energies

Article
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Energy Management
in Public Buildings: Four Italian Case Studies
Davide Astiaso Garcia 1, *,† , Fabrizio Cumo 2,† , Mariagrazia Tiberi 1,† , Valentina Sforzini 1,†
and Giuseppe Piras 1,†
1 DIAEE—Department of Astronautic, Electric and Energetic Engineering, Sapienza University,
Corso Vittorio Emanuele II 244, 00186 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.T.);
[email protected] (V.S.); [email protected] (G.P.)
2 CITERA—Interdisciplinary Centre for Housing, Heritage and Environment, Sapienza University,
Via Gramsci 53, 00197 Rome, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-349-2303-498
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Academic Editor: Mashrur (Ronnie) Chowdhury

Received: 27 January 2016; Accepted: 4 July 2016; Published: 8 July 2016

Abstract: Improving energy efficiency in public buildings is one of the main challenges for
a sustainable requalification of energy issues and a consequent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. This paper aims to provide preliminary information about economic costs and energy
consumption reductions (benefits) of some considered interventions in existing public buildings.
Methods include an analysis of some feasible interventions in four selected public buildings.
Energy efficiency improvements have been assessed for each feasible intervention. The difference
of the building global energy performance index (EPgl ) has been assessed before and after each
intervention. Economic costs of each intervention have been estimated by averaging the amount
demanded by different companies for the same intervention. Results obtained show economic
costs and the EPgl percentage improvement for each intervention, highlighting and allowing for the
comparison of energy consumption reduction and relative economic costs. The research results
come from data gathered from four public buildings, and as such they could not be used to
generically identify cost-beneficial energy efficiency interventions for every context or building
type. However, the data reveals useful cost based considerations for selecting energy efficiency
interventions in other public buildings.

Keywords: cost-benefit analysis; energy efficiency; public buildings; trigeneration plant; thermostatic
valves; geothermal plant; building envelope; retrofitting; energy demand savings

1. Introduction
Energy efficiency assessment is an evaluation process to promote the improvement of building
energy performance starting from the information gathered during specific surveys or provided
by owners and users about energy consumption required to maintain a specified indoor climate in
terms of temperature and relative humidity [1]. Improving energy efficiency is considered one of the
main strategies nationally and internationally for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with
acceptable economic costs [1]. Energy consumption in the building sector and the subsequent impacts
mainly in terms of GHG and other pollutant emissions on the atmosphere are widely discussed [2].
Moreover, the need to provide simple and clear methods to people and business operators about
strategies and methods for improving energy efficiency is pointed out in many studies [1]. In order
to decrease building energy consumption, almost all governments have released for their countries
specific regulations aimed at improving building energy efficiency. In Europe, many national rules

Energies 2016, 9, 522; doi:10.3390/en9070522 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 522 2 of 17

come from the European Union (EU) Directive about 2020 targets, the so-called climate package,
for reducing GHG emissions, that include the 20% of renewable energy sources (RES) in energy
consumption and the 20% increase in energy efficiency (Directive 2009/29/EC) [2]; moreover energy
efficiency is one of the main pillars of smart cities [3,4]. At the local level, an important role is played
by single municipalities that in Italy deal with the implementation of the Building Energy Regulation
Codes (BERC) [2]. These codes help to reduce the environmental impacts of new or refurbished
buildings; their use directly affects the work of all the actors involved in this sector (mainly engineers,
architects, local planners and building companies) [5]. In particular, measures and data for assessing
building energy efficiency should be determined by using environmental measurements and building
simulation tools [6]. The evaluation of a building global energy performance index (EPgl expressed
in kWh/m2 ¨ year) is the first step to identify more effective strategies, interventions and criteria to
improve its energy performance [7]. EPgl is displayed in the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)
considering the rules contained in the norms UNI TS 11300 and it is the sum of the EPH , energy
performance index in the heating seasons, and EPW Energy performance index for domestic hot water
production [8]. Indeed, EPC in Italy integrate the energy consumption assessment [9] with information
about the environmental impact derived both from the buildings themselves and the type of materials
contained in the buildings. This approach foresees the use of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method
for assessing the environmental impact of materials and plants over their life cycles [10].
Considering energy efficiency economic costs, as stated by the European Parliament in 2010, with
the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), assessing economic costs of interventions
is essential for the choice of optimal solutions to decrease building energy consumption [11].
Cost-benefit analysis is used in many fields as a methodology for comparing economic sustainability
of possible strategies and interventions that could be adopted, in order to highlight the best feasible
alternative [12]. Additionally, cost-benefit analysis is not to be confused with the life cycle cost (LCC),
identified as the sum of the total costs of design, construction, installation, operation, management and
disposal; conversely cost-benefit analysis is typically used as a decision making tool for the comparison
of different solutions for improving energy performance based on cost of investment [13].
Based on the above considerations, this paper investigates the cost-benefit analysis of energy
efficiency retrofitting interventions on public buildings, highlighting more effective interventions
according to building characteristics and features, by the estimation and comparison of the economic
cost and the energy efficiency improvement for each considered retrofitting intervention.
Energy-demand retrofitting is considered as an effective way to accelerate the low-energy
transformation of building stock in accordance with adopted EU Directives. Indeed, existing Buildings
cover about 75%–85% of the building stock today and in the next fifty years [14].
In accordance with Wang and Holmberg [15], very little methodology is currently being implemented
out to efficiently select and evaluate the retrofitting techniques. In any case, Paiho et al. [16] designed
for Russian residential buildings some cost analysis-based retrofitting strategies to implement building
installation system renovations, while Sahin et al. [17] showed how the energy retrofits in historical
buildings should be managed in a transdisciplinary approach.
Within the energy efficiency retrofitting of existing buildings Camprubí et al. [18] highlighted
three main types of interventions: passive structures (insulating the passive components of
the building), active elements (upgrading heating systems) and management/information skills
(to improve energy habits of residents).
Different typologies of interventions for improving energy efficiency in new and existing
buildings have been considered by the authors in different previous studies, which considered
both renewable energy systems [19–21] and the planning of strategies for the minimization of
energy consumption [22–25]. Cost-benefit analysis allows public administrations to highlight which
retrofitting intervention could be most financially feasible for each considered public building, subject
to available budgets.
Energies 2016, 9, 522 3 of 17

2. Materials and Methods

In order to analyze cost and benefits of all the main intervention typologies, four public buildings
have been selected as case studies. The four building typologies include different territorial contexts
and ages of construction. The considered territorial contexts take account of suburban areas, urban
zones and old towns while the building age of construction varies from 16th century to the present
day. The application of the methods in these different contexts allows for the consideration of most
Italian building stock circumstances.
Many feasible interventions have been considered for each building, analyzing their economic
costs and benefits in terms of energy efficiency improvement, and trying to obtain general indications
that could be useful for comparing different interventions on other buildings that need an energy
requalification. Indeed, for buildings under landscaping or historical constraints not all the energy
efficiency interventions or thermal systems could be installed [26].
All four of the analyzed buildings have been selected from the same geographical area within the
same climate zone in order to remove EPgl variability caused by climate parameters [27]. The buildings
analyzed are Villa Sciarra, a historic 16th century building located in a suburban area and subjected
to external constraints by the local Superintendence; the Italian Ministry of Economic Development
(MiSE), a historic 20th century building located in the centre of an urban area; the Italian Space Agency
(ASI), a modern building of recent construction; and the Ex Banco Napoli Building, a historic 17th
century building located in the historic centre of an urban area and then subjected to local constraints
(Figure 1). Villa Sciarra is one of the historic villas of Rome realized in 1549 and it is the Italian
site of the Germanic Studies Institute. It is located on the slopes of the Janiculum hill between the
neighborhoods of Trastevere and Monteverde. The building is currently dedicated to archives, offices
and libraries. The second building, MiSE, is an administrative apparatus of the Italian government
dealing with production activities, international trade, communication and energy. The building
was created between 1928 and 1932, and is under architectural constraints. The ASI building was
recently built (2012), its envelope is mainly composed of glass and includes some water pools under
the building, which provide both an aesthetic and functional role. The Ex Banco Napoli building is
the administrative offices from the Chamber of Deputies and was realized in 1600; it is located on
the historic center of Rome and subjected to planning and architectural restrictions. Local constraints
and territorial contexts of each building were analyzed using geographic information system (GIS)
software that allows one to superimpose satellite images with different information layers [28–31].
The literature also shows that the comparison between buildings is a useful method to improve their
level of energy efficiency, highlighting energy consumptions and possible interventions in different
context [13].
For each pilot building feasible interventions for improving energy efficiency have been
considered. The selected interventions include scenarios that are applicable to the urban context in
which the buildings are located and which can be integrated with the existing building. Then, energy
efficiency improvement and economic costs have been assessed for each intervention, in order to
estimate the options with the best cost-benefit ratio. The energy efficiency improvement for each
proposed intervention has been simulated through a double analysis of the building EPgl , before
and after the intervention, in order to quantify the changes [27]. All existing public buildings are
compulsorily required to provide an energy certificate to States Members by the EPBD [13]. EPgl values
have been assessed using STIMA 10, a software able to calculate EPH , EPW and the final EPgl starting
from climate/geographical parameters and technical data describing the investigated buildings [32].
Moreover, a cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on the average cost, which was established
by obtaining quotes from five suitable companies, for each proposed intervention. A cost-benefit
analysis converts the performance achieved by the building in monetary figures and is more useful
than a simple economic framework [33].
 in 1600; it is located on the historic center of Rome and subjected to planning and architectural
restrictions. Local constraints and territorial contexts of each building were analyzed using
geographic information system (GIS) software that allows one to superimpose satellite images with
different information layers [28–31]. The literature also shows that the comparison between
buildings
Energies is522
2016, 9, a useful method to improve their level of energy efficiency, highlighting energy
4 of 17
consumptions and possible interventions in different context [13].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. The four analyzed public buildings: (a) Villa Sciarra and (b) Italian Ministry of Economic
Figure 1. The four analyzed public buildings: (a) Villa Sciarra and (b) Italian Ministry of Economic
Development (MiSE) facades; (c) Italian Space Agency (ASI) and (d) Ex Banco Napoli Building facades.
Development (MiSE) facades; (c) Italian Space Agency (ASI) and (d) Ex Banco Napoli Building facades.

2.1. Actual Situation of Plant-System Building

Villa Sciarra is a two storey masonry load bearing building, with a basement and a flat roof; the
building is equipped with a traditional heating system plant with radiators. MiSE is also a load bearing
masonry building and has eight floors where most of the spaces are offices. The building includes
a photovoltaic (PV) system and fixtures with insulated glass. The ASI building is located within the
university campus of Tor Vergata, was built with mixed masonry and does not have any renewable
energy system. Ex Banco Napoli is a load bearing masonry structure and has five floors of offices and
a basement designed for technical rooms.
3D building models have been established by inserting the survey data in STIMA 10 software
including the characteristics of the horizontal and vertical facades and pinpointing opaque and
transparent surfaces in order to define the degree of insulation provided by each component of
each building envelope. To complete the base virtual models, current building operating system
features were added, so as to simulate the conditions ante operam and post operam of each proposed
intervention. Table 1 lists the main data about the actual situation of the four analyzed buildings that
influence their energy performances.

Table 1. Actual situation characteristics of the analyzed buildings.

Characteristics Villa Sciarra MiSE ASI Ex Banco Napoli

Gross heated volume (m3 ) 8207 124,727 113,770 57,536
Useful surface (m2 ) 7500 18,252 28,600 5575
Surface/volume ratio 0.46 0.25 0.37 0.09
Storey height (m) 3.85 3 3 3

The assessed current energy performance data are reported in Figure 2 and has been calculated
by inserting the data gathered during specific surveys on STIMA 10 Software (Idronica Line—Watts
Industries Italia S.r.l., Biassono, Italy).
 Energies 2016, 9, 522 5 of 17
nergies 2016, 9, 522 5 of

nergies 2016, 9, 522 5 of

Figure 2. Actual
Figure 2.energy performance
Actual energy performance of the
of the analyzed
analyzed buildings
buildings (EPgl values).
(EPgl values).

2.2. Proposed Interventions: Villa Sciarra

Since Villa Sciarra is located within one of the public gardens of Rome, the chosen interventions
were guided by the constraints imposed by the Superintendent that denied the possibility to intervene
outside the building. The first identified intervention is the ceiling indoor insulation as detailed
in Figure 3, that entails a ceiling trasmittance (U) decrease from 0.416 W/m2 ¨ K to 0.229 W/m2 ¨ K
(Tables 2–4). Moreover, the replacement of single glazed windows with insulated glass unit, as
shown in Table 5, has been considered as second feasible intervention, estimating a U decrease from
5.1 W/m2 ¨ K to 2.842 W/m2 ¨ K. Vapor permeability of each considered layer has been calculated for
Figure
relative 2. Actual
humidity rangesenergy performance of the analyzed buildings (EPgl values).
up to 50%.
Figure 3. Villa Sciarra ceiling stratigraphy before and after the insulation intervention.

Table 2. Villa Sciarra floor stratigraphy before intervention.

Description Layer s Lambda C M.S. P < 50°·1012 C.S. R

(From Top to Bottom) mm W/m·K W/m2·K kg/m2 kg/ms·Pa J/kg·K m2·K/W
Adduttance top 0 - 7.7 - - 0 0.13
Tiled floor 10 2.9 290 23 0,019 840 0.003
Lime mortar or lime cement 30 0.9 30 54 8,5 1000 0.033
Figure
Bitumen 3. Villa Sciarra
Figure 3. Villa ceiling stratigraphy
Sciarra ceiling
5 before
stratigraphy before
0.17 andand
34 after after the insulation
the insulation
6 intervention.intervention.
0 1000 0.029
Concrete aggregates 85 1.263 14.853 170 2.6 1000 0.067
Solid brick tile Table 2. Villa
45 Sciarra floor
- stratigraphy
6.667 before
216 intervention.
20.57 840 0.15
Air Layer
Description 50
s 0.026
Lambda 0.52
C 0.07
M.S. P < 193
50°·1012 1008
C.S. 1.923
R
Lime plaster 20 0.7 35 2 28 2 18 1000 0.029
2
Energies 2016, 9, 522 6 of 17

Table 2. Villa Sciarra floor stratigraphy before intervention.

Description Layer s Lambda C M.S. P < 50˝ ¨ 1012 C.S. R

(From Top to Bottom)
mm W/m¨K W/m2 ¨K kg/m2 kg/ms¨Pa J/kg¨K m2 ¨ K/W
Adduttance top 0 - 7.7 - - 0 0.13
Tiled floor 10 2.9 290 23 0.019 840 0.003
Lime mortar or lime cement 30 0.9 30 54 8.5 1000 0.033
Bitumen 5 0.17 34 6 0 1000 0.029
Concrete aggregates 85 1.263 14.853 170 2.6 1000 0.067
Solid brick tile 45 - 6.667 216 20.57 840 0.15
Air 50 0.026 0.52 0.07 193 1008 1.923
Lime plaster 20 0.7 35 28 18 1000 0.029
Adduttance lower 0 - 25 - - 0 0.04

Table 3. Villa Sciarra floor stratigraphy after intervention.

Thermal Thermal Mass Vapor Specific Thermal

Description Layer Thickness
Conductivity Conductance Surface Permeability Heat Resistance
(From Top to Bottom)
mm W/m¨ K W/m2 ¨ K kg/m2 kg/ms¨ Pa J/kg¨ K m2 ¨ K/W
Adduttance top 0 - 7.7 - - 0 0.13
Tiled floor 10 2.9 290 23 0.019 840 0.003
Lime mortar or lime cement 30 0.9 30 54 8.5 1000 0.033
Bitumen 5 0.17 34 6 0 1000 0.029
Concrete aggregates 85 1.263 14.853 170 2.6 1000 0.067
Solid brick tile 45 - 6.667 216 20.57 840 0.15
Still air medium thickness 50 0.026 0.52 0.07 193 1008 1.923
Extruted polystirene foam 80 0.041 0.509 2.4 2.08 1200 1.966
Lime and gypsum plaster 20 0.7 35 28 18 1000 0.029
Adduttance lower 0 - 25 - - 0 0.04

Table 4. Villa Sciarra ceiling thermal performance before and after intervention.

Thermal Performance Before Intervention After Intervention

Thickness (mm) 245 325
Resistance (m2 ¨ K/W) 2.405 4.371
Transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 0.416 0.229
Periodic thermal transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 0.60 0.11
Heat capacity for unit area (top) (kJ/m2 ¨ K) 74,327 73,077
Heat capacity for unit area (bottom) (kJ/m2 ¨ K) 48,715 30,524
Attenuation factor 0.40 0.29
Surface mass (kg/m2 ) 469 471
Phase shift (h) 6.25 7.19

Table 5. Villa Sciarra fixtures stratigraphy before and after intervention.

Parameter Before Intervention After Intervention

Glass surface (m2 ) 2.312 2.067
Frame surface (m2 ) 0.548 0.793
Glass perimeter length (m) 17.24 16.28
Glass transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 5.751 2.704
Frame transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 2.39 1.971
linear thermal transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 0 0.060
Total transmittance (W/m2 ) 5.1 2.842
Solar energy transmittance 0.85 0.67
Reduction coefficient frame surface 0.191 0.277
Internal surface resistance per unit (m2 ¨ K/W) 0.130 0.130
External surface resistance per unit (m2 ¨ K/W) 0.04 0.04
Internal surface conductance per unit (W/m2 ¨ K) 7.7 7.7
External surface conductance per unit (W/m2 ¨ K) 25 25
Total thermal resistance (m2 ¨ K/W) 0.196 0.352

For improving a building EPgl value and consequentially its energy efficiency, it is necessary to
evaluate the energy used for winter heating and summer cooling and its related management system
Energies 2016, 9, 522 7 of 17

costs. The existing heating and cooling plant of Villa Sciarra uses fan coils to distribute thermal energy
from a water based system. The reverse-cycle air/water based air-conditioning system which heats
fluid in winter and cools fluid in summer, is powered by electricity from the grid. To evaluate the
exact consumption of this heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system, an analysis of
the building electricity consumption was completed using data provided from four consecutive years
(from 2009 to 2012). From this analysis, the energy consumption was quantified, which is shown
in Table 6.

Table 6. Villa Sciarra electricity consumptions and related economic costs.

2009 2010 2011 2012

Month
MWh € MWh € MWh € MWh €
January 10.01 1693 12.17 2341 10.53 2146
9.56 3646
February 10.86 1844 9.25 1536 10.04 2046
March 9.98 1730 9.67 1604 9.71 1555 10.43 2109
April 8.60 1472 7.52 1257 8.53 1452 2.49 541
May 6.63 1136 7.82 1307 7.88 1361 5.96 1341
June 9.09 1888 8.01 1337 7.90 1435 6.59 1497
July 8.22 1280 9.33 1553 6.47 2189 8.90 2022
August 8.00 1245 9.77 1981 5.36 1579 6.35 1445
September 7.68 1288 9.89 1788 7.14 1445 7.40 1681
October 7.27 1403 8.80 1462 6.14 1242 7.19 1635
November 9.07 1524 9.13 1519 6.54 1845 4.35 989
December 9.28 1664 1.02 1632 8.91 1815 9.81 7404
Total 104.73 18,172 11.133 19,323 93.73 19,568 90.09 24,862
Energies 2016, 9, 522 7 of 16

An analysis of electricity consumption for lighting and HVAC was defined by reference costs
An analysis of electricity consumption for lighting and HVAC was defined by reference costs
reported in the data provided by the building owners. The results highlight a consumption for HVAC
reported in the data provided by the building owners. The results highlight a consumption for
system of about 20–25 MWh/year (Figure 4).
HVAC system of about 20–25 MWh/year (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Annual consumptions for electric utilities (light and heating, ventilating and air conditioning
Figure 4. Annual consumptions for electric utilities (light and heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC)) uses.
(HVAC)) uses.

Consequentially, to optimize energy efficiency of the existing HVAC system, interventions

which explored adaptation and replacement were evaluated. Considering that the territorial context
of Villa Sciarra is a public garden, the proposal is to install a vertical ground loop geothermal system,
with a heat pump inverter, to provide a more energy efficient air-conditioning system (Figure 5).
Indeed, vertical probes are not invasive and do not involve external works that could compromise
the building and the surrounding park. Additionally, this system does not require a substitution of
the existing heating and cooling energy distribution systems.
 Figure
Energies 2016, 4. Annual consumptions for electric utilities (light and heating, ventilating and air conditioning8 of 17
9, 522
(HVAC)) uses.

Consequentially, totooptimize
Consequentially, optimizeenergy
energyefficiency
efficiencyof the
of existing HVAC
the existing system,
HVAC interventions
system, which
interventions
explored adaptation and replacement were evaluated. Considering that the territorial
which explored adaptation and replacement were evaluated. Considering that the territorial context context of
Villa
of Sciarra
Villa is is
Sciarra a public garden,
a public garden,the
theproposal
proposalisistotoinstall
installaavertical
vertical ground
ground loop geothermal system,
system,
air-conditioning system
with a heat pump inverter, to provide a more energy efficient air-conditioning system (Figure
(Figure 5).
5).
Indeed, vertical probes are not invasive and do not involve external works that could
vertical probes are not invasive and do not involve external works that could compromise compromise the
building
the andand
building the the
surrounding
surrounding park. Additionally,
park. Additionally,thisthis
system does
system not not
does require a substitution
require of the
a substitution of
existing heating and cooling energy distribution systems.
the existing heating and cooling energy distribution systems.

Figure 5. Geothermal plant scheme.

Figure 5. Geothermal plant scheme.

The adoption of a system with vertical geothermal probes could be chosen in public or private
garden contexts since it involves vertical boreholes that will not harm the surrounding park; moreover,
vertical boreholes will ensure the reduction of the building energy consumption due to its higher energy
efficiency according with the results obtained by the EPgl assessments before and after its installation.

2.3. Proposed Interventions: Italian Ministry of Economic Development

The building is currently equipped with a PV system, installed in 2010, which produces about
48 MWh/year. Moreover, in 2009 single glazed windows on the sixth, seventh and eighth floors were
replaced with low emission double-glazed units.
An analysis of the historical constraints of the urban area where the building is located pinpoints
two feasible interventions to achieve the limit of EPgl values established by law: the introduction of
thermostatic valves and the replacement of single pane windows with low emissivity (low-e) glazing
with aluminium frames in the floors not included in the 2009 interventions. The first intervention
consists of the installation of thermostatic valves in the fan coils of each zone as devices for heating
control giving the possibility to regulate the temperature of each room according with its real use.
Energies 2016, 9, 522 8 of 16

The
Energies adoption
2016, 9, 522 of a system with vertical geothermal probes could be chosen in public or private 9 of 17
garden contexts since it involves vertical boreholes that will not harm the surrounding park;
moreover, vertical boreholes will ensure the reduction of the building energy consumption due to its
The
higheruseenergy
of thermostatic valves brings
efficiency according withantheaverage
results energy
obtained saving
by thefrom 10% to 50% before
EPgl assessments [34] and andallows
after
aitsreduction of
installation. hot water use.
Considering the second intervention, low-e glazing significantly reduces heat loss but does not
significantly reduce visible
2.3. Proposed Interventions: lightMinistry
Italian transmittance, promoting
of Economic the use of natural daylight within the
Development
building. Their inclusion (Tables 7 and 8 and Figure 6) allows an improvement of the environmental
The building is currently equipped with a PV system, installed in 2010, which produces about
comfort and sustainability because it reduces the risk of condensation on the internal pane, as well as
48 MWh/year. Moreover, in 2009 single glazed windows on the sixth, seventh and eighth floors were
the heat transmission from outdoor to indoor during summer months. In addition, this intervention
replaced with low emission double-glazed units.
brings light and solar heat in the winter, improving energy efficiency in the existing building considered
An analysis of the historical constraints of the urban area where the building is located
as one of the main challenges for obtaining GHG emissions reduction [35].
pinpoints two feasible interventions to achieve the limit of EPgl values established by law: the
The chosen low-e glass typology meets the requirement imposed by Italian normative for existing
introduction of thermostatic valves and the replacement of single pane2 windows with low
buildings, requiring that U values for glazing should not be higher than 2 W/m ¨ K in climatic zone D.
emissivity (low-e) glazing with aluminium frames in the floors not included in the 2009
interventions.
Table 7. The
MiSefirst intervention
fixtures consists
stratigraphy before of the installation
(single glasses) and of thermostatic
after valves
(low-e glasses) in the fan coils
intervention.
of each zone as devices for heating control giving the possibility to regulate the temperature of each
room according with its real use. The useThermal of thermostatic valves brings Vapor an average energy
Thermal saving
Thickness Mass Surface
from 10%Description
to 50%Layer
[34] and allows a reduction Conductance
of hot water use. Permeability Resistance
mm W/m 2¨ K kg/m2 kg/ms¨ Pa 2 ¨ K/W
Considering the second intervention, low-e glazing significantly reduces heat lossmbut does not
significantly reduce visible light transmittance, promoting the use of natural daylight within the
Glass (before) 4 538.05 2500 0.002
building.Glass
Their(after)
inclusion (Tables 4
7 and 8 and 250Figure 6) allows 2500
an improvement 0 0.004
of the environmental
Air (after) 15 5.882 1.3 193 0.17
comfort andglass
Low-e sustainability
(after) because
6 it reduces5.67
the risk of condensation
2500 on the0internal pane,0.176as well as
Glass (after) 4 250 2500 0
the heat transmission from outdoor to indoor during summer months. In addition, this intervention 0.004
brings light and solar heat in the winter, improving energy efficiency in the existing building
considered as oneTable 8. MiSE
of the main fixtures thermal
challenges for performance
obtaining GHG before and after reduction
emissions intervention.
[35].

Thermal
Table 7. MiSe Performance
fixtures Beforeand
stratigraphy before (single glasses) Intervention Afterintervention.
after (low-e glasses) Intervention
Total thickness (mm) - 29
Thickness Thermal Conductance Mass Surface Vapor Permeability Thermal Resistance
Layerthermal resistance (m2 ¨ K/W)
Description Total 0.167 0.524 2
mm W/m2·K kg/m2 kg/ms·Pa m ·K/W
Total transmittance (W/m2 ¨ K) 5.993 1.907
Glass (before) 4 538.05 2 2500 0.002
Internal surface conductance per unit (W/m ¨ K) 8 8
Glass (after) 4 250 2 2500 0 0.004
External surface conductance per unit (W/m ¨ K) 25 25
Air (after) 15 5.8822 1.3 193 0.17
Internal surface resistance per unit (m ¨ K/W) 0.125 0.13
Low-e glass (after) 6 5.67 2 2500 0 0.176
External surface resistance per unit (m ¨ K/W) 0.04 0.04
Glass (after) 4 250 2500 0 0.004

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Operation
Operation of
of low-emissivity glass.
low-emissivity glass.

The chosen
2.4. Proposed low-e glass
Interventions: typology
Italian meets the requirement imposed by Italian normative for
Space Agency
existing buildings, requiring that U values for glazing should not be higher than 2 W/m2·K in
Thezone
climatic energy
D. used for ASI building winter heating and summer cooling and its related economic
costs have been assessed for improving energy efficiency of the building.
 Energies 2016, 9, 522 10 of 17

The installed heating system includes a burner powered by methane and three pressurized boilers
with a thermal output of 1200 kW/t each. The generators have been dimensioned on the basis of
thermal needs of the users providing a minimum reserve of about the 25% of the maximum demand.
The boilers supply the domestic hot water system, heat exchangers of retrieval system, heating and air
conditioning systems. An analysis of electricity consumption data provided by the building owners
was completed to evaluate the exact consumption of the HVAC system. The obtained results, reported
in Table 9, pinpointed an average monthly consumption of 158.08 MWh and an average monthly cost
of €44,385.

Table 9. ASI electricity consumption and related economic costs.

Month Energy Consumptions (MWh) Economic Costs (€)

January 132.67 35,450
February 129.06 36,065
March 135.11 37,337
April 126.49 33,290
May 152.51 41,500
June 187.55 52,096
July 199.74 59,880
August 193.39 56,760
September 166.16 47,084
Total 1422.70 399,466

Starting from these findings, the identification of the intervention was based on the integration of
Energies
RES 2016, 9, 522to significantly reduce the annual electric bill, which was approximately €40,000/month.
in order 10 of 16
In particular, two feasible interventions have been considered: the installation of a 210 kW PV system
theand
building energy plant
a trigeneration needs. During
aimed the winter,
at ensuring heat recovered
simultaneously fromthermal
electric and the trigeneration system
energy for heating
contributes jointly with the boilers
in winter and cooling during the summer. to heat the building, while in the summer months the heat
recovered
Thefrom
total the exhaust
available gasesforisthe
surface used to powerofthe
installation PVabsorber
panels is able
4000 to 2
m deliver 2
:1500 m cooling energy to
on the parking
integrate the2500
roofs and m2 on
existing refrigeration
the flat roof system
of some (Figure 8).as specified in Figure 7.
buildings

Figure 7. ASI
Figure building
7. ASI available
building availablesurfaces
surfacesfor
forthe
the installation of photovoltaic
installation of photovoltaic(PV)
(PV)panels
panels(in(in green).
green).
contributes jointly with the boilers to heat the building, while in the summer months the heat
recovered from the exhaust gases is used to power the absorber able to deliver cooling energy to
integrate the existing refrigeration system (Figure 8).

Energies 2016, 9, 522 11 of 17

The annual energy production of this PV plant was estimated as to 280 MWh/year, considering
the latitude and the average annual insolation of the area as well and the overall efficiency of the
system. All the PV panels have been oriented to the south, but according to architectural integration
patterns, only 35% of them has been installed with a tilt of 30˝ , while the remaining 65% has been
placed on the horizontal plane with a tilt of 0˝ .
The trigeneration system, located in front of the building in a special sound-proof containers,
uses a combined heat and power (CHP) system with a natural gas combustion engine and a group of
lithium bromide absorbers. Indeed, CHP technology can be adopted largely for industrial and civil
sectors as an efficient alternative to traditional generation systems [36,37].
The considered trigeneration system produce 30% of electricity and 55% of thermal energy, with
15% of energy losses; in any case electrical energy produced by these two systems is less than the
building energy needs. During the winter, heat recovered from the trigeneration system contributes
jointly with the boilers to heat the building, while in the summer months the heat recovered from the
exhaust gases is used to power the absorber able to deliver cooling energy to integrate the existing
refrigeration
Figure 7. ASIsystem (Figure
building 8). surfaces for the installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels (in green).
available

Figure 8.8.ASI
Figure ASItrigeneration plantscheme.
trigeneration plant scheme.

2.5. Proposed Interventions:

2.5. Proposed Ex Ex
Interventions: Banco Napoli
Banco Napoli
Due Dueto the regulatory
to the regulatoryconstraints
constraintsofof the
the building
building and and its
itsurban
urbancontext,
context,
thethe
onlyonly feasible
feasible
intervention proposed
intervention proposedforfor
thethe
reduction
reductionofofenergy
energy consumption
consumption ininthe theExEx Banco
Banco Napoli
Napoli building
building
concerns the installation of solar collectors on the roof, to reduce energy consumption
concerns the installation of solar collectors on the roof, to reduce energy consumption for heating for heating water.
The
water. system
The is schematized
system in Figure
is schematized 9 and includes
in Figure 12 solar thermal
9 and includes 12 solarcollectors
thermal of 2.070 m ˆof1.145
collectors mm ×
2.070
1.145with the following
m with characteristics:
the following antireflective
characteristics: treated glasses
antireflective with
treated high light
glasses withtransmission; a physical
high light transmission;
vapor deposition (PVD) highly selective and coated absorber for ensuring high energy absorption
a physical vapor deposition (PVD) highly selective and coated absorber for ensuring high energy
and low emissions; a hydraulic circuit with high heat transmission efficiency; a heat transfer fluid for
absorption and low emissions; a hydraulic circuit with high heat transmission efficiency; a heat
heat absorption and transport; hydraulic connections to connect in series up to five thermal collectors
transfer fluid for heat absorption and transport; hydraulic connections to connect in series up to five
(Table 10).
thermal collectors (Table collectors
The solar thermal 10). have been arranged avoiding the shading coming from existing plants
The solar thermal collectors have been
in the building terrace and minimising arranged
the visual impactavoiding
of the newthe shading coming from existing
system.
plants in the building terrace and minimising the visual impact of the new system.
 Energies 2016, 9, 522 12 of 17
Energies 2016, 9, 522 11 of 16

Figure 9. Ex Banco Napoli solar thermal collector system.

Figure 9. Ex Banco Napoli solar thermal collector system.

Table 10.10.
Table Technical
Technicaldata
dataof
ofthe
the solar collectorsused
solar collectors usedinin
ExEx Banco
Banco Napoli.
Napoli.

Technical Date Unit of Measure Value

Technical Date Unit of Measure Value
Height m 2.07
Height
Width m m 2.07
1.14
Width m 1.14
DepthDepth m m 0.09
0.09
Performance
Performance % % 81.1
81.1
Heat
Heat dispersion
dispersion coefficient
coefficient (a1) (a1) W/mW/m 2 ¨ K 2·K 3.653
3.653
Heat dispersion coefficient (a2) W/m 2¨ K 2 0.0146
Heat dispersion coefficient (a2) W/m ·K 0.0146
Weight
Weight kg kg 44
44
Absorber area m2 2.23
Absorber
Absorption percentage
area %
m2 2.23
95 ˘ 2
Absorption
Emission percentage
percentage % % 95
5˘ ± 22
Maximum Emission
operatingpercentage
pressure Bar % 5 10
±2
Maximum operating pressure Bar 10
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
To make a preliminary cost-benefits analysis of the selected interventions in each considered public
building
To makeinagiven weather cost-benefits
preliminary conditions (Rome urbanofcontext),
analysis economic
the selected costs and energy
interventions efficiency
in each considered
improvement, have been compared. Energy efficiency improvement
public building in given weather conditions (Rome urban context), economic costs and has been estimated as the
energy
difference of energy performance of each building before and after the proposed interventions.
efficiency improvement, have been compared. Energy efficiency improvement has been estimated as
Table 11 summarizes economic costs and EPgl improvement estimated for each feasible
the difference of energy performance of each building before and after the proposed interventions.
intervention in Villa Sciarra. In addition, the cost for improving EPgl of 1 kWh/m2 has been assessed in
Table 11 summarizes economic costs and EPgl improvement estimated for each feasible
order to allow a comparison of the effective energy efficiency improvement among all the interventions.
intervention in Villa Sciarra. In addition, the cost for improving EPgl of 1 kWh/m2 has been assessed in
order to allow a comparison of the effective energy efficiency improvement among all the interventions.
Considering expenses estimated by the five different companies, economic costs incurred for
both considered interventions in MiSE are reported in Tables 12 and 13 show the economic cost
estimated for the two plants in ASI and Ex Banco Napoli buildings.
Energies 2016, 9, 522 13 of 17

Table 11. Economic costs and EPgl improvement for each considered intervention in Villa Sciarra.

EPgl EPgl Improvement Economic Costs Cost for Improvement EPgl

Interventions
(kWh/m3 ¨ year) (kWh/m3 ¨ year) (€) of 1 kWh/m3 ¨ year (€)
Replacing fixtures 9.94 0.10 28,350 283,500
Insulated roof 9.70 0.34 71,775 211,103
Insulation floor 9.28 0.76 37,950 49,934
Geothermal plant 4.92 5.12 87,000 16,992

Considering expenses estimated by the five different companies, economic costs incurred for both
considered interventions in MiSE are reported in Tables 12 and 13 show the economic cost estimated
for the two plants in ASI and Ex Banco Napoli buildings.

Table 12. Economic costs and EPgl improvement for each considered intervention in MiSE.

EPgl EPgl Improvement Economic Costs Cost for Improvement EPgl

Interventions
(kWh/m3 ¨ year) (kWh/m3 ¨ year) (€) of 1 kWh/m3 ¨ year (€)
Thermostatic valves 6.30 2.79 65,380 23,434
Replacing fixtures 3.90 5.19 494,646 95,308

Table 13. Economic costs and EPgl improvement for each considered intervention in ASI and
Ex Banco Napoli.

EPgl EPgl Improvement Economic Costs Cost for Improvement EPgl

Interventions
(kWh/m3 ¨ year) (kWh/m3 ¨ year) (€) of 1 kWh/m3 ¨ year (€)
Insertion of PV panels (ASI) 7.2 2.7 730,000 270,370
Trigeneration plant (ASI) 7.9 2 2,270,000 1,135,000
Solar collector system
83.1 57.7 75,099 1,302
(Ex Banco Napoli)

As for the systems installed in ASI, also in Ex Banco Napoli building the economic costs of
installation involve a high initial investment which will then be recovered in few years (Table 13).

3.1. Energy Efficiency Improvements

Considering the overall energy efficiency improvement obtained by all the proposed interventions
proposed in Villa Sciarra, a 4.62 kWh/m3 ¨ year EPgl was obtained (A energy class) starting from a 10.04
value of EPgl before the interventions. After replacing fixtures and installing thermostatic valves in
MiSE, a B energy class was achieved getting an EPgl value of 3 kWh/m3 ¨ year starting from an EPgl of
9.09 kWh/m3 ¨ year (E energy class).
Due to the recent construction of ASI public building, the only proposed interventions were the
installation of PV panels and a trigeneration system. From a starting EPgl value of 9.9 kWh/m3 ¨ year
(energy class B) in which ASI building was classified before these interventions, with the installation of
PV panels and a trigeneration system, an EPgl value of 7 kWh/m3 ¨ year (energy class A) was reached.
Finally, considering the obtained results in Ex Banco Napoli building, the installation of solar
thermal collectors for hot water production allows to improve energy efficiency from an EPgl of
140.8 kWh/m3 ¨ year ( energy class G) to an EPgl of 83.1 kWh/m3 ¨ year (class E). Energy efficiency in
buildings could also be assessed by estimating the reduction of GHG emissions [7,38]. As example,
the installation of solar thermal collectors in Ex Banco Napoli building allows a reduction of CO2
emissions of 65 tons/year.

3.2. Economic Cost Assessment

Economic costs are summarized in Table 14, estimating for each the euro amounts per building
square meters.
Energies 2016, 9, 522 14 of 17

Table 14. Economic costs for each considered intervention.

Total Cost for Each Intervention Cost Per Building

Intervention
Intervention (K€) Area (m2 ) Square Meter (€/m2 )
Trigeneration plant 2270 28,600 79.37
Replacing fixtures with low-e glasses 494.646 18,252 27.09
PV panels 730 28,600 25.52
Thermal solar collectors 75.099 5575 13.46
Geothermal plant 87 7500 11.67
Floor insulation 71.775 7500 9.57
Roof insulation 37.95 7500 5.06
Replacing fixtures with insulated glasses 28.35 7500 3.78
Thermostatic valves 65.38 18,252 3.58

Among the considered interventions, the results highlight that a trigeneration plant installation is
the most expensive per m2 of building; replacing fixtures with low-e glasses an PV panels installation
have a similar cost per square meter of the analysed buildings; the same could be said for geothermal
plant and thermal solar collectors; Comparing costs for floor and roof insulation, the euro amount
per square meter needed for the first one is almost twice the amount required for roof insulation;
Replacing fixtures using insulated glasses costs much less than using low-e glasses and has a similar
price per building square meter to thermostatic valves installation.

3.3. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Table 15 illustrates economic cost and EPgl improvement for each feasible intervention, assessing
the costs for improving EPgl of 1% in order to allow a cost-benefit analysis comparing economic costs
an established percentage of energy efficiency improvement (1%).

Table 15. Economic costs and EPgl percentage improvement for each considered intervention.

EPgl Improvement Economic Costs Cost for Improvement EPgl of 1%

Interventions
% € €
Trigeneration plant 20.2 2,270,000 112,365
Replacing fixtures with insulated glasses 1 28,350 28,350
Insertion of PV panels 27.3 730,000 26,767
Roof insulation 3.4 71,775 21,195
Replacing fixtures with low-e glasses 57.1 494,646 8663
Floor insulation 7.6 37,950 5013
Thermostatic valves 30.7 65,380 2130
Thermal solar collectors 41 75,099 1833
Geothermal plant 51 87,000 1706

Cost-benefit results highlight that a trigeneration plant installation is the intervention with higher
cost for improving EPgl of 1%; replacing fixtures with insulated glasses an PV panels installation have
a similar cost-benefit ratio; the same could be said for geothermal plant and thermal solar collectors,
that are the intervention characterized by lower economic costs for improving EPgl of 1%.

4. Conclusions
The research analysed energy efficiency improvements and economic costs for some retrofitting
interventions comparing results obtained in four public buildings located in the same geographical
area. Only feasible interventions have been considered, according with each building’s characteristics
and local constraints. For example, it was not possible to analyse data coming from insulation of
building facades, since it was not allowed in any of the considered buildings.
The obtained results do not claim to objectively demonstrate that a single intervention could
have a better cost-benefit ratio in every building or every context, but only to give some indications
about cost-benefit data obtained in four case studies that could be used by public administrations
Energies 2016, 9, 522 15 of 17

for preliminary analysis aimed to select specific interventions for reduction energy consumptions in
public buildings trying to optimize cost- benefit ratio.
Indeed, the research gives useful inputs for decision makers and public administrations which
have to select retrofitting interventions for improving energy performance of a specific public building,
starting often with a limited budget. In particular, after selecting retrofitting interventions that could
be made in compliance with the regulatory framework and the territorial context of the considered
building, a further selection could be done comparing energy efficiency improvement and economic
costs of each intervention.
Finally, since all the results have been obtained considering Italian parameters for economic costs
of each intervention, the next steps of the research could include a comparison with data coming from
other EU countries; in addition, an assessment of the actual reduction of energy consumptions after
the interventions could be completed, allowing for an assessment of economic savings and payback
time of each intervention.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all the students that collaborated in the data gathered in
each one of the four analyzed buildings.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally in the writing of this paper. All authors have read and
approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

APE Energy Performance of Buildings

ASI Italian Space Agency
BERC Building Energy Regulation Codes
CHP Combined heat and power
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPC Energy Performance Certificate
EPgl Global energy performance index (kWh/(m2 ¨ year))
EPH Energy performance index in the heating seasons (kWh/(m2 ¨ year))
EPW Energy performance index for domestic hot water production (kWh/(m2 ¨ year))
EU European Union
GHG Greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic information system
HVAC Heating, ventilating and air conditioning
LCC Life cycle cost
MiSE Italian Ministry of Economic Development
PVD Physical vapor deposition
RES Renewable energy sources

References
1. Viholainen, J.; Luoranen, M.; Väisänen, S.; Horttanainen, M.; Soukka, R. Regional level approach for
increasing energy efficiency. Appl. Energy 2016, 163, 295–303. [CrossRef]
2. Shen, L.; He, B.; Jiao, L.; Song, X.; Zhang, X. Research on the development of main policy instruments for
improving building energy-efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1789–1803. [CrossRef]
3. Mattoni, B.; Gugliermetti, F.; Bisegna, F. A multilevel method to assess and design the renovation and
integration of Smart Cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 15, 105–119. [CrossRef]
4. Mattoni, B.; Pagliaro, F.; Gugliermetti, L.; Bisegna, F.; Cellucci, L. A Territorial Based Strategy for the
Distribution of Sensor Networks in Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Conference
on Environment and Electrical Engineering, Rome, Italy, 10–13 June 2015; pp. 653–658.
5. Salvalai, G.; Masera, G.; Sesana, M.M. Italian local codes for energy efficiency of buildings: Theoretical
definition and experimental application to a residential case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42,
1245–1259. [CrossRef]
Energies 2016, 9, 522 16 of 17

6. Tan, B.; Yavuz, Y.; Otay, E.N.; Çamlibel, E. Optimal selection of energy efficiency measures for energy
sustainability of existing buildings. Comput. Oper. Res. 2016, 66, 258–271. [CrossRef]
7. Belpoti, V.; Bizzarri, G. A parametric method to assess the energy performance of the social housing stock
and simulate suitable retrofit scenarios: An Italian case study. Energy Build. 2015, 96, 261–271. [CrossRef]
8. Carbonari, A.; Fioretti, R.; Lemma, M.; Principi, P. Managing Energy Retrofit of Acute Hospitals and
Community Clinics through EPC Contracting: The MARTE project. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 1033–1038.
[CrossRef]
9. De Santoli, L.; Di Matteo, U. Building Energy and Environment Performance System (BEEPS): A programme
for building energy certification in Italy. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2003, 24, 61–68. [CrossRef]
10. Monaco, A.; Di Matteo, U. Life cycle analysis and cost of a molten carbonate fuel cell prototype. Int. J.
Hydrog. Energy 2011, 36, 8103–8111. [CrossRef]
11. Aste, N.; Caputo, P.; Buzzetti, M.; Fattore, M. Energy efficiency in buildings: What drives the investments?
The case of Lombardy Region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 27–37. [CrossRef]
12. Söderqvist, T.; Brinkhoff, P.; Norberg, T.; Back, P.-E.; Norrman, J. Cost-benefit analysis as a part of
sustainability assessment of remediation alternatives for contaminated land. J. Environ. Manag. 2015,
157, 267–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. De Boeck, L.; Verbeke, S.; Audenaert, A.; De Mesmaeker, L. Improving the energy performance of residential
buildings: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 960–975. [CrossRef]
14. Nastasi, B. Renewable hydrogen potential for low-carbon retrofit of the building stocks. Energy Procedia 2015,
82, 944–949. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Q.; Holmberg, S. A methodology to assess energy-demand savings and cost effectiveness of retrofitting
in existing Swedish residential buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 14, 254–266. [CrossRef]
16. Paiho, S.; Abdurafikov, R.; Hoang, H. Cost analyses of energy-efficient renovations of a Moscow residential
district. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 14, 5–15. [CrossRef]
17. Şahina, C.D.; Arsanb, Z.D.; Tunçokuc, S.S.; Broströmd, T.; Akkurt, G.G. A transdisciplinary approach on
the energy efficient retrofitting of a historic building in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Energy Build. 2015, 96,
128–139. [CrossRef]
18. Camprubí, L.; Malmusi, D.; Mehdipanah, R.; Palència, L.; Molnar, A.; Muntaner, C.; Borrell, C. Façade
insulation retrofitting policy implementation process and its effects on health equity determinants: A realist
review. Energy Policy 2016, 91, 304–314. [CrossRef]
19. Cumo, F.; Astiaso Garcia, D.; Calcagnini, L.; Rosa, F.; Sferra, A.S. Urban policies and sustainable energy
management. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2012, 4, 29–34. [CrossRef]
20. De Santoli, L.; Albo, A.; Astiaso Garcia, D.; Bruschi, D.; Cumo, F. A preliminary energy and environmental
assessment of a micro wind turbine prototype in natural protected areas. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2014, 8, 42–56. [CrossRef]
21. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Sangiorgio, S.; Rosa, F. Estimating the potential biomasses Energy source of forest and
agricultural residues in the Cinque Terre Italian National Park. Energy Procedia 2015, 82, 674–680. [CrossRef]
22. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Cumo, F.; Pennacchia, E.; Sforzini, V. A sustainable requalification of bracciano lake
waterfront in trevignano Romano. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2015, 10, 155–164. [CrossRef]
23. Cumo, F.; Astiaso Garcia, D.; Stefanini, V.; Tiberi, M. Technologies and strategies to design sustainable tourist
accommodations in areas of high environmental value not connected to the electricity grid. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. Plan. 2015, 10, 20–28. [CrossRef]
24. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Cumo, F.; Giustini, F.; Pennacchia, E.; Fogheri, A.M. Eco-architecture and sustainable
mobility: An integrated approach in Ladispoli town. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2014, 142, 59–68.
25. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Cumo, F.; Sforzini, V.; Albo, A. Eco friendly service buildings for sustainable tourism and
environmental awareness in protected areas. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 161, 323–330.
26. Garcia, D.A.; Di Matteo, U.; Cumo, F. Selecting eco-friendly thermal systems for the “Vittoriale Degli Italiani”
historic museum building. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12615–12633. [CrossRef]
27. Carbonara, E.; Tiberi, M.; Astiaso Garcia, D. Analysis of energy performance improvements in Italian
residential buildings. Energy Procedia 2015, 82, 855–862. [CrossRef]
28. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Cinquepalmi, F.; Cumo, F. Air quality in Italian small harbours: A proposed assessment
methodology. Rend. Lincei 2013, 24, 309–318. [CrossRef]
Energies 2016, 9, 522 17 of 17

29. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Bruschi, D.; Cinquepalmi, F.; Cumo, F. An estimation of urban fragmentation of natural
habitats: Case studies of the 24 Italian National Parks. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 32, 49–54.
30. Bruschi, D.; Astiaso Garcia, D.; Gugliermetti, F.; Cumo, F. Characterizing the fragmentation level of Italian’s
National Parks due to transportation infrastructures. Transp. Res. D 2015, 36, 18–28. [CrossRef]
31. Astiaso Garcia, D.; Cumo, F.; Gugliermetti, F.; Rosa, F. Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) risk
assessment along the Italian Coastline. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 32, 115–120.
32. Sdringola, P.; Proietti, S.; Desideri, U.; Giombini, G. Thermo-fluid dynamic modeling and simulation of
a bioclimatic solar greenhouse with self-cleaning and photovoltaic glasses. Energy Build. 2014, 68, 183–195.
[CrossRef]
33. Gabay, H.; Meir, I.A.; Schwartz, M.; Werzberger, E. Cost-benefit analysis of green buildings: An Israeli office
buildings case study. Energy Build. 2014, 76, 558–564. [CrossRef]
34. Monetti, V.; Fabrizio, E.; Filippi, M. Impact of low investment strategies for space heating control: Application
of thermostatic radiators valves to an old residential building. Energy Build. 2015, 95, 202–210. [CrossRef]
35. Bulut, M.B.; Odlare, M.; Stigson, P.; Wallin, F.; Vassileva, I. Buildings in the future energy system—Perspectives of
the Swedish energy and buildings sectors on current energy challenges. Energy Build. 2015, 107, 254–263.
[CrossRef]
36. Lo Basso, G.; de Santoli, L.; Albo, A.; Nastasi, B. H2 NG (hydrogen-natural gas mixtures) effects on
energy performances of a condensing micro-CHP (combined heat and power) for residential applications:
An expeditious assessment of water condensation and experimental analysis. Energy 2015, 84, 397–418.
[CrossRef]
37. De Santoli, L.; Mancini, F.; Nastasi, B.; Piergrossi, V. Building integrated bioenergy production (BIBP):
Economic sustainability analysis of Bari airport CHP (combined heat and power) upgrade fueled with
bioenergy from short chain. Renew. Energy 2015, 81, 499–508. [CrossRef]
38. Nastasi, B.; de Santoli, L.; Albo, A.; Bruschi, D.; Lo Basso, G. RES (Renewable Energy Sources) Availability
Assessments for Eco-fuels Production at Local Scale: Carbon Avoidance Costs Associated to a Hybrid
Biomass/H2 NG-based Energy Scenario. Energy Procedia 2015, 81, 1069–1076. [CrossRef]

© 2016 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/).