Review

Economic viability of building energy efficiency measures: a review on the discount rate

  • Received: 25 November 2020 Accepted: 08 February 2021 Published: 23 February 2021
  • How does the issue of the discount rate intersect the research on building energy efficiency and the topics into which it has branched? This contribution tries to answer the previous question through a comprehensive review of related studies. Those studies usually rely on two alternative assumptions. The first refers, explicitly or implicitly, to the notion of cost of capital and, hence, to the position of private stakeholders involved in the decision processes focusing on the adoption of energy-efficient measures in buildings. The second assumption relates to the notion of the social discount rate, which is meant to pursue intergenerational equity and environmental sustainability. As far as the results are concerned, the literature agrees that the discount rate is among the key parameters—possibly the most prominent—affecting the evaluation. However, despite the crucial role it plays, its calculation seldom relies on acknowledged methods and models. Furthermore, data sources sometimes lack consistency and accuracy. Some guidance and suggestions are provided as to the improvement of the discount rate estimation.

    Citation: Sergio Copiello. Economic viability of building energy efficiency measures: a review on the discount rate[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(2): 257-285. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021014

    Related Papers:

    [1] George L. Mendz, Nadeem O. Kaakoush, Julie A. Quinlivan . New techniques to characterise the vaginal microbiome in pregnancy. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(1): 55-68. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.1.55
    [2] Oluwafolajimi Adesanya, Tolulope Oduselu, Oluwawapelumi Akin-Ajani, Olubusuyi M. Adewumi, Olusegun G. Ademowo . An exegesis of bacteriophage therapy: An emerging player in the fight against anti-microbial resistance. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 204-230. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020014
    [3] Makayla Schissel, Rebecca Best, Shelby Liesemeyer, Yuan-De Tan, Darby J. Carlson, Julie J. Shaffer, Nagavardhini Avuthu, Chittibabu Guda, Kimberly A. Carlson . Effect of Nora virus infection on native gut bacterial communities of Drosophila melanogaster. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(2): 216-237. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021014
    [4] Stephen T. Abedon . Active bacteriophage biocontrol and therapy on sub-millimeter scales towards removal of unwanted bacteria from foods and microbiomes. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 649-688. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.649
    [5] Alaa Fathalla, Amal Abd el-mageed . Salt tolerance enhancement Of wheat (Triticum Asativium L) genotypes by selected plant growth promoting bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 250-271. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020016
    [6] Stephen T. Abedon . Phage “delay” towards enhancing bacterial escape from biofilms: a more comprehensive way of viewing resistance to bacteriophages. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 186-226. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.186
    [7] McKenna J. Cruikshank, Justine M. Pitzer, Kimia Ameri, Caleb V. Rother, Kathryn Cooper, Austin S. Nuxoll . Characterization of Staphylococcus lugdunensis biofilms through ethyl methanesulfonate mutagenesis. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 880-893. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024038
    [8] Bahram Nikmanesh, Kazem Ahmadikia, Muhammad Ibrahim Getso, Sanaz Aghaei Gharehbolagh, Shima Aboutalebian, Hossein Mirhendi, Shahram Mahmoudi . Candida africana and Candida dubliniensis as causes of pediatric candiduria: A study using HWP1 gene size polymorphism. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 272-279. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020017
    [9] Rania Abozahra, Amal Gaballah, Sarah M. Abdelhamid . Prevalence of the colistin resistance gene MCR-1 in colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Egypt. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(2): 177-194. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023011
    [10] Amira H. El-Ashry, Shimaa R. Hendawy, Noha Mostafa Mahmoud . Prevalence of pks genotoxin among hospital-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(1): 73-82. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022007
  • How does the issue of the discount rate intersect the research on building energy efficiency and the topics into which it has branched? This contribution tries to answer the previous question through a comprehensive review of related studies. Those studies usually rely on two alternative assumptions. The first refers, explicitly or implicitly, to the notion of cost of capital and, hence, to the position of private stakeholders involved in the decision processes focusing on the adoption of energy-efficient measures in buildings. The second assumption relates to the notion of the social discount rate, which is meant to pursue intergenerational equity and environmental sustainability. As far as the results are concerned, the literature agrees that the discount rate is among the key parameters—possibly the most prominent—affecting the evaluation. However, despite the crucial role it plays, its calculation seldom relies on acknowledged methods and models. Furthermore, data sources sometimes lack consistency and accuracy. Some guidance and suggestions are provided as to the improvement of the discount rate estimation.



    Most females experience vaginitis at least once in their lifetime [1]. As one of the most commonly reported vaginal infections, the condition accounts for more than 10% of cases in health care clinics [2]. Vaginitis generally refers to inflammation of the vaginal wall, with several infectious and noninfectious triggers responsible for this inflammation. Bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and trichomonal vaginitis are the most common vaginal infections [3]. Lactobacillus spp. constitute over 95% of vaginal bacteria and are the predominant microorganisms [4]. They are believed to protect the vagina against infection, in part by maintaining an acidic pH and ensuring a hydrogen peroxide environment in the vaginal atmosphere [5]. BV is the most common cause of abnormal vaginal discharge, is mediated by disturbances in vaginal microbiota and may be temporary or permanent [6]. Also, Candida species, in particular Candida albicans, are part of the normal vaginal microbiota; however, its presence is often asymptomatic. Thus, a VVC diagnosis requires the comprehensive laboratory investigation of all symptoms [7].

    Vaginitis is very common, especially in developing countries such as Egypt [8]. Also, vaginal infection during pregnancy is associated with a high incidence of preterm labor and neonatal ICU admission [9].

    In this study, we investigated the prevalence of causative vaginitis microorganisms using clinical methods, conventional laboratory methods and molecular applications, in both pregnant and nonpregnant females. Also, the study assessed the main risk factors associated with vaginitis.

    The study was conducted between September 2019 and March 2020. A total of 516 vaginal swabs were collected from female patients admitted to El-Shateby University Hospital. All patients were experiencing vaginitis with one or more of the following symptoms: change in color and odor of vaginal discharge, pain during intercourse, vaginal itching and inflammation and dysuria.

    A full medical history was taken from each patient; this included the evaluation of several risk factors such as diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, anemia, and frequency of intercourse.

    Besides physical examination, direct examinations included vaginal pH tests using pH paper and the whiff test to detect BV; a fish odor after treating samples with 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) indicates positive results [10].

    Three swab/discharge samples were collected from patients and immediately transported to the laboratory. On a slide, vaginal discharge was examined for Candida by mixing samples with 10% KOH and examining under a microscope, and candidiasis was diagnosed by hyphae and budding yeast cells [11]. On another slide, vaginal discharge was mixed with saline and used to detect Trichomonas vaginalis, a motile flagellated pear-shaped organism. Also, this film was used to evaluate the presence of clue cells, which are vaginal epithelial cells with adherent coccobacilli. An increased number of round parabasal cells was considered a sign of atrophic vaginitis [12],[13]. A third slide was used for Gram-stain; prepared mounts were examined and quantified for Lactobacillus, Bacteroides/Gardnerella, and Mobiluncus for calculation of Nugent's score [14]. A rapid diagnostic test was conducted using Liofilchem TM S. l R strips to determine Gardnerella spp. in samples.

    BV was diagnosed using the following two methods: (a) Amsel's criteria established a positive BV diagnosis if three of the following four clinical signs were present: 1) thin, gray and homogenous discharge; 2) a vaginal secretion of pH > 4.5; 3) a positive whiff test; and 4) the presence of clue cells on wet mounts [15],[16]. (b) Nugent's scores [17] were generated using a semiquantitative evaluation method to estimate the relative prevalence of Lactobacilli, G. vaginalis/Bacteroides, and Mobiluncus in Gram-stained vaginal wet mounts: 0–3 = normal, 4–6 = intermediate, and 7–10 = BV.

    Samples showing no pathogenic growth upon culturing, a negative microscopy result and a G. vaginalis rapid test, were investigated using real-time PCR. Immediately after collection, a vaginal swab was added to a tube containing 500 µL sterile-buffered saline and mixed thoroughly. If real time PCR was needed, DNA was extracted using a DNA extraction kit (PREP-GS) (www.dna-technology.ru). The Femoflor Screen real-time PCR detection kit was used to determine the presence and relative abundance of vaginal normal flora, opportunistic flora and pathogens using multiplex quantitative real-time PCR. The kit is designed to detect and quantitively determine a wide range of etiologically significant opportunistic aerobic organisms and anaerobic organisms; also, it can detect Mycoplasma spp. and Candida spp. Moreover, it can detect genital pathogens such as Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, and viral pathogens (Cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex viruses 1 and 2). The test was prepared according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Positive and negative controls were supplied with the kit. The negative control was subjected to the whole DNA extraction procedure. Both controls were added to each strip in separate tubes.

    Data were analyzed using SPSS (ver. 20, Chicago, IL, USA). Pearson's chi square test was used for association between categorical variables and expressed by p-value; the level of significance was 0.05, below which the results were considered to be statistically significant.

    Approval of this study was obtained from the Ethical Committee at the Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, approval number E\C. S/N. T15/2019. An informed consent was obtained from all participants before sampling. The study was conducted in accordance with the standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki principles of 1975, as revised in 2013 (http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3931).

    In this study, 310 (60.1%) females were pregnant and 206 (39.9%) were not. The majority were in their 20s and 30s (mean age: 29.92 ± 8 years). Vaginal discharge was the most common symptom (81.7%), followed by itching (58.1%) and dysuria (14.7%), whereas 12.4% complained of painful sexual intercourse. Itching was the most common symptom among nonpregnant females, whereas vaginal discharge was the common symptom among pregnant females. We observed no significant differences in symptom distribution between pregnant and nonpregnant females, except for painful sexual intercourse, which was significantly higher in nonpregnant females (Table 1).

    Among the reported risk factors (Table 1), diabetes mellitus (DM) was the most common (18.2%), followed by anemia (15.3%). Hypertension was significantly higher among pregnant females. However, in 47.5% of females, no other risk factors were identified (Table 1).

    Table 1.  Distribution of age, risk factors, and symptoms among the study groups.
    Pregnant Nonpregnant Total
    Total no. 310 (60.1%) 206 (39.9%) 516 (100%)
    Mean age 28.71 ± 7.23 31.75 ± 8.79 29.92 ± 8
    Signs and symptoms
    Discharge 250 (80.6%) 172 (83.4%) 422 (81.7%)
    Itching 177 (57.1%) 123 (59.7%) 300 (58.1%)
    Dysuria 42 (13.5%) 34 (16.5%) 76 (14.7%)
    Painful sexual intercourse 31 (10%)* 33 (16%)* 64 (12.4%)
    Inflammation & redness 18 (5.8%) 12 (5.8%) 30 (5.8%)
    Risk factors Reported in 159 (51.3%) Reported in 112 (54.4%) Reported in 271 (52.5%)
    Diabetes mellitus 52 (16.8%) 42 (20.4) 94 (18.2%)
    Hypertension 13 (4.2%)** 5 (2.4%)** 18 (3.4%)
    Frequent intercourse 44 (14.2%) 25 (12.1%) 69 (13.4%)
    Anemia 44 (14.2%) 35 (17%) 79 (15.3%)

    *Note: For χ2 (chi-squared) test: * significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** highly significant at p ≤ 0.01.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All Amsel criteria were identified in only 31.4% of females. The most reported single criteria were homogenous discharge (67.4%), positive whiff test (54.7%) and the presence of clue cells (50.2%). Clue cell numbers were statistically higher in the nonpregnant group (60.7%). The presence of all three criteria together was significantly higher in nonpregnant than in pregnant females.

    In terms of Nugent's scores, the majority of cases (44.2%) scored 7–10, which indicated BV, whereas 28.7% scored 4–6 (intermediate), and 27.1% scored 1–3 (normal or negative for BV) (Table 2).

    Table 2.  Comparison of Amsel's criteria and the calculated Nugent's score among pregnant and non-pregnant groups.
    Pregnant Nonpregnant Total
    Amsel's criteria
    Clue cells 134 (43.2%)** 125 (60.7%)** 259 (50.2%)**
    Whiff test 161 (51.9%) 121 (58.7%) 282 (54.7%)
    Homogenous discharge 201 (64.8%) 147 (71.4%) 348 (67.4%)
    All criteria present 74 (23.9%)** 88 (42.7%)** 162 (31.4%)**

    Nugent Score
    Normal (1–3) 75 (24.2%) 65 (31.6%) 140 (27.1%)
    Intermediate (4–6) 97 (31.3%) 51 (24.8%) 148 (28.7%)
    Bacterial vaginosis (7–10) 138 (44.5%) 90 (43.7%) 228 (44.2%)

    *Note: For χ2 (chi-squared) test: * significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** highly significant at p ≤ 0.01.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We identified a week association between Amsel's criteria and Nugent's scores for BV (p < 0.01). We observed that 211 (40.9%) females were negative for Amsel's criteria and Nugent's score when compared with 85 (16.5%) positive females. However, 77 females (14.9%) were positive for Amsel's criteria while Nugent's scores were negative. However, 143 (27.7%) females were negative for Amsel's criteria while Nugent's scores were positive.

    Using Gram-stain, culturing, Amsel's criteria, Nugent's scores and G. vaginalis rapid tests, BV was diagnosed in 59.1% (305/516) of females. Using rapid testing, Gardnerella spp. represented 65.9% (201/305) of BV cases, with a total prevalence of 39% among females. Candida was identified in 50.2% of females (259/516), with GBS in 5.6% and T. vaginalis in two females (Table 3).

    Table 3.  Causative agent of vaginitis detected by conventional methods and real time PCR among pregnant and nonpregnant women.
    Diagnosis Pregnant Nonpregnant Total
    Identified by conventional methods
    Total bacterial vaginosis 211 (68.1%) * 94 (45.6%)* 305 (59.1%)
    Gardnerella vaginalis 139 (44.8) ** 62 (30.1) ** 201 (39%)
    Candida spp. 141 (45.5%) ** 118 (57.3%) ** 259 (50.2%)
    GBS (Group B Streptococci) 17 (5.5%) 12 (5.8%) 29 (5.6%)
    Trichomonas vaginalis 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.5%) 2 (0.4%)

    Identified by PCR (45 cases)
    Lactobacilli 10 (3.2%) 13 (6.3%) 23 (4.5%)
    Lactobacilli, G. vaginalis / Prevotella sp. 3 (0.96%) 3 (1.5%) 6 (1.2%)
    Gardnerella vaginalis / Prevotella sp. 4 (1.3%) 3 (1.5%) 7 (1.4%)
    Ureaplasma 1 (0.32%) 2 (0.97%) 3 (0.58%)
    Mycoplasma genitalium 0 1 (0.49%) 1 (0.19%)
    Mycoplasma hominis 1 (0.32%) 1 (0.49%) 2 (0.38%)
    Trichomonas vaginalis 2 (0.65%) 1 (0.49%) 3 (0.58%)

    *Note: For χ2 (chi-squared) test: * significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** highly significant at p ≤ 0.01.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We observed that 24% of females (124/516) had mixed infections. Mixed Candida species infections with BV were identified in 108 cases (21%). Also, GBS coinfection with Candida species was identified in 10 cases (1.93%), and that with T. vaginalis was identified in two cases. Colonization with both GBS and BV was identified in four cases.

    The Candida and BV isolation rate was significantly higher in nonpregnant females, whereas Gardnerella detection rates were statistically higher in pregnant females. In terms of other vaginitis causes, GBS and T. vaginalis were detected in 17 (5.5%) and one (0.3%) pregnant female(s), respectively, when compared with 12 (5.8%) and one (0.5%) nonpregnant female(s), respectively (Table 3).

    Forty-five cases uncharacterized by conventional methods were identified using real-time PCR. G. vaginalis Prevotella were detected in 13 cases, with or without Lactobacilli. Ureaplasma, Mycoplasma genitalium and Mycoplasma hominis were detected in three (0.58%), one (0.19%) and two (0.38%) cases, respectively. Three more T. vaginalis cases were also identified via real-time PCR. Thus, the overall prevalence of T. vaginalis using conventional methods and real time PCR was 5/516 (0.98%). Neisseria, Chlamydia and viral pathogens were not detected.

    We identified 259 Candida isolates at the species level using Candida chromogenic agar (Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida tropicalis and Candida kruesi. Two species were identified using VITEK 2 technology (Candida dubliniensis and Candida guilliermondii). C. albicans was a major causative agent of vaginal candidiasis (194/259, 74.9%). Non-C. albicans isolates were also detected in 65/259 (25.1%) cases: C. tropicalis was the most common non-C. albicans type (31/259, 11.9%), followed by C. glabrata (21/259, 8.1%) and C. kruesi (11/259, 4.2%).

    In terms of antifungal agent sensitivity, all Candida species were sensitive to ketoconazole, miconazole, micafungin, nystatin, clotrimazole, and caspofungin. For fluconazole, all C. kruesi isolates were intrinsically resistant, whereas six (3.1%) C. albicans and six (19.4%) C. tropicalis isolates were resistant. Also, two C. albicans (1.14%) and one C. tropicalis (3.2%) isolate were resistant to voriconazole. Two C. albicans isolates were resistant to amphotericin B.

    Vaginitis is defined as vaginal inflammation and is typically characterized by several signs and symptoms, including vaginal discharge, vulvar itching, vaginal erythema and dysuria [3].

    The majority of females in this study were in their 20s and 30s. Pregnant females were more common (60%). Several other studies showed similar age group prevalence. Mahakal et al. [21] found that among 272 females included in their study, the commonest age-group with vaginal discharge was 20–40 years (83%), among whom only 21% of females were pregnant. Similar results were reported in an Indonesian descriptive study [22] comprising 492 women, where the average age was 30.9 ± 0.27 years.

    Vaginal discharge was the most common symptom (81.7%) presented, followed by itching (58.1%). This was contrary to Mahakal et al. [21], who reported that 83% of their patients presented with pruritus, and 46% and 44% of them complained of dysuria and dyspareunia, respectively.

    We observed no significant differences in symptom distribution between pregnant and nonpregnant females. However, painful sexual intercourse was significantly higher in the nonpregnant group and was putatively explained by less frequent sexual intercourse when compared with pregnant females.

    In our study, no risk factors were identified in 47.6%. Among the reported risk factors, DM was the most common (18.2%), followed by frequent sexual intercourse (13.4%). Diabetes mellitus predisposes to Candidiasis, as well as bacterial infections. Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) has been proposed by many investigators in diabetics to be more frequent [23],[24]. Furthermore, chronic recurring VVC may be a marker of diabetes [25].

    European guidelines recommend a BV diagnosis may be based on clinical symptoms and signs when supported by additional experimental findings. Thus, Amsel's clinical criteria, Nugent's scores or culture-based techniques can be used [26].

    We diagnosed BV in 305/516 (59.1%) females using either Nugent's scores or Amsel's criteria. A weak agreement was identified between these indices for BV. Several studies have reported that Amsel's criteria are as good as Nugent's scores for diagnosing BV; both are simple, easy, cost effective and reliable methods [27]. However, by applying molecular techniques, we also diagnosed a further 13 additional BV cases. As both Nugent's scores and Amsel's criteria have inherent limitations, DNA-based assays targeting BV are reproducible and may be used to diagnose difficult cases [28]. A lower BV prevalence was reported in an Ethiopian study, in which BV was diagnosed using Nugent's score in 20.1% of the patients [29]. The prevalence in other African countries was reported to be also lower; in a meta-analysis, the prevalence of BV in sub-Saharan Africa was 42.1% [30]. The higher prevalence in our study could be explained by the usage of more than one technique for diagnosis of BV. Also, there are differences in the prevalent microbial populations between countries [31].

    In this study, 50.2% of females were diagnosed with VVC. Candida infections were significantly higher in nonpregnant females and may have been exacerbated by pregnancy, high oral estrogen contraception use, antibiotics and health conditions such as DM, which was the highest reported predisposing factor among pregnant and nonpregnant females in our study. VVC also appears to be more frequent in diabetics [32],[33]. Uncommon, non-C. albicans strains were also identified using VITEK 2 technology: C. dubliniensis (1/65, 1.53%) and C. guilliermondii (1/65, 1.53%).

    In terms of Candida distribution, our data agreed with Hassan et al. (2017) [27]. We identified six Candida species: C. albicans was the predominant strain (62.9%), followed by Candida lusitaniae (13.7%), C. krusei (10.7%), C. glabrata (6.3%), C. tropicalis, and Candida parapsilosis [34]. Previously, in an Argentinian study, 55 Candida isolates or other yeasts were identified in patients with VVC; C. albicans was the predominant species (85%), followed by C. dubliniensis and C. glabrata [35].

    Identifying yeast at the species level is vital for choosing appropriate antifungal treatments. C. albicans is the main pathogen seen in VVC; however, other Candida species, as presented in our study, may not share the same susceptibility profile with C. albicans. This could lead to recurrent VVC, which is distinguished from persistent infection by symptom-free intervals [36]. The reported Candida resistance to antifungal drugs could be attributed to empirical long-term treatment without identifying species and susceptibility.

    We identified T. vaginalis in five females (0.96%), two using wet mounts and three using real-time PCR. Similar findings were identified in a cross-sectional study [37] in reproductive-age females. Using microscopy, these authors reported T. vaginalis as the least frequent cause of vaginitis, with a detection rate of < 1.0% in their cohort. This low prevalence contrasted with a Vietnamese study [38] where 249 symptomatic and 534 asymptomatic females had an overall trichomoniasis prevalence of 6.6% by microscopy.

    We identified GBS in 5.6% of females; however, there was no significant difference in the prevalence between pregnant and nonpregnant females. GBS are part of the typical recto-vaginal flora and are transiently identified in asymptomatic females [39][42]. In another Egyptian study, a higher GBS prevalence (25.3%) was identified using vaginal swabs cultured on ISLAM'S media [43]. The sensitivity of the ISLAM media used may explain the difference in the prevalence.

    The detection of genital Mycoplasma in females is important and is augmented by the high rate of vertical transmission and associations with neonatal morbidity and mortality [44]. Mycoplasma culturing is costly and requires specialized media and expertise. Infectious agents may be detected in 8 h using nucleic acid amplification techniques. In our study, we used multiplex real-time PCR to characterize vaginitis etiology in females where no definitive causes were identified using conventional methods. Using real time PCR, three Ureaplasma species, M. genitalium (1) and M. hominis (2) were identified in 45 females.

    However, using culturing techniques, discrepant prevalence rates were reported in Australia [38]. Out of 175 cervical swabs cultured from Australian females, with and without cervicitis, 16% tested positive for M. hominis and 68% for Ureaplasma species [45]. This difference in prevalence may be explained by different sexual behaviors and restricted sexual activities in Egypt when compared with Western countries. Additionally, only 45/516 samples with no obvious cause for vaginitis were tested in our study.

    We detected no viral pathogens. This result may be explained by several factors: Only one sample per patient was tested, and viral loads below detection limits may have been missed. We used commercially available specimen collection swabs and transportation media, which may not have provided optimum conditions for viral nucleic acid recovery. Moreover, the majority of the females included in this study did not present with genital ulcers, potentially explaining the absence of vaginal viral infections.

    Alarmingly, we identified mixed vaginal infections in 24% of females, suggesting that nearly one in four may be diagnosed and treated for one causative pathogen, with the other(s) left undiagnosed, thereby prolonging patient suffering. The most commonly observed mixed infection was VVC with BV (21%). Although vaginal infections are extremely common, little information is available on mixed infection prevalence, especially VVC and BV. The co-incidence of microscopy-defined VVC and BV varies considerably and ranges from 3% to 27% [46],[47]. In spite of this high incidence, these infections remain poorly studied. Thus, improved diagnostic procedures are recommended to facilitate mixed infection diagnoses and provide appropriate and timely therapeutic options [48].

    BV is the most common cause of vaginitis. C. albicans is the most common fungal species causing VVC, with a low rate of antifungal resistance. Species identification and susceptibility testing for VVC patients is recommended, especially for recurrent cases. T. vaginalis may be underestimated using conventional diagnostic methods. Mixed vaginal infections remain underestimated in clinical practice. It is recommended that diagnostic methods be improved to capture potential mixed infection risks and bridge the therapeutic gap using combination therapy.



    [1] Copiello S (2017) Building energy efficiency: A research branch made of paradoxes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69: 1064-1076. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.094
    [2] Rajagopalan P, Dimoudi A (2018) Editorial note for low energy social housing. Energy Build 180: 29-31. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.027
    [3] Soebarto V, de Dear R, Zuo J, et al. (2018) Editorial note for Virtual Special Issue on energy performance to indoor environmental quality. Energy Build 166: 317-318. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.022
    [4] Galvin R, Sunikka-Blank M (2014) Disaggregating the causes of falling consumption of domestic heating energy in Germany. Energy Effic 7: 851-864. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9259-5
    [5] Huebner GM, Hamilton I, Chalabi Z, et al. (2015) Explaining domestic energy consumption— The comparative contribution of building factors, socio-demographics, behaviours and attitudes. Appl Energy 159: 589-600. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.028
    [6] Belaïd F (2016) Understanding the spectrum of domestic energy consumption: Empirical evidence from France. Energy Policy 92: 220-233. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.015
    [7] Copiello S, Gabrielli L (2017) Analysis of building energy consumption through panel data: The role played by the economic drivers. Energy Build 145: 130-143. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.053
    [8] Copiello S, Grillenzoni C (2017) Is the cold the only reason why we heat our homes? Empirical evidence from spatial series data. Appl Energy 193: 491-506. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.013
    [9] Gann DM, Wang Y, Hawkins R (1998) Do regulations encourage innovation?—the case of energy efficiency in housing. Build Res Inf 26: 280-296. doi: 10.1080/096132198369760
    [10] Sandén BA, Azar C (2005) Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches. Energy Policy 33: 1557-1576. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.012
    [11] Noailly J (2012) Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy Econ 34: 795-806. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.015
    [12] Dalla Mora T, Peron F, Romagnoni P, et al. (2018) Tools and procedures to support decision making for cost-effective energy and carbon emissions optimization in building renovation. Energy Build 167: 200-215. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.030
    [13] Penna P, Prada A, Cappelletti F, et al. (2015) Multi-objectives optimization of Energy Efficiency Measures in existing buildings. Energy Build 95: 57-69. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.003
    [14] Omer AM (2008) Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 12: 2265-2300. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.001
    [15] Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P, Bourrelle JS, et al. (2011) Zero Energy Building—A review of definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy Build 43: 971-979. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.022
    [16] Palm J (2018) Household installation of solar panels—Motives and barriers in a 10-year perspective. Energy Policy 113: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.047
    [17] Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build 39: 249-257. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001
    [18] Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, et al. (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energy Build 42: 1238-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016
    [19] Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, et al. (2012) Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16: 3730-3743. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.021
    [20] Copiello S (2016) Economic implications of the energy issue: Evidence for a positive non-linear relation between embodied energy and construction cost. Energy Build 123: 59-70. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.054
    [21] Copiello S (2019) Economic parameters in the evaluation studies focusing on building energy efficiency: a review of the underlying rationale, data sources, and assumptions. Energy Procedia 157: 180-192. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.179
    [22] Amstalden RW, Kost M, Nathani C, et al. (2007) Economic potential of energy-efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: The effects of policy instruments and energy price expectations. Energy Policy 35: 1819-1829. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.05.018
    [23] Kumbaroğlu G, Madlener R (2012) Evaluation of economically optimal retrofit investment options for energy savings in buildings. Energy Build 49: 327-334. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.022
    [24] Zalejska-Jonsson A, Lind H, Hintze S (2012) Low-energy versus conventional residential buildings: cost and profit. J Eur Real Estate Res 5: 211-228. doi: 10.1108/17539261211282064
    [25] Brotman BA (2014) Green office construction: A discounted after-tax cash flow analysis. J Prop Invest Financ 32: 474-484. doi: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2014-0007
    [26] Becchio C, Bottero MC, Corgnati SP, et al. (2018) Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin. Land Use Policy 78: 803-817. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.048
    [27] Marshall HE, Ruegg RT (1977) Energy Conservation through Life-Cycle Costing. J Archit Educ 30: 42-53. doi: 10.1080/10464883.1977.10758110
    [28] Bagatin M, Caldon R, Gottardi G (1984) Economic optimization and sensitivity analysis of energy requirements in residential space heating. Int J Energy Res 8: 127-138. doi: 10.1002/er.4440080204
    [29] Gustafsson S-I (1993) Life cycle costing related to the refurbishment of buildings, In: Bull JW (Ed.), Life Cycle Costing for Construction, London, Chapman & Hall, 37-52.
    [30] Gustafsson SI (2000) Optimization of insulation measures on existing buildings. Energy Build 33: 49-55. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00062-1
    [31] Verbeeck G, Hens H (2005) Energy savings in retrofitted dwellings: economically viable? Energy Build 37: 747-754.
    [32] Ouyang J, Lu M, Li B, et al. (2011) Economic analysis of upgrading aging residential buildings in China based on dynamic energy consumption and energy price in a market economy. Energy Policy 39: 4902-4910. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.025
    [33] Copiello S, Gabrielli L, Bonifaci P (2017) Evaluation of energy retrofit in buildings under conditions of uncertainty: The prominence of the discount rate. Energy 137: 104-117. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.159
    [34] Di Giuseppe E, Massi A, D'Orazio M (2017) Probabilistic Life Cycle Cost Analysis of building energy efficiency measures: Selection and characterization of the stochastic inputs through a case study. Procedia Eng 180: 491-501. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.208
    [35] European Commission (2012) Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology f. Off J Eur Union 55: 1-28.
    [36] Kurnitski J, Kuusk K, Tark T, et al. (2014) Energy and investment intensity of integrated renovation and 2030 cost optimal savings. Energy Build 75: 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.044
    [37] Mora TD, Righi A, Peron F, et al. (2017) Cost-Optimal measures for renovation of existing school buildings towards nZEB. Energy Procedia 140: 288-302. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.143
    [38] Damodaran A (2006) Valuation Approaches and Metrics: A Survey of the Theory and Evidence, New York.
    [39] Copiello S (2016) A Discounted Cash Flow variant to detect the optimal amount of additional burdens in Public-Private Partnership transactions. MethodsX 3: 195-204. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2016.03.003
    [40] Böhm-Bawerk E von (1903) Recent Literature on Interest, London, The MacMillan co.
    [41] Fisher I (1907) The Rate of Interest, New York, The MacMillan Co.
    [42] Fisher I (1930) The Theory of Interest, New York, The MacMillan Co.
    [43] Marshall A (1920) Principles of Economics, London, The MacMillan co.
    [44] Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J Econ Lit 40: 351-401. doi: 10.1257/jel.40.2.351
    [45] Komendantova N, Patt A, Williges K (2011) Solar power investment in North Africa: Reducing perceived risks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15: 4829-4835. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.068
    [46] Liu N, Zhao Y, Ge J (2018) Do renters skimp on energy efficiency during economic recessions? Evidence from Northeast Scotland. Energy 165: 164-175. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.078
    [47] Trotta G (2018) The determinants of energy efficient retrofit investments in the English residential sector. Energy Policy 120: 175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.024
    [48] Phua FTT (2018) The role of organizational climate in socially embedding construction firms' sustainability goals. Constr Manag Econ 36: 409-421. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2018.1424348
    [49] Gaspar K, Casals M, Gangolells M (2018) In situ measurement of façades with a low U-value: Avoiding deviations. Energy Build 170: 61-73. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.012
    [50] Kangas H-L, Lazarevic D, Kivimaa P (2018) Technical skills, disinterest and non-functional regulation: Barriers to building energy efficiency in Finland viewed by energy service companies. Energy Policy 114: 63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.060
    [51] Wells L, Rismanchi B, Aye L (2018) A review of Net Zero Energy Buildings with reflections on the Australian context. Energy Build 158: 616-628. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.055
    [52] Palmer K, Walls M (2017) Using information to close the energy efficiency gap: A review of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances. Energy Effic 10: 673-691. doi: 10.1007/s12053-016-9480-5
    [53] Davis P, McCord MJ, McCluskey W, et al. (2017) Is energy performance too taxing?: A CAMA approach to modelling residential energy in housing in Northern Ireland. J Eur Real Estate Res 10: 124-148. doi: 10.1108/JERER-06-2016-0023
    [54] Liu J, Sun X, Lu B, et al. (2016) The life cycle rebound effect of air-conditioner consumption in China. Appl Energy 184: 1026-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.100
    [55] Claudy M, Michelsen C (2016) Housing market fundamentals, housing quality and energy consumption: Evidence from Germany. Energy J 37: 25-43. doi: 10.5547/01956574.37.4.mcla
    [56] Wang Q, Ploskić A, Song X, et al. (2016) Ventilation heat recovery jointed low-temperature heating in retrofitting—An investigation of energy conservation, environmental impacts and indoor air quality in Swedish multifamily houses. Energy Build 121: 250-264. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.02.050
    [57] Ürge-Vorsatz D, Kelemen A, Tirado-Herrero S, et al. (2016) Measuring multiple impacts of low-carbon energy options in a green economy context. Appl Energy 179: 1409-1426. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.027
    [58] Langlois-Bertrand S, Benhaddadi M, Jegen M, et al. (2015) Political-institutional barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Strateg Rev 8: 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2015.08.001
    [59] Bouhou N-EI, Blackhurst MF, Torres P (2015) An empirical analysis of joint residential electricity efficiency gains within and across end uses: implications for demand-side management. Ecol Econ 110: 61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.011
    [60] Abolarin SM, Shitta MB, Gbadegesin O, et al. (2015) An Economic Evaluation of Energy Management Opportunities in a Medium Scale Manufacturing Industry in Lagos. Int J Eng Res Africa 14: 97-106. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.14.97
    [61] Jeuland M, Pattanayak SK, Bluffstone R (2015) The economics of household air pollution. Annu Rev Resour Econ 7: 81-108. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100814-125048
    [62] Hsu D (2014) Improving energy benchmarking with self-reported data. Build Res Inf 42: 641-656. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.887612
    [63] Matisoff DC, Noonan DS, Mazzolini AM (2014) Performance or marketing benefits? The case of LEED certification. Environ Sci Technol 48: 2001-2007. doi: 10.1021/es4042447
    [64] Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2016) The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus. J Informetr 10: 174-182. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006
    [65] Meester WJN, Colledge L, Dyas EE (2016) A response to 'The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus' by Franceschini et al. J Informetr 10: 569-570. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.011
    [66] Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2016) Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science. J Informetr 10: 933-953. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.003
    [67] van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2007) VOS: A New Method for Visualizing Similarities Between Objects, In: Lenz H-J, Decker R (Eds.), Advances in Data Analysis: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the German Classification Society, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 299-306.
    [68] van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523-538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
    [69] Waltman L, van Eck NJ, Noyons ECM (2010) A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J Informetr 4: 629-635. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
    [70] Waltman L, van Eck NJ (2013) A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection. Eur Phys J B 86: 471. doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2013-40829-0
    [71] van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) Visualizing Bibliometric Networks, In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 285-320.
    [72] Moon Y, Baran M (2018) Economic analysis of a residential PV system from the timing perspective: A real option model. Renew Energy 125: 783-795. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.138
    [73] Burhenne S, Tsvetkova O, Jacob D, et al. (2013) Uncertainty quantification for combined building performance and cost-benefit analyses. Build Environ 62: 143-154. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.01.013
    [74] Tadeu S, Tadeu A, Simões N, et al. (2018) A sensitivity analysis of a cost optimality study on the energy retrofit of a single-family reference building in Portugal. Energy Effic 11: 1411-1432. doi: 10.1007/s12053-018-9645-5
    [75] Copiello S (2018) Expansion of the Italian natural gas network to the Sardinia Island : Economic assessment. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 54: 297-308. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2018.04.010
    [76] Brown NWO, Malmqvist T, Bai W, et al. (2013) Sustainability assessment of renovation packages for increased energy efficiency for multi-family buildings in Sweden. Build Environ 61: 140-148. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.019
    [77] Fabbri R, Gabrielli L, Ruggeri AG (2018) Interactions between restoration and financial analysis: the case of Cuneo War Wounded House. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev 8: 145-161. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2017-0026
    [78] Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and Energy-Saving technological change. Q J Econ 114: 941-975. doi: 10.1162/003355399556188
    [79] Walls M, Gerarden T, Palmer K, et al. (2017) Is energy efficiency capitalized into home prices? Evidence from three U.S. cities. J Environ Econ Manage 82: 104-124.
    [80] Wang J, Zhang Y, Wang Y (2018) Environmental impacts of short building lifespans in China considering time value. J Clean Prod 203: 696-707. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.314
    [81] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Le Truong N (2018) Primary energy benefits of cost-effective energy renovation of a district heated multi-family building under different energy supply systems. Energy 143: 69-90. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.113
    [82] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Tettey UYA (2017) Final energy savings and cost-effectiveness of deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential building. Energy 135: 563-576. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.123
    [83] Faludi J, Lepech M (2012) Ecological payback time of an energy-efficient modular building. J Green Build 7: 100-119. doi: 10.3992/jgb.7.1.100
    [84] Reddy BS, Assenza GB, Assenza D, et al. (2009) Energy efficiency and climate change: Conserving power for a sustainable future energy efficiency and climate change: Conserving power for a sustainable future, New Delhi, SAGE Publications India.
    [85] Revesz RL, Stavins RN (2007) Chapter 8 Environmental Law, Handbook of Law and Economics, 499-589.
    [86] Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, et al. (Eds.) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [87] Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G, Barrett S (1999) Intergenerational Equity, Social Discount Rates and Global Warming, In: Portney P, Weyant JP (Eds.), Discounting and intergenerational equity, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 51-79.
    [88] Weitzman ML (1998) Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 201-208. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1052
    [89] Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma Discounting. Am Econ Rev 91: 260-271. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.1.260
    [90] Hepburn C, Koundouri P, Panopoulou E, et al. (2009) Social discounting under uncertainty: A cross-country comparison. J Environ Econ Manage 57: 140-150. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.04.004
    [91] Goulder LH, Williams RC (2012) The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation. Clim Chang Econ 03: 1250024. doi: 10.1142/S2010007812500248
    [92] Markandya A, Pearce DW (1991) Development, the environment, and the social rate of discount. World Bank Res Obs 6: 137-152. doi: 10.1093/wbro/6.2.137
    [93] Weitzman ML (1994) On the 'Environmental' Discount Rate. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 200-209. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1012
    [94] Lind RC (1997) Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency in Water Policy Evaluation, Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 41-62.
    [95] Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2003) Discounting and the environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8: 8-18. doi: 10.1007/BF02978744
    [96] Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79: 369-381. doi: 10.2307/3147023
    [97] Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertain 37: 141-169. doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9049-6
    [98] Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J Environ Econ Manage 46: 52-71.
    [99] Newell RG, Pizer WA (2004) Uncertain discount rates in climate policy analysis. Energy Policy 32: 519-529. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00153-8
    [100] Gollier C (2010) Ecological discounting. J Econ Theory 145: 812-829. doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2009.10.001
    [101] Gollier C (2002) Time Horizon and the Discount Rate. J Econ Theory 107: 463-473. doi: 10.1006/jeth.2001.2952
    [102] Atkinson G, Mourato S (2008) Environmental Cost-Benefit analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33: 317-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927
    [103] Horowitz JK (1996) Environmental policy under a non-market discount rate. Ecol Econ 16: 73-78. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(95)00082-8
    [104] Philibert C (1999) The economics of climate change and the theory of discounting. Energy Policy 27: 913-927. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00081-6
    [105] Winkler R (2006) Does 'better' discounting lead to 'worse' outcomes in long-run decisions? The dilemma of hyperbolic discounting. Ecol Econ 57: 573-582. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.013
    [106] Freeman MC, Groom B (2016) How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate? J Environ Econ Manage 79: 152-168.
    [107] Homer S, Sylla R (2005) A History of Interest Rates, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.
    [108] D'Adamo I, Gastaldi M, Morone P (2020) The post COVID-19 green recovery in practice: Assessing the profitability of a policy proposal on residential photovoltaic plants. Energy Policy 147: 111910. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111910
    [109] Croese S, Green C, Morgan G (2020) Localizing the sustainable development goals through the lens of urban resilience: Lessons and learnings from 100 resilient cities and cape town. Sustainability 12: 550. doi: 10.3390/su12020550
    [110] Elmqvist T, Andersson E, Frantzeskaki N, et al. (2019) Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat Sustain 2: 267-273. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1
    [111] Australian Department of Finance and Administration (2006) Handbook of cost-benefit analysis, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
    [112] Fama EF, French KR (2004) The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and evidence. J Econ Perspect 18: 25-46. doi: 10.1257/0895330042162430
    [113] Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Finance 19: 425-442.
    [114] Blume ME, Friend I (1973) A new look at the capital asset pricing model. J Finance 28: 19-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01342.x
    [115] French CW (2003) The Treynor capital asset pricing model. J Invest Manag 1: 60-72.
    [116] Perold AF (2004) The Capital Asset Pricing Model. J Econ Perspect 18: 3-24.
    [117] Awerbuch S, Deehan W (1995) Do consumers discount the future correctly? A market-based valuation of residential fuel switching. Energy Policy 23: 57-69. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(95)90766-Z
    [118] Albrecht J (2007) The future role of photovoltaics: A learning curve versus portfolio perspective. Energy Policy 35: 2296-2304. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.07.013
    [119] Menassa CC (2011) Evaluating sustainable retrofits in existing buildings under uncertainty. Energy Build 43: 3576-3583. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.030
    [120] Lilford EV (2006) The corporate cost of capital. J South African Inst Min Metall 106: 139-146.
    [121] Lilford EV, Minnitt RCA (2002) Methodologies in the valuation of mineral rights. J South African Inst Min Metall 102: 369-384.
    [122] Lilford E, Maybee B, Packey D (2018) Cost of capital and discount rates in cash flow valuations for resources projects. Resour Policy 59: 525-531. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.09.008
    [123] Torriti J (2012) Multiple-project discount rates for cost-benefit analysis in construction projects: A formal risk model for microgeneration renewable energy technologies. Constr Manag Econ 30: 739-747. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.692165
    [124] D'Alpaos C, Bragolusi P (2018) Buildings energy retrofit valuation approaches: State of the art and future perspectives. Valori e Valutazioni 20: 79-94.
    [125] Jacoboni C, Lugli P (1989) The Monte Carlo Method for Semiconductor Device Simulation, Vienna, Springer Vienna.
    [126] James F (1980) Monte Carlo theory and practice. Reports Prog Phys 43: 1145-1189. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/43/9/002
    [127] Nikolaidis Y, Pilavachi PA, Chletsis A (2009) Economic evaluation of energy saving measures in a common type of Greek building. Appl Energy 86: 2550-2559. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.029
    [128] Das P, Van Gelder L, Janssen H, et al. (2017) Designing uncertain optimization schemes for the economic assessment of stock energy-efficiency measures. J Build Perform Simul 10: 3-16. doi: 10.1080/19401493.2015.1099054
    [129] Mahdiyar A, Tabatabaee S, Sadeghifam AN, et al. (2016) Probabilistic private cost-benefit analysis for green roof installation: A Monte Carlo simulation approach. Urban Urban Green 20: 317-327. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.001
    [130] Cox M, Brown MA, Sun X (2013) Energy benchmarking of commercial buildings: a low-cost pathway toward urban sustainability. Environ Res Lett 8: 035018. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035018
    [131] Tian W, Heo Y, de Wilde P, et al. (2018) A review of uncertainty analysis in building energy assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 93: 285-301. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.029
    [132] European Commission (2012) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012. Off J Eur Union L: 18-36.
    [133] Fennell P, Ruyssevelt P, Smith AZP (2016) Financial viability of school retrofit projects for clients and ESCOs. Build Res Inf 44: 889-906. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1082779
    [134] Ondraczek J, Komendantova N, Patt A (2015) WACC the dog: The effect of financing costs on the levelized cost of solar PV power. Renew Energy 75: 888-898. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.053
    [135] Rushing AS, Kneifel JD, Lippiatt BL (2013) Energy price indices and discount factors for life-cycle cost analysis—2013 : annual supplement to NIST Handbook 135 and NBS Special Publication 709, Gaithersburg, MD.
    [136] Lavappa PD, Kneifel JD (2016) Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—2016 Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 135, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
    [137] Paganin G, Angelotti A, Ducoli C, et al. (2017) Energy performance of an exhibition hall in a life cycle perspective: Embodied energy, operational energy and retrofit strategies. Energy Effic 10: 1343-1364. doi: 10.1007/s12053-017-9521-8
    [138] Fujita KS (2016) Commercial Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
    [139] Office of Management and Budget (1992) Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, US Office of Management and Budget.
    [140] Australian Government (2007) Best practice regulation handbook, Canberra, Office of Best Practice Regulation.
    [141] Steinbach J, Staniaszek D (2015) Discount rates in energy system analysis, Discussion paper commissioned by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe, Brussels.
    [142] Zhang Y, Si P, Feng Y, et al. (2017) Operation strategy optimization of BCHP system with thermal energy storage: A case study for airport terminal in Qingdao, China. Energy Build 154: 465-478. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.059
    [143] Yan X, Zhang X, Chen H, et al. (2014) Techno-economic and social analysis of energy storage for commercial buildings. Energy Convers Manag 78: 125-136. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.014
    [144] Qian D, Guo J (2014) Research on the energy-saving and revenue sharing strategy of ESCOs under the uncertainty of the value of Energy Performance Contracting Projects. Energy Policy 73: 710-721. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.013
    [145] Zhou S, Zhao J (2013) Optimum combinations of building envelop energy-saving technologies for office buildings in different climatic regions of China. Energy Build 57: 103-109. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.019
    [146] Liu CT, Hsieh BZ (2016) Assessment model for estimating CO2 commercial storage capacity in saline formations: A case study in Taiwan. Int J Greenh Gas Control 49: 14-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.02.016
    [147] Moore T, Morrissey J (2014) Lifecycle costing sensitivities for zero energy housing in Melbourne, Australia. Energy Build 79: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.050
    [148] Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S (2015) Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42: 129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.006
    [149] Morrissey J, Meyrick B, Sivaraman D, et al. (2013) Cost-benefit assessment of energy efficiency investments: Accounting for future resources, savings and risks in the Australian residential sector. Energy Policy 54: 148-159. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.005
    [150] Bonakdar F, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L (2014) Cost-optimum analysis of building fabric renovation in a Swedish multi-story residential building. Energy Build 84: 662-673. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.003
    [151] Copiello S, Bonifaci P (2015) Green housing: Toward a new energy efficiency paradox? Cities 49: 76-87.
    [152] Wu L, Mao XQ, Zeng A (2015) Carbon footprint accounting in support of city water supply infrastructure siting decision making: A case study in Ningbo, China. J Clean Prod 103: 737-746. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.060
    [153] Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F (2015) Cost-effective retrofitting of Swedish residential buildings: Effects of energy price developments and discount rates. Energy Effic 8: 223-237. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9287-1
    [154] Brandão de Vasconcelos A, Cabaço A, Pinheiro MD, et al. (2016) The impact of building orientation and discount rates on a Portuguese reference building refurbishment decision. Energy Policy 91: 329-340. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.021
    [155] Liu X, Cui Q (2016) Assessing the impacts of preferential procurement on low-carbon building. J Clean Prod 112: 863-871. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.015
    [156] Guo F, Akenji L, Schroeder P, et al. (2018) Static analysis of technical and economic energy-saving potential in the residential sector of Xiamen city. Energy 142: 373-383. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.042
    [157] Ó Broin E, Mata É, Nässén J, et al. (2015) Quantification of the energy efficiency gap in the Swedish residential sector. Energy Effic 8: 975-993. doi: 10.1007/s12053-015-9323-9
    [158] Copiello S (2015) Achieving affordable housing through energy efficiency strategy. Energy Policy 85: 288-298. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.017
    [159] Copiello S (2016) Leveraging energy efficiency to finance public-private social housing projects. Energy Policy 96: 217-230. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.003
    [160] Schmidt TS, Born R, Schneider M (2012) Assessing the costs of photovoltaic and wind power in six developing countries. Nat Clim Chang 2: 548-553. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1490
    [161] Peters M, Schmidt TS, Wiederkehr D, et al. (2011) Shedding light on solar technologies—A techno-economic assessment and its policy implications. Energy Policy 39: 6422-6439. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.045
    [162] Di Vita G (2008) Is the discount rate relevant in explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve? J Policy Model 30: 191-207.
    [163] Mundaca L, Neij L, Worrell E, et al. (2010) Evaluating Energy Efficiency Policies with Energy-Economy Models. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35: 305-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-052810-164840
    [164] Mundaca L (2008) Markets for energy efficiency: Exploring the implications of an EU-wide 'Tradable White Certificate' scheme. Energy Econ 30: 3016-3043. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.004
    [165] Sovacool BK (2009) Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 37: 4500-4513. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.073
    [166] Ürge-Vorsatz D, Novikova A, Köppel S, et al. (2009) Bottom-up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: insights into the missing elements. Energy Effic 2: 293-316. doi: 10.1007/s12053-009-9051-0
    [167] Gillingham K, Newell R, Palmer K (2006) Energy efficiency policies: A retrospective examination. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31: 161-192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100157
    [168] Howarth RB, Andersson B (1993) Market barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Econ 15: 262-272. doi: 10.1016/0140-9883(93)90016-K
    [169] Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1994) The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy 22: 804-810.
    [170] Sorrell S, O'Malley E, Schleich J, et al. (2004) The Economics of Energy Efficiency: Barriers to Cost-Effective Investment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
    [171] Schleich J, Gruber E (2008) Beyond case studies: Barriers to energy efficiency in commerce and the services sector. Energy Econ 30: 449-464. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.08.004
    [172] Palm J, Reindl K (2018) Understanding barriers to energy-efficiency renovations of multifamily dwellings. Energy Effic 11: 53-65. doi: 10.1007/s12053-017-9549-9
    [173] Hassett KA, Metcalf GE (1993) Energy conservation investment. Energy Policy 21: 710-716. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(93)90294-P
    [174] Gallagher KS, Muehlegger E (2011) Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J Environ Econ Manage 61: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.004
    [175] Adan H, Fuerst F (2015) Modelling energy retrofit investments in the UK housing market. Smart Sustain Built Environ 4: 251-267. doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2013-0016
    [176] Schleich J, Gassmann X, Faure C, et al. (2016) Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate. Energy Policy 97: 321-331. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.044
    [177] Zhang L, Wu J, Liu H (2018) Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. J Clean Prod 172: 2234-2245. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.188
    [178] Hausman JA (1979) Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables. Bell J Econ 10: 33. doi: 10.2307/3003318
    [179] Gately D (1980) Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of Energy-Using durables: Comment. Bell J Econ 11: 373. doi: 10.2307/3003422
    [180] Dubin JA, McFadden DL (1984) An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52: 345-362. doi: 10.2307/1911493
    [181] Ruderman H, Levine MD, McMahon JE (1987) The behavior of the market for energy efficiency in residential appliances including heating and cooling equipment. Energy J 8: 101-124. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No1-7
    [182] Dubin JA (1992) Market barriers to conservation: Are implicit discount rates too high? Calif Inst Technol Pasadena, Soc Sci Work Pap 802.
    [183] Gates RW (1983) Investing in energy conservation: Are homeowners passing up high yields? Energy Policy 11: 63-71.
    [184] Sutherland RJ (1991) Market barriers to energy-efficiency investments. Energy J 12: 15-34.
    [185] Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1994) The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation technology. Resour Energy Econ 16: 91-122. doi: 10.1016/0928-7655(94)90001-9
    [186] Metcalf GE, Hassett KA (1999) Measuring the energy savings from home improvement investments: Evidence from monthly billing data. Rev Econ Stat 81: 516-528. doi: 10.1162/003465399558274
    [187] Atmadja SS, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, et al. (2017) Explaining environmental health behaviors: evidence from rural India on the influence of discount rates. Environ Dev Econ 22: 229-248. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X17000018
    [188] Train K (1985) Discount rates in consumers' energy-related decisions: A review of the literature. Energy 10: 1243-1253. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(85)90135-5
    [189] Howarth RB, Sanstad AH (1995) Discount rates and energy efficiency. Contemp Econ Policy 13: 101-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1995.tb00726.x
    [190] Howarth RB (2004) Discount Rates and Energy Efficiency Gap, In: Cutler CJ (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, New York, Elsevier, 817-822.
    [191] Newell RG, Siikamäki J (2015) Individual time preferences and energy efficiency. Am Econ Rev 105: 196-200. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20151010
    [192] Edenhofer O, Pichs Madruga R, Sokona Y (Eds.) (2012) Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [193] Qiu Y, Tiwari A, Wang YD (2015) The diffusion of voluntary green building certification: a spatial approach. Energy Effic 8: 449-471. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9303-5
    [194] Qiu Y (Lucy), Su X, Wang YD (2017) Factors influencing commercial buildings to obtain green certificates. Appl Econ 49: 1937-1949.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. T.M. Tutchenko, T.F. Tatarchuk, L.О. Borysova, E.F. Chaikivska, Benefits and limitations of clinical assessment of abnormal vaginal discharge etiology, 2023, 2411-1295, 48, 10.18370/2309-4117.2023.68.48-56
    2. Sylwia M. Berus, Beata Młynarczyk-Bonikowska, Grażyna Przedpełska, Tomasz Szymborski, Agnieszka Kamińska, Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy analysis of menstrual cycle: From biochemical changes to diagnostics of vaginal infections, 2024, 409, 09254005, 135571, 10.1016/j.snb.2024.135571
    3. Nasser Mohamed Abd El-kareem, Ahmed Kamal Dyab, Nada Oudah Albalawi, Abdalla Abd El Samea, Mohamed Ahmed Ali Taha, Hajar AlQadeeb, Ahmed Gareh, Elham Adel Hiekal, Hind Alzaylaee, Ehab Kotb Elmahallawy, Microscopic and molecular detection of Trichomonas vaginalis in outpatients seeking medical care in Upper Egypt, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1499270
    4. Yan Yang, Yue Qu, Bin Yan, Changzheng Wang, Shun Liu, The prevalence trends of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among women in Jingzhou, central of China, 2019–2023, 2025, 25, 1471-2334, 10.1186/s12879-025-10815-8
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7124) PDF downloads(283) Cited by(13)

Figures and Tables

Figures(7)  /  Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog