Siew, R Y J (2015) Alternative framework for assessing sustainable building funds: Green building fund. Building Research & Information, 43(2), pp. 160-169. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The Green Building Fund (GBF) established in 2008 as part of the Clean Business Australia initiative is aimed at mitigating the risk of climate change by forming close partnerships between government, business and industry. It is specifically targeted to reduce the impact of the built environment on Australia's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing energy consumption through the operation of commercial office buildings. As part of the selection process, projects are assessed against three merit criteria: the potential reduction in GHG emissions, demonstration of potential, and quality of project design and management. An alternative framework is proposed that contributes more rigour to the current selection process. In particular, it contends for the use of second-order moment and Markov chain to establish the present worth and feasibility of green investment where the underlying parameters of interest/discount rate and cash flows (in terms of savings) are uncertain. This framework will be useful not only to AusIndustry (the funding body of the GBF) and other government departments worldwide responsible for awarding green building funds but also to owners who are keen on strengthening their application by improving the demonstration of project feasibility.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; buildings; green building fund; low carbon; markov chain; payback; second-order moment; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | Australia, low carbon, savings, partnership, commercial office, owner, Markov chain, project design, project feasibility, cash flow, climate change, greenhouse gas, strengthening, green building, payback, built environment, energy consumption, sustainable building, funding |
| Subjects: | Geography, sustainable construction, structural engineering, financial management, sustainability assessment, design practice, infrastructure and transport systems, partnership management, sociology, value management, climate science, construction type, mathematical modelling, energy systems, contractual arrangements, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Procurement, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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