In the building classification and analysis of energetic dagnosis made by Sicily Region, some considerations have to be underlined:
- Most of the buildings have the same consumption profile both in winter and summer, although in climate zone B or C (so in hot climate). This datum could be attributable also to a wrong use of the plants (no thermostats and/or no consumption control of devices in stand-by mode - as evident in the lecture of the energy bills of these buildings, where are notable high consumptions after the opening hours);
- Many energy peaks are due to a lack of maintenance in the building (degradation problems are evident in some cases);
- Lighting systems are one of the biggest portion of consumptions: in all cases it needs a verification of the quality of light and luminance, not just the substitution of lamps with more performant ones;
- In museums many problems are due to the lack of sensors are laws requires, that makes difficult to verify the eligibility of microclimate for the collections;
- The different use of buildings implies variable needs, as different internal loads and users for each heritage category, that need to be considered in the assessment of retrofit actions.
4. Draft of the Methodology Structure
As expressed through the considerations above, it is clear the necessity to develop an holistic and multi-criteria methodology, for the evaluation and planning of retrofit measures, which could be integrated in the existing Guidelines. It is expected that the new procedure could be able to highlight possible implications and interactions of measure packages, to suggest relations without strict directing the decision-making.
The new guidance tool should adopt a whole building approach with regard to potential risks for the constructions. The structure has to be as an interactive system as a flowchart with multiple choices, organised both for guiding professionals to plan retrofit actions - starting from the analysis of stakeholders’ and building conservation needs - (bottom-up approach), and for simply organizing the assessment of selected improvement options, evaluating their impact and interrelation (top-down approach) – (see the general structure in Figure 8).