Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Early stage decision support for sustainable building renovation e A

review
Anne N. Nielsen a, *, Rasmus L. Jensen b, Tine S. Larsen b, Søren B. Nissen c
a
Department of Energy and Environment, University College of Northern Denmark (UCN), Sofiendalsvej 60, 9200 Aalborg SV, Denmark
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Sofiendalsvej 9-11, 9200 Aalborg SV, Denmark
c
Architectural Technology and Construction Management, University College of Northern Denmark (UCN), Sofiendalsvej 60, 9200 Aalborg SV, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Decision support tools for building renovation are important as assistance to professional building
Received 27 February 2016 owners when setting goals for sustainability, and for making sure that the objectives are met throughout
Received in revised form the design process, both when renovating a single building or choosing renovation actions within a
4 April 2016
building portfolio. Existing literature on decision support tools applicable in the pre-design and design
Accepted 11 April 2016
Available online 13 April 2016
phase of renovation projects have been reviewed, with the aim of providing a state-of-the-art overview.
The paper categorizes the tools into six areas in which they can support the decision makers in the
renovation process: in setting sustainability goals, weighting criteria, building diagnosis, generation of
Keywords:
Decision support tools
design alternatives, estimation of performance, and in the evaluation of design alternatives. These six
Multi-criteria decision-making areas are unfolded throughout the paper, along with examples and discussion of the applicability of the
Sustainability assessment tools in the corresponding areas of the renovation process. The study presents perspectives on the future
Existing buildings development of decision support tools in renovation projects, including the aspect of renovating multiple
buildings. Areas for future research are suggested, such as emphasizing the aspect of choosing and
weighting sustainability criteria, providing explicit guidelines for screening the existing building(s), and
prioritizing renovation actions within a building portfolio.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The assessment of the sustainability of buildings has emerged as

Buildings are responsible for more than 40% of the energy use
worldwide and for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions
[1], which entails increasing attention on sustainable development
within the construction industry. In Europe, actions have been
made to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions
in the building sector and the built environment [2e4]. In Denmark,
the government has a long-term objective of being free of fossil
fuels by 2050, and an important element in this is improving en-
ergy efficiency [5]. In 2014, the Danish government presented a
strategy for energy renovation of the existing building stock in
Denmark towards 2050, emphasizing the potential for building
renovation regarding reducing energy consumption and CO2
emissions, without compromising environmental, social and eco-
nomic quality [6].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anni@ucn.dk (A.N. Nielsen), rlj@civil.aau.dk (R.L. Jensen), tsl@
civil.aau.dk (T.S. Larsen), sbn@ucn.dk (S.B. Nissen).
one of the major issues in the building industry [7]. In 1990, the
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM, UK) was developed as the first comprehensive
building performance assessment method [7], followed by other
first generation methods such as LEED (USA), CASBEE (Japan),
GreenStar (Australia) and HQE (France). Common for these is that
the main focus is on the building's influence on the environment
and the use of energy [8]. Second generation assessment tools such
as DGNB (Germany) and LEnSE (EU) also include economic, socio-
cultural, and technical aspects, and deal with the entire lifecycle
of the building [8]. The different assessment methods have been
adapted to local climatic conditions, rules, and regulations [9], as
well as vary in their weighting of categories, ratings, flexibility and
assessed building typologies [10]. Several assessment tools have
been adapted for renovation purposes (e.g. BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE,
and DGNB) [11], along with assessment tools specifically developed
for renovation, such as reSBToolCZ [12]. The comprehensive nature
of the assessment methods makes it challenging to integrate all of
the assessment criteria in the early design phase, as it is both time
consuming and the level of information needed to make proper

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.009
0360-1323/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
166 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
simulations and calculations is insufficient at that stage.
In a building renovation process, countless decisions are made
throughout the different phases; from the initial decisions on
which buildings to renovate, to the design of renovation scenarios,
selection among design alternatives, to construction, operation,
usage, and finally demolition or reuse. Multi-criteria decision-
making is a branch of decision-making that deals with the process
of making decisions with multiple, often conflicting, objectives [13].
The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods has gained
popularity in building renovation, which has led to the develop-
ment of several decision support tools and methods, varying in
complexity and applicability.
The aim of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of
the development of decision support tools applicable in the pre-
design and design phase of renovation projects and to identify
potential areas for future research. The tools have been categorized
and discussed in relation to where in the renovation process they
can support the decision maker. A structured approach has been
undertaken to identify representative literature within the scope of
the review. Searches for peer-reviewed journal articles, disserta-
tions, and conference proceedings were conducted using the Sco-
pus database among others. Peer-reviewed literature has been the
primary source of information; however, relevant books, reports,
and websites have been included to get an extensive understanding
of the current development in the field. The inclusion criteria for
the tools in the review have been that they deal with multiple
criteria (two at minimum) and are applicable to renovation pro-
jects. The level of detail provided about the tools in the review
represents the level of detail in the literature. The review is struc-
tured as follows: the introduction followed by an overview of the
renovation process and the existing decision support tools found in
the literature. The tools are divided into six categories reflecting the
areas in which they can substantiate the renovation process: goal
setting, weighting of criteria, building diagnosis, generation of
design alternatives, estimation of performance, and finally evalu-
ation of design alternatives. The six areas are unfolded throughout
the review, along with examples and discussion of the tools'
applicability in the corresponding areas. Perspectives on future
development and use of decision support tools in renovation pro-
jects are presented, including the aspect of renovating multiple
buildings. Major findings are summarized in the concluding sec-
tion, including suggestions for future research.
Other reviews of decision support tools in relation to building
renovation have previously been published. Kolokotsa et al. [14]
reviewed methods used on energy efficiency and energy manage-
ment in buildings and categorized the tools in relation to their
methodology, and Ferreira et al. [15] presented a division based on
the common aims and objectives of the decision support tools.
Thuvander et al. [11] made a survey of decision-making procedures
and existing decision support tools used by stakeholders in relation
to the renovation of existing buildings, with emphasis on the pre-
liminary investigation. This paper contributes by suggesting a new
categorization in relation to the applicability of each tool in
different areas of the pre-design and design stage of the renovation
process.
1.1. Terminology
In this paper, the term “renovation” is used as a general term for
improvements of the performance of existing buildings, ranging
from middle to major interventions. “Sustainable renovation” is
used to underline a holistic approach where environmental, social,
and economic aspects are encompassed in a balanced way. The
term “decision support tool” is used to describe any tool or method,
which serves the purpose of helping the decision maker in making
more informed decisions when dealing with multiple criteria. “The
decision maker” primarily refers to the professional building
owner, who has knowledge and experience in the field of building
renovation, and has a professional team of specialized advisors and
designers. The term “goal” is used to describe long term aims and
can be of a general character and not necessarily measurable.
“Objectives” is used to describe specific actions or milestones
within the general goal while “measures” refers to measurable
achievements, qualitative or quantitative.
2. The renovation decision process
A renovation process is not far from the process of designing a
new building, including the phases of pre-design, design, con-
struction, and operation of the building. However, the main dif-
ference is the constraints of having an existing building and
building site along with the existing users of the building. Fig. 1
illustrates the overall steps in a renovation project. It should be
recognized that the steps in the pre-design and design phase are
iterative in nature and that “sub-iterations” take place throughout
the process, e.g. in the individual design process of the architect or
engineer where design proposals are continuously evaluated.
Wang et al. [16] have described the ideal steps in a decision-
making process as first defining the problem, then identifying ob-
jectives and criteria, criteria weighting, generation of alternatives,
rating each alternative on each criterion and lastly computing the
optimal solution. Ferreria et al. [15] and Alanne [17], for instance,
have described the decision-making process in relation to renova-
tion projects. Synthesizing these models with the steps illustrated
in Fig. 1, there are six areas where formal decision-making methods
can contribute in renovation projects (Fig. 2).
3. Existing decision support tools for building renovation
In the reviewed literature, 43 decision support tools that are
applicable in the pre-design and design phase of renovation pro-
jects have been selected. The majority of these are developed
specifically for renovation projects, where others can be used both
in existing and new buildings. Lastly, some are developed for new
construction but have the potential to be used for renovation. Some
tools are developed for specific local contexts and building typol-
ogies and, therefore, may not be directly applicable to other con-
texts or building types. The tools have been divided into the six
categories presented in Fig. 2, according to where in the renovation
process they can support the decision maker (Table 1).
3.1. Setting the right goals
The first key step in the renovation process is defining the goals,
objectives, and criteria since all the following phases are adapted to
these strategic and important aspects. This strategic area can, in
fact, be seen as the rational heart of the entire process [15].
Whether the goal is to renovate a single building or make strategic
renovation prioritization within a building portfolio, the point of
departure is setting the right objectives, to solve the right problems
and find the best alternatives. The objectives can be based on values
from the involved stakeholders, or the set of criteria can be fixed
from the beginning, leaving the weighting to the decision maker, as
seen in several of the reviewed tools. Criteria can be based on
existing sustainability assessment methods as the assessment
schemes can provide a structured way to incorporate sustainability
criteria into the design process. However, these were not originally
designed to serve as design guidelines [7], but rather to assess a
finished building and, therefore, might be too time-consuming to
include at an early stage. However, it should be recognized that, in
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
Fig. 1. The building renovation process.
practice, values and objectives of the decision-makers are often
developed throughout the design process and that values may not
be clear until design alternatives have been generated [61].
Among the reviewed methods, 21% deal with the aspect of
setting goals and choosing criteria (Table 2). 5% take their point of
departure explicitly in the discussion on objectives among the
stakeholders [53,60] where the rest has a fixed set of criteria but
leaves the weighting open to being assigned by the involved
stakeholders. RENO-EVALUE [60] is a value-based decision support
tool that focuses on the different interests and values of the main
stakeholders involved in a sustainable building renovation project.
The tool is intended as a basis for dialogue among building pro-
fessionals and building users in the formulation of objectives.
Furthermore, it can be used to evaluate a renovation project ho-
listically, according to the sustainability goals of the project. The
Total Value Model (in Danish: Totalværdimodellen) [53] is an anal-
ysis and process tool aimed towards the building owner, providing
a framework for setting strategic objectives for the renovation
project. The tool is divided into eight steps, each including
167
important aspects to consider such as recommendations for
documentation, activities, and tools, in relation to economic,
environmental, and social values. The model can be used when
renovating a single building or when setting goals for renovations
within a building portfolio [53].
Other tools include the step of choosing objectives, but do not
provide a method to do it. The knapsack model was developed by
Alanne [17] with the aim to help designers select the most suitable
renovation actions in the conceptual phase of a renovation project.
The model does not directly deal with how to choose criteria but
states that these are selected by the design team. The criteria are
structured in a decision-tree where the main criteria indicate
general, strategic objectives, sub-criteria with more concrete issues,
and the lowest level of the tree represents criteria measures that
can be either quantitative (e.g. annual energy use) or qualitative
(e.g. aesthetics) (Fig. 3). The measures, or indicators, serve as the
yardstick for evaluating to which extent the alternatives meet the
overall goal [17]. Martinaitis et al. [41] developed a two-factor
method, with which the decision maker can establish goals
168 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
Fig. 2. Six areas where formal decision-making methods can contribute in renovation projects.
within economy and energy consumption. Wang and Zeng [62]
presented a method for reuse selection of historic buildings
where an interdisciplinary team defines the objectives. Lastly, some
tools suggest criteria, but allow the flexibility of assigning weights
by the stakeholders, as seen in e.g. BR-DSS [30], MDCM-23 [63], and
the method for Multivariant Design and Multiple Criteria Analysis
proposed by Kaklauskas et al. [32].
3.1.1. Sustainability criteria included in the reviewed tools
The sustainability criteria and objectives included in the
reviewed tools have been divided into three categories: Social,
Environmental and Economic Sustainability (Table 3), based on the
components of sustainable development derived from the Rio
Declaration from 1992 [64]. The Social Sustainability category in-
cludes aspects of indoor environmental quality, architectural
quality, functionality, quality of life, employment, and cultural as-
pects. The Environmental Sustainability category includes aspects
of energy and environmental impact, and use of resources. The
Economic Sustainability criteria category includes cost related as-
pects of both construction and operation.
The level of detail of the objectives and criteria in Table 3 reflects
the different levels of detail described in the literature; some
indicate overall objectives and others provide a detailed list of
included criteria, sub-criteria, and measures. Furthermore, as the
tools are designed to be used in different local contexts, with
different building typologies, and use individual criteria weights,
they are not entirely comparable. In the cases where sub-criteria
are specified, these are noted in brackets after the main criteria.
The division of the criteria and objectives shows that 40% of the
43 tools include, or have the option of including, criteria from all
three categories. 63% of the tools include criteria from the Social
Sustainability category, a majority of these being aspects of indoor
environmental quality. Economic Sustainability criteria are
included in 72% of the tools. The environmental quality criteria are
represented in 81% of the reviewed tools, making this the highest
represented category.
3.2. The weighting process
The weighting process is necessary to determine the relative
importance of the criteria, and thereby their impact on the final
design. There are two overall approaches: equal weights, which do
not allow prioritization, and rank-order weights, which can be
either subjective (based on the preferences of the decision makers),
objective (based on quantitative measured data), or both [65]. The
reviewed tools which include the option of weighting criteria are
all based on rank-order weighting methods, which provide the
freedom of prioritizing a set of criteria to a particular renovation
context. Table 4 shows the weighting methods used in the reviewed
tools.
The most used weighting method within this review is the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [22,37,43,48,58] which is widely
used in the architectural, engineering, and construction industry
[70], followed by the Grading Method in popularity [17,63]. AHP
was developed by Saaty [71] to prioritize criteria through pairwise
comparison in order to find the best alternative based on the
judgments of the decision maker. The decision problem is struc-
tured into a hierarchy with the overall goal at the top, followed by
the objectives or criteria groups, then sub-criteria, and usually a set
of alternatives at the lowest level. Elements and level can be added
to fit the decision problem as close as possible. This is done to
ensure that the elements are compared on the same level and thus
in a meaningful way. Next step is to construct pairwise comparison
matrices where the elements on the same level are compared to
each other with a scale of numbers from 1 to 9, where 1 is given
when two elements are of equal importance, and 9 represents
extreme importance to one element in comparison with another.
The other element is then assigned the reciprocal 1/9, which in-
dicates that it is nine times less important than the other. The
criteria weights are then normalized and synthesized from the
matrix [71,72]. In that way, the relative importance of both quali-
tative and quantitative criteria can be determined based on the
judgments of the decision maker.
The Grading Method is a simple method for assigning weight
where the most important criterion receives the grade 10, and all
the other criteria on the same level are graded from 1 to 10
depending on their relative importance to the most important
criteria. The weights are then normalized to range between 0 and 1
so that the sum of the weights is one. This procedure is then
repeated for each level in the criteria tree [17].
Both AHP and the Grading Method serve the purpose of
assigning weights to criteria on the same hierarchical level by
comparing the criteria to each other. In that way, an individual
measuring scale is established, and it is possible to prioritize among
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 169

Table 1
43 decision support tools applicable in renovation projects. The tools are divided according to where in the renovation project they can support the decision maker.

Name of tool Year Authors/developers Goal Criteria Building Design alternatives Performance Design alternatives
setting weighting diagnosis Generation estimation evaluation

1995 Gorgolewski [18] x

1996 Gorgolewski [19] x
EPIQR 2000 Jaggs and Palmer x x x
[20]
MEDIC 2000 Flourentzou et al. x
[21]
MCDM-23 2000 Balcomb et al. [22] x x x
TOBUS 2002 Flourentzou et al. x x x
[23]
ORME 2002 Roulet et al. [24] x x
MOGA 2002 Wright et al. [25] x
GENE_ARCH 2002 Caldas et al. [26,27] x x
SST tool 2003 Alanne et al. [28] x x x x
XENIOS 2004 Dascalaki et al. [29] x x
“Knapsack’” 2004 Alanne [17] x x x
model
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas et al. [30] x x x x x
INVESTIMMO 2004 Droutsa et al. [31] x x
Multivariant 2005 Kaklauskas et al. [32] x x x x
design
Variable 2005 Pushkar et al. [33] x
grouping
2005 Wang et al. [34] x
2005 Wetter et al. [35] x
BEPAS 2006 Zhang et al. [36] x
2006 Juan et al. [37] x x
2007 Zavadskas et al. [38] x x
OLSC 2007 Kaklauskas et al. [39] x x
2007 Znouda et al. [40] x x
2007 Martinaitis et al. [41] x x
REFLEX 2007 Pasanisi et al. [42] x x x
2009 Juan et al. [43] x x x x
2010 Crawford et al. [44] x
2010 Verbeeck et al. [45] x
2010 Diakaki et al. [46] x x
2010 Juan et al. [47] x x x
2010 Wang et al. [48] x x x
2010 Liu et al. [49] x x
2010 Li et al. [50] x
2010 Magnier et al. [51] x x
MAMVA, DSS- 2011 Kanapeckiene et al. x x
CRP [52]
Total value 2011 Plan C [53] x x
model
MultiOpt 2011 Chantrelle et al. [54] x
2011 Tsai et al. [55] x
2012 Bermejo et al. [56] x
Euro. Retro. 2014 Zimmermann [57] x x
Advisor
2014 Medineckiene et al. x
[58]
Renobuild 2014 Mjo€rnell et al. [59] x x
RENO-EVALUE 2015 Jensen et al. [60] x x

Total: 9 14 9 13 36 5

Table 2
Tools that include the aspect of goal setting, with either a fixed or non-fixed set of criteria.

Name of tool Year Authors/developers Fixed or non-fixed set of criteria

MCDM-23 2000 Balcomb et al. [22] Fixed

SST tool 2003 Alanne et al. [28] Fixed
‘‘knapsack’’ model 2004 Alanne [17] Fixed
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas et al. [30] Fixed
Multivariant design 2005 Kaklauskas et al. [32] Open, based on the use of various experts' methods
2007 Martinaitis et al. [41] Fixed
2010 Wang et al. [48] Fixed
Total Value Model 2011 Plan C [53] Value-based, discussion among stakeholders
RENO-EVALUE 2015 Jensen et al. [60] Value-based, discussion among stakeholders

both qualitative and quantitative criteria. sustainability assessment methods are used as design guidelines
If the goal is sustainability assessment of the building, or if for the project, criteria and weights are fixed depending on the
170 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
Fig. 3. Criteria tree (adapted from Ref. [17]).
choice of assessment method. One example is DGNB, which uses a
weighted sum method where social, economic, environmental, and
technical qualities are weighted equally (22,5%), and process
quality is weighted 10%.
Using a tool for choosing and weighting criteria encourages
the stakeholders to consider sustainability aspects at an early
stage, which has proven to bring value to the process [73]. In
that way, it can create discussion about values and create a
deeper understanding of the problem at hand [61]. Whether the
criteria should be fixed or open can be discussed. On one hand, a
fixed set of criteria narrows down the solution space and provide
tangible goals and on the other hand, the criteria may not fit the
individual case. Every project is different; stakeholders and po-
litical and environmental contexts are different, and, therefore,
decision support tools should address this with a level of flexi-
bility. This flexibility is encompassed in several of the existing
tools in the possibility of assigning weights to pre-defined
criteria. Trade-offs are an inevitable part of any design process,
and even if comprehensive building sustainability assessment
methods are put into use, trade-offs have to be made along the
way.
3.3. Assessing the current state of the building
A diagnosis of the existing building should be performed to
determine the need for renovation. Assessing the current state of
the building after having set up sustainability goals for the project
will make the registration process more targeted; however, the
diagnosis can also be made before the goal setting. Several tools
include this step, and in general, it can be said that the golden line
here is the balance between the level of information needed and
time available for collecting data about the building. 21% of the
reviewed tools describe a method for assessing the current state of
a building (Table 5).
At the diagnosis stage, available information about the building
is collected, and a systematic registration of the degradation state of
the building components can be performed, along with a user
questionnaire, as seen in e.g. EPIQR [74] and BR-DSS [30].
The EPIQR method [20] is aimed towards apartment building
owners who are considering renovation of their building stock. The
EPIQR software identifies the most appropriate renovation actions,
along with an initial cost estimate, while taking energy and indoor
environmental quality issues into account. Initially, data is collected
during a diagnosis survey where questionnaires are distributed to
the occupants of the apartments to assess the indoor environmental
quality. The physical condition of the apartment buildings is
assessed on site, the survey is divided into 50 elements, and each
element is graded on a four-point scale from good to poor condition.
A walk-through audit addressing the physical state is performed
during the site visit to address the energy performance, together
with information from historical data such as energy bills [20].
Following the principles of EPIQR, TOBUS [75] was developed
to offer a tool for selecting upgrading solutions for office build-
ings, XENIOS [76] for hotels, and INVESTIMMO [77] for residential
buildings, addressing additional criteria compared to the EPIQR
method. It assesses the degree of physical degradation and extent
of necessary work to renovate the building and the costs [78].
When selecting the deterioration of the building elements, the
user can review a detailed description including several photos
and sketches representing the different stages. The EPIQR soft-
ware contains for each building element the general deterioration
and corresponding renovation work including cost, future
upgrading work as well as related national standards and
guidelines [77].
In BR-DSS [30] the information needed may be in a conceptual
form (such as digital, textual, photographic, sound, video, graphical,
diagrams, graphs, and drawings) and quantitative form [30]. In-
formation about the deterioration and obsolescence is needed,
along with the renovation aims and the client's financial situation.
The assessment of the current situation is based on questionnaires,
building cost indices, tender price indices, analyzed projects, and
recommendations.
Suggesting renovation actions based on previous cases and
existing data can contribute to the building experts considering
aspects they would not have considered else wise, but on the other
hand, it might compromise their creativity and innovation.
3.4. Generation of design alternatives
At this step, different renovation options are identified. The
production of design alternatives usually lies with the design team
and must, therefore, involve subjective value judgments [79].
Several tools suggest renovation actions and some generate design
alternatives automatically based on a set of predefined criteria
(Table 6).
The aim of EPIQR is assessing cost-effective energy-related im-
provements for the renovation of apartment buildings. Qualitative
parameters are not included. In EPIQR, the deterioration state of 50
different building elements of the existing building is assessed and
displayed in an active graph, in which the user easily can switch to
see renovation costs, along with an active energy flowchart
informing the user of the estimated energy calculations for the
scenario. In that way, the individual elements can be ticked on and
off depending on the priorities of the user and different levels of
interventions on the elements can be decided. EPIQR suggests
renovation actions based on the building diagnosis and uses local
databases to estimate costs [20]. The suggestion for each building
element is based on the deterioration state of the element, com-
plaints made by the users in the performed user survey, the
remaining lifespan of the element (calculated using the MEDIC
module [21]), and finally information from the energy calculation
module. EPIQR provides both a simple and a more detailed cost
calculation module. However, e.g. indoor climate is treated as a
consequence of the user survey and linked to suggesting im-
provements of building elements.
Other tools which suggest renovation actions are e.g. BR-DSS
[30], REFLEX [42], and GENE_ARCH [27]. The BR-DSS tool can
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 171

Table 3
Sustainability objectives and criteria included in the reviewed tools.

Tool or Social sustainability Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability

authors

Gorgolewski Annual energy/operational cost

[18]
Gorgolewski Annual energy cost/operational cost, investment
[19] cost
EPIQR [20] Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) (humidity, Energy use (space heating, domestic hot water, Costs (tender price)
noise, thermal comfort, air quality and ventilation, boiler replacement, space cooling, artificial
lighting, safety and security, apartment utilities) lighting of shared spaces, insulation of heating
distribution pipes, use of thermostatic radiator
valves)
MEDIC [21] Global refurbishment cost
MCDM-23 Architectural quality, Indoor quality, Resource use, environmental loading Construction cost, annual energy cost, annual
[22] functionality maintenance cost
TOBUS [23] IEQ (thermal comfort, indoor air quality (humidity, Energy use (heating, cooling and ventilation, heat
pollutants, ventilation, lighting and noise)), for service hot water, lighting, equipment,
functional obsolescence (user needs, flexibility, electromechanical installations, water use)
divisibility, maintainability, compliance with
regulations)
ORME [24] Predicted percentage of dissatisfaction, outdoor Annual normalized energy use for heating, cooling
airflow rate per person, Noise level at working and other appliances, Normalized cost of building,
place Annual normalized carbon gas emission and
nuclear wastes emission
MOGA [25] Occupant thermal comfort Energy cost
GENE_ARCH Daylight and artificial lighting, architectural Annual energy consumption (heating, cooling, Construction costs
[26,27] aspects ventilation, illumination)
SST tool [28] Maximization of functionality (including human Minimization of environmental problems Minimization of costs
comfort and technological feasibility in the form of
reliability and controllability)
XENIOS [29] Environmental impact, energy demand for heating Investment cost
and cooling, water conservation
‘‘knapsack’’ Maximization of functionality Minimization of environmental problems Minimization of cost (investment cost)
model [17]
BR-DSS [30] Harmfulness to health, aesthetics, maintenance Cost, annual fuel economy, tentative pay-back
properties, functionality, comfortability, sound time
insulation, longevity
INVESTIMMO Investment costs and running costs
[31]
Multivariant Open, based on the use of various experts' Open, based on the use of various experts' Open, based on the use of various experts'
design [32] methods methods methods
Pushkar et al. Life cycle environmental impact (including
[33] heating, cooling, ventilation, and artificial lighting
energy needs or consumption, energy sources,
embodied impacts, maintenance impacts, end of
life impacts)
Wang et al. Life cycle environmental impact (Embodied Operational energy cost
[34] energy, energy needs or consumption for heating
and cooling, reduction of exergy consumption due
to pre-operation phase, reduction of exergy
consumption due to operation phase)
Wetter et al. Daylight and thermal comfort Annual energy consumption for lighting, cooling Cost
[35] and heating
BEPAS [36] Life cycle environmental impact (global warming
potential, ozone layer depletion potential,
acidification potential, eutrophication potential,
airborne suspended particles, solid waste,
photochemical smog potential, waterborne
toxicities, waterborne suspended substances,
water resources, fossil energy sources, metals and
rocks, lumber, heating, cooling, lighting, and
domestic hot water energy needs or consumption,
water consumption, embodied impacts, area of
green plantation, area of impermeable ground)
Juan et al. [37] Area, spatial needs, spatial flexibility, spatial Cost
relation, spatial form, and spatial size
Zavadskas Quality of life, increase of population's income, Degree of contamination, Soil fertility Material investments, foreign investments,
et al. [38] increase of sales in the area, increase of building redevelopment cost
employment, state of income from taxes, business
outlook, difficulties in changing purpose of site,
attractiveness of the countryside, population
activity index
Kaklauskas Comfort Technical and technological factors Market value, costs
et al. [39]
Cooling and heating loads
(continued on next page)
172 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181

Table 3 (continued )

Tool or Social sustainability Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability

authors

Znouda et al. Initial investment, installation, maintenance, and

[40] energy operating cost
Martinaitis Energy efficiency Investment cost
et al. [41]
REFLEX [42] Thermal comfort indices (winter and summer), Annual energy savings Investment costs, cumulated financial gain
indoor air quality, home friendliness, renovation
work inconveniences
Juan et al. [43] Usage (Spatial function, Plumbing, Interior Utility (Electricity Saver, Water Saver)
aesthetics), IEQ, health (indoor air quality, interior
finishes, electromagnetic control), safety
(Structural safety, precaution equipment, personal
safety), convenience (Equipment deterioration,
handicapped facility, Intelligent wiring system)
Verbeeck et al. Life cycle environmental impact (energy flows and
[45] global warming potential)
Diakaki et al. Energy consumption (space heating, cooling, Operational costs, initial investment cost
[46] domestic hot water (DHW) systems, electric
lighting), CO2 emissions
Juan et al. [47] IEQ (outdoor air introduction and exhaustion Energy efficiency (thermal and moisture
systems, tobacco and smoke control, indoor protection, HVAC and electric lighting, innovative
chemical and pollutant control, occupant comfort energy technology), Water efficiency (Water
and indoor air quality management) performance measurement, wastewater
Sustainable site (Exterior pavement improvement, technology, water use reduction, cooling tower
heat island reduction, greenery) water treatment)
Material and resources (storage and collection of
recyclables, sewage and garbage improvement)
Wang et al. Cultural aspects (historical value, artistic value, Environmental aspects (Site and situation, scenic/ Economic aspects (Potential market, financial
[48] conditions of integrity and/or authenticity) contextual value and the environmental effect, sources, subsidize, initial investment and
Architectural aspects (Physical condition of the land use plan or zoning, regional development necessary investment in future maintenance,
building, architectural character and evaluation, policies, potential environmental quality of the profits from market demand, benefits of
space gain and space change, structural analysis, surroundings) exemption)
technological value, materials and decorations of
the building, building code)
Social aspects (Compatibility of newly introduced
uses with existing, public interest, social value,
increasing public awareness, involvement, and
support, enhancing the role of communities)
Continuity aspects (Adequate protection and
management system, future change feasibility,
ecological and cultural sustainability)
Liu et al. [49] Energy efficiency of energy systems, energy Investment and operation costs
savings and emissions reductions
Li et al. [50] Life cycle environmental impact (global warming,
ozone exhausting, acidification, eutrophication,
airborne suspended particles, solid waste,
photochemical smog, waterborne toxicities,
waterborne suspended substances, water
depletion, fossil energy source depletion, other
depletion, disability adjusted life years)
Magnier et al. Thermal comfort Energy consumption
[51]
MAMVA, DSS- Value-based Value-based Value-based
CRP [52]
Crawford et al. Life cycle environmental impact of building
[44] construction assemblies
Total value Value-based Value-based Value-based
model [53]
MultiOpt [54] Thermal comfort Energy consumption, life-cycle environmental Construction cost
impact (global annual primary energy
consumption, ventilation energy consumption,
embodied CO2, CO2 emissions from global annual
primary energy consumption)
Tsai et al. [55] Reduce energy consumption and CO2 emission Investment costs
(CO2 emissions from global annual primary energy
consumption, maintenance works embodied CO2)
Bermejo et al. Thermal comfort
[56]
Euro. Retro. Expected quality of living, living costs before and Ecological footprint, primary energy need, Existing rent income, cost for repair or retrofit, cost
Advisor after renovation greenhouse gas emissions and ecological scarcity for demolition and reconstruction
[57]
Medineckiene Indoor environment Energy, materials, and chemicals
et al. [58]
Renobuild Social interaction, teamwork and meetings, “a Life cycle environmental impact (Global warming LCC (investment costs, reinvestment, and
[59] cohesive city” (variety of apartments of different potential, global warming potential payback replacements, running management and
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 173

Table 3 (continued )

Tool or Social sustainability Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability

authors

sizes, variation in rent levels, variation in forms of period, accumulated environmental impact over maintenance, energy costs, rental income and loss
ownership, accommodation suited to special the whole life cycle (production, transportation, of rental income)
needs), Well-functioning everyday life, identity use, end of life treatment))
and experience, health and green urban
environments, safety, security and openness
RENO-EVALUE Value-based Value-based Value-based
[60]

Table 4
Methods used for weighting criteria.

Name of tool Year Authors/developers Weighting method

MCDM-23 2000 Balcomb et al. [22] Analytic Hierarchy Process

ORME 2002 Roulet et al. [24] Not specified
SST tool 2003 Alanne et al. [28] The Grading method
‘‘knapsack’’ model 2004 Alanne [17] The Grading method
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas et al. [30] Not specified
Multivariant design 2005 Kaklauskas et al. [32] Not specified
2006 Juan et al. [37] Analytic Hierarchy Process
2007 Zavadskas et al. [38] Presents individual weighting method
OLSC 2007 Kaklauskas et al. [39] Presents individual weighting method
2009 Juan et al. [43] Analytic Hierarchy Process
2010 Wang et al. [48] Analytic Hierarchy Process
MAMVA, DSS-CRP 2011 Kanapeckiene et al. [52] Not specified
Euro. retro. advisor 2014 Zimmermann [57] Not specified (Value based)
2014 Medineckiene et al. [58] Analytic Hierarchy Process

Table 5
Methods and data used for registration of the existing building.

Name of tool Year Authors/ Building Method for registration Other data
developers type

EPIQR 2000 Jaggs and Apartment Occupant questionnaire (experienced indoor Records of energy consumption
Palmer [20] environmental quality),
Checklist, problems within the building (occupants),
Checklist, energy audit (Auditor)
TOBUS 2002 Flourentzou Office Checklist, building structure and services (building manager
et al. [23] and technical staff)
Questionnaire, comfort and complaints (occupants)
Checklist (auditor)
XENIOS 2004 Dascalaki et al. Hotel Building audit, deterioration assessment (auditor with
[29] users)
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas e Questionnaire (optional) Economic information (financial databases) (optional)
et al. [30] General facts about the building (deterioration and
obsolescence)
Conceptual information (digital/numerical, textual,
graphical, diagrams, graphs and drawing, etc.),
photographic, sound, visual (video)) (optional)
INVESTIMMO 2004 Droutsa et al. Residential EPIQR building audit (plus local and urban neighborhood
[31] quality, environmental impact of buildings and building
products, necessary resources for the building life cycle,
upgrading and maintenance potential, the cultural
perceptions, rental market nature and evolution)
REFLEX 2007 Pasanisi et al. Residential Description of the existing building
[42] Customer wishes and constraints
(expected reduction of the energy consumption, maximal
budget, unwished systems and materials, a minimal number
of data concerning the house: the dwelling type, age,
number of floors, area, energy used for the heating and
domestic hot water)
2009 Juan et al. Housing On-line basic assessment questionnaire (physical and
[43] functional conditions)
2010 Juan et al. Office User survey
[47]
Euro. Retro. 2014 Zimmermann Residential Building type
Advisor [57] apartment Building data (heated floor area, plot size, attractiveness of
location, energy consumption, rents, site value, construction
costs)
Actual state of building
Repair, retrofit or reconstruction needs
174 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
Table 6
Tools which suggest renovation actions or generate design alternatives.
Name of tool Year Authors/developers
EPIQR 2000 Jaggs and Palmer [20]
TOBUS 2002 Flourentzou et al. [23]
GENE_ARCH 2002 Caldas et al. [26,27]
SST tool 2003 Alanne et al. [28]
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas et al. [30]
Multivariant design 2005 Kaklauskas et al. [32]
2007 Znouda et al. [40]
REFLEX 2007 Pasanisi et al. [42]
2009 Juan et al. [43]
2010 Diakaki et al. [46]
2010 Juan et al. [47]
2010 Liu et al. [49]
2010 Magnier et al. [51]
generate multiple renovation scenarios using the method for a
multi-variant design [32], which are then checked for their capacity
to meet the requirements of the specific project. The intention of
the software is to select the best possible scenarios based on the
initial data inputs [30]. A multi-criteria analysis of the components
of the renovation project is performed, and the most efficient ver-
sions are selected. The evaluation of the alternatives is made based
on conceptual and quantitative information collected at the
building diagnosis. In that way, conceptual, or qualitative, infor-
mation is considered; however, it is however not directly integrated
into the tool.
In REFLEX, renovation solutions are generated on the basis of a
detailed description of an existing house. A multi-criteria analysis
finds the best variants of the renovation for each element of the
building, depending on the criteria for the individual element.
Hereafter, possible combinations are explored using maximum
budget and required improvement of energy efficiency as con-
straints, defined by the user.
GENE_ARCH is an evolution based generative design system
which uses adaption to generate architectural form. The intention
of the system is to generate complete building designs, including
geometry, spatial layout, construction materials, internal finishes,
types and characteristics of the window and glazing systems, and
even mechanical and electrical installations [27]. GENE_ARCH has
been applied to problems where the geometry has been generated
based on parameters set by the user and in situations where the
geometry is fixed, which imitates the situation of a renovation
where a building already exists, and the modifications of shape and
orientation are limited. In each of the examples, the use of
GENE_ARCH has been simplified, e.g. generating alternative façade
solutions for an existing building, where trade-offs between
architectural design intentions, natural lighting, and energy per-
formance guide the generation of façade solutions [27].
GENE_ARCH differs from the rest of the tools subject to this review
as it actively includes architectural quality as a parameter for
automatic generation of design alternatives. Using an expert sys-
tem for generating architectural solutions can open up the solution
space, and in that way serve as a support for the architect. Also, it
could substantiate an integrated design process, in which technical
aspects are considered and included at an early stage and where
they have the greatest impact. This idea of using algorithms for
form-finding or form-making, having multiple parameters
informing the design outcomes, verge on the paradigms of para-
metric or generative design. However, as these are mainly used as
design methods within the field of architecture and as the concept
of sustainable building design is broader than just architectural
quality, it would be extremely complicated to encompass all aspects
into just one tool or algorithm.
Approach
Suggests renovation actions
Suggests renovation actions
Generates building geometry or elements on fixed building geometry
(facade design, window sizing, shading systems or construction materials)
Formulate all workable combinations of renovation actions
Provides recommendations
Makes up to 100,000 renovation alternative versions
Develops renovation alternatives
Generates architectural solutions
Generates retrofit solutions (energy and economy)
Provides actions based on priority
Provides solutions according to preferences
Provides solutions according to preferences
Design of energy system
Provides solutions according to preferences
3.5. Estimate performance of design alternatives
Simulation tools can be put to use, ranging from simple eco-
nomic and energy calculations and rough estimates to complex and
comprehensive simulations in order to estimate the performance of
the project specific measures.
Out of the reviewed tools, 84% deal with this aspect in different
ways (Table 7). The tools can be divided into two groups: the ones
connected to external simulation or calculation programs and the
ones with an integrated simulation or calculation module.
Furthermore, multiple tools use different types of genetic algo-
rithms (GAs) for searching and optimization purposes.
28% of the tools are connected to external simulation software.
Gorgolewski [18] used the BREDEM 8 model for predicting annual
energy consumption of an existing flat and predicted space-heating
savings in housing by using TAS software [19]. The GENE_ARCH
system [27] combines a GA as a search engine with DOE2.1E
building energy simulation software as the evaluation module.
MCDM-23 [22] uses ENERGY-10 to estimate hour-by-hour energy
performance. Liu et al. [49] use TRNYS and combine a simulation-
based Artificial Neural Network with a multiobjective GA (NSGA-
II) for optimization. MultiOpt [80] is based on existing software and
methods and also uses a GA coupled to TRNSYS, as well as economic
and environmental databases.
Examples of tools which have a calculation module inherent are
EPIQR and TOBUS, performing a simplified energy balance calcu-
lation based on EN-832 [81], along with cooling energy calculations
based on the balance point method [77]. Wetter and Polak [35]
propose a simulation-precision control algorithm and present a
new building energy and daylighting simulation program.
21% of the reviewed tools include a life cycle assessment (LCA),
and 16% include a life cycle cost (LCC) approach. LCA is a recognized
analytical method for assessing the environmental impacts of
products or services from a cradle-to-cradle perspective [82,83]. An
example of an LCA-based decision support tool is BEPAS, which
aims to assess the environmental performance of a new or existing
building, investigating aspects of building facilities, construction
materials, and location [36]. Crawford et al. [44] present a
comprehensive framework for assessing the life-cycle energy of
building construction assemblies.
LCC is a method for analyzing costs related to a product during
its life cycle, including costs both related to initial investment and
operation. Juan et al. [68] present a decision support system for
housing condition assessment and refurbishment strategies, using
genetic algorithms to analyze the trade-offs between cost and
quality, where LCC is used to calculate the cost score for considered
renovation actions.
The multi-objective optimization model presented by Wang
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 175

Table 7
Tools that include the aspect of performance estimation.

Name of tool Year Authors/ External simulation, calculation or analysis Integrated simulation, calculation or Search, Optimization or
developers analysis module ranking technique(s)

1995 Gorgolewski BREDEM 8 TAS (Thermal simulation) LCC (Life Cycle Cost)
[18]
1996 Gorgolewski TAS (Thermal simulation) LCC
[19]
EPIQR 2000 Jaggs and Energy balance calculation
Palmer [20] Cost analysis for individual building
elements
MEDIC 2000 Flourentzou Calculates remaining lifespan of building
et al. [21] elements
MCDM-23 2000 Balcomb et al. ENERGY-10 LCC
[22]
TOBUS 2002 Flourentzou Energy balance calculation
et al. [23] Cost analysis for individual building
elements
MOGA 2002 Wright et al. Energy cost GA (Genetic Algorithm)
[25]
GENE_ARCH 2002 Caldas et al. DOE2.1E building energy simulation software GA
[26,27]
SST tool 2003 Alanne et al.
[28]
ORME 2002 Roulet et al. ELECTRE family algorithms
[24] (ELECTRE III and VI)
XENIOS 2004 Dascalaki et al. Energy balance calculation
[29] Installation cost
payback period
BR-DSS 2004 Zavadskas Not specified Not specified Not specified
et al. [30]
INVESTIMMO 2004 Droutsa et al. LCC
[31]
Variable 2005 Pushkar et al. EnergyPlus LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) GA
grouping [33]
2005 Wang et al. LCA LCC GA
[34]
2005 Wetter et al. Building energy and daylighting Simulation-precision control
[35] simulation algorithm
Multivariant 2005 Kaklauskas Multivariant design and multiple criteria
design et al. [32] analysis
BEPAS 2006 Zhang et al. LCA
[36]
2006 Juan et al. [37] Cost GA, case-based reasoning
2007 Zavadskas Fuzzy method of multiple-criteria
et al. [38] complex proportional evaluation
OLSC 2007 Kaklauskas Determining the utility degree and
et al. [39] market value of alternatives,
Method of multiple criteria complex
proportional assessment (COPRAS)
2007 Znouda et al. Thermal evaluation (CHEOPS), GA
[40] Costs (initial investment, installation,
maintenance, and energy operating cost)
2007 Martinaitis Costs, energy efficiency
et al. [41]
REFLEX 2007 Pasanisi et al. EDF-R&D SimFast
[42]
2009 Juan et al. [43] LCC GA
2010 Crawford et al. LCA for building construction assemblies
[44]
2010 Diakaki et al. Costs, energy savings
[46]
2010 Juan et al. [47] Design Advisor (Energy performance including energy GA and zero-one goal
consumption, life cycle energy cost, and CO2 emissions) programming, A* search
algorithm
2010 Verbeeck et al. LCA, LCI (life cycle inventory) GA
[45]
2010 Liu et al. [49] TRNSYS simulations LCA GA (NSGA-II), Artificial Neural
Network
2010 Li et al. [50] LCA
2010 Magnier et al. TRNSYS simulations GA (NSGA-II), Artificial Neural
[51] Network
MAMVA, 2011 Kanapeckiene Market value assessment
DSS-CRP et al. [52]
MultiOpt 2011 Chantrelle TRNSYS simulations GA (NSGA-II)
et al. [54]
(continued on next page)
176 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
Table 7 (continued )
Name of tool Year Authors/ External simulation, calculation or analysis
developers
2011 Tsai et al. [55]
2012 Bermejo et al.
[56]
Renobuild 2014 Mjo€rnell et al.
[59]
et al. [34], and the method for evaluating different renovation al-
ternatives presented by Mjo € rnell et al. [59], include both LCA and
LCC. Including LCA and LCC calculation modules in decision support
tools is an interesting approach regarding environmental and
economic sustainability aspects. However, as LCA primarily is used
for assessment or certification, it might be included in a simplified
way to be used actively in the design process.
Genetic algorithms were used in several tools for searching and
optimization purposes. The concept of genetic algorithms was
created by John Holland [84] and takes its origin in Darwin's theory
of evolution, using stochastic search techniques based on the
mechanism of natural selection and natural genetics [85]. Potential
solutions to a problem are represented as a population of chro-
mosomes, and each chromosome represents a possible solution.
The chromosomes evolve through successive generations;
offspring chromosomes are created by merging two parent chro-
mosomes using a random crossover mutation. During each gener-
ation, the performances of the chromosomes are evaluated to the
fitness functions, and fitter chromosomes have higher chances of
survival. After several generations, chromosomes may be close to
identical, and the final chromosomes hopefully represent the
optimal or near-optimal solution to a problem [85].
Wright et al. [25] use a multi-objective GA for investigating the
pay-off between an HVAC system energy cost and occupant ther-
mal comfort to inform the building design process. Juan et al. [37]
use a hybrid approach combining case-based reasoning and GA.
Znouda et al. [40] propose an optimization algorithm that couples
GAs with a simplified tool for building thermal evaluation to
minimize energy consumption in Mediterranean buildings. They
also propose using GAs for the purpose of economic optimization.
3.6. Evaluation of design alternatives
At this stage, different renovation scenarios can be assessed
quantitatively and qualitatively, based on the criteria for the
particular project. If the goal is to certify the building, a building
sustainability assessment is performed. A majority of the tools
explicitly include the step of evaluation of renovation alternatives
where the potential alternatives are evaluated against the project
objectives. Evaluation is usually done continuously throughout the
design process, e.g. evaluation of simulation results, calculations or
aesthetic quality. Therefore, it can be argued that the aspect of
evaluation is implicitly inherent in all the tools included in this
Table 8
Tools that provide explicit guidelines for evaluation of design alternatives.
Name of tool Year Authors/ Evaluation approach
developers
‘‘knapsack’’ 2004 Alanne [17] A list of questions is provided to the evaluator.
model
2010 Wang et al. [48] Propose basic evaluation questions regarding reuse of historic buildings.
Total Value 2011 Plan C [53] Provides suggestions for questions, activities, and tools to use in the evaluation of potential solutions.
Model
Renobuild 2014 Mjo€ rnell et al. Renovation alternatives are evaluated from environmental, economic and social perspectives.
[59]
RENO-EVALUE 2015 Jensen et al. [60] The finished design is evaluated based on a simple spider-web diagram, reflecting the expectations and success criteria of the
involved stakeholders.
Integrated simulation, calculation or Search, Optimization or
analysis module ranking technique(s)
LCA
Thermal comfort simulation
LCA, LCC, Social Life Cycle Analysis
review as the results provided by the tools will always be inter-
preted and evaluated by one or more building experts. However,
the tools represented in Table 8 include the aspect of evaluating
design alternatives by providing explicit guidelines for the evalu-
ation procedure.
Common is the fact that final choices are made based on an
individual's or group's knowledge and experience. Having stated
the project objectives clearly at the beginning entails a more effi-
cient evaluation. Furthermore, if this is done in a systematic way,
the objectives can serve as a design tool for evaluation throughout
the design process.
The methodology presented by Mjo €rnell et al. [59], provides a
framework for evaluation of renovation alternatives based on
economic, environmental and social sustainability aspects, with
special emphasis on integrating social sustainability aspects into
building renovation [86]. In similarity with RENO-EVALUE [60], the
evaluation framework presented by Mjo €rnell et al. [59] provides a
visual representation of the results to make it easier for the
decision-maker to interpret the evaluation results. High-quality,
sustainable design solutions include expert knowledge from mul-
tiple different professional fields. Therefore, it is important to have
in mind that one tool should not strive to take over the role of
building experts and advisors, or the tools they use in their
particular field, but merely serve as an aid to managing the
complexity of the decisions throughout the design process.
4. Perspectives on future development
Making tools freely available can ensure equal access to the
necessary knowledge and contribute to a more transparent work
process. This has been intended for several of the tools reviewed,
but only a few of them were available online at the time of this
review. This can be because the projects in which the tools have
been developed have closed down, the website has been closed, or
maybe for commercial reasons. Furthermore, comprehensive tools
that depend on up-to-date databases that follow the present reg-
ulations or prices to perform calculations need to be updated
continuously in order to be useful. This substantiates the need for
developing simplified tools that are flexible enough to meet the
changing demands of sustainable building design. One way to meet
these demands could be connecting decision support tools to
existing databases and systems.
Sustainability assessment methods such as e.g. BREEAM, LEED,
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 177

Fig. 4. Suggestion of modules, their interrelations and related actions for future decision support tools for sustainable renovation of one or multiple buildings.

CASBEE, and DGNB have been adapted to renovation purposes,
enabling certification of renovated buildings. Integrating the prin-
ciples from the local sustainability assessment methods, such as
DGNB-DK in Denmark, in a simplified way, could support the
decision-making process in the pre-design stage, and in that way,
the criteria could provide a direction for the building diagnosis.
Following the ideas of sustainability assessment methods when
developing decision support tools for renovation could be a
relevant option as this would strengthen the common aims of
sustainability in the building industry locally. On the other side,
developing tools independently of existing assessment methods
might induce more innovative solutions.
Cooperation and communication between stakeholders in
construction projects is a subject out of scope for this review, but
culture and traditions naturally have a significant impact on how
the involved actors communicate. Introducing new tools can be
178 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
seen as a burden since there are already a great variety of tools
available and learning new systems takes time and effort. One
suggestion could be to combine existing concepts in a structured
way, which can then serve as a support for decision makers and not
as a burden.
4.1. Renovation of multiple buildings
Dealing with the renovation of multiple buildings is a relevant
matter, e.g. for municipalities and housing associations. Here the
first step in the decision process, besides decisions made on a po-
litical level, can be which buildings to renovate and in which order,
or which renovation actions to prioritize within the building
portfolio, e.g. update specific functionalities within one specific
building typology. Of the reviewed tools, EPIQR [20], TOBUS [75],
INVESTIMMO [31] and MEDIC [21] are specifically aimed towards
multiple buildings. They provide a model for performing a diag-
nosis of the existing buildings that seeks to be as efficient as
possible time-wise and, at the same time, provide the necessary
information concerning degradation of building elements and
occupant satisfaction. However, one downside to the EPIQR soft-
ware is that it depends on local databases, which are not accessible
in all local contexts and, therefore, only some aspects of the method
can be used in that case. The aspect of setting objectives within a
larger building portfolio can be approached in the same way as with
a single building. Here, however, it is relevant to include that a
model could be generic to support in prioritizing actions within
different building typologies, or it could be designed specifically for
one building type, e.g. school buildings. Choosing between existing
buildings demands that the values and objectives of the decision
makers are clearly defined, or there is a chance that the evaluation
will be vague and unsystematic. For this purpose, the methods for
goal setting presented in this review can be useful. One tool which
is interesting in this regard is the Office Building Rating Method-
ology (ORME) [24], which aims to rate and rank office buildings and
renovation scenarios of the same building according to an extended
list of pre-defined parameters, using ELECTRE algorithms. This
approach could be adapted to fit the necessary objectives in the
individual case, whether criteria are based on existing assessment
methods or case-specific criteria defined by the decision makers.
4.2. Roadmap for future development
Based on the findings in the review, the authors suggest that the
following modules are considered when developing decision sup-
port tools for sustainable renovation of one or multiple buildings:
Fig. 5. Percentage of tools in each category.
 A Goal Setting Module containing the aspects of setting sus-
tainability goals, choosing and weighting criteria. The criteria
can be adapted from existing sustainability assessment methods
or based on project-specific criteria.
 A Registration Module providing a method and a platform for
registration of the existing building(s). Existing databases are
used to make the registration less time-consuming and ensure a
sufficient level of information.
 If dealing with multiple buildings, it is suggested to include a
Ranking Module where the buildings are ranked in relation to
their renovation need. (It should be possible to focus on indi-
vidual elements so as to get a prioritized list of renovation
actions.)
 A Recommendation Module providing recommendations for
renovation actions based on the sustainability criteria and
registration information defined in the Goal Setting Module and
the Registration Module.
 An Evaluation Module providing the option of evaluating the
design during the design process or assess the finished design in
relation to the sustainability goals.
Fig. 4 shows the modules with their interrelations and related
actions. The suggested modules are specifically focused on reno-
vation of existing buildings, but some elements could serve as
inspiration in the development of decision support tools for
designing new buildings as well, e.g. the Goal Setting and Sugges-
tion Modules.
5. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to provide a state-of-the-art overview
of the development of decision support tools applicable in the pre-
design and design phase of renovation projects in order to identify
areas for future research. Six areas where decision support tools can
substantiate the renovation process have been identified. The tools
have been categorized and discussed in relation to these areas. An
overview of the percentage of tools in each category is shown in
Fig. 5. This review has shown that there has been a continuous
development of decision support tools for renovation since the
mid-1990s, varying in methodological approach, complexity, and
sustainability objectives. The criteria encompassed in the 43
reviewed tools have been divided into the categories of social,
environmental, and economic quality, showing that 40% of the
reviewed tools include criteria from all three categories. 81% of the
tools included environmental criteria, 72% included economic
criteria, and 63% included social criteria.
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
The aspect of Goal Setting is included in 21% of the tools. Even
though it is essential to set the appropriate sustainability goals,
only 5% of the reviewed tools provide a model for determining
objectives and choosing criteria for the project. Both RENO-EVALUE
and the Total Value Model provide a checklist that seeks to entail
dialogue among the stakeholders in order to establish a common
ground and point of departure for the project. The predefined
criteria for RENO-EVALUE and the objectives in the Total Value
Model seek a broad and holistic approach to sustainability and
provide checklists to ensure that all aspects are included at an early
stage. The development of methods and guidelines for setting goals
and choosing criteria for sustainable renovation is recommended as
an area for future research.
The most used weighting method within this review is AHP, in
which criteria are compared pair-wise, subjectively determining
their relative importance. AHP has been widely used in the building
industry but has been criticized by e.g. Arroyo [70]. The authors
suggest comparing weighting methods for use in the pre-design
phase of sustainable renovation projects as a relevant subject for
future research.
21% of the tools provide guidelines and specific methods for the
aspect of registration and collecting data about the existing building
and its deterioration state. The methods and the type and amount of
data to be collected do not differ much, and often the time used for
registration and data collection is sought minimized while still being
sufficient. Looking towards existing methods for performing the
building diagnosis is relevant in the development of new decision
support tools for building renovation. Furthermore, existing
methods such as the Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) [87], the
evaluation tool Design Quality Indicator (DQI) [88] or the Surveys of
Architectural Value in the Environment method (SAVE) [89] could be
integrated into future decision support tools to assess the current
state of one or more buildings, depending on the objectives of the
individual renovation project, function, and building typology.
The approach to generating design alternatives vary among the
reviewed tools; some suggest renovation actions based on the state
of the current building and its elements while others compute
design solutions. Both approaches could be relevant for investiga-
tion to a further extent in future research, and integrating gener-
ative design methods in building renovation indeed has potential.
However, this aspect might be slightly out of scope in the devel-
opment of decision support tools for renovation and might belong
in the architects' toolbox.
The tools supporting performance estimation are heavily rep-
resented by 84%, possibly because these are the areas where IT
solutions can support the design process regarding simulation and
calculation. Computers can provide calculation power and allow
continuous evaluation of design alternatives through simulations.
GAs have been utilized by multiple of the reviewed tools for opti-
mization purposes, imitating the process of natural selection. Using
GAs provide a method for searching the solution space and evaluate
the fitness of solution in relation to the given parameters.
The aspect of evaluation is explicitly represented in 12% of the
tools. It is difficult to isolate the evaluation step as this is implicitly
inherent throughout the process, e.g. in the evaluation of simula-
tion results or internal design iterations. Furthermore, it is a chal-
lenge to automate the evaluation process and it will always be
dependent on human evaluation.
The authors suggest the following areas for future research in
relation to the development of decision support tools for sustain-
able building renovation:
 The aspect of setting sustainability goals and choosing criteria
should be emphasized in the development of future decision
support tools.
179
 Guidelines or models for building diagnosis should be provided,
systemizing the registration and data collected with regard to
the existing building. Existing methods could be adapted and
integrated into new tools or methods.
 Tools should be flexible with regard to choosing and/or
weighting criteria. In that way, using criteria and weights from
sustainability assessment methods is an option.
 The choice of AHP as a preferred weighting method should be
challenged in comparison to other relevant weighting methods,
testing their applicability in the pre-design phase of renovation
projects.
 It should be considered to make tools freely available online as
this could improve knowledge-sharing and make the process
more transparent for the involved stakeholders.
 New tools could be connected to existing databases, facility
management systems, simulation tools, calculation tools and
BIM models to the extent it is advantageous.
 Instead of focusing on developing single, comprehensive tools,
combining existing methods and tools could be beneficial.
 New tools aimed towards helping professional building owners
manage renovation decisions in larger building portfolios is of
high relevance and should be considered.
References
[1] A.R. Pearce, Y.H. Ahn, HanmiGlobal, Sustainable Buildings and Infrastructure.
Routledge, Taylor& Francis Group, 2012.
[2] European Parliament, Directive 2002/91/EC of the European parliament and of
the council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, Off.
J. Eur. Union (2002) 65e71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/ap9842100196.
[3] European Commission, Europe 2020 e Europe's Growth Strategy, 2010, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.010.
[4] R. Ramírez-Villegas, O. Eriksson, T. Olofsson, Assessment of renovation mea-
sures for a dwelling area - impacts on energy efficiency and building certifi-
cation, Build. Environ. 97 (2016) 26e33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2015.12.012.
[5] Energistyrelsen, Denmark's National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP),
2014. Denmark.
[6] The Danish Government, Strategi for Energirenovering Af Bygninger, 2014.
[7] G.K.C. Ding, Sustainable constructionethe role of environmental assessment
tools, J. Environ. Manag. 86 (2008) 451e464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
[8] J. Markelj, M.K. Kuzman, M. Zbasnik-Senega cnik, A review of building sus-
tainability, Archit. Res. (2013) 22e31.
[9] J. Zuo, Z.-Y. Zhao, Green building researchecurrent status and future agenda: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30 (2014) 271e281, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021.
[10] S.H. Alyami, Y. Rezgui, Sustainable building assessment tool development
approach, Sustain. Cities Soc. 5 (2012) 52e62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2012.05.004.
[11] L. Thuvander, P. Femenías, K. Mjo €rnell, P. Meiling, Unveiling the process of
sustainable renovation, Sustainability 4 (2012) 1188e1213, http://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/su4061188.
[12] S. Mancik, J. Ruzicka, Assessment Tool for Renovations ReSBToolCZ. CESB 2013
PRAGUE e Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 2013: Sustainable
Building and Refurbishment for Next Generations, Czech Technical University
in Prague, 2013, pp. 713e716.
[13] S.D. Pohekar, M. Ramachandran, Application of multi-criteria decision making
to sustainable energy planning - a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 8
(2004) 365e381, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007.
[14] D. Kolokotsa, C. Diakaki, E. Grigoroudis, G. Stavrakakis, K. Kalaitzakis, Decision
support methodologies on the energy efficiency and energy management in
buildings, Adv. Build. Energy Res. 3 (2009) 121e146, http://dx.doi.org/
10.3763/aber.2009.0305.
[15] J. Ferreira, M.D. Pinheiro, Brito J de. Refurbishment decision support tools
reviewdEnergy and life cycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment
projects, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1453e1460, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.06.082.
[16] M.H. Bazerman, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 1998. New York.
[17] K. Alanne, Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria “knapsack”
model, Autom. Constr. 13 (2004) 377e391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2003.12.004.
[18] M. Gorgolewski, Optimising renovation strategies for energy conservation in
housing, Build. Environ. 30 (1995) 583e589, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-
1323(95)00011-T.
[19] M. Gorgolewski, P.C. Grindley, S.D. Probert, Energy-efficient renovation of
high-rise housing, Appl. Energy 53 (1996) 365e382, http://dx.doi.org/
180 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181
10.1016/0306-2619(95)00067-4.
[20] M. Jaggs, J. Palmer, Energy performance indoor environmental quality retrofit
- a European diagnosis and decision making method for building refurbish-
ment, Energy Build. 31 (2000) 97e101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7788(99)00023-7.
[21] F. Flourentzou, E. Brandt, C. Wetzel, MEDIC - a method for predicting residual
service life and refurbishment investment budgets, Energy Build. 31 (2000)
167e170, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(99)00031-6.
[22] Balcomb JD, Curtner a. Multi-criteria decision-making process for buildings.
Collection of Technical Papers 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engi-
neering Conference and Exhibit (IECEC) (Cat No00CH37022) 2000;1. doi:
10.1109/IECEC.2000.870762.
[23] F. Flourentzou, J.L. Genre, C.A. Roulet, TOBUS software - an interactive decision
aid tool for building retrofit studies, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 193e202, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00108-6.
[24] C.-A. Roulet, F. Flourentzou, H.H. Labben, M. Santamouris, I. Koronaki,
E. Dascalaki, et al., ORME: a multicriteria rating methodology for buildings,
Build. Environ. 37 (2002) 579e586, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(02)
00005-7.
[25] J.A. Wright, H.A. Loosemore, R. Farmani, Optimization of building thermal
design and control by multi-criterion genetic algorithm, Energy Build. 34
(2002) 959e972, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00071-3.
[26] L.G. Caldas, L.K. Norford, A design optimization tool based on a genetic al-
gorithm, Autom. Constr. 11 (2002) 173e184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0926-5805(00)00096-0.
[27] L. Caldas, Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions applying
GENE_ARCH: an evolution-based generative design system, Adv. Eng. Inf. 22
(2008) 59e70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2007.08.012.
[28] K. Alanne, K. Klobut, A decision-making tool to support integration of sus-
tainable technologies in refurbishment projects, Build. Simul. Eindhovenne-
therl. (2003) 55e62.
[29] E. Dascalaki, C.A. Balaras, XENIOSda methodology for assessing refurbish-
ment scenarios and the potential of application of RES and RUE in hotels,
Energy Build. 36 (2004) 1091e1105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2004.03.007.
[30] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, A. Gulbinas, Multiple criteria decision support
web-based system for building refurbishment, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 10 (2004)
77e85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13923730.2004.9636289.
[31] K. Droutsa, C.A. Balaras, European Residential Building Audits Database, 2004,
pp. 1e18.
[32] A. Kaklauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, S. Raslanas, Multivariant design and multiple
criteria analysis of building refurbishments, Energy Build. 37 (2005) 361e372,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.07.005.
[33] S. Pushkar, R. Becker, A. Katz, A methodology for design of environmentally
optimal buildings by variable grouping, Build. Environ. 40 (2005) 1126e1139,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.09.004.
[34] W. Wang, R. Zmeureanu, H. Rivard, Applying multi-objective genetic algo-
rithms in green building design optimization, Build. Environ. 40 (2005)
1512e1525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.11.017.
[35] M. Wetter, E. Polak, Building design optimization using a convergent pattern
search algorithm with adaptive precision simulations, Energy Build. 37 (2005)
603e612, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.09.005.
[36] Z. Zhang, X. Wu, X. Yang, Y. Zhu, BEPAS - a life cycle building environmental
performance assessment model, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 669e675, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.028.
[37] Y.-K. Juan, S.-G. Shih, Y.-H. Perng, Decision support for housing customization:
a hybrid approach using case-based reasoning and genetic algorithm, Expert
Syst. Appl. 31 (2006) 83e93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.09.010.
[38] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, Multiple criteria evaluation of rural build-
ing's regeneration alternatives, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 436e451, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001.
[39] A. Kaklauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, V. Trinkunas, A multiple criteria decision sup-
port on-line system for construction, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 20 (2007)
163e175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.06.009.
[40] E. Znouda, N. Ghrab-Morcos, A. Hadj-Alouane, Optimization of Mediterranean
building design using genetic algorithms, Energy Build. 39 (2007) 148e153,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.11.015.
[41] V. Martinaitis, E. Kazakevi cius, A. Vitkauskas, A two-factor method for
appraising building renovation and energy efficiency improvement projects,
Energy Policy 35 (2007) 192e201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2005.11.003.
[42] A. Pasanisi, J. Ojalvo, A multi-criteria decision tool to improve the energy ef-
ficiency of residential buildings, Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 33 (2007) 71e82.
[43] Y.-K. Juan, J.H. Kim, K. Roper, D. Castro-Lacouture, GA-based decision support
system for housing condition assessment and refurbishment strategies,
Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 394e401, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2008.10.006.
[44] R.H. Crawford, I. Czerniakowski, R.J. Fuller, A comprehensive framework for
assessing the life-cycle energy of building construction assemblies, Archit. Sci.
Rev. 53 (2010) 288e296, http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2010.0020.
[45] G. Verbeeck, H. Hens, Life cycle inventory of buildings: a calculation method,
Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 1037e1041, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2009.10.012.
[46] C. Diakaki, E. Grigoroudis, N. Kabelis, D. Kolokotsa, K. Kalaitzakis,
G. Stavrakakis, A multi-objective decision model for the improvement of
energy efficiency in buildings, Energy 35 (2010) 5483e5496, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.012.
[47] Y.-K. Juan, P. Gao, J. Wang, A hybrid decision support system for sustainable
office building renovation and energy performance improvement, Energy
Build. 42 (2010) 290e297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.09.006.
[48] H.-J. Wang, Z.-T. Zeng, A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse
selection of historic buildings, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 1241e1249, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.034.
[49] P. Liu, E.N. Pistikopoulos, Z. Li, An energy systems engineering approach to the
optimal design of energy systems in commercial buildings, Energy Policy 38
(2010) 4224e4231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.051.
[50] X. Li, Y. Zhu, Z. Zhang, An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model
for construction processes, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 766e775, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.010.
[51] L. Magnier, F. Haghighat, Multiobjective optimization of building design using
TRNSYS simulations, genetic algorithm, and Artificial Neural Network, Build.
Environ. 45 (2010) 739e746, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2009.08.016.
[52] L. Kanapeckiene, A. Kaklauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, S. Raslanas, Method and sys-
tem for Multi-Attribute Market Value Assessment in analysis of construction
and retrofit projects, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 14196e14207, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.232.
[53] H. Blinkilde, N.-A. Jensen, S. Kongebro, T.P. Pedersen, J. Rasmussen, J. Runge, et
al., Totalvaerdimodellen, 2011.
[54] F.P. Chantrelle, H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, Mankibi M. El, P. Michel, Development
of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Appl. Energy
88 (2011) 1386e1394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.002.
[55] W.-H. Tsai, S.-J. Lin, J.-Y. Liu, W.-R. Lin, K.-C. Lee, Incorporating life cycle as-
sessments into building project decision-making: an energy consumption and
CO2 emission perspective, Energy 36 (2011) 3022e3029, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.046.
[56] P. Bermejo, L. Redondo, L. de la Ossa, D. Rodríguez, J. Flores, C. Urea, et al.,
Design and simulation of a thermal comfort adaptive system based on fuzzy
logic and on-line learning, Energy Build. 49 (2012) 367e379, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.032.
[57] M. Z. Industrial Energy Efficient Retrofitting of Resident Buildings in Cold
Climates D3.6 European Retrofit Advisor. 2014.
[58] M. Medineckiene, E.K. Zavadskas, F. Bjo €rk, Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria decision-
making system for sustainable building assessment/certification, Arch. Civ.
Mech. Eng. 15 (2015) 11e18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2014.09.001.
[59] K. Mjo €rnell, A. Boss, M. Lindahl, S. Molnar, A tool to evaluate different reno-
vation alternatives with regard to sustainability, Sustain. Switz. 6 (2014)
4227e4245, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6074227.
[60] P.A. Jensen, E. Maslesa, Value based building renovation e a tool for decision-
making and evaluation, Build. Environ. 92 (2015) 1e9, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.008.
[61] I.A. Andresen, Multi-criteria Decision-making Method for Solar Building
Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2000.
[62] H.J. Wang, Z.T. Zeng, A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse
selection of historic buildings, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 1241e1249, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.034.
[63] J.D. Balcomb, A. Curtner, Multi-criteria decision-making process for buildings,
in: Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Confer-
ence, vol. 1, IEEE, 2000, pp. 528e535.
[64] United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, vol. 19,
1992, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S037689290003157X.
[65] J.J. Wang, Y.Y. Jing, C.F. Zhang, J.H. Zhao, Review on multi-criteria decision
analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 13 (2009) 2263e2278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
[68] Y.K. Juan, J.H. Kim, K. Roper, D. Castro-Lacouture, GA-based decision support
system for housing condition assessment and refurbishment strategies,
Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 394e401, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2008.10.006.
[70] P. Arroyo, I.D. Tommelein, G. Ballard, Comparing AHP and CBA as decision
methods to resolve the choosing problem in detailed design, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 141 (2014) 04014063, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000915.
[71] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 48 (1990) 9e26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
[72] T.L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, Int. J. Serv. Sci.
1 (2008) 83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
[73] P.A. Jensen, E. Maslesa, RENO-evalue Et Værdibaseret Værktøj Til Målformu-
lering Og Evaluering Af Bygningsrenovering (RENO-evalue e a Tool for
Formulation of Objectives and Evaluation of Building Renovation), 2013.
Research Report 8. 2013.
[74] M. Jaggs, J. Palmer, Energy performance indoor environmental quality retrofit
d a European diagnosis and decision making method for building refur-
bishment, Energy Build. 31 (2000) 97e101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7788(99)00023-7.
[75] D. Caccavelli, H. Gugerli, TOBUS - a European diagnosis and decision-making
tool for office building upgrading, Energy Build. 34 (2002) 113e119, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00100-1.
[76] E. Dascalaki, Balaras C a. XENIOS e a methodology for assessing refurbishment
scenarios and the potential of application of RES and RUE in hotels, Energy
Build. 36 (2004) 1091e1105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.03.007.
 A.N. Nielsen et al. / Building and Environment 103 (2016) 165e181 181

[77] C. Balaras, E. Dascalaki, P. Droutsa, Kontoyiannidis. EPIQR e TOBUS e XENIOS [83] G.E. Marjaba, S.E. Chidiac, Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings e
e INVESTIMMO, European methodologies & software tools for building critical review, Build. Environ. 101 (2016) 116e125, http://dx.doi.org/
refurbishment, assessment of energy savings and IEQ, in: 33rd Int. HVAC 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.03.002.
Congress, 2002, pp. 20e29, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3759.4405. [84] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine
[78] E. Brandt, M.H. Rasmussen, Assessment of building conditions, Energy Build. Learning, 1989, p. 372, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10589-009-9261-6.
34 (2002) 121e125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00102-5. [85] B.S. Leu, C. Yang, GA-based multicriteria optimal model for construction
[79] B. Lawson, How Designers Think: the Design Process Demystified, Architec- scheduling, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 125 (1999) 420e427.
tural Press, 1997. [86] L. Malmgren, K. Mjo €rnell, Application of a decision support tool in three
[80] F.P. Chantrelle, H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, Mankibi M. El, P. Michel, Development renovation projects, Sustainability 7 (2015) 12521e12538, http://dx.doi.org/
of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Appl. Energy 10.3390/su70912521.
88 (2011) 1386e1394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.002. [87] W.F.E. Preiser, J.C. Vischer, Assessing Building Performance, 2005, http://
[81] K.B. Wittchen, S. Aggerholm, Calculation of building heating demand in EPIQR, dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703993104.
Energy Build. 31 (2000) 137e141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(99) [88] J. Whyte, D. Gann, A. Salter, Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking,
00027-4. Build. Res. Inf. 31 (2003) 318e333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
[82] M. Bengtsson, Weighting in practice implications for the use of life-cycle 0961321032000107564.
assessment in decision making, J. Indus. Ecol. 4 (2001) 47e60, http:// [89] K. Kulturarvsstyrelsen, SAVE e Kortlægning Og Registrering Af Bymiljøers Og
dx.doi.org/10.1162/10881980052541945. Bygningers Bevaringsvaerdi, 2011.