Fostering the use of sustainable design to reduce energy use and GHG emissions at Canadian universities: a life cycle cost analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the application of sustainable building design and operation within a university setting to determine its economic efficacy and potential for further university investment. Design/methodology/approach This study incorporated a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), simple payback period and discounted payback period calculations to determine the return on investment, including a sensitivity analysis when comparing the energy use and financial benefits of the sustainable design of a multi-use facility at Toronto Metropolitan University with buildings of similar size and use-type. Findings It was found that there is a positive business argument for Canadian Universities to consider the use of sustainable design to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A reasonable payback period and net present value within an institutional context were determined using a life-cycle cost assessment approach. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to the measure of only a single location. Certain assumptions regarding energy pricing and interest rates and the related sensitivities were anchored on a single year of time, and the results of this study may be subject to change should those prices or rates become significantly different over time. Considerations for future research include a longitudinal approach combined with a more detailed analysis of the effect of use-type on the variables discussed. Practical implications For university administrators, the results of this study may encourage institutions such as universities to approach new building projects through the lens of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability. Social implications GHG emissions are a well-proven contributor to global climate change, and buildings remain a significant source of GHG emissions in Canada due to their winter heating and summer cooling loads. As a result, sustainable building design on university campuses can mitigate this impact by optimizing and reducing energy consumption. Originality/value Research related to the economic evaluation of sustainable building design on university campuses is generally limited, and this study represents the first of its kind in regard to an LCCA of a sustainably designed building on a Canadian University campus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".