| Summary: | Common economic gauges that validate Sustainable Built Environment
(SBE) in households may cause for such projects to be shelved especially when the
result of commercial feasibility study does not favour the stakeholders. It is a fact that
the capital cost of Energy Efficient (EE) equipment and Renewable Energy (RE) system
are more expensive than the conventional methods. However, SBE is now necessary
and the gap between theory and practical of SBE in relation to economics aspect must
be narrowed. The economics of SBE must not only assert the environmental implication
but also make tangible its benefit to the household for championing the cause. In
Economics, Marginal Cost (MC) and Marginal Benefits (MB) measure additional benefits
of every additional costs of investment at a specific level of production and consumption;
and Economists suggests that effective gain and loss must be compared to the status
quo, i.e., Relative Position (RP). These Economics theories of MC, MB and RP are
adapted to measure the progression of SBE with regards to lighting requirements in a
living/dining area simulated to represent two types of houses: with and without Passive
Architecture (PA) design strategies. Both are applied with conventional incandescent
light bulbs and EE light fittings as well as RE in lieu of the mains electricity supply. The
comparative approach shows the value of MB and MC at every stage of the SBE
progression and this enables the household to make informed decision at a margin. The
result suggests that the value of MB is more than MC when both cases use EE light
fittings, i.e., approximately RM2 gain for every RM1 cost. It is also found that RE
benefits the household more in PA case. This approach makes economic sense in so
far encouraging household to opt for SBE.
|
|---|