Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector : final report and annex.
Date: 2017-11-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, building, building industry, building materials, cost-benefit analysis, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental policy, product life, reduction of gas emissions

[ 
Study on cost and benefits of working towards 
environmental macro objectives in the building 
sector 

Final Report  and Annex for the European Commission, DG Environment 
Rotterdam, 24 October 2017

Written by ECORYS 
October 2017 

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 

978-92-79-74381-8 

 doi: 10.2779/195653  

 Catalogue Number  KH-06-17-215-EN-N 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Study on cost and benefits of working 
towards environmental macro objectives 
in the building sector 

Final Report for the European Commission, DG Environment 

Rotterdam, 24 October 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

  Abstract - 4 

  Executive Summary - 5  

  Executive Summary (French) - 11 

 

Introduction - 18 

  Macro Objective 1: Greenhouse gas emissions from building life cycle energy use - 20 

  Macro Objective 2: Resource efficient and circular material life cycles - 25 

  Macro Objective 3: Efficient use of water resources - 30 

  Macro Objective 4: Healthy and comfortable spaces - 35 

  Macro Objective 5: Adaptation and resilience to climate change - 40 

  Macro Objective 6: Optimised life cycle cost and value - 45 

  Annex I – Expert consultation 

  Annex II – Sources tables 

  Annex III – Energy consumption  

  Annex IV – Water consumption 

  Annex V – EU building stock 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The European Commission's 2014 Communication on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the 

Building Sector identifies the need for a common EU approach to assess the environmental 

performance of buildings. This is structured in six environmental macro objectives: 1) reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions from building life cycle energy use, 2) resource efficient and circular 

material life cycles, 3) efficient use of water resources, 4) healthy and comfortable spaces, 5) 

adaptation and resilience to climate change, and 6) optimised life cycle cost and value.  

This study explores the possibility to implement mature and easy-to-implement actions for each of 

these macro objectives formulating a concise action package for each one of the six macro objectives. 

The actions put forward are relevant for buildings across Europe and can be applied to a significant 

portion of the European building stock addressing the needs of both new and existing, residential and 

office buildings. The potential costs and benefits of implementing these actions are highlighted through 

real-life case studies and interviews with sector experts. For each of the macro objectives, a significant 

performance improvement can be achieved through actions of either small or near-zero cost, such as 

focusing on user behavioural change and implementing controls to manage the efficient use of 

resources. The potential of the action packages is maximised when the macro objectives are 

considered, applying a life-cycle approach, early in the design phase of a building. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Objectives of this report 
This report aims to provide qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding the costs and benefits 

associated with working towards enhancing the sustainability of the European building stock. 

The need for a common EU approach to assess the environmental performance of buildings has been 

identified in the European Commission's 2014 Communication on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in 

the Building Sector. A study by DG ENV and DG GROW, with the technical support of DG JRC-IPTS, 

identified a set of six macro objectives for the environmental performance of buildings. In the following 

chapters, these six macro objectives are addressed: 

  Macro objective 1: Greenhouse gas emissions from building life cycle energy use. 
  Macro objective 2: Resource efficient and circular material life cycles. 
  Macro objective 3: Efficient use of water resources. 
  Macro objective 4: Healthy and comfortable spaces. 
  Macro objective 5: Adaptation and resilience to climate change. 
  Macro objective 6: Optimised life cycle cost and value 

Methodological brief 
For each of these macro objectives, a suggested action package has been developed to include 

widely applicable actions addressing the needs of both residential and office buildings. These actions 

represent simple-to-apply, cost-efficient actions that can be applied to both the existing as well as to 

the prospective building stock in order to work towards the macro objectives. As presented in Figure 1, 
the action packages were developed through literature research1 and calibrated through a series of six 
workshops with a group of sector experts in each of the subject areas. An important consideration in 

the development of the action packages has been their applicability in different climatic and 

geographical contexts. Therefore, building experts across the EU have been approached to validate 

these action packages.  

Figure 1: Action Package development 

An extensive literature review was used to identify actual cases with measured costs and benefits of 

implementing the actions of the action packages.  

1   Examples of real-life case studies are highlighted in blue text in the subsequent chapters. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

5 

ExpertWorkshopAction restructuringUpdated action listsSpecification for each theoretical building caseWorkshoppreparationJRC studyExpert inputs (BRE technical team) Briefing paper with long-list of actions per MOExpertWorkshopRationalisation of action packagesFinal action package per MOIdentification of actorsValidation for EU-wide applicationWorkshop PreparationExpert WorkshopPost-Workshop activities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Sector experts were additionally interviewed to verify initial findings and to complement the factual 

basis where quantitative evidence was lacking. Finally, where the lack of evidence persisted, or the 

registered impacts of the different actions where not possible to straightforwardly disaggregate, this 

initial set of actions has been consolidated to a more coherent set as presented in the section devoted 

to each macro objective. 

Macro Objective 1 - Greenhouse gas emissions from building life cycle energy use 

Europe has set the goal to limit climate change by first reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

by 20%, and increasing renewable energy by 20% and becoming 20% more energy efficient by 2020 

compared to the situation in 1990. In this context, an action package has been developed for the first 

macro objective comprising of five widely applicable actions to reduce GHG emissions. Although the 

macro objective itself covers the life cycle energy use of buildings (i.e. operational and embodied 

energy), the scope of the macro objective within this study is limited to the operational energy as 

embodied energy is examined in Macro Objective 2. Energy consumption can be used as a proxy 

indicator when discussing the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it is a 

straightforward measurement that does not depend on the energy mix of the grid to which a building is 

connected, thus facilitating comparisons across the EU. This energy consumption indicator can then 

be easily translated to GHG emissions reduction for the specific Member States taking into account 

their specific energy sources and electricity mixes. 

A set of five actions have been identified to improve energy efficiency, with the overall aim being to 

reduce GHG emissions. These include: 
 
 

Installing energy efficient lighting; 

Installing HVAC2 and lighting controls; 

  Verifying the build/installation quality; 
 
 

Implementing operational performance measures; 

Installing efficient heat pumps (forward-looking action when considering large-scale 

implementation). 

The highest potential to reduce the energy consumption of the European building stock lies in 

measures for existing buildings and especially the oldest ones. Actions with the high reduction 

potential include the implementation of HVAC and lighting control systems, which can result in an 

energy consumption reduction of up to 20%. This potential can be unlocked with costs as low as € 

3/m² for larger office buildings. When complemented with other quick-win actions such as 

implementing energy efficient lighting, system commissioning and, in the near future, installation of 

energy efficient heat pumps for heating and cooling, the GHG emissions reduction potential increases 

even more. It is expected that the energy consumption reduction potential through this action package 

is generally going to be similar across Europe. Nevertheless, there will be differences in the total GHG 

emission reduction due to the specific energy sources on which the different grids across Europe 

operate. 

2   Heating, ventilation and air conditioning   

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Macro Objective 2 – Resource efficient material 

Resource efficiency, as viewed from a life-cycle approach, is generally considered as an essential 

element on the road towards a circular economy.  

Resource efficiency therefore does not only refer to efficient use of resources, but encompasses 

minimising the environmental impact from the use of resources, bringing within its scope also waste 

prevention and recycling efforts, and more sustainable production and consumption patterns, to 
produce “more from less”3.  

The aim of this second macro objective for the building sector is to increase resource efficiency during 

the life cycle of buildings through actions accounting for the differences in building culture across 

Europe. The identified actions for the second macro objective include: 
  Low overall environmental impact of construction materials; 
  Durable, low-maintenance materials for high risk elements; 

  Prolonging building service-life with preventative maintenance strategies; 
  Replacement of primary materials with secondary materials through increased reuse and 

recycling. 

As each building is unique in terms of design, material composition and construction methods, there 

are very few, if any, straightforward solutions that can be applied across the board to increase the 

building performance. The main change that is required is the adjustment of the thinking and action 

processes throughout all phases of the building life cycle to incorporate a Life Cycle Assessment 

(LCA) of resource efficiency. Any action taken in that respect should therefore be put in the specific 

building context, especially the planning and design process and can only be specified on a case-by-

case basis. 

Although comparable specific data presenting the cost and benefits of enhancing efficient material 

usage in the building sector is limited and usually very case specific, a general potential of reducing 

carbon embodied emissions in construction materials is reported to be around 25%. Case studies 

analysed from the Netherlands, France, Italy and Denmark confirmed this potential. Literature and 

expert judgements moreover indicate a significant potential to increase this number in a financially 

affordable way if LCA principles are applied from the design phase. However, a more detailed 

assessment of costs and benefits across Europe requires harmonised LCA to become common 

practice in the design process. Nevertheless, the additional costs for selecting more environmentally 

friendly materials seem to be negligible for new buildings when these are considered during the design 

stage rather than incorporated later in the construction life-cycle. 

Macro Objective 3 - Efficient use of water resources 

With increasing droughts, reducing river flows, lowered lake and groundwater levels, and drying up of 
wetland, Europe is challenged to use water more efficiently. Buildings, accounting for the main 
consumption of water from supply systems4, offer significant scope to tackle water scarcity through 
achieving more efficient water usage.  

3   https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/resource-efficiency 
4   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Water%20Performance%20of%20Buildings_Study2009.pdf 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
An action package has been designed to reduce water consumption including a number of “quick-win 

Installing water efficient equipment; 

Installing rainwater harvesting systems; 

actions” to improve water efficiency in buildings including: 
 
 
 
 
  Providing guidance and training to operators and occupants. 

Installing smart meters; 

Installing building leak detection systems and conducting water audits; 

Quick-win actions in residential and office buildings - such as water efficient equipment, rainwater 

harvesting systems, leakage prevention, or smart meters and training - carry significant potential to 

reduce water consumption across Europe, with the potential to make recent buildings 30% and older 

buildings 50% more efficient with a relatively small investment. Although this potential would not be 

feasible in all places, as local conditions differ, these actions are in most cases economically attractive 

as well. Installing water efficient equipment generally has a payback period of only one to two years, 

offering a quick-win solution to reduce water consumption. 

Macro Objective 4 - Healthy and comfortable spaces 

We typically spend up to 90% of our time indoors, either at home, work or during other activities5,6. Air 

quality inside public and private buildings is an essential determinant of health and well-being 

according to this macro objective. Uncomfortable high temperatures, reduced ventilation and poor air 

quality cause distraction from work and can lead to symptoms such as headaches, difficulty to 

concentrate or think clearly7. In order to meet carbon reduction goals, future buildings will be 

increasingly well insulated and increasingly air-tight. The increased focus on air-tight building 

envelopes will require an increased attention for ventilation measures and VOC source control to 

ensure good indoor air quality, thus on the well-being of workers and building occupants for both new 
and refurbished buildings8.  

An action package has been developed to include actions focused on reducing the concentrations of 

hazardous substances emitted from construction materials, furnishing and occupant behaviour, such 

as space heating and cooking. Notably, these actions focus on reduction of VOCs although they also 

lead to reduction of the concentration of other pollutants and substances such as radon, NO2, CO, 

Installation of health-based ventilation rates; 

benzene, formaldehydes, particles, CO2, heavy metals and asbestos: 
 
  Application of low VOC emitting building materials; 
  Building flush out and cleaning of ventilation systems prior to building occupation. 

Cases from Europe and the US regarding improved indoor air quality in office buildings have been 

found to bring productivity gains of up to 11% due to improved ventilation rates, dedicated delivery of 

fresh air to the workstation, and reduced levels of pollutants. Notably, taking actions towards improving 

ventilation rates and VOC source control in office environments, comes at investment and operation 

5   European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2013/articles/indoor-air-quality [retrieved 29/05.2017] 
6   JRC, http://indoor-air-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, retrieved 26/5/2017 
7   P. Wargocki, O. Seppanen (editors), J. Andersson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fritzner & S. O. Hanssen (2006), Indoor Climate and Productivity 

in Offices – How to integrate productivity in life-cycle cost analysis of building services, Guidebook No. 6, by REHVA – Federation of 
European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations. 

8   H. B. Awbi (2015), Indoor air quality in UK homes and its impact on health, School of built environment, University of Reading  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
costs that are quickly offset by the financial benefits of improved employee health, performance and 

productivity, with an achieved reduction of sick leave potentially as high as 35%.  

For residential buildings, natural ventilation comes at low investment and operational costs, as it 

requires minor adjustments and mainly behavioural change, while relevant benefits relate to the 

improvement of residents’ health conditions. Finally, pre-occupancy building flush-out can contribute to 

the above at a relatively low cost. 

Macro Objective 5 - Resilience to climate change 

Looking at the second half of this century, a large part of the European building stock is not well 

equipped to cope with a changing climate. Old buildings lack an efficient thermal envelop and new air-

tight buildings often lack sufficient ventilation and, hence, both are seen as vulnerable parts of the 

building stock. Specifically, up to 25% of the current building stock of non-residential buildings 

(including office buildings) will need extensive retrofitting to effectively manage the increasing 

temperatures or otherwise face unsustainable increases in energy bills. Further, as heatwaves are 

associated with increases in mortality rates and other negative health impacts, and uncomfortably 

warm office temperatures can greatly affect productivity, failing to adapt building stock can result in an 

increased severity of these impacts as the climate change phenomenon unravels. 

With the time horizon for this macro objective set in the long term and, regardless of the location and 

existing condition of a building, “quick-win” actions can make a substantial difference in improving 

thermal comfort. These include focus on: 
  Minimising heat gains; 
 

Implementing energy efficient cooling options (including increased ventilation rates and using 

energy efficient heat pumps for HVAC9 in the long term). 

The effectiveness of both actions is moreover maximised when providing guidance and training to 

achieve behavioural change. 

Combinations of these actions provide the potential of eliminating 30 to 100% of the overheating 

duration in a building (depending on the specific building) resulting in an improvement of thermal 

comfort and residents’ health, and/or cost savings for avoiding active cooling. For office buildings, 
improved solar shading (costing approx. € 10 to 50/m2) would suffice for the less impacted areas 
and/or for the first years of the mitigation. This can be complemented with a central mechanical 
ventilation system for slightly more impacted cases with systems that can cost between € 40/m2 for 
new buildings and € 200/m2 for complex fitting in existing structures. Nevertheless, as already 
common practice in Southern Europe, combining this with a cooling system is unavoidable for the 

most impacted buildings. Despite the high costs, the significant expected productivity gains (1-3%) 

brings the payback period to between 1 and 6 years.  

9   Heating, ventilation and air conditioning. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Macro Objective 6 – Optimised life cycle cost and value 

The life cycle costs of buildings are often higher than necessary because too often solutions are 

selected based solely on investment costs. In order to maximise the life-cycle value of buildings, it is 

important to look further than the investment cost to ensure a cost effective building operation as well 

as a good future market value. Durable materials, which require a higher investment cost, for example, 

may still be preferred from a life cycle cost perspective because they require lower operational costs - 

due to less frequent replacements that are needed and/or due to lower maintenance costs.  

Therefore, in the context of this macro objective for the building sector “optimise life cycle cost and 

value”, four actions are proposed to reduce the life cycle costs representing the “low-hanging fruits” 

that can be easily and effectively implemented for the majority of the building stock. To discuss the 

costs and benefits related to this macro objective, the additional investment cost and the total life cycle 

cost savings are respectively seen as indicators. As total life-cycle costs are not commonly calculated 

for a building, improvements in that respect are more often replaced by more specific cost savings 

such as reduced energy bills or reduced maintenance costs.  

The four actions identified to improve life cycle cost in buildings include: 
  Use of durable, low-maintenance materials (for high risk elements); 
 
  User guidance/training and implementing preventative maintenance strategies to prolong the 

Installation of and user guidance for the operation of HVAC control systems; 

service life of building materials; 

  Designing services and service routes for ease of access for maintenance and refurbishment. 

Implementing such actions can result in reductions in energy bills of up to 20% for existing buildings 

and up to 5% for new-builds. In addition, user guidance and training and design strategies to simplify 

maintenance and replacements during the building life span have a high potential to reduce costs, 

although these savings were not yet quantified in the cases analysed. Overall, the combination of 

building measures and user guidance can easily lead to a reduced life cycle cost of a building. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé analytique 

Objectifs de ce rapport 

Ce rapport vise à fournir des preuves qualitatives et quantitatives sur le coût et les avantages liés à 

l’amélioration de la durabilité du parc immobilier européen. 

Le Rapport 2014 sur les possibilités de durabilité dans le secteur du bâtiment de la Commission 

européenne met en évidence la nécessité d’une approche commune de l’UE afin d’évaluer la 

performance environnementale des bâtiments. Une étude menée par les directions générales de 

l’environnement et du développement, assistées par des experts de la direction générale de l’Institut 

de prospective technologique du CCR (JRC-IPTS), a permis de définir six objectifs macro-

environnementaux relatifs au rendement énergétique des édifices. Les six objectifs macro-

environnementaux évoqués dans les chapitres suivants traitent des points suivants: 
  Objectif macro-environnemental 1 : Émissions de gaz à effet de serre liées à la consommation 

énergétique au cours du cycle de vie des bâtiments 

  Objectif macro-environnemental 2 : Cycles de vie des matériaux circulaires et durables 
  Objectif macro-environnemental 3 : Utilisation rationnelle des ressources hydrauliques 
  Objectif macro-environnemental 4 : Espaces sains et agréables 
  Objectif macro-environnemental 5 : Adaptation et résilience vis-à-vis du changement climatique 
  Objectif macro-environnemental 6 : Optimisation du coût et de la valeur du cycle de vie 

Notes méthodologiques 

Pour tous ces objectifs macro-environnementaux, un ensemble de mesures a été proposé, y compris 

des mesures applicables à grande échelle qui répondent à la fois aux besoins des bâtiments 

administratifs et des résidences. Il s’agit de mesures économiques et faciles à mettre en place, qui 

peuvent s’appliquer aux édifices existants ainsi qu’aux bâtiments futurs en vue d’atteindre les objectifs 

macro-environnementaux. Tel que présenté dans le Schéma 1, l’ensemble des mesures a été 
proposé suite à des recherches documentaires10 et étalonné dans le cadre d’une série de six réunions 
avec un groupe d’experts œuvrant dans chaque corps de métier du secteur. L’applicabilité de 

l’ensemble des mesures proposées dans des contextes climatiques et géographiques différents a 

constitué un élément important. Des experts en bâtiment au sein de l’UE ont donc été consultés afin 

de valider cet ensemble de mesures.  

10   Les exemples d’études de cas réels apparaissent en bleu dans les chapitres subséquents. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Schéma 1: Ensemble de mesures proposées 

Un examen détaillé des documents a permis d’identifier les cas réels ainsi que d’évaluer les coûts et 

avantages de la mise en œuvre des mesures faisant partie de l’ensemble des mesures. De plus, les 

experts dans le secteur ont été interrogés afin de valider les premiers résultats et d’appuyer les faits 

en cas d’absence de preuves quantitatives. Enfin, en cas de preuves toujours manquantes ou 

d’impacts déclarés suite aux différentes mesures, dans la mesure où il est tout simplement impossible 

de les atténuer, ce premier ensemble de mesures deviendra un ensemble plus cohérent, tel que 

présenté dans la section dédiée à chaque objectif macro-environnemental. 

Objectif macro-environnemental 1 - Émissions de gaz à effet de serre liées à la 
consommation énergétique au cours du cycle de vie des bâtiments 

L’Europe s’est fixée pour objectif de limiter le changement climatique en réduisant tout d’abord les 

émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 20 %, et en augmentant la part des énergies renouvelables de 

20 % pour devenir 20 % plus rentable d’un point de vue énergétique d’ici 2020 par rapport à la 

situation en 1990. Dans ce contexte, un ensemble de mesures a été mis au point pour l’objectif 

macro-environnemental 1, dont 5 mesures applicables à grande échelle afin de réduire les émissions 

de gaz à effet de serre. Bien que l’objectif macro-environnemental proprement dit porte sur la 

consommation énergétique au cours du cycle de vie des bâtiments (par exemple, l’énergie grise 

utilisée pour le fonctionnement), le champ d’application de l’objectif macro-environnemental dans le 

cadre de la présente étude se limite à l’énergie utilisée pour le fonctionnement du fait de énergie 

incorporée est examinée dans Macro Objectif 2. La consommation énergétique peut servir d’indicateur 

supplétif lorsque les avantages de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont évoqués, car il 

s’agit d’une mesure simple qui ne dépend pas du bouquet énergétique du réseau auquel un bâtiment 

est relié, ce qui facilite les comparaisons au sein de l’UE. Cet indicateur de consommation énergétique 

peut alors être facilement converti en émissions de gaz à effet de serre pour certains États membres 

en prenant en compte certaines de leurs sources énergétiques et les bouquets d’électricité. 

Cinq mesures ont été identifiées afin d’améliorer le rendement énergétique, toutes étant destinées à 

réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Ces 5 mesures comprennent: 
  L’installation d’un éclairage basse consommation ; 
  L’installation de systèmes de CVC11et de commandes d’éclairage ; 
  La vérification de la qualité de l’installation/bâtiment ; 
  La mise en place de mesures de rendement opérationnel ; 
  L’installation de pompes à chaleur performantes (mesure prospective avant de décider d’une mise 

en œuvre à grande échelle). 

11  Chauffage, ventilation et climatisation 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

12 

Expert WorkshopAction restructuringUpdated action listsSpecification for each theoretical building caseWorkshop preparationJRC studyExpert inputs (BRE technical team) Briefing paper with long-list of actions per MOExpert WorkshopRationalisation of action packagesFinal action package per MOIdentification of actorsValidation for EU-wide applicationWorkshop PreparationExpert WorkshopPost-Workshop activities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Réduire de manière conséquente la consommation énergétique du parc immobilier en Europe repose 

sur des mesures destinées aux bâtiments existants, et notamment les plus anciens. Les mesures qui 

permettent une diminution importante prévoient la mise en place de systèmes de CVC et de 

commandes d’éclairage qui peuvent mener une réduction de la consommation énergétique pouvant 

atteindre 20 %. Il est possible d’améliorer ce potentiel en ayant des coûts les plus bas possible, soit 

3 EUR/m² pour les bâtiments administratifs les plus grands. Si nous rajoutons d’autres mesures à 

gains immédiats, telles que la mise en place d’éclairages basse consommation, la mise en service des 

systèmes et, prochainement, l’installation de pompes à chaleur économiques pour le chauffage et la 

climatisation, il est d’autant plus probable que les émissions de gaz à effet de serre diminuent.  

Cet ensemble de mesures est susceptible de permettre la réduction de la consommation énergétique 

qui, d’une manière générale, sera assimilée à tous les pays européens. Néanmoins, des différences 

dans la réduction totale des émissions de gaz à effet de serre apparaitront en raison d’autres sources 

énergétiques exploitées par les différents réseaux en Europe. 

Objectif macro-environnemental 2 – Matériaux durables 

La durabilité, selon une approche de cycle de vie, est, d’une manière générale, considérée comme un 

élément essentiel pour atteindre une économie circulaire. Par conséquent, la durabilité ne renvoie pas 

seulement à l’utilisation rationnelle des ressources, mais elle englobe la diminution de l’impact sur 

l’environnement par le biais de l’utilisation de ressources, en introduisant également dans son champ 

d’application la prévention des déchets et des efforts en matière de recyclage ainsi que des modes de 
consommation et de production plus durables, afin de produire « plus avec moins »12.  

Cet objectif macro-environnemental 2 pour le secteur du bâtiment vise à accroître la durabilité pendant 

le cycle de vie des bâtiments par le biais de mesures qui prennent en compte les différences de 

politique en matière de construction en Europe. Les mesures définies pour l’objectif macro-

environnemental 2 prévoient: 
  Un impact faible sur l’environnement en général des matériaux de construction ; 
  Des matériaux durables et nécessitant peu d’entretien pour les éléments à haut risque ; 
  Le prolongement du cycle de vie des bâtiments grâce à la mise en place de stratégies d’entretien 

préventives ; 

  Le remplacement des matières premières par des matières secondaires grâce au développement 

de la réutilisation et du recyclage. 

Chaque bâtiment étant unique en termes de conception, composition des matériaux et méthodes de 

construction, très peu de solutions simples, le cas échéant, peuvent s’appliquer à tous les édifices qui 

permettent d’accroître la performance des édifices. Le principal changement qui s’impose est de 

modifier les processus de réflexion et d’action tout au long des étapes du cycle de vie des bâtiments 

en se basant sur une évaluation du cycle de vie (ECV) de la durabilité. Toute mesure prise à cet égard 

doit alors faire partie du cadre particulier des bâtiments, notamment le processus de planification et de 

conception, et peut uniquement être définie qu’au cas par cas. 

Bien que certaines données comparables indiquant le coût et les avantages d’améliorer l’utilisation de 

matériaux performants dans le secteur du bâtiment sont limitées et généralement très spécifiques, la 

12  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/resource-efficiency 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
possibilité de réduire de manière globale les émissions de carbone dans les matériaux de construction 

doit être d’environ 25 %. Les études de cas menées depuis les Pays-Bas, la France, l’Italie et le 

Danemark ont confirmé cette éventualité. Par ailleurs, les experts et chercheurs pensent que ce chiffre 

pourrait augmenter sensiblement d’une façon abordable du point de vue financier si les principes 

d’évaluation du cycle de vie sont appliqués à partir de la phase de conception. Cependant, une 

évaluation détaillée des coûts et avantages en Europe nécessite une ECV harmonisée afin que cela 

devienne une pratique courante lors du processus de conception. Néanmoins, pour ce qui est des 

nouveaux bâtiments, les coûts supplémentaires relatifs à la sélection de matériaux plus respectueux 

de l’environnement semblent être minimes s’ils sont pris en compte au cours de la phase de 

conception plutôt qu’ultérieurement, au cours du cycle de vie de la construction. 

Objectif macro-environnemental 3 - Utilisation rationnelle des ressources 
hydrauliques 

Avec l’augmentation des sécheresses, la diminution du débit fluvial, l’abaissement du niveau des lacs 

et nappes souterraines et le tarissement des zones humides, l’Europe prévoit d’utiliser l’eau d’une 

manière plus rationnelle. Les bâtiments, qui représentent la consommation d’eau principale des 
systèmes d’approvisionnement13, offrent de nombreuses possibilités de lutter contre la rareté en 
utilisant l’eau de manière plus rationnelle.  

L’ensemble des mesures est destiné à diminuer la consommation d’eau, dont un certain nombre de 

« mesures à gains immédiats » visant à améliorer l’utilisation rationnelle de l’eau des bâtiments, y 

compris : 
  L’installation de matériel à faible consommation d’eau ; 
  L’installation de récupérateurs d’eau de pluie ; 

  L’installation de systèmes de détection de fuite dans les bâtiments et la vérification des 

canalisations ; 

  L’installation de compteurs intelligents; 
  La fourniture d’instructions et de formations aux opérateurs et occupants. 

Pour illustrer cela, de nombreuses études de cas sont présentées ci-dessous. 

Les mesures à gains immédiats pour les résidences et bâtiments administratifs, telles que du matériel 

à faible consommation d’eau, des récupérateurs d’eau de pluie, la prévention de fuites d’eau ou des 

compteurs intelligents et des formations permettent de réduire de manière importante la 

consommation d’eau en Europe, avec la possibilité de faire 30 % d’économies sur les nouveaux 

bâtiments et 50 % sur les édifices plus anciens via un investissement relativement modeste. Bien que 

ces mesures ne pourront pas être mises en place pour tous les bâtiments, dans la mesure où les 

conditions sur place diffèrent, elles sont également intéressantes d’un point de vue économique dans 

la plupart des cas. En général, l’installation de matériel à faible consommation d’eau ramène la 

période de remboursement à entre 1 et 2 ans uniquement, offrant ainsi une solution à gains immédiats 

qui permet de réduire la consommation d’eau. 

13  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Water%20Performance%20of%20Buildings_Study2009.pdf 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Objectif macro-environnemental 4 - Espaces sains et agréables 

Habituellement, nous passons jusqu’à 90 % de notre temps à l’intérieur, soit à la maison, soit au 

travail, soit au cours d’autres activités14,15. Selon cet objectif macro-environnemental, la qualité de l’air 

au sein des bâtiments publics et privés est un facteur important de santé et de bien-être. Des 

températures élevées désagréables, une ventilation réduite et une mauvaise qualité de l’air peuvent 

être gênantes dans le travail et provoquer des symptômes tels que des maux de tête ou une difficulté 

à se concentrer ou à bien réfléchir16. Afin d’atteindre les objectifs en matière de réduction de carbone, 

l’isolation et l’étanchéité des futurs bâtiments vont s’améliorer davantage.  

L’accent mis sur l’étanchéité des matériaux extérieurs des bâtiments exigera une attention accrue vis-

à-vis des systèmes de ventilation et des contrôles des sources de COV afin de garantir une bonne 

qualité de l’air à l’intérieur, ainsi que sur le bien-être des ouvriers et des occupants des bâtiments pour 
les nouveaux édifices et les bâtiments rénovés17.  

Un ensemble de mesures a été mis en place pour intégrer des mesures ciblant la réduction des 

concentrations de substances dangereuses émises de matériaux de construction, la rénovation et le 

comportement des occupants, telles que le système de chauffage des bâtiments et les installations de 

cuisson. Ces mesures mettent notamment l’accent sur la réduction des COV, bien qu’elles prévoient 

également la diminution de la concentration d’autres polluants et substances tels que le radon, le 

dioxyde de carbone (NO2), le monoxyde de carbone (CO), le benzène, le formaldéhyde, les particules, 

le dioxyde de carbone (CO2), les métaux lourds et l’amiante : 
  La mise en place de taux de ventilation basés sur la santé ; 
  L’utilisation de matériaux de construction à faible émission de COV ; 
  La purge et l’entretien des systèmes de ventilation d’avant d’occuper le bâtiment. 

Des cas identifiés en Europe et aux États-Unis concernant l’amélioration de la qualité de l’air intérieur 

dans les bâtiments administratifs ont réalisé des gains de productivité pouvant atteindre 11 % grâce à 

de meilleurs taux de ventilation, de diffusion d’air frais réservée aux postes de travail et de réduction 

des niveaux des polluants. Les mesures prises par rapport à l’amélioration des taux de ventilation et le 

contrôle des sources COV au sein des bâtiments administratifs permettent notamment des coûts 

d’investissement et d’exploitation que les avantages financiers liés à l’amélioration sur la santé, à la 

performance et à la productivité des employés peuvent rapidement compensés, ainsi qu’une 

diminution des arrêts maladie susceptible d’être supérieure à 35 %. Concernant les résidences, la 

ventilation naturelle implique des coûts d’investissement et d’exploitation modestes, car elle demande 

des réglages mineurs et surtout un changement de comportement, tant que les avantages pertinents 

sont liés à l’amélioration de l’état de santé des résidents. Au final, purger les bâtiments avant leur 

occupation peut contribuer à cette amélioration moyennant un coût relativement bas. 

14   Agence européenne pour l’environnement, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2013/articles/indoor-air-quality [extrait datant du 

29/05/2017] 

15   JRC, http://indoor-air-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, extrait en date du 26/5/2017 
16   P. Wargocki, O. Seppanen (rédacteurs), J. Andersson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fritzner & S. O. Hanssen (2006), Climat intérieur et 
productivité des bâtiments administratifs – Comment intégrer la productivité dans l’analyse du coût du cycle de vie des équipements 
techniques du bâtiment, Manuel n° 6 de REHVA – Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations. 

17    H. B. Awbi (2015), La qualité de l’air à l’intérieur des résidences britanniques et son impact sur la santé, École supérieure de l’environnement 

bâti, Université de Reading  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Objectif macro-environnemental 5 - Résilience vis-à-vis du changement climatique 

Si l’on examine la deuxième moitié de ce siècle, une bonne partie du parc immobilier européen n’est 

pas bien conçue pour faire face à un changement climatique.  

Les anciens bâtiments ne sont pas assez bien isolés et les nouveaux édifices étanches ne sont pas 

suffisamment ventilés et sont donc considérés comme étant des éléments vulnérables du parc 

immobilier. Jusqu’à 25 % du parc immobilier actuel composé de bâtiments non résidentiels (y compris 

les bâtiments administratifs) nécessiteront notamment d’une remise en état importante afin de faire 

face de manière efficace à des températures en augmentation ou sinon à des factures énergétiques 

qui « explosent ». Les vagues de chaleur étant également liées aux hausses du taux de la mortalité et 

aux autres impacts négatifs sur la santé, et avec des températures élevées gênantes au sein des 

bâtiments administratifs pouvant impacter considérablement la productivité, ne pas adapter le parc 

immobilier peut entraîner un accroissement de la gravité de ces impacts tant que le phénomène de 

changement climatique n’est pas résolu. 

Avec le délai pour cet objectif macro-environnemental fixé à long terme et sans tenir compte de 

l’emplacement et des conditions existantes d’un bâtiment, des mesures « à gains immédiats » 

peuvent permettre d’améliorer considérablement le confort thermique. Ces mesures mettent l’accent 

sur: 
  La diminution des gains de chaleur ; 
  La mise en place de solutions de refroidissement écoénergétiques (y compris la hausse des taux 

de ventilation et l’utilisation de pompes à chaleur à bon rendement énergétique pour le chauffage, 

la ventilation et la climatisation18 à long terme). 

L’efficacité de ces 2 mesures est de surcroît maximisée si des instructions et des formations sont 

données dans le but d’un changement de comportement. 

L’association de ces mesures permet d’éliminer la période de surchauffe de 30 à 100 % au sein d’un 

bâtiment (selon le type d’édifice), d’où une amélioration du confort thermique et de la santé des 

résidents, et/ou des économies afin d’éviter le refroidissement actif. Pour les bâtiments administratifs, 
l’amélioration de la protection solaire (qui coûte environ entre 10 et 50 EUR/m2) suffirait pour les 
zones les moins impactées et/ou pendant les premières années de la limitation. Le système de 

refroidissement peut être complété par un système de ventilation mécanique centralisé pour des cas 
un peu plus impactés et des systèmes pouvant coûter entre 40 EUR/m2 pour les nouveaux édifices et 
200 EUR/m2 pour les structures existantes à la conception complexe. Néanmoins, comme c’est déjà 
le cas en Europe du Sud, l’association d’un système de ventilation avec un système de 

refroidissement est inévitable pour les bâtiments les plus impactés. Malgré les coûts élevés, les 

importants gains de productivité escomptés (entre 1 et 3 %) ramènent la période de remboursement à 

entre 1 et 6 ans.  

18  Chauffage, ventilation et climatisation 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Objectif macro-environnemental 6 – Optimisation du coût et de la valeur du cycle de 
vie 

Les coûts du cycle de vie des bâtiments sont souvent plus élevés que ce qui est nécessaire, parce 

que trop souvent des solutions sont choisies uniquement en fonction des coûts d’investissement. Afin 

de maximiser la valeur du cycle de vie des bâtiments, il convient d’aller au-delà des coûts 

d’investissement afin de garantir une exploitation économique des bâtiments ainsi qu’une bonne 

valeur de marché future. Par exemple, les matériaux durables qui exigent des coûts d’investissement 

plus élevés sont susceptibles de demeurer les matériaux privilégiés du point de vue du coût de leur 

cycle de vie, parce qu’ils requièrent des coûts d’exploitation moindres en raison de la nécessité moins 

fréquente de les remplacer et/ou de leurs coûts d’entretien plus bas.  

Par conséquent, dans le cadre de cet objectif macro-environnemental pour le secteur de la 
construction « optimiser le coût et la valeur du cycle de vie », 4 mesures sont proposées afin de 

diminuer les coûts du cycle de vie qui représentent les « solutions de facilité » pouvant être mises en 

place facilement et correctement pour la majorité du parc immobilier. Pour examiner les coûts et les 

avantages liés à cet objectif macro-environnemental, les coûts d’investissement supplémentaires et 

l’ensemble des économies en termes de coût du cycle de vie sont considérés de manière respective 

comme des indicateurs. Le coût total du cycle de vie n’étant pas souvent calculé pour un bâtiment, les 

améliorations à cet égard sont plus souvent remplacées par plus d’économies financières spécifiques 

telles que la diminution des factures énergétiques ou des coûts d’entretien.  

Les 4 mesures définies pour améliorer le coût du cycle de vie des bâtiments prévoient : 
  L’utilisation de matériaux durables et nécessitant peu d’entretien (pour les éléments à haut 

risque) ; 

  L’installation et des instructions pour l’utilisation des systèmes de contrôle CVC ; 

  Des instructions/formations et la mise en place de stratégies d’entretien préventives afin de 

prolonger le cycle de vie des matériaux de construction ; 

  Des services d’étude et des méthodes à suivre pour la mise en service de façon à faciliter 

l’entretien et la remise en état. 

La mise en place, telle que des mesures, peut permettre la diminution du montant des factures 

énergétiques pouvant atteindre 20 % pour les bâtiments existants et 5 % pour les nouveaux édifices. 

En outre, des instructions pour l’utilisation, des formations et des stratégies de conception afin de 

simplifier l’entretien et les remplacements au cours du cycle de vie des bâtiments sont susceptibles de 

réduire vraiment les coûts, bien que ces économies n’aient pas encore été quantifiées dans les cas 

analysés. En général, la combinaison des mesures relatives aux bâtiments et les instructions pour 

l’utilisation peuvent facilement conduire à une diminution du coût du cycle de vie d’un édifice. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

Objectives of this report 

This report aims to provide qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding the costs and benefits 

associated with working towards enhancing the sustainability of the European building stock. 

The need for a common EU approach to assess the environmental performance of buildings has been 

identified in the European Commission's 2014 Communication on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in 

the Building Sector. A study by DG ENV and DG GROW, with the technical support of DG JRC-IPTS, 

identified a set of six macro objectives for the environmental performance of buildings. In the following 

chapters, these 6 macro objectives are addressed: 
 Macro objective 1: Greenhouse gas emissions from building life cycle energy use.
 Macro objective 2: Resource efficient and circular material life cycles.
 Macro objective 3: Efficient use of water resources.
 Macro objective 4: Healthy and comfortable spaces.
 Macro objective 5: Adaptation and resilience to climate change.
 Macro objective 6: Optimised life cycle cost and value.

Methodological brief 

For each of these macro objectives, a suggested action package has been developed to include 

widely applicable actions addressing the needs of both residential and office buildings. These actions 

represent simple-to-apply, cost-efficient actions that can be applied to both the existing as well as to 

the prospective building stock in order to work towards the six macro objectives. As presented in 
Figure 2, the action packages were developed through literature research19 and calibrated by means 
of a series of six workshops with a group of experienced experts in each of the subject areas. An 

important consideration in the development of the action packages has been their applicability in 

different climatic and geographical contexts. This element has been further pursued by approaching 
building experts across the EU for validation20. Both groups of experts are listed in Annex I. 

Figure 2: Action Package development 

19   Examples of real-life case studies are highlighted in blue text in the subsequent chapters. 
20   Highlights of expert inputs are indicated in orange text boxes in the subsequent chapters. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

18 

ExpertWorkshopAction restructuringUpdated action listsSpecification for each theoretical building caseWorkshoppreparationJRC studyExpert inputs (BRE technical team) Briefing paper with long-list of actions per MOExpertWorkshopRationalisation of action packagesFinal action package per MOIdentification of actorsValidation for EU-wide applicationWorkshop PreparationExpert WorkshopPost-Workshop activitiesAn extensive literature review followed in order to identify actual cases that have measured the costs 

and benefits of implementing the actions of the action packages. Interviews with sector experts were 

used to verify initial findings but also to complement these when quantitative evidence was lacking. An 

overview of data sources for each macro objective is found in Annex II. Finally, where the lack of 

evidence persisted, or the registered impacts of the different actions where not possible to 

straightforwardly disaggregate, this initial set of actions has been consolidated to a more coherent set 

as presented in the section devoted to each macro objective. 

For some of the macro objectives, a rather complete overview of the baseline situation across the EU 

has been sketched based on existing statistics. These are given in Annex III and Annex IV regarding 

energy and water consumption. Finally, Annex V presents the major residential and office building 

stock segments in the EU. This helps to assess the level of applicability of the action packages. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Macro Objective 1 - Greenhouse gas emissions from 
building life cycle energy use 

Europe has set the goal to limit climate change by first reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

by 20%, and increasing renewable energy by 20% and becoming 20% more energy efficient by 2020 

compared to the situation in 1990. In this context, an action package has been developed for the first 

macro objective comprising of five widely applicable actions to reduce GHG emissions. Although the 

macro objective itself covers the life cycle energy use of buildings (i.e. operational and embodied 

energy), the scope of the macro objective within this study is limited to the operational energy as 

embodied energy is examined in Macro Objective 2. Energy consumption can be used as a proxy 

indicator when discussing the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it is a 

straightforward measurement that does not depend on the energy mix of the grid to which a building is 

connected, thus facilitating comparisons across the EU. This energy consumption indicator can then 

be easily translated to GHG emissions reduction for the specific Member States taking into account 

their specific energy sources and electricity mixes. 

Reducing energy consumption in European buildings 

The five actions identified to improve energy efficiency in buildings, with the overall aim to reduce the 

GHG emissions, include: 
 
 

Installing energy efficient lighting; 

Installing HVAC21 and lighting controls; 

  Verifying the build/installation quality; 
 
 

Implementing operational performance measures; 

Installing efficient heat pumps (forward-looking action when considering large scale 

implementation). 

The analysis of these actions in existing cases in Belgium, Austria, the United Kingdom and the US 
proved a savings potential up to 30% in the short-term and up to 60%22 in the long term in residential 
buildings. For office buildings, the installation of a control system has a saving potential of up to 20%, 

while an additional reduction of up to 35% can be achieved when more actions are implemented. This 

relative reduction is applicable across Europe despite the different energy consumption levels for 

buildings across the continent.  

Energy Efficient Lighting 

Installing energy efficient lighting (e.g. LEDs) is an action that leads to considerable energy savings 

and can be at low cost. Switching to a LED lighting system has the potential to reduce lighting energy 
use by 90%, leading to a reduction in operational energy consumption by at least 2%.23 This might 

21   Heating, ventilation and air conditioning   
22   See Annex 3 on energy consumption across the EU  
23   Based on residential house in Belgium. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
initially be seen as a relatively small potential, however, when considering that it can be achieved with 

very low investment costs (less than € 5/m² for changing lamps) and the ease of implementation for 

this action, it can be realised that this is an obvious quick win applicable to both new and existing 

buildings. With a payback period of one year, the installation of energy efficient lighting can be a 

valuable contributor to achieving the aim of reducing energy consumption.  

Energy savings by installing energy efficient lighting 

A detached house in Neerijse, Belgium, built at the end of 1950’s, was renovated in 2008. During the renovation, 

halogen  spots  were  installed.  In  order  to further  reduce  the  energy use,  the  owners  of the  house  replaced these 

halogen spots in the living room and kitchen by LED spots. This intervention led to a reduction in energy cost for 

lighting of 90%, and the total energy bill was reduced by 2,1%.  

HVAC and Lighting Controls 

The operational energy use of buildings, and hence their GHG emissions, can be reduced by an 

important extent when the HVAC and lighting systems are controlled and managed accurately. 

The analysis of the case studies revealed that old buildings have a higher potential for energy 

reduction by control systems (between 10-20%) than new buildings (approximately 5%).  

Practically, for an old average-sized office building of about 1.500 m² in Belgium, energy savings can 

be higher than € 600 per year when a full control system is applied. Installing such a control system in 

an office building (old or new) of 1.500 m² costs approximately € 4.700 indicating a payback period of 

less than eight years for an old office building. It is expected that the energy savings will be lower for a 

new office building. However, for new buildings, savings can be up to € 6.300 per year when a 
controlled variable air volume system is installed instead of a continuous air volume system.24  

Implementing HVAC and lighting controls in office buildings 

In the Legacy Civic Towers in San José (US), energy consumption was 

reduced  by  20%,  an  annual  energy  saving  of  €  7.473  (€  0,4/m²),  by 

installing a lighting and energy management system. The total cost of 

this  system  was  €  59.408  (€  3,2/m²).  This  cost  included  the  sensor 

installation,  the  computer  modelling  and  the  energy  management 

system. This control system has a payback period of eight years. 25 

Lars Myhre - Norwegian Home Builders' Association, Norway 

‘For existing buildings, the heat control systems potential represents around 10-20% of energy savings. New buildings usually 

have heating control systems (thermostats) and are well insulated. For those, the potential is significantly less (approx. 5%). 
Both assessments depend highly on user behaviour and settings for thermal comfort preference.’ 

24   These figures are based on test classrooms at the technology campus in Ghent (Belgium) and are also achieved through the commissioning 

of the system. 

25   Note that the technology used in this example can be seen as technology of advanced new office buildings to date and common practice in 

new office buildings in the near future in Europe. A case in the US was selected due to data availability. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Verification of the build/installation quality 

The gap between design and actual building energy performance has been identified as a recurring 

issue. Measures to bridge this gap include the verification of the quality of the construction and 

installation through actions such as thermographic surveys, air-tightness testing and/or improved 

commissioning of systems.  

An analysis of two residential buildings (renovation and new-built) in Belgium showed a reduction of 

the operational energy use between 9% and 15% by improving the air-tightness. These cases had an 

additional investment cost of less than 1% to verify the air-tightness level of the building. An additional 

cost of 6-7% of the investment cost was required to implement the measures to improve the air-

tightness. The cost of improving the air-tightness is highly variable as the interventions required 

depend on the pre-existing condition of the building/results of the air-tightness test. 

Air-tightness testing and thermographic surveys 

In the low energy renovation of the house in Spiere-Helkijn, 

Belgium, the energy use for space heating was reduced by 20% 

(14,5% overall energy use reduction) as a result of improved air-

tightness (based on the air-tightness test and thermographic 

survey). The total cost of implementing the air-tightness measures 

was €26.790. 

The sustainable neighbourhood in Waregem, Belgium, is a 

pioneering project by Wienerberger consisting of seven attached 

zero-energy houses built in 2016. The neighbourhood is innovative 

from its holistic sustainability approach, considering social, 

ecological and economic aspects. A number of scenarios 

considering different air-tightness values and window profiles were 

compared. A medium scenario for air-tightness was chosen, 

resulting in a reduction of the space heating energy consumption 

by 12,5% (9,1% overall reduction in energy use) compared to the 

business-as-usual scenario. 

The cases analysed moreover proved that verification of the installation of the technical system for 

heating, cooling and ventilation has a potential to reduce the total energy consumption of a building. 

The type of technical system and the type of building however have a big influence on the potential 

reduction. The case studies underlined the importance of continuous commissioning as the building 

performance can change over time (e.g. due to ageing of the building envelope or due to renovation 

measures) and influences the optimal performance of a system. The latter is further described in the 

subsequent action. 

Energy savings through verification and continuous commissioning  

In test classrooms on the technology campus in Ghent, Belgium, the fan energy consumption could be reduced by 

40%  and  the  ventilation  losses  by  32%  (compared  with  the  situation  of  constant  air  volume)  by  fine-tuning, 

commissioning and monitoring. The yearly benefit was estimated between € 470 (€ 3,4/m²) and € 1.180 (€ 8,4/m²). 

The demand control system has a net present value of € 6.600 (€ 47,1/m²) calculated over a 15 year period. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Implementation of operational performance measures 

Several measures are available to control and improve the operational energy consumption in new 

and existing office and residential buildings. Examples can be post occupancy evaluation, 

guidance/training for operators and/or occupants on correct operation of systems and controls, 

implementation of a preventative maintenance strategy, and regular energy audits.  

Based on the analysis of the residential case studies (Sustainable neighbourhood Waregem, Belgium; 

Energy renovation Spiere, Belgium) and professional judgement, it is assumed that the improvements 

implemented after an energy audit will lead to a potential reduction in energy consumption of at least 

5%. This potential depends highly on the building performance. In the case study of an old building 

(Energy renovation Spiere), a reduction of 89% in the energy use for space heating was achieved 

after an energy audit. Actions taken in an office building (office KU Leuven, Belgium) after an energy 

audit show a similar energy reduction potential, with a 6% reduction in the total energy consumption or 

up to 30% reduction in the energy needed for space heating. 

Energy audit triggered interventions 

Based  on  an  energy  audit,  the  HIVA  office  building  of  the  KU  Leuven,  Belgium,  was  renovated  in  2016.  The 

renovation mainly consisted of a replacement of the steel-frame windows. This renovation resulted in an average 

energy reduction of 30% for space heating compared to the previous two years. 

The energy reduction potential from monitoring was studied in several of the cases for both residential 

buildings and offices, however often the actual reduction was not quantified. In the case study of the 

sustainable neighbourhood of Waregem, an overall energy reduction of 15-20% is estimated when 

monitoring the temperature and energy use. It is expected that the impact of monitoring increases 

when building users have direct access to the monitoring data.  

A case study of the Venning in Kortrijk showed the importance of continuous commissioning26 

during the operational phase of a building. The importance of supporting and informing the occupants 

of the building is also highlighted. The potential benefits however, highly depend on the building and 

the defects occurring. This makes it difficult to estimate benefits quantitatively, although there is 

agreement about the importance of these measures generally. 

The potential of energy savings/performance improvement by continuous commissioning 

The social neighbourhood Venning in Kortrijk (Belgium) is a renovation project (within the European ECO-life project) 

of a social neighbourhood built in the 1960s. Venning is a CO2-neutral neighbourhood, making use of district heating 

with  a  local  resource  energy  supply.  During  the  first  year  after  building  completion,  in-depth  commissioning  was 

executed  with  the  aim  to  reveal  defects  in  the  HVAC  system  and  to  identify  the  key  parameters  for  continuous 

commissioning in future. The study showed that, even with the initial commissioning and quality assurance tests, 

there were still important defects (some heat exchangers were not working, reduced ventilation rates occurring) in 

the first year of use. Although these defects in the technical system led to a lower energy use (due to lower ventilation 

rates than actually required for a healthy indoor climate, and insufficient heating), the commissioning identified the 

defects and hence the thermal discomfort and bad indoor air quality could be solved.   

26    Continuous Commissioning is an ongoing process to resolve operating problems, improve comfort, and optimize energy use. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Installation of efficient heat pumps 

A more future-looking action, referring to the time when energy can be supplied from a low-

carbon/decarbonised electricity grid, is extending the use of more efficient heat pumps for hot water 

production, space heating and/or cooling. There are few limitations to the applicability of heat pumps 

to new and existing office and residential buildings. The analysis of two case studies where efficient 

heat pumps were installed showed energy savings of 30% with a similar reduction of GHG emissions 

when shifting from a fossil fuel based combustion system to a decarbonized electricity supply. These 

savings are calculated based on energy simulations during the design phase. As several types of heat 

pumps exist, the required investment cost varies. Case studies show installation costs of around € 

12.000 (ca. € 85/m²) for residential buildings and around € 60.000 (ca. € 40/m²) for offices. These 

costs are expected to drastically decrease in the mid-term future when this technology becomes more 

widely applied. Additionally, a yearly maintenance cost of about 1% of the investment cost should be 

accounted for. 

Energy efficient heat pumps 

SD Worx is a 1.350 m² private low energy office building in Belgium, built 

in 2001. The firm implemented an energy efficient heat pump to heat and 

cool their office building. This resulted in a reduction of the primary energy 

use by 29% and of the CO2 emissions by 27% compared to the Belgian 

reference situation. The installation required a total investment cost of € 

54.209 (€ 40,15/m²). 

Conclusion 

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a major challenge, which Europe currently faces to 

achieve the overall aim to mitigate climate change. In this context, reducing the energy consumption of 

the European building stock is a priority. The greatest potential to reduce the energy consumption of 

the European building stock lies in measures for existing buildings, especially the oldest ones. Several 

actions with a high reduction potential have been identified. The implementation of HVAC and lighting 

control systems was an important action as it could result in a reduction of up to 20%. This potential 

can be unlocked with a cost that can be as low as € 3/m² for larger office buildings. When 

complemented with other quick-win actions such as implementing energy efficient lighting, system 

commissioning and, in the near future, installation of energy efficient heat pumps for heating and 

cooling, the GHG emissions reduction potential increases even more. 

It is expected that the potential for reduced energy consumption through this action package is 

generally going to be similar across Europe. Nevertheless, the actions will lead to a differentiated total 

GHG emission reduction because the fraction of energy use per application (lighting, ventilation, space 

heating etc.) and the GHG emissions of the energy sources and electricity mixes differ significantly 

across Europe. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Macro Objective 2 – Resource efficient and circular 
material life cycles 

Resource efficiency, as viewed from a life-cycle approach, is generally considered as an essential 

element on the road towards a circular economy. Resource efficiency therefore does not only refer to 

efficient use of resources, but encompasses minimising the environmental impact from the use of 

resources, bringing within its scope also waste prevention and recycling efforts, and more sustainable 
production and consumption patterns, to produce “more from less”27.  

The aim of the second macro objective for the building sector is to increase resource efficiency during 

the life cycle of buildings through: 

  Optimised building design and engineering to support lean and circular flows; 
  Extended long-term material utility and reduced environmental impacts, with a particular focus on 

full life cycle assessment (LCA);  

  Building service life planning;  
 

Increasing recycling and reuse (design for deconstruction). 

Efficient use of materials in the European construction sector  

Despite differences in building culture across Europe, a number of “quick-win” actions have been 

identified in consultation with resource efficiency experts across European Member States. These 

actions offer a significant scope to realise the second macro objective and include: 
  Low overall environmental impact of construction materials; 

  Durable, low-maintenance materials for high risk elements; 
  Prolonging building service-life with preventative maintenance strategies; 
  Replacement of primary materials with secondary materials through increased reuse and 

recycling. 

Consultation with experts in the field and literature reviews revealed a high potential for these actions 

to reduce embodied carbon emissions by approximately 25%. Various case studies analysed in the 
Netherlands, France, Italy and Denmark confirmed this potential. Literature28 and expert judgements 
moreover indicate a significant potential to increase this number in a financially affordable way if LCA 

principles are applied from the design phase onwards. No case studies were found indicating the full 

environmental impact reduction achieved in a quantitative way for the selected cases, as LCA is not 

yet common practice in the design process.  

Nevertheless, as each building is unique in terms of design, material composition and construction 

methods, there are very few, if any, straightforward solutions that can be applied across the board to 

increase the building performance. The main change that is needed in that respect is the adjustment 

of the thinking and action processes throughout all phases of the building life cycle to incorporate LCA. 

27   https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/resource-efficiency 
28   Allacker, K. (2010). Sustainable Building: The development of an evaluation method, PhD dissertation, September 2010, ISBN 978-94-6018-

231-0 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
As indicated by the Infrastructure Carbon Review of the HM Treasury (see following figure), the 

potential to reduce embodied carbon emissions is increased with interventions taking place earlier in 

the building life cycle. Any action taken in that respect should therefore be put in the specific building 

context, especially the planning and design process and can be only specified on a case-by-case 
basis.29 

Figure 3  Carbon Reduction Potential for Building Materials 

Source: HM Treasury (2012). Infrastructure Carbon Review. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure/carbon-review. 

Applying construction materials with low environmental impact 

Selecting and applying construction materials with a low life cycle environmental impact has the 

potential to reduce material embodied carbon emissions with over 25%. This however requires a solid 

LCA in order to understand how the materials can be applied in the most appropriate way at building 

level. As such, it is important to not only consider the footprints of the individual materials, but to 

assess the footprint of the overall building solution.  

Jane Anderson - The Alliance for Sustainable Building Products; United Kingdom  

“Specific building case studies often point to a potential reduction of the carbon footprint of materials of about 25%, 

by both using more environmentally friendly materials and smarter designs.” 

Although materials with a lower environmental footprint are often seen by building owners as more 

expensive, studies have shown that considering them at the design phase with an LCA “lens” does not 

necessarily lead to additional costs. It was even shown that life cycle cost of low impact buildings often 
is lower than that of traditional buildings30. 

29   Interviews with Simon  
30   Allacker, K. (2010). Sustainable Building: The development of an evaluation method, PhD dissertation, September 2010, ISBN 978-94-6018-

231-0 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Buildings consist of a wide range of construction products, such as wood, glass, steel, etc. Two 
examples to consider are concrete and aluminium31. They can both be used in ways, which 
significantly reduce their environmental impacts. The use of concrete with or without recycled content 

or the substitution between aluminium and wooden materials are tangible trade-offs in terms of 

environmental benefits. 

Replacing aluminium for CO2 emission reduction32  

Research shows that aluminium-clad timber windows rather than aluminium framed double glazing curtain walling 

can bring 8% carbon savings for the total building in the case of an office building. With a rain screen cladding with 

terracotta  facing  rather  than  aluminium  framed  curtain  walling,  8%  carbon  savings  for  the  total  building  can  be 

realised. 

With an estimated savings potential of 25%33 on a building’s carbon footprint, a house with a total 
embodied carbon of 600 kg/m2 could realise about 150 kg/m2 of CO2 savings. For an office building 
with a total embodied carbon of 1.104 kg/m², this would mean savings of 276 kg CO2 per m².34 

Lars Myhre - Norwegian Building Research Institute; Norway 

“The development of low carbon concrete is an example. Low carbon/recycled concrete can reduce life cycle carbon 
emissions by up to 40% when compared with ordinary concrete.” 

Applying durable, low maintenance materials 

The application of durable, low-maintenance materials in new and refurbished offices and residential 

buildings (including roofs, cladding, window frames, internal and external doors, kitchen unit frames, 

and floor finishes) offers scope to increase the building life span and reduce environmental impacts by 

avoiding manufacturing additional new building elements.  

The use of more durable and higher quality materials leads to less maintenance activities and fewer 

replacements of construction products or building elements.  

Using more durable and or higher quality materials does not imply higher planning or design costs, 

while they usually slightly increase the cost for construction and reduce the costs for operation and 

maintenance. These materials generally form only a minor part of the total construction cost, for which 
no significant effects are to be expected on the overall price tag for construction35. 

The use of more durable materials can extend the life span of specific elements significantly. It is 

assumed that a holistic approach to selecting materials that are more durable will extend the building 
life span by at least 5%36. For dwellings with a total embodied carbon of 600 kg/m², this life span 
extension would save 30 kg/m2. For an office with a total embodied carbon of 1.104 kg/m², this would 
save around 55 kg/m2. As such, the use of more durable materials can achieve these savings as well 
as those achieved through reuse, recycling and/or materials with a lower environmental impact. 

31   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Resource%20efficiency%20in%20the%20building%20sector.pdf 
32   www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FINAL%20PRO095-009%20Embodied%20Carbon%20Annex.pdf 
33   Jane Anderson 
34   www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FINAL%20PRO095-009%20Embodied%20Carbon%20Annex.pdf 
35   Jane Anderson 
36   This is an expert judgement based on the expert consultation. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Prolonging building service life with preventive maintenance strategies 

The action ‘implementation of preventative maintenance strategies to maintain/prolong the service life 
of building materials’ refers to construction materials/elements that are at risk of degrading in terms of 
operational function. The two most common elements that are subject to such wear and tear are doors 
and windows.  

Implementing a preventive maintenance strategy can potentially extend the life span of windows and 

doors by around 20% for a regular detached house, which can be translated to savings of 0,8 kg 
CO2/m2 for doors and 8,6 kg CO2 /m2 for windows. Similarly, savings for an office building will be 
around 0,6 kg CO2/m2 for doors and 16 kg CO2/m2 for windows37 38. 

Preventive maintenance strategies  

Lars Myhre -  Norwegian Building Research Institute; Norway: “Currently, roofs need to be renewed every 30-40 

years. Proper maintenance can avoid growing algae and a general check-up can expand the lifetime of a roof even further. 

A brick façade can last nearly forever. Wooden façades need maintenance every 6-10 years in order to last. These actions 

can increase the life span of houses from 20-30 years to nearly endless depending on the functional renovation needs.” 

Nevertheless, it should be noted that increasing the technical physical life span of building elements 

does not necessarily mean an increase in the building service life. Buildings often reach the end of 
their service life, as they do not meet the users' need any longer.39 Making building structures more 
flexible is a way to increase the life expectancy of buildings. 

Flexible design to increase economic life span 

In the city of Aalborg, Denmark, the city council and the defence ministry decided to refurbish old barracks into office 

space,  residential  buildings,  workspaces  and common  areas. The activity  began  in  2012  and  was  planned  to  be 

completed in 2016. The new buildings would cover an area of around 92.700 m2. The refurbishment plan included a 

very  ambitious  sustainability  strategy  with  goals  on  carbon  dioxide  savings,  water/heat/electricity  savings,  with  a 

specific focus on resource savings. Moreover, the project has maintenance strategies in place for reducing the use 

of resources, mainly in terms of energy and water, both in the built and the common areas. A separate target was 

set for waste recycling at 65%. The architectural design of the new development allows for flexibility of the common 

areas, allowing them to shift almost freely from forest to grasslands or paved areas, in order to reduce maintenance. 

The building is part of a national project on green establishments that refers to transformations of old barracks into 

new sustainable urban developments. 

Increasing recycling and reuse (design for deconstruction) 

Designing buildings for easy separation of materials at refurbishment and at end-of-life allows 

disassembly for reuse or high quality recycling. As such, the potential for reuse and recycling of 

construction material is enhanced and on-site waste practically eliminated. 

The implementation of design for disassembly would lead to a decrease in construction and demolition 

waste and to a reduction in the need for virgin materials by replacing primary with secondary 

materials.  

37   Assuming embodied carbon in windows to be similar to that of a school building. 
38   Calculations based on: www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FINAL%20PRO095-009%20Embodied%20Carbon%20Annex.pdf 
39   Interview with Simon Sturgis, Sturgis Carbon Profilling, UK 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Construction waste recycling  

The city hall of Almelo in the Netherlands was completed in 2015 with sustainability as a key parameter in its design. 

The building includes 20.000 m² of floor area and 100 parking spaces, developed in line with the  requirements for 

BREEAM Outstanding certification - the highest sustainability level for public buildings in the Netherlands. Through 

a series of interventions, the city hall of Almelo managed to recycle 95% of the waste generated on site during the 

construction.  Moreover,  during  the  selection  of  materials,  special  attention  was  given  to  their  sustainability 

credentials.  

The environmental benefits of these actions result from reuse and recycling in this case having lower 

environmental impacts than those from virgin alternatives. Although, the quantification of these 

benefits is not possible without knowing the exact bill of materials for a house being deconstructed, 

reuse and recycling is observed to have the potential to reduce on-site construction waste by up to 

95% (see above example of the city hall in Almelo).  

Conclusion 

With an increasing demand to move towards a circular economy, the building sector is challenged to 

enhance the efficiency of its material use. However, data on the specific cost and benefits of 

enhancing efficient material usage in the building sector is limited and case specific. A general 

potential of reducing carbon-embodied emissions in construction materials by 25% has been 

observed. Moreover, the additional costs for selecting more environmentally friendly materials seem to 

be negligible for new buildings when these are considered from the design phase onwards. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Macro Objective 3 - Efficient use of water resources 

With increasing droughts, reducing river flows, lowered 

Main drought events in Europe since 2000 

lake and groundwater levels, and drying up of wetland, 
Europe is challenged to use water more efficiently. 
Buildings, accounting for the main consumption of water 
from supply systems40, offer significant scope to tackle 
water scarcity through achieving more efficient water 

usage.   

Hence, with the aim of the third macro objective for the 
building sector being "make efficient use of water 

resources, particularly in areas of identified long-term or 

projected water stress", actions have been linked to 

the identification and assessment of measures to 

enhance the efficient usage of water resources.  

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/water_scarcity.pdf 

Enhancing water efficiency in European buildings 

Water consumption is naturally quite diverse across Europe. For example, as some countries are 
characterised by warmer climatic conditions or smaller household budgets41, there are some 
observable differences in water consumption per capita in the EU. 

Eurostat Data (2017) shows average water consumption to be highest in Southern Europe and lowest in Eastern 

Europe. Northwestern Europe is found in the middle of these two, explainable by its colder climatic conditions but 

higher household income.  

Despite these different water consumption patterns, in consultation with water efficiency experts in 

various European Member States, a number of “quick-win” actions have been identified offering a 

Installing water efficient equipment; 

significant scope to improve water efficiency in buildings. These include: 
 
 
  Adapting user behaviour (incl. installing building leak detection systems and conducting water 

Installing rainwater harvesting systems; 

audits; Installing smart meters and providing guidance and training to operators and occupants) 

Learning from existing cases in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Finland, and by consulting 
water efficiency experts42 across Europe, these actions were found to have a total savings potential of 
at least 30% for both residential and office buildings.  

40   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Water%20Performance%20of%20Buildings_Study2009.pdf 
41    Waterprices also differ significantly across the EU ranging from 0,63 €/m3 (Malta) to 4,58 €/m3 (Denmark). 
42   Expert interviews include: 1) Dr. Kemi Adeyeye – President Water Efficiency Network, UK; 2) Cath Hassel- ech2o consultants ltd, a UK 
environmental consultancy specialising in sustainable water and low carbon solutions for the built environment; 3) Prof. Armando Silva 
Afonso-  President of the Board of ANQIP - Portuguese Association for Quality and Efficiency in Building Services; 4) Prof. Zuzana 
Vranayova- Director of the Institute Technical University of Košice, renowned expert on water efficiency in buildings. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For older buildings, this potential is found to even run up to 50%. Although this potential would not be 

feasible in all places, as local conditions differ, it provides an indication of what can generally be 

achieved. To illustrate this, varieties of case studies are presented below. 

Water efficient appliances 

Across all buildings, both old and new, there is scope to directly reduce water consumption through 

installation of water efficient equipment. In practice, this would involve the use of taps, showers, baths, 

urinals and siphon WCs that correspond to the upper quartile (top 25%) performance of the European 

Water Label or WELL Water Efficiency Label specifications. The examined case studies have shown 

that the savings potential of this action to be around 30% for all building types across Europe. With a 

payback period of around one to two years, installing water efficient equipment is proven to be a quick-

win solution.  

Reducing water consumption through office 

Dr. Kemi Adeyeye – Water Efficiency network, United 

renovation 

Kingdom  

A former office building in Finland was transformed into a 

learning institution for the city of Helsinki. The building 

covers an area of about 4.300 m2, and was completely 

renovated to comply with the Gold-level LEED 

certification. Water savings were realised through 

installing new water fixtures, such as waterless urinals 

“The water savings potential in buildings can range 

between 5-50%. Depending on the building typology, 

generally speaking, buildings (e.g. semi-detached 

houses, apartments blocks, or office buildings) complying 

with the most recent standards are about 30% more 

water efficient (than average buildings of their typology 

and more taps that are efficient. Together these actions 

and location).” 

resulted in a 41% reduction in the annual water 

consumption. 

Prof. Zuzana Vranayová - Technical University of 

Košice, Slovakia 

Water efficient taps for all 

“Our research has shown that replacing high water-using 

In several Italian municipalities, water authorities and 

devices with water efficient alternatives can reduce 

chain stores have collaborated to provide complete kits of 

annual water consumption by more than 30%.” 

water efficient tap adapters to household and public 

services (either for free or at a subsidised price). This led 

Prof. Armando Silva- Afonso – Expert water 

to an overall reduction in domestic water consumption of 

efficiency in buildings, Portugal 

30-50%. This would imply a reduction in the water bill of 

“For old buildings, changing the features has a return 

€59-98 for a household water consumption of 150 

period of 1-2 years.” 

m3/year and a tariff of €1,30/m3. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Usage of rainwater 

Next to installing efficient equipment, rainwater-harvesting systems (RWHS) can be installed in 

buildings to substitute tap water, for example, using rainwater for garden watering, washing machine 

supply and toilet flushing. Notable tap water savings have been observed by installing RWHS. These 

savings are found to range significantly (from 5% up to 50%), being influenced to a large extent by two 
factors; 1) the size of the system and 2) the climatic conditions43. Generally, across Europe, the 
installation of such a system is considered a more long-term option, having a payback period of 

investment between 10 and 20 years. 

50% savings with efficient equipment, meters, and RWHS 

This case consists of five terraced houses built in December 2008 on 

the Inwood Road in Liss, in South-East United Kingdom. In all 

houses, a number of water saving devices were installed from the 

beginning, including dual flush toilets (two per house), low flow taps, 

aerated showerheads, and water butts. Additionally, three of the 

houses received water inlet meters to monitor and locate water 

usage. Two of the houses also received a rainwater harvesting 

system (RWHS) of 1.600 litres. Due to these interventions, from the 

Action 

Cost in Euros44 

outset the houses only consumed 55 l/p/d, about 50% less than the 

Water savings devices 

maximum allowed water usage to comply to the Code for Sustainable 

Water inlet meter 

Homes (CfSH) level 3 according to which the houses were built. 

Rainwater harvesting system 

575,45 

1.074,03 

4.029,06 

Prof. Armando Silva Afonso – Expert water efficiency in buildings, Portugal: 

“A rainwater harvesting system costs about € 10.000 for a small building (residential) and has a pay-back period of about 

10-15 years. However, RWHs are especially interesting in hotter climates to save water for rainless periods.” 

Adapting user behaviour 

Informing consumers of their water consumption, can stimulate them to become more efficient. A 
number of actions can be implemented to increase this awareness, for example, installing a building 
leak detection system or performing regular (every few years) water audits in residential building 
blocks or offices. These are simple-low cost actions that can produce major water savings. They allow 
the timely identification of water leakage and can prevent large losses of tap water of which the 
consumer might not be aware. Water audits in the UK for example generally only cost a few hundred 
euros for a medium sized office building45. 

43   The potential of the RWHS (rain water harvesting systems) is highly dependent on 1) the level of precipitation and 2) the usage of rainwater. 

The latter depends on the demand of non-drinking water (e.g. watering gardens is more extensive in Spain during the summer months than in 
northern Member States)  

44   Converted from pounds: 1 GBP =1.15065EUR (http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=GBP&To=EUR [Accessed 

10-01-2017]). 

45   Cath Hassel, ech2o consultants ltd 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Preventing large losses through water audits 

A water audit was initiated in a school building in the Greater London area of the United Kingdom following a very 

high water bill due to a leak remaining unnoticed for months. Subsequently, the water auditors identified the leak and 

installed an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) system, which provides a continuous signal to the water audit team. By 

monitoring this signal, the team assesses whether the water flow and consumption exceeds the normal consumption 

level. Within a month from installation, two water leaks were detected and repaired, preventing about €100.000 in 

excess water charges. 

Smart water meters and real-time displays can be installed across all buildings informing consumers 
where and when water is used. Being informed, consumers can take action to use water more 
efficiently. Guidance/training for operators and occupants on the correct operation of water systems, 
maintenance requirements, and the implementation of preventative maintenance strategies will also 
improve consumers' water efficiency knowledge. Again, this increased awareness and knowledge will 
stimulate consumers to change their behaviour and take action, improving the efficiency of their water 
usage. 

Studies assessing the impact of the installation of smart water meters on water consumption in the 
United Kingdom and France, found water savings of 5-10%46 and 6-28%47 respectively. Another trial 
with smart water meters in the United Kingdom resulted in an average water usage reduction of 3 to 
4%48. 

The potential for water savings during renovation 

This case consists of seven modern residential apartments (approx. 76 

m2 each) at 39 William IV Street in London, built in 1970 and renovated 

in 2016. The apartments are located on top of a 405 m2 restaurant. The 

following actions were taken: 

 

Installing water efficient appliances, such as dual-flush WCs and 

low-flow taps; 

  Fitting individual water meters in each apartment, so residents can proactively manage their water use; 

  Providing Home User Guides for residents, to help them run the new space as efficiently as possible; 

  Offering aftercare support to residents for at least 12 months, as well as carrying out on-site inspections and post 

occupancy interviews within three months after moving in. 

The cumulative benefits of these actions are a 44% saving on water consumption with respect to the average water 

consumption  of  150 l/person/day in  the  United  Kingdom.  With  a  water  tariff  of  €  0.654  m3   49 this  would  imply  an 

annual saving of ₤15 per person. 

46   Environment Agency (2008), The costs & benefits of moving to full water metering Science Report – SC070016/SR1 (WP2).   
47   M. Blinda (2014), More efficient water use in the Mediterranean, Water Efficiency Paper 14, November 2012. 

https://planbleu.org/sites/default/files/publications/cahier14_efficience_en.pdf [Accessed 07-12-2017]. 

48   House of Parliament, Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (2014), Smart Metering of Energy and Water, POSTNOTE Number 471 

July 2014. 

49   https://www.thameswater.co.uk/my-account/billing-and-payment/our-charges/-

/media/8BF91365689A4AC59CBA80C179AEFB32.ashx?bc=White&db=web&la=en&thn=1&ts=d8bc4555-b143-4a1d-ac4f-c31c83dbfa5b.pdf 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Conclusion 

With increasing droughts, reducing river flows, lowered lake and groundwater levels, and drying up of 
wetlands, Europe is being challenged to use water more efficiently. Quick-win actions in residential 
and office buildings - such as water efficient equipment, rainwater harvesting systems, leakage 

prevention, or smart meters and training - carry significant potential to reduce water consumption 

across Europe. These actions have the potential to make recent buildings 30% and older buildings 

50% more efficient with a relatively small investment, and hence these actions are often economically 

attractive. Installing water efficient equipment generally has a payback period of only one to two years, 

offering a quick-win solution to reduce water consumption. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

34 

 
 
 
 
Macro Objective 4 - Healthy and comfortable spaces 

We typically spend up to 90% of our time indoors, either at home, work or during other activities50,51. 

Air quality inside public and private buildings is an essential determinant of health and well-being 

according to this macro objective. Uncomfortable high temperatures, reduced ventilation and poor air 

quality cause distraction from work and can lead to symptoms such as headaches, difficulty to 

concentrate or think clearly52. In order to meet carbon reduction goals, future buildings will be 

increasingly well insulated and increasingly air-tight. The increased focus on air-tight building 

envelopes will require an increased attention for ventilation measures and VOC source control to 

ensure good indoor air quality, thus on the well-being of workers and building occupants for both new 
and refurbished buildings53.  

Concentrations of VOCs associated with building materials, such as carpets, finishes and cleaning products, may be at a 

level that is not only detectable by the olfactory sense, but also creates an irritant response, particularly when associated 

with high particulate concentrations, low humidity, or both. Pollutants are also emitted from office equipment, such as 

photocopiers and laser printers. Source control is the best way to minimise indoor air quality problems. This includes 

specifying low emission building materials, finishes and cleaning products to minimise ‘outgassing’. 

Source: World Green Building Council, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices. Research Note: Indoor Air Quality & 

Ventilation. 

With the aim of the fourth macro objective for the building sector being “to protect human health by 

minimising the potential for occupier and worker exposure to health risks resulting from exposure to 

chemical and biological hazards”, particularly with regards to improved indoor air quality, actions will 

focus on ventilation and source control.  

Improving indoor air quality in Europe 

Indoor air quality is influenced by a wide range of sources, including hazardous substances emitted 

from construction materials, furnishing and occupant behaviour, such as space heating and cooking. A 

wide range of pollutants and substances, such as radon, NO2, CO, benzene, formaldehyde, TVOC, 
particles, CO2, heavy metals and asbestos have been identified as hazardous to indoor air quality54. 
These chemical hazards as well as other hazards such as humidity and condensation can be 

associated with respiratory or allergenic health effects. This can lead to a broad range of health 
problems and may even be fatal55 56.  

50   European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2013/articles/indoor-air-quality [retrieved 29/05.2017] 
51   JRC, http://indoor-air-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, retrieved 26/5/2017 
52   P. Wargocki, O. Seppanen (editors), J. Andersson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fritzner & S. O. Hanssen (2006), Indoor Climate and Productivity 

in Offices – How to integrate productivity in life-cycle cost analysis of building services, Guidebook No. 6, by REHVA – Federation of 
European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations. 

53   H. B. Awbi (2015), Indoor air quality in UK homes and its impact on health, School of built environment, University of Reading  
54   JRC (2016), Identifying indicators for the life cycle environmental performance, quality and value of EU office and residential buildings 
55   WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality, Selected pollutants, 2010 
56    WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality, Selected pollutants, 2010, p. 1 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In consultation with indoor air quality experts across European Member States, a number of “quick-

win” actions have been identified offering significant scope to improve indoor air quality in buildings. 

Installation of health-based ventilation rates; 

Notably, these actions focus on reduction of VOCs and include: 
 
  Application of low VOC emitting building materials; 
  Building flush out and cleaning of ventilation systems prior to building occupation.  

Learning from existing cases in Europe and the US - where data are transferable to European 
countries - and by consulting experts on the topic57, improved indoor air quality in office buildings was 
found to increase productivity by up to 11% due to increased ventilation rates, dedicated delivery of 
fresh air to workstations, and reduced levels of pollutants58. This provides an indication of what can 
generally be achieved. In order to illustrate this, results from a variety of case studies are presented in 

the subsequent paragraphs. 

Implementation of health-based ventilation rates 

Ventilation rates can be improved by implementing natural ventilation measures and/or by installing 

and operating a mechanical ventilation system. 

The benefits of improved air quality in residential buildings are not measured but assumed59. Improved 
air quality in residential buildings mainly provides health benefits due to a reduced risk of asthma and 

allergies, as well as improving sleep and performance. Natural ventilation based on improved window 

design might be the preferred option in smaller residential buildings. 

In office buildings, financial benefits related to improved air quality typically include: 1) reduced 

medical care costs, 2) working days gained due to reduced sick leave, 3) better performance at work 
including increased productivity, 4) lower staff turnover and 5) lower cost of building maintenance60. 
Clearly, the majority of these financial benefits are based on health benefits. 

Kasper Lynge Jensen, Director of Development at Aarhus School of Engineering, Denmark 

“Employers have to understand the impact of indoor air quality on worker performance and, thus, the benefits related to 

improved productivity.” 

According to the World Green Building Council, from a performance and health perspective, the 

suggested ventilation rate for office buildings is between 20 and 30 l/s. Additional benefits 

progressively tail off above 30 l/s. Using the number of days of sick leave as an indicator for good 

indoor air quality, case studies showed that short term sick leave was 35% less in offices ventilated by 
an outdoor air supply rate of 24 l/s compared to buildings with ventilation rates of 12 l/s61. 

57   Expert interviews included: 1) Pawel Wargocki, Associate Professor at the Technical University of Denmark; 2) Kasper Lynge Jensen, 

Director of Development at the Aarhus School of Engineering; 3) Ruben Stuijk, Architect and building professional, Belgium  

58   World Green Building Council, Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices. The next chapter for green building  
59   Interview with Kasper Lynge Jensen and Pawel Wargocki 
60   P. Wargocki, O. Seppanen (editors), J. Andersson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fritzner & S. O. Hanssen (2006), Indoor Climate and Productivity 

in Offices – How to integrate productivity in life-cycle cost analysis of building services, Guidebook No. 6, by REHVA – Federation of 
European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations, p. 13. 

61   World Green Building Council, Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices. The next chapter for green building 
http://www.jll.com/Research/Health_Wellbeing_Productivity.pdf?1a56c1ad-7be7-4d6d-8f32-74bb6e72fa3f 
P. Wargocki, O. Seppanen (editors), J. Andersson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fritzner & S. O. Hanssen (2006), Indoor Climate and Productivity 
in Offices – How to integrate productivity in life-cycle cost analysis of building services, Guidebook No. 6, by REHVA – Federation of 
European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Productivity benefits from improved indoor air quality in office buildings 

A study simulating  an  office  building  compared  the  investment cost  for  improving indoor  air  quality  with  resulting 

revenues  from  increased  office  productivity  due  to  improved  worker  performance.  “The  results  showed  that  the 

annual benefits from improved productivity are higher than the annual costs of energy and maintenance in running a 

heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. For an office building situated in a moderate climate with an 

HVAC system with constant air volume, the installation costs of the HVAC system were estimated to be around  € 
118/m2 62and annual maintenance and energy costs63 of around € 29/m2. Based on these costs, the overall annual 

benefit due to improved air quality was found to be up to 115 times higher than the increase in annual energy and 
maintenance costs.” 64  

Kasper Lynge Jensen, Director of Development at Aarhus School of Engineering, Denmark  

“The benefits of improved air quality in residential buildings are assumed but difficult to prove. The focus of interventions 

should be on stimulating behavioural change. Smart systems can improve air quality if occupants are guided to use ithem 

appropriately. A sensor informing occupants of poor indoor air quality can stimulate natural ventilation while costing less 

than € 100.” 

Especially in relation to office buildings, indoor air quality can be improved by installing a mechanical 

ventilation system. For an existing office building, figures show that the installation of a central 

ventilation system on the roof or attic or a decentralised system attached to the window in each room 
or façade cost in the range of € 35 to 200/m² floor area65. The exact cost of this action depends on the 
complexity of the installation and the building. This means that depending on the size of the rooms 

and the design of the ventilation system, the price might be higher. 

These measures, however, increase energy consumption, amounting to € 30-40/m² floor per year. In 

general, the lifetime operating costs for energy and maintenance of a building are five to six times 

higher than its construction phase costs. However, data from simulated case studies and expert 

statements show that annual benefits from improved health and productivity are higher than the 

additional cost for energy and maintenance. Hence, these additional costs are easily offset by the 

value created by workers in the building.  

Ruben Stuiik, Architect; Belgium 

“In Belgium, the investment costs of installing a simple system with mechanical extraction and natural intake in the 

renovation phase of a residential building of 280 m² costs around €3.500, while in a new build residential building of 220m², 

a system with mechanical intake and extraction with heat recovery costs around €8.500. Depending on the design of the 

ventilation system, the unit price for a system with mechanical intake and extraction with heat recovery in a new build office 

building (670m²) costs around €29.500, whereas the installation of such a system in an existing office building of 733 m² 

costs around €25.000.” 

62    Conversion rate: $1=€0.89. $133.7=€118 
63    Given that the indoor air quality should reach a level where 10% of the people entering the building would be dissatisfied. 
64    Wargocki, P. and Djukanovic, R. (2005), Simulations of the potential revenue from investments in improved indoor air quality in an office 

building, ASHARE Transactions, vol. 111 (pt. 2), pp. 699-711, p.  

65    Calculated per m2 based on a unit price for a ventilation system procured and installed in Belgium, e.g €25,000 : 733m2 = €35 pr. m2 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
  
 
 
 
 
Application of low emitting building materials  

In addition to ventilation measures, indoor air quality can be improved by controlling the emission of 

harmful pollutants, including VOCs, by using low emitting building materials. 

Low-emitting building materials and perceived air quality in an office building  

Wargocki,  P.  et  al.  (2007)  investigated  the  relationship  between  the  selection  of  low-polluting  building 

materials  and  the  perceived  air  quality  in  an  office  building. They  found  that  the  improvement  of  the  air 

quality was greater than the improvement obtained by increasing the ventilation rate within a range that was 

realistic for indoor settings. The study showed that reducing pollution sources by selecting lower-polluting 

building  materials  improves  the  perceived  indoor  air  quality.  This  offers  the  possibility  to  reduce  the 

ventilation rate and hence reduce the energy use without negative consequences for the indoor air quality66. 

The use of low-emitting building materials for the construction of an office building without additional 

operation or maintenance costs has been found to bring an annual benefit of around € 27/m² due to 

increased worker productivity. The dissatisfaction rate with the indoor air quality amongst the 
occupants of the building can be reduced by 10% without increasing the outdoor air supply rate67. 

The application of VOC absorbing construction materials is a forward-looking action, as these 

materials are not yet considered to be a technology applicable for widespread use because many of 

these products currently are at the research and development stage. Their application is not common 

practice in Europe and no data on costs and benefits could be identified. 

Building flush out and cleaning of ventilation systems prior to building occupation 

Pre-occupancy building flush out is a process in which the building is ventilated after construction at a 

certain rate for a period, lasting from a few days to several weeks. This process forces air through a 

building prior to occupancy to remove harmful pollutants such as VOCs emitted from building materials 

and newly installed components, including paints, finishes and furnishings. After the process, 

ventilation filters need to be renewed. The process aims to improve indoor air quality by limiting 
occupants’ exposure to the most intense period of contamination68.  

Application of low VOC emitting construction materials, building flush out and natural ventilation 

A  case  study  conducted  in  a  lab  environment  in  2003  simulated  the  behaviour  of  a  newly  constructed 

residential house. The study found that the application of low VOC emitting materials combined with a three 
month pre-occupancy building flush out and regular natural ventilation with an average air exchange rate69 

of 0,36 h-1 (low rate) and 1,6 h-1 (high rate) decreased the total VOC concentration in the house to 43 µg/m³ 

to non-detectable70. This is far below the average concentrations of VOCs measured in dwellings in Europe 
(149 - 470 µg/m³)71.  

66   Wargocki, P. et al. ( 2007), Effect of using low-polluting building materials and increasing ventilation on perceived indoor air quality 
67   Wargocki, P & et al., Simulations of the potential revenue from investment in improved indoor air quality in an office building (2005), p. 5 
68   Minnesota Sustainable Housing Initiative: www.mnshi.umn.edu/kb/scale/flushout.html  
69   The volume of air filling a room is changed between 0,36 and 1,6 times per hour.  
70   H. Guo, F. Murray, and S. C. Lee (2003), The development of low volatile organic compound emission house – a case study, in Building and 

Environment 38. 

71   Karakitsios, S & et al., Integrated exposure for risk assessment in indoor environments based on a review of concentration data on airborne 

chemical pollutants in domestic environments in Europe (2015) in Indoor and Built Environment, Volume: 24 issue: 8, page(s): 1110-1146 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Conclusion 

Measures related to improved indoor air quality in both office and residential buildings are expected to 

become even more important in the future due to the impacts of climate change. The increased focus 

on air-tight building envelopes will require an increased focus on ventilation measures and source 

control to achieve good indoor air quality, and therefore ensure the well-being of building occupants. 

Notably, taking actions to improve ventilation rates and control sources of VOC in office environments, 

involves investment and operation costs that are quickly offset by the financial benefits of improved 

employee health, performance and productivity, with reductions in sick leave being potentially as high 

as 35%. For residential buildings, natural ventilation requires low investment and operational costs as 

it requires minor adjustments and mainly behavioural change, with the main benefit relating to the 

improvement in residents’ health. Finally, pre-occupancy building flush out can contribute to the above 

at a relatively low cost. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Macro Objective 5 – Adaptation and resilience to 
climate change 

Looking at the second half of this century, a large 

Simulated average summertime temperature 

change between 1961-1999 to 2070-2099 

Source: ClimateCost, European and Global Climate Change Projections,  

part of the European building stock is not well 

equipped to cope with a changing climate. Old 

buildings lack an efficient thermal envelop and 

new air-tight buildings often lack sufficient 

ventilation and, hence, both are seen as 

vulnerable parts of the building stock. Specifically, 

up to 25% of the current building stock of non-

residential buildings (including office buildings) will 

need extensive retrofitting to effectively manage 

the increasing temperatures or otherwise face 

unsustainable increases in energy bills. Further, 

as heatwaves are associated with increases in 

mortality rates and other negative health impacts, 

and uncomfortably warm office temperatures can 

greatly affect productivity, failing to adapt building 

stock can result in an increased severity of these 

impacts as the climate change phenomenon 

unravels. 

Juan Lafuente –Author of RICS, Climatic Risk Toolkit, 2015 

“If climate change impact is not addressed, the economic life-time of a building can be reduced in view of increasing 

energy bills.” 

Improving thermal comfort in the European building stock 

Overheating will be an issue for both older buildings with high building envelope U-values and 

buildings that are more recent which are very air-tight and poorly ventilated, even if located in the 
“mildly” affected countries such as the UK72. 

Lars Myhre – Technical Director, Norwegian Home Builders’ Association, Norway 

“Generally, new buildings, which typically are better insulated and have improved air-tightness, might perform worse 

regarding overheating compared to already existing buildings, especially if adequate ventilation is not foreseen.” 

With the time horizon for this macro objective set in the long term and, regardless of the location and 

existing condition of a building, a number of “quick-win” actions can make a substantial difference in 

improving thermal comfort.  

72   www.extreme-weather-impacts.net/toolkit/detached/index.html# 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
These include: 

  Minimising heat gains; 
 

Implementing energy efficient cooling options (including increased ventilation rates and using 

energy efficient heat pumps for HVAC73 in the long term). 

Additionally, the effectiveness of both actions is maximised when providing guidance and training to 

achieve behavioural change. 

Prof. Bienert – Real estate expert, Institut für Immobilienwirtschaft, Germany 

“Overheating is not yet perceived as an important issue influencing real estate values in Germany, although it is an issue 

for some specific building types. This is an important factor in Spain where the costs of air conditioning can be significant. 

However, with rising temperatures, overheating might become an important issue in the future in Germany as well”. 

Quantitative reporting on the costs and benefits of mitigating climate change is scarce in the literature. 
This is partly because the time-horizon of these actions render only a simulated ex-ante assessment 

possible. Another reason is the fact that quantitatively assessing climate-proofing actions for buildings 
has been the point of attention for a limited part of the building industry (also geographically74) and 
performed mainly for high-end private offices as part of a CSR policy and by some public 

organisations. Costs and benefits have been retrieved from specific case studies from Germany, the 

United Kingdom and Belgium. Consultation has been conducted to expand and validate these findings 
with building climate change resilience experts75 with experience from various EU countries76.  

Combinations of these actions provide the potential to eliminate 30 to 100% of the overheating 

duration in a building (depending on the specific building). Consequently, this can result in a minimum 

saving of 30% in cooling costs. Arguably, the largest benefit for offices is the 1 to 3% productivity 

increase. Depending on the productivity level and overheating exposure, a payback period of between 

one and six years can be expected. These figures are illustrated in the following sections. 

Minimising solar heat gains 

A first measure to prevent overheating in a building should be the avoidance of solar gains. Improving 

shading and installing improved glazing to reduce heat gains are two of the most important actions to 

minimise the impact of increasing temperatures. This is especially relevant for non-air conditioned 

buildings. For offices, applying solar rejection window films, brise soleil, installing external fixed 

shading and blinds can increase comfort hours by more than 40%, as illustrated by the German office 

case below. In less affected climates (e.g. England, North France, Scandinavia) it may even eliminate 

the impact of rising temperatures altogether. For Southern Europe, shading alone cannot be a viable 

solution throughout the year, although it can reduce the duration and intensity of the cooling needs. 

73   Heating, ventilation and air conditioning 
74   The UK seems to have the most active reporting on the subject. 
75   Expert interviews included: 1) Lars Myhre – Technical Director, Norwegian Home Builders’ Association,; 2) Juan Lafuente – Expert, building 

climate change resillience expert; Sturgis Carbon Profilling, UK,  Author of the RICS, Climatic Risk Toolkit, 2015 
http://www.globalabc.org/uploads/media/default/0001/01/f168fb64573a74da207efdfbc4076d2781d2fac5.pdf; 3) Prof. Bienert – Real estate 
expert, Institut für Immobilienwirtschaft, Germany; 4) Pawel Wargocki - Associate Professor Ventilation and Climatic systems, Technical 
University of Denmark; 5) Kasper Lynge Jensen – Air Quality and ventilation expert, Director of Development at Aarhus School of 
Engineering; Denmark 

76   Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
The relevant costs depend on the severity of the problem each building is facing and can range from € 
10 to 50/m2 depending on the selected solution77.  
It should be noted that it is probable that initial simple adaptation measures can suffice for a number of 

years before higher impact solutions will need to be applied.  

Residential buildings, especially in Northern Europe, can also apply very simple solutions such as 

installing external blinds, thick curtains and painting south facing walls in lighter colours. Such 

measures come at very limited cost and, in combination with improved natural ventilation (see 

subsequent section); can suffice for the majority of residential buildings in Northern Europe. 

Behavioural good practices applied in Southern Europe, like night-time ventilation, can be copied to 

improve building performance in the North. 

Juan Lafuente –Author of RICS, Climatic Risk Toolkit, 2015 

“In the United Kingdom, it is possible to reduce the overheating exposure of buildings by half in residential sector typologies 

(older ones – Victorian styles etc.) with simple adaptation measures.” 

Climate-proofing office buildings with gradual application 

of shading solutions 

A three building cluster owned by Cornwall Council in the UK 

has been studied in order to devise a climate adaptation 

strategy. This consisted of a gradual application of improved 

shading and ventilation options applicable as temperatures rise 

in view of the 2080 time horizon. Solar rejection films came at 

lower costs (approx. € 15 /m2) and were considered to suffice 

for a 10-year mitigation period before more drastic measures 

would be needed. Installing brise soleil secured adaptation for 

40 years but came with larger costs (up to € 50/m2) with 

technical solutions depending on the specifics of the building.  

Balancing solar shading with lighting costs 

The German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Berlin is located in a new-build office that suffers severely 

from overheating. Various adaptive shading solutions have been simulated comparing the investment costs required and 

the additional needs for lighting due to the shading with the reduced cooling costs. The assessed solutions managed a 

temperature decrease of 3 to 6 oC and decreased discomfort hours by up to 50%. This study proved that while the shading 

options can perform similarly in terms of reducing temperature, the impact on additional lighting costs ranged significantly  

€ 0,78 – 3,77/m² per year. This shows that investment costs (€ 10,92 – 14,71/m²) are not the only variable to consider. 

Adapting user tolerance by steadily increasing maximum allowed office temperature over the year, can 

have a critical impact on reducing lighting and cooling costs as seen in the German office case 
above78.  

77   Or combination of solutions to improve shading and window glazing. 
78    Ascione, F., et al), Summer overheating in a new multi-storey building in Berlin: numerical study for improving the indoor microclimate, 

Energy Procedia 75 ( 2015 ) 1305 – 1314 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Energy efficient cooling options 

As well as reducing heat gains, buildings that are more exposed to the impacts of climate change will 

need to implement an effective cooling strategy. There is a dual strategy in doing so, applicable to 

both residential and office buildings.  

Firstly, in Southern Europe, air conditioning systems are already common practice, as ventilation 

without an air conditioning system would not suffice. The focus here should be on improving the air-

tightness of the buildings to preserve internal temperatures. Efficient heat pumps can be a viable 

solution in the near future replacing existing A/C units and prompting a substantial energy efficiency 

improvement for HVAC of up to 30%. This currently come at a cost of approximately € 40/m² for larger 
office areas, but is expected to become significantly cheaper as the technology matures79.  

Kasper Lynge Jensen – Director of Development at Aarhus School of Engineering, Air Quality and ventilation 

expert; Denmark 

“For office buildings, mechanical ventilation is the way to go. This is common practice for new buildings. A simple ventilation 

system bringing the temperature from 28 to 22 °C brings 1-3% gains by increasing productivity and improving health as 

estimated for Scandinavian countries. For Southern countries, ventilation needs to be combined with a cooling system.”  

Secondly, for buildings in Central and Northern Europe, increasing ventilation rates is the way 
forward80. A primary action is to prompt user behaviour change, adopting night ventilation to purge 
excessive heat and adopting “window opening rules”. This comes at no or minor costs for residential 

buildings through adjustment of window frames for security purposes. Modelling the impact in 

detached houses and top floor apartments in the UK revealed a reduction in overheating hours of 30 

to 50%. For office buildings, although an attractive alternative, night ventilation might not be an 

applicable option due to security concerns. Thus, the installation of a central mechanical ventilation 
system is suggested. Procuring such a system for a new building can cost as little as € 35/m2 while the 
cost of installing it in an existing building can be significant, up to € 200/m2, depending on the building 
specifics, in which case a decentralised system might be preferred. While operation and maintenance 
costs also need to be applied to such systems (roughly € 20/m2 /year) 81, the main benefits relate to the 
increased productivity that can be as high as 3%. 

Combining heat gain reduction with efficient ventilation 

The CREW project modelled the impact of climate change in different common building typologies in the UK with the 

time horizon set to 2080. An increase in overheating hours was estimated to  be more than 500 degree-hours for 

detached houses from the 60’s and to more than 700 degree-hours for new low specification top floor apartments. 

Mitigation of impacts was achieved with a variety of simple measures such as i) adapting user behaviour (i.e. night 

ventilation, window opening rules, light coloured walls) and ii) providing improved solar shading (i.e. external shutters, 

external fixed shading, low-e triple glazing windows, internal blinds). These led to a modelled decrease in overheating 

hours by 30 to 50% for detached houses at costs ranging between € 2.500 and 15.000 per housing unit. For top-

floor apartments, the overheating time reduction was as high as 35%.  This came at minor costs mainly linked to 

improved window security. 

79   See case SD Worx office 
80   Interview Juan Lafuente 
81   Cost assessments from interview with Kasper Lynge Jensen. Procurement prices fo not differ significantly across the EU, installatio costs 

refer to a Danish context. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Conclusion  

Climate change is a problem with a long time horizon. Looking at the second half of this century, a 

large part of the European building stock is not well equipped to cope with a changing climate. Old 

buildings lack an efficient thermal envelope and new air-tight buildings often lack sufficient ventilation, 

and hence both are seen as vulnerable parts of the building stock. A combination of adapting user 

behaviour, improving ventilation and minor retrofits aiming to improve shading of existing residential 

buildings and offices is needed. In residential buildings, simple actions costing between nothing 
(behavioural change) and the cost of a minor retrofit action82 should suffice to counter between 30 and 
100% of the expected overheating impact, resulting in an improvement of thermal comfort and 

residents’ health, and/or cost savings for avoided active cooling. For office buildings, improved solar 
shading (costing approx. € 10 to 50/m2) would suffice for the less impacted areas and/or for the first 
years of mitigation. This can be complemented with a central mechanical ventilation system for slightly 
more impacted cases with systems that can cost between € 40/m2 for new buildings and € 200/m2 for 
complex fitting in existing structures. Nevertheless, as already common practice in Southern Europe, 

combining this with a cooling system is unavoidable for the most impacted buildings. Despite the high 

costs, the significant expected productivity gains (1-3%) brings the payback period to between 1 and 6 

years. 

82   Retrofitting window frames estimated at 15.000 € for an average 2006 single-family detacehd house in the UK. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Macro Objective 6 – Optimised life cycle cost and 
value 

The life cycle costs of buildings are often higher than necessary because too often solutions are 

selected based solely on investment costs. In order to maximise the life-cycle value of buildings, it is 

important to look further than the investment cost to ensure a cost effective building operation as well 

as a good future market value. Durable materials, which require a higher investment cost, for example, 

may still be preferred from a life cycle cost perspective because they require lower operational costs - 

due to less frequent replacements that are needed and/or due to lower maintenance costs.  

Therefore, in the context of this macro objective for the building sector “optimise life cycle cost and 

value”, four actions are proposed to reduce the life cycle costs representing the “low-hanging fruits” 

that can be easily and effectively implemented for the majority of the building stock. To discuss the 

costs and benefits related to this macro objective, the additional investment cost and the total life cycle 

cost savings are respectively seen as indicators. As total life-cycle costs are not commonly calculated 

for a building, improvements in that respect are more often replaced by more specific cost savings 

such as reduced energy bills or reduced maintenance costs.  

Reducing life cycle costs for European buildings 

The four actions identified to improve life cycle cost in buildings include: 
  Use of durable, low-maintenance materials (for high risk elements); 
 

Installation of and user guidance for the operation of HVAC control systems; 

  User guidance/training and implementing preventative maintenance strategies to prolong the 

service life of building materials; 

  Designing services and service routes for ease of access for maintenance and refurbishment. 

The analysis of these actions in existing cases in Belgium, Austria, the United Kingdom and the US in 

combination with additional information from interviewing experts has shown a potential reduction in 

life cycle costs of up to 20% in existing buildings, and 5% in new-builds.  

Durable, low-maintenance materials 

Using durable low-maintenance materials has been identified as an important action in reducing the 

life cycle cost of a building, as this requires less frequent replacements and/or maintenance. This 

leads to a decrease in the quantity and cost of the materials needed during the life span of the building 

and in less labour costs for maintenance/replacement activities. Using durable, low-maintenance 

materials can lead to life cycle cost savings of up to 16% (see next case study). The direct benefit of 

this action is not only a lower life cycle cost, but also a reduction in GHG emissions (macro objective 

1) and the achievement of a better life cycle environmental impact (macro objective 2).  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards 

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The potential to reduce life cycle costs by using durable, 

low-maintenance materials 

In Zelzate, Belgium, a residential building, originally built in 

1960, will be refurbished in 2017 into a future oriented 

residential community. The total life cycle cost was taken into 

account during the design process. A minimum reduction of 

2% of the life cycle cost was obtained for the outer walls, 

while for the ground floor, a reduction of 16% was estimated 

compared to current common practice alternatives. The 

additional investment cost to achieve these life cycle savings 

compared to common practice varied between € 13,24/m² 

wall for the outer wall and € 65,46/m² floor for the ground 

floor. While for the majority of the elements the maintenance 

costs were reduced, the investment and replacement costs 

increased. This led nevertheless to a reduction in life cycle 

cost. 

Installation of and user guidance for control systems for heating, ventilation, air 
conditioning and lighting 

Advanced control systems for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting are 

identified as another important opportunity to reduce building life cycle costs. It is however important to 

note that this should be combined with appropriate training and guidance to ensure full effectiveness. 

The case studies confirmed that such control systems can lead to a significant reduction in operational 

energy costs. In old office buildings, for example, the energy bill can be reduced by up to 20%, as can 

be seen the section on macro objective 1. In addition, a further reduction in energy costs may be 

achieved by system commissioning. 

The investment cost for the installation of control systems in office buildings found in the cases 
studied83 range between € 3 to 270/m². This rather wide range can be explained by the big variety of 
control systems, going from a small management system with sensors to advanced building 

management systems. To illustrate the potential of the life cycle savings due to the installation of 

HVAC and lighting controls, refer to the Legacy Civic Towers in San José, California, as discussed in 

macro objective 1. 

User guidance/training and implementing preventative maintenance strategies to 
prolong the service life of building materials 

Guidance and training aimed at prolonging the service life of a building through implementing 

preventive maintenance is assumed to result in lower maintenance and replacement needs, which 

compensate the additional investment cost required. A lower life cycle cost is hence expected, but no 

quantitative data were found to support this assumption. 

83   See Annex II 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
It is also assumed that a user guide will lower the operational energy use, as occupants will have 

access to information on how to better use their energy consuming systems and appliances, resulting 

in energy savings.  

A user guide is assumed to have a negligible cost. If provided, it is part of a post-intervention file, 

which requires an investment cost of about € 500 for a dwelling (i.e. € 400 – 600 depending on the 

size of the building and type of intervention). 

The potential to reduce life cycle cost through guidance/training 

The sustainable neighbourhood in Waregem, Belgium, is a 

pioneering project by Wienerberger consisting of seven attached 

zero-energy houses built in 2016. The neighbourhood is innovative 

from its holistic sustainability approach, i.e. considering social, 

ecological and economic aspects. The project has a BREEAM 

Excellent rating. Linked to the BREEAM requirements, a home user 

guide was provided as part of the post-intervention file. This post-

intervention file had a total cost of € 400-600. A user guide ensures 

that the occupants use the building and its installations in the most 

efficient way. 

[De Duurzame Wijk, Zultseweg 7, 8790 Waregem, Belgium] 

Design of services and service routes for ease of access for maintenance and 
refurbishment 

Improving the building design to facilitate maintenance activities and providing relevant information to 

constructors and building occupants are expected to lead to important financial benefits, as a cost 

reduction is expected due to the ease of access (and hence increase in time efficiency and less 

deconstruction needed) and lower renovation costs to adapt the building when its use changes. Both 

actions will demand additional investment costs as it is expected that the change in design approach 

will require additional time (and hence an additional cost) for designers to become accustomed to this. 

However, this is seen as a temporary situation, because once the designer is used to this new design 

approach, the design process will be equally or even more efficient and will not require any additional 

cost. Despite the potential of this action to reduce life cycle costs, there are only a few case studies 

available, none of which contain cost/benefit calculations. 

The potential of design of services and service routes 

Building 2226 is an office building in Vorarlberg (Austria), designed by the 

architectural office Baumschlager & Eberle and was finished in 2013. 

Building 2226 is an ultra-low energy building, which does not have a 

heating, cooling or mechanical ventilation system. In the building, a vertical 

shaft of approximately 1 m² contains the few ducts and cables. Openable 

parts are provided in the floor to allow for easy access to cables in the 

raised floor construction. Maintenance and replacement of the services are 

easier with these interventions. This will result in reduced labour costs and 

reduced material costs. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion 

Currently the design process most often focuses on minimising the investment cost instead of the 

building life cycle cost. There is significant potential to reduce the life cycle cost of buildings, which 

ensures affordability over its life span and a good future market value. Building measures such as the 

use of low-maintenance materials and control systems have a high potential to reduce the life cycle 

cost. Energy bills can be reduced by up to 20% for existing buildings and by up to 5% for new-builds 

through control systems. In addition, user guidance and training and design strategies to simplify 

maintenance and replacements during the building life span have a high potential to reduce costs, 

although these savings were not quantified in the cases analysed. Overall, the combination of building 

measures and user guidance can easily lead to a reduced life cycle cost of a building. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards  

environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on cost and benefits of working 

towards environmental macro 

objectives in the building sector 

Annex Report  

Client: European Commission, DG Environment 

Rotterdam, 24 October 2017 

Study on cost and benefits of 
working towards environmental 
macro objectives in the building 
sector 

Annex 

Client: European Commission, DG Environment 

Ioannis Giannelos 

Rotterdam, 20 June 2017

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

Annex I 

Expert consultation 

Annex II 

Sources tables 

Annex III 

Energy consumption 

Annex IV 

Water consumption 

Annex V 

EU building stock 

3 

5 

29 

32 

36 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex I  Expert consultation 

The experts consultation approach followed in the course of this study is performed for three main 

purposes. First for formulating the Action Packages for each of the macro-objectives, second for 

validating them and third for assessing the costs and benefits linked to their implementation. 

For the three purposes, different subsets of experts where consulted. Table 1 underneath presents 

the experts that participated in the workshops to formulate the Action Packages 

Table 1  Macro objective workshop schedule and expert panellists 

Macro objective workshop 

Expert panellists 

Macro objective 1: greenhouse gas emissions from 

Andy Lewry (BRE) 

building life cycle energy use 

John Henderson (BRE) 

Monday 31st October 2016 (1330-1630 GMT) 

Owen Abbe (BRE) 

Macro objective 2: Resource efficiency 

Karen Allacker (KU Leuven) 

Ioannis Bakas (CRI) 

Gilli Hobbs (BRE) 

Monday 31st October 2016 (0930-1230 GMT) 

Flavie Lowres (BRE) 

Owen Abbe (BRE) 

Karen Allacker (KU Leuven) 

Ioannis Bakas (CRI) 

Macro objective 3: Water efficiency 

Steve Brown (Water Energy Nexus) 

Tuesday 1st November 2016 (1330-1630 GMT) 

John Griggs (JPJN Partners Ltd) 

Macro objective 4: Indoor air quality 

Cath Hassell (ech2o) 

Andy Dengel (BRE) 

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 (0930-1230 GMT) 

Vina Kukadia (BRE) 

Chetas Rana (BRE) 

Macro objective 5: Thermal comfort and overheating 

David Butler (BRE) 

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 (1330-1630 GMT) 

Alan Abela (BRE) 

Macro objective 6: Life cycle costs 

William Wright (BRE) 

Mike Clift (BRE) 

Tuesday 1st November 2016 (0930-1230 GMT) 

Kathryn Bourke (Whole Life Ltd) 

Anthony Waterman (ADW Developments Ltd) 

Karen Allacker (KU Leuven) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 presents the international experts consulted to validate the applicability of the Action 

Packages across the EU. 

Table 2 

Experts asked to validate the draft action packages  

Name 

Organisation 

Role 

Location 

Replied 

Andromaque Simon 

Green Imagineering 

Architect & BREEAM 

France 

Yes 

Assessor 

Hans van de Sanden 

Sweco Consulting sp. 

Architect & BREEAM 

Poland 

Yes 

z.o.o. 

Assessor 

Timo Rintala 

Green Building Partners 

Sustainability Expert & 

Finland 

Yes 

Oy 

BREEAM Assessor 

Oscar Martinez 

Instituto Technologico de 

Architect & Director 

Spain 

Yes 

Lamigueiro 

Galicia (ITG) 

BREEAM ES 

Kjersti Folvik 

Norwegian Green 

Engineer & Chief Executive 

Norway 

Yes 

Building Council 

Officer NGBC 

Martin Mooij 

Dutch Green Building 

Architect & Head of 

Netherlands  Yes 

Council 

Certification and 

Management 

Pantelis Levantis 

Ecoveritas 

Managing Director, 

Greece 

Yes 

BREEAM Assessor & 

President of Sustainable 

Building Council of Greece 

James Drinkwater 

World Green Building 

Regional Director, Europe 

Europe 

Yes 

Audrey Nugent 

Council 

Network  

Senior Policy Advisor, 

Europe Network 

Sasa Marenjak  

Croatia Green Building 

Board Member & DGNB 

Croatia 

Yes 

Council 

Assessor 

Pascal Eveillard 

Saint-Gobain 

Strategy, Marketing, Public 

France 

Yes 

Affairs & Sustainable 

Development 

Finally, the experts consulted to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed actions are 

presented in the subsequent chapters in which they are presented. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Annex II  Sources tables 

MO 1 – Energy efficiency 

Table 3  Cost and benfits sources for MO 1 - Energy efficiency 

Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Building case studies 

Case studies with quantitative cost/benefit data 

Low Energy 
Renovation 
Spiere 

House in 
Neerijse 

Sustainable 
Neighbourhood 
Waregem 

I 

1C 

Belgium 

168m2 

I 

1A 

Belgium 

180m2 

1900 
(2014) 

1950 
(2016) 

I/II 

1A/1C/1E  Belgium 

190m² 

2016 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

20% energy 
cost reduction 
for space 
heating (= 14,5 
% reduction 
energy bill)  

90% energy 
cost reduction 
for lighting (= 
2,1% reduction 
energy bill) 

90% energy 
cost reduction 
for lighting (= 
2,1% reduction 
energy bill) 
12,5% energy 
cost reduction 
for space 
heating (=9,1% 
reduction total 
energy bill) by 
air tightness 

20% energy 
reduction for 
space 
heating 

90% energy 
reduction for 
lighting 

90% energy 
reduction for 
lighting 
25% 
reduction of 
Net energy 
demand of 
space 
heating (air 
tightness + 
windows) 
Estimated 

Increas
ed 
comfort 

Increas
ed 
comfort 

€26.790 (= 
159,5€/m²) 
for 
airtightness 
and 
thermograph
ic 

€216 
(=3,32€/m²) 
for LED 
lighting 

Assumed 
around 3,3 
€/m² for LED 
light bulbs 
€655 
(=3,4€:m²) 
for the 
airtightness 
of one 
housing unit 
(7 in total) in 
comparison 

1% of 
investment 
cost as 
maintenan
ce (=168 
€/year) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

potential 
energy 
reduction of 
15-20% by 
monitoring 

12,5% energy 
cost reduction 
for space 
heating (=9,1% 
reduction total 
energy bill) by 
window 
improvement 

Increas
ed 
indoor 
air 
quality 

No data 
available on 
the benefits, 
but can be 
estimated 
based on 
installed power 
and hours of 
use per year 

 No data 
available on 
the benefits, 
but can be 
estimated 
based on 
installed 
power and 
hours of use 
per year 

Building 2226 

III   

1B/1D 

Austria 

2,700m² 

2014 

Legacy Civic 
Towers San 
Jose 

III 

1B 

US 

18,674m² 

1997 

Reduction 

€7.473 
annual 
energy 
saving 

Reductio
n 

Increas
ed 
indoor 

for 
improvemen
t +- 1vol/h 
€4.541 (23,4 
€/m²) extra 
investment 
for windows 
16.800 euro 
(86,6€/m²) 
for Heat 
pump/housi
ng unit in 
comparison 
with E60 
norm 
blowerdoor: 
485-629 
€/house 

493.000 
€(183,6€:m²
) for control 
system 
€3.800 
(1,4€/m²) 
additional 
investment 
cost for LED 
lighting 
instead of 
conventional 
bulbs 

€27.636 
(1,5€/m²) for 
sensor 
installation 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

SD Worx office 

III 

1E 

Belgium 

1,350m² 

2001 

Reduction 

Centraal 
Besturingsgebo
uw Dijlevalei 

Test 
Classrooms 
Technology 
Campus 

III 

IV 

1B/1C/1D
/1E 

1B/1C/1D
/1E 

Belgium 

708m² 

2008 

Reduction 

Belgium 

2*140m² 

2011 

- yearly benefit 
between 
€470.26-
1176.5  
- Further 
reduction by 
commissioning 
& monitoring 

18.048 
(0,97€/m²) 
euro for 
computer 
modelling 
€13.724 
(0,73€/m²) 
for energy 
managemen
t system 

€54.209 
(40,15€/m²) 
for heat 
pump 

± €300 for 
Blowerdoor 

€ 6.600 
(23,6€/m²) 
NPV for 
demand 
control (15 
year period) 

20% energy 
reduction 
possible for 
old buildings 

air 
quality 

27% 
reduction 
of CO2 
emission
s 

Reductio
n 

Increas
ed 
comfort 

Increas
ed 
indoor 
air 
quality 

29% 
reduction of 
primary 
energy use 

Reduction 
expected by 
control 
system 

40% 
reduction for 
fan energy 
consumption 
32% 
reduction for 
ventilation 
losses for 
heating 
(compared 
with situation 
CAV) 
Further 
reduction by 
commissioni

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

Office KU 
Leuven 

IV 

1D 

Belgium 

n/a 

(2016) 

Case studies with qualitative cost/benefit data 

I 

1C 

Belgium 

168m² 

1960 
(2017) 

IV 

1B 

UK 

8,800m² 

1993 

Low Energy 
Renovation 
Leuven 

John Cabot 
City 
Technology 
Center 

ng & 
monitoring 

± 30% of 
energy 
reduction for 
space 
heating (in 
this case 
study: fuel oil 
(= 6% 
reduction of 
overall 
operational 
energy) 

n/a 

Increas
ed 
comfort 

€858 - 1029 
for 
verification 
(blowerdoor 
+ 
thermograph
ic) 

n/a 

Reductio
n in CO2 
emission
s in 
comparis
on with 
EEO 
Yellow 
Book 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

ICT3&4 offices 
Leuven 

III 

1E 

Belgium 

1,778 m²+ 
4,974 m² 

2010 

Reduction 

Elizabeth Fry 
Building 

IV 

1B 

UK 

3,250 m² 

1995 

Reduction 

Social 
neighbourhood 
Venning  

II 

1A/1C/1D
/1E 

Belgium 

25,475 m² 

1960 

90% energy 
reduction for 
lighting (= 
2,1% reduction 
overall energy 
bill) 

Reductio
n 

Reductio
n 

energy 
reduction by 
installation of 
heat pump 

Reduction 
expected by 
control 
system 

Assumed 
reduction of 
90% by 
installing 
LED 

 ALL 

1A 

France 

n/a 

 existing 

n/a 

Assumed 
around 3,3 
€/m² for LED 
light bulbs 
€485-629 for 
airtightness 
testing/ 
housing unit 

Increas
ed inner 
air 
quality 

Increas
ed 
comfort 

increase 
in 
property 
value 
(and 
rental 
price) 
as a 
result of 
energy 
retrofits. 

Interviews   

Prof. Dr. Sven 
Bienert -  
Universität 
Regensburg 

Lars Myhre -  
Norwegian 
Home Builders' 
Association  

I/II 

1B/1E 

Europe 

n/a 

New 

±5% 
reduction by 
heating 
control 
system 
30-40% 
reduction in 

reduction 
by control 
system 
and heat 
pump 
(greener 

Air-to-air 
heat pump: 
€1500-2500 
(1/2 needed 
for 
apartment) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction  
(renocation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG 
reduction 

other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

I/II 

1B/1E 

Europe 

n/a 

Existing 

Lars Myhre - 
Norwegian 
Home Builders' 
Association  

Other sources   

Aspen index 

ALL 

ALL 

Moderate 
Climate 
Zone 

Possible to 
calculate bill 
savings 

ALL 

1C 

Belgium 

Websites of 
companies 
/consultancy 
firms 

energy 
source) 

future (over 
10 years) 
when lower 
primary 
energy 
factors 
achieved. 

±10-20% 
reduction by 
heating 
control 
system 

Provides 
cost data for 
new 
buildings 
and 
renovation 

Air-tightness 
testing: € 
485-€629 
Thermograp
hic survey: 
±€400 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MO 2 – Resource efficient material life cycles 

Table 4  Cost and benefits sources for MO 2- Resource efficient material life cycles 

Name 

Reference 
Building 

Action 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

Reference Building 

Costs 

Environmental Benefits 

Investment costs 

Building case studies 

Case studies with qualitative cost/benefit data 

Almelo city hall 

IV 

(2A), 2B 

Netherlands 

n/a 

2B, 2D 

France 

n/a 

New 

New 

Reduction of environmental impacts 

 n/a 

Reduction of environmental impacts 

n/a 

2B 

Italy 

n/a 

New 

Reduction of environmental impacts 

n/a 

2B, 2C 

Denmark 

n/a 

New 

Reduction of environmental impacts 

n/a 

Ardennes 
residential 
building 

Bisceglie 
residential 
building 

Aalborg 
barracks 

II 

II 

III 

Interviews  (N/A) 

Jane Anderson 

All 

2A, 2B 

EU 

All 

New 

Dave Cheshire  All 

2D 

EU 

Simon Sturgis 

All 

2A, 2B, 2C  

EU 

Lars Myhre 

Lars Myhre 

I/II 

I/II 

2B 

2C 

EU 

EU 

All 

All 

All 

All 

New 

New 

New 

All 

Reduction on embedded carbon can 
reach 25% with selection of lower 
carbon footprint elements 

The reduction can be reached 
with nearly zero investment 
costs  

Practical elimination of on-site waste 
(consisting currently of up to 1/3 of total 
material used). 

Widely using pre-fabricated 
timber frames can lead to 
reduced construction costs 

Embedded carbon reductions can be 
significant 

Near-zero cost actions if 
implemented from the design 
phase 

25% potential reduction in emissions 
from low CO2 concrete. 

Proper maintenance can significantly 
prolong the life-span of buildings (nearly 
indefinitely). The technical lifespan of 
buildings is less important than the 
economical lifespan. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
Name 

Reference 
Building 

Action 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

Reference Building 

Costs 

Environmental Benefits 

Investment costs 

Other sources   

WRAP 2007 

ALL 

2B 

All 

All 

 All 

I, III, IV 

2A, 2B 

All 

All 

All 

WRAP (Cutting 
embodied 
carbon in 
construction 
projects) 

80% reduction of environmental 
impacts (from production of aggregates, 
not concrete altogether) with 100% use 
of recycled aggregates. 24% carbon 
reduction for concrete overall with 
recycled content best practice 

Aluminium-clad timber windows rather 
than aluminium framed double glazing 
curtain walling  can bring 8% carbon 
savings for the total building in the case 
of an office building.  
Aluminium-clad timber windows rather 
than uPVC framed double glazed in a 
house can reduce the carbon footprint 
of the building by 1% 
Embedded carbon in internal doors is 3 
kg/m2 for all building types except for 
houses where it is 4 kg/m2 
Windows have an embedded carbon of 
80 kg/m2 (for a school) or 43 kg/m2 
(house) 
Total embedded carbon for all building 
elements is 1104 kg/m2 (office), 810 
kg/m2 (school) and 600 kg/m2 (house) 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MO 3 – Efficient use of water resources 

Table 5  Cost and benefit sources for MO 3 - Efficient use of water resources 

Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions  Location  Dwelling/office 

size 

Age of 
construction  
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Water Savings  
(m3/person/year or 
%/household) 

Water Bill 
Reduction (in  €) 

Investment  
(in €) 

Building case 

Case studies with quantitative cost/benefit data 

New houses Five 
Trees in Liss 

I 

3A, 3B, 
3E, 3F 

United 
Kingdom  

I & II 

3A 

United 
Kingdom  

2008 

20.08 

1950-1970 

29.315 

42.6 

143 

5678.54 

1223.98 

Old houses 
Horndean and 
Rowlands Castle 
in South 
Hampshire 

Luxury homes at 
Brookhill, 
Crookham 
Village in 
Sheffield 

Water savings 
devices and 
awareness in 
Italy 

Modern 
residential 
accommodation 
at 39 William IV 
Street in London 

Commercial 
office space at 
22 Ganton Street 
in Lon 

Delivering 
sustainable 
office buildings 

I 

3B 

United 
Kingdom  

120-129 m2 

New 

62 

1888 

All 

3A 

Italy 

All 

30-50% water savings 

II 

III 

3A, 3E, 
3F 

United 
Kingdom  

76 m2 

1970 
(2016) 

44% water savings 

3A, 3E, 
3F 

United 
Kingdom  

11,670 m2 

1920 
(1999 & 2004) 

8% water savings with 
respect to the required 
5m3/person/year 

III & IV 

3A, 3B, 
3D 

United 
Kingdom  

11,150 m2 

2010 

2847–5014 
m3/building/year 

78392.95 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions  Location  Dwelling/office 

size 

Age of 
construction  
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Water Savings  
(m3/person/year or 
%/household) 

Water Bill 
Reduction (in  €) 

Investment  
(in €) 

Water audits and 
leakage 
reductions by O2 
Building services 

Water and 
energy efficiency 
measures in 
office building 
Kantaatti 

Interviews 

Dr. Kemi 
Adeyeye 

Dr. Kemi 
Adeyeye 

Prof. Armando 
Silva Afonso  

Prof. Armando 
Silva Afonso  

Prof. Armando 
Silva Afonso  

Prof. Armando 
Silva Afonso  

Prof. Armando 
Silva Afonso  

Prof. Zuzana 
Vranayová  

Prof. Zuzana 
Vranayová  

III & IV 

3D 

United 
Kingdom  

Unknown 

100000 

III & IV 

3A, 3B 

Finland 

4,300 m2 

41% water savings 

All 

All 

All 

Action 
Package 

Action 
Package 

North-
west 
Europe 

North-
west 
Europe 

Action 
Package 

Southern 
Europe 

All 

3A 

I & II 

3B 

III & IV 

3D 

I & II 

3E 

Southern 
Europe 

Southern 
Europe 

Southern 
Europe 

Southern 
Europe 

All 

Action 
Package 

Eastern 
Europe 

All 

3A 

Eastern 
Europe 

Old 
(Renovated) 

New 

30% savings 

Old 

Up to 50% savings 

All 

All 

All 

More than 30% savings 

30% water savings 

15% water savings 

Old 

10- 50% water savings 

All 

All 

All 

30% 

30% water savings 

Pay-back 1 to 2 
years 

Pay-back 10- 15 
years 

Pay-back 0,5- 2 
years 

Pay-back 3 months 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
Age of 
construction  
(renovation) 

All 

Benefits 

Costs 

Water Savings  
(m3/person/year or 
%/household) 

Water Bill 
Reduction (in  €) 

Investment  
(in €) 

3000, with Pay-
Back 18-20 years  

Old 

8% water savings 

97 per visit 

All 

All 

All 

All 

55 

Cost/benefit ratio 
0,15 

Cost/benefit ratio 9-
17 

Cost/benefit ratio 
6,6 

Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions  Location  Dwelling/office 

size 

I & II 

3B 

I & II 

3D 

Eastern 
Europe 

United 
Kingdom  

I & II 

3E, 3F 

United 
Kingdom  

I & II 

3A 

France 

I & II 

3B 

France 

I & II 

3C 

France 

Prof. Zuzana 
Vranayová  

Cath Hassel - 
ech2o 
consultants ltd & 
Anonymous 
water providers 

Cath Hassel - 
ech2o 
consultants ltd & 
Anonymous 
water providers 

Other sources 

Collaboration of 
300 
municipalities for 
water efficiency 
in France 

Collaboration of 
300 
municipalities for 
water efficiency 
in France 

Collaboration of 
300 
municipalities for 
water efficiency 
in France 

The costs & 
benefits of 
moving to full 
water metering in 
the United 
Kingdom 

I & II 

3F 

United 
Kingdom  

All 

8.395 

193.3092 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions  Location  Dwelling/office 

size 

Age of 
construction  
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Water Savings  
(m3/person/year or 
%/household) 

Water Bill 
Reduction (in  €) 

Investment  
(in €) 

Smart water 
metering in the 
United Kingdom 

Smart water 
metering in 
France 

Smart water 
metering in 
France 

Smart water 
metering in 
France 

I & II 

3F 

United 
Kingdom  

All 

3,5% water savings 

I & II 

3B 

France 

All 

5- 50 % water savings 

I & II 

3D 

France 

All 

10-28 % water savings 

I & II 

3F 

France 

All 

2-32 % water savings 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MO 4 – Healthy and comfortable spaces 

Table 6  Cost and benefit sources for MO4 - Healthy and comfortable spaces 

Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construc-
tion 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Health 
improvements 

Air quality 

Productivity 
improvement 

Investment/installation 
(in €) 

Building case studies - quantitative 

III / IV 

4B 

US 

11,581m² 

All 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

60 times 
higher than 
increased 
costs 

pay-back time below 
2.1 years  

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

annual rate 
of return was 
4-7 times 
higher than 
the minimum 
rate set at 
3.2% 

III / IV 

4B 

Cold climate 
(US) 

11,581m² 

All 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

133.60  €/m² 
floor/annual 

119.38 €/m² floor 

21.75 €/m² 
floor/annual 

III / IV 

4B 

Moderate 
climate (US) 

11,581m² 

All 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

133.60 €/m² 
floor/annual 

123,73 €/m² floor 

22.40 €/m² 
floor/annual 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

17 

Simulations 
of the 
potential 
revenue 
from 
investments 
in improved 
indoor air 
quality in an 
office 
building  

Simulations 
of the 
potential 
revenue 
from 
investments 
in improved 
indoor air 
quality in an 
office 
building  

Simulations 
of the 
potential 
revenue 
from 
investments 
in improved 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construc-
tion 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Health 
improvements 

Air quality 

Productivity 
improvement 

Investment/installation 
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

indoor air 
quality in an 
office 
building  

Simulations 
of the 
potential 
revenue 
from 
investments 
in improved 
indoor air 
quality in an 
office 
building  

Simulations 
of the 
potential 
revenue 
from 
investments 
in improved 
indoor air 
quality in an 
office 
building  

The 
development 
of low 
volatile 
organic 
compound 
emission 
house  

III / IV 

4B 

Cold climate 
(US) 

11,581m² 

All 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

133.60  €/m² 
floor/annual 

126.71 €/m² floor 

24.344 €/m² 
floor/annual 

III / IV 

4A 

US 

11,581m² 

All 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

26.64 €/m² 
floor/annual  

5% higher building 
construction costs than 
a non-polluting building  

I/II 

Action 
Package 

US 

New built 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Non-
detectable to 
43 µg m-3 
total VOC 
concentration 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construc-
tion 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Health 
improvements 

Air quality 

Productivity 
improvement 

Investment/installation 
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

Cost-benefit 
of improved 
air quality in 
an office 
building 

Indoor 
Climate and 
Productivity 
in Offices  

Interviews 

Pawel 
Wargocki 

Kasper 
Lynge 
Jensen 

III / IV 

4B 

US 

11,581m² 

Renovation  

Reduction of 
VOCs  

III / IV 

4B 

All Europe 

All  

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

1.1% 
increase in 
productivity 
for each 10% 
decrease in 
the 
percentage 
dissatisfied 
with air 
quality result 
in an 
economic 
benefit of 
€0.184 /hour 
per person. 

44 €/m² 
floor/annual 
by 2% 
increased 
productivity  

4 months pay-back time 

272  €/m² floor/annual 
with 10% interest rate 
and lifetime of 
investment of 10 years  

All 

I/II 

Action 
Package 

Action 
Package 

N./C.Europe 

N./C.Europe 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Improved 
productivity 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Improved 
health and 
performance  
Reduced risk 
of asthma and 
allergies 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construc-
tion 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Health 
improvements 

Air quality 

Productivity 
improvement 

Investment/installation 
(in €) 

Renovation 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

1-3% 

200 €/m² floor for 
central ventilation 
system 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

1-3% 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Improved 
productivity 

132.5 €/m² floor for de-
central ventilation 
system 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

30-40 €/m² 
floor/annual 
consumption  
200 € annual 
maintenance  

Kasper 
Lynge 
Jensen 

Kasper 
Lynge 
Jensen 

Kasper 
Lynge 
Jensen 

III / IV 

4B 

III / IV 

4B 

I/II/ 
III/IV 

4C 

N./C. 
Europe 

N./C. 
Europe 

N./C. 
Europe 

Ruben Stuijk 

I 

4B 

Belgium 

280m² 

Ruben Stuijk 

I 

4B 

Belgium 

220m² 

Renovation 

New built 

2017 
Intensive 
renovation 

2017  
New built 
passive 
house 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Improved 
health and 
performance  
Reduced risk 
of asthma and 
allergies 

Improved 
health and 
performance  
Reduced risk 
of asthma and 
allergies 

Improved 
health and 
performance  
Reduced risk 
of asthma and 
allergies 

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Reduction of 
VOCs  

Ruben Stuijk 

III / IV 

4B 

Belgium 

670m² 

2014 

Ruben Stuijk 

III / IV 

4B 

Belgium 

733m² 

2017 
Renovation  

Improved 
health and 
performance 

Reduction of 
VOCs  

12.50 €/m² floor for 
simple ventilation 
system with mechanical 
extraction and natural 
intake 

38.34 €/m² floor for 
mechanical intake and 
extraction with heat 
recovery 

44.03 €/m² floor for 
mechanical intake and 
extraction with heat 
recovery 

34.11 €/m² floor for 
mechanical intake and 
extraction with heat 
recovery 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Reference 
building 

Actions 

Location 

Dwelling/ 
office size 

Age of 
construc-
tion 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Health 
improvements 

Air quality 

Productivity 
improvement 

Investment/installation 
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

Note: $ converted into € ($1= €0,93) 

n/a 

No Data 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MO 5 – Resilience to climate change  

Table 7  Cost and benefit for MO 5 – Resilience to climate change 
Loca-
tion 

Source 

Refer-
ence 
buil-
ding 

Acti
-
ons 

Dwell
ing / 
office 
size  

Age of 
construc-
tion (reno-
vation) 

Thermal comfort 
(overheating 
degrees) 

Benefits 

Energy savings 

Health 
benefits 

Productivity 
gains 
(€/year) 

Investment  

Operational costs 
(per year) 

Maintena
nce costs 
(per year) 

Costs 

Case studies with quantitative data 

Cornwall 

III/IV 

5A  W. 

n/a 

1960 

Europe 

Cornwall 

III/IV 

5B  W. 

n/a 

1960 

Europe 

Cornwall 

III/IV 

5A  W. 

n/a 

New build 

Europe 

Cornwall 

III/IV 

5B  W. 

n/a 

New build 

CREW 
detached 

CREW 
detached 

CREW 
apartment 

I 

I 

Europe 

5B  W. 

n/a 

Europe 

Existing/ne
w buildings 

5C  W. 

n/a 

Europe 

Existing/ne
w buildings 

II 

5B  W. 

n/a 

Europe 

Existing 
buildings 

CREW 
apartment 

II 

5C  W. 

n/a 

Europe 

Existing 
buildings 

2001 

1,350 
m² 

III/IV 

5D  W. 

III/IV 

5B 

Europe 

Central 
Europe 

SD Worx 
office 

German 
Federal 
office 
Berlin 

0% increase due 
to climate change 

0% increase due 
to climate change 

0% increase due 
to climate change 
0% increase due 
to climate change 
30-50% reduction 
in overheating 
exposure 

35% reduction in 
overheating 
exposure 
30-60% reduction 
in overheating 
exposure 

20-30% reduction 
in overheating 
exposure 

Depending on 
variant, up to 
of heating 
energy 40% 

Depending on 
variant, up to 
of heating 
energy 40% 

29% energy use 
reduction 

Through 
improved 
air quality 

Through 
improved 
air quality 

50,000 - 67,000 € 
(11.5 – 15.5 
€/m²) 
128,000 – 
138,000 € 
(29.5 – 32.0 
€/m²) 
39,000 € 
(12.0 €/m²) 
166,700 € 
(51.4 €/m²) 
2,600 - 15,000 € 
(18.5 - 107 €/m²)  

minor security 
costs 

920 - 7,000 € 
(9.2 – 70.0 €/m²)  

minor security 
costs 

40,15 €/m² 

7,585 

2012 

m² 

Decrease in 
discomfort hours 
by 41-50% 

10,92 – 14,71 
€/m² 

0,78 – 3,77 €/m² 
(increase in 
lighting costs) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Source 

Refer-
ence 
buil-
ding 

Acti
-
ons 

Loca-
tion 

Dwell
ing / 
office 
size  

Age of 
construc-
tion (reno-
vation) 

Benefits 

Energy savings 

Thermal comfort 
(overheating 
degrees) 

Health 
benefits 

Productivity 
gains 
(€/year) 

Investment  

Operational costs 
(per year) 

Maintena
nce costs 
(per year) 

Costs 

III/IV 

5A/
5C 

N. 
Europe 

All 
buildings  

Eliminate 
overheating feel 

III 

IV 

5A/
5C 

All 
Europe 

Existing 

Eliminate 
overheating feel 

5A/
5C 

All 
Europe 

New build 

Eliminate 
overheating feel 

Through 
improved 
air quality 

Significant 
productivity 
gains 

Through 
improved 
air quality 

1-3% 
productivity 
gains 

Through 
improved 
air quality 

1-3% 
productivity 
gains 

5,300 €/unit 
(35.3 €/m2) 

€ -15-25 €/m² 
(combined) 

200 €/m2 

€ -15-25 €/m²  
(combined) 

Interviews 

Pawel 
Wargocki 

Kasper 
Jensen 

Kasper 
Jensen 

Sven 
Bienert 

ALL 

ALL 

North, 
West 
and 
Central 
Europe 
All 
Europe 

All 
buildings  

All 
buildings  

Negligible 
property value 
increases due to 
increased 
resilience  
Eliminate 
overheating feel 

Lars Myhre 

ALL 

5D 

Juan 
Lafuente 

ALL 

ALL 

All 
Europe 

All 
buildings 

Achieving a 50% 
reduction in 
overheating 
seems 
reasonable 

Other sources 

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

III/IV 

5A 

III/IV 

5A 

North 
and 
Central 
Europe 

North 
and 
Central 
Europe 

New 
buildings 

Existing 
buildings  

Reduce cooling 
energy 
consumption 
by 30-40% 

Significant 
reductions in 
cooling costs 

1,500-2,500 
€/unit 
(15-25 €/m2) 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

1.0 €/m2 

4.1  €/m2 

1.4 €/m2 

6.5 €/m2 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
Source 

Refer-
ence 
buil-
ding 

Acti
-
ons 

Loca-
tion 

Dwell
ing / 
office 
size  

Age of 
construc-
tion (reno-
vation) 

Benefits 

Energy savings 

Health 
benefits 

Thermal comfort 
(overheating 
degrees) 

III/IV 

5A  W. 

Europe 

New 
buildings 

III/IV 

5A  W. 

Europe 

Existing 
buildings  

III/IV 

5A 

S. 
Europe 

New 
buildings 

III/IV 

5A 

S. 
Europe 

Existing 
buildings  

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

Wargocki 
and 
Djukanovic 
paper 

Costs 

Investment  

Operational costs 
(per year) 

Maintena
nce costs 
(per year) 

0.7 €/m2 

6.1 €/m2 

1.1 €/m2 

7.7 €/m2 

1.4 €/m2 

5.3 €/m2 

1.9 €/m2 

8.3 €/m2 

Productivity 
gains 
(€/year) 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

28.6 – 114.3 
€/m2 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MO 6 – Optimised life cycle cost and value 

Table 8  Cost and benefit sources for MO 6 – Optimised life cycle cost and value 

Actions  Loca-
tion 

Dwelling 
/office 
size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

Source 

Refe-
rence 
buil-
ding 

Building case 

Case studies with quantitative cost/benefit data 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG reduction 

Other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

I/II 

6A/6C  Belgiu

190 m2 

2016 

m 

III   

6A/6B 
/6C/6
D 

Austri
a 

2,700 
m2 

2014 

III 

6B 

US 

18,647 
m2 

1997 

Sustainable 
Neighbour-
hood 
Waregem 

Building 
2226 

Legacy 
Civic 
Towers San 
Jose 

Reduction due to 
material choice 

Reduction as no 
heating or cooling 
system applied 

Reduction as 
no heating or 
cooling 
system 
applied 

Reduction 

20% 
reduction (i.e. 
possible for 
old buildings) 

Reduction due 
to no 
maintenance for 
heating or 
cooling system 
and no 
operational cost 
for heating or 
cooling 

€7.473 
(0,4€/m²) annual 
energy saving 
(in general 
terms: reduction 
of 20% energy 
bill) 

€400-600 for 
user guide (as 
part of post-
intervention file) 

€493.000 
(182,6€/m²) for 
control system 

€27.636 
(1,5€/m²) for 
sensor 
installation 
€18.048 
(0,97€/m²) for 
computer 
modelling 
€13.724 
(0,73€/m²) for 
energy 
management 
system 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
Source 

Refe-
rence 
buil-
ding 

Actions  Loca-
tion 

Dwelling 
/office 
size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

IV 

6B 

Belgiu
m 

2011 

2*140 m2 

Test 
Clasrooms 
Technology 
Campus 

II 

6A 

Belgiu
m 

6,800 
m2 

2017 

High 
building 
square 
Zelzate 

Benefits 

Costs 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

€ 6.600 
(23,6€/m²) NPV 
for demand 
control (15 year 
period) 

inner floor: 
232,8 €/m² floor 
outer wall: 
172,76€/m² wall 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG reduction 

Other 

-Energy cost 
reduction 
between 470,26 
(1,7€/m²) -
1176,50 € 
(4,2€/m²) 
- Further 
reduction by 
commissioning 
& monitoring 

Life cycle cost: 
reduction of 
16% (inner 
floor) & 2% 
(outer wall) 
Maintenance 
cost: reduction 
of 58% (inner 
floor) & 33% 
(outer wall) 
Replacement 
cost: increase of 
64% (inner 
floor) & 

Reduction 

-40% 
reduction for 
fan energy 
consumption 
32% 
reduction for 
ventilation 
losses for 
heating 
(compared 
with situation 
CAV 
(continuous 
air 
ventilation)) 
-Further 
reduction by 
commissionin
g & 
monitoring 

Life cycle: 
reduction of 34% 
(inner floor) & 
increase of 14% 
(outer wall) 
Maintenance: 
reduction of 86% 
(inner floor) & 35% 
(outer wall) 
Replacement: 
reduction of 63% 
(inner floor) & 18% 
(outer wall) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Source 

Refe-
rence 
buil-
ding 

Actions  Loca-
tion 

Dwelling 
/office 
size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG reduction 

Other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

reduction of 
49% (outer wall) 

Case studies with qualitative cost/benefit data 

John Cabot 
City 
Technology 
Center 

Interviews  

Dr. Mieke 
Vandenbro
ucke (VUB) 

IV 

6B  

UK 

8,800 
m2 

1993 

Reduction 

Reduction  

All 

6D 

W. 
Europ
e 

New 

Reduction on 
long-term 

Reduction 

Prof. 
Bienert 
(IREBS) 

All 

Europ
e 

Action 
Packa
ge 

New 

Lar Myhre 

I/II 

6C 

Europ
e 

n/a 

Existing/Ne
w 

Increased time 
needed in the 
beginning for 
designer 
Possible 
increase of 
investment cost 

On mid-term 
decrease of 
time for 
design 
process 

Increase of 
property and 
rental value 
by 5-10% if 
significant 
energy 
savings are 
achieved 

The life 
expectancy of 
building 
elements can 
be 
significantly 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Refe-
rence 
buil-
ding 

Actions  Loca-
tion 

Dwelling 
/office 
size 

Age of 
construction 
(renovation) 

Benefits 

Costs 

Bill saving 

Energy 
savings 

GHG reduction 

Other 

Investment  
(in €) 

Operations 
and 
maintenance 
(in €/year) 

Other sources  

Aspen 
index 

ALL 

ALL 

Moder
ate 
Climat
e 
Zone 

New & Old  Possible to 

calculate bill 
savings 

prolonged 
through 
preventive 
maintenance  

Provides cost 
data for new 
buildings and 
renovation 

Only qualitative information 

Quantitative data + own assumptions 

Quantitative data 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex III  Energy consumption 

Baseline for MO1 for residential buildings 

The baseline for residential buildings is defined as the yearly average energy consumption/m² floor 

are, differentiating between four zones (i.e. Western+Centre, Northern, Southern and Eastern) in 

Europe. These average annual energy consumptions per zone are calculated based on the yearly 

energy consumption for each EU Member States. This data is available from the EU Building 

Factsheets and apply to 2013. 

More specifically, the average per zone is calculated as the sum of the energy consumption of all 

countries in that zone, divided by the number of countries. No differentiation is made between 

detached houses and apartments. The baseline values for detached houses and apartments are 

summarised in the table below. 

Table 9  Energy consumption in residential buildings across Europe (2013) 

Country 

EU-28 

Western + Centre 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

UK 

France 

Luxembourg 

Ireland 

Austria 

Germany 

Northern 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Estonia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Southern 

Portugal 

Spain 

Malta 

Greece 

Cyprus 

Italy 

Energy Consumption [kWh/m²,year] 

184,14 

262,71 

152,48 

182,10 

190,16 

205,42 

165,68 

198,46 

199,73 

204,42 

292,28 

289,59 

248,49 

214,81 

168,69 

69,61 

103,04 

46,62 

120,80 

69,45 

174,99 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Country 

Eastern 

Hungary 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

Croatia 

Energy Consumption [kWh/m²,year] 

149,98 

237,60 

308,09 

172,98 

228,40 

121,09 

234,40 

249,57 

Source: European Commission,2013. EU Buildings Factsheets. 

Baseline for MO1 for office buildings 

For office buildings, the average yearly energy consumption for office buildings is not available for 

every EU Member State as is the case for residential buildings. For office buildings, the baseline is 

therefore calculated in a different way and is based on the yearly energy consumption for non-
residential buildings across Europe from the ENTRANZE 1project for 2008 combined with data 
available specifically for office buildings in a few European countries for 20092 as presented in the 

table below. 

Table 10  Energy consumption in non-residential buildings across Europe (2008) 

Country 

Energy consumption [kWh/m²,year]  

Western 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

UK 

France 

Luxembourg 

Ireland 

Austria 

Germany 

Northern 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Estonia 

Finland 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Southern 

Portugal 

Spain 

Malta 

Greece 

Cyprus 

Italy 

554,00 

326,00 

277,00 

238,00 

997,00 

469,00 

345,00 

255,00 

244,00 

445,00 

443,00 

299,00 

304,00 

196,00 

230,00 

311,00 

210,00 

198,00 

366,00 

590,00 

1  

2  

Policies to ENforce the TRAnsition to Nearly Zero Energy buildings in the EU-27 supported by the Intelligent Energy 
Europe programme. 
Economidou, M., Atanasiu, B., Despret, C., Maio, J., Nolte, I., & Rapf, O. (2011). Europe’s buildings under the microscope. 
A country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings. Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
                                                           
Country 

Energy consumption [kWh/m²,year]  

Eastern 

Hungary 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

Croatia 

Source: ENTRANZE project by the European Commission. 

348,00 

230,00 

401,00 

623,00 

221,00 

171,00 

424,00 

263,00 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Annex IV  Water consumption 

Water Usage 

Different sources have been considered in the identification of the water consumption levels of 

residential and office buildings.  

Average usage 
The table below provides an insight in the domestic usage per capita across the EU3 for the 

domestic sector, i.e. the water usage in residential and commercial buildings from the period 2009- 

2013 with respect to domestic activities (e.g. toilet flushing, tap water, washing, in-building leakages 

etc.). This table shows a clear variety in water usage across the different countries. This diversity is 

seemingly explained by the main general drivers of water consumption, number of occupants with 

in general lower l/p/d water usage for larger households, income, and climate conditions4 , as the 

water usage is generally higher in the more Southern and wealthier EU countries. 

Table 11  Use of water by the domestic sector (households and services) - (m³ per inhabitant) 

 Country 

Western 

Belgium  

Netherlands 

United Kingdom  

Northern 

Lithuania 

Norway  

Southern 

Portugal  

Greece  

Spain 

Malta 

Eastern 

Hungary 

Poland  

Slovenia  

Bulgaria 

Serbia  

Bosnia and Herzegovina  

Kosovo  

Centre 

Switzerland 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

26,4  

54,0  

:  

26,0  

53,7  

:  

26,0  

53,4  

:  

20,9  

52,9  

55,2  

:  

52,8  

:  

29,1  

28,1  

28,1  

29,1  

35,2  

100,5  

101,7  

57,0  

59,6  

:  

79,5  

60,2  

:  

76,5  

54,9  

:  

:  

36,4  

35,9  

:  

46,4  

60,2  

32,5  

:  

:  

:  

45,5  

59,3  

33,0  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

72,6  

57,0  

39,0  

36,0  

:  

44,9  

58,4  

33,2  

:  

:  

:  

:  

82,5  

69,5  

58,2  

39,0  

36,0  

:  

45,3  

60,0  

33,7  

26,2  

:  

:  

:  

70,0  

60,6  

39,2  

35,9  

49,0  

46,1  

59,9  

34,0  

26,6  

:  

119,3  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

:  

60,8  

38,2  

35,5  

47,1  

46,9  

59,3  

32,2  

:  

:  

Source: Eurostat, water statistics, accessed at 02/02/2017: 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wat_cat&lang=en. 

Residential water usage 

The report of European Commission (DG ENV- 2009) provides an overview of the average water 

household usage across EU countries identified in a number of studies. The table below present 

3   Countries without data in the period 2009-2013 are omitted. 
4  

European Commission (DG ENV), 2009:Reference: 07307/2008/520703/ETU/D2 Study on water performance of 
Buildings. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
this overview and seemingly confirms the tendency of more Southern countries to slightly more. 

However, from these data no strong correlation appears between wealth or climate with water 

usage. 

Table 12  Average household water consumption (l/household/d) 

Country (location) 

Southern 

Cyprus (all areas) 

Portugal (Guadiana) 

Portugal (Algarve) 

Italy (Sardinia) 

Eastern 

Bulgaria (Sofia) 

Bulgaria (Sofia) 

Poland (Bytom) 

Poland (Sosnowiec) 

Western 

England (Portsmouth) 

Average household consumption (l/household/d) 

174 

210 

184 

175 

133 

186 

123 

178 

153 

Source: European Commission (DG ENV), 2009:Reference: 07307/2008/520703/ETU/D2 Study on water performance of 
Buildings. 

Breaking down the types of water consumption further provides some detail on the average usage 

of different types of consumption.  

Moreover the report provides insight for some countries where this usage can be contributed to. 

Generally toilet flushing, showering are the most prominent sources of water usage. The usage via 

taps are the washing of clothes come thereafter and are of a similar magnitude. Finally dishwashers 

and outdoor use are of less significance. The table below provides an overview of the commonly 

consumption per water-using-product (WuP). 

Table 13  Average water consumption per day (l/household/day) per water using product 

WuP 

Average water 

Frequency of use per 

Average water 

consumption (litres) 

day 

WCs 

Showers 

Taps 

per use 

6,0-9,5 /flush 

25,7 -60l /shower 

2,3-5,8 /use 

Clothes washers 

39,0- 117 / use 

Dishwasher 

Outdoor use 

21,3 -47,0 /use 

0-48,8/ use 

7,0- 11.6 

0.75 – 2.5 

10.6 – 37.9 

0.6 -0.8 

0.5 – 0.7 

0/ 0.89 

consumption per day 

(l/household/day) 

101.8 

91.8 

74.6 

65.6 

24.3 

21.8 

Source: European Commission (DG ENV), 2009:Reference: 07307/2008/520703/ETU/D2 Study on water performance of 
Buildings. 

Toilet flushing accounts in general for a significant share of the water consumption, but appears to 

be less in Southern Countries (Italy and Portugal), expectantly due to a lower number of flushes. 

On the other hand Toilets in Northern Countries (Finland) appear to be more efficient for which the 

proportionate usage is also lower. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 14  Distribution of water consumption across appliance and for toilets specifically 

Country  Average 

Frequency 

Average 

water 

of toilet 

total water 

consumption 

flushing 

consumption 

per flush 

(per day) 

per day 

(litres) 

(litres) 

England 

Bulgaria 

Portugal 

9.4 

9.5 

9.1 

11.62 

12.5 

9.3 

109.2 

118.8 

84.8 

Finland 

- 
Source: European Commission (DG ENV), 2009:Reference: 
07307/2008/520703/ETU/D2 Study on water performance of Buildings. 

6.0 

- 

Regarding showering the report sheds some light on the diversity between the United Kingdom, 

Portugal, Finland and Germany. The table below also explains the high share of personal washing 

in Finland as it has the highest water consumption per shower use.   

Table 15  Average water consumption of showering 

Country 

Average frequency of use 

Average water consumption 

(use/household/day) 

per use (l/shower) 

United Kingdom 

Portugal 

Germany 

Finland 

1.43 

2.5 

- 

- 

30- 505 

58.4 

30-50 

60 

EU 

0.75- 2.5 
Source: European Commission (DG ENV), 2009:Reference: 07307/2008/520703/ETU/D2 Study on water performance of 
Buildings. 

25.7 - 60 

The above data considered one would expect that different actions have different effect in different 

geographic regions. More efficient toilets are for example more effective in the United Kingdom, 

Bulgaria, France and Germany, while more efficient shower butts can be make a significance 

difference in Finland, Portugal and France.  

Office usage 

European Commission (DG ENV- 2009) finds an moderate size office building of 10.000 m2to 

consume over 20.000 litres a day (about 40 average size households) and notes that offices often 

still have a savings potential up to 30% these days. In terms of water usage per year this is a 

comparison of a standard practice with 9,3 m³/p/y with a best practice 6,4 m³/p/y. The CIRIA (2005) 

further specifies that an office building with a consumption of 4,0 m³/employee/year is about 

average (16 litres/employee/day). 

Differences among building types 

The following section describes differences in consumption across the four building types.  

5  

30 is efficient new-built and 50 non-efficient new build. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Residential Buildings 

Studies delineating the difference between blocks of flats, and detached and semi-detached houses 

have been identified for four countries. These include two European countries (Greece and Spain) 

and the USA and Australia.  

In summary the four country studies provide the following insights: In all cases consumption was 

found to be in lower in apartments (blocks of flats) than in semi-detached or detached houses. 

Furthermore, consumption is also consistently found to be lower in semi-detached than in detached 

houses. 

The table below provides and overview of the usage per building type and provides and indexation 

of the differences in water usage, with the block of flats taken as a baseline (100). For flats and 

semi-detached houses this difference is about 20 percent points, while their difference with 

detached houses is found to be quite diverse (6 to 326 percent points).   

Table 16  Water usage per residential building type 

Country 

Greece 

USA 

Spain 

Block of flats 

Semi-detached  

Detached 

Unit 

0.32 

100 

0.416 

100 

0.3225 

100 

no value 

no value 

no value 

no value 

0.3875 

0.34 

106.25 

0.567 

m3 /house/day 

Index 

m3 /house/day 

136.2981 

Index 

1.052 

m3 /house/day 

120.1550388 

326.2016 

Index 

Australia 

0.490410959 

0.619178082 

0.761644 

m3 /house/day 

100 

126.2569832 

155.3073 

Index 

Source: based upon: Morote, A.F,  Hernández  M., and Rico A.M (2016), Causes of DomesticWater Consumption Trends in the 
City of Alicante: Exploring the Links between the Housing Bubble, the Types of Housing and the Socio-Economic Factors, 
Water 2016, 8, 374; Gratziou, M., Andreadaki, M. and Tsalkatidou, M. (2006), Water demand and reates policy in provincial 
Greece, European Water 15/16:33-44; Troy, P., Holloway, D., and Randolph, B.,  Water Use and the Built 
Environment: Patterns of Water Consumption in Sydney, City Futures Research Centre Research Paper No. 1. 

Office Buildings 

No evidence is found to expect the water usage for a public or a private office building differs. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex V 

EU building stock 

Table 17 presents an aggregate overview of the EU buildings stock classified under the 4 reference 

building types of this study. This dataset categorises EU buildings by location (region), year of 

construction and by building type. This overview builds upon data and estimates for all 28 EU MS 

presented further down. The tables in this section present the number of dwellings for reference 

buildings I and II and the number of building for reference buildings III and IV. 

Table 17  EU Building stock statistics 

B I Detached 

B II 

B III  

B IV Public 

houses/SFH 

Apartments/ 

Private offices 

offices 

Western 

Until 1945 

 9,087,377  

MFH 

 1,630,071  

 216,257  

 99,891  

Europe 

1946-1979 

 11,298,637  

 1,676,180  

 480,413  

 126,608  

1980-2000 

after 2000 

 8,831,951  

 1,207,528  

 170,700  

 4,064,031  

 644,648  

 58,319  

 78,762  

 23,830  

Subtotal  

 33,281,996  

 5,158,427  

 925,689  

 329,091  

Northern 

Until 1945 

 1,421,428  

 1,364,845  

 63,577  

Europe 

1946-1979 

 2,787,622  

 2,971,874  

 109,353  

1980-2000 

after 2000 

 1,099,225  

 1,353,286  

 490,844  

 571,151  

 63,192  

 22,725  

 13,969  

 44,720  

 28,439  

 15,863  

Subtotal   

 5,799,119  

 6,261,156  

 258,847  

 102,991  

Central & 

Until 1945 

 3,600,789  

 799,065  

Eastern 

1946-1979 

 8,916,262  

 3,312,778  

Europe 

1980-2000 

 4,536,594  

 1,422,146  

after 2000 

 1,840,499  

 611,576  

 143,410  

 257,267  

 149,223  

 116,020  

 59,851  

 86,151  

 38,459  

 18,889  

Subtotal   

 18,894,144  

 6,145,565  

 665,920  

 203,350  

Southern 

Until 1945 

 4,784,871  

 2,408,196  

 128,631  

 75,255  

Europe 

1946-1979 

 8,962,170  

 6,353,029  

 176,898  

 131,560  

1980-2000 

after 2000 

 5,806,551  

 3,498,744  

 139,465  

 1,735,773  

 1,393,914  

 63,626  

 99,065  

 14,731  

 21,289,364  

 13,653,883  

 508,620  

 320,610  

 79,264,624  

 31,219,031  

 2,359,076  

 956,042  

Subtotal  

Total 

Source: Episcope/TABULA, EU Buildings database, Own calculations. 

The classification of MS in regions can be seen in Table 18. The two main sources used to compile 

this dataset are the Episcope/TABULA6 Country Pages (available for most MS), combined with the 

EU buildings database7. In a number of cases the EU buildings database provided the age 

distribution of buildings in each category while the Episcope/TABULA database was used for the 

overall amount of buildings. Further, the report Europe’s buildings under the microscope8 shows 

that 25% of the total number of buildings are non-residential buildings. In the same report it is 

stated that 23% of the total non-residential buildings are offices, in come MS, where the absolute 

number of offices was lacking, the above assumptions have been used to extrapolate an estimate.  

6  
7  
8  

http://episcope.eu/index.php?id=197. 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-database. 
https://europeanclimate.org/documents/LR_%20CbC_study.pdf. 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 18  EU building stock statistics per MS 

Country 

Region 

Austria 

Central & Eastern 

Europe 

Belgium 

Western Europe 

Age 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Central  &  Eastern 

1979 

Europe 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

Central  &  Eastern 

1979 

Europe 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

Cyprus 

Southern Europe 

Czech 

Central & Eastern 

1946-

Republic 

Europe 

1979 

1980-

2000 

Detached 

Apart-

Private 

Public 

Not

house 

ment 

office 

office 

e 

269,085 

20,223 

42,816 

7,759 

577,901 

29,503 

51,395 

9,314 

395,658 

10,624 

18,393 

3,333 

204,797 

6,383 

1,897 

344 

1,184,414 

596,728 

17,104 

1,353 

1,281,469  

645,626  

27,587  

2,182  

600,006  

302,293  

12,095  

957  

400,004  

201,529  

8,064  

638  

433,859  

4,194  

4,158  

659  

969,434  

31,075  

9,497  

1,504  

295,779  

21,038  

3,007  

476  

74,144  

13,023  

827  

131  

120,336  

126,008  

291  

2,738  

451,707  

472,999  

2,402  

9,201  

247,164  

258,815  

1,328  

3,719  

121,653  

127,388  

1,540  

2,102  

unknown   unknown  

unknown  

unknown  

58,524  

13,524  

1,445  

488  

78,420  

31,493  

2,107  

711  

38,883  

25,109  

1,217  

411  

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

375,300  

35,200  

15,607  

1,027  

350,100  

87,100  

17,185  

1,131  

1 

304,933  

32,667  

13,479  

887  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Region 

Denmark 

Northern Europe 

Estonia 

Northern Europe 

Finland 

Northern Europe 

France 

Western Europe 

Germany 

Western Europe 

Greece 

Southern Europe 

Age 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

Detached 

Apart-

Private 

Public 

Not

house 

ment 

office 

office 

e 

170,867  

10,133  

5,868  

386  

434,136  

55,880  

19,953  

2,636  

562,121  

18,435  

21,489  

2,839  

127,005  

8,647  

7,595  

1,003  

80,361  

5,027  

4,333  

572  

29,231  

85,527  

1,592  

1,420  

79,944  

233,905  

1,450  

1,293  

42,996  

125,801  

878  

783  

16,309  

47,718  

720  

643  

142,568  

189,748  

1,125  

5,812  

487,922  

649,391  

4,102  

21,188  

344,539  

458,558  

3,681  

19,013  

189,625  

252,377  

1,972  

10,187  

3,930,238  

195,000  

90,579  

25,111  

3,563,212  

246,200  

93,299  

25,865  

3,522,340  

63,800  

54,091  

14,995  

2,159,066  

34,100  

unknown  

unknown  

2,427,000  

29,300  

26,707  

61,886  

4,051,000  

45,100  

20,825  

44,815  

2,723,000  

78,700  

49,981  

56,833  

775,000  

49,600  

13,677  

19,836  

275,708  

224,307  

unknown  

unknown  

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1,702,880   1,385,406  

18,639  

10,117  

2 

1,121,537  

912,444  

6,435  

3,493  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Region 

Hungary 

Central & Eastern 

Europe 

Ireland 

Western Europe 

Italy 

Southern Europe 

Latvia 

Northern Europe 

Lithuania 

Northern Europe 

Luxembourg  Western Europe 

Age 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

Detached 

Apart-

Private 

Public 

Not

house 

ment 

office 

office 

e 

640,825  

521,353  

5,897  

3,201  

670,045  

23,257  

5,035  

991  

1,121,341  

31,919  

9,154  

2,372  

577,880  

16,449 

16,477  

1,402  

157,885  

10,055  

22,885  

475  

129,328  

18,402  

8,724  

446  

184,109  

17,199  

9,389  

480  

199,400  

37,422  

3,584  

183  

173,640  

88,628  

1,604  

82  

2,171,496   1,412,530  

102,130  

16,687  

3,185,142   3,040,128  

121,789  

19,899  

1,280,156   1,161,984  

83,443  

13,634  

462,522  

418,430  

43,207  

7,060  

71,427  

165,095  

594  

506  

142,383  

329,099  

1,661  

1,416  

81,838  

189,158  

1,414  

1,206  

18,871  

43,618  

190  

162  

156,654  

128,745  

unknown  

unknown  

382,546  

314,393  

24,936  

5,070  

142,155  

116,829  

8,284  

1,684  

26,168  

21,506  

4,748  

965  

23,810  

19,641  

1,982  

84  

1 

1 

- 

2 

2 

36,434  

30,055  

2,020  

85  

2 

26,038  

21,479  

1,456  

61  

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Region 

Malta 

Southern Europe 

Netherlands  Western Europe 

Poland 

Central & Eastern 

Europe 

Portugal 

Southern Europe 

Romania 

Central & Eastern 

Europe 

Age 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

Slovakia 

Central & Eastern 

1946-

Europe 

1979 

1980-

2000 

Detached 

Apart-

Private 

Public 

Not

house 

ment 

office 

office 

e 

33,488  

27,624  

711  

30  

16,150  

25,735  

unknown  

unknown  

30,006  

47,816  

586  

39  

27,861  

44,397  

1,044  

69  

18,853  

30,042  

779  

362  

210,587  

290,000  

12,685  

986  

230,413  

302,000  

30,962  

2,408  

340,000  

537,000  

29,370  

2,284  

178,000  

183,000  

28,063  

2,182  

865,913  

42,444  

64,835  

31,295  

1,778,721  

71,649  

148,195  

29,164  

1,220,761  

57,310  

89,534  

19,139  

496,269  

13,931  

81,816  

14,802  

575,740  

399,708  

12,575  

3,712  

1,242,422  

862,553  

9,505  

2,806  

1,104,958  

767,119  

27,925 

8,244  

574,690  

398,980  

12,526 

3,698  

583,580  

401,121  

7,128  

15,282  

2,944,496   2,023,888  

14,885  

33,271  

1,155,165  

793,998  

4,200  

9,389  

2 

- 

1 

2 

2 

526,213  

361,690  

277  

618  

142,067  

145,687  

88 

548,715  

562,700  

335  

224,693  

230,420  

187  

276 

1052 

2 

587 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Region 

Slovenia 

Central & Eastern 

Europe 

Spain 

Southern Europe 

Sweden 

Northern Europe 

United 

Kingdom 

Western Europe 

Age 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Until 

1945 

1946-

1979 

1980-

2000 

after 

2000 

Detached 

Apart-

Private 

Public 

Not

house 

ment 

office 

office 

e 

67,005  

68,713  

39  

123 

140,605  

930  

3,453  

730 

173,847  

1,945  

4,219  

892  

114,561  

826  

2,617  

553  

21,666  

260  

871  

184  

1,745,777  

345,916  

13,926  

54,856  

2,743,195   1,003,602  

24,933  

98,211  

2,193,619  

581,307  

18,511  

72,914  

unknown 

unknown  

unknown  

unknown  

587,412  

739,850  

40,313  

3,594  

1,132,706   1,426,652  

80,626  

12,913  

360,692  

454,294  

49,616  

4,749  

159,511  

200,905  

15,505  

3,334  

1,182,000  

481,000  

58,475  

10,026  

1,952,000  

390,000  

296,331  

50,774  

1,421,167  

166,833  

20,124  

3,448  

344,833  

60,167  

6,200  

1,062  

1 

1 

2 

1 

Note 1 

Note 2 

For reference building II, the statistics refer to the number buildings instead of the as the number of 
dwellings.  

The building age distribution was assumed to be similar between multi-family homes and single family 
homes (type I and II). 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The following table presents some fundamental properties attributed to average cases of the four 

reference buildings that have been selected: 

Table 19  Specifications of the four reference buildings 

Reference 
Building I 

Reference Building 
II 

Reference Building 
III 

Reference Building 
IV 

Building 

typology 

Residential - single 

Low-rise apartment 

Low-riser private 

Public sector office 

family detached 

block (more than 10 

office building (low 

building (similar to 

house 

dwellings) 

specifications) 

previous) 

Size 

approx. 140 m2 

approx. 100 m2 (per 

approx. 1,500 m2 

approx. 1,500 m2 

apartment) 

Constructor/ 

Private 

Public housing 

Private 

Private constructor 

Initiator 

promoter/investor 

company or private 

promoter/investor 

contracted by the 

build a housing 

investor 

public sector 

estate of 5-10 

houses 

Owner 

Private owner - 

Private owner (same 

Private owner (same 

Public 

user, acquired on 

as initiator) 

as initiator) 

the open market 

Users 

4-person family 

Residents of 10 

5-10 individual 

1 public authority 

(also owner) 

apartments (in long-

companies renting 

with approx. 100 

term rental) 

space adjusted to 

employees. 

their needs (total of 

approx. 100 

employees) 

Study on cost and benefits of working towards environmental macro objectives in the building sector 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
About Ecorys 

Ecorys is a leading international research and consultancy company, addressing society's key 

challenges. With world-class research-based consultancy, we help public and private clients make 

and implement informed decisions leading to positive impact on society. We support our clients with 

sound analysis and inspiring ideas, practical solutions and delivery of projects for complex market, 

policy and management issues. 

In 1929, businessmen from what is now Erasmus University Rotterdam founded the Netherlands 

Economic Institute (NEI). Its goal was to bridge the opposing worlds of economic research and 

business – in 2000, this much respected Institute became Ecorys. 

Throughout the years, Ecorys expanded across the globe, with offices in Europe, Africa, the Middle 

East and Asia. Our staff originates from many different cultural backgrounds and areas of expertise 

because we believe in the power that different perspectives bring to our organisation and our 

clients. 

Ecorys excels in six areas of expertise:  

-  transport and mobility; 

-  economy and innovation; 

-  energy, environment and water; 

-  regional development; 

-  public finance; 

-  health and education.  

Ecorys offers a clear set of products and services:  

-  preparation and formulation of policies; 

-  programme management; 

-  communications; 

-  capacity building; 

-  monitoring and evaluation. 

We value our independence, our integrity and our partners. We care about the environment in 

which we work and live. We have an active Corporate Social Responsibility policy, which aims to 

create shared value that benefits society and business. We are ISO 14001 certified, supported by 

all our staff. 

Manon Janssen,  

Chief Executive Officer & Chair of the Board of Management  

GIA/RG  FIF93609rep annex 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
P.O. Box 4175 

3006 AD Rotterdam 

The Netherlands 

Watermanweg 44 

3067 GG Rotterdam 

The Netherlands 

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00 

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68 

E netherlands@ecorys.com 

Registration no. 24316726 

W www.ecorys.nl 

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas 

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – CROATIA – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
6
-
1
7
-
2
1
5
-
E
N
N

-

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]