A Methodological Framework for Sustainable Office Building Renovation Using Green Building Rating Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis
2. Sustainable Renovation of Buildings
2.1. Levels of Building Renovation
2.2. Legislative Basis and Other Documents for Sustainable Construction Projects in the European Union
2.3. Strategic Documents and Legislation for Sustainable Construction Projects in Slovenia
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Common Characteristics of the Green Building Rating Systems for Renovation
3.2. Methodological Framework for the Sustainable Assessment of the Renovation of Office Buildings
3.3. Characteristics of LEED, BREEAM, and DGNB for the Renovation of Existing Buildings
3.4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
3.5. Description of the Current Condition of the Office Building in the Case Study
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Implementation of Methodological Framework Using BREEAM
4.1.1. Evaluation for Sustainability
4.1.2. CBA Economic Evaluation
- Initial investment costs: These were taken from the energy audit data  recalculated to the present time  where the Baseline Scenario costs for (i) the preparation of the schematic design documentation, (ii) the construction and finishing works (including the costs for material, labor, equipment), and (iii) the implementation of organizational, so-called non-technical measures, all without VAT. The investments for the Baseline Scenario (Pass) amounted to 1.86 M€ or 289.26 €/(m2 ANHF) and for Scenario 1 (Good) to 2.00 M€ or 310.95 €/(m2 ANHF). Figure 5 shows the initial investment costs (in €/m2) for the ANHF for both scenarios.
- Energy savings: These were calculated as energy savings  and evaluated as operating costs, assuming a unit cost of natural gas of 0.064 €/(kW h) and electricity of 0.116 €/(kW h) including taxes and charges . The total annual savings amounted to 62,796.52 € or 9.75 €/(m2 a) (ANHF). The inflation rate for energy prices is generally calculated at 4%/a. Additional savings potential such as savings from the reduction of HVAC equipment and other potential savings that contribute to avoided operating costs were not taken into account.
- The maintenance costs: These were considered as replacements for existing and worn out equipment and structures. Their calculation is based on the national rules on standards for the maintenance of apartment buildings and apartments . The rules provide empirical data on maintenance costs for most building elements and HVAC systems, which represent a proportion (in %) of the investment costs of a newly constructed element or system. In our case study, an average depreciation over the lifetime of the building was considered, namely 0.33% for the building envelop and 1.33% for HVAC systems. Equipment maintenance costs include the replacement costs for active technical systems according to their life expectancy : radiator valves and pumps 10 a (years), ventilation, and recovery system 20 a (years). The replacement costs are thus 41,205 € in 2030 and 57,399 € in 2040.
- Residual value: This is the value of an asset at the end of its service life and indicates the value that the owner can expect to obtain if the asset is dispositioned. In our case study, the amount of residual value was calculated by taking into account the carrying amount of the asset. The residual value for the technical system components (with lifetime of 10 and 20 year) at the end of the lifetime period was 24,651€ and represents the difference between the investment value for the new installation of the new components and their value after five years (the study period of the building is then completed). While the lifetime for envelop components is more than 25 a (years) and the residual values for these measures are taken into account as the difference between the initial investment value and the value of the component at the end of the lifetime period, they amount to 777,442 €.
- Multiple project benefits (MPB): These were included in both scenarios as: (i) higher building value: various studies have shown that a certified green building has a positive impact on the building value after non-certified buildings of 4% to 21%  or 100–260 €/m2 . In our case study, the value of 150 €/m2 was summarized and divided by the years of lifetime; and (ii) avoidance of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions: increased energy production leads to a reduction in GHG emissions, so a reduction in CO2 per ton is considered annually. In the benefit calculations, the factors for specific CO2 emissions are summarized by Technical Guidelines  (0.53 kg/(kW h) for electricity and 0.20 kg/(kW h) for energy from natural gas), and the monetary value of the CO2 savings by study  was 10 €/t a.
Conflicts of Interest
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1. 2015. Available online: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2020).
- Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the Energy Performance of Buildings. Available online: https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0091 (accessed on 15 May 2019).
- Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings. Available online: https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1534941584761&uri=CELEX:32010L0031 (accessed on 15 May 2019).
- World Green Building Council. World’s Largest Collaborative Retrofit Project Launches to Cut Emissions from Buildings. 2016. Available online: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/world%E2%80%99s-largest-collaborative-retrofit-project-launches-cut-emissions-buildings (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- The European Portal for Energy Efficiency In Buildings. Practical Approaches to the Building Renovation Challenge. 2016. Available online: http://www.buildup.eu/en/practices/publications/practical-approaches-building-renovation-challenge-0 (accessed on 18 June 2019).
- European Commission. EASME—Executive Agency for SMEs. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en (accessed on 17 June 2019).
- European Commission. Practical Approaches to the Building Renovation Challenge. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/practical_approaches _to_the_buildings_renov_challenge.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2019).
- European Commission. Horizon 2020, Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/secure-clean-and-efficient-energy (accessed on 23 June 2019).
- Ministry of Infrastructure; Ministry of Public Administration. Long-Term Strategy for Mobilising Investments in the Energy Renovation of Buildings (DSEP). Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2015. Available online: http://www.energetika-portal.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/publikacije/dseps/dseps_final_okt2015.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019). (In Slovene).
- U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/leed (accessed on 24 June 2019).
- Building Research Establishment Ltd., BREEAM. Available online: http://www.breeam.com/ (accessed on 24 June 2019).
- German Sustainable Building Council, DGNB. Available online: https://www.dgnb.de/en/index.php (accessed on 24 June 2019).
- Bernardi, E.; Carlucci, S.; Cornaro, C.; Bohne, R.A. An analysis of the most adopted rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kaur, H.; Garg, P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. J. Clean. Product. 2019, 210, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BREEAM. Explore BREEAM. Available online: https://tools.breeam.com/projects/explore/index.jsp (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- Statista. Cumulative Number of LEED Registrations in the U.S. from 2000 to 2019. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/323383/leed-registered-projects-in-the-united-states/ (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- European Commission. Building Sustainability Performance—Level(s). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/buildings.htm (accessed on 23 June 2019).
- Yuanyuan Li, Y.; Chenb, X.; Wangb, X.; Xub, Y.; Chen, P. A review of studies on green building assessment methods by comparative analysis. Energy Build. 2017, 146, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doan, D.T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Zhang, T.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build. Environ. 2017, 123, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, J.R.; Valdebenito, M.J. The importation of building environmental certification systems: International usages of BREEAM and LEED. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 41, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeinal, H.A.; Huber, F. A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate system in urban sustainability. WIT Transact. Ecol. Environ. Sustain. City VII 2012, 155, 121–132. Available online: http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/155/23107 (accessed on 15 May 2019). [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schwartz, Y.; Raslan, R. Variations in results of building energy simulation tools, and their impact on BREEAM and LEED ratings: A case study. Energy Build. 2013, 62, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Qahtany, A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. A proposed model for sustainable urban planning development for environmentally friendly communities. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2013, 9, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carli, R.; Dotoli, M.; Pellegrino, R.; Ranieri, L. A Decision Making Technique to Optimize a Buildings’ Stock Energy Efficiency. IEEE Transact. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2017, 47, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Raslanas, S. Multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis of building refurbishments. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.J.; Cooper, P.; Daly, D.; Ledo, L. Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art. Energy Build. 2012, 55, 889–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juan, Y.; Gao, P.; Wang, J. A hybrid decision support system for sustainable office building renovation and energy performance improvement. Energy Build. 2010, 3, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey, E. Office building retrofitting strategies: Multicriteria approach of an architectural and technical issue. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roulet, C.A.; Flourentzou, F.; Labben, H.H.; Santamouris, M.; Koronaki, I.; Dascalaki, E.; Richalet, V. ORME: A multicriteria rating methodology for buildings. Build. Environ. 2002, 37, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chidiac, S.E.; Catania, E.J.C.; Morofsky, E.; Foo, S. A screening methodology for implementing cost effective energy retrofit measures in Canadian office buildings. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 614–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malatji, E.M.; Zhang, J.; Xia, X. A multiple objective optimisation model for building energy efficiency investment decision. Energy Build. 2013, 61, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Menassa, C.C. Evaluating sustainable retrofits in existing buildings under uncertainty. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 3576–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauro, G.M.; Hamdy, M.; Vanoli, G.P.; Bianco, N.; Hensen, J.L. A new methodology for investigating the cost-optimality of energy retrofitting a building category. Energy Build. 2015, 107, 456–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, N.W.; Malmqvist, T.; Bai, W.; Molinari, M. Sustainability assessment of renovation packages for increased energy efficiency for multi-family buildings in Sweden. Build. Environ. 2013, 61, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, D.; Shonnaard, D. Sustainable Engineering Concept, Design and Case Studies; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Flourentzou, F.; Genre, J.L.; Roulet, C.A. TOBUS software—An interactive decision aid tool for building retrofit studies. Energy Build. 2002, 34, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Yoon, J.; Kim, K. Critical review of the material criteria of building sustainability assessment tools. Sustainability 2017, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bleyl, J.W.; Bareit, M.; Casas, A.M.; Chatterjee, S.; Coolen, J.; Hulshoff, A.; Lohse, R.; Mitchell, S.; Robertson, M.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D. Office building deep energy retrofit: Life cycle cost benefit analyses using cash flow analysis and multiple benefits on project level. Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lohse, R.; Staller, H.; Riel, M. The Economic Challenges of Deep Energy Renovation—Differences, Similarities, and Possible Solutions in Central Europe: Austria and Germany. Transactions 2016, 122, 69–87. [Google Scholar]
- Shah, S. Sustainable Refurbishment; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Yudelson, J. Greening Existing Buildings; The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Comprehensive Study of Building Energy Renovation Activities and the Uptake of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings in the EU, Final Report. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/1.final_report.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2019).
- Šuman, N.; Žigart, M.; Premrov, M.; Žegarac Leskovar, V. Approach to refurbishment of timber preschool buildings with a view on energy and economic efficiency. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive 2009/28/ES of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028 (accessed on 15 May 2019).
- Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS). Sustainability and Performance Assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings—SuPerBuildings. Available online: https://cordis.europa. eu/project/rcn/93577/factsheet/en (accessed on 18 May 2019).
- Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS). Open House. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93875/factsheet/en (accessed on 18 June 2019).
- BUILD UPON. Available online: http://buildupon.eu/ (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- Ministry of Infrastructure. Annual Energy Balance of the Republic of Slovenia for 2019. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2019. Available online: https://www.energetika-portal.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/publikacije/energetska bilanca/ebrs_2019.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2019). (In Slovene).
- Energy Act. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 60/19 and 65/20. Available online: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6665 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Ministry of Infrastructure. Energy Concept of Slovenia (in Preparation). Available online: https://www.energetika-portal.si//dokumenti/strateski-razvojni-dokumenti/energetski-koncept-slovenije/ (accessed on 15 October 2019). (In Slovene).
- Ministry of Infrastructure. Action Plan for Energy Efficiency by 2020. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2017. Available online: https://www.energetika -portal.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/publikacije/an_ure/an_ure_2017-2020_final.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2019). (In Slovene).
- Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia. Rules on Efficient Use of Energy in Buildings with a Technical Guideline. Off. Gaz. Repub. Slovenia No. 51/10, 61/17. Available online: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV10043 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. Technical Guidelines TSG-1-004:2010 Efficient Use of Energy. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2010. Available online: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop. gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/graditev_objektov/TSG_01_004_2010_ure.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2019). (In Slovene)
- Bre Global Ltd. BREEAM International Non-Domestic Refurbishment 2015, Non-domestic buildings, Technical Manual SD225 1.4. UK. 2017. Available online: https://www.breeam.com/international RFO2015/#resources/output/rfrb_pdf_screen/sd225_rfo_int_2015_scr.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- HQE. Discover and join HQE™. Available online: https://www.behqe.com/# (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- USGBC. LEED v4.1 Operation and Maintenance. Getting Started Guide for Beta Participants. 2019. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/existing-buildings (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- CASBEE. Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency. Available online: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- NZGBC Green Star. Available online: https://www.nzgbc.org.nz/GreenStar (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- DGNB. The DGNB System for Existing Buildings and Renovation. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/buildings/renovation-and-existing-buildings/ (accessed on 4 July 2020).
- Gowri, K. Green building rating systems: An overview. ASHRAE J. 2004, 46, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
- Risholt, B.; Time, B.; Hestnes, A.G. Sustainability assessment of nearly zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy Build. 2013, 60, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Marinič, M. Defining the Parameters of Sustainable Refurbishment of Existing Office Buildings. Master’s Thesis, University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, Maribor, Slovenia, 2016. (In Slovene). [Google Scholar]
- Chamber of Construction and Building Materials Industry of Slovenia. Indeksi za Obračun Razlike v Ceni Gradbenih Storitev; Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, December 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia. Rules on Standards for the Maintenance of Apartment Buildings and Apartments. Off. Gaz. Repub. Slovenia No. 20/04, 18/11. Available online: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV5263 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. The Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia. Portal Prostor. 2019. Available online: http://www.e-prostor.gov.si/ (accessed on 15 August 2019).
|Scheme||Operations and Maintenance||Refurbishment and Fit-out||Existing Buildings and Renovation|
|Assessment system||New construction and major renovation|
Non-standard building types
Educational buildings Residential buildings Consumer market buildings
Shopping center buildings
|Rating and certificate level||Platinum ≥ 80 points|
Gold 60–79 points
Silver 50–59 points
Certified 40–49 points
|Outstanding ≥ 85%|
Excellent ≥ 70%
Very good ≥ 55%
Good ≥ 45%
Pass ≥ 30%
Unclassified < 30%
|Platinum ≥ 80%|
Gold ≥ 65%
Silver ≥ 50%
Bronze ≥ 35%
|Operations and Maintenance||cr.|
|EA—Energy and Atmosphere||35|
|EQ—Indoor Environmental Quality||22|
|LT—Location and Transportation||14|
|MR—Materials and Resources||9|
|Total possible credits||100|
|Refurbishment and Fit-out||cr.|
|Hea—Health and wellbeing||22|
|Leo—Land use and ecology||4|
|Total possible credits||152|
|Existing Buildings and Renovation||cr.|
|Total possible credits||54|
|Refurbishment and Fit-Out|
|Offices/Commercial Buildings||Credits Achieved||Credits Available||R of Credits Achieved, %||Category Weights||Category Score|
|Man 01 Project brief and design||4||4|
|Man 02 Life cycle cost and service life planning||4||4|
|Man 03 Responsible construction practices||4||6|
|Hea—Health and wellbeing||8||22||36.36||0.15||5.45|
|Hea 01 Visual comfort||5||7|
|Hea 02 Indoor air quality||3||5|
|Ene 01 Reduction of energy use and carbon emiss.||8||12|
|Ene 02 Energy monitoring||2||2|
|Tra 01 Sustainable transport solutions||3||8|
|Wat 01 Water consumption||5||5|
|Wat 02 Water monitoring||1||1|
|Mat 03 Responsible sourcing of materials||3||4|
|Wst 01 Project waste management||5||6|
|LEO—Land use and ecology||0||4||0||0.10||0.00|
|Pol 03—Flood risk management and reducing surface water run-off||2||5|
|Pol 05—Reduction of noise pollution||1||1|
|Total (Baseline Scenario):||56||152||1.00||37.83|
|Lifetime period, t||Years||25|
|Discount rate of investment, i||%||4|
|Increment of the cost of energy||%||4|
|Maintenance costs for envelop measures||%/a||0.33|
|Maintenance costs for technical systems||%/a||1.33|
|Energy price, natural gas||€/(kW h)||0.064|
|Energy price, electricity||€/(kW h)||0.116|
|Baseline Scenario||Scenario 1|
|Maintenance costs [€]||6622||6622|
|Energy cost savings [€]||62,797||62,797|
|NPV0,f—25 years [€]||−205,264.52||−344,975.72|
|NPV0,f—25 years [€/m2]||−31.87||−53.57|
|MPB—at end of lifetime period||966,000||966,000|
|NPV0,e—25 years [€/m2]||31.64||9.94|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Šuman, N.; Marinič, M.; Kuhta, M. A Methodological Framework for Sustainable Office Building Renovation Using Green Building Rating Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156156
Šuman N, Marinič M, Kuhta M. A Methodological Framework for Sustainable Office Building Renovation Using Green Building Rating Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156156Chicago/Turabian Style
Šuman, Nataša, Mojca Marinič, and Milan Kuhta. 2020. "A Methodological Framework for Sustainable Office Building Renovation Using Green Building Rating Systems and Cost-Benefit Analysis" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156156