DELITOS CONTRA LAS PERSONAS Y BIENES PROTEGIDOS EN CONFLICTO ARMADO

Each interviewee was asked to explain their understanding of the building energy retrofitting process, from start to finish. The interviewer prompted the interviewee to cover issues regarding stakeholders, drivers and post retrofit involvement when appropriate. The responses were coded, as discussed in Section 3.9, and then compared to the ‘Systematic Approach’ to building energy retrofitting proposed by Ma et al. (2012) (also presented in Figure 2-5). The latter approach was

74

developed following an extensive literature review, and has been widely cited as a best-practice approach (Dall’O’ & Sarto, 2013; Giancola et al., 2014; Volvačiovas et al., 2013). The figure presents a comprehensive method for ‘proper selection and identification of the best retrofit options for existing buildings’. Several areas of discrepancy were identified between the Systematic Approach presented in Figure 2-5 and the interview responses.

There was strong agreement between the interviewed consultants regarding the typical process that is generally followed for a building energy retrofit project. Differences between views of individual consultants could be accounted for given the different business models of their companies, i.e. whether a company managed the practical implementation of retrofit works or simply provided the expertise to identify optimal upgrade strategies. The typical process distilled from the analysis of the interviews is shown in Figure 4-2. Note that many consultants pointed out that the process varied considerably depending on the specifics of the project. However, all respondents were able to describe what they described as a ‘typical’ retrofit process, which aligned closely with the process outlined in Figure 4.1, or with the major elements thereof.

There are several key differences between the systematic approach for best retrofit selection recommended by Ma et al. (2012), referred to from here as the ‘Systematic Approach’, and the ‘Generic Process’ identified during the interviews with stakeholders. These differences were both practices not included in the Systematic Approach, and some represented possible shortcomings in the actual practice in industry.

One aspect of the retrofit process that was not included in Systematic Approach of Ma et al. (2012) was a condition audit of the existing building and systems. A condition audit of the building systems includes identification of the current condition and expected remaining life of existing components, and nominates components that should be replaced as part of a comprehensive retrofit. Replacement of central plant, i.e. chillers and boilers, will often only be economically justified at the end-of-life of the existing plant. A systems condition report is also an effective method for developing a complete inventory of building equipment, and identification of energy-wasting faults and opportunities for improvements. Assessing a building’s condition against the PCA Office Building Quality Matrix (see Section 2.10.3) may be important in the early stages of a retrofit project. Understanding the current quality and condition of a building allows the owner to make targeted improvements that will improve a building’s quality rating. Office quality, as assessed by the PCA matrix has an influence on rental returns, capital valuation, and tenant attraction.

75

Figure 4-2 ‘Typical’ process for building energy retrofits in Australia, developed from analysis of interviews with eight commercial retrofitting consultants.

76

The importance of regular client review during the development of retrofit options and the selection of the optimal retrofit strategy was highlighted repeatedly by many of the interviewees. Whilst the Systematic Approach incorporates client review at the beginning and end of the retrofit measure identification process, the interviewees’ responses suggested greater client involvement is appropriate, for two reasons. Firstly, the client and building management team will generally have a deeper understanding of the building and systems than the consultant (including the manner in which the building is operated) and this is an important source of information when developing retrofit strategies. As stated by Consultant E:

It’s really easy … [to] … come up with theoretical recommendations, which you then present to the owners, and … their technicians or engineers … and they’ll just go, It’s not going to work! Why have you put it here? Didn’t you talk to the BMS consultant?… You look pretty stupid if you don’t involve all the stakeholders.

The second reason is that the retrofit process is not completely rational, and often the subjective views of the client may influence the particular retrofit strategies that they are prepared to consider. As identified by Consultant F, involving the client heavily in the decision making process is essential, ‘so we don’t spend a lot of time pursuing something that they’re fundamentally uninterested in’.

Finally, the Systematic Approach suggests that the identification of possible retrofit options is informed by building-specific information and a database of building retrofit measures. The results from the present interviews analysis showed that the generation of possible strategies is grounded in the expert knowledge and experience of the consultant. For all consultants interviewed the identification of potential retrofit solutions for individual buildings was strongly influenced by their previous experience. A result of this reliance on expert knowledge was the recognition of the importance of multi-disciplinary teams by many respondents. This was seen as vital to avoid the situation of having a consultant who is limited by their previous experience, for instance ‘who says, I know a bit about lighting; I know a lot about this so you’ll get a lot of this and not very much lighting.’

A database, or checklist, was reported as being used by some of the interviewees, most often as a quality assurance check, to ensure that no important measures had been overlooked. As explained by Consultant C, one of the stages in the identification of retrofit measures for that company was ‘using these checklists to make sure you haven’t forgotten to pick up an item, which is an evolving

77

document that all of our … engineers contribute to.’ The danger in relying on the checklist, without reference to the building characteristics was highlighted by Consultant F:

the problem [with relying on a standard list of measures] is people then start putting square pegs into round holes and going, Well, I’ll put in a number three. Number three doesn’t fit! So we prefer to have a more nuanced approach.

Shortcomings of the retrofitting process as practiced in industry, identified through comparison with the Systematic Approach, included a simplistic approach to risk assessment, simplistic cost-benefit analysis, and a scarcity of post-occupancy evaluation studies. During the interviews these shortcomings were often identified by the consultants as representing a structural issue, i.e. the benefits of incorporating the additional assessments are known, but it is difficult to convince clients to incorporate them into the contract of engagement. For instance, when asked whether post- occupancy evaluation was common, Consultant C responded:

No, it’s not common, in fact it’s the exception. We always suggest it’s a good idea to do it, but a lot of building owners are happy to effectively rely on the contractor and their obligations in the defects liability period to sort out any tuning and commissioning issues.

Risk assessment in building energy retrofitting primarily relates to evaluation of the uncertainty in energy savings predictions. Ma et al. (2012) identified probability-based risk assessment methods as the most commonly employed in their reviewed literature. Risk assessment in the industry was generally limited to off-axis studies during building simulation. The consultants who discussed risk assessment raised it in the context of the NABERS energy modelling requirements for commitment agreements (NABERS, 2011). An off-axis study varying at least four factors is required for compliance with the NABERS program.

Similarly, cost-benefit analyses employed by the consultants interviewed in the present study were generally limited to simple payback period calculations. Cost-optimal retrofit selection can be impacted by the economic metric used, and more comprehensive methods than simple payback are recommended, as discussed previously in Section 2.6.4. This issue was also raised by Consultant C:

Some clients are also asking for ROI and NPV using discounting, so more whole life value analyses [than simple payback period]… but more often than not it’s based on

78

simple payback calculations, it does not take into account service life, repairs, maintenance. It’s a pretty crude decision making criteria.

A Revised Systematic Approach for sustainable building retrofits, built on the Systematic Approach of Ma et al. (2012) and incorporating the results and insights from the present interview analysis is presented in Figure 4-3.