Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Green retrofitting – A review of current status, implementations and

challenges
crossmark
⁎
Rehmaashini Jagarajana, Mat Naim Abdullah Mohd Asmonia, , Abdul Hakim Mohammeda,
Mohd Nadzri Jaafara, Janice Lee Yim Meia, Maizan Babab
a
Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Johor Bahru, 81310 Johor, Malaysia
b
Centre of Real Estate Study, Department of Real Estate, Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate, Universiti Technologi Malaysia, UTM Johor Bahru,
81310 Johor, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: One of the largest threats to future development is climate change. Apparently, the building sector has been the
Green retrofitting largest source of greenhouse gas production. One prospective solution to this is “green building” that aims to
Existing building provide environmentally sustainable building in terms of design, construction and maintenance. However,
Research trends green buildings symbolize the next stage of buildings, and the recent growth of new green building constructions
Challenges
is inadequate to overcome the negative impact of existing buildings. One logical solution to reduce the
Future research
environmental impact of the existing buildings is through green retrofitting. Yet there is lack of systematic
review on the existing body of knowledge on green retrofitting which is critical for future research. This paper
aims to critically review the existing literature on green retrofitting and to identify contemporary research
trends. Additionally, with the view to the current challenges, barriers, obstacles or problems to green
retrofitting, this study highlights the needs to identify the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for successful
implementation of green retrofit projects.

1. Introduction related to arranging, outlining, and overseeing structures and their

The development of facilities management in Malaysia began in the
late 1990s [1]. Nevertheless, according to Kamaruzzaman and Zawawi,
“countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan and
Singapore have successfully develop and establish facilities manage-
ment” [2]. They also added that facilities management in these nations
is perceived as “effective management of buildings, services and related
workforce in support of the key goals of an organization”. According to
Lim “numerous companies still view the provision, operation and
maintenance of facilities as a technical rather than strategic function
with a blurred relationship to core business objectives although the
evolution of the profession has been noteworthy” [3].
Facilities management (FM) is a term that incorporates an ex-
tensive variety of exercises to ensure functionality of the built assets
[4]. Previously, facilities management was mainly viewed in terms of
repairs and maintenance, and therefore has poor relationship within
the professions involved in the built environment [2]. Nowadays,
facilities management encompasses all support services with the aims
to enhance the core business of an organization [2]. According to
Becker, facilities management is in charge of planning all endeavors
frameworks, hardware and furniture to enhance the organization's
ability to fight successfully in a quickly changing world [5].
Additionally, according to Loosemore and Hsin, “facilities management
is the empowering function by which an organization passes on and
supports a quality working environment for its human and physical
resources with the objective that supervisors can meet core business
objectives” [6]. Therefore, the purpose of facilities management is to
improve running expenses of buildings, as well as to raise the
proficiency and sustainability of the management of space and other
related resources or individuals or procedures, all together that the
mission and goals of the organization may be achieved at the best mix
of viability, expense and quality [4]. Different researches have defined
facilities management in different perspectives.
Generally, facilities management is the most important profession
in ensuring organizational effectiveness [6]. However, Loosemore and
Hsin stated that, property as an element of an organization's facility
can increase the worth of an organization if appropriately managed, yet
it is perceived as a deteriorating physical cost burden instead of as a
benefit [6]. Therefore, as emphasized by Pong, sustainability being the
latest value added services in the facilities management field may

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matnaim@utm.my (M.N. Abdullah Mohd Asmoni).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.091
Received 2 September 2015; Received in revised form 26 August 2016; Accepted 21 September 2016
Available online 25 October 2016
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Jagarajan et al.
ensure proper management of property for an organization in terms of
physical, functional and financial performance [7].
The advantages of sustainability and green building practices in
facilities management are well entrenched, for example, decrease in
energy utilization, productivity improvement and waste reduction.
Numerous other advantageous impacts of sustainability can be mea-
sured and presented to an organization's leadership with a specific end
goal to defend sustainable practices and their constructive outcome on
the bottom line [8]. Furthermore, with buildings evaluated to represent
roughly 50% of all yearly energy and greenhouse gas emissions,
ensuring environmentally sustainable building in terms of design,
construction and maintenance is one of the possible solutions [9,10].
Undoubtedly, executing sustainability and green building approaches
to facilities will benefit an organization through returns on investment,
public image, enhanced efficiency and environmental friendly [8].
There has been critical global interest and support from public and
private sectors and the overall population in encouraging a environ-
mental-friendly and sustainable, “green” and carbon-reducing build-
ings [11].
Sustainable or green building is defined as “one that uses a careful
integrated design strategy that minimizes energy use, maximizes
daylight, has a high degree of indoor air quality and thermal comfort,
conserves water, reuses materials and uses materials with recycled
content, minimizes site disruptions and generally provides a high
degree of occupant comfort” [12]. According to Robichaud and
Anantatmula, there are four pillars of green buildings, which are
minimizing impact on the environment, enhancing the wellbeing states
of occupants, the return on investment to developers and local
community, and the lifecycle consideration during the planning and
development process [13]. Additionally, Frej and Browning defined
green building as “an outcome of a design which focuses on increasing
the efficiency of resource use such as energy, water and materials while
reducing building impact on human health and environment during the
building's lifecycle, through better sitting, design, construction, opera-
tion, maintenance and removal” [14]. To conclude, the definitions of
green buildings revolve around lifecycle perspective, environmental
sustainability, health issues and impact on the community [15].
Existing buildings are outperformed by green buildings in terms of
environmental, economic and social indicators [11], hence represent
the next phase of buildings. However, the ratio of existing buildings to
new green buildings is large. As a consequence, Miller and Buys added
that on the off chance that the test of climate change is to be effectively
addressed, the limitless load of seasoned buildings should be retrofitted
[11]. Generally, existing buildings especially non-residential have been
the major single source of greenhouse gas emissions [16]. According to
Gohardani and Bjork, calls for sustainability and the lowering of the
environmental impact from existing building stock demands for retro-
fitting [17]. Therefore, to realistically attain decreased building energy
utilization and greenhouse gas emanations, one of the major ap-
proaches is building retrofitting [18].
The literature review led a development of a model representing the
chain link of study from facilities management to sustainability to
green retrofits. This links have been carefully illustrated using Curry's
Onion Model (1983) shown in Fig. 1 below..
2. Green retrofitting
Retrofitting is considered an effective strategy to enhance the
sustainability of existing facilities [19]. Sanvido and Riggs have defined
retrofit projects as “the modification or conversion (not a complete
replacement) of an existing process, facility or structure [20]. Such
modification may involve additions, deletions, rearrangements or
replacements of one or more parts of the facility. Changes may alter
the kind, quantity, cost or quality of the products or services being
produced by the facility”. Latham viewed retrofitting as “a process that
reaps the benefits of the embodied energy and quality of the original
1361
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
Fig. 1. Onion Model (Developed for this study).
building in a dynamic and sustainable manner” [21]. According to Love
and Bullen, the majority of existing buildings will still be in use for the
next 50–100 years due to its long lifespan nature [19]. Therefore,
Steemers points out that unless the rate of green retrofits is amplified,
“building design and construction will have little responsibility in
tackling global warming” [22]. The United State Green Building
Council (USGBC) defined green retrofit as “any type of upgrade at an
existing building that is wholly or partially occupied to improve energy
and environmental performance, reduce water use, improve comfort
and quality of space in terms of natural lighting, air quality and noise,
all done in a way that it is financially beneficial to the owner” [23].
The past century has witnessed an ongoing argument regarding the
feasibility of demolition as compared to retrofitting of existing build-
ings [24-27]. The method of demolition and rebuilding increases
pressure on existing landfills, and therefore does not seem to make
much sense [28]. Furthermore, if buildings are re-used, then less
construction waste is generated and less material resources are
required. According to Power, there are noteworthy environmental,
social and economic benefits of retrofitting compared to demolition and
rebuild [29]. The upgrading work on aged and deteriorated buildings is
known as retrofitting [30]. Furthermore, Wilkinson stated that retrofit
can occur to any parts of a building, for instance, to one or more levels
of high rise buildings or to whole buildings [31].
According to Trusty and Meil [32], research was conducted on
“comparing the environmental impacts of buildings resulting from
complete demolition and subsequent construction of non-residential
new buildings with existing office buildings which have undergone
retrofitting process. The retrofit case was evaluated by calculating the
environmental impacts that would be dodged by retaining the existing
structural components and envelope systems. The comparison does not
represent the effects significant from operating energy incurred over
the life of the retrofitted building. The aftereffect of this correlation
uncover that the measure of energy spared from retrofitting a building
is near to the sum required to develop a similar size of new non-
residential building and to operate it for a year” [32].
A vast extent of total energy utilized globally was contributed by the
construction of buildings and their operations [33]. Existing buildings
have noted to utilize more energy and yet, their replacement rate is
only around 1.0–3.0% per annum [34]. In fact, the utmost potential to
cut down the environmental impact within the following 20 years lies
within the existing building stock [35]. Consequently, for timely
reduction in worldwide energy use and for the advancement of
environmental sustainability, it is crucial to rapidly improve energy
effectiveness in existing buildings. An incomprehensible measure of
exploration has been done to distinguish diverse energy proficiency
chances to enhance energy performance of existing buildings [33].
Generally, proper retrofitting has been the major approach to reduce
R. Jagarajan et al.
energy use significantly in existing buildings [36].
There are tremendous opportunities obtainable by conducting
building retrofitting, for instance, upgraded energy proficiency and
enhanced staff effectiveness, decreased upkeep costs and healthier
thermal comfort [18]. Retrofitting may likewise enhance a country's
energy security and corporate social obligation, generate job prospects,
decrease energy value instability and create comfortable environment
for occupants [37]. Yet, apart from opportunities, undertaking retro-
fitting actions in existing buildings have numerous challenges as well
[18]. The fundamental challenge of building retrofitting is the various
uncertainties encountered such as, government policy, climate
changes, human conduct and services which straightforwardly influ-
ence the accomplishment of a retrofit project [18]. Money related
constraints and boundaries, intrusions to operations and perceived
long payback periods are also some of the challenges [38]. Lack of
financial support from the government to fund building proprietors for
green retrofit works is another challenge. This is due to the issue of
“split incentives” where the expenses of the retrofit actions typically
tumbles to building proprietors while the advantages frequently stream
to a great extent to the occupants [18].
Extensive researches on various aspects of green retrofitting have
been conducted recently. However, a systematic review on green
retrofitting based on current body of knowledge is yet to be acknowl-
edged. In fact, such systematic review plays a critical part to not only
identify the general research themes but also to assess green retro-
fitting developments. Therefore, this research proposes to significantly
review the green retrofitting related studies to suggest future needs in
this field. Additionally, this paper provides a useful reference for both
industry practitioners and academicians that are interested in green
retrofitting growth.
3. Common research themes on green retrofitting
There has been wide range of studies on green retrofitting of
existing buildings, as evidenced in the rapid growing number of papers
published recently. Both developed and developing countries are
involved in these studies, indicating that green retrofitting is a world-
wide issue. A critical review of the existing body of knowledge revealed
that there are generally three common issues among these studies;
definition and scope of green retrofitting; the need for green retro-
fitting; and the various retrofit actions and decision-making models
(Fig. 2). Additionally, mirroring the mapping of green building-related
studies by Zuo and Zhao, green retrofitting studies can also be
approached via the outcome (i.e sustainable retrofitting assessment)
[15]. These common themes are discussed in detail in the following
sections..
Definition and
scope of green
retrofitting
The need for
green
retrofitting
Retrofit actions
and decision
making models
Fig. 2. Green retrofitting related studies.
1362
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
4. What is green retrofitting?
Research on building retrofits is not new and extensively available
in public domain [18]. Nevertheless, the question on what is green
retrofitting and what green retrofitting should cover is still debatable.
Based on the triple bottom line structure of sustainable development or
green development, economic, environmental and social aspects are
the three parts of sustainability claimed to have similar level of
criticality [31]. Therefore, green retrofitting of existing buildings
should focus on economic, environmental and social advantages [39].
4.1. Economic
Retrofitting a building is often less expensive than to demolish and
rebuild, or even to build new [40-45]. Furthermore, since no demoli-
tion is undertaken or as the construction period is reduced, therefore
the financing cost is reduced [41]. In addition, building adaptation is
also marked to increase building value [46]. However, studies show
that retrofitting costs of a complex existing building or with more
listing or legislation requirements surpasses a comparable new build-
ing [46]. Wilkinson et al.., also added that poor building quality can
increase retrofitting costs drastically which results in new building
becoming more viable [46]. Therefore, it is important to determine
whether it is economically beneficial before making decisions on green
retrofitting.
4.2. Environmental
Green retrofitting involves less energy utilization, pollution, trans-
port energy and resource utilization throughout the construction phase
and therefore, it is naturally sustainable [45,47]. The Department of
Environment and Heritage stated that demolition of buildings is
inefficient in terms of building materials [48]. According to Ball,
environmental and social benefits may influence the decisions towards
retrofitting even though the economic costs are high [42]. Cooper
stated that the most crucial part of enhancing sustainability of
buildings is upgrading the performance of existing buildings through
retrofitting [49]. The effects of land utilization on the natural environ-
ment are numerous, such as degradation of habitats, altered eco-
systems and diminishments in bio-diversity which in return results in
reduced air and water quality and also the rise and spread of irresistible
ailments affecting humans and animals [50]. Therefore, it is envir-
onmentally beneficial to implement green retrofitting in existing
buildings.
4.3. Social
Retrofitting preserves the societal and cultural assets embodied in
existing built environment [45,51]. Even though this statement cannot
be accepted for all buildings, yet, planning legislation can limit the
scope and extent of retrofitting [43] to retain social and cultural
aspects. Furthermore, there are arguments that the creative component
of new buildings are absent in retrofitting [45]. Nevertheless, it is
undeniable that creativity lies in getting contemporary needs to fit in
the existing buildings. Generally, social goals are not always realized in
retrofitting [46]. Therefore, stakeholders should be cautious of projects
which are capable of providing momentous social impact.
5. Why green retrofitting and how much benefits
There are ample researches studying the costs and benefits of
implementing green retrofitting. The key idea of this study is to
rationalize the need for green retrofitting which will assist stakeholders
towards achieving sustainability in existing buildings. In fact, the huge
challenge in green building is to improve sustainability of the entire
stock of buildings in active use rather than to build a minority of highly
R. Jagarajan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368

sustainable buildings. tion and greenhouse gas emissions, green retrofitting is measured as
In fact, to mitigate global warming and climate change, drastic one of the major approaches. Therefore, retrofitting is not merely to
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are vital and therefore, all fulfill the need to retrofit but to achieve sustainability in the built
stakeholders should be looking at methods of reducing emissions from environment.
existing building stock [46]. In fact, according to Menassa and Baer,
non-residential existing building stakeholders are concerned with
6. How to achieve green retrofitting
lifting the sustainability of their buildings from social, environmental,
economic and technical viewpoints [52]. Consequently, green retro-
Green retrofitting diminishes energy utilization as well as enhances
fitting is measured as the foremost approach in attaining sustainability
entire building conditions; its exploitation, exterior, noise insulation
in existing buildings at fairly low cost and high uptake rates. Generally,
and comfort; prolongs buildings lifecycle, decreased negative effect to
the focus for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions lies
environment, expands value of buildings and guarantees healthy
within non-residential existing buildings as the major single source
working and living condition [57]. Therefore, green retrofitting can
of greenhouse gas emissions compared to other building types [16].
be seen as an opportunity not only to modernize buildings’ appearance
Indeed, policy makers have acknowledged the need for more retro-
but also to enhance its overall technical performance [43]. There is
fitting projects [46] as a way of attaining sustainability in the built
indeed a wide interest for green retrofitting [57-61]. Various retrofit
environment.
actions and decision support tools have been developed and utilized by
Green retrofitting of vast stock of existing buildings reduces world-
building analysts and experts to upgrade building performance [18].
wide energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. This is on account of
Table 1 shows the retrofitting actions based on the current literature.
the quantity of buildings built every year in developed nations only
Based on these vast numbers of retrofit actions, a methodical
corresponds to 1.5–2% of the existing building stock [45]. In light of
approach was developed to identify and acknowledge the most
current circumstances of development yield, the present stock of
phenomenal retrofit decisions for existing buildings. In fact, according
existing buildings would be replaced in 50 to 100 years’ time [45]. In
to Ma et al.., although extensive choices of retrofit machinery readily
this manner, the majority of existing building stock will stay with us for
available, the real difficulties was to recognize the most financially
decades [53-55]. On the other hand, existing buildings correspond to
savvy retrofit methods for specific projects [18]. Therefore, the subject
an energy investment that has already been expended in the procure-
of significance is the identification of the most appropriate retrofit
ment, manufacture and transportation of materials and in the con-
options based on the potential expenses and effects involved [33].
struction process itself. Thus, to demolish an existing building and to
Ample researches were conducted mainly to provide an efficient
build a new “green” building in its place is counter-productive to the
method for better selection of the best retrofit choices for existing
idea of energy conservation. By some estimates, it would take more
buildings.
than 65 years to regain the energy savings of demolishing an existing
Reddy et al.., offered “a frame-based decision support model for
building and replacing it with a new “green” building [56].
building retrofitting” [75], Ma et al.., provided “an orderly way to deal
Therefore, the negative impacts of existing buildings are twofold; on
with appropriate determination and identification of the best retrofit
the one hand, the demolition waste would fill and pollute landfills if
choices for existing buildings” [18], Rosenfeld and Shohet, Lavy and
these existing buildings are restored, on the other hand, the negative
Shohet proposed “decision support model for semi-automated selec-
impact on the environment would continue if these buildings are
tion of retrofitting alternatives” [76,77], Alanne proposed “a multi-
permitted to stand without retrofitting. In these circumstances, green
criteria ‘knapsack’ model to help designers select the most feasible
retrofitting of non-residential existing buildings would convey the
retrofitting actions in the conceptual phase of a retrofitting projects”
advantage of green building to existing structures and facilitate to
[78]. In addition, Sitar et al.. provided “the model of sustainable
diminish the unconstructive environmental impact caused by these
retrofitting of a multi-apartment building” [79], Caccavelli and Gugerli
buildings. Undoubtedly, to practically achieve reduced energy utiliza-
offered “retrofitting decision making model for office buildings retro-

Table 1
Retrofit actions based on current literature.
Source: Ma et al., 2012

Authors Retrofit actions

Chidiac, Catania, Morofsky and Foo [62]
Ascione, Rossi and Vanoli [63]
Santamouris, Pavlou, Doukas, Mihalakakou, Synnefa,
Hatzibiros and Patargias [64]
Dascalaki and Santamouris [65]
Fluhrer, Maurer and Deshmukh [66]
Goldman, Greely and Harris [67]
Cohen, Goldman and Harris [68]
Al-Ragom [69]
Bin and Parker [70]
Mahlia, Said, Masjuki and Tamjis [71]
Stovall, Petrie, Kosny, Childs, Atchley and Sissom [72]
Nabinger and Persily [73]
Stefano [74]
“Heat recovery; day-lighting; boiler efficiency economizer; preheat upgrade; lighting load reduction”
“Modification of indoor temperature set-point; infiltration reduction; increase of the vertical wall thermal
insulation; replacement of the old boiler with a condensation gas heater”
“Green roof”
“Building envelope improvement; using passive systems and techniques; installation of energy saving lighting
systems and use of daylight; improvement of heating, cooling and ventilation systems”
“Windows upgrading; insulated reflective barriers; tenant day-lighting, lighting and plugs; chiller plant retrofit;
using a new air handling layout unit; demand control ventilation; balance of direct digital controls; tenant energy
management”
“Heating controls and heating system equipment retrofits (for fuel-heat buildings); window retrofits and
insulation of water heat tank and installation of low-flow showerheads (for electric-heat buildings)”
“Ceiling insulation, wall insulation, foundation insulation, windows replacement, heating system retrofits”
“Wall and roof insulation; change of glazing system and decrease of window area”
“A high level insulation of the roof, walls, foundation and basement floor; air sealing and replacement of windows
and doors; the adoption of renewable energy and energy efficient appliances”
“Retrofitting incandescent lamps with more efficient compact fluorescent lamps”
“Wall retrofits including replacing the cladding, adding insulation under the cladding, and air sealing methods for
replacement windows”
“Installing house wrap over the exterior walls, sealing leakage sites in the living space floor and leakages in the air
distribution system, and tightening the insulated belly layer”
“Replacing 1.2 m fluorescent lighting fixtures with the electronic ballasts, T8 magnetic ballasts, T8 electronic
ballasts, and T5 electronic ballasts”

1363
R. Jagarajan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368

fitting” [80], Phdungsilp and Martinac suggested “a multi-criteria
decision making method for retrofitting in Thailand” [81], Dascalaki
and Balaras presented “XENIOS – an approach for evaluating retro-
fitting circumstances” [84], Dan proposed “a multi-criteria decision
model for retrofitting” [82], Kaklauskas et al.., provided “variety in
design and in criteria analysis for building retrofitting” [83], and Asadi
et al.., proposed “model for retrofitting namely, multiple objective
optimization” [88]. With all the above decision-making models for
retrofitting, one may agree that the green retrofit should easily be
implemented. However, the reality is different where the next section
discusses in detail the challenges, problems and obstacles that led to
future possible research in green retrofit.
7. Challenges, obstacles and problems of green retrofitting
Sustainability has been the latest value added service in the facility
management field [7] where facility managers habitually are the
promoters of sustainable and green building practices [8]. However,
according to Pong, the majority of the facility teams do not practice
sustainability services in the facility management and are still unclear
about sustainability [7], resulting in building sector continuously being
the prime source of greenhouse gas emanations globally. Therefore, to
lessen global warming and climate change, stakeholders should be
looking at ways of reducing emissions from existing building stock for
drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [46].
Unfortunately, green retrofitting is not winning its place at the
forefront, even with the growing concerns of stakeholders over
environmental, social and economic aspects [85]. Menassa and Baer

Table 2
Summary of factors affecting successful green retrofit projects implementation.

No. Factors Sub-factors References

1. Financial resources 58. Initial capital cost of green buildings Urge-Vorsatz et al.., [98]; Richardson and Lynes [99]; Mcdonald et al..,
59. Lack of lifecycle costing knowledge [93]; Choi [100]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Galuppo and Tu [101]; Azizi
60. Insufficient funding et al.., [96]; Reza et al.., [102]; Benson et al. [103]; International Labor
61. Fluctuation of the price of green materials Office [104]; Liu et al., [105]; Urban Land Institute [106]; Bond [107],
Yudelson [108]; Bond and Perrett [109]; Tam et al., [110]
2. Green building i. Inexperienced teams might lack the skills to properly Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Galuppo and Tu [101]; Azizi et al., 2010 [96];
professionals implement green oriented technology which could hinder its Reza et al., [102]; Benson et al., [103]; International Labor Office [104];
effectiveness Liu et al., [105]; Urban Land Institute [106]; Bond [107]; Yudelson
ii. Inexperienced consultants and contractors [108]; Tam et al., [110]; Urge-Vorsatz et al., [98]
iii. Deficiencies in the supply of skills and training for green
building
iv. Lack of energy specialist to provide information and assist on
green building systems and concepts
v. Commercial building owners have little retrofit expertize
vi. Lack of sustainability knowledge
vii. Experienced design teams are difficult to find
3. Policy support i. Lack of financial incentives Richardson and Lynes [99]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Galuppo and Tu
ii. Lost of financial incentives if certification is not reached [101]; Reza et al., [102]; Benson et al., [103]; Urban Land Institute [106];
iii. Tax and regulatory incentives are not uniform Bond [107]; Yudelson [108]; Bond and Perrett [109]
iv. Tax and regulatory incentives may be complicated and
difficult to obtain
v. Uncertain expiration dates of incentives
vi. Low investment and involvement from the government and
private companies in the green building movement
4. Green development i. Knowledge Gap in Green Development Quantification Kastenhofer and Rammel [111]; Brown and Southworth [112]; Mcdonald
quantification ii. Lack of established benchmarks and criteria for assessing et al., [93]; Choi [100]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Benson et al., [103];
green International Labor Office [104]; Bond and Perrett [109]; Tam et al.,
iii. Lack of consensus in the market about the leading green [110]
standards
iv. Not many performance data about retrofitted existing
buildings
v. Have few resources to value a retrofit
vi. Return on investment needs more of a historical perspective
to become more predictable
5. Green awareness i. Owners and investors do not have access to enough Richardson and Lynes [99]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Galuppo and Tu
information to easily convince them that green building is [101]; Reza et al., [102]; International Labor Office [104]; Bond and
the best avenue to pursue Perrett [109]
ii. Unaware of the benefits of green building
iii. Lack of knowledge in financial institutions in regards to green
buildings
6. Communication i. Lack of communication between tenant and landlord Kastenhofer and Rammel [111]; Richardson and Lynes [99]; Mcdonald
ii. Poor communication among owner, designer and consultants et al., [93]; Choi [100]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Liu et al., [105]
iii. Lack of support from team members
7. Internal leadership i. Unclear vision Richardson and Lynes [99]; Choi [100]; Pedini and Ashuri [85]
ii. Lack of Internal Leadership
iii. Not committed project leader
iv. Lack of leadership from senior administration
v. Owners not ready to leave their comfort zone e.g new team,
unfamiliar environment, new process, new technology, etc
8. Green material and i. New green building materials might result in issues never Pedini and Ashuri [85]; Azizi et al., [96]; Bond and Perrett [109]
technology encountered previously and be a source of litigation
ii. Unreliable or unproven technology
iii. Limited availability of green material and technology
iv. New materials performance is not tested over the years

1364
R. Jagarajan et al.
stated that building stakeholders are responsible on deciding whether a
building should undergo green retrofits [52]. Foley defined stake-
holders as “… those entities and/or issues, which a business identifies
from the universe of all who are interested in and/or affected by the
activities or existence of that business, and are capable of causing the
enterprise to fail, or could cause unacceptable levels of damage, if their
needs are not met” [90]. Building proprietors and operators are urged
to empower operations towards sustainability of existing buildings so
as to lessen poor effects on the environment and also occupant
wellbeing over the whole building lifecycle. Therefore, major initiatives
from building stakeholders are necessary for green retrofitting purpose.
Green retrofit projects are still not widely practiced, although there
is significant demand for green buildings [52]. The low response to
sustainability by the non-residential property markets is well-docu-
mented [86-88]. For instance, Olgyay & Seruto highlighted that the
retrofit rate of non-residential existing buildings is approximately 2.2%
per year [89]. According to Wilkinson, authorities should consider
ways to encourage stakeholders towards green retrofitting since
research shown that particular building stakeholders are less likely to
agree with green retrofitting [31]. Indeed, the circle of blame developed
by Cadman is the major barrier that obstructs the development of
sustainability in existing buildings [91]. Based on the circle of blame
[91], all parties (owner/end users, designers/constructors, developers
and investors) claim they are willing to contribute to sustainable
building, but they need cooperation of the other stakeholders.
Indeed, according to Miller and Buys, green retrofit requires the
collaboration and support of an extensive variety of building stake-
holders [11]. Hence, lack of participation and cooperation among
stakeholders has been the reason behind the poor record of green
retrofit projects implementation. Furthermore, Boecker et al.., accen-
tuated that in order to challenge profoundly held presumptions and to
achieve better solutions; environmentally, esthetically and economic-
ally practical, it is vital to draw in all stakeholders during the design
process [92]. Further review of literature revealed the lack of participa-
tion and cooperation among stakeholders of existing buildings is due to
the challenges, obstacles, barriers or problems faced by stakeholders
that affect the successful implementation of green retrofit projects [18].
These challenges, obstacles, barriers or problems are discussed in
detail in the section below. Furthermore, Table 2 illustrates in
summary the challenges, barriers, obstacles or problems that affecting
stakeholders from successfully engaging in green retrofit projects
implementation.
7.1. Financial resources
High initial costs are the main challenge in designing and retro-
fitting existing buildings towards achieving sustainability [93].
According to Mathiessen and Morris, the average costs for green
buildings are not significantly different than that for conventional
structure [94]. Therefore, the first costs for green space may be
acceptable for new construction but any improvements to existing
space require capital expenditure [93]. Retrofits are mostly being
financed by wealthy companies, evidenced by company profits being
the primary funding source for green retrofits. Furthermore, according
to Ashuri, fluctuation of the price of green materials is a challenge to
the implementation of sustainability in existing buildings [95]. A study
by Colliver revealed that wrong perception regarding costs due to lack
of knowledge and experience also lead to decisions not to implement
green retrofit. For instance, company financial plan which are usually
unstructured results in difficulty to track Life Cycle Cost (LCC) for a
project and longer term gains are hard to record [85]. Hence, initial
capital cost of green buildings, lack of lifecycle costing knowledge,
insufficient funding, fluctuation of the green materials price are those
factors affecting green retrofit projects financially.
1365
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
7.2. Green building professionals
Marsh stated lack of experienced consultants and contractors with
respect to green projects led to schedule delay of the projects [104].
Furthermore, possible unexpected circumstances of retrofitting to
achieve sustainability have been also due to lack of green building
professionals [95]. This statement emphasizes the importance of
experienced consultants and contractors to construct existing buildings
towards sustainability. In fact, inexperienced teams might not have
proper skills to implement green-oriented technology which could hold
back the efficiency of the technology [85]. Therefore, inexperienced
consultants and contractors, deficiencies in the supply of skills and
training for green building, lack of capable local energy experts to
deliver information and assist on green building frameworks and ideas,
commercial building owners have little retrofit expertize, lack of
sustainability knowledge and lack of experienced design teams are
the factors affecting the successful implementation of green retrofit
projects.
7.3. Policy support
Shift in government priorities, such as maintaining regulations, but
removing tax incentives and subsidies are also the barriers to im-
plementing sustainability in existing buildings. Removal of tax incen-
tives and subsidies contributes to the factors of barriers in sustain-
ability implementation [96]. As a result, lack of financial incentives,
lost of financial incentives if certification is not attained, tax and
regulatory incentives are not uniform, tax and regulatory incentives
might be difficult to obtain, uncertain expiration dates of incentives,
low investment and absence of government and private sectors’
involvement in the green building development affects green retrofit
projects implementation by stakeholders in existing buildings.
7.4. Green development quantification
The building performance risk is rated to be one of the highest risks
in the growth of sustainability in existing buildings. Ashuri stated that
decision-making process to implement sustainability is greatly influ-
enced by green building performance [95]. In fact, a number of
researches show that green buildings are underperforming. For in-
stance, some of the LEED rated buildings uses more energy than it was
originally intended [97]. The common reasons for the poor building
performance are due to the actions of the occupants and facility
managers in the buildings, malfunction of technologies and system in
the buildings and the benchmark or estimated energy is inappropriate
for buildings that are high energy use [96]. Thus, knowledge gap in
Green Development Quantification, lack of established benchmarks
and criteria for assessing green, lack of agreement in the market about
the foremost green standards, lack of performance data about retro-
fitted buildings, few resources to value retrofitted buildings, unpredict-
able return on investment are the factors inhibiting stakeholders from
implementing green retrofit projects in existing buildings.
7.5. Green awareness
According to Reza et al., awareness on green structures and items
must be expanded to significant parties in the building industries as
well as to the overall population in order to achieve more attention for
green buildings [102]. For instance, owners and investors who do not
have access to enough information will not realize that green building
is the best course of action to pursue, unaware of the benefits of green
building and also lack in knowledge about financial institutions have
primarily affected stakeholders from implementing green retrofit
projects.
R. Jagarajan et al.
7.6. Communication
According to McDonald et al., communication between landlords,
tenants and brokers around green building ideas is not ideal [93]. They
also added that landlords and tenants do not have a standard method
for communicating and thus unable to realize the benefits of sustain-
ability. When there is a need to make decisions on whether to build or
to retrofit, owners and tenants have failed to communicate effectively to
decide [93]. The problems of successful green retrofit implementation
reflect barriers such as deficit of information and communication
between particular stakeholders across different levels of decision-
making and implementation processes. Therefore, poor green retrofit
projects implementation by stakeholders is due to lack of communica-
tion between tenant and landlord, poor communication among owner,
designer and consultants and lack of support from team members.
7.7. Internal leadership
According to Richardson and Lynes, one of the important factors
leading to successful implementation of green retrofit projects is
leadership [99]. Yet, factors such as unclear vision, lack of internal
leadership, uncommitted project leader, lack of leadership from senior
administration and owners unwilling to leave their comfort zone e.g.
new team, different atmosphere, new procedure, new equipment, etc
have affected the implementation of green retrofit projects.
7.8. Green material and technology
The major risk faced by contractors during construction stage is the
unavailability of green materials and technologies. It has been a
challenge to contractors as sourcing of materials become difficult
[96]. Issues such as latest green building equipments might result in
problems never encountered before and be a source of litigation,
unreliable or unproven technology, limited availability of green mate-
rial and technology and also untested performance of new materials
over the years have been identified as barriers for stakeholders towards
implementing green retrofit projects.
8. Future research
These challenges, barriers, obstacles or problems discussed above
are the influential forces which impede successful implementation of
green retrofit projects. In a nutshell, they are the factors that contribute
to the failure of a project. According to Toor and Ogunlana, to achieve
success on project, it is imperative to start by determining the failure
factors [113]. These varieties of failure factors, propels the study onto
the critical success factors.
Additionally, according to Lapinski et al., implementation of green
retrofit projects involves a significant amount of planning and com-
munication with numerous stakeholders to obtain a commitment to
shared goals and achieve a beneficial solution for all involved [114].
Boecker et al., added that differing qualities of opinions, values,
expectations and perspective among stakeholders is relied upon yet
should be appropriately managed in order to turn it from a risk that can
altogether hinder project accomplishment into a strength [92].
Therefore, to successfully implement green retrofit projects, the under-
standing and determination of stakeholder success factors is a crucial
consideration for facility manager/project manager or more commonly
known as the change agent. Similarly, it is easier to identify and
prioritize critical matters related to project implementation once the
change agent team is well aware of the success factors [115]. In fact,
understanding the structural relationship between different success
factors is vital in developing strategies for effective implementation
[116]. The importance of the success factors cannot be ignored as they
guide practitioners to focus on key areas during implementation [117].
Furthermore, a critical review of previous researches on green
1366
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
retrofits revealed lack of studies on the CSFs of green retrofit projects
implementation. Generally, most of the researches on green retrofitting
focused on green retrofit methods and framework. In fact, the
technical, economic and environmental implications of green retro-
fitting have been studied by very few researchers [6,118-124].
Additionally, based on current literature, studies regarding what
inspired public and private building owners to practice green building
design initiatives have been also conducted [52]. For instance,
Yudelson identified multiple reasons why building owners and opera-
tors are concerned about energy efficient and green retrofitted build-
ings [108]. Where else, Fuerst and McAllister stated the rational to
practice green building design. Nonetheless, no attention has been
dedicated in identifying success factors of successful implementation of
green retrofit projects in non-residential existing buildings [125].
9. Conclusion
This study reports a critical review of existing studies related to
green retrofitting worldwide. The results show that generally these
existing studies can be classified into three categories, which are
definition and scope of green retrofitting; the need for green retro-
fitting; and the various retrofit actions and decision making models
available in the public domain. The extensive literature review reveals
that even though a lot of work has been reported on green retrofitting,
there is still lack of studies on identifying the success factors of
implementing green retrofitting in existing buildings. Studies revealed
there are barriers, challenges and problems that impede building
stakeholders from making green retrofitting decision [52]. Therefore,
in view of the limitations of the earlier studies and based on current
researches, there is a need to focus future research efforts on the study
of success factors of green retrofitting implementation to increase the
current retrofitting actions and thus, to mitigate climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the identification of the
success factors should be based on the problems faced by the
stakeholders. As, according to Richardson and Lynes, the problems
are the key ingredients in identifying the success factors for sustainable
retrofitting [99].
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the supports and fund
provided by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia throughout this study under
the vote number 06510.
References
[1] Pillay MS. Privatization of hospital support services. Berlin: Springer; 2002.
[2] Kamaruzzaman SN, Zawawi EMA. Practice paper development of facilities
management in Malaysia. J Facil Manag 2010;8(1):75–81.
[3] LimLY Development of facilities management in Singapore and its potential
application in a global environment. International Journal of Facility Management
1997; 1(4): p. 199–204.
[4] AmaratungaDBaldryDSarsharM Assessment of Facilities management perfor-
mance – What Next? facilities 2000; 18(1/2): p. 66–75.
[5] Becker F. The total workplace. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1990.
[6] Loosemore M, Hsin YY. Customer focused benchmarking for facilities manage-
ment. Facilities 2001;19(13/14):464–75.
[7] Pong YY . The implementation and practice of facilities management in Malaysia.
MsC Thesis. Heriot-Watt University, Department of Engineering and Survey;
2010.
[8] Hodges CP. A facility manager's approach to sustainability. J Facil Manag
2005;3(4):312–24.
[9] BrownMSouthworthFStovallT. “Towards a climate friendly built environment”,
pew center on global climate change, Airlington, VA; 2005.
[10] Commission for Architecture and The Built Environment. “Sustainable design,
climate change and the built environment”; 2007.
[11] Miller E, Buys L. Retrofitting commercial office buildings for sustainability:
tenants’ perspectives. J Prop Invest Financ 2008;26(6):552–61.
[12] Kozlowski D. Green gains: where sustainable design stands now. Build Oper
Manag 2003;50(7):26–32.
[13] Robichaud LB, Anantatmula VS. Greening project management practices for
R. Jagarajan et al.
sustainable construction. J Manag Eng 2010;27(1):48–57.
[14] Frej A, Browning WD. Green office buildings: a practical guide to development.
Urban Land Institute; 2005.
[15] Zuo J, Zhao ZY. Green building research-curent status and future agenda: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:271–81.
[16] Reed RG, Wilkinson SJ. The increasing importance of sustainability for building
ownership. J Corp Real Estate 2005;7(4):339–50.
[17] Gohardani N, Bjork F. Sustainable refurbishment in building technology. Smart
Sustain Built Environ 2012;1(3):241–52.
[18] Ma Z, Cooper P, Daly D, Ledo L. Existing building retrofits: methodology and state
of the art. Energy Build 2012;55:889–902.
[19] Love P, Bullen PA. Towards the sustainable adaptation of existing facilities.
Facilities 2009;27(9/10):357–67.
[20] SanvidoVERiggsLS. Managing retrofit projects. a final report submitted to the
construction industry institute, department of civil engineering university of Texas
at Austin, Technical Report No. 25; 1991.
[21] Latham D. Creative reuse of buildings. Dorset: Donhead Publishing; 2000.
[22] Steemer K, Towards A. Research agenda for adapting to climate change. Build Res
Inf 2003;31(3/4):291–301.
[23] USGBC. The costs and financial benefits of green buildings: a report to california's
sustainable building task force, USGBC, San Francisco, CA. Available at:
www.usgbc.org; 2003.
[24] BakerNC Handbook of sustainable refurbishment: non-domestic buildings.
Earthscan/RIBA Publishing; 2005.
[25] Károlyi E. Refurbishment or demolition? The fate of a 1930s housing complex in
Athens remains pending. Docomomo J 2007;37:64–7.
[26] PowerI. Energy watch and time of day programs annual report. Submitted to the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Case No. IPC-E-07-05; 2010.
[27] Cha HS, Kim KH, Kim CK. Case study on selective demolition method for
refurbishing deteriorated residential apartments. J Constr Eng Manag
2011;138(2):294–303.
[28] DongBKennedyCAPressnailK. To retrofit or rebuild, that is the question: using
life-cycle energy performance for comparing construction options. Annual
Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering; 2002.
[29] PowerI. Energy watch and time of day programs annual report. Submitted to the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Case No. IPC-E-07-05; 2008.
[30] Flourentzou F, Roulet CA. Elaboration of retrofit scenarios. Energy Build
2002;34:185–92.
[31] Wilkinson S. Analysing sustainable retrofit potential in premium office buildings.
Struct Surv 2012;30(5):398–410.
[32] Trusty W, Meil J. The enviromental implications of building new versus
renovating an existing structure. ATHENA Sustain Mater Inst 2000.
[33] Asadi E, Silva MGD, Antunes CH, Dias L. Multi-objective optimization model for
building retrofit strategies. Energy Build 2010;44:81–7.
[34] Barlow S, Fiala D. Occupant comfort in UK Offices – how adaptive comfort
theories might influence future low energy office refurbishment strategies. Energy
Build 2007;39:837–46.
[35] RoversR. Existing buildings, a hidden resource, ready for mining. Available at:
〈www.sustainablebuilding.info〉; 2004.
[36] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M. Energy and environmental benefits
in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:460–70.
[37] Sweatman P, Managan K. Financing energy efficiency building retrofits: interna-
tional policy and business model review and regulatory alternatives for Spain.
Clim Strategy Partn Spain 2010.
[38] Tobias L, Vavaroutsos G, et al. Retrofitting office buildings to be green and energy
efficient: optimizing building performance, tenant satisfaction, and financial
return. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute (ULI); 2009.
[39] LangstonC. Green adaptive reuse: issues and strategies for the built environment.
Paper Presented at the 1st International Conference on Sustainable Construction
and Risk Management (ICSCRM), Chongqing Municipality, Chongqing; 2010.
[40] Campbell J. Is your building a candidate for adaptive reuse?. J Prop Manag
1996;61(1):26–30.
[41] Highfield D. Refurbishment and upgrading of buildings. London: E & FN Spon;
2000.
[42] Ball RM. Re-use potential and vacant industrial premises: revisiting the regen-
eration issue in stoke on trent. J Prop Res 2002;19:93–110.
[43] Douglas J. Building adaptation. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Heinemann; 2006.
[44] Shipley R, Utz S, Parsons M. Does adaptive reuse pay? A study of the business of
building renovation in Ontario Canada. Int J Herit Stud 2006;12(6):505–20.
[45] Bullen PA. Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings. Facilities
2007;25(1/2):20–31.
[46] Wilkinson SJ, James K, Reed R. Using building adaptation to deliver sustainability
in Australia. Struct Surv 2009;27(1):46–61.
[47] Johnstone IM. An actuarial model of rehabilitation versus new construction of
housing. J Prop Financ 1995;6(3):7–26.
[48] Department of the Environment and Heritage . Adaptive re-use, department of the
environment and heritage. Canberra: Australian Government; 2005.
[49] Cooper I. Post occupancy evaluation – where are you?. Build Res Inf
2001;29(2):158–63.
[50] Koren HS, Butler CD. The interconnection between the built environment ecology
and health. Environ Secur Environ Manag 2006:111–25.
[51] Bromley RDF, Tallon AR, Thomas CJ. City centre regeneration through residential
development: contributing to sustainability. Urban Stud 2005;42(13):2407–29.
[52] Menassa CC, Baer B. A framework to assess the role of stakeholders in sustainable
building retrofit decisions. Sustain Cities Soc 2014;10:207–21.
1367
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
[53] Sustainable Construction Task Group. Reputation, risk and reward: the business
case for sustainability in the UK Property Sector, BRE, Watford; 2000.
[54] Kohler N, Hassler U. The building stock as a research project. Build Res Inf
2002;30(4):226–36.
[55] Curwell S, Cooper I. The implications of Urban sustainability. Build Res Inf
1998;26(1):17–28.
[56] Township's Boards of Historical and Architecture Review . Historic preservation
and sustainability. Pennsylvania: CHRS Inc., of North Wales; 2008.
[57] Mickaitytë A, Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Tupënaitë L. The concept model of
sustainable buildings refurbishment. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 2008;12:53–68.
[58] Goldman CA. Measured energy savings from residential retrofits: updated results
from the BECA-B project. Energy Build 1985;8(2):137–55.
[59] Guertler P, Smith W. Energy efficiency in the sustainable refurbishment of high
rise residential buildings: mapping out an integrated policy approach. Energy
Sustain Dev 2006;10(4):37–44.
[60] Furundzic KA, Kosoric V, Golic K. Potential for reduction of CO2 emissions by
integration of solar water heating systems on student dormitories through
building refurbishment. Sustain Cities Soc 2011;2(1):50–62.
[61] Davies P, Osmani M. Low carbon housing refurbishment challenges and incen-
tives: architects’ perspectives. Build Environ 2011;46(8):1691–8.
[62] Chidiac SE, Catania EJC, Morofsky E, Foo S. Effectiveness of single and multiple
energy retrofit measures on the energy consumption of office buildings. Energy
2011;36:5037–52.
[63] Ascione F, Rossi F, Vanoli GP. Energy retrofit of historical buildings: theoretical
and experimental investigations for the modelling of reliable performance
scenarios. Energy Build 2011;43:1925–36.
[64] Santamouris M, Pavlou C, Doukas P, Mihalakakou , Synnefa A, Hatzibiros A,
Patargias P. Investigating and analysing the energy and environmental perfor-
mance of an experimental green roof system installed in a nursery school building
in Athens. Greece Energy 2007;32:1781–8.
[65] Dascalaki E, Santamouris M. On the potential of retrofitting scenarios for offices.
Build Environ 2002;37:557–67.
[66] Fluhrer C, Maurer E, Deshmukh A. Achieving radically energy efficient retrofits:
the empire state building example. ASHRAE Trans (Part 2) 2010;116:244–51.
[67] Goldman CA, Greely KM, Harris JP. Retrofit experience in US multifamily
buildings: energy savings, costs and economics. Energy 1988;13:797–811.
[68] Cohen S, Goldman C, Harris J. Energy savings and economics of retrofitting single
family buildings. Energy Build 1991;17:297–311.
[69] Al-Ragom F. Retrofitting residential buildings in hot and arid climates. Energy
Convers Manag 2003;44:2309–19.
[70] Bin G, Parker P. Measuring buildings for sustainability: comparing the initial and
retrofit ecological footprint of a century home – The REEP house. Appl Energy
2012;93:24–32.
[71] Mahlia TMI, Said MFM, Masjuki HH, Tamjis MR. Cost benefit analysis and
emission reduction of lighting retrofits in residential sector. Energy Build
2005;37:573–8.
[72] StovallTPetrieT KosnyJChildsPAtchleySissomK An exploration of wall retrofit best
practices in: thermal performance of the exterior envelopes of buildings X,
Proceedings of ASHRAE THERM X, Clearwater, FI, {C}{C}{C}{C}{C}December
2007{C}{C}{C}{C}{C}.
[73] Nabinger S, Persily A. Impacts of airtightening retrofits on ventilation rates and
energy consumption in a manufactured home. Energy Build 2011;43:3059–67.
[74] Stefano JD. Energy efficiency and the environment: the potential for energy
efficient lighting to save energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions at Melbourne
University, Australia. Energy 2000;25:823–39.
[75] ReddyPVSocurMAriaratnamST. Building renovation decision support model,
proceedings of the 5th international conference on computing in civil and building
engineering, Anaheim, CA, USA:1547–1554; 1993.
[76] Rosenfeld Y, Shohet IM. Decision support model for semi-automated selection of
renovation alternatives. Autom Constr 1999;8(4):503–10.
[77] Lavy S, Shohet IM. A strategic integrated healthcare facility management model.
Int J Strateg Prop Manag 2007;11(3):125–42.
[78] Alanne K. Selection of renovation actions using multi-criteria “knapsack” model.
Autom Constr 2004;13:377–91.
[79] SitarMDeanKKristjaK. The existing housing stock – new renovation possibilities; a
case of apartment building renewal in maribor. research report presented at the
conference housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and
implementation (ENHR). Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia,
Slovenia; 2006.
[80] Caccavelli D, Gugerli H. TOBUS-A European diagnosis and decision making tool
for office building upgrading. Energy Build 2002;34:113–9.
[81] PhdungsilpAMartinacI. A multi-criteria decision-making method for the retro-
fitting of designated buildings in Thailand. conference on passive and low energy
architecture; 2004.
[82] Dan MDB. Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing buildings. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2004;4:485–99.
[83] Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK, Raslanas S. Multivariant design and multiple criteria
analysis of building refurbishments. Energy Build 2005;37:361–72.
[84] Dascalaki E, Balaras CA. XENIOS: a methodology for assessing refurbishment
scenarios and the potential of application of RES and RUE in hotels. Energy Build
2004;36:1091–105.
[85] Pedini AD, Ashuri B. An overview of the benefits and risk factors of going green in
existing buildings. Int J Facil Manag 2010;1(1).
[86] Pivo G, McNamara P. Responsible property investing. Int Real Estate Rev
2005;8(1):26–42.
[87] Cox J, Cadman D. Commercial property markets in a sustainable economy, school
R. Jagarajan et al.
of public policy and jackson environment institute. London: UCL; 2000.
[88] BrownhillDYatesA Environmental benchmarking for property portfolio managers,
BRE centre for sustainable construction, Watford.
[89] Olgyay V, Seruto C. Whole building retrofits: a gateway to climate stabilization.
ASHRAE Trans (Part 2) 2010;116:244–51.
[90] Foley JM. Analogues: modern oral epics; 2005: p. 196–212.
[91] Cadman D. The vicious circle of blame. what about demand? Do investors want
‘sustainable buildings’. RICS Res Found 2000.
[92] Boecker J, Horst S, Keiter AL, Sheffer M, Toeys B, Reed BG. The integrative design
guide to building green – redefining the practice of sustainability. Hoboken, New
Jersey: Wiley & Sons, inc; 2009.
[93] McDonald C, S Ivery Gagne CM. ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in
buildings; 2008.
[94] Matthiessen LF, Morris P. Cost of green revisited: reexamining the feasibility and
cost impact of sustainable design in the light of increased market adoption. Cont
Autom Build Assoc 2007.
[95] Ashuri B. Valuation of flexible leases for corporate tenants facing uncertainty in
their required work space. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 2010;14(1):49–72.
[96] Azizi NSM, Fassman E, Wilkinson S. Risks associated in implementation of green
buildings. Beyond Today'S Infrastruct 2010.
[97] Newsham GR, Mancini S, Veitch JA, Marchand RG, Lei W, Charles KE, Arsenault
CD. Control strategies for lighting and ventilation in offices: effects on energy and
occupants. Intell Build Int 2009;1(2):101–21.
[98] Urge-Vorsatz D, Harvey LDD, Mirasgedis S, Levine MD. Mitigating CO2 emissions
from the energy use in the world's building. Build Res Inf 2007;35(4):379–98.
[99] Richardson GRA, Lynes JK. Institutional motivations and barriers to the
construction of green buildings on campus: a case study of the University of
Waterloo, Ontario. Int J Sustain High Educ 2007;8(3):339–54.
[100] Choi C. Removing market barriers to green development: principles and action
projects to promote widespread adoption of green development practices. J
Sustain Real Estate 2009;1(1).
[101] Galuppo LA, Tu C. Capital markets and sustainable real estate what are the
perceived risks and barriers?. J Sustain Real Estate 2010;2(1).
[102] Reza EM, Marhani MA, Yaman R, Hassan AA, Rashid NHN, Adnan H. Obstacles
in implementing green building projects in Malaysia. Aust J Basic Appl Sci
2011;5(12):1806–12.
[103] Benson A, Vargas E, Bunts J, Ong J, Hammond K, Reeves L, Chaplin M, Duan P.
Retrofitting commercial real estate: current trends and challenges in increasing
building. Energy Effic UCLA Inst Environ Sustain 2011.
[104] Skills and Occupational Needs in Green Building. International labour office;
2011.
[105] Liu JY, Low SP, He X. Green practices in the chinese building industry: drivers
and impediments. J Technol Manag China 2012;7(1):50–63.
[106] Urban Land Institute. Retrofitting office buildings to be green and energy efficient:
optimizing building performance, tenant satisfaction, and financial return.
Washington, DC; 2009.
[107] BondS. Best of the best in green design: drivers and barriers to sustainable
1368
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1360–1368
development in Australia. PRRES Conference Sydney; 2010.
[108] Yudelson J. Greening existing buildings. New York: McGraw Hill – A Green
Source Book; 2010.
[109] Bond S, Perrett G. The key drivers and barriers to the sustainable development of
commercial property in New Zealand. J Sustain Real Estate 2012;4(1).
[110] Tam VWY, Hao JL, Zeng SX. What affects implementation of green buildings? An
empirical study in Hong Kong. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 2012;16(2):115–25.
[111] Kastenhofer K, Rammel C. Obstacles to and potentials of the societal implemen-
tation of sustainable development: a comparative analysis of two case studies.
Sustain: Sci, Pract Policy 2005;1:2.
[112] Brown M, Southworth F. Mitigating climate change through green buildings and
smart growth. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2006.
[113] Toor SR, Ogunlana SO. Construction professionals’ perception of critical success
factors for large scale construction projects. Constr Innov 2009;9(2):149–67.
[114] Lapinski AR, Horman MJ, Riley DR. Lean processes for sustainable project
delivery. J Constr Eng Manag 2007;132(10):1083–91.
[115] Boynton AC, Zmud RW. An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Manag
Rev 1984;25:17.
[116] Singh RK, Garg SK, Deshmukh SG, Kumar M. Modelling of critical success factors
for implementation of AMTs. J Model Manag 2007;2(3):232–50.
[117] AbdullahZSQuaddusM. A critical success factors model for IS implementation:
Development and validation of a structural model using PLS.in:Computing and
Convergence Technology (ICCCT) 7th International Conference on pp. 144–152.
IEEE; 2012.
[118] Entrop AG, Brouwers HJH, Reinders AHME. Evaluation of energy performance
indicators and financial aspects of energy saving techniques in residential real
estate. Energy Build 2010;42(5):618–29.
[119] Gaterell MR, McEvoy ME. The impact of energy externalities on the cost
effectiveness of energy efficiency measures applied to dwellings. Energy Build
2005;37(10):1017–27.
[120] Gluch P, Baumann H. The Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual
discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision making. Build Environ
2004;39(5):571–80.
[121] Juan YK, Gao P, Wang J. A Hybrid Decision Support System for Sustainable Office
Building Renovation and Energy Performance Improvement. Energy Build
2010;42:290–7.
[122] Nemry F, Uihlein A, Colodel CM, Wetzel C, Braune A, Wittstock B, et al. Options
to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European
Union – potential and costs. Energy Build 2010;42(7):976–84.
[123] Papadopoulos AM, ThG Theodosiou, Karatzas KD. Feasibility of energy saving
renovation measures in urban buildings: the impact of energy prices and
acceptable payback time criterion. Energy Build 2002;34(5):455–66.
[124] Poel B, Van Cruchten G, Balaras CA. Energy performance assessment of existing
dwellings. Energy Build 2007;39(4):393–403.
[125] Fuerst F, McAllister P. An investigation of the effect of eco-labeling on office
occupancy rates. J Sustain Real Estate 2009;1(1).