Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOregi Isasi, Xabat ORCID
dc.contributor.authorHernández Minguillón, Rufino Javier ORCID
dc.contributor.authorHernández, Patxi
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-20T10:16:47Z
dc.date.available2020-05-20T10:16:47Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-11
dc.identifier.citationSustainability 12(9) : (2020) // Article ID 3914es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/43294
dc.description.abstractAn increasing number of studies apply life-cycle assessment methodology to assess the impact of a new building or to prioritize between different building refurbishment strategies. Among the different hypotheses to consider during the application of this methodology, the selection of the impact indicator is critical, as this choice will completely change the interpretation of the results. This article proposes applying four indicators that allow analysing the results of a refurbishment project of a residential building with the life-cycle approach: non-renewable primary energy use reduction (NRPER), net energy ratio (NER), internal rate of return (IRR), and life-cycle payback (LC-PB). The combination of environmental and economic indicators when evaluating the results has allowed to prioritize among the different strategies defined for this case study. Furthermore, an extensive sensitivity assessment reflects the high uncertainty of some of the parameters and their high influence on the final results. To this end, new hypotheses related to the following parameters have been considered: reference service life of the building, estimated service life of material, operational energy use, conversion factor, energy price, and inflation rate. The results show that the NRPE use reduction value could vary up to −44%. The variation of the other indicators is also very relevant, reaching variation rates such as 100% in the NER, 450% in the IRR, and 300% in the LC-PB. Finally, the results allow to define the type of input or hypothesis that influences each indicator the most, which is relevant when calibrating the prioritization process for the refurbishment strategy.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors thank the Department of Architecture and the Vicerrectorate for Research of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU for the financial support given for this research.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
dc.subjectbuilding energy refurbishmentes_ES
dc.subjectenvironmental and economic life-cycle assessmentes_ES
dc.subjectimpact indicatorses_ES
dc.subjectsensitivity analysises_ES
dc.titleEnvironmental and Economic Prioritization of Building Energy Refurbishment Strategies with Life-Cycle Approaches_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.date.updated2020-05-14T13:56:45Z
dc.rights.holder2020 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/).es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3914/htmes_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su12093914
dc.departamentoesArquitectura
dc.departamentoeuArkitektura


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

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/).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as 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/).