Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners
Energy retrofit tools are considered by many countries as one of the strongest incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy renovation. These tools help homeowners to get an initial overview of suitable retrofit measures. Although a large number of energy retrofit tools have been developed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sustainability 2021-09, Vol.13 (18), p.10189 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 18 |
container_start_page | 10189 |
container_title | Sustainability |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Seddiki, Mohammed Bennadji, Amar Laing, Richard Gray, David Alabid, Jamal M. |
description | Energy retrofit tools are considered by many countries as one of the strongest incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy renovation. These tools help homeowners to get an initial overview of suitable retrofit measures. Although a large number of energy retrofit tools have been developed to inspire and educate homeowners, energy renovation by individual homeowners is still lagging and the impact of current tools is insufficient as awareness and information issues remain one of main obstacles that hinder the uptake of energy retrofitting schemes. This research extends the current knowledge by analysing the characteristics of 19 tools from 10 different countries. The selected tools were analysed in terms of energy calculation methods, features, generation and range of retrofit measures, evaluation criteria, and indications on financial support. The review indicates that: (1) most toolkits use empirical data-driven methods, pre-simulated databases, and normative calculation methods; (2) few tools generate long-term integrated renovation packages; (3) technological, social, and aesthetic aspects are rarely taken into consideration; (4) the generation of funding options varies between the existing tools; (5) most toolkits do not suggest specific retrofit solutions adapted to traditional buildings; and (6) preferences of homeowners in terms of evaluation criteria are often neglected. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/su131810189 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2576502229</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2576502229</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-41f1935242a0541ad92c0b32e9180f529d93b236afb49dfa9e8565bd6a6c36a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkMFKAzEQhoMoWGpPvkDAo6xmJpt0c1PqaoWCUOo5ZHeTktJuarJr7du7Ug-dyz_8fMzAR8gtsAfOFXtMPXAogEGhLsgI2RQyYIJdnu3XZJLShg3DOSiQI_K0tN_eHmhwtPzxqfPtmpatjesjXdouBuc7-mJrn3xo6SqEbaIuRDoPOxsOA5duyJUz22Qn_zkmn6_lajbPFh9v77PnRVajKrosBweKC8zRMJGDaRTWrOJoFRTMCVSN4hVyaVyVq8YZZQshRdVII-uhFXxM7k539zF89TZ1ehP62A4vNYqpFAwR1UDdn6g6hpSidXof_c7Eowam_yzpM0v8Fy9lWFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2576502229</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><creator>Seddiki, Mohammed ; Bennadji, Amar ; Laing, Richard ; Gray, David ; Alabid, Jamal M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Seddiki, Mohammed ; Bennadji, Amar ; Laing, Richard ; Gray, David ; Alabid, Jamal M.</creatorcontrib><description>Energy retrofit tools are considered by many countries as one of the strongest incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy renovation. These tools help homeowners to get an initial overview of suitable retrofit measures. Although a large number of energy retrofit tools have been developed to inspire and educate homeowners, energy renovation by individual homeowners is still lagging and the impact of current tools is insufficient as awareness and information issues remain one of main obstacles that hinder the uptake of energy retrofitting schemes. This research extends the current knowledge by analysing the characteristics of 19 tools from 10 different countries. The selected tools were analysed in terms of energy calculation methods, features, generation and range of retrofit measures, evaluation criteria, and indications on financial support. The review indicates that: (1) most toolkits use empirical data-driven methods, pre-simulated databases, and normative calculation methods; (2) few tools generate long-term integrated renovation packages; (3) technological, social, and aesthetic aspects are rarely taken into consideration; (4) the generation of funding options varies between the existing tools; (5) most toolkits do not suggest specific retrofit solutions adapted to traditional buildings; and (6) preferences of homeowners in terms of evaluation criteria are often neglected.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2071-1050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/su131810189</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Aesthetics ; Architects ; Cost control ; Criteria ; Energy ; Energy consumption ; Energy efficiency ; Evaluation ; Green buildings ; Retrofitting ; Simulation ; Sustainability ; Toolkits</subject><ispartof>Sustainability, 2021-09, Vol.13 (18), p.10189</ispartof><rights>2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-41f1935242a0541ad92c0b32e9180f529d93b236afb49dfa9e8565bd6a6c36a53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-41f1935242a0541ad92c0b32e9180f529d93b236afb49dfa9e8565bd6a6c36a53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1661-9580 ; 0000-0001-7051-3598</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seddiki, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennadji, Amar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laing, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alabid, Jamal M.</creatorcontrib><title>Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners</title><title>Sustainability</title><description>Energy retrofit tools are considered by many countries as one of the strongest incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy renovation. These tools help homeowners to get an initial overview of suitable retrofit measures. Although a large number of energy retrofit tools have been developed to inspire and educate homeowners, energy renovation by individual homeowners is still lagging and the impact of current tools is insufficient as awareness and information issues remain one of main obstacles that hinder the uptake of energy retrofitting schemes. This research extends the current knowledge by analysing the characteristics of 19 tools from 10 different countries. The selected tools were analysed in terms of energy calculation methods, features, generation and range of retrofit measures, evaluation criteria, and indications on financial support. The review indicates that: (1) most toolkits use empirical data-driven methods, pre-simulated databases, and normative calculation methods; (2) few tools generate long-term integrated renovation packages; (3) technological, social, and aesthetic aspects are rarely taken into consideration; (4) the generation of funding options varies between the existing tools; (5) most toolkits do not suggest specific retrofit solutions adapted to traditional buildings; and (6) preferences of homeowners in terms of evaluation criteria are often neglected.</description><subject>Aesthetics</subject><subject>Architects</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy consumption</subject><subject>Energy efficiency</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Green buildings</subject><subject>Retrofitting</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Toolkits</subject><issn>2071-1050</issn><issn>2071-1050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkMFKAzEQhoMoWGpPvkDAo6xmJpt0c1PqaoWCUOo5ZHeTktJuarJr7du7Ug-dyz_8fMzAR8gtsAfOFXtMPXAogEGhLsgI2RQyYIJdnu3XZJLShg3DOSiQI_K0tN_eHmhwtPzxqfPtmpatjesjXdouBuc7-mJrn3xo6SqEbaIuRDoPOxsOA5duyJUz22Qn_zkmn6_lajbPFh9v77PnRVajKrosBweKC8zRMJGDaRTWrOJoFRTMCVSN4hVyaVyVq8YZZQshRdVII-uhFXxM7k539zF89TZ1ehP62A4vNYqpFAwR1UDdn6g6hpSidXof_c7Eowam_yzpM0v8Fy9lWFg</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Seddiki, Mohammed</creator><creator>Bennadji, Amar</creator><creator>Laing, Richard</creator><creator>Gray, David</creator><creator>Alabid, Jamal M.</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1661-9580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7051-3598</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners</title><author>Seddiki, Mohammed ; Bennadji, Amar ; Laing, Richard ; Gray, David ; Alabid, Jamal M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-41f1935242a0541ad92c0b32e9180f529d93b236afb49dfa9e8565bd6a6c36a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aesthetics</topic><topic>Architects</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy consumption</topic><topic>Energy efficiency</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Green buildings</topic><topic>Retrofitting</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Toolkits</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seddiki, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennadji, Amar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laing, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gray, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alabid, Jamal M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seddiki, Mohammed</au><au>Bennadji, Amar</au><au>Laing, Richard</au><au>Gray, David</au><au>Alabid, Jamal M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners</atitle><jtitle>Sustainability</jtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>18</issue><spage>10189</spage><pages>10189-</pages><issn>2071-1050</issn><eissn>2071-1050</eissn><abstract>Energy retrofit tools are considered by many countries as one of the strongest incentives to encourage homeowners to invest in energy renovation. These tools help homeowners to get an initial overview of suitable retrofit measures. Although a large number of energy retrofit tools have been developed to inspire and educate homeowners, energy renovation by individual homeowners is still lagging and the impact of current tools is insufficient as awareness and information issues remain one of main obstacles that hinder the uptake of energy retrofitting schemes. This research extends the current knowledge by analysing the characteristics of 19 tools from 10 different countries. The selected tools were analysed in terms of energy calculation methods, features, generation and range of retrofit measures, evaluation criteria, and indications on financial support. The review indicates that: (1) most toolkits use empirical data-driven methods, pre-simulated databases, and normative calculation methods; (2) few tools generate long-term integrated renovation packages; (3) technological, social, and aesthetic aspects are rarely taken into consideration; (4) the generation of funding options varies between the existing tools; (5) most toolkits do not suggest specific retrofit solutions adapted to traditional buildings; and (6) preferences of homeowners in terms of evaluation criteria are often neglected.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/su131810189</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1661-9580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7051-3598</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2071-1050 |
ispartof | Sustainability, 2021-09, Vol.13 (18), p.10189 |
issn | 2071-1050 2071-1050 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2576502229 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
subjects | Aesthetics Architects Cost control Criteria Energy Energy consumption Energy efficiency Evaluation Green buildings Retrofitting Simulation Sustainability Toolkits |
title | Review of Existing Energy Retrofit Decision Tools for Homeowners |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T18%3A50%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Review%20of%20Existing%20Energy%20Retrofit%20Decision%20Tools%20for%20Homeowners&rft.jtitle=Sustainability&rft.au=Seddiki,%20Mohammed&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=10189&rft.pages=10189-&rft.issn=2071-1050&rft.eissn=2071-1050&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/su131810189&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2576502229%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2576502229&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |