Integrated performance optimization of higher education buildings using low-energy renovation process and user engagement

Building performance improvement through low-energy renovation traditionally involves building performance diagnostics of the existing building, technology evaluation, selection and implementation. Effective building performance diagnostics, post-retrofit assessment and user engagement are essential to deliver performance as well as achieving socio-economic and environmental benefits at every stage of the renovation project life cycle. User’s views are often ignored when renovating a building, causing sub-optimal energy performance, user comfort and wellbeing. This paper seeks to critically evaluate the low-energy renovation process and the role of user and stakeholder engagement in the strategic implementation of low-energy retrofit technologies for performance improvement of higher education buildings. The research focuses on renovation methodology, innovative materials/systems and end-user engagement throughout the renovation project phases (pre-renovation, the renovation process and post renovation). A mixed research method was adopted, which includes building performance modelling, monitoring and user evaluation questionnaires pre and post-renovation. The research is part of European Union (EU)-funded project, targeting 50% reduction in energy consumption using innovative materials and technologies in existing public buildings. The surveys allow comparative analysis of comfort levels and user satisfaction as an indicator of the efficacy of renovation measures. A new renovation process and user engagement framework was developed. The findings suggest that there is a direct relationship between retrofit intervention, improving energy performance of low-carbon buildings and the comfort of occupants. The technologies and strategies also appear to have different impacts on user satisfaction.

1. The Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings,
Official Journal of the European Union, L153. 2010. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF (accessed on 24 February 2021).
2. Baker, N. The Handbook of Sustainable Renovation: Non-Domestic Buildings; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009; pp. 3–4.
3. Gupta, R.; Gregg, M. Empirical evaluation of the energy and environmental performance of a sustainably designed but underutilised
institutional building in the UK. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 68–80. [CrossRef]
4. Johnston, D.; Farmer, D.; Brooke-Peat, M.; Miles-Shenton, D. Bridging the domestic building fabric performance gap. Build. Res.
Inf. 2016, 44, 147–159. [CrossRef]
5. Storey, J.B.; Pedersen Zari, M. Factor X-Wellbeing as A Key Component of Next Generation Green Buildings. In Proceedings of
the 12th Rinker International Conference Rethinking Sustainable Construction 2006, Sarasota, FL, USA, 19–22 September 2006.
6. 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. [CrossRef]
7. Yu, S.M.; Tu, Y. Are Green BuildingsWorth More Because They Cost More? In NUS Institute of Real Estate Studies Working Paper
(IRES2011-023); National University of Singapore: Singapore, 2011.
8. Altomonte, S.; Schiavon, S. Occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified. Build. Environ. 2013, 68, 66–76. [CrossRef]
9. Technology Strategy Board (TSB). Retrofit for The Future: Reducing Energy Consumption in Existing Homes—A Guide to Making
RetrofitWork. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/u...
data/file/669113/Retrofit_for_the_future_-_A_guide_to_making_retrofit_work_-_2014.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2019).
10. Carbon Trust, Further and higher education Training colleges and universities to be energy efficient. Sector Overview Report.
2014. Available online: https://se-ed.co.uk/edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Carbon-Trust-advi... (accessed on
21 April 2019).
11. Association of University Directors of Estate (AUDE). The Legacy of 19600s University Buildings. 2008. Available online:
https://www.sustainabilityexchange.ac.uk/legacy-of-1960s-buildings-a... (accessed on 1 July 2016).
12. Painting, N.J.; Piroozfar PA, E.; Farr, E.R.P. Refurbishment of higher education premises: Stakeholder engagement in the process
and product. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, Portsmouth, UK, 1–3 September 2014; pp. 955–964.
Available online: https://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2014-0955-0964_Painting_... (accessed on 28
October 2018).
13. Ma, Z.; Cooper, P.; Daly, D.; Ledo, L. Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art. Energy Build. 2012, 55, 889–902.
[CrossRef]
14. Piaia, E.; Turillazzi, B.; Longo, D.; Boeri, A.; di Giulio, R. Plug-and-Play and innovative process technologies (Mapping/
Modelling/Making/Monitoring) in deep renovation interventions. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2019, 18, 215–225.
[CrossRef]
15. Ucci, M.; Yu, C.W.F. Low-carbon buildings, health, and wellbeing: Current perspectives and critical challenges. Indoor Built
Environ. 2014, 23, 335–339. [CrossRef]
16. Kang, S.; Ou, D.; Mak, C.M. The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university open-plan research
offices. Build. Environ. 2017, 124, 78–89. [CrossRef]
17. Giddings, B.; Thomas, J.; Little, L. Evaluation of the Workplace Environment in the UK, and the Impact on Users’ Levels of
Stimulation. Indoor Built Environ. 2013, 22, 965–976. [CrossRef]
18. Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Post Occupancy Evaluation and Building Performance Evaluation Primer; RIBA: London,
UK, 2016; Available online: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/post-occupancy-ev...
ribapoebpeprimerpdf.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2019).
19. Meir, I.A.; Garb, Y.; Jiao, D.; Cicelsky, A. Post-occupancy evaluation: An inevitable step toward sustainability. Adv. Build. Energy
Res. 2009, 3, 189–219. [CrossRef]
20. Hay, R.; Samuel, F.; Watson, K.J.; Bradbury, S. Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: Experiences and perspectives from UK
practice. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 46, 698–710. [CrossRef]
21. Baird, G. Users’ perceptions of sustainable buildings e Key findings of recent studies. Renew. Energy 2015, 73, 77–83. [CrossRef]
22. Malkoc, E.; Ozkan, M.B. Post-occupancy Evaluation of a Built Environment: The Case of Konak Square (Izmir, Turkey). Indoor
Built. Environ. 2010, 19, 422–443. [CrossRef]
23. AlHorr, Y.; Arif, M.; Katafygiotou, M.; Mazroei, A.; Kaushik, A.K.; Elsarrag, E. Impact of indoor environmental quality on
occupant wellbeing and comfort: A review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 1–11. [CrossRef]
24. Earthman, G.I. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic Achievement. In UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education,
and Access. Williams Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of Williams v. State of California: Document wws-rr008-1002. 2002.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439 (accessed on 1 July 2019).
25. Boese, S.; Shaw, J. New York State School Facilities and Student Health, Achievement, and Attendance: A Data Analysis Report.
2005. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510053.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
26. Kim, T.W.; Cha, S.; Kim, Y. Space choice, rejection, and satisfaction in university campus. Indoor. Built. Environ. 2018, 27, 233–243.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 1475 21 of 21
27. Ascione, F.; Borrelli, M.; de Masi, R.F.; de’Rossi, F.; Vanoli, G.P. Energy refurbishment of a University building in cold Italian
backcountry. Part 2: Sensitivity studies and optimization. Energy Procedia 2019, 159, 10–15. [CrossRef]
28. Bellia, L.; Borrelli, M.; de Masi, R.F.; Ruggiero, S.; Vanoli, G.P. University building: Energy diagnosis and refurbishment design
with cost-optimal approach. Discussion about the effect of numerical modelling assumptions. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 18, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
29. Figueiredo, A.; Kämpf, J.; Vicente, R.; Oliveira, R.; Silva, T. Comparison between monitored and simulated data using evolutionary
algorithms: Reducing the performance gap in dynamic building simulation. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 96–106. [CrossRef]
30. Cho, H.M.; Yun, B.Y.; Yang, S.;Wi, S.; Chang, S.J.; Kim, S. Optimal energy retrofit plan for conservation and sustainable use of
historic campus building: Case of cultural property building. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115313. [CrossRef]
31. de Santoli, L.; Mancini, F.; Clemente, C.; Lucci, S. Energy and technological refurbishment of the School of Architecture Valle
Giulia, Rome. Energy Procedia 2017, 133, 382–391. [CrossRef]
32. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Mixed Method Procedure. In Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2018; pp. 213–246.
33. City Lab Coventry. Available online: www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglab/city-lab-coventry (accessed on 27 October 2017).
34. GOV.UK. Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Conversion Factors 2017. 2017. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017 (accessed on 7 September 2018).
35. Grupopuma. TRADITERM®EPS-G PANEL. 2018. Available online: https://www.grupopuma.com/en-WW/products/show/
traditerm-panel-eps-g-ww-en (accessed on 24 September 2019).
36. Sarawade, P.B.; Kim, J.; Hilonga, A.; Kim, H.T. Production of low-density sodium silicate-based hydrophobic silica aerogel beads
by a novel fast gelation process and ambient pressure drying process. Solid State Sci. 2010, 12, 911–918. [CrossRef]
37. Va-Q-Tec Limited, Vacuum Insulated Panel (VIP). Available online: https://va-q-tec.com/technologie/vakuumisolationspaneele/
(accessed on 1 May 2019).
38. Fthenakis, V.M.; Kim, H.C.; Frischknecht, R.; Raugei, M.; Sinha, P.; Stucki, M. IES Photovoltaic Power System Report Annual
Report: IEA-PVPS T12-02:2019. 2019. Available online: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IEA-PVPS-AR-20
19-1.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2020).
39. Ure, Z. Thermal Storage: PCM Products. Available online: http://www.pcmproducts.net/files/TES-2008.pdf (accessed on 3
February 2020).
40. Sbar, N.L.; Podbelski, L.; MoYang, H.; Pease, B. Electrochromic dynamic windows for office buildings. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
2012, 1, 125–139. [CrossRef]
41. Barbosa, S.; Ip, K. Perspectives of double skin façades for naturally ventilated buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014, 40, 1019–1029. [CrossRef]
42. Lenk, R.; Lenk, C. Practical Lighting Design with LEDs, 1st ed.; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2011.
43. TSM-PDG5. The Most Durable Module—Technical Brochure. Available online: https://www.enfsolar.com/Product/pdf/
Crystalline/51650b738832c.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2020).
44. Kingspan. Flat Roof Insulation|Thermaroof TR27 LPC/FM. 2020. Available online: https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/
products/insulation/insulation-boards/therma/thermaroof-tr27-lpc-fm (accessed on 24 July 2020).
45. BS EN 16798. Energy Performance of Buildings. Ventilation for Buildings. Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design
and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting, and
Acoustics. British Standard Organisation Module M1-6. 2019. Available online: https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/
?pid=000000000030297474 (accessed on 3 December 2019).
46. ISO 7730, Ergonomics of The Thermal Environment—Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using
Calculation of The PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria International Standard Organisation. 2005.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/39155.html (accessed on 24 February 2021).
47. Loonen, R.C.; Favoino, F.; Hensen, J.L.; Overend, M. Review of current status, requirements and opportunities for building
performance simulation of adaptive facades. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2017, 10, 205–223. [CrossRef]
48. IES-VE. Integrated Environmental Solution Virtual Environment Software®, Version 2018, Glasgow UK. 2018. Available online:
https://www.iesve.com/software (accessed on 24 February 2021).
49. Crawley, D.; Hand, J.; Kummert, M.; Griffith, B. Contrasting the Capabilities of Building Energy Performance Simulation
Programs. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 661–673. [CrossRef]