Sparks, David G (2018) Exploring public procurement as a mechanism for transitioning to low-carbon buildings. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Abstract
Public procurement has the potential to be used as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate action on low-carbon development; however a variety of barriers are preventing widespread uptake. This thesis explores how public procurement can be further harnessed to transition public buildings towards low-carbon operations. The thesis presents a suite of strategies found to be conducive to successful low-carbon outcomes. It provides a basis for considering the development of low-carbon public procurement initiatives and a context for discussing opportunities for improvement of existing programs, with important implications for government agencies beginning the transition towards low-carbon practices.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Desha, Cheryl; Dawes, Les and Hargroves, Charlie |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | low-carbon public procurement; sustainability; climate change; greenhouse gas emissions; building sector |
| Index terms: | greenhouse gas emission, climate change, strategy, low-carbon building, government agency, public building, program |
| Subjects: | climate science, environmental health, construction type, administrative law, software systems, design practice, management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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