Crawford, R H (2005) Validation of the use of input-output data for embodied energy analysis of the Australian construction industry. Journal of Construction Research, 6(1), pp. 71-90. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
This paper evaluates a recently developed hybrid method for the embodied energy analysis of the Australian construction industry. It was found that the truncation associated with process analysis can be up to 80%, whilst the use of input-output analysis alone does not always provide a perfect model for replacing process data. There is also a considerable lack in the quantity and possibly quality of process data currently available. These findings suggest that current best-practice methods are sufficiently accurate for most typical applications, but this is heavily dependant upon data quality and availability. The hybrid method evaluated can be used for the optimisation of embodied energy and for identifying opportunities for improvements in energy efficiency.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | input-output analysis; hybrid analysis; embodied energy; Australia; buildings |
| Index terms: | input-output analysis, construction industry, embodied energy, process analysis, Australia, energy efficiency, validation |
| Subjects: | management, professional development, industry analysis, sustainability and energy, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, Geography |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Geographical Context |
| 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