Comprehensive sustainability assessment of regenerative actions on the thermal envelope of obsolete buildings under climate change perspective

sustainability Article Comprehensive Sustainability Assessment of Regenerative Actions on the Thermal Envelope of Obsolete Buildings under Climate Change Perspective Pilar Mercader-Moyano * and Manuel Ramos-Martín * Department of Building Construction I, University of Seville, Reina Mercedes Avenue 2, 41012 Seville, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] (P.M.-M.); [email protected] (M.R.-M.); Tel.: +34-618-305-559 (P.M.-M.); +34-644-340-758 (M.R.-M.) Received: 12 May 2020; Accepted: 1 July 2020; Published: 8 July 2020   Abstract: Improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings in favor of reducing consumer demand and associated emissions is one of the central strategies for achieving global GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions reduction targets. Contemplating this activity within the paradigm of long-term sustainability implies, on one hand, that project intervention strategies must be assisted by tools that integrate social, environmental, and economic indicators that must be evaluated from an LCA (life cycle assessment) perspective and, on the other hand, deviations must be considerate of the energy-saving projections that are sought to be achieved through the potential strategies to be implemented. This article develops an LCA methodology whose objective is to evaluate the comprehensive sustainability of existing passive strategies in the local industry through the quantification of environmental and economic indicators throughout different climatic scenarios, which are socially contextualized for a building existing in a Mediterranean region. Part of the results obtained showed a loss of the effectiveness of measurements with an adequate response to the current climatological reality. Keywords: energy efficiency; sustainability; circular economy; carbon embodied; climate change 1. Introduction The environmental and social consequences that have been indirectly generated by the political measures adopted at the global level to contain the pandemic caused by COVID-19 are significant, although they have not yet been quantified as a whole because we are immersed in it. However, if we focus on specific regions and if we look at the information available at the European Environment Agency on the data from the eighty measurement stations located throughout the Spanish territory, we can verify a reduction in the average concentration of NO 2 and PM 10 and average PM 2.5 in the atmosphere of 40.26% since the beginning of the lockdown [ 1 ] and a reduction of 50.19% locally in the city where the present investigation was carried out. This illustrates the impact of our activity on the environment and points out the weaknesses of a traditional development model, highly inefficient and polluting from an environmental point of view, globally interdependent from an economic perspective in recession [ 2 , 3 ], and whose consequences aggravate the health effects that a pandemic such as the current one has had in various locations [ 4 , 5 ]. All this highlights a more than necessary paradigm shift and a reorientation of the economy toward a circular model, which allows, among other issues, a more than necessary increase in the resilience of our society to handle the effects of the verified climate change [6]. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495; doi:10.3390/su12145495 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 2 of 40 The adaptation of the built environment to meet the principles of a circular economy has been proven to be an effective strategy to reduce CO 2 emissions by 38% by 2050 (pp. 31–33, [ 6 ]). Particularly, in the construction industry, adopting measures such as the extension of the service life of buildings as well as the waste reduction of construction processes in buildings would allow an annual global reduction of emissions of 1.2 billion of TnCO2beyond the year 2050 [6]. In this sense, actions such as improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and reducing the emissions associated with Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) energy consumption would lead to reductions in the total energy demand by 25% when compared to current levels [ 7 ]. Therefore, the need for improved energy efficiency strategies within the framework of a circular economy implies actions on the existing buildings oriented toward the use of low-carbon materials and the systematization and prefabrication of building systems. Therefore, one might ask then to what extent the European Union (EU, Brussels, Belgium) policies on urban regeneration are aligned with the principles of sustainability stated. The European policies on building performance based their strategy on tackling the climate change on three main lines: promoting the production of renewable energy, reducing the consumer demand of buildings, and CO 2 emissions [ 8 – 10 ]. The transposition of the recent European directives into the Spanish national regulations has led to an increase in the energy-saving requirements of buildings by means of the recent update of the basic document of energy saving (DB-HE) of the Technical Building Code [ 11 ] (CTE), which introduces the limitation on total primary energy consumption as well as on the amount of non-renewable energy used in buildings. As novelty, this standard homogenized for new buildings and refurbishment the limit values for non-renewable energy consumption in order to justify a nearly zero consumption building (nZEB), which was 50 kWh/m 2 for the climate zone used in this study. Regarding this issue, the DB-HE update establishes the conditions for the thermal envelope of buildings, thus restricting the thermal transmittance limitations even more. Given these performance requirements at the regulatory level and the close relation of a limited consumption with a lower demand in buildings, it is clear that intervention on the envelope of existing buildings is paramount to achieve the global emission reduction targets set by the UE [10]. Research focused on reducing the demand for buildings has pointed out that the implementation of passive strategies in mild climates is an extraordinarily effective measure to reduce consumption, essentially due to the reduction in the large insulation thicknesses, when compared to central European climate regions and the unnecessary use of mechanical ventilation with enthalpic recuperators [ 12 – 14 ]. On the other hand, it has been found that excessive insulation of buildings can cause undesired effects in future climate scenarios, causing overheating inside buildings, which will be especially pronounced in climatic contexts such as the Mediterranean [15,16]. In contrast, the aforementioned environmental impact that these actions imply in research such as that carried out within the Chair of Sustainable Construction in Zürich showed optimum emission compensation through the savings generated throughout the life cycle of a high-quality refurbishment of the thermal envelope with prefabricated facade elements, which, in turn, enables energy generation through the inclusion of collectors and photovoltaic panels [ 17 ]. However, in sociocultural and climatic contexts like that proposed by this research, these actions represent an important degree of the technification of construction processes, which currently does not have enough roots in the productive fabric as well as a high cost in relation to the savings that could be obtained, essentially due to lower demand from buildings in the operational phase [ 18 ]. Whereas, as will be pointed out in this article, a certain degree of systematization and prefabrication of interventions on buildings will allow, in urban contexts integrated with similar typological and constructive solutions, an optimization of intervention costs and a necessary reduction of energy demand that will favor the promotion of integrated community energy systems [ 19 ] and/or the construction of district heating and cooling networks [20]. For all these reasons, the different strategic plans at the national and regional level are aimed toward the purpose of enhancing the value of existing Spanish cities through urban and building Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 3 of 40 renovation [ 21 – 25 ]. In this sense, and under the premise initially stated for a sustainable development that supports these interventions, it will be desirable to integrate into decision-making, on one hand, the social, environmental, and economic aspects that allow for the definition of a holistic and perfectible system for the evaluation of the impacts associated with the construction of the renovation projects, and on the other hand, the consideration of future climatic scenarios that make it possible to determine the adequacy of said renovation project throughout its useful life, while allowing the economic impacts to be weighted and environmental impacts derived from its implementation. At this point, it is inevitable to stop looking at the environmental and socioeconomic impacts that the construction of these renovation projects will have, especially if we pay attention to the effects of climate change, which will promote dynamic climate scenarios that will lead to the loss of the effectiveness of the renovation measures that can be adopted to improve energy efficiency that are based exclusively on the current climate reality. In this particular sense, and to quantify the economic, environmental, and social impact of the execution of renovation projects, this article sets out, develops, and applies its methodology, based on different UNE reference standards [ 26 – 35 ], to the evaluation of the comprehensive sustainability of different measures of renovation of the thermal envelope by adopting passive strategies on obsolete housing towers developed in the third quarter of the 20th century, evaluated concerning the expected evolution of the climate over the next sixty years. 2. Methodology The methodology was arranged in two well-differentiated lines of work: the simulation of different building models with various climatic scenarios (building thermal simulation modeling, MS in Figure 1) and the quantification of the environmental, socioeconomic impacts through the cost of the intervention and the amount of embodied carbon of various design options (construction model of evaluation, ME in Figure 1). Figure 1shows the workflow followed in the research. Once the results of each of these lines of work (results, RR Figure 1) were obtained, it prioritized the constructive solutions that minimize the economic and environmental impacts (decision making, DM on Figure 1) and the results were integrated into a new simulation model (MS4). Finally, the results of MS4 and that obtained for each constructive solution were integrated and related with the results for the social assessment (results of integration in a single model taking into account the three sustainability dimensions, RRIM in Figure 1). Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 45 the social, environmental, and economic aspects that allow for the definition of a holistic and perfectible system for the evaluation of the impacts associated with the construction of the renovation projects, and on the other hand, the consideration of future climatic scenarios that make it possible to determine the adequacy of said renovation project throughout its useful life, while allowing the economic impacts to be weighted and environmental impacts derived from its implementation. At this point, it is inevitable to stop looking at the environmental and socioeconomic impacts that the construction of these renovation projects will have, especially if we pay attention to the effects of climate change, which will promote dynamic climate scenarios that will lead to the loss of the effectiveness of the renovation measures that can be adopted to improve energy efficiency that are based exclusively on the current climate reality. In this particular sense, and to quantify the economic, environmental, and social impact of the execution of renovation projects, this article sets out, develops, and applies its methodology, based on different UNE reference standards [26–35], to the evaluation of the comprehensive sustainability of different measures of renovation of the thermal envelope by adopting passive strategies on obsolete housing towers developed in the third quarter of the 20th century, evaluated concerning the expected evolution of the climate over the next sixty years. 2. Methodology The methodology was arranged in two well-differentiated lines of work: the simulation of different building models with various climatic scenarios (building thermal simulation modeling, MS in Figure 1) and the quantification of the environmental, socioeconomic impacts through the cost of the intervention and the amount of embodied carbon of various design options (construction model of evaluation, ME in Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the workflow followed in the research. Once the results of each of these lines of work (results, RR Figure 1) were obtained, it prioritized the constructive solutions that minimize the economic and environmental impacts (decision making, DM on Figure 1) and the results were integrated into a new simulation model (MS4). Finally, the results of MS4 and that obtained for each constructive solution were integrated and related with the results for the social assessment (results of integration in a single model taking into account the three sustainability dimensions, RRIM in Figure 1). Figure 1. Methodology workflow. In this way, through the proposed methodology, we covered different information modules throughout the useful life of the renovation strategies proposed to quantify the impact of the preconstruction and construction stages concerning the reduction of emissions that occur during the reference study period (RSP) estimated in 50 years, as will be seen later. The time scenario considered Figure 1. Methodology workflow. In this way, through the proposed methodology, we covered different information modules throughout the useful life of the renovation strategies proposed to quantify the impact of the Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 4 of 40 preconstruction and construction stages concerning the reduction of emissions that occur during the reference study period (RSP) estimated in 50 years, as will be seen later. The time scenario considered in this article for the evaluation of energy performance, year 2080, allowed us to have theorical information 20 years beyond the lifespan, that is, 104 years after the construction of the building. Thus, these data were not taken into account for this study. The comparison of the model that is determined through the exposed premises with the model of the building without interventions will allow us to learn the adequacy of the renovation strategies proposed in the present to future climate scenarios. The future climate scenarios were transformed using the CCWorldWeather tool (version 1.9), according to a GCM (General Circulation Modeling) of the HadCM3 (Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3) based on scenario A2, which projects a future about emissions in line with a productive behavior oriented to per capita economic growth [ 36 ], or what is the same, a scenario that projects the current trend of resource depletion and emissions production. 2.1. Definition of Functional Equivalent The functional equivalent is a tower of 48 dwellings built in 1976 in the city of Malaga, being an archetypal architectural solution in the city at the time of its construction. It should be noted that between the 1960s and 1970s, there was a major rural exodus to the cities, which led to high demand for housing and the appearance of a multitude of high-density “urban organisms” [ 37 ] made up under the model of residential polygons that grew mainly on the outskirts of the city and found the residential typology par excellence in the high-rise “H” block. In the city of Malaga, according to OMAU (Urban Environment Observatory of Malaga) data, this expansion process involved the construction of a total of 142,609 homes, which represents 56% of the current dwelling stock. This important volume of new construction carried out in the third part of the 20th century added to the fact that there was a necessary optimization of the costs of these social houses and the low concern for the energy demand of buildings, in the confidence of some energy resources that they were believed to be unlimited, led to the standardization of inefficient constructive solutions from an energy point of view and that today can be considered obsolete. This productive paradigm was deeply rooted in the Malaga coast, essentially due to temperate temperatures during the winter that could be overcome by the neighbors through the occasional use of portable heating equipment, the use of HVAC systems not being widespread at the time for air conditioning spaces in hot and dry summers typical of a Csa climate, according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification [ 38 ]. However, the INE (Statistics National Institute) database shows that currently, 44.18% of Malaga households have individual air conditioning equipment, compared to 35.5% of the national average [ 39 ]. The consideration of future climate scenarios in which an increase in temperatures is expected that will lead to a loss of comfort in homes as well as an increase in consumption by cooling, justifies the choice of climatic contexts such as the one selected for a necessary deepening of the effects of climate change on current building envelope renovation strategies from a socio-economic and environmental perspective. In this sense, the essential premise of intervention through passive strategies on a building typology with a representative iteration within the state housing in which it is inserted will allow the optimization of resources for the energy refurbishment measures of said “urban organisms”. For this, the research focused on the identification of residential sectors promoted as a whole by neighborhood cooperatives, basing their pre-selection criteria on the results obtained for the urban indicators developed in the Local Agenda XXI [40] of the city of Malaga (listed in Appendix A). The representativeness of the selected typological solution (Figure 2) for the chosen urban organism (57%) and the set of urban organisms of the sector, in which it is inserted (72%), allow for inferences to be drawn at an urban scale from the results. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 5 of 40 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 45 climate scenario (2020) in an annual simulation period through the Design-Builder tool, through which it has been possible to identify the relationship of the adoption of said strategies with sensible heating and cooling reduction, and solar gains through windows (Appendix C). (a) (b) Figure 2. (a) Perspective of the housing tower. (b)Type plan and zone identification. Taking into account these results for sensible heating and cooling (Appendix C), two renovation projects were developed. The first of these projects (CTE-TERP) uses the DB-HE limit transmittance values to determine the effects of climate change on an nZEB throughout its lifespan. For the second project (O-TERP), the characteristics of the thermal envelope have been calculated based on existing commercial solutions that had EPD (environmental product declarations) and sufficient information to estimate the maintenance costs. The specific values of each of the renovation projects and the calculation parameters are shown in Table 1. Figure 2. (a) Perspective of the housing tower. (b)Type plan and zone identification. The choice of the different renovation strategies that make up the TERP (Thermal Envelope Renovation Project) is based on the prior analysis of 16 possible passive envelope renovation strategies applicable to the reference typology (Appendix B), not all of which are widely used in the local industry (i.e., the use of PCM (phase change material)), which, despite the interest they have in improving the energy performance of buildings in warm stages [ 41 ], means that we cannot consider them. Each of the preselected strategies has been evaluated on the building as a whole for the current climate scenario (2020) in an annual simulation period through the Design-Builder tool, through which it has been possible to identify the relationship of the adoption of said strategies with sensible heating and cooling reduction, and solar gains through windows (Appendix C). Taking into account these results for sensible heating and cooling (Appendix C), two renovation projects were developed. The first of these projects (CTE-TERP) uses the DB-HE limit transmittance values to determine the effects of climate change on an nZEB throughout its lifespan. For the second project (O-TERP), the characteristics of the thermal envelope have been calculated based on existing commercial solutions that had EPD (environmental product declarations) and sufficient information to estimate the maintenance costs. The specific values of each of the renovation projects and the calculation parameters are shown in Table 1. Addressing the issue of the RSP and the useful life of the property, it is convenient to argue the considerations made. Palacios-Muñoz [ 42 ] points out that the lifespan is a key aspect for the results of any LCA, since the results are closely related to that period of time. However, there is no clear consensus regarding what this period is. In this sense, different authors have pointed to values ranging from 40 years to 100 years. Statistical analysis of the lifespan shows that a value of 50 years is acceptable, which is related to the aptitude of the service of a structure [ 43 , 44 ]. However, there is a strong connection between the reduction in the environmental impact and the prolongation of the useful life of buildings, which has been quantified by Marsh [ 44 ] and is aligned with the principles for a circular economy already mentioned. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 6 of 40 Table 1. Parameters for the calculation of the thermal model and definition of the actual state and the renovation projects: Thermal Envelope Renovation Project based on minimum Spanish normative prescriptions (CTE-TERP) and Optimized Envelope Renovation Project (O-TERP). Building Housing Tower Year of Construction 1976 Stories 12 Functional Program 4 bedrooms, 1 kitchen, 1 laundry room, 2 bathrooms & 1 living room Occupied Floor Area (m2)5.43380 Occupied Floor Volume (m3)16.30150 Other Electrical Gains (W/m2)4.40 Occupancy (m2/person) 0.03 Infiltration (ac/h) 0.70 Natural Ventilation (ac/h) 4 Windows Opening CTE Residential Night Ventilation Minimum Level of Illuminance (lux) 100 Models AS O-TERP CTE-TERP Wall Construction -1/2 foot Metric Perforated Brick +Precast panels - -Vertical unvented air chamber 4 cm +Vertical vented air chamber 4 cm - -Hollow brick partition simple 4 cm +Metallic substructure - -Plaster, low hardness 1.5 cm +Isolation (0.0355 W/m K) 4 cm - Glazing Construction -Aluminum window frame (no break) +Addition of ventilated window (6 +12 +6) - Roof Construction -Waterproofing sheet +Filter slab (including isolation) - -Formation of slopes & structure +Horizontal vented air chamber 4 cm - Wall U-value (W/m2K) 1.44 0.45 0.50 Glazing U-value (W/m2K) 5.86 1.80 2.70 Roof U-value (W/m2K) 1.25 0.44 0.44 Wall Colour Brick White - Solar Control Glazing No Yes No Roof Colour Red White - In this sense, and supporting the proposed thesis, the rehabilitation of buildings through passive standards is one of the measures that most effectively contributes to the reduction of emissions. For these reasons, we have established a reference study period (RSP) of 50 years from that of the intervention, because it is one of the commonly used values [ 45 – 47 ]. In this way, a lifespan of a building of 84 years is established, expecting the end of it in the year 2060. According to Rinc ó n [ 48 ], the expected lifespan for residential buildings built between the years 1941 and 1970 (a total of 2,491,881 in Spain) is expected between the period of 2044 and 2063, so the value seems consistent with these premises. The use of an infiltration rate of 0.70 ac/h, which is less restrictive than the regulatory recommendations of 0.63 ac/h, is justified by the fact that the windows are micro-ventilated, due to the fact that the building has a natural ventilation system that is not included in TERP. Hereunder, each of the sources and methodological bases from which the research will be used for the evaluation of the sustainability of the renovation project that we have established as optimal from the point of view of energy efficiency will be described. In the same way, the methodology used will be contrasted with recent investigations in order to establish the differences and similarities between the items addressed. 2.2. Methodological Basis for the Selection and Calculation of Environmental Indicators for the Evaluation of Renovation Strategies According to UNE-EN 15978: 2011 The representativeness of the typology chosen at an urban level becomes an essential issue to determine the effective contribution to the global GHG emissions through the renovation of neighborhoods. Research such as that carried out by Rivero [ 49 ] highlights the importance of Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 7 of 40 considering the carbon footprint of the glazing systems to be implemented for the energy refurbishment of office buildings as an essential decision-making instrument for adopting different design options. In this sense, the use of the carbon footprint indicator throughout the maintenance and cleaning of the evaluated design options is an important aspect to consider, in line with that proposed by Mart í nez Rocamora [50]. In this research, the consideration of the environmental impacts of the strategies to be implemented in its different stages is organized and structured around the methodological premises outlined in the UNE-EN 15978: 2011 standard. Following these premises, the different scenarios are justified, the origin of the data, their traceability are defined, and the calculation method to be used is recognized. The different aggregated data for embodied carbon will be integrated into a quantification model through shared parameters (In Building Information Modeling), in line with what was proposed by Mercader Moyano for the determination of the EE (Embodied Energy) of the existing construction solutions in social housing [ 51 ]. Subsequently, the results obtained through the said tool will be analyzed from an LCA perspective. 2.2.1. Scenarios and Quantification of the Evaluation Object for the Different Stages The environmental information for the stage between modules A1 and A3 is defined through the environmental product declarations [ 52 , 53 ]. However, at present, most of the construction systems do not have such declarations, although they do have technical suitability documents (DIT), ecolabels [ 54 ], and self-declarations [ 55 ] that have allowed reference institutions to prepare bases for own data that allow us to approximately understand the environmental impacts associated with different construction systems. In this way, its use in this research aggregated data developed by the Catalan Technological Institute [ 56 ] that established its values about the surface of the constructive solution, with which the data can be integrated through the incorporation of specific information in a building information model. On the other hand, the quantification of the use of energy in service (B6) can be determined by the calculation procedure established by regulations [ 26 , 57 ] regarding the energy efficiency of the buildings, global energy consumption, and the definition of energy evaluations. The calculation is made using the Design-Builder tool, while the results and their adequacy are verified through the state-recognized computer tool, HULC [58]. Finally, for the estimation of the environmental impacts associated with the treatment of waste for its reuse, recovery, and recycling as well as for the elimination of said waste in the renovation process of the buildings, none of the sources consulted could be considered valid. Therefore, it has only been possible to determine the environmental impact of transportation for CDW (construction and demolition waste) management during the implementation of the TERP. This impact has been calculated based on the weight and volume of waste generated for each design option. In this way, and depending on the maximum load of the vehicles that could be used (N1 and N2, according to directive 70/156 EEC) and the main fuel of 45% of transport trucks in the city of Malaga (gas-oil), the associated CO 2 emissions for this activity were calculated based on the type of vehicle (161.2 g CO2/km and 218.47 g CO 2 /km respectively), according to statistical tables provided by the DGT (General Direction of Traffic) about vehicle fleets [59] and the IDAE databases for vehicle emissions [60]. 2.2.2. Origin of Environmental Data and Selection of Indicators The environmental data that were consulted, except for certain isolations that have more environmental information on the ITEC (Catalan Technical Institute) platform, focused on the product and construction phase, and modules beyond these cannot be evaluated. It is for this reason, mainly, that the selected data were taken from the values calculated by the reference database [ 61 ], showing two characteristic indicators expressed per unit area of the selected system/product and defined for the modules ranging from A1 to A5, recognized by Standard EN 15804 as: Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 8 of 40 • GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (GWP), expressed in KgCO 2 equivalent and measures the potential of global warming. • ABIOTIC RESOURCE DEPLETION POTENTIAL FOR ELEMENTS (ADP_elements), expressed in net calorific value (MJ) and which measures the potential for depletion of abiotic resources for fossil fuels. The justification for the selection of these environmental indicators responds, on one hand, to the existence of data associated with the surface of the intervention and, on the other hand, to the possibility that such data may be added and allow knowledge of the environmental impact of the intervention from project measurements that have been calculated using a BIM model. The methodology that the ITEC uses to calculate the data that we used is based mainly on the determination of some percentages of recycled content and raw material that constitute each of the unit elements, which have associated values for their energy cost (MJ) and CO 2 emissions into the atmosphere; characteristics of the CDWs and their amount generated on-site, mainly aimed at site management, and, finally, the percentage of material recycled from the product, in order to obtain the emissions savings from the use of certain materials [ 56 ] (pp. 18–22). In the case of the two main characterized indicators, the results obtained for each of them started either from the consideration of the most representative values for said material through reference databases [ 62 ] or, if available, data directly provided by the manufacturer. 2.2.3. Calculation Method For the calculation of environmental impacts in the different modules of the life cycle of the interventions, the principles established by the standard were followed [ 31 ]. Contextualizing the aforementioned indicators and modules, we obtained a matrix expression of the calculation of the environmental indicators in the different stages of the life cycle of the building’s renovation strategies (Equation (1)). Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 45 Quantity of products/processes used in stage i Environmental impact per unit of product/process Environmental impact of stage i (1) 1, 2, 3, ..., , i i i i ni a a a a a     •     database for a1 stage i database for a2 stage i database for a3 stage i database for a… stage i database for an stage i , , i i GWP A DP    GWPa1,i ADPa1,i GWPa2,i ADPa2,i GWPa3,i ADPa3,i GWPa…,i ADPa…,i GWPan,i ADPan,i For i = [A1 a A3, A4, A5] 2.3. Methodological Basis for the Selection and Calculation of Social Indicators for the Evaluation of Renovation Strategies According to UNE-EN 16,309 + A1 The inner thermal characteristics of the dwellings in their use phase are decisive in order to contextualize markers of environmental and economic sustainability. Supporting this thesis, the results obtained by Sánchez-García show how, by considering the adaptive comfort of users, savings of 19% and 25% can be predicted for climatic scenarios located in the years 2050 and 2080, respectively, for buildings for housing in mild climates, based on the criteria established by standard EN 15251 [63]. Thus, the consideration of dynamic setpoint temperatures in future climate scenarios is shown to be an effective tool for reducing the consumption of cooling and heating, especially if these installations are centralized and programmable. However, the selected functional equivalent does not have centralized air conditioning systems on which operations can be considered, which motivates each user to adapt the thermal conditions of their home based on subjective criteria. For this reason, becoming aware of the consumer culture of users is also a priority, on one hand, to predict investment returns through consumption savings that are achieved through passive renovation of the building envelope, and on the other hand, identify opportunities and improvements of said renovation concerning interior redistributions and/or changes of use that could be carried out jointly and that motivates alterations of the facade. The evaluation methodology it uses is aligned with that identified in the EN16309+A1 standard. It should be noted that the reference calculation method bases all its possible scenarios in the use stage, considering module B in three different scenarios: the current stage of the building, the projected stages (based on the premises established in the renovation project), and the execution stage (according to the course of the renovation project works). In this research, the social aspect was understood from the perspective of the users in the use stage and according to the scenarios of the current state of the building under evaluation (AS) and the projected and ongoing state of the project of renovation on the building under evaluation (TERP). The methodology for the second of the scenarios will be described in this section and Appendix D, without having yet been able to obtain field results. 2.3.1. Identification of Indicators for Social Assessment of the Current Stage The UNE-EN 16309+A1 standard proposes indicators and methodology for the evaluation of the information module B1 [33] (p. 50), which has been used to identify the indicators considered for the evaluation of any of the renovation project implementation scenarios (AS and TERP projected/ongoing status). Regarding the different categories of social behavior that this first version of the standard proposes (accessibility, adaptability, health and comfort, impacts on the neighborhood, maintenance, and safety), all the proposals have been considered and taking into account or not the pertinent indicators for the social evaluation of the potential improvement strategies for the thermal envelope of the building to be proposed, as part of a building renovation project, obtaining a total of thirtyeight indicators, which will be related to the rest stages of use of the building, according to the allocation of influences determined at the normative level. (1) 2.3. Methodological Basis for the Selection and Calculation of Social Indicators for the Evaluation of Renovation Strategies According to UNE-EN 16,309 +A1 The inner thermal characteristics of the dwellings in their use phase are decisive in order to contextualize markers of environmental and economic sustainability. Supporting this thesis, the results obtained by S á nchez-Garc í a show how, by considering the adaptive comfort of users, savings of 19% and 25% can be predicted for climatic scenarios located in the years 2050 and 2080, respectively, for buildings for housing in mild climates, based on the criteria established by standard EN 15251 [ 63 ]. Thus, the consideration of dynamic setpoint temperatures in future climate scenarios is shown to be an effective tool for reducing the consumption of cooling and heating, especially if these installations are centralized and programmable. However, the selected functional equivalent does not have centralized air conditioning systems on which operations can be considered, which motivates each user to adapt the thermal conditions of their home based on subjective criteria. For this reason, becoming aware of the consumer culture of users is also a priority, on one hand, to predict investment returns through consumption savings that are achieved through passive renovation of the building envelope, and on Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 9 of 40 the other hand, identify opportunities and improvements of said renovation concerning interior redistributions and/or changes of use that could be carried out jointly and that motivates alterations of the facade. The evaluation methodology it uses is aligned with that identified in the EN16309+A1 standard. It should be noted that the reference calculation method bases all its possible scenarios in the use stage, considering module B in three different scenarios: the current stage of the building, the projected stages (based on the premises established in the renovation project), and the execution stage (according to the course of the renovation project works). In this research, the social aspect was understood from the perspective of the users in the use stage and according to the scenarios of the current state of the building under evaluation (AS) and the projected and ongoing state of the project of renovation on the building under evaluation (TERP). The methodology for the second of the scenarios will be described in this section and Appendix D, without having yet been able to obtain field results. 2.3.1. Identification of Indicators for Social Assessment of the Current Stage The UNE-EN 16309+A1 standard proposes indicators and methodology for the evaluation of the information module B1 [ 33 ] (p. 50), which has been used to identify the indicators considered for the evaluation of any of the renovation project implementation scenarios (AS and TERP projected/ongoing status). Regarding the different categories of social behavior that this first version of the standard proposes (accessibility, adaptability, health and comfort, impacts on the neighborhood, maintenance, and safety), all the proposals have been considered and taking into account or not the pertinent indicators for the social evaluation of the potential improvement strategies for the thermal envelope of the building to be proposed, as part of a building renovation project, obtaining a total of thirty-eight indicators, which will be related to the rest stages of use of the building, according to the allocation of influences determined at the normative level. 2.3.2. Influence Allocation for the Rest of the Modules Appendix Destablishes the relation of these indicators with the other stages. The consideration of module B5, related to the rehabilitation stage, becomes especially important, given that the complete renovation project will comprise a series of measures that will be carried out throughout the useful life of the building. The identification of a series of indicators that allow for an improvement of the measures to be taken in the course of the works to minimize impacts on the users of the building becomes one of the most relevant aspects, given the essential premise that the building will be in use during the execution of the works. Once the different influences have been assigned, each one is analyzed in detail, concerning the modules already indicated. 2.4. Methodological Basis for the Selection and Calculation of Economic Indicators for the Evaluation of Renovation Strategies According to UNE-EN 16627 and UNE-EN 15459-1 From an economic perspective, determining the return on investment of a building’s renovation measures is an essential indicator to determine the feasibility of the measures that are implemented. In this line of work, although focusing attention on active strategies for improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings in Portugal, it is worth mentioning the research by Tadeu [ 64 ] that related the optimal cost of the measures implemented with the return of the investment, determining that for large investment projects, the value of operating flexibility and other strategic factors such as the possibility of deferral must be added to the NPV (net present value) calculation process. On the other hand, Oregi [ 45 ] addressed the evaluation of economic and environmental aspects (Embodied Energy) of renovation strategies of the envelope of buildings in Spain through the perspective of the LCA, Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 16 of 40 the spaces, which, in any of the renovation hypotheses considered, increased the average temperature interior with respect to the projections for its current state in the year 2080 (24.90 ◦ C) between 1.20% (CTE-TERP) and 2.16% (O-TERP). Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 45 Mean Operative TEMP 23.20 24.14 25.49 Total emissions TnCO2equiv 147.35 151.88 168.98 The results show, in line with the results obtained by Rodrigues for the same climate context [15], that the internal gains are not easily dissipated through the envelopes with the lowest transmittance values, which means that for climate scenario 2080, increases in total energy consumption of 41.50% for the TERP, compared to 13.14% for the AS, concerning the consumption present for each of the simulated models. However, and for the same simulation period, if we compared the total consumption of the TERP for the not renewed building, we observed reductions of 25%, evidencing, however, a loss in the effectiveness of the strategies caused essentially by overheating of inner spaces were more pronounced in the warm periods of the renewed building, which implies a reduction in the efficiency of the renovation strategies of 13% compared to the not renewed building. The cooling demand for the TERP increases for the years 2050 and 2080 by 66.22% and 168.03%, respectively, for the values obtained for the present (Figure 3b). (a) (b) Figure 3. (a) Year-on-year evolution of total consumption, emissions, and operative temperature. (b) Monthly evolution of consumption and emissions in calculated years. In order to illustrate the loss of efficiency, it is convenient to compare the values obtained for the total consumption of the building in the present and at the end of the RSP, with the limitation established in the recent update of the DB-HE for the justification of an nZEB, which for winter climatic zone A is limited to 50 kWh/m2.year. By means of a quadratic segmental interpolation of the values obtained for the three years in which the simulation was conducted, it has been possible to determine the evolution of consumption and emissions throughout the useful life of the renewed building (Figure 3a). In this way, we obtained that for the CTE-TERP, thanks to which by 2020, a total 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 Comsumption (MWh/year) 0,00 50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050 2056 2062 2068 2074 2080 Emissions (TnCO 2equiv /year) 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 25,00 26,00 2020 2026 2032 2038 2044 2050 2056 2062 2068 2074 2080 Operative TEMP ( o C/year) 0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MWh HadCM3-A2-2020 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HadCM3-A2-2050 0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HadCM3-A2-2080 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TnCO 2equiv AS CTE-TERP O-TERP Figure 3. ( a ) Year-on-year evolution of total consumption, emissions, and operative temperature. (b) Monthly evolution of consumption and emissions in calculated years. 3.2. Assessment of the Environmental Sustainability of Thermal Envelope Renovation Projects and Communication of Results Table 3shows, as a summary, the results obtained to estimate the emissions associated with the implementation of each of the different OODs. As noted, improvement strategies on the facade hollows are those with the greatest impact concerning the surface of the implemented construction system, the impact of solutions based on the use of aluminum profiles being notable, the implementation of which involves between 30% and 61% of the total emissions associated with the sets of combinations of strategies analyzed that we will see later. This, added to a greater benefit in terms of reducing consumption of the strategies at the level of blind walls, suggests that refurbishment of these elements entails a lower impact for the building under the study environment. Likewise, we can see that the emissions associated with the transport of waste averaged per square meter of the strategy implemented were very similar for all interventions carried out at the blind cloth level. However, for facade hollows and roof interventions, the said emissions increased, since the intervention areas were smaller and, therefore, the emissions increased. This would suggest that these types of strategies are more interesting when carried out jointly, either at the level of the building being operated on or on a set of similar buildings. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 17 of 40 Table 3. Environmental assessment of module A of the Thermal Envelope Renovation Project (TERP) per unit area of different Options Design (OOD) constructive systems. Module A Product and Construction Stage CDW Indicator ADP GWP GWP Units MJ/m2KgCO2equiv/m2KgCO2equiv/m2 EVF B4 OP.1 HPL high pressure decorative laminated panel. 367.41 21.33 0.53 OP.2 Single-sided polymer concrete pieces. 320.64 21.04 0.53 OP.3 Large format ceramic pieces 754.07 44.11 0.72 EHCP M1 OP.1 Mineral wool (MW) 143.20 4.26 0.53 OP.2 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 76.72 11.32 0.53 OP.3 Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 150.44 22.20 0.53 B2 OP.1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile 220.94 218.53 3.84 OP.2 Terrazzo flooring system on plots 332.22 32.18 3.84 EVH C3 OP.1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC 6747.02 730.35 3.48 OP.2 Windows and balcony doors in alum. with thermal break 8409.56 990.47 3.48 On the other hand, the 108 possible combinations between the different envelope renovation strategies were analyzed (Figure 4a), identifying the greatest/least environmental impact of each of them. The results of this analysis show that, even in the least impact combination (043 ODC), the emissions associated with the evaluation of modules A1–A5 and C2 were 278,362.78 KgCo 2equiv . If we compare this result with the evolution of the CO 2 emissions savings achieved through the intervention proposed throughout the RSP for the O-TERP renovation project, which allows greater emissions savings throughout its life useful (2,056,619.17 KgCo 2equiv ), we can see that the embodied emissions into the project of execution will be offset within a period of six years, after which period we could be talking about real savings in GHG emissions (Figure 4b). The determination of CO 2 payback-time contemplates the loss of efficiency of the TERP caused by the increase in the demand for refrigeration throughout the RSP, which is a differentiating factor compared to previous investigations [71]. From all the information analyzed, it can be concluded that the emissions associated with the construction processes of the evaluated OODs represent between 14% and 26% of the total emissions saved throughout the RSP. It should be noted that for the calculations, the emissions associated with modules C3 and C4 have been omitted due to a lack of confidence in the analyzed data, therefore, the exposed environmental impacts are significantly less than the real ones. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 45 Table 3. Environmental assessment of module A of the Thermal Envelope Renovation Project (TERP) per unit area of different Options Design (OOD) constructive systems. Module A Product and Construction Stage CDW Indicator ADP GWP GWP Units MJ/m2 KgCO2equiv/m2 KgCO2equiv/m2 EVF B4 OP.1 HPL high pressure decorative laminated panel. 367.41 21.33 0.53 OP.2 Single-sided polymer concrete pieces. 320.64 21.04 0.53 OP.3 Large format ceramic pieces 754.07 44.11 0.72 M1 OP.1 Mineral wool (MW) 143.20 4.26 0.53 OP.2 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 76.72 11.32 0.53 EHCP OP.3 Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 150.44 22.20 0.53 B2 OP.1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile 220.94 218.53 3.84 OP.2 Terrazzo flooring system on plots 332.22 32.18 3.84 EVH C3 OP.1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC 6747.02 730.35 3.48 OP.2 Windows and balcony doors in alum. with thermal break 8409.56 990.47 3.48 On the other hand, the 108 possible combinations between the different envelope renovation strategies were analyzed (Figure 4a), identifying the greatest/least environmental impact of each of them. The results of this analysis show that, even in the least impact combination (043 ODC), the emissions associated with the evaluation of modules A1–A5 and C2 were 278,362.78 KgCo2equiv. If we compare this result with the evolution of the CO2 emissions savings achieved through the intervention proposed throughout the RSP for the O-TERP renovation project, which allows greater emissions savings throughout its life useful (2,056,619.17 KgCo2equiv), we can see that the embodied emissions into the project of execution will be offset within a period of six years, after which period we could be talking about real savings in GHG emissions (Figure 4b). The determination of CO2 payback-time contemplates the loss of efficiency of the TERP caused by the increase in the demand for refrigeration throughout the RSP, which is a differentiating factor compared to previous investigations [71]. (a) 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 GWP (KgCO 2equiv ) Figure 4. Cont. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 18 of 40 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 45 (b) Figure 4. (a) Results for Global Warming Potential (GWP) indicator of 108 combinations of strategies applied on building. (b) Results for GWP indicator of 043OD (lowest-carbon design option) and 102OD (highest-carbon design option) in relation to the assessment of emission reductions during RSP with O-TERP considering climate change alterations on consumption. From all the information analyzed, it can be concluded that the emissions associated with the construction processes of the evaluated OODs represent between 14% and 26% of the total emissions saved throughout the RSP. It should be noted that for the calculations, the emissions associated with modules C3 and C4 have been omitted due to a lack of confidence in the analyzed data, therefore, the exposed environmental impacts are significantly less than the real ones. 3.3. Assessment of the Social Sustainability of Thermal Envelope Renovation Projects and Communication of Results The surveys were carried out between March and June 2019 in two different phases. The total number of people surveyed was 34, which represents 71% of a building and 14% concerning the total number of urban cells in the different groups of the housing estate studied. These participation rates allowed us to consider the results with a margin of error of 10.18% and a confidence level of 80%, if they are contextualized at the neighborhood level, but with a margin of error of 5.99% if the data are contextualized at the building level, under the premise of the same level of confidence. However, we considered the sample representative enough to be able to conclude the results obtained, given the uniformity of the responses (Tables 4 and 5). 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 135791113151719212325272931333537394143454749 GWP (KgCO 2equiv ) CO2 savings O-TERP with 043 combination O-TERP with 102 combination Figure 4. ( a ) Results for Global Warming Potential (GWP) indicator of 108 combinations of strategies applied on building. ( b ) Results for GWP indicator of 043OD (lowest-carbon design option) and 102OD (highest-carbon design option) in relation to the assessment of emission reductions during RSP with O-TERP considering climate change alterations on consumption. 3.3. Assessment of the Social Sustainability of Thermal Envelope Renovation Projects and Communication of Results The surveys were carried out between March and June 2019 in two different phases. The total number of people surveyed was 34, which represents 71% of a building and 14% concerning the total number of urban cells in the different groups of the housing estate studied. These participation rates allowed us to consider the results with a margin of error of 10.18% and a confidence level of 80%, if they are contextualized at the neighborhood level, but with a margin of error of 5.99% if the data are contextualized at the building level, under the premise of the same level of confidence. However, we considered the sample representative enough to be able to conclude the results obtained, given the uniformity of the responses (Tables 4and 5). It was verified that the total of the people surveyed were homeowners. Likewise, the average age of the people surveyed was mostly above 65 years, which establishes an old population profile in the buildings. The relation of these two circumstances is a determining aspect to frame the results of the evaluations of the other two dimensions of sustainability since the analysis of issues such as the periods of return on investments to be made or the manifest interest on the part of users in adopting measures with less environmental impact are decisive in determining the degree of acceptance of which measures. Furthermore, and concerning the physical characteristics of dwellings, a certain balance is recognized between their orientations, with a greater number of homes with rooms facing south (southeast). In the same way, it was verified that 76% of the houses from which data were obtained ed to flats located between floors 2 and 11, thus limiting them horizontally with thermally conditioned spaces, which is consistent with the model of the building that had been developed and from which results have already been obtained. Next, the results of the surveys will be analyzed for each of the categories of social behavior. Additionally, we wanted to determine through the survey which aspects were related to the environmental and economic dimensions, so that they can be incorporated as two complementary categories of social behavior (Table 6). Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 19 of 40 Table 4. Survey results in the building for selected indicators in relation with the culture of use of neighbors and issues related to the potential TERP to be implemented in the building. Starting Data Orientation (Living-dIning Room) 24% North 32% South 21% East 24% West Flat 12% 01 76% 02–11 12% 12 Owner or Lessee 100% Age Profile of Home Users (Years) 12% 20–45 41% 41–65 47% >65 Adaptability 2/1.1 How many people do you live in the house? 2.4 Evaluate from 0 to 5. five being the highest score. how satisfied you are with the characteristics of each of the rooms in the house. Hall 3.9 Kitchen 4.3 Laundry 4.2 Dining room 4.4 Toilet 3.9 Bedrooms 4.3 Bathroom 4.1 Terrace 4.2 Mean 4.2 2/1.2 Does the house fit your current needs? 100% Y 0% N Does the house adapt to the changes that occur in your life? 94.1% Y 5.9% N Have you thought about changing your home? 11.8% Y 88% N Have you thought about modifying the house where do you live? 41% Y 59% N 2/1.3 Does the house accommodate? to new technology? 97% Y 3% N 2/1.4 Have you thought of a different use for this dwelling compatible with the residence? 0% Y 100% N Health and comfort 3/1.1 Do you get cold inside the house in winter? 24% Y 77% N What measures are taken to avoid it? 58% 8.3% 33% Heater HVAC Cloth. Do you pass heat inside the house. in summer? 55.9% Y 44.1% N What measures are taken to avoid it? 40.0% 55.0% 5.0% HVAC Fan Cloth. 3/1.2 Do you feel excessive humidity in your home? 8.8% Y 91.2% N 3/1.3 Do you ventilate the house daily? 97.1% Y 2.9% N 3/1.4 Do you feel comfortable in the activities you do inside? 97.1% Y 2.9% N 3/1.5 Do you consider it annoying to change your clothing? 5.9% Y 94.1% N 3/2.2-3/4.2 Can you control the air conditions in the rooms? 88.2% Y 11.8% N If yes. what system do you use? 100% Manually 0% Auto 3/2.3 Do you have any syst. to know the internal air conditions? 14.7% Y 85.3% N 3/5.5 Do you consider adequate the acoustic insulation? 52.9% Y 47.1% N 3/5.6 Does the house have enough natural light? 100% Y 0% N 3/7.2 Does the house have awnings? Do you use them? 5.9% Y 35.3% Y 8.8% Y 50.0% N never daily by season 3/8.2 Do you consider that the interior height of your home is adequate? 97.1% Y 2.9% N 3/8.6 Do you have a terrace with a sufficient surface for the use you make of it? 94.1% Y 5.9% N 3/11.1 Do you consider that there is a lot of external contamination and that affects the cleaning needs of the home? 58.8% Y 41.2% N Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 20 of 40 Table 5. Economic and environmental information obtained through the survey. Economic Information Is the average household income below the following figures? 47.1% 17.6% 8.8% 26.5% 800 €/month 1.300 €/month 1.600 €/month N What is the average monthly cost of your energy bill? 55.58 € Environ-Mental Information Did you know that transforming thermal envelope can save up to 20% in energy? 57.1% 42.9% Y N Do you know what GHG are and what is their impact in terms of accelerating climate change? 42.9% 57.1% Y N Do you consider yourself a person concerned about environment? 92.9% 7.1% Y N Who do you think should take an active part to minimize the impacts of climate change? 85.7% 7.1% 7.1% Society Politicians Enterprises Would you be willing to put your own money to implement in your building measures to reduce emissions from energy consumption? 100% Y Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 21 of 40 Table 6. Survey results in the building for the selected indicators in relation to the culture of use of neighbors and issues related to the potential TERP to be implemented in the building (continuation). 3/11.2 Perceiving bad odours in your home derived from the building's facilities? What facilities specifically? 26.5% Y 2.9% Y 8.8% Y 61.8% N sanitation shunt vent. both 3/11.3 Do you have air conditioning in the house? 82.4% Y 17.6% N If yes, do you use it very often? 0% Always 18% summer days 82% hot days 3/12.1 Do you consider that there is excessive light pollution in your environment? Is it difficult to darken the house at night? 11.8% Y 8.8% Y 79.4% N difficult darkening no difficult darkening 3/12.2 y 3/12.3 Do the surrounding buildings shade the home? Would you claim that you don't have enough direct light? 2.9% Y 11.8% Y 85.3% N more light no more light 3/14.1 Would you say that proper house maintenance is carried out? How often are repairs made? 2.9% Y 55.9% Y 5.9% N 35.3% N monthly annually monthly annually Security 4/15.1 In your experience, would you say your house adequately resist the torrential rains of recent years? Do you notice any damage /humidity /leaks? 5.9% Y 8.8% Y 0.0% N failures in 2.9% Y 82.4% Y facade failures in no failures hollows 4/15.2 Have you had problems with rainwater leaks? 2.9% Y 97.1% N 4/18.3 Have you had a problem with humidity /condensation /leaks on the facade? 5.9% Y 0.0% Y 0.0% Y 94% N humidity condensations leaks 4/19.1 What solar control measures do you use most frequently? 71% 15% 15% blinds curtains awnings 4/19.2 Have you exchanged windows for better features in the last 10 years? 53% Y 47% N 4/19.6 Do you consider the orientation of the house good? Do you save energy for it? 68% Y 2.9% Y, no 29% N savings Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 22 of 40 3.3.1. Results for Survey in Relation to the Category of Social Behavior “Adaptability” As a question before evaluating the adaptability of the dwellings, the survey aimed to determine both the number of people living in the dwellings and the level of satisfaction with the different dependencies. In this way, it was possible to quantify that the majority, with 42.2%, resided in homes consisting of two people with average ages between the ages of 20 and 65. The profile of dwellings inhabited by three people comprised 23.5% of the respondents, mainly aged between 45 and 65 years. Households made up of a single person represented 17.6%, being entirely people over the age of 65. On the other hand, and concerning the satisfaction level of users with their home, we observed that it was quite high, which is why they would hardly require far-reaching functional transformations. By room, the worst-rated were the toilets and the lobby. On the other hand, the homes of the people surveyed were mainly adapted to their current needs as well as to the changes that took place in their lives and technological changes. On the other hand, 88.2% of those surveyed had not thought about changing their homes. However, the proportion between those who wanted to modify their home and those who were not more balanced, being 58.8% of the neighbors who did not want to modify their home and 41.2% who would be willing to carry out interior modifications and/or redistributions. Regarding the approach of new uses of dwellings, the residents responded in their entirety that they had not thought about making the use of housing compatible with any other. 3.3.2. Results for Survey in Relation to the Category of Social Behavior “Health and Comfort” Understanding the uses and customs of the users to air-condition their residence in both the hot and cold months is important, since, to a large extent, the renovation strategies of the buildings will have to respond to these user profiles. In this sense, it should be noted that, in general, the neighbors do not recognize being cold in the winter months. However, the number of residents surveyed mostly admit overheating inside the home in the warm months (55.9%), which will be an effect that will increase over the following years as a consequence of climate change. By season, the most widely used indoor climate conditioning equipment was, in winter, individual heating equipment connected to the electricity grid at 58.3% and individual air conditioning equipment at 8.3%; in summer, portable ventilation and cooling equipment connected to the mains power at 55% and individual air conditioning equipment at 40%. In general, it is observed that a significant number of those surveyed tend to only and exclusively modify their clothing in the interior of the dwellings to improve their comfort conditions therein, with a greater number of neighbors increasing the degree of clothing in the cold months (33.3%), compared to those who reduced this clothing insulation in the warmer months (5%). There is a high percentage of residents (41%), who did not feel thermal discomfort inside their home in any of the two climate classifications. If we look at the profiles of the use of cooling and heating systems, we see that there is greater use of individual equipment connected to mains power. Similarly, and as the use of air conditioning equipment is more widespread in hot periods, it was observed that only 13% of people, who recognized thermal discomfort in their home throughout the year, used this device to acclimatize their homes in both regimes. With all of this, it was established that part of the energy consumption of 56% of users was used to thermally acclimatize the home, while the other residents did not use electrical energy to acclimatize their home. This is a relevant fact, especially if we consider that renovation actions aim to reduce said consumption, which would not exist, according to the groundwork carried out, in just under half of the building. This, as will be seen in the discussion of the results, will have repercussions regarding the expected return on investment, since these periods extend over time, given the representativeness of the consumption associated with interior thermal conditioning. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 23 of 40 3.3.3. Results for Survey in Relation to the Category of Social Behavior “Security” In general, there are no notable problems to be addressed from the perspective of the category of indicators evaluated. Likewise, there is a general perception that homes have an adequate orientation (70.5%), with homes facing north and/or west being the most penalized in this regard, whose users (29.4%) acknowledge that their home did not have a good orientation. On the other hand, it should be noted that around 53% of the residents had changed their windows in the last 10 years, so considering a strategy that pursues the replacement of such an element would entail at least an expense that is hardly justifiable for these residents since they have so far invested in improving the internal conditions of their home. 3.3.4. Results for Survey Regarding Environmental and Economic Dimensions To relate the environmental and economic dimensions to the profiles of the different users, we wanted to incorporate into the survey a series of questions (not included in the reference methodology) that are considered particularly relevant to know the degree of the commitment of the environmental protection of users as well as evaluate the energy consumption profile and income level of families (Table 4). From an economic perspective, it was confirmed that most of the families (73.5%) had a family income of less than € 1600 per month, which makes it possible to increase the amount allocated through subsidies for building refurbishment. With these premises, the amount to which the building understudy would have access will be established for economic calculations. Another issue to consider has to do with the average expenditure per family on energy, which will also allow us to establish returns on economic investment through savings on bills. This average cost is estimated at €55.58. From an environmental point of view, the survey provides information about the degree of the commitment of users to fight against climate change and their knowledge of specific issues regarding energy efficiency and environmental commitment. It was observed that practically all the people surveyed expressed a concern for the environment (92.9%) while assuming that it is a problem that will have to be tackled on a general level by all of society. On the other hand, and concerning aspects that focus more on the knowledge of the people surveyed regarding the issues raised, it was noted that in a significant percentage (78.60%), there was a specific weight of the residential sector in the set of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. In contrast, a greater knowledge was perceived regarding the reduction in energy consumption that is achieved through measures such as changing windows. All the people surveyed stated that they would be willing to contribute financially to the transformation of their building in order to reduce the emissions that derive from its consumption. The results obtained from the environmental perspective are in turn aligned with those obtained by the Royal Elcano Institute for its July 2019 report on the perception of Spanish citizens regarding climate change [72]. This report stressed that the majority of the Spanish population (97%) perceived climate change with great concern, being the greatest threat facing our society today. Although concerning the increase in the circulation tax to allocate these funds to mitigate climate change, it is appreciated that the majority (56%) of respondents were willing to economically face expenses in favor of global improvement in environmental terms. 3.4. Assessment of the Economic Sustainability of Thermal Envelope Renovation Projects and Communication of Results Table 7follows the same scheme as that already analyzed from an environmental perspective, but unlike it, this time the economic impacts associated with CDW management will be analyzed including in addition to transportation to landfill, the waste fee. In line with the results for the environmental evaluation, we observed that the systems with the highest economic cost concerning the surface were those that sought to improve the hollows. In contrast, the renovation of the roof through a lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile system was the most economical option of Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 24 of 40 renovation of the envelope, followed with a significant difference by the ventilated facade system using ceramic pieces. Table 7. Economic assessment of modules A and B of TERP per unit area of different design options (OOD) constructive systems. Module A B Product & construc-tion CDW Maintenan-ce Indicator Non annual cost Non annual cost Annual cost Units €/m2€/m2€/m2 EVF B4 OP.1 HPL high pressure decorative laminated panel. 128.11 19.20 1.00 OP.2 Single-sided polymer concrete pieces. 133.59 114.36 0.88 OP.3 Large format ceramic pieces 111.18 183.95 2.56 EHCP M1 OP.1 Mineral wool (MW) 11.28 15.90 0.02 OP.2 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 8.82 11.03 0.02 OP.3 Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 8.30 15.33 0.02 B2 OP.1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile 46.11 39.96 3.04 OP.2 Terrazzo flooring system on plots 133.59 122.12 0.40 EVH C3 OP.1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC 484.06 0.01 0.05 OP.2 Windows and balcony doors in alum. with thermal break 578.92 0.01 0.06 In addition, the results were evaluated on the selected typology, given that its morphological characteristics will implement the different construction systems combined have an economic impact that will have to be evaluated and compared. To do this, the data were contextualized with the surface of the different envelopes. At the same time, and for all combinations of strategies studied, the economic returns were equate, in the form of reducing energy costs derived from a lower consumption of the homes, consigning them based on the O-TERP renovation project, whose energy savings were modified throughout the RSP as a consequence of the effects of climate change. This entails for each of the combinations of OOD reductions in expenditure for the AS (CF) throughout the entire useful life of the variable building and essentially conditioned by the annual maintenance costs of each of the strategies, the evolution of energy prices (2%), and the loss of efficiency of the renovation strategies analyzed in Section 3.1. As can be seen in Figure 5a, there is a remarkable relationship between the maintenance costs and the initial investment cost of the renovation strategies analyzed, verifying that options with a lower initial investment cost (from 073 ODC) have higher annual maintenance costs. This will be of great importance if the solutions are studied from the perspective of the life cycle analysis, since combinations of strategies with a high cost, despite the fact that they could have low maintenance costs, will lead to longer periods of return on investment than those options with lower initial implementation costs. This leads us to the conclusion that the most suitable options from the economic point of view will have to be those with a lower initial investment cost and a lower annual maintenance cost. If we analyze the set of combinations under this criterion, we see that 029 ODC is the most appropriate, with an initial investment cost of € 556,184.51 (not including subsidies) and annual maintenance costs of € 5439.64/year. Therefore, it will be said combination 029 that will be analyzed from a life cycle analysis perspective, in order to calculate the different economic indicators that will allow us to obtain the implications of adopting this measure in-depth. On the other hand, and with the purpose of establishing the difference between the global cost of the conservation of the construction systems of the building without restoration and the global cost of the improvement systems to be implemented, a series of costs associated with the plan of maintenance would have to be followed to ensure the correct behavior of the different existing construction systems. For this calculation, the residual value for amortization of the replacement cost of the systems that are maintained is also determined by the number of replacements that occur and their useful life. Likewise, the cost of GHG emissions from the non-rehabilitated building is calculated according to the platform Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 25 of 40 Carbon Pricing Dashboard [ 62 ] for the year 2019, which established a cost of € 14.84 per ton of CO 2 emitted with an inter-annual evolution of said rates of 1.40%. Finally, for the determination of the global cost in line with the provisions of the UNE-EN 15459-1: 2018 standard, the disposal costs for the dismantling of the existing construction systems were also determined. With all of the above, it can be obtained that the overall cost of not adopting measures for the building that only pursues the mere maintenance of existing systems is €1,077,175.87. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 45 B2 OP.1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile 46.11 39.96 3.04 OP.2 Terrazzo flooring system on plots 133.59 122.12 0.40 EVH C3 OP.1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC 484.06 0.01 0.05 OP.2 Windows and balcony doors in alum. with thermal break 578.92 0.01 0.06 In addition, the results were evaluated on the selected typology, given that its morphological characteristics will implement the different construction systems combined have an economic impact that will have to be evaluated and compared. To do this, the data were contextualized with the surface of the different envelopes. At the same time, and for all combinations of strategies studied, the economic returns were equate, in the form of reducing energy costs derived from a lower consumption of the homes, consigning them based on the O-TERP renovation project, whose energy savings were modified throughout the RSP as a consequence of the effects of climate change. This entails for each of the combinations of OOD reductions in expenditure for the AS (CF) throughout the entire useful life of the variable building and essentially conditioned by the annual maintenance costs of each of the strategies, the evolution of energy prices (2%), and the loss of efficiency of the renovation strategies analyzed in Section 3.1. As can be seen in Figure 5a, there is a remarkable relationship between the maintenance costs and the initial investment cost of the renovation strategies analyzed, verifying that options with a lower initial investment cost (from 073 ODC) have higher annual maintenance costs. This will be of great importance if the solutions are studied from the perspective of the life cycle analysis, since combinations of strategies with a high cost, despite the fact that they could have low maintenance costs, will lead to longer periods of return on investment than those options with lower initial implementation costs. This leads us to the conclusion that the most suitable options from the economic point of view will have to be those with a lower initial investment cost and a lower annual maintenance cost. If we analyze the set of combinations under this criterion, we see that 029 ODC is the most appropriate, with an initial investment cost of €556,184.51 (not including subsidies) and annual maintenance costs of €5439.64/year. Therefore, it will be said combination 029 that will be analyzed from a life cycle analysis perspective, in order to calculate the different economic indicators that will allow us to obtain the implications of adopting this measure in-depth. (a) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 COMA(€/year) COINIT(€) Initial Cost Maintenance Cost Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 45 (b) Figure 5. (a) Results for the indicators Initial Cost (COINIT) and annual Maintenance Cost (COMA) of the 108 combinations of Thermal Envelope Renovation Strategies (TERS) applied. (b) Net Present Value (NPV) and Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) evolution through Reference Study Period (RSP) for the 029 OD. On the other hand, and with the purpose of establishing the difference between the global cost of the conservation of the construction systems of the building without restoration and the global cost of the improvement systems to be implemented, a series of costs associated with the plan of maintenance would have to be followed to ensure the correct behavior of the different existing construction systems. For this calculation, the residual value for amortization of the replacement cost of the systems that are maintained is also determined by the number of replacements that occur and their useful life. Likewise, the cost of GHG emissions from the non-rehabilitated building is calculated according to the platform Carbon Pricing Dashboard [62] for the year 2019, which established a cost of €14.84 per ton of CO2 emitted with an inter-annual evolution of said rates of 1.40%. Finally, for the determination of the global cost in line with the provisions of the UNE-EN 15459-1: 2018 standard, the disposal costs for the dismantling of the existing construction systems were also determined. With all of the above, it can be obtained that the overall cost of not adopting measures for the building that only pursues the mere maintenance of existing systems is €1,077,175.87. To calculate the initial cost, it will consider the costs and income throughout the useful life of the 029 OD. For the determination of said cost, the Execution Material Project (PEM) is increased, when considering concepts such as urban rates, general expenses (13%), industrial profit (6%), and technical fees (6%). Once this real cost is obtained, we will then be able to determine the different economic indicators, which we have analyzed in the previous section, for the option that is the most economically optimal one. These economic indicators are the Global Cost, GC (Equation (5)); net present value, NPV (Equation (2)), and equivalent annual value, EAA (Equation (4)). The evaluation results showed that the said combination had the lowest overall cost, being the same as €1,256,112.00, which is 16.61% higher than the CG of not intervening on the building. At the same time, we obtained a NPV for the RSP of €513,044.82, which will entail returns on investment from year 17 (Figure 5b). Regardless of all of the above, we observed that the returns on economic investment and emission offsetting are closely conditioned on the consumer culture of users, who mostly acknowledge not making use of the energy for its thermal conditioning. For this reason, the social context is shown as a key factor when evaluating the environmental and economic impacts throughout the LCA, and the relationship between these impacts having to be contextualized to guide decision-making toward a reasonable balance that allows for benefits in the short- and long-term. 4. Discussion -600000 -400000 -200000 0 200000 400000 600000 135791113151719212325272931333537394143454749 NPV EAA Figure 5. ( a ) Results for the indicators Initial Cost (CO INIT ) and annual Maintenance Cost (CO MA ) of the 108 combinations of Thermal Envelope Renovation Strategies (TERS) applied. ( b ) Net Present Value (NPV) and Equivalent Annual Annuity (EAA) evolution through Reference Study Period (RSP) for the 029 OD. To calculate the initial cost, it will consider the costs and income throughout the useful life of the 029 OD. For the determination of said cost, the Execution Material Project (PEM) is increased, when considering concepts such as urban rates, general expenses (13%), industrial profit (6%), and technical fees (6%). Once this real cost is obtained, we will then be able to determine the different economic indicators, which we have analyzed in the previous section, for the option that is the most economically optimal one. These economic indicators are the Global Cost, GC (Equation (5)); net present value, NPV (Equation (2)), and equivalent annual value, EAA (Equation (4)). The evaluation results showed that the said combination had the lowest overall cost, being the same as € 1,256,112.00, which is 16.61% higher than the CG of not intervening on the building. At the same time, we obtained a NPV for the RSP of € 513,044.82, which will entail returns on investment from year 17 (Figure 5b). Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 32 of 40 Appendix D Table A4. Assignment of influences of the social assessment indicators selected for the different remaining information modules. Aspect/Indicator Indicator Specific Provision, Measure or Activity B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Aspect According to Section 1Accessi-bility 7.2.2.1 Approach to the building 7.2.2.2 Access and movements in the building 2.9 7.2.2 Layout, dimensions and ease of operation of elevators Elevator replacement X X X X X 2 Adapta-bility 7.3 Adaptability 1.1 7.3 building's ability to accommodate indi-vidual user requirements Enable new redistributions INA INA INA X INA 1.2 7.3 building's ability to accommodate changes in user requirements INA INA INA X INA 1.3 7.3 building's ability to accommodate technical changes Update obsolete installations INA X X X X 1.4 7.3 building's ability to accommodate change of use Inventory compatible activities INA INA INA X X 3 Health & Comfort 7.4.2.1 Aspects of thermal characteristics related to the structure of the building 7.4.2 Thermal characteristics 1.1 7.4.2.1 operating temperature (◦C or K) (radiant surface temperature, air temperature and distribution) Adopt transformation measures for the building envelope INA INA INA X X 1.2 7.4.2.1 humidity (% or g/kg) INA INA INA X X 1.3 7.4.2.1 air speed (m/s) and distribution Renovate the building's natural ventilation system XXXXX 1.4 7.4.2.1 type of activities in space - INA INA INA INA X 1.5 7.4.2.1 type of users (Clothing insulation) - INA INA INA INA X 7.4.2.2 Aspects of thermal characteristics related to the user and the control system 2.2 7.4.2.2 the operating temperature in individual spaces can be controlled [Yes /No]. Manual control measures: use of awnings, blinds and carpentry X X X X INA 2.5 7.4.2.2 humidity in individual spaces can be controlled [Yes /No]. INA INA INA X INA 2.7 7.4.2.2 speed and air distribution in individual spaces can be controlled [Yes /No]. X X X X INA 7.4.3 Indoor air quality characteristics 7.4.3.2 Indoor air quality aspects related to the user and the control system 4.2 7.4.3.2 Is there control of the ventilation of the users by means of automatic and /or manual control? [Yes /No]. Manual control measures INA INA X X X 7.4.4 Acoustic characteristics 5.5 7.4.4 acoustic insulation of existing buildings Conduct test and take corrective action NR INA INA X INA 7.4.5 Visual comfort characteristics 7.4.5.1 Aspects of the visual comfort characteristic related to the structure of the building 6.2 7.4.5.1 Contribution of natural light Lighting study in order to withstand potential changes in use INA INA INA X X Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 33 of 40 Table A5. Assignment of influences of the social assessment indicators selected for the different remaining information modules (continuation). Aspect/Indicator Aspect According to Section Indicator Specific Provision, Measure or Activity B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 6.3 7.4.5.1 Is there a visual connection to the outside world [Yes /No]? (1) What is the height of the windowsill ? (2) Is there a view of the different layers: sky, city /landscape and /or terrain? Transform hollows and enhance visual connection with the outside INA INA INA X INA 7.4.5.2 Aspects of visual comfort related to the user and the control system 7.2 7.4.5.2 Can the user control the amount of natural lighting in individual spaces? - [Yes /No]. Manual control measures INA INA INA X INA 7.4.6 Spatial characteristics 8.2 7.4.6 height from floor to ceiling (m) Height reduction in distributors and bathrooms for implementation of centralized climate system in housing INA INA INA X INA 8.6 7.4.6 outdoor space (type, for example balconies, terrace or garden and area (m2) Possibility of increasing depth of existing terraces or generating new ones INA INA INA X INA 7.5 Impacts on the neighbourhood 11.3 7.5.3 water (for example droplets from air conditioning, gutter and downspouts) Redirect a water evacuation net NR INA INA X INA 7.5.4 Glare /Over Shading 12.1 7.5.4 night glare: (1) protection and illuminance (lux) of the evaluation object at night and whether it is continuous or intermittent; (2) the presence of light (for example flashing, intermittent, red) that causes irritation, loss of concentration, etc. Reduce levels of light pollution in the environment. There are problems with natural ventilation on summer nights INA INA INA INA INA 12.2 7.5.4 daytime glare: (1) glare emitted from the surface of a building, for example caused by high reflectivity exterior materials. Ensure that interventions at the envelope level do not affect this indicator INA INA INA INA INA 12.3 7.5.4 overshadowing: (1) overshadowing with detrimental effects on the neighbourhood (area and hours of overshadowing on neighbors). Avoid overshadowing with terrace operations INA INA INA INA INA 7.6 Maintenance and maintainability 14.1 7.6 frequency and duration of routine maintenance (including cleaning), repairs, replacements and /or rehabilitation Prepare a Book of the regenerated building X X X X INA 14.2 7.6 impacts on the health and comfort of users during maintenance tasks Health and safety study X X X X INA 14.3 7.6 user safety during maintenance tasks X X X X INA Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 34 of 40 Table A6. Assignment of influences of the social assessment indicators selected for the different remaining information modules (continuation). Aspect/Indicator Aspect According to Section Indicator Specific Provision, Measure or Activity B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 14.4 7.6 ability to use the building while carrying out maintenance tasks, i.e. as a ratio of the expected duration of maintenance and cleaning causing disruption on days of normal use. Carry out a Health and Safety Study for the course of building renovation works X X X X INA 4 Security 7.7.2 Resistance to the consequences of climate change 7.7.2.2 Rain resistance 15.1 7.7.2.2 resistance to rains and torrential rains Control by means of specific tests INA INA INA X INA 15.2 7.7.2.2 water evacuation capacity Provide a separate network for the reuse of rainwater INA INA INA X INA 7.7.2.3 Wind resistance 16.1 7.7.2.3 increased structural strength Rehearse structure INA INA INA INA INA 16.2 7.7.2.3 measures to prevent detachment of the facade or its elements INA INA INA X INA 16.3 7.7.2.3 measures to improve the air permeability of building enclosures against wind INA INA INA X INA 7.7.2.5 Flood resistance 18.3 7.7.2.5 water integrity of building enclosures and basements INA INA INA X INA 7.7.2.6 Resistance to solar radiation 19.1 7.7.2.6 solar control measures such as shading (for example blinds, cornices, eaves, screens) and /or types of window glass Require compliance with installed products and based the measures on a prior solar study INA INA INA X INA 19.2 7.7.2.6 ultraviolet filters Require standard compliance in relation to the light and solar characteristics of the glazing NR INA INA X INA 19.5 7.7.2.6 air conditioning, ventilation systems - X X X X X 19.6 7.7.2.6 thermal inertia Study the incorporation of blind panels of the envelope that could function as waterspouts INA INA INA X X Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 35 of 40 Appendix E Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 40 of 45 Figure 1. Graphic definition of the most efficient solution existing in the current industry from the economic and environmental point of view. Figure A1. Graphic definition of the most efficient solution existing in the current industry from the economic and environmental point of view. Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 36 of 40 Table A7. Results for the analyzed indicators of the different most efficient design options. 001 ODC EVF B4+M1 OP1 HPL high pressure decorative laminated panel. OP1 Mineral wool (MW) EHCP B2+M1 OP1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile OP1 Mineral wool (MW) EVH C3 OP1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC Economic indicators COINIT €396.19349 COMA €/year 4.89040 NPV €266.22195 EAA €10.34685 CG €1139.97137 TPB years 30 Environmental indicators GWP KgCO2equiv 317.44270 TPB CO2years 11.14 029 ODC EVF B4+M1 OP1 HPL high pressure decorative laminated panel. OP3 Extruded polystyrene (XPS) EHCP B2+M1 OP1 Lightweight and filtering precast concrete tile OP3 Extruded polystyrene (XPS) EVH C3 OP1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC Economic indicators COINIT €388.10241 COMA €/year 4.87218 NPV €274.94000 EAA €10.68568 CG €1131.57801 TPB years 30 Environmental indicators GWP KgCO2equiv 255.54451 TPB CO2years 13.84 043 ODC EVF B4+M1 OP2 Single-sided polymer concrete pieces. OP1 Mineral wool (MW) EHCP B2+M1 OP2 Terrazzo flooring system on plots OP1 Mineral wool (MW) EVH C3 OP1 Windows and balcony doors in non-laminated PVC Economic indicators COINIT €438.19132 COMA €/year 3.42327 NPV €274.70023 EAA €10.67636 CG €1157.63305 TPB years 31 Environmental indicators GWP KgCO2equiv 192.19218 TPB CO2years 8.38 References 1. European Environment Agency. Monitoring Covid-19 Impacts on Air Pollution. Available online: https: //www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality-and-covid19/monitoring-covid-19-impacts-on (accessed on 26 March 2020). 2. Guerrieri, V.; Lorenzoni, G.; Straub, L.; Werning, I. Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages? National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. 3. Fernandes, N. Economic Effects of Coronavirus Outbreak (COVID-19) on the World Economy; IESE Business School: Barcelona, Spain, 2010. [CrossRef] 4. Conticini, E.; Frediani, B.; Caro, D. Can atmospheric pollution be considered a co-factor in extremely high level of SARS-CoV-2 lethality in Northern Italy? Environ. Pollut. 2020. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Han, Y.; Lam, J.C.K.; Li, V.O.K.; Guo, P.; Zhang, Q. The effects of outdoor air pollution concentrations and lockdowns on Covid-19 infections in Wuhan and other provincial capitals in China. Preprints 2020 . [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 37 of 40 6. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change; Material Economics: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019; Available online: https: //www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Completing_The_Picture_How_The_Circular_ Economy-_Tackles_Climate_Change_V3_26_September.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2020). 7. Abergel, T.; Dean, B.; Dulac, J. Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector: Global Status Reports 2017; Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GAB): Paris, France, 2017. 8. European Union. Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Indication by Labelling and Standard Product Information of the Consumption of Energy and Other Resources by Energy-Related Products. 2010. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0030 (accessed on 1 July 2020). 9. European Union. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Energy Efficiency, Amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and Repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. 2012. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= celex%3A32012L0027 (accessed on 1 July 2020). 10. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the Inclusion of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals From Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry in the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, and Amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and Decision Number 529/2013/EU. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv: OJ.L_.2018.156.01.0001.01.ENG (accessed on 1 July 2020). 11. Spain Government. Royal Decree 732/2019, of 20 December, which Modifies the Technical Building Code, Approved by Royal Decree 314/2006, of 17 March 2019. Available online: https://www.archyworldys.com/royal-decree-732-2019-of-december-20-which-modifies-the-technical- building-code-approved-by-royal-decree-314-2006-of-march-17/(accessed on 1 July 2020). 12. Consoli, A.; Costanzo, V.; Evola, G.; Marletta, L. Refurbishing an existing apartment block in Mediterranean climate: Towards the passivhaus standard. Energ. Proc. 2015,111, 397–407. [CrossRef] 13. Monge-Barrio, A.; S á nchez-Ostiz Guti é rrez, A. Residential architecture in Mediterranean climates. towards optimized passive solutions for the whole year. In Passive Energy Strategies for Mediterranean Residential Buildings; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [CrossRef] 14. Ortiz, J.; Fonseca, A.; Salom, J.; Garrido, N.; Fonseca, P.; Russo, V. Comfort and economic criteria for selecting passive measures for the energy refurbishment of residential buildings in Catalonia. Energy Build. 2016 ,110, 195–210. [CrossRef] 15. Rodrigues, E.; Fernandes, M.S. Overheating risk in Mediterranean residential buildings: Comparison of current and future climate scenarios. Appl. Energy 2020,259. [CrossRef] 16. Fosas, D.; Coley, D.A.; Natarajan, S.; Herrera, M.; Fosas de Pando, M.; Ramallo-Gonzalez, A. Mitigation versus adaptation: Does insulating dwellings increase overheating risk? Build. Environ. 2018,143, 740–759. [CrossRef] 17. Passer, A.; Ouellet-Plamondon, C.; Kenneally, P.; John, V.; Habert, G. The impact of future scenarios on building refurbishment strategies towards plus energy buildings. Energy Build. 2016 ,124, 153–163. [CrossRef] 18. Dodman, D. Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environ. Urban. 2009,21, 185–201. [CrossRef] 19. Koirala, B.P.; Koliou, E.; Friege, J.; Hakvoort, R.A.; Herder, P.M. Energetic communities for community energy: A review of key issues and trends shaping integrated community energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,56, 722–744. [CrossRef] 20. Best, R.E.; Rezazadeh Kalehbasti, P.; Lepech, M.D. A novel approach to district heating and cooling network design based on life cycle cost optimization. Energy 2020,194, 116837. [CrossRef] 21. The Body of the Law (BOE). Royal Decree 233/2013 of 5April, Which Regulates the State Plan for the Promotion of Housing Rental, Building Rehabilitation, and Urban Regeneration and Renovation, 2013–2016. Official State Gazette Number 86/2013. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2013-3780#:~{}: text=Real%20Decreto% (accessed on 7 July 2020). 22. Spain Ministry of Development. Long-Term Strategy for Rehabilitation Energy in the Building Sector in Spain in Development of Article 4 of Directive 2012/27/EU. June 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/ sites/ener/files/documents/ES%20Art%204%20EN%20ENER-2014-01009-00-00-EN-TRA-00.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2020). Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 38 of 40 23. The Body of the Law (BOE). Royal Decree-Law 7/2015, of October 30, Which Approves the Revised Text of the Law on Land and Urban Rehabilitation. Official State Gazette Number 261/2015. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-11723 (accessed on 7 July 2020). 24. The Body of the Law (BOE). Royal Decree 56/2016, of February 12, Transposing Directive 2012/27 /EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of October 25, 2012, on Energy Efficiency, Regarding Energy Audits, Provider Accreditation. Official State Gazette Number 38/2016. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php? id=BOE-A-2016-1460 (accessed on 7 July 2020). 25. Andalusian Government. Decree 141/2016, of August 2, regulating the Andalusia Housing and Rehabilitation Plan 2016-2020, Official Gazette of the Andalusian Government Number 151/2016; Andalusian Government: Seville, Spain, 2016. 26. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15603: Energy Performance of Buildings—Overall Energy Use and Definition of Energy Ratings; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2008. 27. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15643-1: Sustainability of Construction Works—Sustainability Assessment of Buildings—Part 1: General Framework; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. 28. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15643-2: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Buildings—Part 2: Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. 29. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15643-3: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Buildings—Part 3: Framework for The Assessment of Social Performance; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. 30. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15643-4: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Buildings—Part 4: Framework for the Assessment of Economic Performance; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. 31. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15978: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012. 32. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 15804: Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2014. 33. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 16309+A1: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Social Performance of Buildings—Calculation Methodology; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2015. 34. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). UNE-EN 16627: Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Economic Performance of Building—Calculation Methods; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2016. 35. National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI). Irish Standard UNE-EN 15459-1: Energy Performance of Buildings—Economic Evaluation Procedure for Energy Systems in Buildings—Part 1: Calculation Procedures, Module M1-14; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2018. 36. Watson, R.T.; Core Writing Team. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2001. 37. Garrido-Piñero, J.; Mercader-Moyano, P. EIAMUO methodology for environmental assessment of the post-war housing estates renovation: Practical application in Seville (Spain). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017,67, 124–133. [CrossRef] 38. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Zeitschrift 2006,15, 259–263. [CrossRef] 39. P é rez-Galaso, J.-L. Symbiosis Between Climate, Place and Architecture Development of Bioclimatic Strategies Applied in the Western Costa Del Sol. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain, February 2015. 40. Observatorio de Medio Ambiente Urbano (OMAU). Urbano (OMAU). Urban Environment Observatory, Innovation and Urban Digitization Area, Malaga’s Town Hall. In Malaga Local Agenda: Sustainability Indicators in 2019; OMAU: Malaga, Spain, 2019. 41. Faraj, K.; Khaled, M.; Faraj, J.; Hachem, F.; Castelain, C. Phase change material thermal energy storage systems for cooling applications in buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,119. [CrossRef] 42. Palacios-Muñoz, B.; Peuportier, B.; Garcia-Vila, L.; L ó pez-Mesa, B. Sustainability assessment of refurbishment vs. new constructions by means of LCA and durability-based estimations of buildings lifespans: A New Approach. Build. Environ. J. 2019,160. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 39 of 40 43. Government of Spain; Ministry of Development; General Technical Secretariat. Instruction of Structural Concrete EHE-08. 2011. Available online: https://www.mitma.gob.es/organos-colegiados/mas-organos- colegiados/comision-permanente-del-hormigon/cph/instrucciones/ehe-08-version-en-ingles (accessed on 1 June 2020). 44. Marsh, R. Building lifespan: Effect on the environmental impact of building components in a Danish perspective. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2017,13, 80–100. [CrossRef] 45. Oregi, X.; Hernandez, P.; Hernandez, R. Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment projects. Energy Build. 2017,136, 12–25. [CrossRef] 46. Adalberth, K.; Almgren, A.; Hollers, P.E. Life cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings. Int. J. Low Energy Sustain. Build. 2001,2, 1–21. 47. Ortiz, O.; Bonnet, C.; Bruno, J.C.; Castells, F. Sustainability based on LCM of residential dwellings: A case study in Catalonia, Spain. Build. Environ. 2009,44, 584–594. [CrossRef] 48. Rinc ó n, L.; P é rez, G.; Cabeza, L.F. Service life of the dwelling stock in Spain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013 ,18, 919–925. [CrossRef] 49. Rivero Camacho, C.; Pereira, J.; Gomes, M.G.; Marrero, M. Huella de carbono como instrumento de decisi ó n en la rehabilitaci ó n energ é tica. Pel í culas de control solar frente a la sustituci ó n de ventanas. Rev. H á bitat Sustentable 2018,8, 20–31. [CrossRef] 50. Mart í nez Rocamora, A.; Sol í s-Guzm á n, J.; Marrero, M. Ecological footprint of the use and maintenance phase of buildings: maintenance tasks and final results. Energy Build. 2017,155, 339–351. [CrossRef] 51. Del Pilar Mercader Moyano, M.; Camporeale, P.E.; C ó zar-C ó zar, E. Evaluaci ó n de impacto ambiental mediante la introducci ó n de indicadores a un modelo BIM de vivienda social. Rev. H á bitat Sustentable 2019 , 9, 78–93. [CrossRef] 52. Schroeder, H. UNE-EN 15942: Sustainability of construction works—Environmental product declarations—Communication format business-to-business. In Sustainable Building with Earth; Springer: Thüringen, Germany, 2014. 53. Schroeder, H. UNE-EN 15804/A1: Sustainability of construction works—Environmental product declarations—Core rules for the product category of construction products. In Sustainable Building with Earth; Springer: Thüringen, Germany, 2014. 54. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type III Environmental Declarations—Principles and Procedures (ISO 14025:2006); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. 55. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling—Principles and Procedures (ISO 14024:2018); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. 56. Catalonia Institute of Construction Technology (ITeC). BEDEC Content and Criteria; Catalonia Institute of Construction Technology: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. 57. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Energy Performance of Buildings—Overarching EPB Assessment—Part. 1: General Framework and Procedures (ISO 52000-1:2017); ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. 58. Spain Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge. Recognized Documents. Available online: energia.gob.es/desarrollo/EficienciaEnergetica/CertificacionEnergetica/DocumentosReconocidos/ Paginas/documentosreconocidos.aspx (accessed on 26 March 2020). 59. Direccion general de Trafico (DGT). Statistical Tables 2018. Available online: http://www.dgt.es/es/seguridadvial/estadisticas-e-indicadores/parque-vehiculos/tablas-estadisticas/2018/(accessed on 26 March 2020). 60. IDAE. CO2 Consumption and Emissions in New Vehicles. Available online: http://coches.idae.es/(accessed on 4 June 2020). 61. ITEC. BEDEC Banco Construccion Database. Available online: https://metabase.itec.cat/vide/es/bedec (accessed on 26 March 2020). 62. ECOINVENT. Ecoinvent Version 3.5. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/home.html (accessed on 28 August 2019). 63. S á nchez-Garc í a, D.; Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; Tristancho-Carvajal, M.; Rubio-Bellido, C. Adaptive Comfort Control Implemented Model (ACCIM) for energy consumption predictions in dwellings under current and future climate conditions: A case study located in Spain. Energies 2019,12, 1498. [CrossRef] 64. Tadeu, S.F.; Alexandre, R.F.; Tadeu, A.J.B.; Antunes, C.H.; Sim õ es, N.A.V.; da Silva, P.P. A comparison between cost optimality and return on investment for energy retrofit in buildings-a real options perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016,21, 12–25. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 5495 40 of 40 65. Mckibbin, W.; Fernando, R. The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19; Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2020. [CrossRef] 66. Spain Government. Royal Decree 216/2014, of March 28, Establishing the Methodology for Calculating Voluntary Prices for the Small Consumer of Electric Power and Its Legal Contracting Regime. Official State Gazette Number 77/2014. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2014-3376#: ~{}:text=Real%20Decreto%20216%2F2014%2C%20de,su%20r%C3%A9gimen%20jur%C3%ADdico%20de% 20contrataci%C3%B3n (accessed on 7 July 2020). 67. OMIE. Operator of the Iberian Energy Market Polo Español. Available online: http://www.omie.es (accessed on 23 July 2019). 68. Red Electrica de Espana (REE). Lumios: ESIOS Electricity Data Transparency. Available online: https://www. esios.ree.es/es/lumios?rate=rate1&p1=150&start_date=06-11-2019T00:00&end_date=11-11-2019T00:00 (accessed on 11 November 2019). 69. Market Observatory for Energy. Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2018. 70. World Bank Group. Carbon Pricing Dashboard. Available online: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank. org/(accessed on 5 January 2020). 71. Genchi, Y.; Kikegawa, Y.; Inaba, A. CO 2 payback-time assessment of a regional-scale heating and cooling system using a ground source heat-pump in a high. energy-consumption area in Tokyo. Appl. Energy 2002 , 71, 147–160. [CrossRef] 72. L á zaro Touza, L.; Gonz á lez Enr í quez, C.; Franc é s, G.E. Spanish Citizens and Climate Change; Elcano Royal Institute: Madrid, Spain, 2019. © 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/).