Impact of financial assumptions on the cost optimality towards nearly zero energy buildings - a case study
Abstract
4 result(s) found
The ultimate test of the business case for high performance low carbon building is to consider how the human benefits of these buildings could be reliably quantified to prove beyond all doubt the positive Return on Investment (ROI). After all, staff costs, including salaries and benefits, typically account for about 90% of business operating costs.
Energy efficiency (i.e., the ratio of output of performance to input of energy) in office buildings can reduce energy costs and CO2 emissions, but there are barriers to widespread adoption of energy efficient solutions in offices because they are often perceived as a potential threat to perceived comfort, well-being, and performance of office users. However, the links between offices' energy efficiency and users' performance and well-being through their moderators are neither necessary nor empirically confirmed.
Co-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because the methodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective–multiple-impact framework.