Thesis (M.A.)--Zhong guo wen hua xue yuan. / Reproduced from typescript. Bibliography: p. 99-107.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Tennessee.

Thesis (M.A.)--Rowan University, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed. D.) -- University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2006. / Title from title page screen (viewed on June 6, 2006). Thesis advisor: P. Mark Taylor. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.) -- Central Connecticut State University, 2006. / Thesis advisor: Philip Halloran. "... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Middle School Mathematics." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 19-20). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (D.A.)--Illinois State University, 1994. / Title from title page screen, viewed March 31, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Robert G. Hathway (chair), Lynn H. Brown, John A. Dossey, Arnold J. Insel, Patricia H. Klass. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 33-34) and abstract. Also available in print.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Yes / The construction industry has high energy demand and emissions, and its devasting impact negatively contributes to climate emergency and climate change. A review of government, professional and scientific literature has recommended multiple strategies, including renewable energy adoptions, alternative non-carbon energy sources, circular economy, net zero carbon policies and calculators. The use of carbon calculators as a tool to estimate carbon emissions has become instrumental in guiding construction professionals in selecting appropriate ‘low carbon’ materials for projects. However, the influx of carbon calculators is very important but creates problems for professionals regarding their effectiveness. Therefore, this study compares two popular carbon calculators (One Click LCA Planetary and IStructE) on a building design to ascertain their efficacy. The criteria for the comparison included formats of calculators, commercialisation of calculators, customisation of data, sustainability certifications, data sources, data entry parameters and results/outputs. The findings show a ‘mixed’ outcome regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the calculators. These criteria are key for becoming the basis of selecting an appropriate carbon calculator for analysis. The discussion shows that data for the carbon calculators from countries considered upper-middle-income and/or below are lacking; carbon calculators should be easier to use; the interoperability of carbon calculators with other digital tools is key for not just making the use of the tools attractive but makes it easier to reduce non-value activities in the construction project.