Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Optimization of Load Flows in Urban Hybrid Networks Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Co-benefits of Smart and Sustainable Energy District Projects: An Overview of Economic Assessment Methodologies

Authors : Adriano Bisello, Gianluca Grilli, Jessica Balest, Giuseppe Stellin, Marco Ciolli

Published in: Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The concept of “co-benefit” is commonly adopted to define any additional positive impact of a policy, program, or project, arising alongside the desired primary goal. Co-benefits relate to human health and well-being, as well as environmental, economic, and social aspects. The concept, investigated beginning in the 1990s, is recognized today, as supported worldwide by several notable organizations, to provide a better grasp of the economic value of foreseen or applied measures. Nevertheless, given the complexity of achieving complete pictures and understanding many interrelations or cascade effects, co-benefits are often only analyzed locally or measured qualitatively. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the methodologies for economic assessment that are applicable to the monetization of co-benefits related to Smart and Sustainable Energy District Projects. Starting from a previously defined framework of expected co-benefits, we analyzed the various techniques, identifying the most appropriate with respect to target stakeholders and expected outcomes. As a result, we obtained a clear and comprehensive assessment model, tailored to a specific project type, and operationally applicable. This model would sustain the funding, public acceptance, and political commitment of Smart and Sustainable Energy District Projects, enabling the various stakeholders to better understand the entire economic value of a project, in addition to energy saving and greenhouse gasses reduction.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Recycling the City New Perspective on the Real-Estate Market and Construction Industry
next chapter Assessing Socio-Economic Sustainability of Urban Regeneration Programs: An Integrated Approach
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Ahearne, M., Srinivasan, N., & Weinstein, L. (2013). Effect of technology on sales performance: Progressing from technology acceptance to technology usage and consequence. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management.
Aunan, K., et al. (2004). Co-benefits of climate policy—lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China. Energy Policy, 32(4), 567–581.CrossRef
Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (1993). Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method. In Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice (pp. 120–191). London: Belhaven Press.
Bell, M. L., et al. (2008). Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 7, 41.CrossRef
Bisello, A., et al. (2015). Co-benefits of smart and sustainable energy district projects. Unpublished manuscript presented at the RGS 2015 annual conference (Exeter-UK).
Boeri, A., Gabrielli, L., & Longo, D. (2011). Evaluation and feasibility study of retrofitting interventions on social housing in Italy. Procedia Engineering, 21, 1161–1168.CrossRef
Bone, A., et al. (2010). Will drivers for home energy efficiency harm occupant health? Perspectives in Public Health, 130(5), 233–238.CrossRef
Bonifaci, P., & Copiello, S. (2015). Price premium for buildings energy efficiency: Empirical findings from a hedonic model. Valori e Valutazioni, 14, 5–15.
Borgatti, P. (1998). Network measures of social capital.
Boyle, K. J., & Bergstrom, J. C. (1992). Benefit transfer studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism. Water Resources Research, 28(3), 657–663.CrossRef
Brandon, G., & Lewis, A. (1999). Reducing household energy consumption: A qualitative and quantitative field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 75–85.CrossRef
Cam, W. C.-N. (2012). Technologies for climate change mitigation—Building sector. UNEP.
Campbell, T. (2012). Beyond smart cities: How cities network, learn and innovate. Routledge.
Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., & Brown, T. C. (Eds.). (2003). 3 A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.
Chapman, R., et al. (2009). Retrofitting houses with insulation: A cost-benefit analysis of a randomised community trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63(4), 271–277.CrossRef
Chau, C. K., Hui, W. K., & Tse, M. S. (2008). Valuing the health benefits of improving indoor air quality in residences. The Science of the Total Environment, 394(1), 25–38.CrossRef
Chau, C. K., Tse, M. S., & Chung, K. Y. (2010). A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Building and Environment, 45(11), 2553–2561.CrossRef
Clucas, B., McHugh, K., & Caro, T. (2008). Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1517–1528.CrossRef
Dagum, C. (2006). Human capital. In S. Kotz, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Damm, R., & Monroy, C. R. (2011). A review of the customer lifetime value as a customer profitability measure in the context of customer relationship management. Intangible Capital, 7(2), 261–279.CrossRef
Davis, D., Krupnick, A. J., & McGlynn, G. (2000). Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation: An overview. In Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Proceedings of an IPCC Co-sponsored Workshop Held on 27–29 March 2000, OECD. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Deng, Y., Li, Z., & Quigley, J. M. (2012). Economic returns to energy-efficient investments in the housing market: Evidence from Singapore. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(3), 506–515.CrossRef
Di Nucci, R. M., & Spitzbart, C. (2010). Concerto socio-economic impact assessment report. Wien.
EEA. (2013). Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: What does it take? Technical Report No 5.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). The economics of green building.
EU. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European parliament and of the council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European regional development fund to the European.
European Commission. (2014). Energy prices and costs in Europe.
Ford, D. N., & Sterman, J. D. (1997). Expert knowledge elicitation to improve mental and formal models. In Proceedings of the 15th International System Dynamics Conference: “Systems Approach to Learning and Education into the 21st Century” (Vol. 1(4), pp. 3–6).
Franceschetti, G., Pisani, E, & Di Napoli, R. (2015). Capitale Sociale E Sviluppo Locale. Dalla Teoria Alla Valutazione Empirica in Aree Rurali in Italia.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. M. (2009). New evidence on the green building rent and price premium. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 491–508.CrossRef
Hanley, N., Barbier, E. B., & Barbier, E. (2009). Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Pricing Nature: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hanushek, E. A. (2002). Publicly provided education.
Hoffman, A. J., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the social and green building. Organization and Environment, 21(4), 390–419.CrossRef
Hori, S., Kondo, K., Nogata, D., & Ben, H. (2013). The determinants of household energy-saving behavior: Survey and comparison in five major asian cities. Energy Policy, 52, 354–362.CrossRef
Howden-Chapman, P., et al. (2012). Tackling cold housing and fuel poverty in New Zealand: A review of policies, research, and health impacts. Energy Policy, 49, 134–142.CrossRef
Hunter, M., et al. (2016). Two roles for ecological surrogacy: Indicator surrogates and management surrogates. Ecological Indicators, 63, 121–125.CrossRef
IEA. (2014a). Biogas in society. A case story from IEA Bioenergy task 37. In Energy from biogas. Maabjerg Biogas Plant: Operation of a Very Large Scale Biogas Plant in Denmark.
IEA (2014b). Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency: A guide to quantifying the value added, IEA, Paris.
Immendoerfer, A., Winkelmann, M., & Stelzer, V. (2014). Energy solutions for smart cities and communities, recommendations for sustainable energy solutions for communities in 58 cities in 23 countries.
Jacobsen, J. B., Boiesen, J. H., Niels, T., & Strange, N. (2008). What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental & Resource Economics, 39, 247–263.CrossRef
Jakob, M. (2006). Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments. Energy Policy, 34(2), 172–187.CrossRef
Janssen, R., & Staniaszek, D. (2012). How many jobs? A survey of the employment effects of investment in energy efficiency of buildings.
Johnson Controls. (2011). Green building asset valuation: Trends and data. Do green buildings translate to higher asset value?
Jones, N., Malesios, C., & Botetzagias, I. (2009). The influence of social capital on willingness to pay for the environment among European citizens. European Societies, 11(4), 511–530.CrossRef
Joyce, A., Hansen, M. B., & Naess-Schmidt, S. (2013). Monetising the multiple benefits of energy efficient renovations of the buildings of the EU. In Eceee 2013 summer study (pp. 1497–1507).
Kerzner, H. R. (2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, Wiley.
Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B. & Samal, H. A. (2010). World Bank handbook on impact evaluation.
Kim, C. W., Phipps, T. T., & Anselin, L. (2003). Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: A spatial hedonic approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(1), 24–39.CrossRefMATH
Koch, N., Fuss, S., Grosjean, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2014). Causes of the EU ETS price drop: Recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything?—New evidence. Energy Policy, 73, 676–685.CrossRef
Krishna, A., & Shrader, E. (2000). Cross-cultural measures of social capital: A tool and results from India and Panama. Social capital initiative, working paper (21).
Krupnick, A., Burtraw, D., & Markandya, A. (2000). The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: A conceptual framework. In Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Proceedings of an IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop Held on 27–29 March 2000. Paris: OECD.
Lee, Y.-J. (2008). Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Building and Environment, 43(7), 1205–1215.CrossRef
Lewis, J. O., Hógáin, S. N., & Borghi, A. (2013). Cities of tomorrow—action today. URBACT II capitalisation. Building energy efficiency in European cities.
Lovins, A. B. (2004). Energy efficiency, taxonomic overview. In Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier, 383–401.
Lützkendorf, T., et al. (2013a). Energy solutions for smart evaluation of (smart) solutions—guidebook for assessment Part I—methodology.
Lützkendorf, T., et al. (2013b). Energy solutions for smart evaluation of (smart) solutions—guidebook for assessment Part II—final assessment report.
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Hopkins University Press.
Mosannenzadeh, F., & Vettorato, D. (2014). Defining smart city. A conceptual framework based on keyword analysis. TeMA (special issue), 683–94.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (2007). Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods.
Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2012). A guide to social return on investment.
Nosvelli, M. (2009). La Misurazione Del Capitale Umano: Una Rassegna Della Letteratura. Working paper Ceris-Cnr.
OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations. The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2003). OECD environment indicators. Development, measurement and use. Paris.
OECD. (2011). Compendium of OECD well-being indicators. Paris.
Pachauri, R. K., & Meyer, L. A. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Painuly, J. P. (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renewable Energy, 24(1), 73–89.CrossRef
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment recent developments. OECD Publishing.
Pollicino, M., & Maddison, D. (2001). Valuing the benefits of cleaning lincoln cathedral. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25(2), 131–148.CrossRef
Popescu, D., Bienert, S., Schützenhofer, C., & Boazu, R. (2012). Impact of energy efficiency measures on the economic value of buildings. Applied Energy, 89(1), 454–463.CrossRef
Rae, C., & Bradley, F. (2012). Energy autonomy in sustainable communities—a review of key issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(9), 6497–6506.CrossRef
Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M. F., & Chhetri, N. (2012). Adaptation as innovation, innovation as adaptation: An institutional approach to climate change. Applied Geography.
Schweitzer, M., & Tonn, B. (2002). Non-energy benefits from the weatherization assistance program: A summary of findings from the recent literature.
Sorrell, S., O’Malley, E., Schleich, J., & Scott, S. (2004). The economics of energy efficiency. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress.
Tidblad, J., et al. (2012). Effects of air pollution on materials and cultural heritage: ICP materials celebrates 25 years of research. International Journal of Corrosion, 2012, 2005–2006.CrossRef
Tirado Herrero, S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Arena, D., & Telegdy, A. (2011). Co-benefits quantified: Employment, energy security and fuel poverty implications of the large-scale, deep retrofitting of the Hungarian building stock. In ECEEE 2011 summer Study (pp. 1213–24).
UNEP/ILO/IOE/ITUC. (2008). Green jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., et al. (2010). Employment impacts of a large-scale deep building energy retrofit programme in Hungary. Center for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP). Budapest.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Herrero, S. T., Dubash, N. K., & Lecocq, F. (2014). Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(1), 549–582.CrossRef
US EPA. (2011). Assessing the multiple benefits of clean energy. A resource for states.
Van Beurden, H. (2011). Smart city dynamics. HvB Communicative BV.
Votta, R. (2012). Hr Metrics. Misurare il valore aggiunto della direzione risorse umane e della formazione ai tempi della crisi. FrancoAngeli. Milano.
Williams, C., Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., & Wu, G. (2012). International experiences with quantifying the co-benefits of energy-efficiency and greenhouse-gas mitigation programs and policies. Berkeley.
Metadata
Title
Co-benefits of Smart and Sustainable Energy District Projects: An Overview of Economic Assessment Methodologies
Authors
Adriano Bisello
Gianluca Grilli
Jessica Balest
Giuseppe Stellin
Marco Ciolli
Copyright Year
2017
Book
Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44898-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-44899-2

Copyright Year: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44899-2_9