Towards a trajectory for sustainable policies and market strategies governing building lifecycle energy performance

Tinarwo, B; Rahimian, F and Abi Ghanem, D (2025) Towards a trajectory for sustainable policies and market strategies governing building lifecycle energy performance. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 14(1), pp. 140-162. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to discuss a selection of policy strategies, regional initiatives and market approaches to uncover the realities of twenty-first-century building energy performance. A position that market-based approaches, human influence and policy interventions are part of an ecosystem of building energy performance is presented. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory search of secondary sources spanning the last three decades was conducted. Both peer-reviewed and grey literature were included to capture a broader understanding of the discourse in literature. Research questions guided the literature search, and a data extraction tool was designed to categorise the literature. The primary limitation of this study is that only a few applications could be discussed in a condensed format. Findings: Several challenges about the current status quo of building energy performance were identified and summarised as follows. (1) Inconsistencies in measurement and verification protocols, (2) Impacts of market approaches, (3) National policy priorities that are at variance with regional targets and (4) Ambiguous reporting on environmental impacts of energy efficiency (EE) technologies. Practical implications: The practical implications of the findings in this paper for practice and research are that as part of the building energy performance ecosystem, national responses through government interventions must become adaptive to keep up with the fast-paced energy sector and social trends. Simultaneously, before market-based approaches overcome the messiness of socio-economic dynamics, institutional conditions and cultural nuances, they ought to transparently address environmental impacts and the infringement of several SDGs before they can become viable solutions to building energy performance. Originality/value: This paper presents building energy performance as an ecosystem comprising human influence, market-based approaches and policy interventions which form interdependent parts of the whole. However, evidence in the literature shows that these aspects are usually investigated separately. By presenting them as an ecosystem, this paper contributes to the discourse by advocating the need to re-align building energy performance to socio-economic-political dynamics and contextually viable solutions.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building energy technologies; building lifecycle performance; building rating systems; energy policy and regulation
Index terms: lifecycle, dynamics, energy performance, energy sector, energy efficiency, variance, national policy, evidence, environmental impact, regulation, methodology, energy technology, energy policy, strategy
Subjects: measurement and scaling, systems engineering, political science, industry analysis, management, sustainability and energy, project delivery, energy systems, research methods, public policy, innovation and technology management, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental impact
Topics: Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Governance, Business Strategy, 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