2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
83
1
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 181 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
3
83
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This assumption was necessary as a starting point due to a lack of CSB data; these three factors are closely examined in scenarios and sensitivity analysis; (2) That subsidies are efficient at reducing the cost premium to homebuyers, whereas some of this funding may in fact be captured by home builders [76]. This would reduce subsidy effects, which would be reflected in the different subsidy cases examined; (3) That the cost premium of CSB and consumer WTP is same across all market segments, whereas demand for green buildings and WTP is positively correlated with income [53,77,78] and the cost premium to achieve CSB standards may be greater for the low-end market segment. We might expect slower uptake than predicted by the model if this assumption is not true and possible step-like delay behavior if different market segments behave substantially differently; it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of this effect; (4) That green/CSB building uptake in the commercial and industrial sectors do not substantially reduce cost premiums in the residential sector.…”
Section: Model Assumptions and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This assumption was necessary as a starting point due to a lack of CSB data; these three factors are closely examined in scenarios and sensitivity analysis; (2) That subsidies are efficient at reducing the cost premium to homebuyers, whereas some of this funding may in fact be captured by home builders [76]. This would reduce subsidy effects, which would be reflected in the different subsidy cases examined; (3) That the cost premium of CSB and consumer WTP is same across all market segments, whereas demand for green buildings and WTP is positively correlated with income [53,77,78] and the cost premium to achieve CSB standards may be greater for the low-end market segment. We might expect slower uptake than predicted by the model if this assumption is not true and possible step-like delay behavior if different market segments behave substantially differently; it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of this effect; (4) That green/CSB building uptake in the commercial and industrial sectors do not substantially reduce cost premiums in the residential sector.…”
Section: Model Assumptions and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may inflate the increase in AC use over time (it accounts for 20-25% of the if expected increase in use between 2015 and 2065) if AC use per capita is not affected by household size; (3) The relationship between AC ownership rates and median income is static, whereas this relationship may change as the climate warms and as AC prices continue to drop. This could cause a small increase in AC ownership (already predicted at 89% in 2065); (4) CSB purchasing decisions do not depend on thermal preferences, while environmental values and income are important drivers for both [53,77]. This simplification becomes more realistic as the fraction of population living in CSB increases; (5) Thermal preferences will not change.…”
Section: Model Assumptions and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(Abdulai, Obeng-Odoom, Ochieng, and Maliene (2016), Ali and Nsairat (2009), Cole (2005), Chau, Tse, and Chung (2010), Ding (2008), Tambovceva, Geipele, and Geipele (2012), Kibert (2012), Lavasani and Werner (2012), Sarsby and Meggyes (2009), Diaz-Sarachaga, Jato-Espino, Alsulami, and Castro-Fresno, (2016) The economic crisis, which most severely hit the economy of Latvia, forced the real estate and construction sectors to purify themselves, improve and think of survival and future development opportunities. Therefore, like elsewhere in Europe, many concepts became topical in the construction sector of Latvia, such as sustainable construction, low-energy consumption buildings or low-energy building, green buildings or green construction, passive houses, lean construction or ascetic, economic construction and others (Stāmure, Kamola, & Geipele, 2015).…”
Section: Quantitative Evaluation Of Standard Multi-storey Residentialmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many authors indicate a possible lack of resources and their inefficient use in the construction and operation process of buildings, for example, H. H. Ali, S. F. A. Nsairat, R. J. Cole, C. K. Chau, M. S. Tse, K. Y. Chung, G. K. C. Ding, T. Tambovceva, I. Geipele, S. Geipele, etc. (Ali andNsairat (2009), Cole (2005), Chau, Tse, and Chung (2010), Ding (2008), Tambovceva, Geipele, and Geipele (2012)). …”
Section: Quantitative Evaluation Of Standard Multi-storey Residentialmentioning
confidence: 99%