Energy benchmarking in healthcare facilities: A comparative study

Li, Y; Cao, L; Zhang, J; Jiang, Y; Han, Y and Wei, J (2021) Energy benchmarking in healthcare facilities: A comparative study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(11): 04021159, ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Benchmarking the energy efficiency of buildings is important for optimizing the efficient use of energy and reducing carbon footprint. Healthcare facilities have especially high energy usage, but the historical difficulty of collecting energy data from a relatively large number of healthcare facilities has made it challenging to develop the appropriate benchmarking system. In this paper, we seek to foster the task of benchmarking the energy efficiency of healthcare facilities using three different methods: multiple linear regression (MLR), generalized additive model (GAM), and energy performance index (EPI). The analysis was applied using a unique dataset that contained information on energy consumption and various building features for 22 large-size public hospitals managed by the Shanghai hospital development center (SHDC). Findings suggest that different benchmarking methods yield substantially different energy performance ranking results. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the three benchmarking methods was conducted in terms of goodness-of-fit, consistency, and robustness. The results show that MLR tends to be the most consistent and robust benchmarking model, while GAM appears to have the best goodness-of-fit. The proposed methodology can assist hospital managers identify potential improvements for more efficient use of energy in healthcare facilities.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: benchmarking; energy performance; generalized additive model; healthcare facilities
Index terms: comparative analysis, Shanghai, energy benchmarking, manager, benchmarking, dataset, methodology, energy efficiency, carbon footprint, energy performance, comparative study, energy consumption
Subjects: sustainability and energy, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, research design and methodology, environmental impact, practitioner, data management, performance measurement, research methods, Geography
Topics: Digital Applications, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Geographical Context, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here