Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in New Zealand Reflections On Current Policies and Practice

The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice
ISSN: 1756-7505 (Print) 1756-7513 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhen20
Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in

New Zealand: Reflections on Current Policies and
Practice
Priscila Besen, Paola Boarin & Errol Haarhoff
To cite this article: Priscila Besen, Paola Boarin & Errol Haarhoff (2020) Energy and Seismic
Retrofit of Historic Buildings in New Zealand: Reflections on Current Policies and Practice, The
Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 11:1, 91-117, DOI: 10.1080/17567505.2020.1715597
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1715597
Published online: 28 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 348
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhen20
THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE
2020, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 91–117
https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1715597
Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in New

Zealand: Reflections on Current Policies and Practice
Priscila Besen , Paola Boarin and Errol Haarhoff
School of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Creative Arts and Industries, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Built heritage plays an important role in making history visible in Historic buildings;
New Zealand’s cities. However, ensuring that historic heritage can unreinforced masonry
withstand future challenges such as climate change and seismic buildings; building retrofit;
energy retrofit; seismic
resilience is key to ensure its preservation, as the country has had
retrofit; building adaptation;
countless examples of lost heritage due to earthquakes, fire, lack of heritage; building policies;
maintenance and decay resulting from inadequate indoor environ- New Zealand; building
mental conditions. New regulations came into force in 2017 for conservation
earthquake-prone buildings, which set up timeframes for all build-
ings to achieve minimum structural standards. As a result, there are
many seismic strengthening projects taking place, especially for
Unreinforced Masonry (URM) buildings, identified as one of the
most vulnerable construction types. However, the other future
challenge for historic buildings will be to deal with climate change –
ensuring buildings can withstand extreme conditions while main-
taining comfortable indoor conditions, without demanding exces-
sive energy input. So far, energy considerations have not been
extensively included as parameters in retrofit projects, in existing
policies or in practice. This contribution analyses current policies
and practice for retrofitting historic buildings in New Zealand, aim-
ing to understand the current barriers, challenges and possibilities
for energy retrofitting historic buildings in the country as
a combined strategy with seismic upgrading.
Introduction and Background

It is widely recognised that to be prepared for the future, buildings need to consume
minimum energy and to minimise greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring comfortable
conditions in a changing climate.1 In 2015, New Zealand was one of 197 countries that
adopted the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep the global average temperature below 2°C
above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.2
New Zealand’s current emissions reduction targets are a 2020 target to reduce emissions to
5% below 1990 levels, a 2030 target to reduce emissions to 30% below 2005 levels and
a 2050 target to reduce emissions to 50% below 1990 levels.3 The country is currently
developing the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, which will provide
a more focussed framework to develop and implement clear and stable climate change
policies that contribute to the global effort under the Paris Agreement.4 It is estimated that
CONTACT Priscila Besen pbes461@aucklanduni.ac.nz

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
92 P. BESEN ET AL.
from the current total emissions, 39.1% come from energy, 17.2% for transport and 21.9% for
energy not including transport, which includes buildings.5 A recent report has shown that
when taking into account a consumption-oriented view, the contribution of the built
environment to New Zealand’s emissions account for 20%.6
Improving the efficiency of new and existing buildings is recognised worldwide as
a good way to reduce emissions related to energy generation: energy efficiency is key to
ensuring a safe, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy system for the future. Energy
efficiency is the one energy resource that every country possesses and is the quickest, and
least costly way, of addressing energy security, and related environmental and economic
challenges.7 It means that by creating a more efficient way of using resources in buildings,
which enables us to have the same level of comfort while consuming less energy.8 The
small proportion of new-builds added to the existing building stock on an annual basis is
low, therefore it is important to develop and implement technical solutions to provide
both cost-effective new-builds and cost-effective retrofit.9 Vale10 has highlighted that
New Zealand still has a large backlog of dwellings to be upgraded, as every uninsulated
building is wasting energy through unnecessary heating and is adding to global climate
change by related greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. From a global, local
and individual point of view, it makes a lot of sense to make New Zealand’s built
environment energy-efficient now.11
The impact of inefficient buildings is not only harmful for the environment, but also for
people, as building users are affected by consequences, either through high energy bills
for heating such spaces or, when they cannot afford to heat them,12 having to cope with
very cold and unhealthy environments. Although New Zealand has a relatively mild
climate, about 25% of New Zealand households are estimated to be in fuel poverty.13
The country has a poor history of enforcing better standards through building regula-
tions, so existing dwellings are often not well insulated and rental properties were not
required to have insulation or heating systems until recent regulations were approved.14
Research by the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) indicated that
830,000 New Zealand houses do not have insulation that meets the standards required of
new homes today.15 Average indoor temperatures are low by international standards and
occupants regularly report they feel cold, because they cannot afford to heat their
inefficient buildings. Fuel poverty is thought to be a factor in NZ’s high rate of excess
winter mortality (16%, about 1600 deaths a year) and excess winter hospitalisations for
cold related medical conditions (8%).16
The adaptation of current buildings for future needs shall consider all possible chal-
lenges and stresses that these structures might be subject to. As retrofit is defined as
works done to change the performance, function or capacity of a building or an upgrade
to a building to adjust to new circumstances or requirements,17 retrofitting our most
vulnerable building stock is of high importance. Internationally, the application of energy
retrofit strategies to historic buildings has seen intense development in research and
practice, with energy efficiency policies becoming more sensitive to heritage conservation
principles over the years.18 Until recently, energy retrofit was seen as a threat to con-
servation, but it is now recognised as a measure to help with the protection of heritage
buildings by providing healthy indoor environments that can have a longer lifespan.19
Retrofit in places of cultural and historical significance is often described as a balancing
act between optimisation and conservation of original features.20 This view was
THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 93
supported by 3ENCULT, the first funded European research project combining conserva-
tion of historic buildings and climate protection, where ‘[h]eritage preservation and
energy efficiency need not be mutually exclusive aims. Conservation planned by an
interdisciplinary team of experts will balance the values of energy and culture’.21
Another challenge for the adaptation of historic buildings to current and future
requirements is their seismic vulnerability. This is particularly important for historic con-
structions made of load-bearing masonry, organised in complex aggregates, which pre-
sent an intrinsic vulnerability and are particularly susceptible to local or global collapses in
case of seismic loading.22 Earthquake protection of built heritage can be realised through
a preventive knowledge of the seismic risk in order to plan mitigation strategies and
schedule the necessary retrofit measures to reduce vulnerability. Strengthening of cul-
tural heritage structures in order to meet the requirements of contemporary seismic
codes often requires invasive interventions that may not be applied because of their
impact on heritage fabric and other limitations. The challenge of balancing safety with
maintenance of architectural and artistic features of historic structures remains a pressing
issue.23
Despite the fast-developing international scenario on energy retrofit of historic build-
ings, New Zealand has very few examples of deep retrofit projects for its existing buildings
and even fewer examples of energy retrofit of historic buildings. On the other hand,
seismic retrofitting historic buildings is becoming more common in the country. The
reasons for this lack of energy retrofitting interventions are investigated in this paper, and
ways to encourage energy retrofit strategies are discussed, aiming to integrate both
energy and seismic upgrade efforts.
The Integration of Energy and Seismic Retrofit in Historic Buildings

Internationally
The integration of energy and seismic considerations in the retrofit of historic buildings
aims to increase the resilience of built heritage by concurrently addressing the threats of
natural disasters related to climate change and earthquakes. This integrative approach
considers the long-term sustainable management of heritage, and fits within the wider
concept of preventive conservation, recognising that ‘prevention is better than cure’ to
safeguard cultural heritage.24 According to UNESCO, disaster mitigation calls for a change
of thinking, to shift from post-disaster reaction to pre-disaster action,25 so these preven-
tive strategies aim to address possible issues before they occur. The main benefits of
preventive measures are the improved protection of heritage values, the cost-
effectiveness, the reduced risk for accumulating deterioration and additional damage,
the prolongation of the physical service life of buildings and building parts and the
empowerment of local communities in dealing with heritage.26
The links between energy and seismic retrofitting are manifold: energy efficient retrofit
is useful for structural protection,27 while structural strengthening prevents the environ-
mental impacts and required energy associated with damages, repairs or reconstruction.
In addition, both types of interventions are generally applied to the building envelope,
therefore their impact on heritage fabric can be minimised by applying strategies that
work harmoniously together, rather than duplicating the use of new construction
elements.
94 P. BESEN ET AL.
Examples of research and practice integrating energy and seismic retrofit can be found in
Europe, especially in Italy, after recent earthquakes have led to more urgency on seismic
strengthening solutions and a few studies have identified the benefits of this integrated
approach. La Greca and Margani have reviewed seismic and energy renovation measures in
Italy, and their implications on the sustainability of cities.28 They stated that ‘seismic and energy
renovation of buildings represents today a prevention action that is becoming more and more
necessary to increase the sustainability level of our towns. It will allow reaching very relevant
benefits, at environmental, social and economic levels’.29 The authors also highlighted that the
social dimensions of sustainability, in particular safety, have often been neglected, especially in
relation to the vulnerability of the building stock.
Many authors have identified that most building retrofit interventions tend to focus on
either energy efficiency or seismic resilience techniques, pointing out to the need for more
integration and understanding across both fields.30 There is disconnection among stake-
holders that arises from the development of seismic risk mitigation independently of sustain-
able development goals. Calvi et al31 presented a proposal for the integrated assessment of
energy efficiency and earthquake resilience, according to which environmental and seismic
impact metrics are translated into common financial decision-making variables.
A number of initiatives targeting energy and seismic retrofit were developed following
the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, as well as other cities already damaged by past
earthquakes in the country. There were proposals to turn the recovery process into an
opportunity to improve the energy performance of historic buildings as part of an
integrated energy and seismic retrofit approach.32 Pilot projects were developed in the
villages of Caporciano and Apice Vecchia, which analysed retrofit solutions both at the
individual building level and the whole village. The ultimate goal of the proposed
strategies was to integrate passive energy retrofit actions on building envelopes, struc-
tural interventions aimed at improving seismic performance and the integration or
addition of plant systems, fed with the help of renewable energy sources, such as
photovoltaic systems.33
Bournas evaluated the financial feasibility and benefits of the combined approach of
seismic and energy retrofitting.34 It was shown that the payback of interventions can be
significantly reduced (i.e. by 50 to 10 years) when seismic is applied concurrently with
energy retrofitting by combining advanced construction materials, thanks to large savings
related to the labour costs. Bertagni et al explored the relationship between cultural
sustainability and the structural rehabilitation of historic buildings, discussing the impor-
tance of considering structural rehabilitation as part of a wider sustainability framework
that a historic building should aim at during a renovation process.35 The authors explored
how GBC Historic Building®, a rating system to evaluate and certify the sustainability level
of restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptation of historic buildings, addresses the topics of
structural tests and monitoring, as well as structural compatibility and reversibility.
Overall, the literature on the integration of energy and seismic retrofit of historic buildings
suggests it is a growing field of study, with potential to be further explored in many different
contexts and cultures. There are calls to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings
around the world and, in the case of countries with valuable built heritage that is seismically
vulnerable, a combined approach might be appropriate. Countries that could benefit from this
approach include Italy, Greece, Turkey, Chile and Nepal, among many others. This integrated
approach is usually attempted after earthquakes cause significant damages to built heritage
and there is a need to repair and retrofit concurrently; however, preventive measures before
a disaster takes place would be far more effective for safeguarding historic heritage for future
generations.
The Heritage Environment in New Zealand

New Zealand possesses a unique collection of places of cultural heritage value relating to its
indigenous and more recent peoples, treasures of distinctive value that have accrued mean-
ings over time.36 Each ethnic group brings distinctive histories and cultures that contribute in
different ways to the country’s cultural heritage. Although the core elements of these cultures
were imported from overseas, much adaptation and evolution has occurred within the New
Zealand environment.37 This diversity of cultures has resulted in unique heritage places that
are significant not only for New Zealanders, but also from a global perspective. New Zealand’s
heritage includes cultural landscapes and features, buildings and structures, gardens, archae-
ological sites, traditional sites, monuments, and sacred places;38 however, this study focuses on
built heritage in the form of historic buildings.
Worldwide, it is recognised that current generations are responsible for safeguarding these
buildings and places, maintaining the full richness of their authenticity for the future.39 Historic
buildings help create diverse mixed-use communities that are attractive for pedestrian traffic
and customers:40 heritage is a driver of inclusive economic development, an enabler for social
equity, and it promotes the liveability and sustainability of urban areas.41 In many cities around
the world, some of the most successful and lively neighbourhoods are old historic districts,
where buildings are adaptively reused and upgraded, but still retain their existing character
and historical significance. Lessons about the importance of historic buildings for urban
liveability were learnt since the 1960s, acknowledging that vibrant neighbourhoods provide
buildings that vary in age, including a good proportion of historic buildings.42 For many of
these reasons, protecting and safeguarding the world’s cultural heritage is part of the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).43 In New Zealand, there are countless exam-
ples of historic neighbourhoods that thrive with lively streets mixing historic and new build-
ings, as shown in Figure 1. Heritage places are fundamental to civil society in New Zealand
because they contribute to community identity and generate significant economic benefits in
the form of urban vibrancy.44
Although New Zealand has a relatively young building stock when compared to places
such as Europe and Asia, there remain countless historic buildings and places with
significance that should be preserved. The New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors
expressed the view that ‘as New Zealanders, we are amazed by the internationally-known
heritage sites, quaint villages and local monuments we see overseas. Yet we fail to see we
have these in New Zealand too, they’re just a bit younger’.45 In fact, in order to ensure the
conservation of a historic building stock for the future, it is necessary to recognise the
value of heritage buildings in the present.
Despite a growing recognition for the importance of conserving built heritage and increas-
ing legal protection of significant buildings, New Zealand has a disappointing record of
retaining its heritage.46 A report released by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment in 1997, pointed out that New Zealand’s heritage was in danger of being
lost.47 Fire, earthquake and, in particular, the wrecker’s ball have taken a heavy toll on New
Zealand’s built heritage: the loss of a small number of these may be attributed to natural
96 P. BESEN ET AL.
Figure 1. Examples of lively historic precincts in different cities in New Zealand: Auckland (a), Oamaru
(b), Christchurch (c), Dunedin (d), Wellington (e), Queenstown (f). Photos: Priscila Besen.
causes, but the vast majority were removed by deliberate human acts.48 There are several
examples where historic buildings were demolished simply to give way for development.49
The 1980s were marked by the demolition of several heritage buildings in New Zealand,
especially in city centres, to give way for high-rise towers. One example is the demolition of His
Majesty’s Theatre and Arcade in Auckland,50 which featured a lavish, ornate auditorium, built in
1902 (Figure 2(a–b)). Despite calls by heritage advocates for the building to be saved, the entire
building was demolished.51 Architects and heritage experts see such loss as ‘demolition by
neglect’, meaning owners ease up on maintenance work until a property reaches such
a dilapidated state that they can say that the only viable solution is demolition.52 A more
recent example is the Aurora Hotel, a listed building that was demolished in central Auckland
in 2010 (Figure 2(c–d)). Built in 1884, its demolition was justified with ‘health and safety’
reasons, and it happened with very short notice and little discussion about possible solutions
to retain the building.53
Given New Zealand’s location in the Pacific, another threat to the country’s built
heritage is seismic vulnerability. New Zealand lies on the boundary between the
Australian and the Pacific plate, and experiences thousands of earthquakes every year.
Approximately 200 of these shocks are strong enough to be felt every year and, since
Figure 2. His Majesty’s Theatre and Arcade (a,b) demolished in the 1980s. Images: 54. The Aurora Hotel
(c,d) demolished in 2010. Images: 55.
1840, over 500 people have been killed by earthquakes.56 In 1931, a magnitude 7.8
earthquake struck Napier and Hastings, killing 258 people, mainly because of falling
buildings built of Unreinforced Masonry (URM). In 2011, Christchurch was badly damaged
by a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, which killed 185 people and injured several thousand.
The earthquake epicentre was just 10 kilometres away from Christchurch’s central busi-
ness district.57 The tragedy has marked New Zealand’s history and the city is still recover-
ing from the destruction many years after the earthquake happened. At least 224
buildings have been demolished as a result of the earthquake and 85% of them were
constructed of unreinforced masonry.58 This class of building suffered the most extensive
damage in the earthquakes, given how these buildings had typically been designed with
little or no consideration given to earthquake effects.59 The losses due to the earthquake
sequence made an irreversible change to the city’s built heritage – Figure 3 indicates the
location of demolished buildings in Christchurch’s central areas, as at July 2011.
New Zealand has a national network to monitor earthquakes which provides informa-
tion for rapid emergency services responses.62 However, unlike other natural disasters, it is
not possible to predict in advance where and when earthquakes will strike, and the main
prevention strategy is ensuring that buildings and infrastructure are safe from earth-
quakes. Although earthquakes are a natural disaster, the proportion of the tragedies and
the loss of lives is closely related to building collapse. If the country can ensure that
buildings are safe in the event of a new earthquake, many lives can be saved in the future.
Considering these tragic events, design and construction regulations have been intro-
duced over a number of years and scientists have identified areas that are likely to suffer
from a damaging earthquake again in the future. Despite these measures, newer build-
ings failed in the Canterbury earthquake of February 2011 and some were damaged in the
Kaikōura earthquake of 2016. Many older buildings have also been strengthened, and
water and gas pipes have been better designed.63 In recent years, more regulations have
been put in place to assure the prevention of future losses. A significant advancement was
the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, which took effect in
Figure 3. Location of demolished URM buildings in the city of Christchurch. Image: 60.
98 P. BESEN ET AL.
2017, defining timeframes from 7.5 years to 35 years for earthquake-prone buildings to be
either retrofitted or demolished.64
The adaptation of current buildings for future needs shall consider all possible chal-
lenges and stresses that these structures might be subject to. In this context, retrofitting
our most vulnerable building stock is of high importance. One of the main challenges of
the 21st century is to increase the sustainability level of our cities. In fact, to be considered
sustainable, a built environment must, above all, be safe, particularly against natural
hazards related to climate change and seismic events.65 The structural rehabilitation of
historic architectures contributes to the achievement of wider sustainability goals,66 while
the energy retrofit of heritage buildings ensures they have a lower environmental impact
during their life cycle. With the new regulations for earthquake-prone buildings, there are
many examples of seismic strengthening taking place in New Zealand, especially for
Unreinforced Masonry (URM) buildings, which have been identified as one of the most
vulnerable construction types in the country.67 Most of these buildings also have high
historic significance and, therefore, these retrofit projects comprise the challenge of
undertaking sensitive measures compatible with heritage conservation principles. At
the same time, their low energy performance and indoor conditions would benefit from
energy retrofit interventions. Integrating structural and energy retrofit is key to ensure
a sustainable future for URM buildings in New Zealand.
Retrofitting Historic Buildings in New Zealand

Heritage Conservation Policies
While many countries manage historic heritage under a centralised government agency,
New Zealand’s Heritage Policy relies on centralised and decentralised frameworks. New
Zealand’s heritage system involves shared responsibility between local and central gov-
ernment with a range of organisations involved.68 The main piece of legislation to
promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources is the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA), which aims to protect historic heritage from inappropriate
subdivision, use and development.69 In 2003, the elevation of historic heritage to a matter
of national importance under section 6 of the RMA raised the bar for heritage planning
assessment and protection practices.70
Local district plans have to be elaborated according to the principles contained in the
RMA to give effect to the provisions of the Act.71 In addition, other important national
legislation is the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act (2014), intended to focus
efforts towards heritage protection and to outline the functions and powers of Heritage
New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council.72 These functions include the preparation
of general policy statements related to archaeological sites, properties owned by Heritage
New Zealand, administration of the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero, including
the National Historic Landmarks List and Heritage New Zealand’s advocacy role.73
Heritage New Zealand lists places of heritage value under two categories: Category 1 is
for historic places of special or outstanding historical or cultural significance or value, and
Category 2 is for historic places of historical or cultural significance or value. However,
buildings scheduled in the New Zealand Heritage List are not guaranteed protection as
their retention relies on measures in the local district plans. This includes buildings in the
New Zealand Heritage List as well as other buildings of local significance. In addition to
these regulations, the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter, a document based on the Burra
Charter but adapted to the local context of New Zealand, offers local expression of
international conservation principles and provides guidance on principles for heritage
conservation. It provides internationally recognised conservation principles.74
Heritage policies in New Zealand involve a number of regulations and organisations,
creating a complex system that is often difficult for property owners, designers, consul-
tants and the general public to understand.75 Gregory and Stolts discussed the integra-
tion between the two main Acts, pointing out that ‘the regimes could be integrated and
improved to ensure a better relationship between the RMA and the HNZ Act’, since ‘it is
evident that the identification, advocacy and management of heritage in New Zealand
have the potential to be complicated’.76 There is also an evident need for heritage
provisions in district plans to be more consistent, to avoid uncertainty for all parties
involved in the process. It is common to see inappropriate alterations and additions, as
well as unsuitable advertisement applied to facades of historic buildings in New Zealand.
Energy Retrofit Policies

At present, there is no specific regulatory framework for energy retrofitting heritage
buildings in New Zealand. The existing policies do not mention specific ways to carry
out retrofit considering energy efficiency or occupants’ comfort through upgrades to the
thermal envelope or to plant systems.
The main policy for the energy performance of new buildings is clause ‘H1 Energy
Efficiency’ of the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) which provides for the ‘efficient use
of energy and sets physical conditions for energy performance’ of buildings.77 There are
three pathways to demonstrate compliance to this clause: modelling, calculation or the
scheduled method. The latter is only applicable for certain construction methods, such as
lightweight timber-framed houses with low thermal mass, the most common construc-
tion technique in New Zealand. The schedule method provides tables for minimum
R-values for each building component. Although clause H1 provides only the minimum
requirement, these values are generally the ones used in construction and it is not
common practice to build above Code requirements.
While all new building works must comply with the Building Code, alterations to
existing buildings are not required to comply with the updated code in terms of energy
efficiency, but only accessibility and escape from fire must comply ‘As Nearly As it is
Reasonably Practicable’ (ANARP).78 BRANZ recognises that ‘code compliance can be a grey
area issue for partial renovations’ and that the main requirement is that ‘by law, a partial
renovation must not reduce the performance of the existing structure’,79 with no refer-
ence to any required minimum level of improvement. To explain some of these matters,
Heritage NZ published a guideline based on the Building Act for the sustainable manage-
ment of historic heritage in 2007.80 The document provides general guidance on
upgrades in regard to earthquake engineering, natural hazards (including snow, wind,
landslides, tsunami, coastal erosion, volcanic eruption, wild fire and flooding corrosion),
moisture and biological deterioration, fire safety, safety in use accessibility, security and
energy efficiency. However, these guidelines are just recommendations and they are not
mandatory, providing only general guidance; in addition, many policies have changed
100 P. BESEN ET AL.
since its publication in 2007, with some of the recommendations being now outdated.
Another important source of guidance from Heritage New Zealand is the ‘Information
Sheet 12: Alterations and additions to historic buildings’.81 The document states that
secondary elements of the building façade, such as windows and doors, should be
repaired rather than replaced. Double glazing should be discouraged and, instead,
secondary glazing should be adopted in a way that should not obscure the original
window or the design pattern of sash joinery or alter the depth of the window recess or
create a reflective effect. In regard to the addition of new technologies for energy
generation, the document states that important views of the building shall be retained,
especially when new elements to the roof such as skylights, solar collectors, wind turbines
are introduced.82
A recent national legislation targeted building performance issues in existing rental
housing without thermal insulation, making it compulsory for landlords to instal underfloor
and ceiling insulation from 2019.83 Although this is an important first step in requiring
thermal upgrades to existing buildings, there is no mention to historically relevant build-
ings and it is to be assumed that this legislation applies all existing rental housing, high-
lighting concerns in regards to the attention paid to heritage values during retrofit works.
The policy makes an exception for buildings where, due to design or access issues, it is ‘not
reasonably practicable to instal insulation’, which might be the case for some historic
buildings, but would not be a universal issue. Another point to highlight is that this piece of
legislation concerns underfloor and ceiling insulation only, excluding walls, windows, doors
and other construction elements that would, individually or collectively, contribute to the
improvement of the building’s performance and comfort more holistically.84 Therefore,
buildings might still have poor performance, considering the significant energy losses
through the remaining uninsulated portions of their envelope.
Seismic Strengthening Policies

As mentioned in section 2, a much more substantial focus is given to structural strength-
ening in New Zealand, especially after the tragedy of the Canterbury earthquakes in 2011.
Increasing efforts have targeted improvements to the structural performance of existing
buildings, with new legislation demanding local councils to identify all earthquake-prone
buildings and to upgrade them to a level of at least 34% of the New Building Standard
(NBS). The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act also states that seismic
work may include the demolition of a building or part of a building. The deadline for
completing the required seismic work depends on the level of risk85:
● in areas of low seismic risk, 35 years for any building;

● in areas of medium seismic risk, 12 years and 6 months for a priority building and
25 years for any other building;
● in areas of high seismic risk, 7 years and 6 months for a priority building and 15 years
for any other building.
It is to be noted that, in the Act, ‘priority building’ means hospitals, educational

buildings, buildings used for emergency purposes and any part of an unreinforced
masonry building that could fall from the building in an earthquake, and fall onto any
part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare. The current register of earthquake-
prone buildings lists over 2,300 buildings,86 (Figure 4) as local Councils are still adding
more to the list as soon as the owners are notified,87 but it is expected that approximately
10,000 buildings will be classified as earthquake-prone in the near future.
Although the earthquake-prone buildings framework includes all types and ages of build-
ings, historic buildings have particular challenges in regard to their strengthening. Buildings
scheduled under the Heritage New Zealand list can apply for an extension of time. In addition,
the Heritage EQUIP programme was developed by the Ministry for Culture & Heritage to
provide funding and advice to earthquake strengthen heritage buildings.88 However, funding
is very limited, considering the number of heritage buildings facing challenges due to this
policy. In addition, variations of geographic and seismic risk zones result in differing policies
for heritage impact management across the country.89 There is a rift between the
Government’s stance of focusing purely on security of life inside buildings and the public’s
desire to save heritage and this policy poses the risk of demolition to a number of buildings, as
heritage protection measures compete with seismic strengthening policies.90
Seismic resilience is particularly critical for URM buildings, which have been identified as
the most earthquake-prone class of building in New Zealand .91 This construction method
was largely utilised around the country until the Hawke’s Bay earthquake in 1931.92 After
the earthquake, new URM construction was avoided, but many historic buildings with this
type of construction still remain. Upgrading these heritage buildings can be particularly
difficult due to the desire to make the earthquake strengthening work as unobtrusive as
possible, which can increase the technical and financial challenges considerably. There is
also the irony that high levels of strengthening work ideally should be achieved to better
safe guard the heritage building from potential earthquake damage. The challenge is to
implement this in a way that that does not destroy the heritage fabric that we are trying to
protect.93 The conflicts between building owners’ financial constraints, the lack of
Figure 4. Earthquake-prone building register. Map showing registered buildings in Wellington, New
Zealand. Image: 61.
102 P. BESEN ET AL.
comprehensive funding from the government and the restrictions of seismic retrofitting
subject to heritage conservation regulations have generated an environment of uncer-
tainty for the protection of the earthquake-prone built heritage in New Zealand.
Local Regulations
Since heritage policies in New Zealand include central and local actions, it is also
important to analyse key local regulations. Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, has
many notable heritage buildings that are under threat from development pressures.
The City’s heritage policy’s main objective is to support and enable the protection,
maintenance, restoration and conservation of scheduled historic heritage places. In
regard to heritage adaptation, it aims to enable the use, development and adaptation
of scheduled historic heritage places where it will not result in adverse effects on the
significance of the place, it is in accordance with good practice conservation principles
and methods and it will support the long-term viability, retention or ongoing use of the
place.94 However, Auckland’s policies for demolition are quite permissive in comparison
with other Councils. For instance, demolition of up to 70% of a heritage building is
considered a non-complying activity, but not a prohibited one.95 This has resulted in
many examples of ‘façadism’, where only the external facade is retained (often only
partially), while the interior structures are demolished.
New Zealand’s capital Wellington has made notable efforts to ensure the protection of
its heritage, recognising that it is a ‘precious and finite resource’.96 Its policies aim to give
flexibility for economic activities, which might help the conservation, such as the adaptive
reuse of listed buildings or objects that enables the owners, occupiers or users to make
reasonable and economic use of it. However, there is no mention of upgrades to improve
their energy or thermal performance. Moreover, the policy only recognises upgrades to
structural stability, accessibility and means of escape from fire, which shall be carried out
to minimise the effect on heritage values.97
The city of Dunedin recognises that heritage has a positive impact on tourism and the
City Council works to safeguard this legacy and its economic value. The heritage strategy
recognises that ‘protecting built heritage is not about locking it up’, but, while a few items
can be protected for their own sake, retention of many heritage items is best facilitated by
their continued sustainable economic use, possibly requiring adaptation of the
buildings.98 Nonetheless, there are no specific mentions to acceptable energy retrofit
practices under Dunedin’s policy.
Current Practice
Encouraged by existing policies, the retrofit of heritage buildings in New Zealand is usually
carried out only when there is an imminent threat, such as structural strengthening for
earthquake safety or protection from fire. The other common practice is to carry out
‘cosmetic’ improvements to increase property values and modernise these buildings by
carrying out spatial layout improvements and upgrades to few internal spaces, primarily
kitchens and bathrooms.99 Thermal retrofit usually focuses on very simple measures, where
the main aim is to ‘meet the performance requirements of the New Zealand Building Code
(NZBC) and [there is] little concern for thermal comfort, indoor air quality and
airtightness’.100 These practices usually focus on the installation of ceiling and underfloor
insulation and the addition of clean heating sources, such as that encouraged by the Warm
Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes Programme.101 However, improvements to the perfor-
mance of walls and windows, for example, are not common practice, and can compromise
the overall building performance. In fact, it is important to note that there is no extensive
literature on the state-of-the-art of retrofit practices in the country that identifies the main
barriers to energy retrofit in New Zealand, and what could be done to encourage this
practice.
A few research and institutional projects have targeted the retrofit of historic buildings
in New Zealand. In 2011, research undertaken at the University of Auckland has investi-
gated thermal retrofitting of State Housing built in the period between the 1930s and
1950s.102 The investigation included interviews with architects involved with renovating
state houses, in order to understand the common retrofit practices in these projects. The
interviews found out that no significant thermal upgrades were carried out as part of
renovation projects in New Zealand State Houses. Interviewees revealed that either
budget constraints or lack of consideration restricted the amount of intervention available
to address higher levels of indoor environmental quality. Thermal insulation was
improved, but only in areas that were affected by new building works. Existing windows
and walls were not upgraded in most projects where timber windows remained single
glazed, whether replaced or existing. This research then investigated possible thermal
retrofit packages for State Houses in New Zealand, proposing the use of a continuous and
airtight thermal envelope. The improved thermal performance of the proposed solution
has been then verified using Risk Matrix evaluation and Homestar™ residential rating tool
assessments.
In 2015, Leardini et al. investigated retrofit packages for mid-century State Housing up
to the Passive House Standard.103 Indoor and outdoor environmental conditions were
monitored over a year in a case study in order to establish a base case for thermal
simulation. The upgrade packages were then modelled to assess their impact on the
house’s thermal performance, comparing heating requirements and comfort of a range of
insulation and ventilation options. The research has demonstrated effective ways of
preserving the integrity of a historic dwelling while improving its thermal performance
to the EnerPHit standard, the retrofit tool developed by the Passive House Institute.104
Smith et al105 investigated the thermal performance of four secondary-glazing pro-
ducts: plastic film, magnetically attached plastic sheet, plain and low-E glass, under
laboratory conditions in New Zealand. The results were compared to the modelled
thermal performance results using the Window 6 software. Three systems (thin plastic
film, magnetically attached acrylic sheet and aluminium-framed clear glass) have similar
thermal performance (0.35 ± 0.05 m2 K/W), with the low-E aluminium-framed glass
system providing additional benefit, due to the effect of the low-E surface
(0.57 ± 0.08 m2 K/W). The secondary-glazed windows R-value were between 130%
and 290% better than the R-value of the base window. However, it is important to
note that two of the options investigated – thin plastic film and magnetically attached
acrylic sheet – are only temporary solutions and should not be considered as long-term
retrofitting strategies.
In addition, the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) has developed
the ‘Renovate Programme’, which provides advice in regards to renovations on historic
104 P. BESEN ET AL.
buildings according to each typology common to historic periods, including Villa (19th C),
Bungalow (early 20th C), Art Deco, 1940s-1960s, 1970s. The programme contains literature
that assists in designing retrofit solutions, including the installation of insulation and
upgrading of windows.106
Some other initiatives have been targeting existing buildings in general, but not
necessarily historic ones only. For instance, Beacon Pathway, a New Zealand’s
Incorporated Society for building research, has developed the HomeSmart Renovations
programme, which was a large scale, New Zealand-wide renovation project, which
investigated consumers’ reasons and interests in retrofitting their homes to improve
their performance. As part of this program, 650 participating homeowners had their
home’s performance assessed by independent assessors.107 Another significant initiative
has been developed where Housing New Zealand, a Crown agent that provides housing
services for people in need, has recently undertaken a pilot project thermally upgrading
66 properties in Lower Hutt to ensure that they are warm and dry. This $9.3 million pilot
project is improving the thermal performance of these homes through insulation, double
glazing, thermal curtains, ventilation and new heating devices.108
In terms of green building certification for retrofitting in New Zealand, the most widely
applied system is Green Star NZ, managed by the New Zealand Green Building Council
(NZGBC). This tool is applicable to new and existing buildings (where more than 50% of
the building is being refurbished) and rates a building’s or fitout’s overall environmental
impact. The rating system awards points in nine categories: Energy, Water, Materials,
Indoor Environment Quality, Transport, Land Use & Ecology, Management, Emissions and
Innovation. A positive mention to historic buildings in the Green Star NZ scheme is the
Innovation Challenge: Culture, Heritage & Identity, which encourages project teams to
show how the project celebrates its heritage and takes steps to educate the public about
the building and its history.109 However, this is only a small section of the scheme
acknowledging historic features, since this is not the main focus of this tool. Green Star
NZ was not developed specifically for existing or historic buildings, therefore many of its
credits are more aligned with new construction. The NZGBC has recently developed new
tools to specifically assess the refurbishment of existing buildings: Green Star
Performance rates a range of building uses110 and HomeFit assesses existing residential
buildings.111 In addition, NABERSNZ is an independent tool backed by the New Zealand
government for rating the energy efficiency of office buildings, applied once buildings are
occupied and operating for a year or more.112 Neither of these tools provide specific
guidelines or clauses for historic buildings. Another voluntary building certification grow-
ing in New Zealand is Passive House, a standard for high energy efficiency with high levels
of comfort. The standard for energy retrofit developed by the Passive House Institute,
EnerPHit,113 has not been applied in historic building projects in New Zealand yet.
There are a few examples where limited energy retrofit interventions have been
undertaken in conjunction with seismic strengthening in New Zealand. In 2014, Te Puni
Kokiri House in Wellington, a 1940s building listed as Heritage Category 1 under Heritage
New Zealand, had a major renovation which included seismic and energy retrofitting and
achieved a 5 Green Star Built rating.114 However, the retrofit focussed on active systems
such as air conditioning and lighting, with no significant upgrades to the thermal
envelope. The Christchurch Arts Centre is one of the most expensive heritage renovation
projects in the country, with $290 million being spent to rescue the Arts Centre’s 23
buildings, 22 of them heritage listed, after they were severely damaged in the 2010 and
2011 earthquakes.115 The project included seismic strengthening up to 68% of NBS, and in
addition, the Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust has provided funding for a ground
source heat pump, which means the buildings are being efficiently heated with a more
economic solution for the site long-term.116 It is noted that the focus of the energy-related
upgrades was mainly on active systems, instead of making deep improvements to passive
strategies such as insulation to the building envelope.
Overall, there is a lack of knowledge and practice in New Zealand regarding energy
retrofit of existing buildings, but this is even more critical in relation to the historically
relevant building stock. These buildings seem to be excluded from the energy efficiency
conversation and very little has been done for developing a structured and robust path-
way towards a large-scale retrofit strategy for buildings with historical significance in the
country.
Reflections on the Integration of Energy Retrofit and Seismic Upgrades in

New Zealand
Integrating energy efficiency and seismic strengthening can be a significant step for
safeguarding New Zealand’s built heritage for the future. It can be noted that all three
disciplines – heritage conservation, building energy efficiency and seismic resilience –
have their own challenges in the country. Although the legal framework for the protection
of historic buildings has improved in recent decades, heritage conservation is still dis-
regarded in many cases, with the demolition of important historic buildings happening
until recently. On the other hand, New Zealand is known for having poor building
standards that have resulted in cold and damp built environments requiring significant
energy input. The effects of these buildings on population health have been highlighted
in recent years, but only a few regulatory changes have taken place117 to enforce the
installation of insulation on residential rental buildings. In addition to these issues, seismic
vulnerability of the building stock has brought intense discussions in New Zealand, and
historic Unreinforced Masonry Buildings have been a focus of this debate, since they were
responsible for a number of deaths in past and recent earthquakes.
All these issues reinforce the idea of finding integrated approaches, as the combination
of energy retrofit measures together with seismic strengthening can be beneficial not
only for environmental reasons, but also for safety, health and the conservation of
heritage, and for providing economically sustainable interventions. Internationally, the
lack of retrofitting measures is now starting to be viewed as a threat to heritage protec-
tion, with the potential to turn historic buildings into an energy liability by leaving them
behind the rest of the building stock.118 The research revealed that, in general, energy
retrofit is not considered a priority when upgrading historic buildings in New Zealand.
Current regulations only require retrofit projects to comply with structural, fire safety and
accessibility requirements. In regard to energy efficiency, current regulations consider
that an alteration that does not change the thermal envelope does not trigger require-
ments to upgrade insulation or glazing.
Currently, there is no legislation or guideline to encourage, assist and regulate energy
retrofit in New Zealand’s historic buildings. Even if there is a willingness to undertake such
interventions, they might be discouraged by local authorities and heritage conservation
106 P. BESEN ET AL.
specialists, due to lack of knowledge and evidence about technical aspects and implica-
tions of these retrofit actions on heritage fabric. In fact, these institutions do need to
demand very careful approaches, because without proper consideration and investiga-
tion in the design stage, interventions can potentially harm the heritage fabric in ways
that are potentially irreversible. This is especially important in this country, where limited
knowledge and consideration for building science has resulted in thousands of ‘leaky’
buildings in the past.119 Therefore, there is a need for research, discussion and testing of
deep energy retrofit in New Zealand’s historic buildings before this can be widespread
around the country.
One barrier to the mass implementation of energy and seismic upgrades is that they
are often costly and deal with ‘invisible’ aspects in buildings not often valued by building
owners, the property market or even designers themselves. Unlike other investments such
as enhancing interior finishes or upgrading the internal layout, investing in energy
efficiency and seismic resilience is generally not valued by the current market, unless
buildings are located in areas of high risk for earthquakes. Seismically strengthened
buildings have been found to have rent premiums in high seismic areas of the
country120; however, there are no studies showing if there is a similar trend for energy
retrofitted buildings yet. In addition, energy and seismic retrofitting historic heritage
share the need to balance required interventions without losing heritage character.
There are already numerous conflicts between heritage conservation and seismic
strengthening interventions, because of the integration of different demands from each
discipline. This is then more critical because of financial limitations in most retrofit
projects. With all these existing issues, it seems that discussion about improving thermal
comfort, energy efficiency and resilience to climate change have been forgotten in New
Zealand’s heritage management, but integrating these three agendas can lead to better
solutions that ensure historic buildings continue to serve useful purposes in the future.
Current seismic upgrading projects can be an opportunity to integrate further
improvements to historic buildings, as it is much easier to undertake multiple interven-
tions concurrently to maximise resource efficiency. Viewing all these challenges in
a holistic way leads to integrated solutions that cross the borders between the individual
disciplines of architecture, energy efficiency, structural stability and heritage conservation.
Integrated strategies in these topics are not common yet: to the present date, building
retrofit interventions tend to focus on either energy efficiency or seismic resilience
techniques, highlighting the lack of consistent language and understanding across both
fields and the disconnection among stakeholders in developing seismic risk mitigation
independently of sustainable development goals.121 Although extensive know-how can
be identified in both areas, efforts for its joint consideration presented in the literature are
based on the evaluation of environmental impacts of expected repairs due to seismic
action over a period of time, neglecting the potential of energy efficiency improvements
and the possible benefits of an integrated investment strategy.122 Integrating all these
topics in preventive strategies is essential to achieving overall sustainability in our cities,
including social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits. Seismic and energy
renovation of buildings represents a prevention action that will allow reaching very
relevant benefits: it can help decrease the number of deaths, injuries, socio-
psychological consequences from disasters; it can consistently reduce damages and the
related economic efforts for repair and reconstruction. In addition, it can contribute to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, increase property values, decrease energy bills, improve
indoor comfort and health and refresh the architectural image of cities, among other
benefits.123
Retrofitting historic buildings is often described as a balancing act, where professionals
from different disciplines discuss solutions and find the best ways to undertake interven-
tions for each specific building, while prioritising the retention of heritage significance. In
this balancing act, there is a need to highlight the importance of each discipline to the
New Zealand context and ensure each of them has appropriate weight in these discus-
sions. As mentioned in the introduction, earthquakes have caused loss of lives in devas-
tating tragedies with a total of over 500 deaths since 1840 in New Zealand124; thus there is
an increasing awareness of the importance of seismic strengthening. On the other hand,
more consideration needs to be given to energy retrofit, as fuel poverty experienced by
occupants of unhealthy and poorly insulated buildings contributes to the 1,600 deaths
every winter, as well as excess winter hospitalisations.125 In the New Zealand context, it is
important to highlight that energy retrofit is not only beneficial for the environment,
through the minimisation of energy consumption – it also brings significant improve-
ments for building occupants through more comfortable and efficient environments. In
extreme climatic conditions, these interventions become even more crucial to ensure that
historic buildings can provide adequate indoor environments without excessive energy
use. Lastly, it is still necessary to highlight the importance of the retention of heritage in
communities around the country. Significant examples of built heritage are being inap-
propriately altered, and many historic buildings are still lost every year due to neglect and
lack of adaptation to current standards. It is important to remember that these important
pieces of history can never be replaced. Conservation-compatible adaptation to future
climatic and seismic stresses is crucial to ensure that built heritage can be appreciated by
future generations in the full richness of their authenticity. Heritage values need to guide
retrofit policies and practice to ensure that any proposed alterations are sensible and
minimise the impact on the existing fabric.
Conclusions
This contribution has reviewed current policies and practice related to retrofitting historic
buildings in New Zealand, focusing on seismic and energy upgrades. It has presented the
current challenges, issues and opportunities in integrating the topics of building energy
efficiency and seismic strengthening for the safeguarding of New Zealand’s built heritage
for the future, especially for one of the most vulnerable types of construction in the country:
unreinforced masonry buildings. The study revealed that current gaps in policies and lack of
enforcement still fail to guarantee protection for historic buildings, with a disappointing
record of lost heritage in New Zealand even in recent years. Some of the reasons for this are
related to weaknesses in local policies, since local Councils are responsible for the actual
protection of heritage – in New Zealand, listing under the national authority, Heritage NZ,
does not guarantee protection. Another gap is the lack of consistent national directives on
the adaptation of historic buildings, as the main guidance documents for the sustainable
management of historic heritage are currently outdated. Capacity issues and lack of
resources have led to limitations in the development of further guidance documents by
Heritage NZ, and very few guidelines are available from local Councils. Overall, the literature
108 P. BESEN ET AL.
on the subject of current policies and practice in adapting historic buildings in New Zealand
has been found to be very limited. Therefore, the next stages of this research will develop
further investigations through questionnaires and interviews with professionals involved
with historic building retrofit projects in the private and public sector.
The sensible adaptation of these buildings to current and future needs is crucial to
ensure that they continue to serve a useful purpose and remain standing. The Building
(Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act is a good first step into developing a robust
framework to adapt historic buildings to current structural standards. However, the cost of
these upgrades and the limited amount of public funding for these projects generate an
environment of uncertainty in terms of retrofitting these buildings within the given time-
frames, with the risk of demolition in case they are not completed on time. On the other
hand, there is a lack of policies to encourage and regulate the energy retrofit of historic
buildings in New Zealand. The challenges of climate change can add additional pressure to
historic buildings, since they will need to withstand more extreme weather conditions and
provide liveable indoor conditions without requiring excessive energy input, as New
Zealand transitions to a low-carbon future. Appropriate guidance from heritage authorities
is essential to encourage conservation-compatible energy retrofit solutions.
Current seismic upgrades taking place in historic buildings can be an opportunity
to integrate further improvements to built heritage, as it is much more practical to
undertake multiple interventions at once to maximise resource efficiency. Viewing all
these challenges in a holistic way leads to integrated solutions that cross the borders
between individual disciplines. Cost is one of the main barriers to the implementation
of deep retrofit actions; nonetheless, when undertaking energy retrofit in conjunction
with other ongoing upgrades such as seismic strengthening, there is potential for
saving resources and time. More integration between different policies and a focus on
the long-term retention of built heritage – including energy and seismic considera-
tions – would be beneficial for the sustainable management of historic buildings in
New Zealand. Lastly, there is a need to investigate successful international and local
experiences, share case studies and examples and promote research and practice of
conservation-compatible retrofit solutions in New Zealand. This way, comprehensive
and appropriate retrofit actions can become more widespread in the country, ensur-
ing that heritage buildings can be protected and adapted for future generations.
Notes
1. Roaf, Crichton, and Nicol, Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change.
2. UNFCCC, “The Paris Agreement.”
3. Ministry for the Environment, “Understanding Our Emissions Reduction Targets.”
4. Ministry for the Environment, “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill.”
5. See note 3 above.
6. Vickers and Fisher, “The Carbon Footprint.”
7. International Energy Agency, “Energy Efficiency.”
8. Lamberts, Dutra, and Pereira, Eficiência Energética Na Arquitetura.
9. Amitrano et al., “BEES Part 1.”
10. Vale, “Upgrading the Existing Stock.”
11. Ibid.
12. Howden-Chapman et al., “Warm Homes”; and O’Sullivan et al., “Cool?.”
13. Howden-Chapman et al., “Tackling Cold Housing and Fuel Poverty in New Zealand.”
14. New Zealand Government, Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations
2016; New Zealand Government, Healthy Homes Guarantee Act 2017.
15. BRANZ, “Insulation Options for Existing Homes.”
17. Iselin and Lemer, The Fourth Dimension in Building; Douglas, Building Adaptation; and ICOMOS
New Zealand, ICOMOS New Zealand Charter.
18. Legnér and Leijonhufvud, “A Legacy of Energy Saving.”
19. Carbonara, “Energy Efficiency as a Protection Tool.”
20. Webb, “Energy Retrofits in Historic and Traditional Buildings.”
21. Troi and Bastian, Energy Efficiency Solutions for Historic Buildings, 10.
22. Boschi, “Seismic Vulnerability Historic Masonry.”
23. Spyrakos, “Seismic Design Heritage Structures.”
24. Instituto de Ciencia e Inovacao para a Bio-diversidade, “HeritageCare – Monitoring and
Preventive Conservation.”
25. Arya et al., Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Construction.
26. PRECOM3OS, “Conference Preventive Conservation.”
27. Troi and Bastian, Energy Efficiency Solutions for Historic Buildings.
28. La Greca and Margani, “Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures.”’
29. Ibid., 14.
30. Calvi Souza and Ruggeri, “Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience”; and Pertile, De Stefani
and Scotta, “System for the seismic and energy retrofit”.
31. Ibid.
32. Belpoliti et al., “La riqualificazione energetico-ambientale.”
33. Boarin and Davoli, “Preliminary Audit And Performance Improvement.”
34. Bournas, “Concurrent Seismic and Energy Retrofitting.”
35. Bertagni, Boarin and Zuppiroli, “The Dialogue between Structural Interventions.”
36. ICOMOS New Zealand, ICOMOS New Zealand Charter.
37. Ministry for the Environment, “New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage”; and Brown, Māori
Architecture.
39. ICOMOS, “The Venice Charter 1964.”
40. McDonagh, Bowring, and Perkins, “The Consumption of Chaos.”
41. Hosagrahar et al., “Cultural Heritage.”
42. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
43. United Nations, Transforming our world.
44. McEwan, “Heritage Issues.”
45. New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors, “New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage Conservation.”
46. Ministry for the Environment, “New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage.”
47. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, “Historic and Cultural Heritage
Management.”
48. Wolfe, New Zealand’s Lost Heritage.
49. Ibid.
50. Schrader, “Theatres, Cinemas and Halls.”
51. Ibid.
52. Perrott, “Monumental Losses.”
53. Newshub, “Auckland’s Historic Palace Hotel Demolished”; and Heritage New Zealand, “Lost
Heritage 2010–2015.”
54. Schrader, “Theatres, Cinemas and Halls.”
55. Newshub, “Auckland’s Historic Hotel Demolished.”
56. McSaveney, “Earthquakes.”
57. NZ History, “February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake.”
58. Royal Comission, “The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.”
110 P. BESEN ET AL.
59. Senaldi, Magenes, and Ingham, “Damage Assessment of Unreinforced Stone Masonry
Buildings.”
60. Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Comission, “Performance of URM Buildings”.
61. MBIE, “EPB Register”.
63. Ibid.
64. Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment, Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings)
Amendment Act.
65. La Greca and Margani, “Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures,” 1.
66. Bertagni, Boarin, and Zuppiroli, “The Dialogue between Structural Interventions and
Sustainability Criteria.”
67. Russell and Ingham, “Prevalence of New Zealand’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.”
68. Quality Planning, “Historic Heritage.”
69. New Zealand Government, Resource Management Act 1991.
71. Ibid.
72. New Zealand Government, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act.
76. Gregory and Stoltz, “The Uneasy Relationship between the RMA and the Heritage New
Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act.”
77. Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment, “H1 Energy Efficiency | Building Performance.”
78. Warnock, “Bringing Existing Buildings into the Sustainability Equation.”
79. BRANZ, “Code Compliance for Partial Renovations.”
80. McClean, Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage. Guide No. 6 Building Act 2004.
81. New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga, “Sustainable Management of Historic
Heritage Guidance.”
82. New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
2016.
84. Callau, “Upgrading Housing.”
86. MBIE, “Register of Earthquake-Prone Buildings.”
88. Ministry for Culture and Heritage, “Heritage EQUIP: Earthquake Upgrade Incentive
Programme.”
89. Vallis et al., “Classical Temples and Industrial Stores.”
90. Henrich and Mcclure, “The Heritage Problem.”
91. Russell and Ingham, “Prevalence of New Zealand’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings”; and
Blaikie and Spurr, “Earthquake Vulnerability.”
92. McSaveney, “Historic Earthquakes”
93. Nahkies, “Seismic Retrofitting.”
94. Auckland Council, Auckland Unitary Plan: D17. Historic Heritage Overlay.
95. Auckland Council.
96. Wellington City Council, Wellington City District Plan.
97. Wellington City Council.
98. Dunedin City Council, A Heritage Strategy for Dunedin City.
99. Besen and Boarin, “The Future of Historic Buildings.”
100. Leardini, Manfredini, and Callau, “Energy Upgrade to Passive House Standard.”
101. Byrd and Matthewman, “Warm Up New Zealand.”
102. Gronert, “Sustainable Thermal Retrofit of the New Zealand 1930’s.”
103. Leardini, Manfredini, and Callau, “Energy Upgrade to Passive House Standard”; and
Manfredini and Leardini, “Existing Stock for the Future.”
104. Leardini and Manfredini, “Modern Housing Retrofit.”

105. Smith et al., “Thermal Performance of Secondary Glazing.”
107. Beacon Pathway, “What Is the HomeSmart Renovation Project?”
108. Housing New Zealand, “Thermal Upgrade for Homes in the Hutt”; Nightingale, “Housing New
Zealand Thermally Upgrading State Houses.”
109. New Zealand Green Building Council, “Greenstar Technical Manual v3.1”.
110. New Zealand Green Building Council, “Green Star – Performance NZ.”
111. New Zealand Green Building Council, “HomeFit.”
112. EECA, “About NABERSNZ.”
113. Passive House Institute, Criteria for the Passive House.
114. Construction News, “Heritage No Barrier to Energy Efficiency.”
115. McDonald, “Another Christchurch Arts.”
116. The Arts Centre, “Sustainability and Strength Key.”
2016.
119. Parliamentary Library, “Leaky Buildings.”
120. Filippova, Rehm, and Dibble, “Office Market Response.”
121. Calvi, Sousa, and Ruggeri, “Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience.”
122. Ibid.
123. La Greca and Margani, “Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures for Sustainable Cities,” 14.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Priscila Besen is a PhD candidate in the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of
Auckland, New Zealand. She holds a Bachelor of Architecture and Urbanism from Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil, with an exchange year at Parsons the New School for Design in the
USA, and a Master of Architecture in Sustainable Design from the University of Auckland. She is a
certified Passivhaus Designer, has a background in thermal comfort and energy efficiency research
and practice, and currently develops research about energy retrofit of historic buildings in New
Zealand. Her research also includes assessing the level of sustainability in buildings and commu-
nities through post-occupancy evaluation, and investigations on optimising the energy perfor-
mance of residential buildings. In addition, she is a teaching assistant for environmental design
courses and a member of the Future Cities Research Hub at the University of Auckland.
Dr. Paola Boarin graduated with a Master of Science in Architecture from the Department of
Architecture of the University of Ferrara, Italy, where she received also a PhD in Architectural
Technology. Paola joined the University of Auckland in 2015, where she is Senior Lecturer of
Architectural Technology, the Architecture Technology and Sustainability Stream Leader and the
co-founder and co-director of the Future Cities Research Hub. Prior to her appointment at the
University of Auckland, Paola collaborated with the University of Ferrara, Italy, as Adjunct Professor
of Architectural Technology and Environmental Design and as Research Fellow. There, she was also
a member of the Architettura Energia Research Centre, a research hub focussing on building
sustainability and performance, where she played a key role in its establishment and development.
Paola has been collaborating with the Green Building Council of Italy since 2011 by leading the
development of sustainability rating systems as Chair of the Technical Advisory Group ‘Historic
112 P. BESEN ET AL.
Building’ resulting in the development and publication of GBC Historic Building®, the first and only
rating tool assessing the level of sustainability of conservation-related interventions on historic and
heritage buildings. Her research addresses the links between architecture, technology and environ-
ment, with a focus on the sustainable conservation, adaptation and retrofit of existing and heritage
buildings, regenerative design and post-occupancy evaluation of buildings and the wider neigh-
bourhood scale. She has extensively worked on the sustainable adaptation and energy retrofit of
existing and heritage buildings, on the sustainable regeneration of historic villages and on the
development of environmental sustainability assessment tools.
Prof. Errol Haarhoff is a Professor of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Planning at the
University of Auckland, has qualifications in architecture and urban design, and a PhD in urban
planning, and Co-Director of the University of Auckland Urban Research Network. He has twice
served as Head of School and as Associate Dean (Research), and for over a decade has been
responsible for the Master of Urban Design programme, and teaching urban design theory and
the urban design studios. Research interest has embraced modern architecture and urban histories,
with the publication of an early Guide to the Architecture of Central Auckland. Current research
concerns urban design, and has involved a comparative study of urban growth management and
urban design outcomes in Vancouver, Portland, Auckland and the large Australia cities, and led a
large funded project concerned with urban intensification in Auckland. He is currently a lead
researcher on a National Science Challenge, Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities, and the
Principal Research on a $2.5m strategic research area, Shaping Places: Future Neighbourhoods.
ORCID
Priscila Besen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2264-992X
Paola Boarin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3252-5699
Errol Haarhoff http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3680-9157
Bibliography
Amitrano, L., N. Isaacs, K. Saville-Smith, M. Donn, M. Camilleri, A. Pollard, M. Babylon, et al. 2014.
“BEES Part 1: Final Report Building Energy End-Use Study SR 297/1.” Judgeford. http://www.branz.
co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=182d3ae296d4d92be905477582ae2453c0671d58
The Arts Centre. 2018. “Sustainability and Strength Key to Restoration.”https://www.artscentre.org.
nz/history/rebuild/sustainability-and-strength-key-to-restoration/
Arya, A. S., T. Boen, Y. Ishiyama, A. I. Martemianov, R. Meli, C. Scawthorn, and Y. Yaoxian. Guidelines
for Earthquake Resistant Non-Engineered Construction. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2013.
Auckland Council. “Auckland Unitary Plan: D17. Historic Heritage Overlay” (2016).
Beacon Pathway. 2015. “What Is the HomeSmart Renovation Project?” http://www.beaconpathway.
co.nz/existing-homes/article/what_is_the_homesmart_renovation_project
Belpoliti, V., P. Boarin, M. Calzolari, and P. Davoli. “La Riqualificazione Energetico-ambientale Del
Tessuto Storico. Un Borgo Eco-sensibile per Tradurre Il Sisma in Opportunità.” In The Building
Retrofit Challenge - Programazzione, Progettazione E Gestione Degli Interventi in Europa, edited by
S. R. Ermolli and V. D’Ambrosio, 49–56. Firenze, Italy: Alinea Editrice, 2012.
Bertagni, S., P. Boarin, and M. Zuppiroli. “The Dialogue between Structural Interventions and
Sustainability Criteria in Rating Systems for Cultural Heritage: The Experience of GBC Historic
Building.” International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2018): 1–23. doi:10.1080/
15583058.2018.1511001.
Bertagni, S., P. Boarin, and M. Zuppiroli. “The Dialogue between Structural Interventions and
Sustainability Criteria in Rating Systems for Cultural Heritage: The Experience of GBC Historic
Building”. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (25 September 2018): 1–23. doi:10.1080/
15583058.2018.1511001.
Besen, P., and P. Boarin. “The Future of Historic Buildings: Retrofitting to Improve the Thermal
Performance of New Zealand Architectural Heritage.” In Sustainable Development and Planning
2018, edited by G. Passerini and N. Marchettini, 15–28. Vol. 217. Siena, Italy: WIT Press, 2018.
doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007316.
Blaikie, E. L., and D. D. Spurr. Earthquake Vulnerability of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.
Wellington, New Zealand: EQC, 1997.
Boarin, P., and P. Davoli. “Preliminary Audit and Performance Improvement in Retrofitting Historic
Cultural Heritage. Case Studies of Villages Hit by Earthquake in the Apennines”. In AiCARR (Ed.),
49° Convegno Internazionale AiCARR - Edifici di valore storico: progettare la riqualificazione. Una
panoramica, dalle prestazioni energetiche alla qualità dell’aria interna/49° AiCARR International
Conference - Historical and existing buildings: designi, 759–773. Roma: AiCARR, 2014.
Boschi, S., A. Borghini, B. Pintucchi, and N. Zani. “Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Masonry Buildings:
A Case Study in the Center of Lucca.” Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018): 169–176. doi:10.1016/
j.prostr.2018.11.023.
Bournas, D. “Concurrent Seismic and Energy Retrofitting of RC and Masonry Building Envelopes
Using Inorganic Textile-based Composites Combined with Insulation Materials: A New Concept.”
Composites Part B: Engineering 148 (2018): 166–179. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.002.
BRANZ. 2017. “Code Compliance for Partial Renovations.” BRANZ Renovate. https://www.renovate.
org.nz/regulation-compliance/code-compliance-for-partial-renovations/
BRANZ. 2018. “Insulation Options for Existing Homes.” LEVEL - The authority on sustainable building.
http://www.level.org.nz/passive-design/insulation/insulation-options-for-existing-homes/
Brown, D. Māori Architecture : From Fale to Wharenui and Beyond. Auckland, New Zealand: Raupo,
2009.
Byrd, H., and S. Matthewman. “Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart - A Critical Overview.” New
Zealand Sociology 27, no. 2 (2012): 54–75.
Callau, M. “Upgrading Housing in NZ for Thermal Efficiency.” In SB10 Innovation and Transformation.
Wellington, 2010. https://www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=
b39073f5ae468f314ce83a81be9af83b59336b64
Calvi, G. M., L. Sousa, and C. Ruggeri. “Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience: A Common Approach.”
In Multi-Hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering, edited by P. Gardoni and J. M. LaFave,
165–208. Springer International Publishing, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2.
Calvi, G. M., L. Sousa, and C. Ruggeri. “Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience: A Common Approach.”
In Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering, edited by P. Gardoni and J. M. LaFave,
165–208. Springer International Publishing, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2.
Carbonara, G. “Energy Efficiency as a Protection Tool.” Energy & Buildings 95 (2015): 9–12.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.052.
Character Coalition. 2010. “Aurora Hotel.”https://www.charactercoalition.org.nz/lest-we-forget/aur
ora-hotel/.
Construction News. “Heritage No Barrier to Energy Efficiency.” Construction News. Wellington, New
Zealand, 2016. www.constructionnews.co.nz
Douglas, J. Building Adaptation. 2nd ed Edited by ScienceDirect. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann,
2006.
Dunedin City Council. A Heritage Strategy for Dunedin City, 2007. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
EECA. 2019. “About NABERSNZ.” NABERSNZ. https://www.nabersnz.govt.nz/about-nabersnz/
Filippova, O., M. Rehm, and C. Dibble. “Office Market Response to Earthquake Risk in New
Zealand.” Journal of Property Investment & Finance 35, no. 1 (2017): 44–57. doi:10.1108/JPIF-
05-2016-0026.
Greca, P. L., and G. Margani. “Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures for Sustainable Cities:
A Critical Analysis of the Italian Scenario.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 10, no. 254 (2018).
doi:10.3390/su10010254.
Gregory, J., and A. Stoltz. “The Uneasy Relationship between the RMA and the Heritage New Zealand
Pouhere Taonga Act – Ideas for an Integrated Framework?” In Back to the Future - NZPI
CONFERENCE 2015. Auckland: NZPI, 2015.
114 P. BESEN ET AL.
Gronert, R. “Sustainable Thermal Retrofit of the New Zealand 1930’s – 1950’s Labour Party State
House.” Master Thesis, The University of Auckland, 2011.
Henrich, L., and J. Mcclure. “The Heritage Problem - Is Current Policy on Earthquake-Prone Heritage
Buildings Too Costly?” Policy Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2017): 73–79. doi:10.26686/pq.v13i3.4670.
Heritage New Zealand. 2015. “Lost Heritage 2010–2015 | Lost Heritage | Heritage New Zealand.”
Heritage NZ. http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/lost-heritage/heritage-lost-2010-to-2015
Hosagrahar, J., J. Soule, L. F. Girard, and A. Potts. 2016. “Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable
Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda.” http://www.usicomos.org/wp-content
/uploads/2016/05/Final-Concept-Note.pdf
Housing New Zealand. 2018. “Thermal Upgrade for Homes in the Hutt.” Latest News. https://www.
hnzc.co.nz/news/latest-news/thermal-upgrade-for-homes-in-the-hutt/
Howden-Chapman, P., H. Viggers, R. Chapman, D. O’dea, S. Free, and K. O’sullivan. “Warm Homes:
Drivers of the Demand for Heating in the Residential Sector in New Zealand.” Energy Policy 37
(2009): 3387–3399. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.023.
Howden-Chapman, P., H. Viggers, R. Chapman, K. O’Sullivan, L. T. Barnard, and B. Lloyd. “Tackling
Cold Housing and Fuel Poverty in New Zealand: A Review of Policies, Research, and Health
Impacts.” Energy Policy 49 (2012): 134–142. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.044.
ICOMOS. 1964. “The Venice Charter 1964, IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians
of Historic Monuments §.” https://doi.org/1964
ICOMOS New Zealand. 2010. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value.
Instituto de Ciência e Inovação para a Bio-Sustentabilidade. 2017. “HeritageCare - Monitoring and
Preventive Conservation of Historic and Cultural Heritage„. http://heritagecare.eu/project/about/.
International Energy Agency. 2018. “Energy Efficiency.” https://www.iea.org/topics/
energyefficiency/
Iselin, D. G., and A. C. Lemer. The Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Minimizing Obsolescence.
Washington, USA: National Academy Press, 1993.
Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
La Greca, P., and G. Margani. “Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures for Sustainable Cities:
A Critical Analysis of the Italian Scenario.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (2018): 254.
doi:10.3390/su10010254.
Lamberts, R., L. Dutra, and O. R. Fernando. Pereira. Eficiência Energética Na Arquitetura. 3rd ed. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil: PROCEL, 2014.
Leardini, P., and M. Manfredini. “Modern Housing Retrofit: Assessment of Upgrade Packages to
EnerPHit Standard for 1940–1960 State Houses in Auckland.” Buildings 5, no. 1 (2015): 229–251.
doi:10.3390/buildings5010229.
Leardini, P., M. Manfredini, and M. Callau. “Energy Upgrade to Passive House Standard for Historic
Public Housing in New Zealand.” Energy and Buildings 95, no. 2015 (2015): 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.03.031.
Legnér, M., and G. Leijonhufvud. “A Legacy of Energy Saving: The Discussion on Heritage Values
in the First Programme on Energy Efficiency in Buildings in Sweden, C. 1974–1984.” Historic
Environment: Policy and Practice 10, no. 1 (2019): 40–57. doi:10.1080/17567505.2018.1531646.
Manfredini, M., and P. Leardini. “Existing Stock for the Future : Problems, Opportunities and
Strategies for Energy Upgrade of 1940 – 1960 State Housing in New Zealand.” 1, no. 1 (2014):
36–42. doi:10.14621/tna.20140105.
MBIE. 2018. “Register of Earthquake-Prone Buildings (EPB Register).” Building Performance. https://
epbr.building.govt.nz/.
McClean, R. Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage. Guide No. 6 Building Act 2004. Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga, 2007.
McDonagh, J., J. Bowring, and H. Perkins. “The Consumption of Chaos: From the Charm of Chaos
to the Tedium of Order – The Case of Christchurch, New Zealand before and after the Central
City Post-Earthquake Rebuild.” In Sustainable Development and Planning 2018, edited by
G. Passerini and N. Marchettini, 217:855–75. Siena, Italy: WIT Press, 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.
ppat.1007316.
McDonald, L. 2017. “Another Christchurch Arts Centre Building Back in Action.” Stuff.Co.Nz,
November 9. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/98673133/another-christchurch-arts-
centre-building-back-in-action
McEwan, A. “Heritage Issues.” In Planning Practice in New Zealand, edited by C. Miller and L. Beattie,
243–254. Wellington, New Zealand: LexisNexis, 2017.
McSaveney, E. 2006. “Historic Earthquakes - The 1931 Hawke’s Bay Earthquake.” Te Ara - the
Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Accessed July 29, 2018. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/historic-
earthquakes/page-6
McSaveney, E. 2017. “Earthquakes.” Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. https://teara.govt.nz/
en/earthquakes
Ministry for Culture and Heritage. 2016. “Heritage EQUIP: Earthquake Upgrade Incentive
Programme.”http://heritageequip.govt.nz/
Ministry for the Environment. 1997. “New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage.” State of the environment
1997. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/state-new-zealand’s-
environment-1997-chapter-two-place-and
Ministry for the Environment. 2018. “Understanding Our Emissions Reduction Targets.” Ministry for
the Environment. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/what-government-doing/emissions-
reduction-targets/understanding-our-targets
Ministry for the Environment. 2019. “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill.”
Climate change and Government. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-
amendment-bill
Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment. 2016. Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings)
Amendment Act.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. 2017. “H1 Energy Efficiency | Building Performance.”
Building Code Compliance. https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance/h-energy-
efficiency/h1-energy-efficiency/
Nahkies, P. B. “Seismic Retrofitting - Testing Feasibility.” In 21st Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society
Conference, 18–21. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2015. doi:10.3389/fphar.2015.00018.
New Zealand Government. Resource Management Act 1991, 1991.
New Zealand Government. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, 2014.
New Zealand Government. Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016,
2016.
New Zealand Government. Healthy Homes Guarantee Act 2017, 2017.
New Zealand Green Building Council. 2019. “Green Star - Performance NZ.” NZGBC. https://www.
nzgbc.org.nz/greenstar/performance
New Zealand Green Building Council. 2019. “HomeFit.” NZGBC. https://www.nzgbc.org.nz/homefit
New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga. 2007. “Sustainable Management of Historic
Heritage Guidance, Information Sheet 12: Alterations and Additions to Historic Buildings.”
August. http://www.heritage.org.nz/resources/sustainable-management-guides
New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors. 2017. “New Zealand’s Cultural Heritage Conservation –
Yes, We Have Old Buildings in NZ.” NZIBS. https://www.buildingsurveyors.co.nz/2018/04/news/
new-zealands-cultural-heritage-conservation-yes-we-have-old-buildings-in-nz/
Newshub. 2010. “Auckland’s Historic Palace Hotel Demolished.” https://www.newshub.co.nz/
nznews/aucklands-historic-palace-hotel-demolished-2010111906
Nightingale, M. 2018. “Housing New Zealand Thermally Upgrading State Houses in Hutt Valley.” NZ
Herald, June 6. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12065552
NZ History. 2016. “February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. https://
nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/february-2011-christchurch-earthquake
NZGBC. 2016. Greenstar Technical Manual V3.1.” https://www.nzgbc.org.nz/Attachment?Action=
Download&Attachment_id=69
O’Sullivan, K. C., P. Howden-Chapman, D. Sim, J. Stanley, R. L. Rowan, I. K. Harris Clark, and
L. L. A. Morrison. “Cool? Young People Investigate Living in Cold Housing and Fuel Poverty.
A Mixed Methods Action Research Study.” SSM - Population Health 3 (2017): 66–74. doi:10.1016/j.
ssmph.2016.12.006. December.
116 P. BESEN ET AL.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Historic and Cultural Heritage Management in New
Zealand. Wellington, 1996. https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1526/historic-and-cultural-
heritage-management-in-new-zealand-june-1996-small.pdf
Parliamentary Library. Leaky Buildings. Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Parliamentary Library, 2002.
Passive House Institute. Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy Building Standard.
Darmstadt, Germany: Passive House Institute, 2016.
Perrott, A. 2009. “Monumental Losses.” NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.
cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10601571
Pertile, V., L. De Stefani, and R. Scotta. “Development and Characterization of a System for the
Seismic and Energy Retrofit of Existing Buildings.” Procedia Structural Integrity 11 (2018): 347–354.
doi:10.1016/J.PROSTR.2018.11.045.
PRECOM3OS. 2019. “WTA-PRECOM3OS Conference Preventive Conservation from Climate and
Damage Monitoring to a Systemic and Integrated Approach”. In International WTA -
PRECOM3OS symposium, Leuven, Belgium: PRECOM3OS.
Quality Planning. 2014. “Historic Heritage.” The RMA Quality Planning Resource. http://www.quality
planning.org.nz/index.php/planning-tools/heritage#heritage_strategy
Roaf, S., D. Crichton, and F. Nicol. Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change: A 21st Century
Survival Guide. Oxford, UK: Elsevier: Architectural Press, 2009.
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. 2011. “The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm.” http://canterbury.royalcommission.
govt.nz/vwluResources/ENG.ACA.0001G_Section_7_Performance_of_Unreinforced_Masonry_
Buildings_in_the_2010_and_2011_Canterbury_Earthquake_Swarm.pdf/$file/ENG.ACA.0001G_
Section_7_Performance_of_Unreinforced_Masonry_Buildings_
Russell, A. P., and J. M. Ingham. “Prevalence of New Zealand’s Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.”
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, September43, no. 3 (2010).
Schrader, B. 2014. “Theatres, Cinemas and Halls - Early 20th Century.” Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of
New Zealand. https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/42379/his-majestys-theatre-1988
Senaldi, I., G. Magenes, and J. M. Ingham. “Damage Assessment of Unreinforced Stone Masonry
Buildings after the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquakes.” International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 9, no. 5 (2015): 605–627. doi:10.1080/15583058.2013.840688.
Smith, N., N. Isaacs, J. Burgess, and I. Cox-Smith. “Thermal Performance of Secondary Glazing as
a Retrofit Alternative for Single-Glazed Windows.” Energy & Buildings 54 (2012): 47–51.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.038.
Spyrakos, C. C. “Bridging Performance Based Seismic Design with Restricted Interventions on
Cultural Heritage Structures.” Engineering Structures 160, no. August 2017 (2018): 34–43.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.022.
Troi, A., and Z. Bastian. Energy Efficiency Solutions for Historic Buildings. A Handbook. Basel: Birkhäuser
Verlag GmbH, 2015.
UNFCCC. 2016. “The Paris Agreement.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 16301. New
York, United States: UN, 2015.
Vale, B. “Upgrading the Existing Stock.” In J. Bernhardt ed., A Deeper Shade of Green: Sustainable
Urban Development, Building and Architecture in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Balasoglou
Books, 2008.
Vallis, S., F. Gálvez, M. Swidan, C. Orchiston, and J. Ingham. “Classical Temples and Industrial Stores:
Survey Analysis of Historic Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Precincts to Inform Urban Seismic Risk
Mitigation.” International Journal of Architectural Heritage 12 (2018): 7–8. doi:10.1080/
15583058.2018.1503372.
Vickers, J., and B. Fisher. The Carbon Footprint of New Zealand’s Built Environment. Wellington, New
Zealand, 2018. https://www.thinkstep.com/content/carbon-footprint-new-zealands-built-
environment-hotspot-or-not?submissionGuid=98e1409a-b5b9-4874-b06b-79d55af46931
Warnock, C. “Bringing Existing Buildings into the Sustainability Equation.” In SB07 New Zealand.
Auckland, 2007. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.520.1586&rep=
rep1&type=pdf
Webb, A. L. “Energy Retrofits in Historic and Traditional Buildings: A Review of Problems and
Methods.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 77 (2017): 748–759. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2017.01.145.
Wellington City Council. Wellington City District Plan - Volume 1: Objectives, Policies & Rules - Chapter
20 - Heritage. Wellington, New Zealand: Wellington City Council, 2010.
Wolfe, R. New Zealand’s Lost Heritage. Auckland, New Zealand: New Holland Publishers, 2013.

Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in New Zealand Reflections On Current Policies and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in New Zealand Reflections On Current Policies and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

ISSN: 1756-7505 (Print) 1756-7513 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhen20

Energy and Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings in

Priscila Besen, Paola Boarin & Errol Haarhoff

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1715597

Published online: 28 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 348

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Energy and Seismic Retroﬁt of Historic Buildings in New

Introduction and Background

CONTACT Priscila Besen pbes461@aucklanduni.ac.nz

The Integration of Energy and Seismic Retroﬁt in Historic Buildings

The Heritage Environment in New Zealand

Retroﬁtting Historic Buildings in New Zealand

Energy Retroﬁt Policies

Seismic Strengthening Policies

● in areas of low seismic risk, 35 years for any building;

It is to be noted that, in the Act, ‘priority building’ means hospitals, educational

Reﬂections on the Integration of Energy Retroﬁt and Seismic Upgrades in

104. Leardini and Manfredini, “Modern Housing Retroﬁt.”

You might also like