Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/emerald-publishing/barriers-to-energy-efficiency-and-the-uptake-of-green-revolving-funds-58vW0UrRcU
References (13)
-
T. Wright (2002)
Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher educationHigher Education Policy, 15
-
S. Bekessy, K. Samson, R. Clarkson (2007)
The failure of non‐binding declarations to achieve university sustainabilityInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8
-
S. DeCanio (1993)
Barriers within firms to energy-efficient investmentsEnergy Policy, 21
-
S. DeCanio (1998)
The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investmentsEnergy Policy, 26
-
Habib Alshuwaikhat, I. Abubakar (2008)
An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practicesJournal of Cleaner Production, 16
-
M. Brodbeck, H. Simon (1957)
Models of Man.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53
-
10.2307/2550441
-
H. Simon (1978)
Rational Decision Making in Business OrganizationsThe American Economic Review, 69
-
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.008
-
T. Wright (2010)
University Presidents' Conceptualizations of Sustainability in Higher Education.International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11
-
E. O’Malley, J. Schleich, Sue Scott (2004)
The Economics Of Energy Efficiency: Barriers to Cost-Effective Investment -
T. Grindsted (2011)
Sustainable Universities – From Declarations on Sustainability in Higher Education to National Law -
A. Jaffe, Robert Stavins (1994)
The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean?Energy Policy, 22
- Publisher
- Emerald Publishing
- Copyright
- Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
- ISSN
- 1467-6370
- DOI
- 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2012-0062
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the barriers to the implementation of energy efficiency projects in Canadian universities, including access to capital, bounded rationality, hidden costs, imperfect information, risk and split incentives. Methods to address these barriers are investigated, including evaluating the efficacy of revolving funds. Design/methodology/approach – Senior administrators of 15 Canadian universities were interviewed, making use of both structured and open-ended questions. As university executives and senior technical directors are responsible for investment in energy efficiency at Canadian universities, these individuals were the focus of our study. Findings – The results offer a curious contradiction. While “Access to Capital” was found to be the largest barrier to energy efficiency in Canadian universities, and while respondents agreed that green revolving funds are both an effective method to address these capital funding constraints, and may be an effective method to implement energy conservation projects at their university, only 2 out of the 15 universities interviewed and 7 out of the 98 universities in Canada currently make use of a green revolving fund. A general reluctance at Canadian universities to formalize processes to prioritize energy efficiency limits the associated benefits of mechanisms such as revolving funds to institutionalize energy efficiency and reduce long-term energy use. Practical implications – To provide insights into barriers to energy efficiency in universities and methods to address them, including the efficacy of revolving funds. Originality/value – This research is one of the first to investigate the efficacy of revolving funds to confront barriers to energy efficiency. The findings, implications and recommendations are valuable to organizations, university administrators, researchers and practitioners implementing energy efficiency measures.
Journal
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education – Emerald Publishing
Published: Mar 2, 2015