Search

An effective way to promote energy transition while tackling climate change involves redefining cities from being part of the problem to integral parts of the solution. Positive energy districts and climate positive circular communities are excellent examples of how this is feasible. But how do we understand which are the multiple benefits that these projects can bring to the local territory and relative community? This article aims to answer this question by developing a specific engagement and evaluation methodology. Our approach involves consulting with project partners to explore the multiple benefits of each case study. Subsequently, it plans to engage the stakeholders through the submission of a questionnaire to gather information regarding the relative importance of different benefits as perceived by each stakeholder. The questionnaire is based on the best–worst scaling method, which is a survey technique for determining people's priorities. The preliminary findings of the study conducted on project partners of two European projects, ARV and ProLight, indicate a strong alignment with current European policy priorities. The involvement of other stakeholders in the study will serve to assess whether bottom-up priorities coincide with broader perspectives or whether adaptations to project strategies and dissemination approaches are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To achieve the ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets, set by the Sustainable Development Goals, it is crucial to act on cities. Cities are responsible for 67% of the world's primary energy consumption and about 70% of energy-related CO2 emissions. To support the urban energy transition, a broad implementation of zero-emission districts or positive energy districts (PEDs) is expected. PEDs can be defined as energyefficient and energy-flexible urban areas that aim to provide a surplus of clean energy to the city by using renewable energies. In developing the PEDs concept, it is necessary to consider not only the technical issue of energy systems but also the environmental, social, and economic spheres. To be effective, it is important to provide decision-makers with tools such as protocol certification for PEDs, which can effectively assess the complexity of the impacts a PEDs might have on other urban transformations from a multi-stakeholder perspective. LEED for neighborhood development, BREEAM communities, and CASBEE for cities are the most widely used and known protocols in the world for the evaluation of districts. Protocol certifications today do not consider PEDs because they are outdated, but some common characteristics can already be found within them, which allows for the possibility of reformulating scores and inserting new evaluation criteria. The aim of this research, through a review of the literature, is to analyze the current protocol certificates at the district level, identifying criteria and scores within the evaluation methods, with the aim of contributing to the definition of a PED certification protocol with effective criteria and scores to support design and development of PEDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To achieve the ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals, it is crucial to act on cities. Indeed, cities are responsible for 67% of the world's primary energy consumption and about 70% of energy-related CO2 emissions. To support the urban energy transition, a broad implementation of zero-emission districts or, even better, positive energy districts (PEDs) is expected. PEDs can be defined as energy-efficient and energy-flexible urban areas that aim to provide a surplus of clean energy to the city by using renewable energies. However, in developing the PEDs concept, it is necessary to consider not only the technical issue of energy systems but also the environmental, social, and economic spheres. To be effective, it is important to provide decision-makers with tools such as Urban Sustainability protocols for PEDs, which can effectively assess the complexity of the impacts a PED might have on other urban transformations from a multi-stakeholder perspective. LEED for Neighborhood Development, BREEAM Communities, and CASBEE for Cities are the most widely used and known protocols in the world for the evaluation of districts. These certification protocols were established before the concept of PEDs and, therefore, are not considered. However, they exhibit some shared characteristics which permit the evaluation of PEDs' sustainability. In fact, through this research, an attempt is made to analyze how the implementation of sustainability protocols in existing PED projects can improve sustainability, but also how PED projects can improve evaluation systems through interventions that have not been considered so far. To test a methodology that could be extended in future case studies, an analysis of three of the world's best-known certification systems, LEED-ND, BREEAM-CM, and CASBEE-UD, was conducted on two completed PEDs case studies, Tampere and Salzburg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outdoor air pollution and the insufficient hygiene of HVAC systems often result in low indoor air quality. The World Health Organization estimated that 50% of indoor biological contamination comes from the air-handling system; the air filters are sources of pollution due to the accumulation and proliferation of bacteria on the surface. Furthermore, the presence of indoor contaminants can have a negative impact on the health and well-being of the occupants, who spend about 80% of their time indoors. To guarantee a better indoor air quality and a lower health risks, a new concept of biocidal filtration has been introduced. The present paper shows the results of a literature review aimed at exploring how to integrate the health effects on building occupants into the economic benefits of an antibacterial filter. The research focuses on costs and benefits produced by the application of an antibacterial filter, comparing it with a traditional one. Two methods were applied for the assessment; the Cost Benefit Analysis and the Monte Carlo Simulation. The results suggested the goodness of the economic investment on biocidal filter and showed how it allows to achieve benefits in term of energy savings and health for the different analysed case studies.

In the present-day society, people spend about 80% of their time inside buildings, and specifically 30-40% in workplaces. From this evidence, the indoor environmental quality needs to be investigated, and in particular, the possible sources of indoor-outdoor pollutants and their impact on the human health, comfort and productivity. First, through an examination of the indoor sources of pollution, the research analysed the main substances that affect indoor air quality in an office. Second, the pollution of external origin and its effects on the performance of employees were taken into consideration. Two scenarios were designed for a Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) system in an office building; one by the installation of a biocidal filter and the other by a traditional one. Two methods were applied to evaluate and compare those scenarios; the Cost Benefit Analysis and the Monte Carlo Simulation. From a financial point of view, the investment and management costs of the filters were considered. Instead, the annual benefits included increasing productivity and reducing days of absence from work due to illness. The results confirmed the energy and socio-economic efficiency of the antibacterial filter; it can be considered a solution to achieve the best income.