Abstract
This paper responds to the article by Pietrapertosa et al., doi:10.3390/ijerph17124434, published previously in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Its aim is to discuss the appropriateness of the studied method, to analyze its weak sides and to propose its robustness improvement. Thus, data presented in the above study were examined and recalculated, yielding, among others, indicators of annual energy savings (in kWh per m2 of total heated area) and specific proposals investment costs (in € per m2 of total heated area). By analyzing the obtained data for all public buildings, a significantly simplified approach to this problematic has been suggested while several other features of the research method and some presented results lack proper reasoning and discussion. Individual approach to each public building has been proposed and discussed point-by-point to enhance the method’s applicability. As a result, more realistic outcomes are obtained, and suitable investment actions can be proposed.
Highlights
Due to the wide range of possible building technical states, their various construction years ranging from the end of the 19th to the end of the 20th century and the resulting development of construction materials quality and technical norms in construction [16,17], various SRow,i,j values are expected for individual buildings
The same holds true for the SRow,r,j values and similar trends can be seen for the
The SRow,r,j values do not reflect the influence of buildings geometry or their sizes, both of which are relevant factors as documented in Tables 1 and 2 and the related discussion
Summary
Res. Public Health 2021, 18, The paper by Pietrapertosa et al [1] presents a method and obtained results in energy saving proposals in public buildings in Potenza Municipality. Support the renovation activities in older ones to reach or to approach this energy standard [5]. Given this legislation frame, public buildings refit aimed at a substantial cut in electric energy and heat consumption is the right choice. This study analyzes the paper by Pietrapertosa et al [1] in terms of method robustness and obtained results feasibility, discusses the method’s weak points, and proposes its improvement.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International journal of environmental research and public health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
