Using Policy Instruments to Drive Optimal Living and Sustainable Consumption in the Built and Natural Environment

  • T. Ibn-MohammedEmail author
  • A. Acquaye
  • R. Greenough
  • S. Taylor
  • L. Ozawa-Meida
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 102)


In order to drive optimal living and sustainable consumption in the built and natural environment, there is the need to develop more sustainable, less energy-intensive systems and approaches that offer economic advantages, better operational performance, environmental merits and social acceptability. Measures to achieve these objectives including low-carbon technologies such as renewable energy generation technologies and energy efficiency measures are widely available today. Current focus on these technologies to reduce operational energy requirements has led to the neglect of embodied energy. This may result in obscuring the actual or net environmental gain for a given technology. Understanding the actual life cycle environmental gains is therefore necessary if a holistic effort in achieving sustainable built environment is to be attained. Furthermore, these environmental measures (operational and embodied) must be considered within an economic context. Against this backdrop, this chapter illustrates how policy instrument such as Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) can be used as a mechanism for evaluating low-carbon technologies taking into account both operational and embodied emissions and financial cost. The implication of emissions embodied in international trade flows within a MACC framework is also discussed.


Building Environment Economics Policy instruments Decision making Optimisation 


  1. 1.
    International Energy Agency [IEA]: World Energy Consumption by Sector. (2009). Accessed 26 Jan 2013
  2. 2.
    United States Green Building Council, [USGBC]: The LEED reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction for the Design, Construction and Major Renovations of Commercial and Institutional Building (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]: Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Technical Chapter 9. (2014). Accessed 20 May 2014
  4. 4.
    IEA: CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Beyond 2020 Online Database, 138 pp. International Energy Agency, Paris (2012a). Accessed 15 May 2014
  5. 5.
    UNEP: HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 35 pp. (2011a). Accessed 15 May 2014
  6. 6.
    EEA: Production, imports, exports and consumption of Fluorinated gases (F‐gases) for years 2007‐2011 in the EU‐27 (Mt CO2e, GWP TAR), European Environment Agency. (2013). Accessed 15 May 2014
  7. 7.
    GEA Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    US EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Emissions of Fluorinated Gases. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Accessed 15 May 2014
  9. 9.
    United Nations Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003. United Nations; European Commission; International Monetary Fund; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; World Bank (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hertwich, E.G., Peter, G.P.: Multiregional Input-Output Database. One Planet Economy Network [OPEN] EU-Technical Document. (2010). Accessed 20 Feb 2013
  11. 11.
    Copeland, B.R., Taylor, M.S.: Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jayadevappa, R., Chhatre, S.: International trade and environmental quality: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 32, 175–194 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrett, J., Scott, K., Roelich, K., Peters, G., Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Le Quéré, C.: Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study. Climate Policy 13(4), 451–470 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Larsen, H.N., Hertwich, E.G.: The case for consumption-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to promote local climate action. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 791–798 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Lenzen, M., Geschke, A.: International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Glob. Environ. Chang. 24, 52–59 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Acquaye, A.A., Duffy, A.P.: Input–output analysis of Irish construction sector greenhouse gas emissions. Build. Environ. 45, 784–791 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Turner, K., Minx, J., John, B.: Multiregional Input-Output Modelling Opens New Opportunities for the Estimation of Ecological Footprints Embedded in International Trade. International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, 8-10 May 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiedmann, T., Wood, R., Minx, J.C., Lenzen, M., Guan, D., Harris, R.: A carbon footprint time series of the UK – results from a multi-region input–output model. Econ. Syst. Res. 22(1), 19–42 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanemoto, K., Lenzen, M., Peters, G.P., Moran, D.D., Geschke, A.: Frameworks for comparing emissions associated with production, consumption, and international trade. Environ. Sci. Tech. 46, 172–179 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanemoto, K., Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Moran, D.: Building Eora: a global multi-region input output model at high country and sector. 19th International Input-Output Conference, Alexandria, USA, 13–17 June 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kesicki, F., Strachan, N.: Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 1195–1204 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kesicki, F.: What are the key drivers of MAC curves? A partial-equilibrium modelling approach for the UK? Energy Policy 58, 142–151 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toke, D., Taylor, S.: Demand reduction in the UK-with a focus on the non-domestic sector. Energy Policy 35(4), 2131–2140 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor, S.: The ranking of negative-cost emissions reduction measures. Energy Policy 48, 430–438 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., Acquaye, A.: Integrating economic considerations with operational and embodied emissions into a decision support system for the optimal ranking of non-domestic building retrofit options. Build. Environ. 72, 82–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiedmann, T., Wilting, H.C., Lenzen, M., Lutter, S., Palm, V.: Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 70(11), 1937–1945 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Building Regulations: Low or Zero Carbon Energy Sources: Strategic Guide. (2006). Accessed 20 May 2012
  28. 28.
    RETScreen® International: Clean Energy Project Analysis: RETScreen® Engineering & Cases Textbook. 3rd edn. (2005). Accessed 27 Oct 2013
  29. 29.
    London Renewables: Integrating renewable energy into new developments: toolkit for planners, developers and consultants (2004). ISBN 1 85261 660 1.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters, G.P. and Hertwich, E.G.: CO2 Embodied in International Trade with Implications for Global Climate Policy. Environmental Science and Technology. 42(5), 1401–1407 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Ibn-Mohammed
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Acquaye
    • 2
  • R. Greenough
    • 1
  • S. Taylor
    • 3
  • L. Ozawa-Meida
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Energy and Sustainable DevelopmentDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Kent Business SchoolUniversity of KentCanterburyUK
  3. 3.School of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations