4.8 Article

Evaluating the energy performance of buildings within a value at risk framework with demonstration on UK offices

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 40-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.074

关键词

Asset pricing; Exploratory systems analysis; Energy performance; Building simulation; Feasibility studies

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  2. Modern Built Environment Knowledge Transfer Network
  3. Grosvenor Group
  4. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Facility quality is dependent on the performance of utility infrastructure and local weather conditions in addition to social context. Theoretically, improvements in facility quality such as energy performance should reduce marginal costs of consumption for occupiers so as to increase asset values. This research explores the relationship between expectations of building energy performance and the financial value of real estate. The United Kingdom was selected as a leading case, being a large economy that has enacted legislation committing the government to delivering ambitious emission reductions to mitigate climate change. Appropriate instruments are identified and applied to a diverse set of case study offices. A scalable method is employed for calculating value at risk from energy performance for buildings. This involves a novel approach to testing supporting system capacity through an exploratory analysis of 2050 end-states and demonstration on real world contemporary cases as a feasibility study. In doing so, the significance of systematic risks to building energy performance can be quantified. By comparing systematic excess returns for energy performance with rental value for a large sample a Capital Market Line for building energy management emerges, providing a means to shadow price the social impacts of climate change. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据