Quantifying the recurring nature of fitout to assist LCA studies in office buildings

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to quantify fitout churn in office buildings to more accurately evaluate the recurrent embodied energy in life cycle assessment studies. Design/methodology/approach Three research methods were used in the context of Central Business District (CBD) office buildings in Sydney. Method 1 involved leasing records from 528 office buildings; method 2, a leasing history from a selective sample of three prime grade office buildings; method 3, a targeted survey of 21 property professionals concerning fitout churn cycle estimates. Findings Prime buildings are the area of most interest to fitout churn because they represent a large proportion of total office floor area. The churn rate differs according to office tenancy type (as defined by small, medium and large leased areas). Large tenants occupy the majority of floor space. Lease duration as obtained from Method 1, offers a reasonable proxy for predicting fitout churn. Using this method coupled with weighted-average calculations, the data indicate a fitout churn rate of 8.2 years. Research limitations/implications Variability concerning the situational context of Sydney CBD office buildings restricts broad generalisability of the findings. However, the research method used in this study would enable broad-based comparison and the potential for verification. Originality/value The main contribution of the research is to improve the ability to accurately predict fitout churn cycles as previous work only involves limited case studies and arbitrary estimates, thus lacking a strong evidence based.

[1]  Francis Duffy,et al.  The responsible workplace : the redesign of work and offices , 1993 .

[2]  Simaan M. AbouRizk,et al.  Toward Environmentally Sustainable Construction Processes: The U.S. and Canada’s Perspective on Energy Consumption and GHG/CAP Emissions , 2010 .

[3]  Cm McGee,et al.  Changing the culture of commercial buildings in Australia: the role of green leases , 2008 .

[4]  D. Clark,et al.  What Colour is Your Building? , 2012 .

[5]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office building in Thailand , 2009 .

[6]  Anne Grete Hestnes,et al.  Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article , 2007 .

[7]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  The concept model of sustainable buildings refurbishment , 2008 .

[8]  Srinath Perera,et al.  Carbon review and qualitative comparison of selected carbon counting tools , 2012 .

[9]  A. Dimoudi,et al.  Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings , 2008 .

[10]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA , 2006 .

[11]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  Embodied energy analysis of fixtures, fittings and furniture in office buildings , 1999 .

[12]  Sara Wilkinson,et al.  Measuring office fit-out changes to determine recurring embodied energy in building life cycle assessment , 2015 .

[13]  Francis Duffy Measuring building performance , 1990 .

[14]  Ravi Prakash,et al.  Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview , 2010 .

[15]  Luisa F. Cabeza,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review , 2014 .

[16]  Sara Wilkinson Analysing sustainable retrofit potential in premium office buildings , 2012 .

[17]  Francesco Pomponi,et al.  Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice , 2017 .

[18]  Brian Norton,et al.  Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic single-storey office building in the UK , 2002 .

[19]  James Douglas,et al.  Building performance and its relevance to facilities management , 1996 .