Author:
Glumac Brano,Oosterbaan Marieke A.,Schaefer Wim F.,Sulla Kairi
Abstract
Purpose
– This paper aims to propose a decision support tool that would aid decision-makers to implement energy-saving measures efficiently in a corporate real estate.
Design/methodology/approach
– The tool consists of a system dynamic model that allows describing and quantifying the complex interaction between potential maintenance scenarios, external energy factors and case-specific conditions. In addition, to include the uncertainty of some of the input variables related to the external energy factors, Monte Carlo simulation has been applied.
Findings
– A case study of a city hall in The Netherlands showed the usability of the proposed tool. Over the selected period of 20 years, applying the chosen set of interventions, the simulation showed possible gains in the net present value and significant decrease of energy consumption and carbon emission. Municipal officials and consultants verified the tool for energy efficiency.
Research limitations/implications
– Although the tool has proved its functionality in one case study, to test its robustness, additional case studies would be preferable.
Practical implications
– The assessment tool can help organizations in assessing energy-efficient maintenance scenarios that include multiple technical energy efficiency interventions as a part of other maintenance activities.
Originality/value
– There are numerous ways to increase building’s energy efficiency, but a lack of knowledge is often hindering the enhancement of maximal benefits. A tool that would assess both financial and environmental benefits of potential technical intervention would provide useful insights into corporate’s real estate current and possible future energy performance. This would aid corporations in making better decisions regarding finances, and on the long run, it will bring an improved corporate image.
Subject
Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference41 articles.
1. Agentschap, N.L.
(2010),
Verdienen met Duurzaam Onderhoud
, Ministrie van Volkhuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Utrecht.
2. Ardente, F.
,
Beccali, M.
,
Cellura, M.
and
Mistretta, M.
(2011), “Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 460-470.
3. Asadi, E.
,
da Silva, M.G.
,
Antunes, C.H.
and
Dias, L.
(2012), “Multi-objective optimization for building retrofit strategies: a model and an application”,
Energy and Buildings
, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 81-87.
4. Bartlett, E.
and
Howard, N.
(2000), “Informing the decision makers on the cost and value of green building”,
Building Research & Information
, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 315-324.
5. Bull, J.
,
Gupta, A.
,
Mumovic, D.
and
Kimpian, J.
(2014), “Life cycle cost and carbon footprint of energy efficient refurbishments to 20th century UK school buildings”,
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment
, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献