most important public policies affecting urban development and as such, it has a significant potential to contribute to sustainable development (Priemus & Heuvelhof, 2005; Tosics, 2004). This has been highlighted by Zinkernagel.R (2001) who described housing as an essential aspect of life quality and is also a significant factor for sustainable development. To ensure that Malaysia’s housing development is in tandem with what is practiced globally, the Malaysian government in the Tenth Malaysian Plan (2011—2015) has encourages the developers to develop more green building and sustainable housing in a mission to have a sustainable development which in turn conserve the environmental aspects. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) has defined sustainable development as a development that meets “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs.” In order to be sustainable, housing initiatives must be economically viable, socially acceptable, technically feasible and environmentally compatible (Choguill, 2007). On the other hand, housing must encompasses the immediate environment, sanitation, drainage, recreational facilities and all other economic and social activities that make life worthwhile (Olejado, 2003). It could be said that real sustainable housing can only be achieved by recognising the three sides of the Smart Housing Triangle – environmental, social and economic (BDAQ, 2008). In Malaysia, smart and sustainable initiative in housing have been highlighted by the government and communities but the sustainable housing is still a new concept and more exposure on this concept need to be made. Creating a sustainable housing development requires the knowledge and involvement of all parties in the industry (Said et al, 2009). Unfortunately, Public Work Department of Malaysia (PAM, 2008) found that Malaysia lacks competent expertises on sustainable housing development among local authorities and developer. In addition to that, present legislations relating to habitation is more focused on physical development of housing, while social and environmental matters are often not considered (Said et al, 2009). With reference to that issue, sustainable housing development also needs to be applied on hillside development because it is important to create a sustainable development as well as to maintain safety at hillside. Nonetheless, at the same time it is important to minimise the negative impacts it creates upon the environment (Shafii et al, 2008). Currently, according to REHDA (2009) the housing industry in Malaysia should continue to accommodate the country’s population, which is growing at a rate of about 2 percent per annum, requiring at least 185,000 new housing units annually and 53% of these units cater for the housing demand in Klang Valley. Selangor in particular, being the fastest growing state, will need to build 500,000 houses by 2015 to accommodate this growth. With land becoming scarcer by the day in the greater Klang Valley area, the task of providing adequate housing for the people proves to be challenging. The industry does not have much choice but to undertake development in hillside area as more and more land available for development fall into Class III category (slope terrain 25°- <35°). There may be still pockets of brown field land and visible vacant flat land around, but these are not necessarily for development, unless through compulsory acquisition. Clearing the hillside for development is one of the few ways of helping the government to maintain competitive edge and ensure economic growth. However, most people forgot that hillside is the most sensitive zone, even

274





minor changes to some parts can severely affect surrounding areas, resulting adverse consequences to the economic, environment and public safety in general (Chan, 1998; Burke et al.,2002). Moreover, hillside developments are approved and undertaken on a discreet basis without sufficient input on future upstream and downstream projects that may take place in the same area (REHDA, 2009). Initially, hillsides areas were developed for tourism and agriculture purposes such as Fraser Hill (opened in 1917 by British as tourist destination) and Cameron Highland in 1925 (Gue & Wong, 2009). The continued growth in the tourism industry has prompted many other high-rise hillsides development, mainly for apartments and hotels. Currently, the hillsides development will continue to increase in the near future, not only for tourism but as a result of pressures from population growth and other economic activities especially the increases in demand for housing with natural beauty and great views (Olshansky, 1998) together with demand for transportation facilities (highway and expressway) which for areas that are densely populated. These developments have required the exploitation of hillside areas (Chan, 1998). Nowadays, there is an explosive growth of hillsides development in the world’s urban areas as a result of population pressure and rapid urbanization (Schuster and Highland, 2007). Impressive natural surroundings, good ventilation and better natural lighting are the leading factors that make hillside housing development interesting and exclusive. The hilly and sloppy terrains combined with the creativity of a designer have produced interesting architecture. The exclusiveness of the architecture designs are further enhanced with resort style concept, resulting in elite looking houses and prompting people to live and own properties in these areas. These factors contribute to the increased of property value at the hillside area. Among the reasons why hillside lands are developed is to make high profit out of it apart from insufficient flat land in urban area to be developed (Abu Samah, 2007; Abdul Wahab, 2001; Too Eric et al., 2011). The rapid hillside developments has invited many natural disasters and has always been a topic for discussion though the disasters that happened are dissimilar to each other because of the differences in its developments pattern, climate change, topography, geography, hydrology, etc (Casale & Margottini, 2004). In Malaysia, the natural disaster which has become the topic for discussion is commonly landslide disaster related because of the rapidity of the development at these areas (Mohd Shariff & Rainis, 2005). There are a number of landslides disasters that happened at the hillside which have been developed in Malaysia. The Highland tower tragedy in Ampang in 1993, has surprised the nation and act as a reminder to the responsible parties who have been involved in its planning, approval and construction about the importance of controlling hillside development which should be compatible with the environmental conditions of that particular area. Other landslides that happened include the Taman Hill View tragedy and the slopes failures near the Athenaeum Tower. It happened in the urban area of Hulu Klang in the Klang Valley (PWD, 2007). Following the aftermath of these tragedies, the government and private agencies have issued numerous regulations and guidelines related to hillside development. In Malaysia, hillside development falls under the jurisdiction of the local authority but both the State Government and the Federal Government have the powers to regulate hillside development. Each of them has their own guidelines to be followed by developers and consultants. One of the guidelines are “Guidelines for Hillside and Highland Areas Development Planning ” in which it asserts that developers who plans to develop at the hilly areas need to fulfil the requirements of a few provisions involving preservation of natural topography, geological report, drainage sewerage report (MASA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), geological mapping report and geomorphology report (DBKL, 2010). This guideline has been

275





established to ensure that a balance is achieved between safety and welfare of property owners, as well as to maintain the sustainability of these areas (Too Eric et al., 2011). The laws and guidelines which are used for hillside development in Malaysia are; • Guidelines on the Prevention and Control of Soil Erosion and Siltation in Malaysia, Department of

Environment (MASMA), 1996; • Guidelines on Hillside Development, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 1997; • Guidelines for Development on Highlands, Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment, 2005; • Guidelines on Slope Maintenance CKC, JKR 2006. • Likewise, in 2009, the Malaysia Cabinet has approved new planning guidelines for hill slope and highland

area development which was proposed by Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). These guidelines synchronized the Hilly area Development Guidelines issued by Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (GP NRE, 2005).

Although many regulations and guidelines have been formulated to govern and protect hillside development, the problems associated with such developments have continued to arise. There is a range of triggering and contributing factors of landslide in hillside development (Too Eric et al, 2011). Abu Samah (2007) in a case study on hillside problems in Bukit Antarabangsa, Selangor found that the professionals involved in hillside developments were not conscious of these regulations and have failed to adopt a good planning and design practice for hillside development. Like it or not, actions should be taken to resolve the problems, either by the government or private sector, individually or collectively. This paper explores the need to have a sustainable housing development framework on hillside areas in order to minimize the natural hazards associated with hillside developments. It begins by describing the concept of sustainable development by discussing in detail the actual meaning of sustainable development. The focus of the discussion of the paper then shifted to sustainable housing field which circles around characteristics and measurements indicator for it. Malaysia’s sustainable housing project initiatives will also be reviewed at the end of this paper. 2.0 The Evolution of Sustainable Development Definitions The word “sustainable” is derived from a Latin word which provides more than ten meanings of “sustain”, the main ones are to “maintain”, “support” or “endure” (Onions et al, 1964). However, since the 1980’s the word sustainability has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development. There are more than 300 definitions of sustainable development that have been published globally with multiple views, opinions and judgments (Moles and Kelly, 2000). The most prominent definition which has always been quoted by many authors is the definition from the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in its Our Common Future Report. In it, the word sustainable development is defined not as a fixed state of harmony but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with the future as well as present needs. In other word “Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Smith et.al, 1998; United Nation General Assembly, 1987; Robert et.al, 2005). Most of the authors used this quotation to define

276





“sustainable development” but they always forget to explain the most important key concept in this quotation which is related to the concept of the “needs”, particularly the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet the present and future needs (Ball and Milne, 2005; Redclift, 2005; Jacobs, 1999). Before the Brundtland Report, the sustainable development concept has been around for a few years but the definition is limited to secure the survival and well being of humanity (IUCN, 1980). The concept of sustainable development which was similar to its modern form was first used by the World Council of Church in 1974. The concept was also put forward by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1980 (Dresner, 2008). The terms sustainable development become prominent in 1987 when United Nations Commission on Environment and Development published its report on “Our Common Future” (WCED, 1987). Many definitions have been established in shaping up of such new a concept about sustainable development appropriate for its implementation. According to the International Unions for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980), sustainable development was put forward as the integration of conservation and development to ensure that modification to the planet secure the survival and well being of all people. On the other hand; sustainable development is defined as a development that is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement to the quality of the human life (Allen, 1980). Repetto (1986) defined it as a development strategy that manage all assets, natural resources, and human resources as well as financial and physical assets, for increasing long-term wealth and well being. It rejects policies and practices that support current living standards by depleting the productive base to leave future generations with proper prospects and greater risks than our own. Besides the Brundtland report, Redclift (1987) in his book entitled “Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradiction” defined sustainable development as a development that addresses into three major areas which comprises of people living today are entitled to justice and equal rights, environmental degeneration must be alleviated and future generation must not be impoverished as a result of current actions. According to PANOS (1988) sustainable development is a new era of economic growth, one that is forceful, global and environmentally sustainable with a content that enhance the natural base rather than degrading it. Likewise, the sustainable development is also defined as a change in consumption pattern towards more environmentally products and a change in investment pattern towards augmenting environment capital (Pearce et al; 1989). In the earlier of 1990’s, Engle (1990) viewed it as the kind of human activity that nourishes and perpetuates the historical fulfillment of the whole community of life on earth. Furthermore, sustainable development is a handrail that guides us along as we proceed toward development (Tinchell, 1991). In the United Nations Earth Summit held by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Rio de Janeiro (1992), sustainable development was defined as “improving the quality of human life while living within the

277





carrying capacity of supporting eco-system”. This definition has an impact on the economic, social and environmental development and was later formally adopted worldwide. In another view put forward, sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community whether economic, social and environmental components that make up the community which provide a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents, present and future (Hurt, 1998). Moreover, it is also a vogue concept as many other vague concepts such as liberty, equality and justice (Timberlake, 1998). Berke (2002) found that sustainable development is often represented as a balance between economic, social and equity. As evidence of this statement, the Agenda 21 in World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 defined sustainable development as the kind of development that needs to be pursued in order to achieve the state of sustainableness. It is a continuous process of maintaining a dynamic balance between the demands of people for equity, prosperity and quality of life which is ecologically possible. In 2005, Brian in his book entitled “Rough Guide to Sustainability” developed an opinion of sustainable development from the perspective of architects. It defined sustainability as a complex concept which is a process to develop a system with the cooperation of ecological, economic, social and natural. A large part of designing sustainability is to do with addressing global warming through energy conservation and using techniques such as life-cycle assessment to maintain a balance between capital cost and long term asset value. In the same year, Munier N. (2005) in his book “Introduction to sustainability: Road to a better future” quoted “We do not inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children”. This statement has made it clear what Brundtland Report has indicated. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) United Kingdom defined sustainable development as the achievement of a better quality of life through the efficient use of resources which realizes continued social progress while maintaining stable economic growth and caring of the environment (OGC, 2007). According to Hasna A.M. (2007) sustainability is a process which comprises of a development of all aspects of human life affecting sustenance. It means resolving the conflict between the various competing goals, and involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. These sustainability elements are famously known as three dimensions called “Triple Bottom Line” with the resultant vector being technology, hence it is a continually evolving process; the ‘journey’ (the process of achieving sustainability) is of course vitally important, but only as a means of getting to the destination (the desired future state). However, the ‘destination’ of sustainability is not a fixed place in the normal sense that we understand destination. Instead, it is a set of wishful characteristics of a future system. Besides that, Roosa S.A. (2008) is of the opinion that; sustainability manifests itself as a set of policies, programs, and initiative each with its own implications and sustainability clothes itself in a systematic analysis approach that considers how processes are redesigned and managed with the hope of yielding a much better long-term outcomes. More favourable outcomes are those that best meet the goals of agenda after trade-off are considered. Thus, sustainability is hoped to be achieved when the agenda’s guidelines are successfully implemented and the sustainable development can be thought of as physical outcomes that occur when the guidelines are followed. In addition, Ding (2008) defined sustainable development as a concern of attitudes and judgment to help insure long-term ecological, social and economic growth in society.

278





Furthermore, sustainable development is basically the act of balancing the fulfilment of human needs alongside the protection of the natural environment to ensure human needs can be met in the present time and in the future. As a consequence of this, sustainable development can be perceived as an idea for mankind to simultaneously acquire balance and achievement between economic development, social development and environmental objective and priorities (Said et al; 2009). Bhalachandran G. (2011) in his paper of “Kautilya’s model of sustainable development” described sustainable development from an economist’s view where they consider sustainable development as a means to realize a secure welfare state. A universal accepted definition of sustainability is elusive because it is expected to achieve many things. On the other hand it needs to be factual and scientific, a clear statement of specific “destination”. The simple definition to be used in this paper is related to “sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-system”. 3.0 The Elements That Promote Sustainable Development For a project to be termed as sustainable, it is supposed to encompass several features. Some of these features usually involve the social dimensional feature, economic features and environmental features or its better known as a “triple bottom line” approach (Roger et al. 2008). In these three features, the environmental dimensional feature is very important in the sustainability of any project because all economic activity utilized the environment and hence depleting the natural resources (Markandya, 2006). Likewise, the social feature is significant in ensuring that the project is a sustainable project with its social attribute (Soederbaum, 2008) as the society gets the benefit from it for a long term period. Moreover, the economic features are imperative features in sustaining a project due to the fact that a project goal should not be all about reaping maximum benefits from the environment, but also sustaining the environment in a good manner so that the project will be able to reap benefits for a longer period of time and this can be undertaken through efficient use of natural resources (Ratner, 2004). These three features are also referred to as the pillars of sustainability. According to Hildebrand and Paul (2007), the three major recommendations of the Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm 1972, Brundlant Report in 1987 and the Rio Summit in 1992 are very similar to each other and increasingly more detailed in their analysis that the key components of sustainable development are;

• Economic growth generated by sustainable patterns of production and consumption of resources enable. • The social well being and the equity of all humanity and equitability access to current resources and in the

future, lastly • Protecting the environment and the services provides for humanity.

As a consequence of these three fundamentals components of sustainable development, most of the authors or researchers use this triple bottom line approach to describe their sustainable development elements but it was presented in different languages and meanings. Most of them believe that an effective sustainable measurement should consider the complete triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental dimensions (UNEP, 1992;

279





UNCED, 1993; Elkington, 1997; Bennett & James, 1999; Langston & Ding, 2001; Salim, 2004; Hezri & Hassan, 2006; BDAQ, 2008; Zainul Abidin, 2009). Nonetheless, these three components are not separated, there is interdependency between the three of it (Salim, 2004). Economic sustainability refers to a system of production that satisfies the present consumption levels without compromising the future needs; given the environmental constraints and cost (Basiago, 1998; Khan, 1995). It also seeks to minimize the flow of income generated while at least maintaining the stock of assets which yields these beneficial outputs (Said et al, 2009). Meanwhile, the social sustainability is also an important element that incorporates equity and poverty alleviation which includes protective strategies that reduce vulnerability, improve equity and ensure that basic needs are met. The environment aspect of sustainable is the maintenance of the factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long term basis (Business Dictionary). Over the years, there are more elements of sustainability which have been considered to be incorporated depending on the situation and its compatibility. According to the three reports as have been mentioned in the earlier paragraph, they give similar pillars to sustainable development but the Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 (Stockholm Report) added another fundamental component to the elements which is sustainable level of population growth. In the report it was told that “if developing nations are allowed to meet their basic needs (economic, social and environment) then there is a definitive need for a sustainable level of population which needs to be planned for”. Centering around Stockholm Report, Aguirre M.S. (2002)” stated that economic and environmental sciences are often used to support such policies in an attempt to establish a relationship between population, resources, environment and economic development. Brian (2005) on the other hand highlighted that to achieve sustainable development; the triple bottom line of sustainable development must be taken consideration which is environmental protection, social progress, economic prosperity and resources availability. Jonathan and Simon (2002) defined sustainable pillars as consisting of economic, social, environmental and political elements. In Hong Kong, a model of sustainable development can satisfy certain objective of sustainable development in the long run without infringing upon the political, economic and social constrains of Hong Kong (Lai et al, 2006). The cultural pillars also can be one of the sustainable pillars to consider in achieving sustainable development and it was used by the ancient thinkers of India Kaulitya in his Magnum Opus, who was of the view that sustainable development model involve no wastage of resources and it ensures a stress free economic, social, politic and cultural well-being (Bhalachandran, 2011). It has also been pointed out that in order to achieve sustainable development in developing countries of Southeast Asia, the environment, socio-economic and cultural issues must be taken into account (Shafii et al, 2006). Technical and institutional or governance is another element which can be incorporated as the pillar for sustainable development. According to Pareja and Stoa (2004), the vision of sustainable development take into consideration the economic, social and environmental pillars but some models have extended by adding into it an institutional or governance pillar. The institutional or governance pillar is used for housing development which refers to the cooperation, partnership and participation of different actors in the process of “sustainable” housing and urban development. This governance plays important roles in the formulation, implementation and evaluation

280





of housing and urban policies, instrument, programmes and individual projects which governance consist of local politician, civil servants, companies, employee and residents. Choguill (2007) focused on the technical aspect which state that in order to be sustainable, housing initiative must be economically viable, socially acceptable, technically feasible and environmentally compatible. The technical feasibility refers to the design, construction and other implementation of a sustainable housing. In developing sustainable housing on hillside areas, the most important sustainable pillar to be used and investigated would be environmental and technical elements. These two pillars are important in maintaining the land use of hillside, to investigate the topography, to choose a suitable development and to develop a sustainable township on hillside areas. While for technical aspects, the building design, structure and maintenance will be explored. 4.0 Sustainable Housing Criteria Nowadays, sustainable development is increasingly linked with the concepts of quality life, well being and live ability (Michalos, 1997). Housing is an essential component of both quality life and sustainable development. It is one of the prevailing factors that gives an impact on the general economy which is also an important component to social development that cultivated cultural feature, appearance of aesthetic value and the way of life (Said et al., 2009). Therefore, housing development plays a very important role in attaining the goal of sustainable development (Choguill, 2007). Nevertheless, general factor of sustainable housing practice that is applicable under various circumstances depending on the conditions where it is implemented (Larasati, 2006). Sustainable housing is a new concept in developing countries and unearthing projects covering all aspect of sustainability proved to be difficult (Ebsen, 2000). Premius (2005) defined “sustainable housing” as housing that is geared to meeting the needs of the current residents without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and its give minimum impact on the environment. The need of current residents are diverse and include the safety, physical and mental health, privacy, entertainment, education, socializing, comfort, adaptability, access to workplace, transport (including bicycle), utilities (clothes drying spaces), availability of garden space, access to foodstuffs and other commodities and of course affordability (Tuohy, 2004). Besides that, SHE (2009) defined sustainable housing as quality construction with affordable price and psychological impact together with eco efficiency elements in terms of efficient use of non-renewable resources. In addition to that, Brown and Bhatti (2003) also pointed out that sustainable housing system must be incorporated with social, economic, environmental sustainability in a mutually reinforcing way. In the same token, sustainable housing could be defined as housing practices which struggle for vital quality which include the economic, social and environmental performance in a broad way (John et al, 2005). Apart from that, Brian (2005) clarified that sustainable housing development as housing that creates sustainable communities in resources efficient manners which are referred to the energy, water, land, material and labour. It also brings together physical, social and cultural factors into a single agenda. Likewise, sustainable housing has been classified as the minimization of the environmental impacts of material use, energy consumption and water consumption during the whole service life of the building (Abu Bakar et al, 2010).

281





Operating the fundamentals of sustainability and applying it into real world are much more difficult than one might expect because sustainability concept has been applied by taking into consideration the quality of development in human settlements (Choguill, 2007). According to Carter (2005) when considering the development of a sustainable housing project, the developer need to agreed the site location, design quality, energy efficiency, funding, transport, supply chain and recycling. Furthermore, Winston (2007; 2009) stressed that the important aspect for housing development that needs to be emphasized include elements such as the location, construction and design, dwelling use and regeneration. In terms of location, the characteristics are sustainable land use planning which resist scattered settlement, it also means brown field over green field within the mixed use developments and which is close to public transportation. In construction and design aspect, the items which should be focussed on are higher residential densities, sustainable construction (includes energy efficiency and local renewable materials), design for sustainable use (includes energy use, water recycling and treatment, waste recycling), housing quality, easy access to green space, attractive, clean and safe residential environment, housing affordability, tenure mix and social mix, social resources. Moreover, for dwelling use, the items are high standard of energy efficiency in use of dwelling, waste recycling, sustainable management and maintenance. Finally, the regeneration aspect focuses on all of the above with the emphasis on renovation rather than demolition and partnership with residents. This feature has been proven by Tosics (2004) who affirmed that housing is linked to the sustainable concept in a number of important ways, for example; various aspects of the location, construction, design, management/maintenance and use of housing. In addition to that, Zhang et al (2011) added that green elements in developing property projects are varied and applicable across project life including site selection, planning and design, construction and operation and maintenance of buildings. According to the US Green Building Council (2009), green building is a practice of increasing the efficiency of new buildings and reducing their impact on human health and the environment through better site location, design, construction, operation, maintenance and removal. Similarly, based on the US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA (2009) green building is also known as sustainable or high performance building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resources efficient throughout a building’s life cycle from sitting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands and complements the classical building design which concerns of economy, utility, durability and comfort. Likewise, the Urban Ecology Australia (2007) states that green buildings must make the best use of the sun, wind, rainfall to help supply the energy and water needs of occupant. Further to that, the buildings should be multi-storey to minimize the land available for green space and thus the buildings should use key resources like energy, water, materials and land more efficiency than traditional buildings with more natural light and better air quality. It will contribute to improved health, comfort and productivity of end users. Muttagi (2001), is of the opinion that green buildings are extremely cost effective over the lifetime of the home’s operation while the upfront costs may be a bit higher in some cases (though that additional cost continues to decrease), but green buildings are less costly to maintain, reap benefits from lower utility costs and greater energy independence and provide better indoor air quality than building built to conventional standards and codes.

282





According to Smart and Sustainable Homes for Gold Coast (Innovation House 2) in Lot 19, Picnic Creed Road (Off Amity Road), Coomera, the sustainable housing incorporated numerous climates smart design features, including passive design which is being good cross ventilation, insulation, shading and lightweight construction building materials, energy efficient skylights and natural lighting with good window design, low toxic eco-paint, instantaneous gas hot water, high technology underground and slim line above ground rainwater tanks, water efficient products and appliances, energy and water use monitoring system, sustainable bamboo flooring and solar pavers that light the way to the self opening front door at night. This showcase depicted how a good simple design can create a home that is safe, accessible and flexible to demonstrate the considerable lifestyle and economic benefits of sustainable house. The design of Sustainable Home Gold Coast is based upon integrating a broad range of sustainable housing principle such as energy conservation, water conservation, water harvesting, passive solar design, breezeway design, intelligent construction, adaptability to changing family formations, as well as health and accessibility for ageing residents and people with a range of mobility. Karuppannan and Sivam (2009) claimed that to achieve sustainability in housing sector, it needs to achieve a manner of eco-efficiency, location and design criteria. Eco-efficiency houses will be compatible with the environment, the location is economically feasible and the design criteria create a community, which will be socially acceptable and viable. Location is important to achieve the economic sustainability for high and medium density housing area; it should be developed near the transport node and transit corridor. It will allow and facilitate the use of public transport rather than private cars and this will reduce the transport and infrastructure cost. Design plays a very important role in providing sustainable housing in terms of the design of the house and the area itself. Housing with sustainable features has been demonstrating multiple advantages in contrast to the conventional housing. The environment is good and embraces reductions in carbon production, increased energy production, have no negative impact on natural and undeveloped lands specifically on greenhouse gases. In terms of economic advantages, it entails direct cost saving from low energy consumption and operation expenditure and financial incentive. Furthermore, the social advantages of sustainable buildings include the increased user health, comfort, functionality, durability, maintenance and reputation (Yates, 2001; Heerwagen, 2002). Figure 1 illustrates the example of sustainable housing development which has been developed in Sheffield. This design deals with water management, privacy and provision of sustainable practice for the occupants. Furthermore, the design is based on Dutch and German sustainable housing principles.

283





Figure 1: Master plan for a sustainable housing development in Sheffield

Source: http:// aklandscape.blogspot.com

284





5.0 The Indicator to Measure the Sustainable Housing To measure the sustainability of a sustainable housing, a review of several methods have been carried out and each of them gives different variables to measure sustainable development depending on its nature, location and environment and thus climate (Said et al, 2009). Accordingly, in this paper, there are thirteen methods in twenty countries that adopt sustainability concept in their development process especially for housing development. The methods and the countries that applied them are;

Table 1: World Green Building Rating Tools. METHODS COUNTRIES

Green Building Tool (GB Tool) EUROPE

Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED)

UNITED STATE CANADA BRAZIL MEXICO

INDIA Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) JAPAN

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)

UK NETHERLANDS

High Environmental Quality (HQA) FRANCE DGNB Certification System GERMANY Green Building Evaluation System (EEWH) TAIWAN VERDE SPAIN BERDE PHILIPHINNE

Green Star AUSTRALIA

NEW ZEALAND SOUTH AFRICA

Green Mark SINGAPORE HK_BEAM HONG KONG Green Building Index (GBI) MALAYSIA

Source: Abu Bakar et al, 2010; World Green Building Council. According to Table 1, all the methods are used to measure sustainable development. This paper will review the best selected methods which are used by most of the countries in the world. The reviews include discussion on the sustainable development variable and the comparison on them. Leadership in Energy and Environment Design or prominently known as LEED is used in USA and other 120 countries amongst others include Canada, Brazil, Mexico and India which uses it as their green building measurement tools. According to U.S Green Building Council, LEED provides buildings owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measureable units to the green building design, construction, operation and maintenance solutions of high performance green buildings, homes and neighbourhoods. In addition, LEED certification provides independent, third party verification that a building, home and community was designed and built using strategies aimed at achieving high performance in key areas of human and environmental health in term of measuring the sustainable variables such as sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality and additional category innovation in design and regional priority. “LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major

285





Renovations” is a set of performance standard for certifying the design and construction of commercial or institutional buildings and high rise residential buildings of all sizes, both for public and private owners. The LEED points are awarded on a 100 points scale and credits are weighted to reflect their potential environment impacts and additionally, 10 points bonus credit will be awarded for buildings with 100 points scale. The LEED certified ratings are as listed in Table 2 below;

Table 2: LEED Certified Rating System Rating Point

Certified 40 – 49 Silver 50 – 59 Gold 60 – 99

Platinum 80 and above Source: U.S Green Building Council, 2010. To earn the LEED certification, the projects must satisfy all the pre-requisites and qualify for a minimum number of points to attain the established project rating. Possible points for each variable include sustainable site (26 points), water efficiency (10 points), energy and atmosphere (35 points), material and resources (14 points), indoor environmental quality (15 points), and additional point is based on innovation in design (6 points) and regional priority (4 points). Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) is developed on 2002 as a Japanese green rating tool which is used for evaluating environmental building performance. According to Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (2006), CASBEE is developed under the guidance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and it is used to assess buildings based on interior comfort, scenery consideration and environmental awareness which utilizing the energy saving material and equipment or those that cause smaller environmental loads. CASBEE measures both the improvement in living amenities for building user within a property (the hypothetical enclosed space) and the negative environmental impacts within and outside the property (Murakami, 2011). CASBEE evaluate the rating using 5 grades, they are;

Table 3: CASBEE Rating System Rank Grade Poor C

Fairly Poor B- Good B+

Very Good A Excellent S

Source: CASBEE, 2006. According to Murakami (2011), the ranking system is structured into two main categories. The first structure is the Environmental Quality (EQ), it evaluates the living space including indoor environment, quality of services and outdoor environment on site. While, the second structured discusses on the Environmental Load (EL) or environmental outside the property which consists of energy, resource & materials and off site environment. Once the total of EQ and EL are measured, they can be compared to find the Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE) and the high BEE score is accredited to a sustainable building which represents a low environmental impact.

286





Green Star is a comprehensive, national, voluntary environment rating scheme that evaluates the environmental design and achievements of buildings in Australia (OECD, 2003). According to the Green Building Council of Australia or known as GBCA (2011), Green Star was developed for the property industry in order to establish a common language, set a standard of measurement for green buildings, promote integration for the whole building designs, recognize environmental leadership, identify building life-cycle impact and raise awareness of green building benefit. Green Star covers a number of variable which assess the environmental impact that is a direct consequence of a project’s site selection, design, construction and maintenance. The nine variables included in the Green Star rating tools are management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, land use and ecology, emissions and innovation. All of these nine categories are divided into different credit of which will be awarded to a project when the project has met the overall objective of Green Star. The Green Star Certified Ratings are available in Table 4;

Table 4: Green Star Certified Rating Green Star

Rating Score Signified

4 Star 45-59 Best Practice in environmentally sustainable design and/or construction

5 Star 60-74 Australian excellent in environmentally sustainable design and/or construction.

6 Star 75-100 World Leadership in environmentally sustainable design and/or construction.

Source: Green Building Council of Australia, 2011 For the housing sector, GBCA has developed the Green Star-Multi Unit Residential Vol.1 rating tool and was officially released on 2 July 2009. This tool was developed to promote high performance for the design and construction of green residential development which enable the owner and developers to minimize the environmental impact to their developments, reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, capitalize on the environment benefit on their initiative, receive recognition for a more environmentally sustainable design and deliver health benefit and financial saving for building occupants. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is a set of standard for best practice in sustainable building design, construction and operation and has become one of the most comprehensive and widely recognized sustainable measurement tools of a building’s environmental performance (BRE, 2010). BRE (2010) also states that the measurements are used to evaluate a building’s specification, design and construction. The variable of the measurement used ranges from energy to ecology. It includes energy and water use, the internal environment (health and well-being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology and management process. BREEAM has been developed to meet the principles to ensure environmental quality through an accessible, holistic and balanced measure of environmental impacts. There are a number of elements that determine the overall performance of a new construction project assessed using BREEAM which encompasses BREEAM rating level benchmark, the minimum BREEAM Standard, the environment section weightings, the BREEAM assessment issues and credit (BRE, 2011). All the elements are combined to produce a BREEAM rating system which is shown in Table 5;

Table 5: BREEAM Rating System BREEAM Rating % Scores

Unclassified < 30 Pass 30

287





Good 45 Very Good 55 Excellent 70

Outstanding 85 Source: BRE, 2011.

In terms of developing sustainable housing, EcoHomes was developed by Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 2000, to provide an authoritative rating for new, converted or renovated homes which cover houses, flats and apartments (BRE, 2010; Tuohy, 2004). The EcoHomes scores are allocated in seven categories which includes energy, transport, pollution, materials, water, land use and ecology, health and well-being (Tuohy, 2004). Singapore Building and Construction Authority’s or known as BCA (2010), Green Mark Scheme was launched in January 2005. It is a green building rating system that assesses buildings and rates their performance in the following areas; energy efficiency (maximum 70 points), water efficiency (14 points), environmental protection (32 points), indoor environmental quality (8 points) and other green initiatives (7 points). In addition, the Green Mark rating system is categorized into four levels which are shown in Table 6;

Table 6: Green Mark Rating System Green Mark Rating Points

Certified 50 – 74 Gold 75 – 84

Gold Plus 85 – 89 Platinum 90 and above

Source: BCA, 2010 This scheme was developed to promote the adoption of green building designs and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce the impact of the building’s environment performance. Singapore has set a target of having at least 80% of its building attaining the BCA Green Mark Certified rating by 2030 (BCA, 2010). The Hong Kong Building Environment Assessment Method or known as HK_BEAM was developed to provide a guideline for developer, designers, contractors and building manager on practices to minimize the adverse effects of buildings on environmental, whilst promoting healthy indoor environment (CET, 1999). Furthermore, HK_BEAM also defines good practice criteria for a range of environmental issues relating to design, operation, maintenance and management of the buildings (BEAM Society, 2009). Buildings that are planned, built, commissioned and maintained in accordance to HK_BEAM standard are safe, healthy, comfortable, efficient and productive with lower environmental effect. This measurement also assesses the project by taking into consideration their whole-life site (25%), materials (8%), energy use (35%), water use (12%), indoor environment quality (20%) and innovative aspects. In HK_BEAM rating system, the overall grades are based on the level of applicable credit gained with a minimum percentage of indoor environment quality (IEQ) credits needed to qualify for an overall grade (HK_BEAM Society, 2010). The HK_BEAM rating system is shown in table 7;

Table 7: HK_BEAM Rating System HK_BEAM Rating

System Points IEQ

Bronze 40% 45% Silver 55% 50% Gold 65% 55%

288





Platinum 75% 65% Source: HK_BEAM Society, 2010 In Malaysia, the sustainable building assessment tool is called Green Building Index or GBI which is developed by Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) and the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) in January 2009. It is a profession driven initiative to lead the Malaysia property industry towards becoming more environmental friendly. The rating system will provide opportunity to developers to design and construct green, sustainable buildings that can provide energy and water savings, a healthier indoor environment, better connectivity to public transport and the adoption of recycling and greenery for their project (Mun, 2009). GBI rating tool is divided into two categories which are for non-residential and residential. The GBI tool for residential category evaluates the sustainable aspect of residential buildings which include linked house, apartment, condominium, townhouse, semi-detached and bungalows. Whilst, non-residential category will evaluate buildings that are commercial, industrial and institutional includes offices, hotels, factories, hospitals, universities, collage and shopping complex. Similar to HK_BEAM in Hong Kong, GBI also uses the same variable to measure the sustainability of the building but the point for every variable are different as well as for non residential and residential aspect but the rating system are same. Table 8 shows the GBI rating system for sustainable non-residential and residential development in Malaysia (GBI, 2011).

Table 8: GBI Rating System GBI Rating Points

Certified 50 – 65 Silver 66 – 75 Gold 76 – 85

Platinum 86 ++ Source: GBI, 2011

For residential aspects the maximum points for the variable to be achievable comprises of energy efficiency (23 points), water efficiency (12 points), material and resources (10 points), indoor environmental quality (12 points), sustainable site planning and management (37 points) and lastly innovation (6 points). Likewise, for non-residential category, the variable points to be focussed on are energy efficiency (35 points), water efficiency (10 points), material and resources (11 points), indoor environmental quality (21 points), sustainable site planning and management (16 points) and the innovation aspect (7 points). These variables show that for residential purpose, sustainable site planning and management are the most important aspects to be addressed whilst for non-residential category; it is the energy efficiency aspect. 6.0 Malaysia’s Approaches on Sustainable Housing Malaysia, like any other developing countries, is still in the progress of understanding the concept of sustainable housing. The effort to implement sustainability concept into every sector especially in housing sector is gaining attention from various parties but the implementation process is still very slow and only a number of developers who are willing to adopt the concept (Zainul Abidin, 2009). Even though, the number of sustainable housing development projects in Malaysia is rising, it seems that the key players in the housing industry are not sure whether or not they have ever considered and implemented sustainable elements into the housing projects (Said et al, 2009).

289





Based on the National Housing Policy (2010) the effort to adopt sustainable development is to balance the development implementation and the use of environmental friendly housing development concept with new technologies and innovation. Furthermore, the green technologies can help to preserve the environment in the circumstance of energy efficiency especially in building design, the use of recyclable materials and the development of smart buildings. Indirectly, the aspects mentioned can lift up the quality of life as well as preserve the environment. According to the CEO of Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute (ASLI), Dato’ Dr. Micheal Yeoh in the 13th National Housing and Property Summit Conference in 2010, the issues of sustainable growth is not only timely in light of the 10th Malaysia Plan but also serves as an important incentive for the Housing and Property industry to growth in tandem with the Government’s goal of achieving high income nation status. He also reminded the developers that they should not only take pride in the design, quality and timely delivery of the products that are part of the branding exercise, but also be mindful of the social and environmental impact of their business undertakings. Green Building Index (GBI) Malaysia provides an opportunity for housing developers and property owners to design and construct green, sustainable buildings that can provide energy savings, water savings, a healthier indoor environment, better connectivity to public transport and the adoption of recycling and greenery for their project as well to reduce negative impact on the environment. Some of the components of the GBI are used to evaluate the sustainability in building orientation, façade selection, rain water harvesting, natural lighting, air change effectiveness, storm water design, recycled content materials and construction waste management need to be adopted and taken into account during the design stage (GBI, 2011). GBI Malaysia has listed nineteen sustainable residential projects in Malaysia but only one residentials project is classified as having platinum in standard , four residentials achieved gold standard, two residentials are of silver standards and others are in the classified category. The SII House achieved the platinum award, whilst for Gold awards; Ken Bangsar, Sime Darby Idea House, Imperia@Puteri Harbour and Melawati Service Apartment (Saville@Melawati) are listed as winners. As for the silver award, Treez Bukit Jalil and Rhombus have been selected as winners. In the 2011 Asia Pacific Design Centre Awards ceremony held on Nov 25 in Wuxi, China, the SII House was a gold award winner in the detached/semi-detached category and it was also a winner in green homes categories in the haven/The Edge My Dream Home Awards 2011in July. In Malaysia, the 12,000 sq ft built up SII House is the first GBI platinum-rated residential which is located in Section 11, Petaling Jaya. This house is owned and designed by architect Dr. Tan Loke Mun from Archicentre Sdn Bhd who is one of the GBI’s team leaders. In terms of features, The SII House was designed similar to a tree in a hot tropical jungle with a large insulated canopy roof providing wide shelter for the living space beneath. The low pitch white roof reflects heat and provides a relatively flat working surface for renewable energy in the form of solar PV panel, solar hot water heating, rainwater harvesting, wind turbines and light tubes. Whilst the east and west walls are constructed of insulated light weight blocks with minimal windows and are further shielded by a wire mash green wall. Recycled and low VOC materials, energy saving lighting and appliances are used throughout (Chan, 2011). For GBI Gold award, the Sime Darby Idea House which is the first zero carbon housing prototype in South East Asia has been selected. Besides the GBI Gold award, this prototype house also received the Green Mark building

290





award from Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority (BCA). The Idea House is built as a traditional Malay kampung house with passive design by careful orientation and minimal exposure to low angle sun. This is coupled with large internal open plan spaces that not only encourage cross ventilation and the maximum penetration of natural daylight, but also allow for adaptability according to the expansion/contraction of the family nucleus (Pomeroy, 2010). According to Sime Darby (n.d) the green ideas that is used by Sime Darby Idea House includes landscape (the house is positioned as a pavilion within the landscape which both of the house and landscape are integrated via a landscape scheme divided into garden section for health, well-being, healing, recreation and permaculture), orientation, climatic responsive and solar energy (to minimize heat gain and lower cooling loads), building form (inspired by traditional Malay kampong house in its social environmental responsiveness, higher roof volume and cross ventilation), rain/grey water management (water recycling), multi disciplinary collaboration, scalability (use minimize cost), natural ventilation, topography responsiveness (this development responds to the contour of the site’s topography, minimize the cutting and filling the landscape), and environmental analysis (excellent daylight and natural ventilation). In summary, the Malaysia green building for residential aspect is still limited but Malaysia government and other private parties including developers should cooperate to develop more sustainable housing and the latest expansion is sustainable township for residential. 7.0 Conclusion In Malaysia, the sustainable housing development has been used well in urban area but at hillside area it is not yet implemented. Therefore, it is important to develop a sustainable housing development at hillside area because this area is sensitive zone which need to be maintained and conserved and also to avoid the landslide tragedy. Thus, this research is proposed to identify the main criteria in developing a sustainable housing development. At the end of this paper, the main elements of sustainable housing development are identified. Further work is needed to explore the implementation of sustainable housing development criteria related to hillside area.

291





Figure 2: Theoretical Framework of Sustainable Housing Development.

8.0 References Abdul Wahab, H. (2002). Kawalan Undang-Undang Terhadap Pembangunan Di Tanah Tinggi. Jelapang, 3(1). pp 63-70. Abu Bakar, A.H, Abd Razak, A., Abdullah, S., Awang, A., Parumal, V. (2010), Critical Success Factor For Sustainable Housing: A Framework From The Project Management View. Asian Journal of Management Research. ISSN 2229-3795. pp 66-80.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ELEMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY MEASUREMENT

INDICATORS

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

ASPECTS

� ECONOMIC � SOCIAL � ENVIRONMENTAL � POLITIC � CULTURAL � RESOURCES � TECHNICAL � POPULATION GROWTH � INSTITUTIONAL/

GOVERNANCE

SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT

� LEED � BREEAM � CASBEE � HK_BEAM � Green Star � Green Mark � GBI

� LOCATION � PLANNING � DESIGN � CONSTRUCTION � DWELLING USE � OPERATION � REGENARATION

� SUSTAINABLE SITE � ENERGY EFFECIENCY � MATERIAL RESOURCES � WATER EFFECIENCY � INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITY.

FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT HILLSIDE AREA, IS

THIS AREA A SUSTAINABLE SITE?

292





Abu Samah, F. (2007). Landslide in the Hillside Development in the Hulu Klang, Klang Valley. Paper Presented at the Postgraduate Seminar. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Aguirre, M.S. (2002). Sustainable Development: Why the Focus on Population? International Journal of Social Economics, Vol.29, No.12, 2002, pp. 923-945. Allen, R. (1980). How to Save the World: Strategy for World Conservation. London: Kogan. Australia State of Environment Committee (2001). Australian State of the Environment. Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. Ball, A. & Milne M.J. (Ed.). (2005). Sustainability and Management Control. In Berry, A.J., Broadbent, J. and Otley, D.T., Management Control Theories, Issues and Performance, London: Palgrave MacMilan, pp 314-317. Basiago, A. (1998). Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability in Development Theory and Urban Practice. The Environmentalist, 19 (2), 16. BCA (2010), BCA Green Mark Assessment Criteria. Building and Construction Authority. Retrieved Jan 6th, 2012, from http://bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_criteria.html BDAQ (2008). Improving Sustainable Housing in Queensland. A Respon from Building Designers Association of Queensland Inc. Australia. BEAM Society (2010). BEAM Plus New Buildings, Version 1.1 (2010.04). Hong Kong. Bennett, M. and James, P. (1999). Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting Of Environmental and Social Performance. United Kingdom: Greenleaf, Sheffield. Berke, P.R. (2002). Does Sustainable Development Offer A New Direction for Planning? Challenge for the 21st Century. Journal of Planning Literature. 17(1);21-36. Bhalachandran, G. (2011). Kaulitya’s Model of Sustainable Development. Humanomics, Vol.27, No.1, 2011. pp.41-52. BRE (2010). What is BREEAM? Retrieved January, 2nd, 2012, from http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=66 BRE (2011). BREEAM New Construction Non-Domestic Buildings, Technical Manual SD5073 – 2.0: 2011. United Kingdom: Wortford. Brian E. (2005), Rough Guide to Sustainability, 2nd Edition. London: RIBA Enterprise LTD. Brown T. and Bhatti M. (2003). Whatever Happened to Housing and The Environment? Housing Studies, 18 (4). Burke, T.J., Sattler, D.N., & Terich, T. (2002). The Socioeconomic Effects of A Landslide in Western Washington. Global Environment Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 4(4), 129-136. Business Dictionary (n.d.). Environment Sustainability. Retrieved January 7th, 2012, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/environmental-sustainability.html Carter (2005). A Consensual Sustainability Model: An Aid for Decision Making in Sustainable Building Project Procurement. PhD Thesis, Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.

293





Casele, R. & Margottini, C. (Ed.). (2004). Natural Disaster and Sustainable Development. New York: Springer. CET (1999). An Environmental Assessment for New Residential Buildings Version 3/99 (Residential). Kowloon: Hong Kong. Chan, E.J. (2011). SII House Wins Asia Pacific design Centre Awards. Property Page, The Edge Financial Daily. Retrieved January, 2nd, 2012, from www.theedgeproperty.com/news-a-views/8986.html Chan, N.W. (1998). Environmental Hazard Associated with Hill Land development in Penang Island, Malaysia: Some Recommendations on Effective Management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 7(4), 305. Choguill, C.L (2007), The Search For Policies To Support Sustainable Housing. Habitat International, pp 143-149. DBKL (2010). Garis Panduan Perancangan Pembangunan di Kawasan Bukit dan Cerun bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, 2010. Kuala Lumpur. Department of Statistics Malaysia (2011). The Malaysian Economy In Brief. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Berhad. Ding, G.K.C. (2008). Sustainable Construction-the role of Environment Assessment Tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 451-464. Dresner, S. (2008). The Principles of Sustainability, 2nd Edition. United Kingdom: Earthscan. Ebsen, C. & Ramboll, B. (2000). International Review of Sustainable Low Cost Housing Project Proceeding: Strategies for A Sustainable Built Environment, Pretoria, pp 23-25. Elkington, J., (Ed.). (1997). Cannibals with Forks, the Triple Bottom Line of 21st century Business. Capstone, Oxford. Engel, J.R. & Engle, J.G. (1990). Ethics of Environment and Development: Global Challenge. International Response. London. Belhaven. Green Building Council of Australia (2011). What is Green Star?. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/what-is-green-star/2139.htm GBCA (2012). Green Star – Multi Unit Residential V.1. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from www.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-tools/green-star-multi-unit-residential-v1/1930.htm Green Building Index (2011). GBI Assessment Criteria for Residential New Construction (RNC), Version 2.0. Kuala Lumpur: Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd. Gue, S.S. & Wong, S.Y. (2009). Slope Engineering Design and Construction Practice in Malaysia. Paper Presented at the CIE-IEM Joint Seminar on Geotechnical Engineering. Yilan, Taiwan. Hasna, A.M. (2007). Dimensions of Sustainability. Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Development: Energy, Environment and Health 2 (1): 47-57.

294





Heerwagen, J. (2002). Green Building, organizational Success and Occupant Productivity. Building Research and Information, Vol. 28, No 5/6, pp 353-367. Hezri, A.A. and Hassan, M.N. (2006). Towards Sustainable Development? The Evolution of Environmental Policy in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum, 30 (2006), pp 37-50. Hildebrand, F. and Paul, Y. (2007). Vision of Sustainability Cities and Regions. Taylor & Francis, Taylor and Francis Group. London and New York. HK_BEAM Society (2010). The Fundamental and Principles of HK_BEAM. Retrieved January 7, 2012, from www.hk-beam.org.hk Hunt, M. (1998). Sustainable Measures. West Hartford. CT. Industry Submits Views on Proposed Hillside Development Guideline. (2009, February). Buletin REHDA, p.1, Retrieved January 25, 2011, from www.rehda.com IUNC (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. Jacobs, M. (Ed.). (1999). Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept, in Dobson. Fairness and Futurity: Essay on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-45. Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (2006). The Assessment Method Employed by CASBEE. Retrieved January 7, 2012, from www.iber.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm John, G., Croome, D.C. and Jeronimidis, G. (2005). Sustainable Building Solution: A Review from the Natural World. Building and Environment, 40 (3), 317-326. Jonathan, M. and Simon, A. (2002). Rationalities of Planning “Development versus Environment in Planning for Housing”. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Khan, M.A. (1995). Sustainable Development: A Key Concept, Issues and Implications. Sustainable Development 3. Kuruppannan, S. & Sivam, A. (2009). Sustainable Development and Housing Affordability. Presented at the European Network for Housing Research Conference 2009. 28 June to July, Prague, Czech Republic. Lai, L.W.C., Chau, K.W., Ho, D.C.W and Lorne, F.T (2006). A Hong Kong Model of Sustainable Housing. Property Management, Vol. 24, No.3, 2006. pp. 251-271. Langston, C.A. & Ding, G.K.C. (Ed.). (2001). Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment. Langston: Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Larasati D. (2006). Towards n Integral Approach of Sustainable Housing in Indonesia with An Analysis of Current Practice in Java. The Netherland: Delft University of Technology. Malaysia Government (1999), Seventh Malaysia Plan. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Berhad. Malaysia Government (2001), Eight Malaysia Plan. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Berhad.

295





Malaysia Government (2010), Tenth Malaysia Plan. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Berhad. Markandya, A. (2006). Sustainable Development Economics and Environment in The Third World. London. Michalos, A. (1997). Combining Social, Economic and Environmental Indicators to Measure Sustainable Human Well-Being. Social Indicators Research, 41, pp 1-4. Mohd Shariff, N., and Rainis, R., (2005). Kajian Perbezaan Dalam Klasifikasi Kawasan Berbukit Dari Hasilan Kecerunan Berbagai Perisian Sistem Maklumat Geografi (GIS). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Journal Teknologi, 43(B) Dis. 2005: 35-50 Moles, R. and Kelly, R., (2000). Toward Sustainable Development in the Mid-West Region of Ireland. Environmental Management Health, Vol. 11 No.5, pp 422-432. Mun, T.N. (2009, April 23). The Development of GBI Malaysia. Retrieved January, 7th, 2012, from http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/Resources/GBIDocuments/20090423-The Development of GBI Malaysia.pdf Munier, N. (2005). Introduction to Sustainability, Road to A Better Future. New York: Springer. Murakami, S. (2011). Sustainable Design of Houses and Cities in Japan. Building Research Institute. Japan: Keio University. Muttagi, P.K. (2001). Sustainable Development – A Third World Perspective. United Kingdom: ITDG Publishing. National Housing Department (2010). National Housing Policy. Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur. OECD (2003). Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies. France: OECD Publishing. OGC (2007). Achieving Excellent in Construction: Sustainability. Office of Government Commerce: Norwich. Olejado, E.O (2003), Implication of Design and Material Specifications on Housing Development. Proceedings: Housing Development in Nigeria – Which way Forward, Lagos State of Nigeria. Oleshansky, R.B. (1998). Regulation of Hillside Development in the United State. Environmental Management, 22(3), 383-392. Onions, Charles, T. (Ed.). (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp 2095. PAM (2008). Press Statement on Bukit Antarabangsa Landslide on 6 December 2008. Berita Arkitek (Vol. December 2008). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysia Institute of Architect (PAM). PANOS (1998). Towards Sustainable Development. London: PANOS. Pareja-Eastway, M & Stoa, E. (2004) Dimensions of Housing and Urban Sustainability. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19, 1-5. Pearce, D., Barbier, E.B, and Markandya, A. (1989). Blueprint for Green Community. Pearce Report, London: Eartscan.

296





Pomeroy, J. (2009). Sime Darby Idea House. Broadway Malyan, Architecture Urbanism Design. Priemus, H. & Heuvelhof, E.T. (2005). The Long Way To Sustainable Housing Areas. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2005, Vol. 32, pp 1-3. Priemus, H. (2005). How to Make Housing Sustainable? The Dutch Experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32 (1), pp.5-19. PWD (2007). Laporan Awal Kejadian Tanah Runtuh Di Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur: Public Work Department. Ratner, B.D. (2004). Sustainability As A Dialogue of Values: Challenges to The Sociology of Development. Sociological Inquiry, 74(1): 50 – 69. Redclift, M. (1987), Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron Comes Age. Sustainable Development. Vol. 13, pp. 212-217 Repetto, R. (1986). World Enough and Time, New haven Conn., Yale University Press. Roberts, W.K., Thomas, M.P. and Anthony, A.L., (2005). What Is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Value, and Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 47, No.3, pp 8-21. Roger, Jalal, P.P, K.F et al (2008). An Introduction of sustainable Development. London: Earthscan. Rossa, S.A. (2008). Sustainable Development Handbook. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press Said I., Osman, O., Mohd Shafiei M.W., Abd Razak A., Kooi T.K. (2009), Sustainable in the Housing Development Among Construction Industry Players in Malaysia. Journal of Global Business Management Vol. 5, No. 2, October 2009. Salim, E. (2004). Asia: The Challenge of Sustainability, Green Productivity and Sustainable Development. Report of the APO 2nd World Conference on Green Productivity 9-11 Dec, 2002, Manila, Philippine. Asian Productivitty Organization, Tokyo. Schuster, R & Highland, L (2007). The Third Han Cloos Lecture. Urban Landslides: Socioeconomic Impacts and Overview of Mitigative Strategies. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 66(1), 1-27. Shafii, F., Arman Ali, Z. and Othman, M.Z. (2008). Achieving Sustainable Construction in the Developing Countries of Southern Asia. Proceeding of the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (APSEC 2006), 5-6 September, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. SHE (2009). Economic and Social Issues Towards Sustainable Housing. European Commission, 5th RTD Framework Programme. Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. The European Commission Community Research. Sime Darby Property (n.d.). Sime Darby Idea House. Retrieved January, 5th, 2012, from http://www.simedarbyproperty.com/1006291110%C2%BBSime_Darby_Idea_House.aspx.

297





Smart and Sustainable Homes (2006). Gold Coast (Innovation House 2). Retrieved May 31, 2011, from http://www.sustainable-homes.org.au/ Smith, Charles, Rees, Gareth (1998). Economic Development, 2nd Edition. Basingstoke: MacMillan. Soederbaum, P. (2008). Understanding Sustainability Economic. London: Earthscan. Stockholm (1972). Report of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNEP). United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved January 8th, 2012, from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97 Timberlake, L. (1998). Sustained Hope for Development: New Scientist Tinchell C. (1991). Speech to UNEP-UK Seminar, 9th October 1991. London. Too Eric, G., Adnan, N., Trigunarsyah, B. (Ed.). (2011). Project Governance in Malaysia Hillside Development. Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Construction in the 21st century: Construction Challenges in the New Decade, Kuala Lumpur. Tosics, I (2004). European Urban Development: Sustainability and the Role of Housing. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 19, 67-90. Tuohy, P.G. (2004). Sustainable Housing. Thesis of Master Science in Energy Engineering. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde. U.S Environmental Protection Agency (2009). Green Building Basic Information. Retrieved January 5th, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm. U.S. Green Building Council (2009). What Is Green Buiding? Retrieved May 25, 2011, from www.usgbc.org UNCED (1993). Agenda 21: Programme of Actionfor Sustainable Development: Rio Declaration on Environment. Paper Presented at the United Nation Conference Environmental Development, New York. United Nation (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Right, 10 December. United Nations Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro (1992). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). United Nations General Assembly (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to Document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment. Retrieved Jan 6th, 2012, from http://www.energy.kth.se/courses/4A1613/2008-2009/1987-brundtland pp 01-17.pdf Urban Ecology Australia (2007). Ecological Cities, Urban Ecological Australia. Retrieved December 28th, 2011, from http://www.urbanecology.org.au/topics/ecologicalcities.html Winston, N. (2007). From Boom to Bust? An Assessment of the Impact of Sustainable Development Policies on Housing in the Republic of Ireland. Local Environment, 12 (1), pp 57-71. Winston, N. (2009). Urban Regeneration for Sustainable Development: The Role of Sustainable Housing. European Planning Studies, Vol. 17, No.12, December 2009.

298





Winston, N. and Pareja-Eastway, M. (2007) Sustainable Housing in The Urban Context: International Sustainable Development Indicator Sets and Housing. Social Indicator Research (2008) 87: 211-221. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Green Building Council (n.d.). Green Building Rating Tools. Retrieved January 7th, 2012, from www.worldgbc.org Yates, A. (2001). Quantifying the Business Benefits of Sustainable Buildings – Summary of Existing Research Finds (Extract) (Draft for Discussion). Centre for Sustainable Construction. London: BRE. Yeoh, M. (2010). Opening Speech in “13 th National Housing and Property Summit on July 27th, 2010”. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. Zainul Abidin, N. & Jaapar A., (2008) Sustainable Concept Awareness in Malaysia Construction Practices. BEAN 2008 Conference, BEST Research Centre (Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies). United Kingdom: Liverpool John Moores University. Zainul Abidin, N. (2009). Sustainable Construction in Malaysia – Developer’s Awareness. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53. Zhang, X, Platten, A., Shen, L. (2011). Green Property Development Practice in China: Cost and Barriers. Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2153-2160. Zinkernageal, R (2001), Indicator to Measure Sustainable Development in Urban Residential Areas. Thesis for the Fulfillment of the Master of Science in Environment Management and Policy. Sweeden: Lund University.