Why is construction not greener?

An exploration of the barriers and incentives to adopting lower carbon construction

Editors’ Note: GS Futures’ FC Fund has developed a thematic focus on decarbonization within the built environment. This includes both existing real estate (i.e. operational carbon) and new construction (i.e. embodied carbon). As a component of this thematic focus, we seek to better understand the existing economic ecosystem and associated barriers to adoption of lower carbon construction methodologies. This “current status” evaluation can best be summed as “why is construction not greener?” We are proud to partner with Juan Huicochea Mason to explore this question through a research-based lens. Juan is uniquely positioned to lead this research based on his personal experience in Americas’ development and construction industry plus his academic experience at MIT.

Abstract: Nearly 40% of energy consumption and GHG emissions are liable to the real estate industry. About 10% of GHG emissions come from the construction industry. Pressures to do greener development comes from corporate governance, policies and markets, but not from construction stakeholders. Why? Despite acknowledging the answer is actually context specific, our framework and research considers 5 reasons why construction is not greener: No Profit Motivation, Wrong Policies, Innovation Risk, Unmature Sustainability Standardization, and Disengaged Contractors. Construction seems to be short-term elastic to positive greeniums and local policies endorsement, whereas risk allocation and benchmarking are likely moving the needle in a longer perspective. In contrast, acknowledging the current sustainability crisis among contractors would be a long-run game changer. To assess this framework, a nine-questions survey was delivered to 50 randomized industry leaders from different construction-related industrial activities and regions. In the end, the output for two quantitative questions and an open qualitative opinion is evaluated and cross referenced to get different conclusions.

Buildings consume a third of resources, a sixth of freshwater withdrawals, 40% of raw materials, 40% of energy, and produce 40% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide (Tien Doan et al, 2017.) The real estate (“RE”) industry is the world’s largest asset class, and so is its exposure to sustainability initiatives, policies, and markets; the intersection of real estate with Environmental, Social and Governance initiatives (ESG) is a complex system difficult to depict. ESG is changing on a day-by-day basis in the name of new certifications, new policies, or changes in energy prices. A recent Morgan Stanley survey states that 79% of U.S. individual investors are currently interested in sustainable investments (Deloitte, 2022.), with similar assessments from important institutions as KPMG and the OECD.

Figure 1: Global GHG emissions by industry sector. Based on Buildings reimagined: Why carbon neutral property is the future of real estate. (Bellenda and Bolton, 2023.)

ESG has increased in popularity and has shown side effects beyond the natural benefits they are expected to foster in reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. ESG products also offer three differentiators: [1] an improvement incorporating reputation, [2] market diversification, and [3] long-term risk mitigation (Huicochea and Duarte, 2022). Additionally, governments worldwide (primarily those from developed countries) have shown eagerness to join a “green wave”. Green policies are gradually becoming more popular, mainly those of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade regulations, and the US is not the exception. This work is focused on the construction industry, and so on the asset markets of RE. Breaking down the way real estate development is undertaken, we can understand how different ESG pressures affect the development cycle. There is some agreement in the number of reasons that are leaning RE and construction towards greenness: corporate investors and local policies in the short term and market demand in the long run, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: ESG pressures on development and construction. (Huicochea Mason, 2023.)

During the last decade, the US real estate was responsible for about 40% of GHG emissions; from which 70% came from its electricity use. Not surprisingly, it was the RE industry that demanded the largest amount of electricity in the country, accounting for over ¾ of its demand by 2015 (Rogotzke et al., 2021.) Accordingly, the country has witnessed a pivot in sustainable policies since the early 2010’s . Policies’ endorsement at both Federal and local levels, together with the maturity of different building and environmental impact certifications, has come to increase the interest of buyers and lenders in green products. In many cases, policies have met the demand for specific certification of buildings, thus having an impact beyond the development stages.

Figure 3: Sustainability policies and initiatives overview . (Huicochea Mason, 2023.)

Policies have been endorsed from both the Federal and the local levels. The United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Carbonization describes the national plan to mitigate GHG emissions by 28% in 2025 and 80% by 2050 (The White House, 2016.) Accordingly, the current presidency has proposed a national Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard to meet a 10% carbon-free electricity goal by 2035. As for today, 16 state governors plus D.C. have committed to zero-carbon electricity goals, and 28 states are currently working on their respective transitions.

Figure 4: CO2 Components of 80% GHG reductions MCS benchmark scenario. Based on the United States Mid-Century Strategy for deep decarbonization. (The White House, 2016.)

As for building´s green certifications, these have also been increasingly popular during the last few years. The number of LEED certificates have increased year by year recently, and as of 2017, it is estimated there are more than 600 certifications standing (Tien Doan et al., 2017.) By 2017, BREEAM had been applied over the largest number of buildings, whereas LEED has been exposed to the largest number of countries (Tien Doan et al, 2017) (Braulio-Gonzalo et al, 2022.)

Figure 5: All LEED certification type registrations over time (2017–2021). Based on LEED data trends. (Vinod Jhunjhunwala, 2022.)

Then, if policies, certifications, and markets are gradually becoming ESG-mature, why haven’t we still witnessed a boom in sustainable construction? Construction in the US was worth over $2 Trillion by 2021 (Global Data, 2022) (IBISWorld, 2023) and encompasses infrastructure, institutional, residential, and commercial construction. Granted some discussion has already turned towards much-needed greener infrastructure development (Huicochea and Duarte, 2022), this work rather focuses on the performance of contractors and developers in residential and commercial real estate. What deters contractors to invest themselves in greener practices? We think No Profit Motivation, Wrong Policies, Innovation Risk, Unmature ESG Standardization, and Disengaged Contractors are the reasons.

1-No profit motivation is the most popular reason for the development industry not to be greener. Greenium is the neologism applied for premiums on green projects, mostly in capital markets (United Nations, 2022.) Despite being generally used in bonds and stock markets, this generalist approach applies to any type of cost, expense, revenue, and profit accountable for doing something greener than industry standard. In this work we will refer to costs’ greenium as net capital investment premium on doing greener projects, and incomes’ greenium over its net operating income (NOI.) Greeniums have been documented by companies (Cushman & Wakefield, 2022), as well as by scholars (Dalton and Fuerst, 2018) (Chegut et al., 2019) to be positive in developed markets. However, in some cases, uncertainty, lack of experience, or specific demands may result in expenses’ greeniums surpassing those of revenues, thus deterring developers from building greener projects. “Other than a marginal difference on an occasional alternative delivery pursuit, sustainability initiatives that cost money (even a relatively de minimis amount) only reduce competitiveness. Thus, most sustainability initiatives that civil contractors undertake are superficial.” states a C-level of a large construction management corporation. If being a green-doer doesn’t pay off, developers curtail their green intentions and thus, contractors do too. “ Every time we try to move to impact windows, smart roofs or efficiency HVACs, we encounter big price gaps against the standard product, which makes the decision not feasible” says the founder of a local value-add developer.

2-Wrong Policies are also responsible of this problem. Local Based Polices (Zheng and Zhengzhen, 2020) also have a considerable influence on construction behavior, for example, the recent development boom in the Sun Belt region (ULI and PwC, 2023.) This is partially explained by the faster demographic growth, together with low-barrier markets that enable faster and lower cost construction than other U.S. geographies. However, taxation over energy consumption also helps to explain why developers are now looking for other domestic markets. The greener and stricter the policies, the lower the new-development rate, and the fewer the construction players in the region. This is not necessarily true for value-add and core portfolios since retrofitting is a solution for energy-underperforming buildings. However, its noticeable a likely correlation between energy efficiency policies and construction levels at different sectors (ground-up/remodeling.) “Lack of regulation and lack of solutions that translate high-level ESG targets“ is the general explanation mentioned by the founder of an international sustainable technology startup. The heterogeneity of domestic green initiatives helps to explain why the more mature and strict green-policy-oriented cities of San Diego and San Francisco are witnessing a partial decrement in construction levels at the expense of growth in less-green-policy oriented cities like Dallas, Atlanta, and Nashville; more development coming into less-green markets, more construction following it. At a local level, some responsibility has been pointed towards the regulation procurement process: “…there is no consequence or follow up (for regulations). There should be both carrot and stick. For example, in California, we have Title 24. I read an article that a review of the plans submitted adhering to Title 24 reviewed following the build said that 30% didn’t end up meeting the criteria” recalls a large contech company vice president.

3-Innovation Risk also helps to explain the lack of interest from contractors to be greener. The current development industry is shaped in such away that equity partners are the decision makers over the project pipeline. This makes contractors to be subject to the contract conditions agreed. However, contractors are indeed responsible for the riskiest stage of development, and most of this risk will be defined by the type of contract held with the developer (GMP, Lump Sum, Unit Cost, etc.) “Since construction is all about mitigating risk, the builders are taking the tried and true path” concretely states the founder of a contech startup. For greener projects, a certain level of innovation or sophistication takes the traditional contractor out of his life-long expertise experience and immediately poses additional risk to the equation: how is he decided to allocate such a premium on risk? It is possible to utilize Unit Price contracts or unique Changing-Orders Provisions to help solve this paradox, if the developer is willing to bear the equivalent risk. Even with this contractual work around, the problem is that the contractor is responsible for a warranty and latent defect period which performance she may not know; for example, how will this 3-layer exterior window perform given extreme weather conditions? The warranty then becomes the buffer to be assessed and priced. It’s difficult to price the unknown, and that motivates contractors to charge higher fees or even reject innovative solutions. In construction, personal referrals and relationships are invaluable assets, and thus the risk of failing may outweigh the need for keeping a track record in the community. “Construction is a lagging industry, it is slow to adapt new practices… Lastly, making construction green is extremely difficult, it requires a lot of R&D and proved experiments, the high capital outlay needed to get a break through is prohibitive for most founders, not to mention funding sources” elaborates the associate of a renown asset management corporation.

4-Unmatured sustainability standardization is still a challenge for stakeholders despite important efforts have been made in standardizing green indicators,. The Life Cycle Assessment method (LCA) and some particular players have developed methodologies and platforms benchmarking the embedded energy and GHG emissions of certain materials and constructive systems. However, these methodologies are not popular enough to provide transparent conditions to the market. Even more, the more-popular green certificates as LEED and BREEAM prioritize energy and indoor environment indicators over others, as shown in figure 9 (Holz von Hier, 2018) and figure 10 (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2022.) This immediately poses the developer’s and designers’ sustainability efforts on the building operation; the constructive process and materiality then become secondary traits. Reviewing the problem from a project management perspective, Braulio-Gonzalo et al. (2022) have noticed there is more strategic value in procuring sustainable indicators at pre-constructive stages than its consecutive peers; accountability incentives are not equilibrated. “For an industry that’s fragmented with many players, there’s a lack of visibility and accountability in executing sustainability from design through the construction process. The lack of visibility comes from the many players and tools involved.” refers the founder of a construction technology company.

Figure 7: Comparison of the criteria weighting of the examined building rating systems. Based on the Sustainable building certification schemes- a comparison (Holz von Hier, 2018)

Even more, when the LCA methodology is applied, the need to benchmark existing materials with innovative systems misguides the properties of the newest materials. A long bureaucratic and confirmation process waits to spin-in the new material to the ISO 14000, 14040, and 14044 standards (The Carbon Leadership Forum, 2019) (Vilches, 2018.) Meanwhile, its properties could be different by project, source of material, transit, and other factors, leading to miscalculated GHG by consultants and developers. With potentially higher production costs, it can be hard for builders and developers adopt these innovative materials in the short term. “Lack of incentives to make it greener and existing cost pressures. That coupled with the absence of any infrastructure to credibly monitor the impact of individual projects (and no incentive to do so).” refers a construction and sustainability VC as the main reason for construction not to be greener.

Figure 8: Sankey diagram showing connection flows among GBRS indicators as certification checklist priorities from all ESG parameters to each LCA stage (e.g..: A1) and its actual valuation through each project development stage (e.g.: Design.) Interestingly, Environmental ESG considerations account for most of this certification checklist points, whereas most of all checklist impacts and decisions are decided during the Design stages. Based on how are indicators in Green Building Rating Systems addressing sustainability dimensions and life cycle frameworks in residential buildings? (Braulio-Gonzalo et al, 2022)

Figure 9: Overview of GHG Emissions by project stage, L.CA methodology. Based on Life cycle assessment (LCA) in the framework of the next generation Estonian building standard. Building certification as a strategy for enhancing sustainability. (Oviir, 2016), and Life Cycle Assessment for Residential Buildings: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis. (Ghattas et al, 2013) (Huicochea Mason, 2023.)

5-Disengaged Contractors. Finally, acknowledging sustainability is a matter that attains all of us and may have not been properly conveyed to the construction sector. “Construction is a slow to evolve sector due to the high levels of risk associated with a construction project. This makes it difficult to assume new risk in trying new technologies.” calls the director of a robust investment company. In contrast with institutional investors and developers who are obliged to understand local policies and market demands, contractors are naturally focused on delivering the best possible. Even for getting a contractor license, local governments usually reduce their request to demonstrable experience, customized fees, and exams that have little to do with sustainability. “Tendency to stick to old custom and not to take risk with new ones” states the project manager from large international investment firm as the main problem of the sector as the reason why construction is still not sustainable..

The take-aways for this work are simple: the green responsibility chain comes from policies, institutional investors, and consumers that stress the demand for more sustainable products. Interestingly, contractors are not likely tier-one decarbonization decision-makers in development projects and thus not the “top of funnel” for financing key decarbonization concepts. Rather, contractors:

· Follow the development pipeline (i.e. their sources of future revenue) and satisfy conditional sustainability measure and local policies on a job-by-job basis.

· Can also struggle with innovative and unknown construction systems required by specific standards or mandated by project owners, posing an important question on how fairly the risk of implementing decarbonization is allocated within agreements.

· Even for progressive contractors, most innovators find glitches in green benchmarking and assessment methodologies.

Aaron Toppston, Managing Partner of GS Futures summarizes “…construction is a professional service business — we must find a combination of demand-driven requirements, incentives, and long-term value to realize our decarbonization objectives.” This long-term vision and recognition that future work across the built environment depends on decarbonization is an important start to moving the business of construction towards our 2050 carbon impact goals.

Assessment Methodology:

To review our thesis, we invited industry leaders to respond to a nine question survey, the major takeaways follow:

Figure 10: Overall quantitative study results. (Huicochea Mason, 2023.)

When going into detail through specific answers, a minority calls attention to being against the thesis of this paperwork. “It depends on what your definition of “greener” is. Lots of processes are in place, and we see a significant increase in sustainable solutions all across the market.” clarifies the founder of an international consultancy firm. “Not sure if I have the same opinion. Our industry is heavy on material delivery and labor. It takes fuel to get around. We have been building better buildings over the past dozen years that are significantly more energy efficient. For a building to get built, the cost has to be economical, or no one can afford to build it.” Elaborates the executive of a large construction company. Interestingly, when it comes to rank the sustainability evolution in the industry, they ranked almost equally to more conservative respondents.

Moreover, there were respondents whose answers gave deeper insight in holistic and, sometimes, alternative ways: “Cost too high is the perception without underlying reliable cost data to prove otherwise,” advised the founder of a tech company. “Lack of investment in research, development, and adoption of greener products & solutions.” comes as another alternative answer from the director of a solid consultancy and construction company, addressing the core issue at a corporate rather than an industrial level.”Interest rates are also much higher than 2.5 years ago. As a result of limited buying, suppliers do not yet produce a deep range of so-called greener solutions. Government intervention (read: via incentives, regulation, and/or taxes), especially in Europe, will help overcome this cold-start problem, but this will not happen overnight.” deeply elaborates the partner of a VC and PE firm. “Since the real estate financing cycle is fairly short-term, the financial incentives are not there for making a project green unless it is to be marketed as a luxury upgrade for those willing to pay.” refers the manager of a local design firm of a booming market; a statement that helps to complement other perspectives.

Finally, for the set of different personal comments on the reason why construction is not greener, a value of 1 was given in symmetry to the five reasons framed in our thesis for each response (No Profit Motivation, Wrong Policies, Innovation Risk, Unmatured Sustainability Standardization, and Disengaged Contractors) Two methods were followed when accounting for it: one for a primary and only reason giving a single point for a single reason for each response, and a second one including all different reasons stated by respondents (a single point for each reason across the answer.) An additional “other” data field was added for non-compliant responses. It should be clear this question was addressed before showing our 5-reasons thesis. The results are expressed below.

Figure 14: Qualitative study results conditional. (Huicochea Mason, 2023.)

Interestingly, when it comes to personal opinions, No Profit Motivation was still the championing argument for the lack of sustainability in the sector. It calls attention how Innovation Risk comes as the second reason for this deficiency, whereas in our qualitative ranking test, Wrong Policies hold that place. It’s also interesting to notice how Wrong Policies and Unmature Sustainability Standardization alternate as 3rd and 4th places in this qualitative assessment depending on the range of inclusion of different answers. Once again, Disengaged Contractors is the least popular answer among respondents for the five main reasons portrayed in this thesis. However, it calls attention that “Other” answers were even more popular than that of Disengaged Contractors.

Conclusion

A 5-argument framework (No Profit Motivation, Wrong Policies, Innovation Risk, Unmature Sustainability Standardization, and Disengaged Contractors) was traced to test why construction is not greener among a randomized group of industry leaders from different construction-related industrial activities. In the thesis framework and both the qualitative and quantitative testing, No Profit Motivation is the champion reason why construction is not greener. As stated earlier, construction is a professional services industry that relies on client demand to profitability operate businesses of all sizes. Our research and survey review highlights the importance of collaboration to make carbon reduction a priority early in a project and striking a fair balance with economic realities to continue reducing the embodied carbon from the built environment.

References

Architecture 2030. (NA) An Immediately Applicable, High-impact Pathway to Embodied Carbon Reductions in the Built Environment, Architecture 2030. [Online] Available at: https://materialspalette.org/ (Accessed 5 January 2023)

Bellenda, Sara and Bolton, Marie-Claire (2019) Buildings reimagined: Why carbon neutral property is the future of real estate. JP Morgan Asset Management.. [Online] https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/portfolio-insights/sustainable-investing/buildings-reimagined/ (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

BestPlaces. (2020) Boston, Massachusett, BestPlaces. [Online] Available at: https://www.bestplaces.net/transportation/city/massachusetts/boston (Accessed 5 January 2023)

Blaufelder, Christopher. (2021) A Blueprint for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets to Meet the Climate Challenge, McKinsey & Company. [Online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge (Accessed 24 July 2022)

Boland, Brodie et al. (2022) Climate Risk and the Opportunity for Real Estate, McKinsey & Company. [Online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/climate-risk-and-the-opportunity-for-real-estate (Accessed 5 January 2023)

Braulio-Gonzalo, Marta et al. (2022) How are indicators in Green Building Rating Systems addressing sustainability dimensions and life cycle frameworks in residential buildings? Elsevier, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 95 [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106793 (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Chegut, Andrea, et al. (2019) The Price of Innovation: An Analysis of the Marginal Cost of Green Buildings, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 98, 2019, 102248, ISSN 0095–0696. Available at: https://realestateinnovationlab.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PriceofInnovation_CostofGreenBuildings.pdf (Accessed 5 January 2023)

Dalton, and Fuerst, F. (2018) The “Green Value” Proposition in Real Estate: A Meta-analysis, Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Real Estate (1st ed., pp. 177–200). Routledge. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315622750-12 (Accessed 9 January 2023)

Deloitte. (2022) Ingraining Sustainability in the Next Era of ESG Investing. New Opportunities Are Emerging for Investment Managers to Adapt as Investor Preferences Evolve, Deloitte Insights. [Online] Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/esg-investing-and-sustainability.html (Accessed 22 July 2022)

Ghattas, Randa et al (2013) Life Cycle Assessment for Residential Buildings: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis. MIT, Concrete Sustainability Hub. [Online] https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/104794 (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Global Data (2022) United States (US) Construction Market Size, Trend Analysis by Sector (Commercial, Industrial, Infrastructure, Energy and Utilities, Institutional and Residential) and Forecasts, 2022–2026.Global Data. [Online] Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-data-trends-past-five-years (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Holz von Hier (2018) Sustainable building certification schemes — a comparison. Holz von HIer, Low Carbon Timber toolkit. [Online] Available at: https://smart-places.net/images/9/90/Sustainable_building_certification.pdf (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Huicochea Mason, Juan and Duarte, Fábio (2022) Green Financing for Transit-Oriented Development. Urban Land, Capital Markets. [Online] Available at: https://urbanland.uli.org/capital-markets/green-financing-for-transit-oriented-development/ (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

IBISWorld (2023) Construction in the US-Market Size 2004–2029. IBISWorld, Industry Statistics; United States [Online] Available at: https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/construction-united-states/ (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

International Code Council. (NA) Embodied Carbon, International Code Council. [Online] Available at: https://www.iccsafe.org/advocacy/embodied-carbon/ (Accessed 5 January 2023)

International Monetary Fund. (2020) Climate Change: Physical Risk and Equity Prices. IMF, Global Financial Stability Report: Markets in the Time of COVID-19. International Monetary Fund. [Online] Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2020/04/14/global-financial-stability-report-april-2020 (Accessed 22 July 2022)

Jane, Sara (2004) Real Estate: The Most Imperfect Asset. Harvard Business School. Research & Ideas. [Online] Available at: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/real-estate-the-most-imperfect-asset#:~:text=As%20Harvard%20Business%20School%20professor,of%20wealth%20for%20most%20families. (Accessed 10 April, 2023.)

Linn Taylor, Tania and Collins, Sean (2022) Ingraining sustainability in the next era of ESG investing. Deloitte Insights. [Online] Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/esg-investing-and-sustainability/_jcr_content.html (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021) De-risking Institutional Investment in Green Infrastructure: 2021 Progress Update, OECD Environment Policy Papers, №28, OECD Publishing, Paris. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/357c027e-en (Accessed 16 June 2022)

Oviir , Anni (2016) Life cycle assessment (LCA) in the framework of the next generation Estonian building standard. Building certification as a strategy for enhancing sustainability. Elsevier, Energy Procedia. [Online] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610216307986 (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Rogotzke, Matthew et al. (2021) State Energy Efficiency Policy In A New Era: A Toolkit For Governor. National Governor’s Association (NGA) Publications. [Online] Available at: https://www.nga.org/publications/state-energy-efficiency-policy-in-a-new-era-a-toolkit-for-governors/ (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

The Carbon Leadership Forum (2019) Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Practice Guide. The Carbon Leadership Forum, Department of Architecture, and the University of Washington [Online] Available at: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/lca-practice-guide/ . (Accessed 10 April, 2023.)

The White House (2016) United States Mid-Century Strategy for deep decarbonization. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Executive Summary Chapter1: Introduction, Chapter 2: U.S. GHG Emissios & Trends, Chapter 3: A vision for 2050. [Online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mid_century_strategy_report-final_red.pdf (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Tien Doan, Dat et al. (2017) A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Elsevier, Building and Environment. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007 (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

ULI and PwC (2023) Emerging trends in Real Estate 2023. PwC: US Asset and Wealth Management [Online] Available at: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/financial-services/asset-wealth-management/real-estate/emerging-trends-in-real-estate.html (Accessed 10 April, 2023.)

United Nations (2022) Identifying the ‘greenium’. United Nations Development Programme. [Online] Available at: https://www.undp.org/blog/identifying-greenium . (Accessed 10 April, 2023.)

Vilches, Alberto et al. (2018) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Building Refurbishment: a literature review.. ResearchGate, Energy and Buildings.[Online]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310602382_Life_cycle_assessment_LCA_of_building_refurbishment_A_literature_review (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Verweij, Stefan and van Meerkerk, Ingmar. (2021) Do Public–private Partnerships Achieve Better Time and Cost Performance Than Regular Contracts?, Public Money & Management, 41:4, Pages 286–295. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1752011 (Accessed 9 January 2023)

Wang, Guangchao et al. (2017) Assessing Transit-oriented Development Strategies with a New Combined Modal Split and Traffic Assignment Model, Transportation Research Center for Livable Communities. [Online] Available at: https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u883/2017/TRCLC_RR_15_11_0.pdf (Accessed 9 January 2023)

Watts, Mark and McHale, Brandee. (2016) Creating a Common Narrative for Financing a Sustainable Urban Future, World Resources Institute. [Online] Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/creating-common-narrative-financing-sustainable-urban-future (Accessed 16 June 2022)

Will, Steffen, et al. (2015) Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet, American Association for the Advancement of Science. [Online] Available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259855 (Accessed 9 January 2023)

Worford, David. (2022) Commercial Real Estate Seeing Green Premiums in Europe, Environmental Leader. [Online] Available at: https://www.environmentalleader.com/2022/11/commercial-real-estate-seeing-green-premiums-in-europe/ (Accessed 5 January 2023)

The World Bank. (2021) Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Resources & Tools, 2nd Edition. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [Online] Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34870 (Accessed 28 June 2022)

The World Green Building Council. (2013) The Business Case for Green Building. A Review of the Costs and Benefits for Developers, Investors and Occupants, The World Green Building Council. [Online] Available at: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/business-case-green-building-review-costs-and-benefits-developers-investors-and-occupants (Accessed 28 June 2022)

Zelikow, Daniel et al. (2022) Mind the Gap: Time to Rethink Infrastructure Finance, The World Bank. [Online] Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/mind-gap-time-rethink-infrastructure-finance (Accessed 22 July 2022)

Vinod Jhunjhunwala, Aalok (2022) LEED data trends from the past five years. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) articles. [Online] Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-data-trends-past-five-years (Accessed 10 April, 2023)

Zheng, Siqi and Tan, Zhengzhen (2020) Toward Urban Economic Vibrancy. Patterns and Practices in Asia´s New Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology SA+P Press.