Printer Friendly

Issues in Retrofitting Low Carbon Solutions for Residential Homes: A Critical Review.

Introduction

"We drastically need to cut emissions from all sectors, but the built environment offers the best cost effective opportunity to do that. We have the technology and the know-how in the industry, but we haven't managed to mainstream these yet. So, the drive to cut carbon emission, quest for sustainability has put new challenges to engineers (i.e. doing more with less) ". Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council cited by Bhuiyan et al., 2015."

The International Carbon Dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) emission fiasco

Energy efficiency and climate change are topical issues over the world. Climate change has been a worldwide issue over the recent decades with substantial increase in global temperatures and extreme weather conditions (Nelson et al., 2010 cited in Low et al., 2014). For example, in the UK, the domestic building sector contributes about 23% of the national greenhouse gas emissions (Allen et al., 2008). Elsewhere, buildings contribute up to 40% of the use of energy and materials in Sweden (Byggsektorns, 2001; OECD, 2003). In China, buildings consume about 28% of the national energy consumption (Chen et al., 2012), with 95% of the existing buildings are categorized as high-energy buildings (Xu et al., 2013). It has been estimated that buildings provide the greatest potential for climate change mitigation (Pachauri et al., 2007; McKinsey, 2009).

Many countries and politicians worldwide are now taking actions to fight global warming and remedy its adverse consequences. This includes embarking on sustainable development. The construction of green and sustainable homes is one of the focus areas of sustainable development to improve the quality of living (Ezeanya, 2004; Tan, 2012; Tan, 2013). Houses are considered 'green' when they use environmentally friendly materials for construction such as recyclable timber products, recyclable roof systems, recyclable kitchen cabinets, certified energy efficient appliances, compact fluorescent lamps and light-emitting diode lighting system (Tan, 2013). According to WHO (2010), housing will have four characteristics: physical entity, provide facilities and feeling of home to occupants, its surrounding environment, and a feeling of neighborhood. 'Healthy Housing' means a quality housing itself, which necessarily need not to be designed with special care in residential setting, but meets the occupants' preference and expectation (Bhuiyan et al., 2015).

The construction industry appears to be one main contributor to the emissions of C[O.sub.2] given that it consumes a large amount of energy (Marsonoa et al., 2015). The construction of buildings and their operation contribute to a large proportion of total energy end-use worldwide (Ma et al., 2012). In the building sector, most energy is consumed by existing buildings while the replacement rate of existing buildings by the new-build is only around 1.0-3.0% per annum. A building has a very long life-span, sometimes more than 100 years. During such a long period, a lot of repairs must be done or else the building will become dilapidated (Gustafsson, 2001).

Currently, residential buildings represent 65% of the global total sectorial emissions, and 35% for commercial buildings (Zaid et al., 2015; Baumert et al., 2005). However, the occupants of the residential building may not be conscious of their existing residential building impact on the environment. Since the replacement rate of existing buildings only around 1.0-3.0% per annum (Ma et al., 2012). Upgrading properties through sustainable retrofit can reduce energy use and carbon emission of existing residence (Swan et al., 2013). Sustainable retrofit is adopted to address the three energy-policy aims of the UK government; climate change, fuel poverty and energy security (Department for Trade Industry (DTI), 2006, 2007; Swan et al., 2013).

In the scholarly literature, modernization, retrofit and refurbishment are used interchangeably (Bell and Lowe, 2000; Hong et al., 2009; Kelly, 2009; Jenkins, 2010; Reeves et al., 2010; Swan et al., 2013) to describe the upgrade of a property's physical characteristics to improve its environmental performance. In this research, such upgrading refers to sustainable retrofit that includes upgrades to the fabric or systems of a property that may reduce energy use or generate renewable energy. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) (2010a) defines "retrofitting" as "the provision, extension or substantial alteration of the building envelope and building services in or in connection with an existing building" (cited in Low et al., 2014). Retrofitting an existing building has shown its positive impact on the environment (energy savings in particular) (Ardente et al., 2011; Dong et al., 2005; Castleton et al., 2010), economic (Dong et al., 2005; Verbeeck and Hens, 2005) and social aspects (Neal and Tromley, 1995).

However, there are several barriers to reducing carbon emissions of the existing building. Retrofitting is not an easy action as it has complexity to perform as Gentoo Retrofit Reality Project (2010) stated that Retrofit is not simple, each house is different and every person behaves differently within their home (Stafford A et al., 2011). As from the previous studies, retrofitting has barriers and challenges. Such as, barriers that focus on policy, financial, knowledge and client demand factors (Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011). Moreover, according to Ma et al. (2012), the main challenge encountered is that there are many uncertainties, such as climate change, services change, human behaviour change, government policy change, all of which directly affect the selection of retrofit technologies and hence the success of a retrofit project.

Jenkins et al. (2010) posited that that the main challenge is the capital cost. A lot of money needs to be spent over the years. Many times, the owner of the building only looks at the direct building cost and tries to build as cheap as possible, even if this will result in high operating and maintenance costs in the future (Gustafsson, 2001). Furthermore, another barrier could be time where it may take a while before housing developers build homes using full-blown energy sustainability capabilities with recyclable materials, carbon neutral emission or water harvesting features (Tan, 2013).

Malaysia's situation on C[O.sub.2] emission

Between 1990 and 2004, Malaysia's carbon emissions grew by 221 percent (+221%). Such increase in energy demand from industrial and transportation sectors, was considered the fastest growth rate in the world (Zaid et al., 2015; Al-Jazeera, 2007; Watkins, 2007). By 2009, the demand increased by 210.7% from 1990, which led to carbon emissions growth by +235.6% (Energy Commission, 2011; IEA, 2011). Pursuant to this worrying trend, Malaysia had announced at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP-15) a voluntarily commitment to reduce 40% of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (from 1990 levels) by year 2020 (Department of Environment, 2010). Based on the findings of previous studies, both new and existing buildings are estimated to have the potential in reducing energy consumption up to 80% using proven and commercially available technologies and with net profit during their lifespan (IPCC, 2007; UNEP, 2009). Enforcing energy performance requirements in building codes has been argued to be the most cost-effective strategy in reducing GHG emissions from both existing and new buildings (UNEP, 2009). In 2007, GHG emissions from Malaysian buildings accounted for approximately 4% of national emissions related to energy, at 3,947 Gigagram of carbon dioxide (GgCO2) or approximately 0.004 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) (Malaysia Energy Centre, 2007; Zaid et al., 2015).

However, though in 2009, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that Malaysia would cut 40% of the carbon emission intensity by 2020, the CCPI ranking has shown no improvement since 2005. In fact, Malaysia's ranking dropped slightly from 52nd in 2009 to 55th in 2013 (Marsonoa & Balasbaneh, 2015). The challenges include "lack of environmental considerations in the exploitation, development and management of resources as well as lack of control of pollution resources" (Hussein & Hamid, 2008; Zaid et al., 2015). In addition, Bhuiyan et al. (2015) mentioned another challenge is insufficient information and uncertainty in the building structure enable refurbishment (AzlanSha., 2010) such as physical condition of load bearing members, cracks, infiltration, or uncertainty in the whole construction project which may cause contingency cost allocation (Rayers and Mansfield, 2001).

With all these, minimizing carbon emission from new and existing buildings is vital for the abatement of climate change. Buildings that are designed and engineered to have low levels of carbon emission over their lifetimes are called low-carbon buildings (Sartori and Hestnes, 2007; Williams, 2010). Development of new buildings and retrofit of existing buildings to become LC buildings can significantly contribute towards the mitigation of climate change (Chen et al., 2011; Heinonen et al., 2011; Farhan et al., 2014). The market for retrofit green residential building in Malaysia is expected to grow from RM 13.82 million in 2011 to RM 16.34 million by 2016, growing at a CAGR of 3.4% from 2011 to 2016 (Tenaga Expo & Forum, 2015). It has been observed that the major driver for the market will likely be the regulations and initiatives by the Government of Malaysia to increase the awareness of energy efficiency as well as increase in product certifications standards by the government. It is estimated that consumption in both new and existing buildings could be reduced significantly by applying existing technologies, design, equipment, management systems and alternative solutions (Levine et al., 2007). Malaysia clearly has to make significant and urgent changes in its policy, economy, industries and lifestyle if it is to reduce its contribution to climate change. Without emissions mitigation and conservation policies, Malaysia is unlikely to meet its emissions reduction targets (Zaid et al., 2013). However, little is done to understand the issues related to retrofitting low carbon solutions for existing residential properties. This paper aims to highlight issues discussed in previous research since 2000 up to 2015.

Method

The references and sources of information are varied; the author searched papers that relevant to the LC retrofits in residential homes. Most of the information are from the conference papers, and journal articles. Keyword entries "low carbon", "retrofitting", "housing" and "residential" are used to conduct the search and the fields selected for the placement of the keywords are "Title" and "Abstract". The authors also refer to a number of other articles obtained from the citations in the articles that appeared in the search results.

Result

For nearly 30 years, research related to the LC retrofits in residential homes have been a topic of interest from various backgrounds. In this section, the author will elaborate more in details on the reviews of the previous studies. There are about six aspects and issues were found regarding to the LC retrofits in residential homes, namely: methods and framework; technical, economic and environmental implications; benefits or motivates; challenges; sustainability assessment; and lastly decision making. Table 1 summarizes the previous studies that focused on different aspects.

Methods And Framework

A study (Boait et al., 2011), on Carbon, Control and Comfort (CCC) project aiming at developing techniques for reducing carbon emissions (C[O.sub.2]e) for houses while maintaining desired comfort levels, using action research and user-centred design approaches to access the effects of both improved control technology and social issues surrounding control systems. Meanwhile, Goodacre et al. (2010) used a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) framework to assess the potential scale of some of the benefits from the comprehensive upgrading of heating and hot water energy efficiency in the English housing stock. The paper outlines the steps involved in the appraisal and sets out the underlying assumptions at its root. However, Hens (2010) mentioned about using a methodology based on EN ISO 13790 for calculating of energy use for heating, in this case specifically measurement for the two-stories houses. Another study mentioned various types of planning in the processes and steps that should be taken in order to proceed the residential development that could be beneficial to the society towards the LC solutions (Zakaria, 2007). The author suggested sustainable development in terms of, sustainability and planning concepts; sustainable housing design and development process; and the housing and indoor environmental quality.

Within European Union, there is an energy assessment tool for residential housing where, application of an Energy Demand Certificate (EDC) for new residential buildings and an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for existing residential buildings is the current practice (Wagner, 2014). The researcher focused on the adaptation and implementation of the EPC for tropical country in South-East Asia (SEA). The tool is implemented with an easy to understand scientific tool kit to measure C[O.sub.2], including emissions, insulation, thermal comfort and cost. Another group of researchers proposed on a new approach to minimize the effects of C[O.sub.2] emission for buildings as well as to improve their structural stability for a longer lifespan. In this case, it encouraged the use of wood components as the materials for their residential building construction (Marsonoa et al., 2015),

A series of experiments performed by Stovall et al. (2007) to examine wall retrofit option including the retrofits cladding, insulations and methods for replacement windows were applied to a model to estimate whole-house energy impacts for multiple climates. Similarly, Hens (2010) discussed the renewable materials that, in the end relates to the energy efficient retrofits. Stafford et al. (2011) suggest fabric performance is fundamental to achieving significantly reduced energy consumption while maintaining acceptable levels of thermal comfort. Many basic insulation measures, such as loft insulation and cavity wall insulation (CWI) are relatively inexpensive and offer payback periods, which make them economically viable.

Kavgic et al.'s (2010) research described the methods and modelling techniques and discussed the bottom-up and top-down approaches regarding the energy consumption in the housing stock. The comparative analysis for the bottom-up building physics based on the residential stock models was aimed to establish the long-term targets related to housing stock energy consumption and associated C[O.sub.2] emissions. Similarly, Booth et al.'s (2012) study examined the different sources of uncertainty involved in housing stock models and proposes a framework for handling these uncertainties. The study mentioned that housing stock models could be useful tools in helping to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of retrofits to residential buildings. Another similar study done by Nabinger et al. (2011) summarized the measurement techniques and instrumentation used in the test house. The paper evaluated the impacts of air tightening retrofits on ventilation rates and energy consumption in a manufactured home.

Judson et al. (2014) examined to what extent low energy and other environmental concerns come into play in renovations when they are conceptualized as social practices. A practice theory approach is adopted to analyze the intersection of renovations/retrofits with homeowners' practices. The analysis highlights the disparity between policy intentions for energy efficiency and everyday life. It also suggested that among other interventions, those policies to reduce the environmental impact of housing should be reframed around.

In summary, the review revealed that the methods and frameworks focused on the process or methods of retrofits (Zakaria, 2007; Wagner, 2014; Kavgic et al., 2010; Booth et al., 2012; Nabinger et al., 2011), the materials for the residential homes (IEA, 2013) as well as the cost, for renewable material (Marsonoa et al., 2015; Goodacre et al., 2002; Stafford et al., 2011; Bernstein, 2007) and energy conservation and efficiency (Goodacre et al., 2002; Hens, 2010; Kavfic et al., 2010; Nabinger et al., 2011; Conner, 2009).

Technical, Economic, and Environmental Implications

A study done by Bernstein (2007) conducted to assess the impact of retrofitting old buildings with the energy conservation measures. It mentioned that, the highly subsidised cost of electricity imposes on the government and, if the government would seriously consider retrofitting all old residential buildings, the initial cost of retrofitting could be recovered in 6 years. After the sixth year, government can provide annual national revenue from the energy consumption. Similarly, according to Mahlia et al. (2005), the study projects electricity savings, cost-benefit analysis and emission reduction of lighting retrofits in Malaysia residential sector. The CBA is determined as a function of energy savings due to retrofit of more efficient lighting system. It found that this strategy save a significant amount of energy and consumers money. Moreover, the total potential monetary savings are more if the percentage of retrofits is high.

Muhammad Sukki et al. (2011) analysed the past activities related to solar energy in Malaysia, in terms of research and developments (R&D), the implementations used as well as the national policies for the past 20 years which have pushed the installation of PV in the country. It also discussed about the positive impact of the Feed-In Tariffs (FiTs) (Wagner, 2014; Muhammad-Sukki et al., 2011) in terms of economic, political, social and environmental (Muhammad-Sukki et al., 2011; Mendonca et al., 2010). However, paper by Crilly et al. (2012) argues that an exclusive focus on just one of technical, economic or social aspects of retrofit is inadequate. Depending on the fuel resources, fuel prices and future policies of Malaysia, the best combination of absorption and compression cooling systems can be chosen by policymakers. Other factors that can affect decision for retrofitting of cooling systems are inflation rates, initial costs, maintenance costs and emission production by each system that been mentioned in the study of Shekarchain et al. (2012). Another study done by Dodoo et al. (2010), the energy implications of building, specifically residential building retrofitting need to be considered in a life cycle, primary energy perspective, rather than focusing solely on final operating energy.

In summary, in the studies above are concerned about the cost saving (Shekarchain et al., 2012) from the tariff (Muhammad-Sukki et al., 2011), and the income for the society (Mahlia et al., 2005) and the government (Jaggs et al., 2000).

Sustainability Assessment

A study done by Jaggs et al. (2000) developed an evaluation tool to assess the condition of apartment buildings, carry out an energy audit of the building and assess the living conditions of occupants under the umbrella of one evaluation tool. The researchers developed the Energy Performance Indoor Environmental Quality Retrofit (EPIQR) assessment to explore the potential of reducing energy use. The results suggested the EPIQR could assess cost effective energy-related improvements for apartment buildings refurbishment and the EPIQR has become a marketable computer based multi-media program usable by a wide range of building professionals. Another proposed assessment tool has been the multi-criteria ''knapsack'' model to help designers conceptualize select the most feasible renovation actions of a renovation project (Alanne, 2004). A case study which highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of the decision-support method, was conducted in dealing with the retrofit project of a residential building.

In the Woodbine Project, the researcher emphasized the challenges faced when addressing the residential housing stock in a systematic, standardized approach (Barry, 2011). The project highlighted the necessity of using actual historical utility data when examining residential energy use and identified hazards or challenges to a retrofit, and gave an estimated amount of material required through providing square footage, house style, etc. Meanwhile, another group of researchers combined material, energy and carbon emission studies that covers the life cycle of the house, including the direct and indirect consumption of material and energy, and concomitant carbon emissions during its stages of material extraction, transportation, construction, operation, and demolition (Bin et al. (2012) The study revealed the Residential Energy Efficiency Project (REEP) House had a typical impact on the environment when it was built and even when it was renovated for energy efficiency. Another study by Charoenkit et al. (2014) on sustainability assessment tools for urban projects including housing development found that nearly 20 tools were available, but compared the design-stage assessment of those internationally accepted and have open-source access namely, BREEAM-Community; LEED for Neighborhood Developments (LEED-ND); CASBEE-Urban Development and SBTool. In general, these previous studies have evaluated different types of tools for sustainability assessment regarding to LC retrofits in residential homes.

Benefits / Motivation

It is reasonable that retrofits brought benefits to various components in this world, such as for the individual, society, country, and of course towards the environment. A study done by Preval et al. (2010) stated that benefits included reductions in wheeze, colds and flu, savings in admissions to hospital for respiratory conditions, and energy use and associated carbon dioxide savings (Howden-Chapman et al., 2007). On their studies, they carried out the CBA of Housing, Heating and Health Study and found that, the ratio of benefits to costs was close to 2:1, a highly favourable outcome (Howden-Chapman et al., 2007). In this case, they were studied the effect of retrofits whether it brings a good health or not to the society. Retrofitting a building to passive house standard reduce energy use, and Dodoo et al. (2010) stated the passive house standard is increasingly suggested to give a beneficial solution from both energy and economic perspectives (Passive House Institute, 2007).

Meanwhile, Jenkinss (2010) study investigated two problems-- the lack of information and product performance, and proof of reliability-- to highlight an approach that could be mutually beneficial. Jenkins (2010) stated that by using one approach, the Rogers model for technology adoption (Geroski, 2000) would be to focus on the "willing-to-pay" sector; generally, households with significant disposable income and, in this case, ambitions towards achieving greater energy efficiency and reduced C[O.sub.2]. Similar findings-- the adoption and effectiveness of technology-- were revealed by Swan et al. (2013). The technology adopted comprised the low-technology fabric solutions: loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, doors and windows and draught stripping. As mentioned by (Jenkins (2010) cited in Swan et al. (2013)), a number of authors have identified the kinds of carbon savings that might be achieved through the application of different technologies. However, another study done by Swan et al. (2013) revealed that the drivers and barriers for sustainable which include social housing providers, the broad pattern of policy, regulation, clients, knowledge and finance.

Challenges

A study by Davies et al. (2011), discussed different aspects of LC housing refurbishment challenges such as financial and business, design and technical, legislative, and environmental and cultural challenges. The main aspects of the financial and business challenges were the high cost of micro-generation technology and unequal VAT difference between new build and refurbishment as a major challenge. A major design and technical challenge represents the complexity of the existing housing stock. Besides, the diversity in housing tenure and build type is most difficult features to overcome (Jenkins, 2010; Davies et al., 2011). Davies et al. (2011) also found that the lack of skilled site personnel as a critical challenge, followed by the lack of a uniform approach for applying sustainable strategies.

The lack of a housing refurbishment regulatory framework comparable to the Code for Sustainable Homes is a major legislative challenge (Davies et al., 2011). Under the environmental and cultural challenges, it was highlighted that there is a current incremental increase in public awareness, which helps create more sustainable developments. Also, it mentioned that the problem lies mainly within the private sector and the lack of government incentives (Davies et al., 2011).

Hori et al. (2013) had supported that it is difficult to control household energy consumption through regulation. It is particularly challenging to promote household energy-saving actions and identify the factor that influence people's energy-saving behaviors. More, the study identified the factor that possibly affecting energy-saving behaviors: global warming consciousness as knowledge, social interaction, environmental behavior, and demographic variables (income, age).

In summary, there is complexity of performance-effective and cost-effective retrofit intervention. In fact, retrofitting for energy performance is always a balance between the benefits and challenges (Stafford et al., 2011).

Decision Making

Bhuiyan et al.'s (2015) study aiming at exploring possible reasons for the low uptake and presenting a theoretical model of the key decision points that influence the refurbishment process in social housing identified the importance of economic and social drivers alongside technical solutions in designing effective refurbishment interventions. The study presents the model in the form of a decision tree which will help built environmental professionals better understand the refurbishment process and develop effective business models that contribute towards sustainability by reduced energy consumption, improved thermal comfort. The study helps closing the performance gap by balancing the adaptation and mitigation measuring impacts. Although a wide range of software tools and retrofit technologies are readily available, methods to identify the most cost-effective retrofit measures are still a major technical challenge, there is still a lack of implementing quality and performance management techniques. This paper identified the poor business cases as the reasons of slow uptake of building refurbishment. To overcome the weakness a decision tree was developed from the literature that is based on business cases. The steps for the decision tree: firstly, identify the needs; next, find root cause where collect the information what makes the problems arise; then, need to gather all the key point indicators (KPI) or key success indicators (KSI); develop solution, where create and structure the possible strategies to solve the problems; lastly, evaluate solution and implementation.

Conclusion

With the reference of previous studies, the investigations on the issues that related to the LC already had been done since 1988, however, the review only concentrates on the papers that had been published within the last 15 years (i.e. from 2000 to 2015), and there are various countries involved in doing research that related on LC for Residential Homes. For instance, United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada, Swede, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. Based on critical review of previous researches on low carbon retrofits, generally, most of the researchers on low carbon housing focused on retrofit methods and framework of implementing low carbon retrofits. Few studies have explored the technical, economic and environmental implications of existing building green retrofits. Very few studies have conducted on what motivates public and private building owners to pursue green and green building design initiatives. Research on how current residential home owners make decision in retrofitting low carbon solutions to their homes is rare, which is represented by the study in the UK Bhuiyan, et al. (2015). This suggests that investigating the how consumers make choices of low carbon solution can be a worthwhile quest in supporting the vision of achieving low carbon living.

References

Al-Jazeera. (2007, 30 November 2007). "Malaysia fastest growing polluter". Online Newspaper, Al Jazeera English News, available at: http://www.ourlettuce.com/Malaysia_-_Fastest_Growing_Polluter.pdf (accessed 30 March 2016)

Al-Ragom, F. (2003), "Retrofitting residential buildings in hot and arid climates", Energy Conversion and Management (44), pp. 2309-2319.

Al Yacouby, A. M., Khamidi, M. F, Nuruddin, M. F., Farhan, S. A. and Razali, A. E. (2012) "Experimental study on the effects of roof colors on thermal performanc eof housing in Malaysia", Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Civil, Offshore & Environmental Engineering (ICCOEE2012).

Alanne, K. (2004) "Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria knapsack model", Automation in Construction (13), pp. 377-391.

Allen, S.R., G.P. Hammond, H.A. Harajli, C.I. Jones, M.C. McManus and A.B. Winnett (2008) "Integrated appraisal of micro-generators: Methods and applications" Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Energy, 161(2), pp. 73-86.

Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M. (2011) "Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp. 460-70.

AzlanSha, A. (2010) "Designing information in manageing refurbishment projects in Malaysia", International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5(6), pp.. 768-773.

Barry, Nathan A. (2011) "Determining a community retrofit strategy for the aging housing stock using utility and assessor data", ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/912850544?accountid=47520 (accessed 30 March 2016)

Baumert, Kevin A., Herzog, Timothy, & Pershing, Jonathan. (2005). "Navigating the Numbers Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy" World Resources Institute (WRI).

Bell, M and Lowe, R. (2000) "Energy efficient modernisation of housing: a UK case study", Energy and Buidlings, 32(3), pp. 267-280.

Bernstein, Harvey M. 2007. "The Preferences of Green Home Buyers: The Survey Says [2007 Market Research Study Co-Sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders]." presented at the NAHB National Green Building Conference, available at: http://construction.com/AboutUs/2007/GreenHomescustomersurveyApril2007.pdf (assessed 30 March 2016)

Bhuiyan, S.I. Jones, K. & Wanigarathna, N. (2015) "An approach to sustainable refurbishment of existing building" In: Raiden, A B and Aboagye-Nimo, E (Eds) Procs 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 1093-1102.

Bin, G. & Parker, P. (2012) "Measuring buildings for sustainability: comparing the initial and retrofit ecological footprint of a century home--the REEP house", Applied Energy (93), pp. 24-32.

Boait, P.J. Fan, D. & Stafford, A. (2011) "Performance and control of domestic ground-source heat pumps in retrofit installations", Energy and Buildings (43), pp. 1968-1976.

Booth, A.T. Choudhary, R. Spiegelhalter, D.J. (2012) "Handling uncertainty in housing stock models", Building and Environment, 48 (2012), pp. 35-47

Byggsektorns Kretslopprad (BYKR) (2001) Byggsektorns betydande miljoaspekter--miljoutredning for byggsektorn - slutrapport, BYKR, Stockholm, Sweden.

Castleton, H.F., Stovin, V., Beck, S.B.M. and Davison, J.B., 2010. "Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit," Energy and buildings, 42(10), pp.1582-1591.

Charoenkit S. & Kumar S. (2014) "Environmental Sustainability Assessment Tools for Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Low Income Housing Settlements", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, pp. 509-525.

Chen, G.Q., H. Chen, Z.M. Chen, B. Zhang, L. Shao, S. Guo, S.Y. Zhou and M.M. Jiang (2011) "Low-carbon building assessment and multi-scale input-output analysis", Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 16(1), pp.583-595.

Chen, Y., J. Chen, U. Berardi and B. Xu, 2012. "A multi-integrated renewable energy system in a commercial building in Beijing: Lessons learnt from an operating analysis," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 7(3), pp. 192-198.

Cohen, S., Goldman, C. and Harris, J. (1991) "Energy savings and economics of retrofitting single-family buildings." Energy and Buildings, 17(4), pp. 297-311.

Conner, N. (2009) "Chapter 4: Building & Remodelling", Living Green: The Missing Manual. O'Reily Media Inc., available at https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/living-green-the/9780596806460/#toc (accessed 30 March 2016)

Crilly, M. Lemon, M. Wright, A.J. Cook, M.B & Shaw, D. (2012) Retrofitting Homes for Energy Efficiency: An Integrated Approach To Innovation In The Low-Carbon Overhaul Of Uk Social Housing. Energy & Environment, 23(6,7), pp.1027-1055.

Davies, P. and Osmani, M., (2011) "Low carbon housing refurbishment challenges and incentives: architects' perspectives," Building and Environment, 46 (8), pp. 1691-1698

Department of Environment (2010) "COP 15: The Copenhagen Accord", in C.M. Chun (ed) Quarterly DOE update on environement, development and sustainability. Putrajaya Department of Environment (DOE), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Diyana, A.N. and Abidin, N.Z., (2013) "Motivation and expectation of developers on green construction: a conceptual view" Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 76, p. 247.

Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P. (2009) "The behavioral wedge: household actions can rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions", Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 106(44), pp. 18452-18456.

Dodoo, A. Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. (2010) "Life cycle primary energy implication of retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54 (12), pp. 1152-1160.

Dong, B., Kennedy, C. & Pressnail, K. (2005) "Comparing Life Cycle Implications of Building Retrofit and Replacement Options", Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(6), pp. 1051-1063.

Energy Commission (2011) "National energy balance". Malaysian Energy Information Hub (MEIH), Energy Commission Malaysia

Ezeanya, A. C. (2004) "Malaysian housing policy: Prospec ts and obstacles of national vision 2020", International Conference Toronto: Adequate & affordable housing for all, pp. 1-12.

Farhan, S.A., Shafiq, N., Azizli, K.A.M., Jamaludin, N. and Gardezi, S.S.S., 2014. "Low-Carbon Buildings: Renewable Energy Systems, Materials and Assessment Methods", Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(15): 260-263.

Fawcett, T., Killi, G., and Janda, K. B. (2014) "Innovative Practices in Low Carbon Retrofit: Time, Scale and Business Models." Paper presented at BEHAVE Conference, vol. 3, p. 4.

Geroski, P.A. (2000) "Models of technology diffusion" Research Policy, 29,pp. 603-625.

Goodacre, C. Sharples, S. & Smith, P. (2002) "Integrating energy efficiency with the social agenda in sustainability", Energy and Buildings (34), pp. 53-61.

Goldman, C., Eto, J., Prahl, R. and Schlegel, J. (1998) California's nonresidential standard performance contract program (No. CONF-980815--). Lawrence Berkeley National Lab., CA (US).

Gorgolewski, M. (1995). "Optimising renovation strategies for energy conservation in housing", Building and Environment, 30(4), pp.583-589.

Gustafsson, S. (2001) "Optimal fenestration retrofits by use of MILP programming technique", Energy and Buildings (33), pp. 843-851.

Gustafsson, S., and Bojic, M (1997) "Optimal heating-system retrofits in residential buildings." Energy 22, (9), pp.867-874.

Hakkinen, T. and Belloni, K. (2011), "Barriers and drivers for sustainable building", Building Research and Information, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 239-255.

Heinonen, J., A. Saynajoki and S. Junnila, (2011) "A longitudinal study on the carbon emissions of a new residential development," Sustainability, 3(8): 1170-1189.

Hens, H. (2010) "Energy efficient retrofit of an end of the row house: confronting predictions with long-term measurements," Energy and Buildings (42), pp.1939-1947.

Hong, S.H., Gilbertson, J., Oreszczyn, T., Green, G. and Ridley, I. and the Warm Front Study Group (2009), "A field study of thermal comfort in low-income dwellings in England before and after energy efficient refurbishment", Building and Environment, 44 (6), pp. 1228-1236.

Hori, S. Kondo, K., Nogata, D. & Ben, H. (2013) "The Determinants of Household Energy-Saving Behavior: Survey and Comparison in Five Major Asian Cities," Energy Policy, 52:, pp. 354-362.

Howden-Chapman, P., Matheson, A., Crane, J., Viggers, H., Cunningham, M., Blakely, T., Cunningham, C., Woodward, A., Saville-Smith, K., O'Dea, D.(2007) "Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: cluster randomised study in the community", BMJ 334 (7591), pp. 460-469.

Hussein, J. and Hamid, Z. A. (2008) Issues and Challenges in Sustainable Construction in the Built Environment: Malaysian Construction Initiatives from CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia

IEA. (2011). C[O.sub.2] emissions from fuel combustions highlights. IEA Statistics 2011 Edition. Paris: International Energy Agency (IEA).

IEA. (2013). C[O.sub.2] emissions from fuel combustion highlights. International Energy Agency (IEA).

IPCC (2007) "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report", An assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Vlencia, Spain: IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Jaggs, M. & Palmer, J. (2000) "Energy performance indoor environmental quality retrofit--a European diagnosis and decision making method for building refurbishment," Energy and Buildings (31), pp. 97-101.

Jenkins, D.P. (2010) "The value of retrofitting carbon-saving measures into fuel poor social housing," Energy policy, 38(2), pp.832-839.

Judson, E.P. & Maller, C. (2014). "Housing Renovations and Energy Efficiency: Insights from Homeowner's Practices," Building Research & Information, 42(4), pp. 501-511.

Kavgic, M., Mavrogianni, A., Mumovic, D., Summerfield, A., Stevanovic, Z. and Djurovic-Petrovic, M., (2010) "A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy consumption in the residential sector," Building and environment, 45(7), pp.1683-1697.

Kelly, M.J. (2009), "Retrofitting the existing UK building stock", Building Research and Information, 37 (2), pp. 196-200.

Levine, M., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Blok, K, Geng, L. Harvey, D. and Lang, S.,....Yoshino, H. (2007) "Residential and Commercial Buildings", in B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave & L.A. Mayers (eds), Contribution of working group iii to the forth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lojuntin, S.A (2014) Energy Efficient Buildings--The Way Towards Low Carbon Development (afforadable and simple way to achieve low carbon green building), available at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/130/46130373.pdf (accessed 30 March 2016)

Low, S.P. Gao, S. Tay, W.L. (2014) "Comparative study of project management and critical success factors of greening new and existing buildings in Singapore", Structural Survey, 32(5),pp. 413-433.

Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D. & Ledo, L. (2012). "Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art", Energy and Buildings, 55, pp. 889-902.

Mahlia, T.M.I. Said, M.F.M, Masjuki, H.H. & Tamjis, M.R. (2005) "Cost-benefit analysis and emission reduction of lighting retrofits in residential sector", Energy and Buildings (37), pp. 573-578.

Marsonoa A.K. & Balasbaneh, A.T. (2015) "Combinations of building construction material for residential building for the global warming mitigation for Malaysia," Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, 85, pp. 100-108.

McKinsey, Company, 2009. Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy, Version 2 of the Global Green House Gas Abatement Cost Curve, 27 January 2009.

Mendonca, M., Jacobs, D., Sovacool, B. (2010) Powering the Green Economy: The Feed-in Tariff Handbook. Earthscan, UK & USA.

Muhammad-Sukki, F., Ramirez-Iniguez, R. Abu-Bakar, S.H., McMeekin, S.G. & Stewart, B.G. (2011) An evaluation of the installation of solar photovoltaic in residential houses in Malaysia: Past, present, and future", Energy Policy, 39(12), pp. 7975-7987.

Mursib, G. (1999) Daylighting Considerations in the design of living-dining room spaces in single storey Terrace houses in Malaysia, Johor Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Nabinger, S. & Persily, A. (2011) "Impacts of airtightening retrofits on ventilation rates and energy consumption in a manufactured home", Energy and Buildings (43), pp. 3059-3067.

Neal, J.A. and Tromley, C.L., (1995). "From incremental change to retrofit: creating high-performance work systems", The Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), pp.42-53.

Nelson, A.J., Rakau, O. and Do'rrenberg, P. (2010), Green Buildings--A Niche Becomes Mainstream, Deutsche Bank Research, Frankfurt am Main.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003) Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies, OECD, Paris, France.

Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, p. 104.

Passive House Institute (2016) Information on passive houses, available at: http://passiv.de/former_conferences/Passive_House_E/passivehouse.html (accessed 30 March 2016)

Preval, N., Chapman, R., Pierse, N., Howden-Chapman, P. and Housing, T. (2010). "Evaluating energy, health and carbon co-benefits from improved domestic space heating: A randomised community trial," Energy Policy, 38(8), pp.3965-3972.

Rayers, J.and Mansfield, J. (2001) "The assessment of risk in conservation refurbishment projects", Journal of Structural Surveyors, 19(5), pp. 238-244.

Reeves, A., Taylor, S. and Fleming, P. (2010), "Modelling the potential to achieve deep carbon emission cuts in existing UK social housing: the case of Peabody", Energy Policy, No. 36, pp. 4241-4251.

Sartori, I. and A.G. Hestnes (2007) "Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article", Energy and Buildings, 39(3), pp. 249-257.

Shekarchian, M., Moghavvemi, M., Motasemi, F., Zarifi, F., & Mahlia, T. M. I. (2012) "Energy and fuel consumption forecast by retrofitting absorption cooling in Malaysia from 2012 to 2025", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(8), pp. 6128-6141.

Stafford, A., Gorse, C. and Shao, L. (2011) "The retrofit challenge: Delivering low carbon buildings", Centre for Low Carbon Futures, Leeds, UK.

Stovall, T. Petrie, T. Kosny, J. Childs, P. Atchley, J. & Sissom, K. (2007), An exploration of wall retrofit best practices, in: Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings X, Proceedings of ASHRAE THERM X, Clearwater, FL.

Swan, W., Ruddock, L., Smith, L. and Fitton, R. (2013) "Adoption of sustainable retrofit in UK social housing", Structural Survey, 31(3), pp. 181-193.

Swan, W. Ruddock, L. Smith L. & Fitton, R. (2013) "Low carbon retrofit: attitudes and readiness within the social housing sector", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20 (5), pp. 522-535

Tan, T. H. (2012) "Meeting First-Time Buyers' Housing Needs and Preferences in Greater Kuala Lumpur", Cities, 29 , pp. 389-396.

Tan, T.H. (2013) "Use of structural equation modeling to predict the intention to purchase green and sustainable homes in Malaysia", Asian Social Science, 9(10), p.181.

Tenaga Expo & Forum (2015) Market Updates, available at: http://www.tenaga. Org/market update.html (assessed 14 May 2015)

UNDP, 2011. Indices & Data, Human Development Index, Human Development Reports (HDR, |United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/ (accessed 30 March 2016).

UNEP (2009) "Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision-Makers", in J. Yamamoto & P. Graham (eds). Paris: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Sustainable Buildings and Climate Change Initiative (UNEP-SBCI)

Verbeeck, G. and Hens, H. "Energy savings in retrofitted dwellings: economically viable", Energy and Buildings, 37 (2005), pp. 747-754.

Wagner, K. (2014) "Generation of a Tropically Adapted Energy Performance Certificate for Residential Buildings", Sustainability, 6, pp. 8415-8431.

Watkins, K. (2007) "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world", Human development report 2007/2008. New York, NY: The Human Development Report Office (HDRO). United Nations Development Programme.

Williams, C. (2010) Biodiversity for Low and Zero Carbon Buildings: A Technical Guide for New Build, RIBA Publishing, London, UK.

World Health Organisation (2010) "Developing guidance for health protection in the built environment - mitigation and adaptation responses" International Workshop on Housing, Health and Climate Change, Geneva, 13 15 October 2010, available at http://www.who.int/hia/house_report.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 30 March 2016)

Xing, Y., N. Hewitt & P. Griffiths (2011) "Zero carbon buildings refurbishment--A Hierarchical pathway", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp. 3229- 3236.

Xu, P. and Chan, E.H. (2013) "ANP model for sustainable Building Energy Efficiency Retrofit (BEER) using Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) for hotel buildings in China", Habitat International, 37, pp.104-112.

Zaid, S.M., Myeda, N.E., Mahyuddin, N. and Sulaiman, R. (2015) "Malaysia's Rising GHG Emissions and Carbon 'Lock-In'Risk: A Review of Malaysian Building Sector Legislation and Policy", Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, 6(1).

Zakaria, R. (2007) Sustainable Housing for Residential-Industrial Neighbourhoods in Malaysia. A study on the elements of indoor environmental quality improvements. (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.

Zavadskas, E., Raslanas, S. and Kaklauskas, A. (2008) "The selection of effective retrofit scenarios for panel houses in urban neighborhoods based on expected energy savings and increase in market value: The Vilnius case," Energy and Buildings, 40(4), pp.573-587.

Zhao, J., Zhu, N. and Wu, Y. (2009) "Technology line and case analysis of heat metering and energy efficiency retrofit of existing residential buildings in Northern heating areas of China", Energy policy, 37(6), pp.2106-2112.

M Radzi Zainol (*)

Management and Humanities Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia Email: mradzi_zainol@utp.edu.my

Zullina H. Shaari

Management and Humanities Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia Email: zullina_shaari@petronas.com.my

See Tho Wai Keng

Management and Humanities Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia Email: WaiKeng.SeeTho@finisar.com

Nurnazerah Julayhe

School of Business Universiti Teknologi Brunei, Brunei Darussalam Email: nazerahfaisal@gmail.com

(*) Corresponding author
Table 1: Research Works on Low Carbon Retrofits of Residential Homes

Issues            Literature Review                            Freq

Methods and       Gorgolewski 1995; Gustafsson & M.Bojic        24
Framework         1997; Gustafsson 2001; Goodacre et al
                  2002; Zakaria 2007; Bernstein 2007;
                  Stovall 2007; Dietz et al 2009;
                  Conner 2009; Kavgic et al 2010; Hens 2010;
                  Booth et al 2012; Stafford et all 2011;
                  Xing et al 2011; Nabinger & Persily 2011;
                  Boait et al 2011; Ma 2012; Abidin et al
                  2013; Lojuntin 2014; Wagner 2014; Judson
                  & Maller 2014; Fawcett et al 2014; Low et al
                   2014; Marsonoa & Balasbaneh 2015.
Technical,        Goldman et al 1988; Cohen et al 1991;         10
Economic, and     Mursib 1999; Al-Ragom 2003;
Environmental     Mahlia et al 2005; Dietz et al 2009;
Implications      Muhammad-Sukki et al 2011; Al Yacouby
                  2012; Shekarchian et al 2012;
                  M.Crilly et al 2012.
Sustainability    Jaggs & Palmer 2000; Alanne 2004;              8
Assessment        Zavadskas et al 2008; Zhao et al 2009; Barry,
                  2011; Bin & Parker 2012; Wagner, 2014;
                  Charoenkit & Kumar 2014.
Benefits /        Conner 2009; Jenkins 2010;                     5
Motivations       Preval et al., 2010; Dodoo et al
                  2010; Swan 2013.
Challenges        Conner 2009; Davies & Osmani,                  5
                  2011; UNDP 2011; Stafford,
                  Gorse & Shao 2011; Hori, 2013.
Decision Making   Bhuiyan, Jones, and Wanigarathna, 2015.        1
COPYRIGHT 2017 Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Zainol, M. Radzi; Shaari, Zullina H.; Keng, Tho Wai; Julayhe, Nurnazerah
Publication:Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal
Geographic Code:9MALA
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:7231
Previous Article:Exploring the Mindsets and Well-Being of Rural Secondary School Students in Perak, Malaysia.
Next Article:A Preliminary Study on Potential Homebuyers' Attitude and Acceptance of Green Homes in an Emerging Economy.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |