Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Relationship between shape and energy performance of buildings

under long-term climate change
Cristina Baglivo , Paola Maria Albanese , Paolo Maria Congedo *
Department of Engineering for Innovation, University of Salento, 73100, Lecce, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Mediterranean basin is projected to experience the most significant effects of global warming
Building shape in Europe. As climate change intensifies, resulting in hotter and lengthier summers, there will be a
S/V substantial rise in the demand for cooling systems. This study investigates the influence of the
Climate change surface-to-volume ratio (S/V) in mitigating the impact of climate change on energy performance
Resilience in Italian buildings, highlighting its often-overlooked status in current research and methodolo­
Energy Policy
gies. Three different S/V ratio are considered to evaluate the building thermal performance (EPtot,
Thermal performance index
nd) in compliance with the main Italian energy policies (issued in 2005, 2015, 2020) and three
different representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios. The investigation encompasses
all national climate zones in Italy. Results vary in relation to national climate zone (from A to F)
and standards considered. When comparing EPtot,nd values in 2030 to the ones of 2050 and 2070,
hot regions (Zones A, B and C) show an increase in EPtot,nd, reaching a maximum of 20 %, with
minimal differences in almost every scenario. The climate zone D displays a varied behavior in
EPtot,nd demand, with a trend of reduction for smaller S/V ratios. In climatic zone E, the EPtot,nd
demand varies; if there is an increase compared to 2030, it is slight (up to 10 %), and this increase
is further mitigated with a low S/V ratio. The cold climate zone F shows a slight reduction in the
demand for EPtot,nd in 2050 and 2070, compared to the values required in 2030.

Nomenclature

Ar Argon -
Bsh Hot semi-arid climate -
BSk Cold semi-arid climate -
Cfa Humid subtropical climate -
Cfb Temperate oceanic climate -
Cfc Subpolar oceanic climate -
Csa Hot-summer Mediterranean climate -
Csb Warm-summer Mediterranean climate -
d Day -
D Total number of days -
D.D. Degree Days -

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.M. Congedo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108544
Received 11 September 2023; Received in revised form 29 December 2023; Accepted 12 January 2024
Available online 14 January 2024
2352-7102/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Dfb Warm-summer humid continental climate -

Dfc Subarctic climate -
EPc,nd Cooling thermal performance index kWh/m2
EPh,nd Heating thermal performance index kWh/m2
EPS Expanded polystyrene -
EPtot,nd Total thermal performance index kWh/m2
h Number of hours -
HDD Heating Degree Days ◦ C
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -
Kr Krypton -
PVC Polyvinyl chloride -
R Resistence m2K/W
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway -
S/V Surface-to-volume building ratio -
t Thickness cm
Tb,hs Indoor temperature ◦ C
Te,h External temperature ◦ C
Ulim Thermal transmittance limits W/m2K
Uset Stationary thermal transmittance W/m2K
λ Thermal conductivity W/mK
ρ Density Kg/m3

1. Introduction
The building sector constitutes over a third of global energy consumption, with many existing structures recognized for their high
energy demands [1,2]. Buildings worldwide consume 40 % of energy and contribute 30 % of greenhouse gas emissions, with a sig­
nificant environmental impact [3]. Efforts to enhance energy efficiency in buildings remain crucial, given their consumption of about a
third of the world’s primary energy resources.
Climate change, driven by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, demands urgent global action, including emission reduction,
enhanced energy efficiency, and sustainable practices. Buildings play a pivotal role in emissions and should prioritize energy efficiency
through incentives, certifications, and sustainable standards to combat climate change, lower energy expenses, and foster sustain­
ability [4–6].
Considering that buildings act as interface between the external and internal environments, providing safety and comfort to oc­
cupants, it is evident that climate change will significantly and deeply affect this sector [7], determining a higher demand for cooling
and reduced need for heating [8]. The Mediterranean basin is projected to experience the most significant effects of global warming in
Europe [9].
As climate change intensifies, resulting in hotter and lengthier summers, there will be a substantial rise in the demand for cooling
systems, especially in densely populated areas [10]. Regrettably, despite evidence of climate change impact on buildings and energy
systems [11], many energy analyses continue to prioritize current climate conditions, disregarding future climate scenarios.

1.1. The state of the arts

Achieving energy efficiency and thermal comfort in buildings largely depends on the design of an optimal building envelope [12].
Retrofitting buildings with energy-efficient techniques can offer significant benefits, including reducing heating demand and overall
energy consumption while maintaining acceptable indoor climatic conditions [13]. A reduction in the stationary thermal trans­
mittance U value of a building envelope does not always correspond to a decrease in energy performance, especially when taking into
account prevailing or future climatic conditions [14,15].
Goia [16] emphasizes that Window-to-Wall Ratio (WWR) is a key factor that affects building resilience, suggesting increasing
transparency in colder climates, contrary to traditional guidelines favoring smaller windows. This recommendation, considering all
energy uses, aligns with findings showing north-facing facades tend to benefit from higher optimal WWR values. Chen et al. [17]
underline the need for adaptable energy conservation models due to diverse regional climates and evolving energy standards,
emphasizing the importance of exploring the relationship between climate change and urban building energy consumption.
Previous studies [18,19] have shown that building shape exerts a substantial influence on heating and cooling energy costs. In
accordance with the observations of Monteiro et al. [20], building configuration can serve as a passive approach to cope with increased
heating demand or to mitigate high cooling demand. In their research, Geraldi et al. [21] incorporate building shape as a variable in
building energy benchmarking models. The classification of various building forms within the building stock has the potential to
improve understanding of how the building envelope influences energy performance. Haseeb et al. evaluated a ten-story high-rise
building and identified a T-shaped configuration at a 285◦ rotation angle as the most energy-efficient design, offering valuable
guidance for future energy-conscious buildings in Kirkuk, Iraq [22]. Hachem et al. [23] explored the solar potential of different designs
for two-story single-family houses in a mid-latitude climate, examining seven configurations (square, rectangular, trapezoidal,

2
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

L-shaped, U-shaped, H-shaped, and T-shaped) to analyze their impact on shading and optimize solar exposure and energy efficiency.
Kocagil et al. [24] examined the impact of building shape and settlement structure on heating and cooling loads in traditional
houses within a representative city in Turkey’s hot-dry climate zone. By analyzing the design parameters, the study reveals the cor­
relation between building form, settlement structure, and energy loads.
AlAnzi et al. [25] evaluated the impact of building shape on energy efficiency in Kuwaiti buildings. Through a comprehensive
parametric analysis, it is found that building shape predominantly affects total energy consumption through three key factors:
compactness, window-to-wall aspect ratio, and glazing type based on solar thermal gain coefficient.

1.2. Problem statement

This study emphasizes the crucial link between climate conditions and building performance, highlighting the oversight of climate
change implications in setting building standards. It addresses the lack of research on the influence of climate change on building
shapes, particularly focusing on the surface-to-volume ratio in Italian buildings, underlining its often-overlooked significance. By
evaluating the impact of this ratio on residential buildings across varying Italian regulations and climate zones, this research aims to
identify which form ratios better adapt to climate change. Additionally, it examines the effects of different regulatory constraints and
future climate scenarios, using forecasted data up to 2070 based on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) for climate zones in
Italy.

2. Methodology
Seventeen Italian locations, belonging to distinct climatic zones, were selected. The identification of the locations was based on
both national classifications and the Köppen-Geiger classification zones. In designing the envelope of the buildings under examination,
three different Italian regulatory limits were considered, according to Legislative Decree 192/2005 (L.D. 192/2005), Ministerial
Decree of June 26, 2015 (M.D. June 26, 2015), and Ministerial Decree of August 6, 2020 (M.D. August 06, 2020). Additionally, the
envelope performance was calculated considering thermal performance indices for the years 2030, 2050, and 2070, each with respect
to three different RCP scenarios (2.6, 4.5, and 8.5). The S/V values, used as the basis for the construction of the buildings in question,
were taken from the Ministerial Decree of June 26, 2015 (D.M. June 26, 2015).

2.1. Geographical-climatic Italian description

In Italy, the distinction of climate zones relies on HDD, as defined by UNI EN ISO 15927–6:2008 [26], which calculates the sum of
positive differences between indoor (set at 20 ◦ C) and outdoor temperatures (only if positive) over the entire year. HDD can be
calculated using the following formula [27]:
( )
∑ D
1 ∑24
( )+
HDD = Tb,hs − Te,h (1)
d=1
24 h=1
d

where
Tb,hs is the indoor temperature
Te,h is the exthernal temperature
d is the day
D is the total number of days.
Italy is divided into six climatic zones, denoted by the letters A to F, as shown in Table 1.

2.2. The Italian regulatory context

This research deepened the impact of three key Italian regulatory limits on building design: Legislative Decree 192/2005 (D.L. 192/
2005) [28], the Ministerial Decree of June 26, 2015 (D.M. June 26, 2015) [29], and the 7Ministerial Decree of August 6, 2020 (D.M.
August 06, 2020) [30]. These regulations imposed the limits on the stationary thermal transmittance depending to each national
climate zone.
Legislative Decree 192/2005, effective from January 1, 2006, mandated the verification of thermal transmittance limits for new
buildings across all uses, excluding horizontal elements and industrial building windows. Although the decree introduced additional
transmittance limits for tax renovation deductions, they were not mandatory and were not considered.
The Ministerial Decree of June 26, 2015 introduced the concept of a ’reference building,’ mirroring the geometry, orientation,

Table 1
Italian climate zones and relative Heating Degree Days value.

Italian climate zones Heating Degree Days

A HDD ≤600
B 600< HDD ≤900
C 900< HDD ≤1400
D 1400< HDD ≤2100
E 2100< HDD ≤3000
F HDD >3000

3
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

thermal characteristics, and energy parameters of the building under consideration. The transmittance limits for the reference building
aligned with those effective from January 1, 2019, for public buildings and from January 1, 2021, for residential buildings.
The most recent decree, M.D. August 06, 2020, specified limit values for tax renovation deductions in residential buildings,
exhibiting a notable reduction in comparison with L.D. 192/2005 and M.D. June 26, 2015. Table 2 shows the thermal transmittance
limits (Ulim) imposed by the three different regulations for each climate zone.
As stated by Congedo et al., strategic envelope design can effectively regulate internal temperatures in Mediterranean buildings
without relying on cooling systems [31].

2.3. Characteristics of the selected cities

This work centers its attention on the choice of Italian locations that encompass the full range of climate zones found in Italy. This
selection considers both the national climate classification and the Köppen-Geiger climate classification [32,33]. The selected locations
are reported in Fig. 1.
Seventeen locations were selected to represent a comprehensive range of both Köppen-Geiger and national climates in Italy. The
first choice was on provincial capitals; in cases where a specific climate type did not include a provincial capital, alternative cities
within that climate zone were chosen. The analyses of the external temperatures are conducted based on the projected RCP scenarios
for the years 2030, 2050, and 2070. This study considers three IPCC RCP scenarios for the 21st century: RCP2.6 (ambitious emission
reductions), RCP4.5 (intermediate stabilization), and RCP8.5 (high-emission). While initial differences (until about 2050) between
scenarios may be small, they become more pronounced over time, leading to varying impacts and consequences in the latter half of the
century, according to the IPCC [34].
Climate data are sourced from Meteonorm [35,36] which is a climate database widely employed in literature [34]. Meteonorm files
compile data from several meteorological stations all over the world, encompassing monthly averages of eight key parameters:
ambient air temperature, precipitation and precipitation days, humidity, wind speed and direction, sunshine duration, global irra­
diance [37]. Climate data were exported for three distinct timeframes (2030, 2050, and 2070) and three Representative Concentration
Pathway (RCP) scenarios (2.6, 4.5, and 8.5).
The Supplementary Data 01 presents monthly temperature data for the years 2030, 2050, and 2070, encompassing all selected
locations. Between 2030 and 2070, there is a notable increase in monthly average temperatures, particularly evident under RCP 8.5.
Maximum temperatures experience a more significant rise than minimum temperatures in most locations, with RCP 8.5 demonstrating
the widest variation. The transition from climate zone A to E witnesses a substantial temperature increase, and Zones F and E exhibit
the most prominent temperature differences between 2030 and 2070, particularly pronounced under RCP 8.5.

2.4. Description three reference buildings

This section defines the characteristics of the reference building. Even though it is widely known that each locality has its own
traditional architecture, the comparison would be less effective if a differentiation between various types of structures were be
considered. For this reason, for each location it was chosen the same building model, characterized by reinforced concrete insulated
walls. This prototype can be considered a common choice for designers in many Italian climate zones, thanks to its capability to face
difficult weather conditions and offer a secure and comfortable environment for residents at a minimal construction expense. The
analysis concentrates on the building envelope in absence of air conditioning. The characteristic of the envelope satisfies energy
regulations of each Italian climate zone. Though the outcomes pertain to this building type, its simplicity enables cross-comparisons
with numerous other structures within the region. The resultant trends can function as a standard of comparison for analogous forms of

Table 2
Thermal transmittance limits imposed by the three different regulations.

Climate Zones Regulations Ulim [W/m2K]

Wall Roof Floor Window

A L.D. 192/2005 0.85 0.80 0.80 5.50

M.D. 2015 0.43 0.35 0.44 3.00
M.D. 2020 0.38 0.27 0.40 2.60
B L.D. 192/2005 0.64 0.60 0.60 4.00
M.D. 2015 0.43 0.35 0.44 3.00
M.D. 2020 0.38 0.27 0.40 2.60
C L.D. 192/2005 0.57 0.55 0.55 3.30
M.D. 2015 0.34 0.33 0.38 2.20
M.D. 2020 0.30 0.27 0.30 1.75
D L.D. 192/2005 0.50 0.46 0.46 3.10
M.D. 2015 0.29 0.26 0.29 1.80
M.D. 2020 0.26 0.22 0.28 1.67
E L.D. 192/2005 0.46 0.43 0.43 2.80
M.D. 2015 0.26 0.22 0.26 1.40
M.D. 2020 0.23 0.20 0.25 1.30
F L.D. 192/2005 0.44 0.41 0.41 2.40
M.D. 2015 0.24 0.20 0.24 1.10
M.D. 2020 0.22 0.19 0.23 1.00

4
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Fig. 1. Mapping of the selected locations.

construction.
As shown in Fig. 2, three cubic-shaped reference buildings with different surface-to-volume ratios were analysed. The construction
of the study’s buildings adhered to values ensuring surface-to-volume (S/V) ratios closely aligned with those specified in the national
Ministerial Decree of June 26, 2015.
The materials of which the envelope is composed are the same for all three buildings. Table 3 presents the thermal characteristics of
each layer. The provided information includes the thickness (t), thermal conductivity (λ), and density (ρ) of each layer within the
opaque envelope. To achieve the required transmittance values specified by the three regulatory limits, only the insulation thickness
(EPS) has been adjusted. The range of thickness variations (d) is indicated in yellow. The thermal transmittance of the floor on the
ground has been calculated using the analytical method suggested by the UNI 11300–1:2014 [38]. In particular, the floor is built
directly on a gravel soil of thermal conductivity of 2 W/mK.
The insulation thickness of the opaque envelope, the characteristics of the windows, and consequently the stationary thermal
transmittance (Uset), are determined for each climate zone in order to closely align with the thermal transmittance limits (Ulim)
imposed by the three regulations (reported in Table 2) for each respective climate zone, as detailed in Table 4. The window design

Fig. 2. Representation of the three reference buildings.

5
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 3
Thermal characteristics of opaque envelope.

Layers (from inside to outside) t [cm] λ [W/mK] ρ [Kg/m3] R [m2K/W]

Roof Internal thermal resistance 0.1

Plaster 1 0.700 1400
Floor block with in-situ lightning elements 26 0.743 1800
Vapour barrier 0.05 0.400 360
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 2–16 0.033 24
Bituminous waterproofing membrane 0.5 0.170 1200
Concrete 10 0.940 1800
Cement-mortar substrate 1 1.400 2000
Ceramic-porcelain tiles 1 1.300 2300
Outside thermal resistance 0.04
External walls Internal thermal resistance 0.13
Plaster 1 0.700 1400
Brick blocks 25 0.400 1000
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 2–13 0.033 24
Plaster 1 0.900 1800
Outside thermal resistance 0.04
Floor on the ground Internal thermal resistance 0.17
Tiles 1 1.000 2300
Cement mortar 1 1.400 2000
Concrete slab 8 1.060 1700
Vapour barrier 0.05 0.400 360
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 1–8 0.033 24
Bituminous waterproofing membrane 0.5 0.170 1200
Reinforced concrete 8 1.910 2400
Under-floor cavity with ventilated interspace 20 1.390 1200
Lean concrete 8 1.000 2200
Coarse gravel without clay 15 1.200 1700

aligns with Article 5 of the Italian Ministerial Decree of 1975, ensuring adequate natural lighting for rooms in dwellings except for
specific areas like bathrooms and corridors. Window size of each living space complies to maintain an average daylight factor of at least
2%, with the operable window area set at a minimum of 1/8 of the floor area for the entire building. The study focused on design
elements, excluding manual operations like opening and closing blinds, which are individual preferences. Automatic closure of blinds
at night for 12 h followed guidelines recommended by UNI TS 11300-1 [38] for residential buildings, implemented uniformly across all
locations. Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of the windows used.
Table 5 reports a summary of the specifications for the transparent envelope, in terms of.
• cavity gas options: Argon (Ar) or Krypton (Kr)
• glass stratigraphy: single (1), double (2), or triple (3) glazing
• number of air chambers in the frame
• variations in glass coating (normal or Low-e), "low-e 1″ denotes treatment on the outer side of the inner glass, while "low-e 2″
signifies treatment on both the outer side of the inner glass and the inner side of the outer glass.
The calculation of the free internal gains and thermal performance indices are carried out according to UNI TS 11300-1 [38].
Energy analyses are conducted utilizing the certified software simulation tool Termolog 13 [39]. This software is widely employed in
the realm of research [40,41], and it is widely used by Italian designers for conducting thermal certifications and energy performance
assessments of buildings [42,43]. The Italian Thermo-technical Committee (CTI) acknowledges and officially certifies the utilization of
this software.

Table 4
Characteristics of the windows.

Windows per floor S/V Number

0.75 8
0.55 8
0.35 16
Windows dimensions Width [cm] Lenght [cm]
150 160
Frame Type Thickness [cm]
PVC 6
Vertical partition [cm] 10
Shutters Pastel-colored
Exterior
Blinds Automatic
Alluminum
Night closure: 8 p.m.- 8 a.m.

6
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 5
Envelope settings for each climate zone and regulation.

Climate Zones Regulations Insulation thickness set Features of windows set Uset [W/m2K]
[cm]

Wall Roof Floor Cavity gas N. of Glass N. chambers Coating Wall Roof Floor Window

A L.D. 192/2005 2 2 1 – 1 2 normal 0.701 0.785 0.466 5.014

M.D. 2015 5 8 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.428 0.323 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2020 6 10 3 Ar 2 6 normal 0.379 0.270 0.359 2.534
B L.D. 192/2005 3 4 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.578 0.532 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2015 5 8 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.428 0.323 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2020 6 10 3 Ar 2 6 normal 0.379 0.270 0.359 2.534
C L.D. 192/2005 4 4 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.492 0.532 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2015 7 8 3 Ar 2 2 low-e 1 0.340 0.323 0.359 1.825
M.D. 2020 9 10 5 Ar 2 2 low-e 2 0.282 0.270 0.289 1.727
D L.D. 192/2005 4 5 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.492 0.458 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2015 9 11 5 Ar 2 3 low e 1 0.282 0.250 0.289 1.783
M.D. 2020 10 13 6 Ar 2 5 low e 1 0.260 0.217 0.266 1.584
E L.D. 192/2005 5 6 2 Ar 2 2 normal 0.428 0.402 0.406 2.782
M.D. 2015 11 13 7 Ar 3 6 low-e 1 0.241 0.217 0.246 1.319
M.D. 2020 12 15 7 Ar 3 3 low-e 2 0.224 0.192 0.246 1.287
F L.D. 192/2005 5 6 2 Ar 2 2 low-e 1 0.428 0.402 0.406 1.825
M.D. 2015 12 15 8 Kr 3 6 low-e 1 0.224 0.192 0.229 1.054
M.D. 2020 13 16 8 Kr 3 6 low-e 2 0.210 0.181 0.229 0.843

Fig. 3. Thermal performance indices for climate zone A.

7
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

The evaluation of building performance, under various conditions and climatic scenarios, has been conducted based on thermal
performance indices [kWh/m2], namely.
• EPh,nd: Heating thermal performance index [kWh/m2]
• EPc,nd: Cooling thermal performance index [kWh/m2]
• EPtot,nd: Total energy performance index[kWh/m2]

3. Results and discussions

This section illustrates, through stacked column charts, the results of the simulations for all climate zones, considering the inter­
mediate stabilization scenario RCP 4.5. The complete results, relative to all scenarios, are reported in Supplementary Data 02 and
discussed in Overall considerations (subparagraph 3.7).

3.1. Climate zone A

Fig. 3 illustrates the thermal performance indices for the climate zone A. The obtained graphs reveal the following trends.

• for Lampedusa, buildings constructed under the L.D. 192/2005 show a reduction of approximately 47 % in EPh,nd between S/V of
0.75 and 0.35 for all years, while the ones constructed under M.D. June 26, 2015 and M.D. August 06, 2020 result in an increase in
EPh,nd for all year. Porto Empedocle experiences consistent reductions in EPh,nd for all years and all regulations, between the S/V of
0.75 and 0.35. The greatest decrease occurring in the L.D. 192/2005 regulation in 2030, representing a 51.75 % reduction between
the S/V of 0.75 and 0.35. The variations between S/V ratio of 0.55 and S/V ratio of 0.35 are less pronounced for both locations.
• Significant reductions in EPc,nd values are observed for both locations when comparing S/V of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three
regulations, with the most substantial reductions of 72.19 % in Lampedusa, for buildings constructed under the M.D. August 06,
2020 in 2070, and of 73 % in Porto Empedocle, for buildings constructed under the M.D. June 26, 2015 in 2030. The differences
between the S/V ratios of 0.55 and 0.35 are less conspicuous.
• Significant reductions in EPtot,nd value are observed for both locations when comparing S/V ratios of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three
regulations and for each year.

3.2. Climate zone B

Fig. 4 illustrates the thermal performance indices for climate zone B. The obtained graphs reveal the following trends.
• regarding the EPh,nd, the values obtained for buildings with S/V of 0.35 are lower than those obtained for buildings with S/V of 0.75
for all three regulations and across all three years. The most significant variation is observed in the case of the L.D. 192/2005 in the
year 2030 (42.59 %).
• significant reductions in EPc,nd value are observed when comparing S/V of 0.35 with the other ones, across all three regulations,
with the most substantial reductions of approximately 72 % for buildings constructed under the M.D. August 06, 2020 in 2070.
• Significant reductions in EPtot,nd values are observed when comparing S/V of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three regulations and for each
year.

3.3. Climate zone C

Fig. 5 displays the thermal performance indices for the climate zone C. The analysis results in graphs that reveal the following

Fig. 4. Thermal performance indices for climate zone B.

8
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Fig. 5. Thermal performance indices for climate zone C.

trends.
• Regarding EPh,nd, when comparing the values obtained with S/V of 0.75 and S/V of 0.35, a reduction is observed for all cases. The
most substantial reduction is obtained for the L.D. 192/2005 case in the year 2030 (47.24 %).
• Similarly, the EPc,nd also tends to decrease when comparing the results obtained with S/V of 0.75 and S/V ratio of 0.35 for all three
regulations. The most significant reduction (71.56 %) is observed in the comparison between the S/V values of 0.75 and 0.35 for the
M.D. August 06, 2020 in the year 2030.
• significant reductions in EPtot,nd value are observed when comparing S/V ratios of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three regulations and for
each year.

3.4. Climate zone D

Fig. 6 exhibits the thermal performance indices for locations within climate zone D. The obtained graphs reveal the following
trends.
• when comparing the values obtained with S/V ratios of 0.75 and 0.35, considering the three regulations and the three years (2030,
2050, 2070), a reduction in the EPh,nd value is observed for all cities. Particularly, the most noticeable reduction is obtained for the
L.D. 192/2005 in 2030, with reductions of 48.76 % for Foggia, 49.25 % for Pescara, 49.60 % for Farindola, 45.38 % for Roma, and
50.18 % for Roma.
• When comparing the values obtained with S/V ratios of 0.75 and 0.35, considering the three regulations and the three years (2030,
2050, 2070), a reduction in the EPc,nd value is observed for all cities. The most pronounced reduction is obtained for the year 2030,
considering the M.D. August 06, 2020 regulation (72.78 % for Foggia, 75.88 % for Pescara, 72.45 % for Farindola, 71.70 % for
Roma, 79.92 % for Stazzema).
• Significant reductions in EPtot,nd are observed when comparing S/V of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three regulations and for each year.

3.5. Climate zone E

Fig. 7 presents the thermal performance indices for locations within climate zone E. The obtained graphs reveal the following
trends.

• regarding the EPh,nd, when considering the values with S/V of 0.75 and 0.35, a significant reduction in its value is observed. The
most pronounced reduction is obtained for the year 2030, considering the L.D. 192/2005 for all cities considered (50.65 % for
Ferrara, 48.54 % for L’Aquila, 49.49 % for Arezzo, 51.40 % for Lagonegro).
• For the EPc,nd as well, considering the values with S/V of 0.75 and 0.35, a significant reduction in its value is obtained for all
regulations. For Ferrara, the greatest reduction is obtained in the year 2030, considering a building constructed according to the M.
D. June 26, 2015 regulation. For L’Aquila and Arezzo, the highest values are achieved for the M.D. August 06, 2020 regulation in
the year 2030 (with values of 72.50 % and 74.72 % respectively). For Lagonegro, the most substantial reduction is obtained for the
year 2030, considering the L.D. 192/2005 regulation (88.97 %).

3.6. Climate zone F

Fig. 8 displays the thermal performance indices for locations within climate zone F. The obtained graphs reveal the following
trends.

9
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Fig. 6. Thermal performance indices for climate zone D.

• In relation to EPh,nd, a substantial reduction is observed when comparing S/V of 0.75 and 0.35. The most significant decrease is
obtained for the year 2030, adhering to the L.D. 192/2005 regulation, for all cities considered (48.06 % for Belluno, 50.85 % for
Fenestrelle, 51.92 % for Asiago, 50.59 % for Tarvisio).
• For the EPc,nd as well, considering the values with S/V of 0.75 and 0.35, a significant reduction in its value is obtained for all
regulations. For Belluno and Fenestrelle, the most substantial reduction is observed in 2030, considering buildings constructed
according to the M.D. August 06, 2020 (78.47 % and 91.11 % respectively). For Asiago, the highest values are obtained for the M.D.
June 26, 2015 in 2030. For Tarvisio, the most substantial reduction is obtained in 2030, adhering to the L.D. 192/2005 regulation
(88.67 %).
• Significant reductions in EPtot,nd value are observed when comparing S/V of 0.75 and 0.35 across all three regulations and for each
year.

10
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Fig. 7. Thermal performance indices for climate zone E.

3.7. Overall considerations

Tables 6–9 show the percentage variation in EPtot,nd from 2030 to 2050 and 2070 for all RCP scenarios and regulations, considering
the effect of different S/V values. Results are grouped according to the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Positive values represent

11
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Fig. 8. Thermal performance indices for climate zone F.

an increase of EPtot,nd over the years. In light orange is indicated a slight increase (between 0 and 10 %), in orange is indicated a large
increase (i.e. greater than 10 %). In light green is indicated a slight decrease (between 0 and -10 %), in green is indicated a large
decrease (i.e. less than − 10 %).

12
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 6
Percentage variations of EPtot,nd from 2020 to 2030, 2050 and 2070 for zones Csa and Csb.

In general, it is observed that buildings with an S/V ratio of 0.35 compared to other S/V ratios show less variation in EPtot,nd over
time. Buildings with lower S/V ratios are less affected by climate change.
In accordance with Italian classification, climate zones A and B show an increasing trend of EPtot,nd, particularly for an S/V ratio of
0.75 where the highest increments are recorded. In these climatic zones, buildings with an S/V of 0.35, constructed according to LD
192/2005, are more resilient to climate change. In climate zones C and D, a complex pattern is shown. In general, that buildings with

13
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 7
Percentage variations of EPtot,nd from 2020 to 2030, 2050 and 2070 for zones BSh and BSk.

S/V of 0.35 coherent with L.D. 192/2005 present the best behaviour. In climate zones E and F, there is a notable improvement for all
the scenarios considered, offering a significant chance of advancement and, as a result, leading to a reduction in EPtot,nd.
Considering the Koppen-Geiger classification, BSh zone has the largest increases in EPtot,nd compared to 2030 over the years. In
particular, there are increases of well over 10 % for the RCP 8.5 scenario. The BSk zone also shows increases in EPtot,nd for most
scenarios, but there is a smaller percentage change than that shown for the BSh climate zone. For the Csa climate zone, an increase in
EPtot,nd is noted for all scenarios. the only exceptions to this behavior are the cities of Rome and Arezzo, which show reductions in EPtot,
nd. In particular, Arezzo shows the greatest reduction for the S/V ratio 0.35. Porto Empedocle and Syracuse present a deteriorations in
EP for S/V 0.75. Cfa and Cfb show a mixed trend. The largest increases occur for S/V ratio 0.75. Cfc presents a decrease in Cfc values for
almost all scenarios considered. The lowest values are reached considering L.D. 192/2005 with S/V ratio 0.35. Considering climate
zones Dfb and Dfc, a decrease in EPtot,nd values is evident. For S/V equal to 0.35 there are the greatest reductions in EPtot,nd especially
considering buildings constructed according to M.D. August 06, 2020. Dfc shows few exceptions to this decreasing trend for S/V values
of 0.75.
In consideration of climatic zones A through F, distinct trends emerge regarding the influence of the Surface-to-Volume (S/V) ratio
and adherence to regulatory frameworks on EPtot,nd variations. Notably, in zone A, minor EPtot,nd variations are evident in structures
with an S/V ratio of 0.35, constructed in accordance with the L.D. 192/2005 regulation. Similarly, in zone B, the least EPtot,nd variation
is observed in buildings with S/V ratios of 0.55 and 0.35, conforming to the M.D. August 26, 2015 and L.D. 192/2005 regulations,
respectively. Zone C exhibits analogous EPtot,nd variations for S/V ratios of 0.55 under L.D. 192/2005 and 0.35 conforming to both L.D.
192/2005 and M.D. August 26, 2020 regulations. Considering the cost-effectiveness, construction in compliance with L.D. 192/2005
emerges as a prudent choice for designers. Furthermore, in zones D and E, the minor EPtot,nd variations are apparent in structures
featuring S/V ratios of 0.75 and 0.35, respectively, conforming to the L.D. 192/2005 regulation. Zone F showcases minor EPtot,nd
variations with an S/V ratio of 0.35, aligning with the L.D. 192/2005 regulation. This analysis underscores the impracticality of
pursuing hyper-insulation in buildings. While seemingly beneficial for climate resilience, such an approach often proves costly and
fails to ensure effective adaptation to climatic shifts.

4. Conclusions
This research emphasizes the crucial role of building envelope design in achieving energy efficiency, particularly under the in­
fluence of climate change. It highlights that a reduction in the steady-state thermal transmittance value (U) of the building envelope
might not necessarily result in a decrease in energy performance, especially when considering future climatic conditions.
The study investigates the often-ignored surface-to-volume ratio (S/V) in Italian buildings, assessing its impact on the resilience of
buildings constructed according to three different Italian regulations, which have progressively imposed lower U-values over time. The
analysis encompasses all climatic locations in Italy, falling under both national and international Köppen-Geiger climate classification.
Three distinct Italian regulatory standards were considered: Legislative Decree 192/2005 (L.D. 192/2005), Ministerial Decree of
June 26, 2015 (M.D. June 26, 2015), and Ministerial Decree of August 6, 2020 (M.D. August 06, 2020). Additionally, the assessment of
envelope performance involved the calculation of thermal performance indices for the years 2030, 2050, and 2070, relative to three
different RCP scenarios (2.6, 4.5, and 8.5).
The study, aiming for effective comparisons across diverse locations, opted for a consistent building model across locations with
reinforced concrete insulated walls. This model, resilient to harsh weather conditions and cost-effective, is a common choice for

14
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 8
Percentage variations of EPtot,nd from 2020 to 2030, 2050 and 2070 for zones Cfa, Cfb and Cfc.

designers across many Italian climate zones, ensuring a secure and comfortable living environment. Focusing on the building envelope
without air conditioning, it is designed to meet energy regulation limits for each climate zone. The simplicity of the building type
allows for broad comparisons with other regional structures, offering trends that can serve as a benchmark for similar constructions.
Three cubic-shaped reference buildings, each with distinct surface-to-volume ratios, are used in the analysis. These structures align
closely with the S/V ratios specified in the national Ministerial Decree of June 26, 2015.

15
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Table 9
Percentage variations of EPtot,nd from 2020 to 2030, 2050 and 2070 for zone Dfb and Dfc.

The evaluation of building performance under diverse conditions and climatic scenarios was carried out using thermal performance
indices.
The findings display variations across national climate zones (ranging from A to F) and the considered standards. When comparing
EPtot,nd values between 2030, 2050, and 2070, hot regions (Zones A, B, and C) demonstrate an increase in EPtot,nd, reaching up to a
maximum of 20 %, with minimal differences across most scenarios. Zone D showcases diverse EPtot,nd behaviours, indicating a ten­
dency for reduction with smaller S/V ratios.
In climatic zone E, the EPtot,nd demand fluctuates; any increase compared to 2030 is slight (up to 10 %), which is further mitigated
with a lower S/V ratio. The cold climate zone F presents a slight decrease in EPtot,nd demand in 2050 and 2070 compared to the
demands in 2030.
Summarizing, the U value represents the rate of heat transfer through a building element. A lower U value indicates better insu­
lation. Changing the U value can directly impact energy efficiency. The S/V ratio influences the amount of surface area exposed to
external conditions relative to the internal volume. It affects the overall heat gain or loss. High S/V ratios may lead to more significant
thermal losses. A change in one factor could potentially compensate for the other. For instance, increasing insulation (lowering U
value) might compensate for a higher S/V ratio, reducing overall heat loss. It is necessary to adapt regulations to consider both U-
values and S/V ratios to comprehensively address energy efficiency according to the climatic zone.
In conclusion, a holistic approach that considers U values, S/V ratios, and urban form is crucial for effective energy-efficient
building design and urban planning. Recommendations for policymakers and designers should focus on creating a balance between
insulation, form, and urban development to achieve sustainable and energy-efficient built environments under climate changes.

Funding
This research received no external funding.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Cristina Baglivo: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Resources, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Paola Maria Albanese: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investi­
gation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Paolo Maria Congedo: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization,
Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

16
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108544.

References
[1] Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2021.
[2] Mehmet Aksoezen, Magdalena Daniel, Uta Hassler, Niklaus Kohler, Building age as an indicator for energy consumption, Energy Build. 87 (2015) 74–86,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.074. ISSN 0378-7788.
[3] Mir Sayed Shah Danish, Tomonobu Senjyu, Abdul Matin Ibrahimi, Mikaeel Ahmadi, Abdul Motin Howlader, A managed framework for energy-efficient
building, J. Build. Eng. 21 (2019) 120–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.013. ISSN 2352-7102.
[4] Cristina Baglivo, Paolo Maria Congedo, Domenico Mazzeo, 12 - climate change and building performance: pervasive role of climate change on residential
building behavior in different climates, in: Fernando Pacheco-Torgal, Claes-Göran Granqvist (Eds.), Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural
Engineering, Adapting the Built Environment for Climate Change, Woodhead Publishing, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95336-8.00003-2, 229-
251, ISBN 9780323953368.
[5] D’Agostino Delia, Paolo Maria Congedo, Paola Maria Albanese, Alessandro Rubino, Cristina Baglivo, Impact of climate change on the energy performance of
building envelopes and implications on energy regulations across Europe, Energy 288 (2024) 129886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129886. ISSN
0360-5442.
[6] Paolo Maria Congedo, Cristina Baglivo, D’Agostino Delia, Domenico Mazzeo, The impact of climate change on air source heat pumps, Energy Convers. Manag.
276 (116554) (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116554. ISSN 0196-8904.
[7] Lisa Guan, Preparation of future weather data to study the impact of climate change on buildings, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009) 793–800, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.021. ISSN 0360-1323.
[8] Yuchen Yang, Kavan Javanroodi, Vahid M. Nik, Climate change and energy performance of European residential building stocks – a comprehensive impact
assessment using climate big data from the coordinated regional climate downscaling experiment, Appl. Energy 298 (117246) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2021.117246. ISSN 0306-2619.
[9] Virgilio Ciancio, Ferdinando Salata, Serena Falasca, Gabriele Curci, Iacopo Golasi, Pieter de Wilde, Energy performances of buildings in the framework of
climate change: an investigation across Europe, Sustain. Cities Soc. 60 (2020) 102213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102213. ISSN 2210-6707.
[10] Ferdinando Salata, Serena Falasca, Virgilio Ciancio, Gabriele Curci, Stefano Grignaffini, Pieter de Wilde, Estimating building cooling energy performance
through the Cooling Degree Hours in a changing climate: a modeling study, Sustain. Cities Soc. 76 (2022) 103518, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103518.
ISSN 2210-6707.
[11] Pouriya Jafarpur, Umberto Berardi, Effects of climate changes on building energy performance and thermal comfort in Canadian office buildings adopting
different temperature setpoints, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021) 102725, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102725. ISSN 2352-7102.
[12] K.T. Chan, W.K. Chow, Energy impact of commercial-building envelopes in the sub-tropical climate, Appl. Energy 60 (1) (1998) 21–39, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0306-2619(98)00021-X. ISSN 0306-2619.
[13] Keovathana Run, Franck Cévaër, Jean-François Dubé, Does energy-efficient renovation positively impact thermal comfort and air quality in university
buildings? J. Build. Eng. 78 (2023) 107507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107507. ISSN 2352-7102.
[14] D. Chen, Overheating in residential buildings: challenges and opportunities, Indoor Built Environ. 28 (10) (2019) 1303–1306, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1420326X19871717.
[15] Cristina Baglivo, Paolo Maria Congedo, Nicola Antonio Malatesta, Building envelope resilience to climate change under Italian energy policies, J. Clean. Prod.
411 (137345) (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137345. ISSN 0959-6526.
[16] Francesco Goia, Search for the optimal window-to-wall ratio in office buildings in different European climates and the implications on total energy saving
potential, Sol. Energy 132 (2016) 467–492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.031. ISSN 0038-092X.
[17] Yixing Chen, Zhiyi Ren, Zhiwen Peng, Jingjing Yang, Zhihua Chen, Deng Zhang, Impacts of climate change and building energy efficiency improvement on city-
scale building energy consumption, J. Build. Eng. 78 (2023) 107646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107646. ISSN 2352-7102.
[18] P. Depecker, C. Menezo, J. Virgone, S. Lepers, Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption, Build. Environ. 36 (Issue 5) (2001) 627–635, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00044-5. ISSN 0360-1323.
[19] Wojciech Marks, Multicriteria optimisation of shape of energy-saving buildings, Build. Environ. 32 (Issue 4) (1997) 331–339, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-
1323(96)00065-0. ISSN 0360-1323.
[20] Helena Monteiro, Fausto Freire, Nelson Soares, Life cycle assessment of a south European house addressing building design options for orientation, window
sizing and building shape, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021) 102276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102276. ISSN 2352-7102.
[21] Matheus Soares Geraldi, Veronica Martins Gnecco, Antonio Barzan Neto, Bárbara Augusta de Mafra Martins, Enedir Ghisi, Michele Fossati, Ana Paula Melo,
Roberto Lamberts, Evaluating the impact of the shape of school reference buildings on bottom-up energy benchmarking, J. Build. Eng. 43 (2021) 103142,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103142. ISSN 2352-7102.
[22] Qubad Sabah Haseeb, Sumbul Muhammed Yunus, Anas Attellah Ali Shoshan, Adil Ibrahim Aziz, A study of the optimal form and orientation for more energy
efficiency to mass model multi-storey buildings of Kirkuk city, Iraq, Alex. Eng. J. 71 (2023) 731–741, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.03.020. ISSN 1110-
0168.
[23] Caroline Hachem, Andreas Athienitis, Fazio Paul, Parametric investigation of geometric form effects on solar potential of housing units, Sol. Energy 85 (9)
(2011) 1864–1877, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.04.027. ISSN 0038-092X.
[24] Idil Erdemir Kocagil, Gül Koçlar Oral, The effect of building form and settlement texture on energy efficiency for hot dry climate zone in Turkey, Energy Proc. 78
(2015) 1835–1840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.325. ISSN 1876-6102.
[25] Adnan AlAnzi, Donghyun Seo, Moncef Krarti, Impact of building shape on thermal performance of office buildings in Kuwait, Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (3)
(2009) 822–828, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.033. ISSN 0196-8904.
[26] UNI EN ISO 15927-6:2008, Hygrothermal Performance of Buildings - Calculation and Presentation of Climatic Data - Part 6: Accumulated Temperature
Differences (degree-days).
[27] Mattia De Rosa, Vincenzo Bianco, Federico Scarpa, A. Luca, Tagliafico, Historical trends and current state of heating and cooling degree days in Italy, Energy
Convers. Manag. 90 (2015) 323–335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.022. ISSN 0196-8904.
[28] L.D. 192/2005, Italian Legislative Decree, Attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2018/844, che modifica la direttiva 2010/31/UE sulla prestazione energetica
nell’edilizia e la direttiva 2012/27/UE sull’efficienza energetica, della direttiva 2010/31/UE, sulla prestazione energetica nell’edilizia, e della direttiva 2002/
91/CE relativa al rendimento energetico nell’edilizia, (In Italian).

17
C. Baglivo et al. Journal of Building Engineering 84 (2024) 108544

[29] M.D. 26/6/2015, Italian Ministerial Decree, in: Italian (Ed.), “Applicazione delle metodologie di calcolo delle prestazioni energetiche e definizione delle
prescrizioni e dei requisiti minimi degli edifici”, 2015.
[30] DM 6/8/2020, Italian Ministerial Decree, in: Italian (Ed.), Requisiti tecnici per l’accesso alle detrazioni fiscali per la riqualificazione energetica degli edifici – cd
Ecobonus”, 2020.
[31] Paolo Maria Congedo, Cristina Baglivo, Giulia Centonze, Walls comparative evaluation for the thermal performance improvement of low-rise residential
buildings in warm Mediterranean climate, J. Build. Eng. 28 (2020) 101059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101059. ISSN 2352-7102.
[32] Deliang Chen, Hans Weiteng Chen, Using the Köppen Classification to Quantify Climate Variation and Change: an Example for 1901–2010, vol. 6,
Environmental Development, 2013, pp. 69–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.03.007. ISSN 2211-4645.
[33] A.J. Arnfield, Köppen climate classification, Encyclopedia Britannica 11 (2020).
[34] IPCC, Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental Panel on climate change, in: Climate Change 2014:
Synthesis Report, IPCC, Geneva (Switzerland), 2014, p. 151. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. February 2021.
[35] Meteonorm - Global Meteorological Database, Meteotest (2012). https://meteonorm.com/en/.
[36] J. Remund, S.C. Müller, C. Schilter, B. Rihm, The use of Meteonorm weather generator for climate change studies, in: 10th EMS Annual Meeting, 2010,
September, pp. EMS2010–E2417.
[37] Laura Bellia, Alessia Pedace, Francesca Fragliasso, The role of weather data files in Climate-based Daylight Modeling, Sol. Energy 112 (2015) 169–182, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.11.033. ISSN 0038-092X.
[38] UNI/TS 11300–1, Building Energy Performance – Part 1: Evaluation of the Energy Need for Space Heating and Cooling, 2014 (in Italian).
[39] https://www.logical.it/software-per-la-termotecnica. (Accessed 7 November 2023).
[40] Paolo Maria Congedo, Cristina Baglivo, Aslıhan Kurnuc Seyhan, Raffaele Marchetti, Worldwide dynamic predictive analysis of building performance under long-
term climate change conditions, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021) 103057, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103057. ISSN 2352-7102.
[41] Lorenzo Mario Pastore, Matteo Sforzini, Gianluigi Lo Basso, Livio de Santoli, H2NG environmental-energy-economic effects in hybrid energy systems for
building refurbishment in future National Power to Gas scenarios, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47 (21) (2022) 11289–11301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.11.154. ISSN 0360-3199.
[42] C. Baglivo, Dynamic evaluation of the effects of climate change on the energy renovation of a school in a mediterranean climate, Sustainability 13 (2021) 6375,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116375.
[43] Elena Fregonara, R.M. Valerio, Lo verso, matteo lisa, guido callegari, retrofit scenarios and economic sustainability. A case-study in the Italian context, Energy
Proc. 111 (2017) 245–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.026. ISSN 1876-6102.

18