Prioritizing deep renovation for housing portfolios: Fid-Bau Portal

Prioritizing deep renovation for housing portfolios

Österbring, Magnus / Camarasa, Clara / Nägeli, Claudio / Thuvander, Liane / Wallbaum, Holger

Highlights • Deep renovation is assessed for a housing portfolio. • Equivalent annual cost (EAC) and assessed change in building value is used. • Final energy use of the portfolio is 51% lower after deep renovation. • Distribution of cost-effectiveness is large within the building portfolio. • Individual buildings should be targeted rather than areas or neighbourhoods.

Abstract Cost-effectiveness of deep renovation has been assessed thoroughly on a building level. Such studies provide limited guidance when prioritizing renovation measures for a building portfolio. On a stock level, building-stock modelling is commonly used to assess impact of renovation on a national and city level, targeting stakeholders operating at a planning or policy level. However, due to methodological choices and data availability, assessment of property owner portfolios is lacking. The aim of this paper is to calculate and spatially differentiate cost-effectiveness of deep renovation using equivalent annual cost and increase in assessed building value for a portfolio owner as a first step in prioritizing deep renovation within a building portfolio. A bottom-up engineering-based model is applied utilizing building-specific information for a municipal housing company portfolio in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden, consisting of 1803 multi-family buildings. Energy demand for space heating and hot-water is calibrated using measured energy use from energy performance certificates. Deep renovation is assessed by applying a package of measures across all buildings. Results show average energy use reduction across the portfolio of 51% to an average cost of 597 EUR/m² living area. While average energy cost savings account for 21% of equivalent annual cost, there are seven buildings where more than half the annual equivalent cost of renovation is covered by energy cost savings. Similarly, the distribution of change in assessed building value is large for individual buildings, ranging from 0–23%. Aggregating results to larger areas tend to average out results while differences between individual buildings within areas persists. As such, the cost-effectiveness of deep renovation should be assessed on a building-by-building basis rather than for an area or neighbourhood. The results are intended as a first step in prioritizing deep renovation within a building portfolio and further detailed assessment is needed.