Next Article in Journal
Economic Value Assessment of Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) Operation under Various Environmental Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Simulation of Malfunctions in Home Appliances’ Power Consumption
Previous Article in Journal
Turbulent Boundary Layer Control with Multi-Scale Riblet Design
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring Multiple Benefits of Urban and Energy Regeneration Projects: A Stakeholder-Centred Methodological Approach
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Status, Challenges and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits: A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43300, Selangor, Malaysia
2
School of Architectural Engineering, Nanning Vocational and Technical University, Nanning 530008, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(15), 3826; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153826
Submission received: 8 July 2024 / Revised: 30 July 2024 / Accepted: 1 August 2024 / Published: 2 August 2024

Abstract

:
Net-zero energy building (NZEB), an initiative to address energy conservation and emission reduction, has received widespread attention worldwide. This study aims to systematically explore recent challenges in NZEB retrofit research through a mixed-method approach and provide recommendations and future directions. A review of 106 documents (2020–2024) retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases found that the globalization of NZEB retrofit research is unstoppable. Assessment methods are diverse, ranging from modeling energy efficiency (using different software such as DesignBuilder 7.0, PVsyst 7.4, EnergyPlus 24.1.0, etc.) to multi-attribute decision-making methods (e.g., DEMATEL-AHP/ANP-VIKOR) and comparative analysis. Current assessment metrics are dominated by economic benefits (e.g., net present value, dynamic payback period, and total operating cost) and energy consumption (e.g., electricity consumption and generation), with less consideration of environmental impacts (e.g., carbon reduction), as well as comfort (e.g., thermal comfort and indoor comfort). The study found that current challenges mainly include “Low economic feasibility of retrofitting”, “Building retrofit energy code irrationality”, and “Insufficient understanding, communication, and trust between stakeholders”. To overcome these challenges, the study also proposes a framework of strategies to address them, including (1) maximizing natural space, (2) introducing a tenant equity system, (3) upgrading waste management, (4) strengthening energy monitoring, (5) establishing complete life cycle mechanisms, (6) providing systemic solutions; (7) promoting the use of low-carbon building materials, and (8) increasing policy support.

1. Introduction

A net-zero energy building, also known as a zero-energy building or a zero-carbon building, is a building that has zero or near-zero net energy consumption, i.e., a balance between the amount of energy it produces and the amount of energy it consumes over a year, through the use of advanced energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies in its design, construction, and operation [1]. The concept originated in the 1970s because of the energy crisis. Still, it was not until the beginning of the 21st century that “net zero” became an explicit goal in building design and sustainability [2]. It has also been argued that meeting the annual balance alone is insufficient to adequately describe a net-zero energy building and that the interaction between the building and the energy grid needs to be addressed [3]. Decarbonizing the construction sector, which accounts for 40% of global energy consumption and 36% of total greenhouse gas emissions, is critical to mitigate climate change [4]. With increased environmental awareness and technological advances, net-zero energy buildings are being widely promoted and applied worldwide. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has set a goal of NZEB marketability by 2030 [5]. As early as September 2016, the China Construction Association (CCA) drafted “Best Practice Cases of Ultra-Low/Near-Zero Energy Buildings in China” under the guidance of the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development [6]. The revised version of the EU Energy Efficiency in Buildings Directive introduces the concept of “near-zero energy buildings”, which is required for all new and existing buildings needing major retrofitting from 2021 onwards [7]. Malaysia plans to have all new public and private buildings (on average) in the zero-energy building category by 2030 [8]. A classic example is the “SURIA 16” strategic partnership project between Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) for installing solar photovoltaic systems [9]. As depicted in Figure 1, through the New Energy Supply Agreement (SARE), GSPARX installed solar systems at 12 locations, including various buildings such as mosques, parking lots, and a floating solar project called SURIA Floating & Walkway @ Eng UPM. This mega project is geared to deliver 16.18 MWp in capacity. It benefits UPM by reducing electricity by RM 114 million over 25 years, with an installation cost of RM 45 million funded by TNB [10]. It can also reduce CO2 emission by 15,655 metric tons per year, equivalent to minimizing the greenhouse gas emission from 3187 vehicles per year or carbon absorption by 242,320 tree seedlings planted over ten years [11].
As the subject has caught fire and research has increased, some scholars have begun to conduct literature reviews on it. Most of the reviews were limited to conceptual clarification and policy analysis [2]. For example, the Australian study by Louise et al. argues that the NZEB concept may apply to new and existing buildings to have a tangible impact on overarching issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, sustainability, and consumer protection from electricity price increases [12]. Satola et al. reviewed the policy frameworks for net-zero buildings in Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore. They found an urgent need for harmonized and transparent international and national standards to ensure consistency in the life cycle assessment of buildings [13]. Christopher et al.’s study, on the other hand, conducted a literature review from the perspective of renewable energy technologies (RETs) and found that most RETs are usually unstable and intermittent, fluctuating widely over hours or days [14]. Brown et al.’s literature review, on the other hand, found that in addition to government policy factors, a lack of knowledge, climate issues, and cost issues were identified as the main barriers encountered by the Australian NZEB industry [15]. The review by Li et al. discusses strategies for applying net-zero energy (NZE) building technologies (i.e., achieving net-zero non-renewable energy consumption on-site) to poultry houses, arguing that any modifications to existing technologies should be based on a careful consideration of the physiological needs of poultry (e.g., ambient temperatures, air quality, availability of feed and water, etc.) [16]. Falana’s review categorized the impediments solely due to crucial stakeholder engagement and the relationship with a complete life cycle of net-zero carbon building development [17]. Noh et al.’s study, also from a renewable energy perspective, found that the evaluation of NZEB practices should include an assessment of the building’s energy balance, occupant comfort, and interaction with the energy grid [18]. The application of Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in NZEB has also received attention, with studies finding that the building envelope size, height, glazing material, light transmission, etc., have significant impacts on meeting NZEB standards and that it is important not to focus solely on roof-integrated PV [19]. A multi-case review in China identified significant advantages and room for incremental development in promoting BIPV in China [20]. Unfortunately, there are currently no studies that have focused the review theme on a retrofit evaluation. This study aims to fill this gap by combining bibliometrics with a systematic review to provide a comprehensive picture of the status, challenges, and future directions in NZEB retrofit and evaluation.
The rest of the paper unfolds as follows: Section 2 provides detailed information on the methodology of this study; Section 3 presents the results of this study; Section 4 discusses the current challenges encountered in NEZB retrofitting and strategies to deal with them; and Section 5 summarizes the research and points out limitations.

2. Materials and Methods

PRISMA, known as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, is a set of standardized specifications for the quality of research in systematic reviews [21]. It applies to published literature reviews containing primary data sources [22]. This study builds on the guidelines provided by the PRISMA on transparency and the quality of systematic review reporting [23]. It aims to improve systematic reviews’ scientific validity and comparability [24,25]. Referring to previous classical studies, Figure 2 illustrates the steps of conducting a systematic literature review using the PRISMA protocol and quantitative analysis through bibliometric analysis to achieve the research objectives [14,26].
The Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected as the most extensive proprietary databases for searching the extant literature. They are particularly well suited for searching the literature based on architecture and building disciplines [27]. This combination of databases has been used to explore “Zero Energy Building Technology Options and Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation”, “Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Buildings”, and “Dynamic Facades in Buildings”. It has shown an excellent fit [28,29,30]. Combining these two databases results in a more complete search of the available scientific literature. The selection with energy efficiency goals was based on the most recent research on net-zero energy buildings to ensure the use of established terminology. In reference to previous studies [31,32], search terms included (1) emission reduction targets, (2) energy as a metric, (3) diverse project sizes and types, and (4) types of upgrades, as shown in Table 1.
As indicated in Table 2, the established search terms were combined into a single search query for each database using its specific search syntax, which also allowed Boolean and proximity operators. Document titles, abstracts, and keywords were searched in Scopus, while titles, abstracts, and author keywords were searched in Web of Science. Both databases consider British and American spelling variations. Concerning previous research [33,34] in the field and to ensure that the research is cutting edge and that the information required for the content analysis is complete, the eligibility criteria for literature inclusion were as follows: (1) publication year—between 2020 and 2024; (2) language—English; (3) type of article—research article; (4) topic—retrofitting of existing buildings; and (5) study content—a clear description of the location of the study, methodology, evaluation metrics, and limitations.
The search was conducted on 1 July 2024 and found 74 documents in Scopus and 95 in Web of Science. RStudio 3.6’s Bibliometrix® package was used to remove 50 papers (as they were either duplicates or inaccessible), leaving 119 documents. The results were secondarily validated using Google Scholar. In the end, the 119 papers were qualified by four independent experts who browsed through the full texts. The 106 documents remaining after screening were analyzed and reviewed in two steps. The first step was to examine their metadata using Biblioshiny® to select bibliometric charts representing the annual scientific output, thematic evolution, most represented countries, and keywords. This analysis used the bibliometric metadata fields included in the search results, such as the title, keywords, authors and country of publication, and year of publication. The purpose of a bibliometric study is to provide an overview of the field of study. The second step of the literature review (36 strongly related articles) was to manually analyze the full text of the publications. These 36 studies are the result of a comprehensive selection based on four main principles: (1) fresher articles (date of publication), (2) highly cited articles, (3) high-impact factor articles, and (4) accessibility. The following themes were extracted for this review: (1) research location, (2) evaluation methods, (3) evaluation indicators, and (4) research limitations.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Bibliometric Analysis

3.1.1. Annual Issuance of Significant Publications

Figure 3 shows the articles published in major journals on the topics reviewed in this study between 2020 and 2024. The journals include Energies, Energy and Buildings, Applied Energy, Sustainability, Building Simulation, Buildings, and Journal of Cleaner Production. Overall, the number of articles published increased year by year over this period, with the journal Energy and Buildings publishing the most significant number of articles in 2022 and the following years, remaining at around 8 articles, while the number of articles published in the journal Energies gradually increased from 0 in 2020 to 9 in 2024, showing a significant growth trend. Other journals such as Applied Energy, Sustainability, Building Simulation, and Buildings also show a year-on-year increase. This indicates that this topic is receiving more and more attention from scholars and reflects the significance of this study.

3.1.2. Top Ten Highly Cited Articles

In academia, the number of citations is regarded as one of the indicators of research quality and impact [35]. Table 3 summarizes the top ten highly cited articles on this theme. The highly cited literature usually contains essential theories, methods, or findings [36]. Identifying this literature helps to disseminate this knowledge to the broader academic community, thereby influencing more researchers and practitioners. Second, it reflects current hotspots and trends in the research field. By analyzing this literature, researchers can understand which issues are receiving widespread attention and where research is heading in the future. It is worth noting that the top ten highly cited articles in the literature are from 2020 to 2022, which means that more influential articles have not appeared in the last two years and expresses the urgent need to find breakthroughs under the topic.

3.1.3. Keyword Co-Occurrence Network

A keyword co-occurrence bibliometric analysis is a method of analysis that examines the phenomenon of co-occurrence between feature items in the literature [47]. The strength of the association between keywords is measured by counting the co-occurrences between them, thus revealing the association of information in the literature [48]. In this study, a network diagram was generated using Bibliometrix® to provide insights into the data selected for the eligibility phase of the PRISMA protocol and to show the crucial keywords in the data. The Walktrap algorithm was chosen for this study as a method for community discovery based on the idea of random wandering. Its key idea is to use random walks on the graph to determine the distance metric between vertices and between communities. It is considered to surpass previous methods in terms of the quality of community structure and is one of the best methods in terms of runtime [49]. The steps of the Walktrap algorithm are as follows [50]: First, the similarity between vertices is computed by random wandering. Then, hierarchical clustering is performed using these similarities to merge neighboring communities. Finally, the division with the largest modularity is selected as the best community structure.
Regarding similarity computation, the Walktrap algorithm uses a random wandering probability matrix to compute node similarity. The similarity between nodes i and j is calculated by Euclidean distance as follows:
r i j = D 1 P i t D 1 P j t
where D is the degree diagonal matrix of the node and P i t is the probability of going from vertex i to vertex j in the tth step.
Referring to previous studies, in this study, the number of nodes was set to 50, the minimum number of edges was set to 2, and the rest were default parameters. As depicted in Figure 4, differences in the brightness and transparency of the keyword colors shown in the visualization indicate keyword interconnections. At the same time, the nodes’ sizes highlight the keywords’ prominence in the literature. The larger the node of the item, the higher the weight in the network [51]. The distance between the circles also represents the relevance between the keywords, emphasizing co-occurring links [52]. Thus, if two keywords are located close, their link is more robust. Since “performance”, “optimization”, “design”, and “consumption” have the most prominent circles on the network diagram, they have the highest weight in the literature. This also indicates that these keywords are hot research topics within the evaluation field. “Residential buildings” is also a recurring keyword, suggesting that most of the evaluations on retrofitting are related to residential buildings on a global scale. Another noteworthy point from the network diagram is the range of keywords related to potential solutions for evaluation. Keywords such as “education”, “decision-making”, “sensitivity analysis”, “multi-objective”, “life cycle assessment”, and “cost” all have significant weights. They are interlinked with the evaluation clusters, suggesting that these elements are frequently discussed.

3.2. Results of the Content Analysis

Table 4 compiles various methodologies used to evaluate the retrofit of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) across different regions. Each entry in the table details each study’s source, location, method, evaluation indicators, and limitations. The current research covers several world regions, including Turkey, China, Poland, Sweden, UAE, USA, Japan, MENA, Europe, South Korea, Pakistan, Italy, Lithuania, and Portugal, demonstrating the globalization of NZEB retrofit studies. Evaluation methods are also diverse, ranging from modeling energy efficiency analysis (using different software such as DesignBuilder, PVsyst, EnergyPlus, etc.) to multi-attribute decision-making methods (e.g., DEMATEL-AHP/ANP-VIKOR) and case studies. Scholars have tried to assess the effectiveness of NZEB retrofit from multiple perspectives using different strategies. The assessment indicators cover economic benefits (e.g., net present value, dynamic payback period, and total operating cost), energy consumption (e.g., electricity consumption and generation), environmental impacts (e.g., carbon reduction), and comfort (e.g., thermal comfort and indoor comfort). The diversity of indicators also represents that there is currently no industry consensus or standard paradigm for evaluation systems. Many studies have specific limitations, such as only considering cost effectiveness, only applying to PV retrofit projects, only targeting cold regions, small sample sizes, and not considering the building life cycle. In addition, most of the studies were conducted for specific application scenarios, such as hospital buildings, multi-story wood-frame buildings, brick-frame dwellings, and wall-mounted PV systems, which led to different evaluation methods and indicators for various application scenarios.

4. Discussion

4.1. Challenges of NZEB Retrofit

Table 5 details the technical, economic, social, and policy challenges in assessing NZEB retrofits. First, there are the technical challenges. For example, most cities need higher coverage and more data related to older buildings. However, collecting and analyzing building energy efficiency data on a large scale are complex and time-consuming and require multiple resources [89]. Factors such as the structural load-bearing capacity or layout of older buildings also limit integration with many large installations. Indeed, current modeling methods cannot capture all the geometric features in the category represented by the prototype [90]. There is also a lack of real-time optimization models for carbon reduction at the building design stage, limiting our ability to accurately estimate and optimize carbon emissions. Digital and intelligent technologies are crucial for zero-energy building retrofits, while data privacy and systems integration are also topics worthy of in-depth research. The next challenge is economic. For example, net-zero energy retrofits typically require significant capital investment in technology upgrades, engineering and construction, and materials procurement [91]. This can be burdensome for many homeowners, especially if returns are difficult to obtain in the short term. For example, in China, most energy efficiency retrofits are generated by policy guidance and government subsidy incentives [92]. However, owners’ enthusiasm for energy efficiency retrofits inevitably fades as incentives end or are scaled back. The third is the social challenge, where mutual understanding is too romantic for citizens or potential partners (e.g., developers, distributors, engineers, and space planners) who are less familiar with modern approaches in the energy sector [93]. The fourth is the policy challenge. For example, building codes and guidelines vary widely across climatic regions and countries, as do the amounts of incentives [94].

4.2. Strategies for Promoting Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits

This study develops eight strategies to promote retrofitting older buildings with zero-carbon emissions to address these challenges, as illustrated in Figure 5. Not only does it contribute to urban regeneration to combat climate change and improve energy efficiency but it also promotes technological innovation, improves indoor environmental quality, and creates employment opportunities, which are vital for sustainable development.

4.2.1. Maximizing Natural Space

Maximizing natural space in net-zero energy building retrofits contributes to the environmental quality and comfort of the building. There are various ways to maximize natural space in a net-zero energy building retrofit. The first is redesigning the building layout to maximize natural light and ventilation. For example, by installing insulation on the interior or renovating or installing new windows, the theoretical energy consumption could still be reduced by 68% compared to the original building [131]. Second, green space should be added around or inside the building, such as gardens, lawns, and plant walls. This can provide more natural landscaping and recreational space. It is also good to introduce natural elements into the design, such as water features, green walls, and waterfalls, which can enhance the natural feel of the space [132]. We also suggest transforming older buildings with more outdoor spaces, such as terraces, balconies, and courtyards, and considering the balance of ecosystems, such as birds, insects, and plants, which can be protected and promoted through rational design. It is worth noting that the building orientation, energy-efficient windows, and vegetation types require retrofit strategies tailored to local climatic and environmental conditions, such as tropical and humid climates [133].

4.2.2. Introducing a Tenant Equity System

Introducing a tenant equity system can enhance tenant participation and responsibility in net-zero-energy building retrofit projects, thereby contributing to the sustainable development and long-term operation of buildings. It is a collection of innovative approaches designed to incentivize tenants to participate more actively. The first model establishes cooperative property ownership, where tenants become co-owners of the building. They can purchase an equity stake in the building, participate in decision-making and management as owners, and monitor the building’s energy use and environmental performance [134]. The second model is a rent discount or incentive program. For example, tenants who adopt energy-saving measures or participate in environmental protection activities are given a certain percentage of rent discounts, or environmental bonuses are offered as incentives [135]. The third model is to establish an equity investment fund for net-zero energy buildings. Tenants can buy a share of the fund as one of the investors in the retrofit project and share in the benefits of the building. We also recommend linking tenant equity to voting and decision-making rights, allowing tenants to participate in decision-making on important matters, such as energy management and facility maintenance. At the same time, to ensure that tenants have complete transparency on the operations and financial status of the retrofit project, the construction company should provide relevant information and reports. In addition, this study recommends enhancing tenants’ access to low-cost or free retrofit options, coupled with tenant protection mechanisms, and proactively exploring mechanisms that enable landlords to recoup the cost of retrofits while ensuring that tenants benefit from energy savings to address the issue of decentralized incentives between landlords and tenants [136].

4.2.3. Upgrading Waste Management

The importance of upgrading waste management in net-zero energy building retrofits cannot be overstated, as it reduces the negative impact of waste on the environment and maximizes the use of waste resources. First, an effective waste classification and recycling system should be established to categorize waste into different categories, such as recyclable, organic, and hazardous, and to develop corresponding recycling channels. In the case of Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, for example, it must be considered that the occupants can decide to set lower values to balance the outdoor overheating so that the management strategy can be chosen according to their preferences [137]. Tenants should be actively encouraged and guided to segregate waste and promote waste resource utilization. Secondly, measures should also be taken during the remodeling construction phase to reduce the generation of construction waste. For example, the range of baseline conditions and constraints imposed by heritage values in historic buildings is a crucial factor strictly intertwined with the energy (and carbon) saving potential of the measures investigated [138]. Finally, the concept of the circular economy is advocated to focus on reusing and recycling waste resources in building renovation. For example, it can be used to reprocess waste materials for building materials or compost organic waste for landscaping. This includes developing building materials from agricultural and non-agricultural wastes [139].

4.2.4. Strengthening Energy Monitoring

Most studies do not consider real-time energy-related information [140]. Strengthening energy monitoring aims to enhance energy monitoring in NZEB retrofits to achieve comprehensive monitoring and management of energy use, thereby improving buildings’ energy efficiency and sustainability. First, advanced intelligent energy monitoring systems are introduced to monitor building energy consumption in real time using energy sources such as electricity, water, and gas [18]. These systems can provide real-time data and reports to help managers promptly identify energy wastage and anomalies. For instance, by leveraging advanced digital twin solutions such as DanRETwin, building owners, facility managers, consultants, and urban planners can benefit from improved energy efficiency, enhanced comfort, systematic recommissioning, data-driven decision-making, and scalable tools for evaluating retrofit options [141]. Second, each region should establish clear energy consumption targets and goals. For example, indicators such as the energy consumption intensity and energy utilization rate should be established based on the building type and size to better measure the energy performance of buildings. On the other hand, energy efficiency analyses by Park et al. [142] show that combining photovoltaic panels, high-efficiency HVAC systems, airtight film, and LED light technology is efficient. Third, deep learning algorithms analyze energy usage data to discover energy consumption patterns and potential energy savings and identify the causes of energy waste. It has been shown that combining DL algorithms with building information modelling (BIM) technology and Internet of Things (IoT) systems enables a wide range of monitoring and sensing mechanisms within a building complex, facilitating real-time energy consumption management and indoor climate sustainability [143]. Finally, regular energy reviews and assessments are conducted to inspect and commission the building’s energy systems and equipment to ensure proper operation and efficient utilization. Establishing a specialized energy management team, including energy experts, engineers, and technicians, is also necessary.

4.2.5. Establishing Complete Life Cycle Mechanisms

Net-zero energy building retrofits require an integrated consideration of all life cycle stages, from material selection to energy use and waste disposal, to achieve carbon neutrality and net-zero energy goals [144]. Multi-objective optimization models for a lifecycle cost analysis and retrofit planning can enhance decision-making by considering factors such as production, economy, and sustainability [145]. Integrating building information modeling (BIM) technology can simplify the retrofit process by providing solutions for quality control, energy analysis, costs, and life cycle assessments. First, during the design phase of the retrofit scheme, the CO2 emission characteristics of different materials should be understood to optimize the amount of building materials used. Choosing to use local materials reduces carbon emissions during the transportation of materials. Prefabricated assembly buildings are used to improve construction efficiency and reduce raw material and energy consumption. Second, reducing energy demand and avoiding installing traditional HVAC systems are prioritized through passive designs such as internal and external sun shading, natural ventilation, and natural lighting during construction. Third, in the operation phase, energy-saving lamps and lanterns should be used to improve energy efficiency, and renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy should be used to replace fossil energy sources. Energy consumption is also reduced through the automatic regulation of equipment systems. Finally, waste doors, windows, steel structures, etc., should be actively recycled and reused during the demolition and clean-up. Furthermore, Loveday et al. [146] argue that an entire life cycle mechanism should consider material and energy flows and social impacts, such as well-being and equity.

4.2.6. Providing Systemic Solutions

Creating a systematic solution is crucial. First, an in-depth understanding of energy consumption is needed. A plan to create an all-electric facility is developed to identify energy needs and plan for on-site or on-grid renewable energy to meet those needs, including electricity use, heat demand, seismic defenses, etc. Fichera et al. [147] investigated an innovative technology that simultaneously considers seismic, energy, and building retrofit in framed buildings, i.e., combining the seismic performance provided by steel trusses and the thermal performance of man-made panels, both of which are applied to the building envelope. Then, an energy consumption standard is developed for the space, the amount of electricity the space will generate every week is calculated, and a clear energy budget for achieving a net-zero energy building is created. Finally, energy systems are optimized. Efficient energy systems, such as high-efficiency split air conditioners, LED lighting, etc., are selected and an intelligent building energy management system (BEMS) is used to monitor and optimize energy use, including energy supply, energy use, energy storage, and energy scheduling. Typical designs according to different retrofit measures are also important because the solar water heater’s length and the working fluid’s flow rate impact the working fluid’s outlet temperature and the solar water heater’s overall performance. They are considered the king of cost effectiveness, while biomass boilers offer the lowest cost savings at around 53%. One study found that photovoltaic panels (24,000 kWh/year) produced more energy than wind turbines (20,000 kWh/year) in renewable energy technologies [148]. We also emphasize a tailor-made approach for specific types. For example, university buildings seem closer to office buildings regarding their typological characteristics and usage patterns than primary and secondary school buildings [149].

4.2.7. Promoting the Use of Low-Carbon Building Materials

Promoting low-carbon building materials is one of the critical steps towards achieving the zero-carbon goal. First, one should look for building materials with environmental certifications, such as LEED, BREEAM, and other certification standards. These certifications ensure that the materials meet sustainability and environmental requirements. Second, the use of recycled building materials, such as steel and concrete, should be prioritized, which helps reduce the production of new materials and carbon emissions. Using bio-based materials in refurbishment is also a key strategy because of their low global warming potential, cost-effectiveness, and recycling potential [150]. A carbon footprint assessment should be conducted during material selection to understand different materials’ life cycle carbon emissions. Third, awareness of low-carbon building materials should be raised among construction practitioners and the public. This includes organizing seminars and training courses to share the latest information on low-carbon building materials or using media and social media platforms to publicize the advantages and feasibility of low-carbon building materials. Finally, we have also established an industry chain cooperation mechanism for low-carbon building materials to promote the synergistic development of the upstream and downstream of the industry chain. The cooperation among material suppliers, architects, construction units, etc., should be strengthened to jointly promote the R&D, production, and application of low-carbon building materials.

4.2.8. Increasing Policy Support

China, the United States, and Malaysia have all adopted policy measures to promote NEZB building retrofits. The Chinese government has set targets for carbon peaking (by 2030) and carbon neutrality (by 2060). In addition, China has promoted green building certification standards, such as three-star, gold, and diamond green building standards, to encourage low-carbon, efficient building design and construction [151]. State and federal governments in the United States have adopted various policies to promote NZEB retrofits. For example, the federal infrastructure bill includes measures such as clean energy transmission grants. It has also promoted green building certification standards such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) to encourage sustainable building design and operation. The Malaysian government encourages green building development and promotes sustainable buildings through green building guidelines and certification standards. It has energy efficiency codes that require builders to use energy-efficient technologies and materials. However, some policies focus only on incentives in one area, neglecting support and promotion in other areas. Even with good policies, there are deficiencies at the implementation level, resulting in ineffective policies, including lax regulation, weak enforcement, and inadequate supervision. Many policies need long-term stability and sustainability, and frequent changes or policy uncertainties make it difficult for building owners and developers to formulate long-term plans and investments. An example is optimizing government subsidy strategies for energy retrofit of building stock [152]. Therefore, we first suggest providing long-term loan interest rate concessions for net-zero energy building retrofit projects to reduce financing costs and attract more capital. Second, an incentive mechanism for net-zero energy building retrofits should be established to reward projects with outstanding performance and significant results. Third, it is worth noting that whether policy should support large-scale solar PV self-generation depends on the economic trade-off between energy savings and seasonal costs. In the case of New Zealand, for example, where local renewable electricity costs for various alternative energy sources are low, large-scale adoption of solar NZEB is not favorable [153]. Finally, tax breaks for net-zero energy building retrofit projects, such as tax breaks for VAT and corporate income tax, should be provided to reduce the tax pressure on the projects. In northern China, Liu et al. [154] show that retrofitting heat sources and outdoor heating networks is cost-effective, while building envelope retrofitting is not, mainly due to high energy prices without government subsidies. In Ireland, where VAT on building materials and labor is currently 13.5%, only shallow retrofitting of houses is economically viable without grant incentives [155]. It has also been argued that it is impossible to estimate the number of incentives because it is not feasible to calculate the investment cost of each transformation program in each province [156]. Therefore, the policy of providing more universally applicable indicators (energy saving rate and energy savings) and more cutting-edge and accurate algorithms may be a breakthrough in solving this problem [157].

5. Conclusions

This study reviews the current state of the art in evaluating net-zero energy building (NZEB) retrofits by combining bibliometric and systematic review methods. It is found that current evaluation methods are dominated by models of energy efficiency (using different software such as DesignBuilder, PVsyst, EnergyPlus, etc.). In contrast, other methods, such as multi-attribute decision-making methods (e.g., DEMATEL-AHP/ANP-VIKOR), also play an essential role. The main evaluation metrics used cover economic benefits (e.g., NPV, dynamic payback period, and total operating costs), energy consumption (e.g., electricity consumption and generation), environmental impacts (e.g., carbon emission reduction), and comfort (e.g., thermal comfort and indoor comfort). However, the NZEB retrofit faces several challenges, including technical, economic, social, and policy challenges:
(1)
Technical challenges—Restrictions are more prevalent in existing buildings than new ones. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet near-zero energy building (NZEB) standards requires overcoming technical barriers related to energy efficiency measures, renewable energy integration, and the optimization of building systems. The main issues include imperfections in the appearance of solar cells and interfacial mechanisms in the transmission layer, the susceptibility of air source heat pumps to failure in cold climates, and module breakage and performance degradation of photovoltaic (PV) systems.
(2)
Economic challenges—High initial construction costs, long payback periods, poor financing mechanisms, and dynamic tariffs that affect the accuracy of cost measurements are significant barriers. Assessing the economic viability of retrofit projects involves analyzing factors such as a discounted payback period, internal rate of return, and total return on investment. This is because of the significant upfront investment costs required to implement energy efficiency measures, renewable energy technologies, and building system optimization. Such initial costs create financial barriers to retrofit projects, and feasibility often depends on the ability to recoup these investments through energy savings over time. Balancing the costs and benefits of zero-energy building retrofits in the face of uncertainty and variability in project costs is the challenge to be addressed.
(3)
Cultural challenges—Insufficient public awareness of NZEB, lack of relevant data and information platforms, and insufficient communication and trust among stakeholders have hindered the advancement of NZEB retrofits. Furthermore, balancing energy performance and heritage preservation when retrofitting heritage buildings is crucial. Retrofitting heritage buildings to near-zero energy standards requires a careful consideration of preserving cultural values while improving energy efficiency, which can create conflicting priorities and challenges. In other words, combining high energy performance and renewable energy with heritage buildings poses a dilemma for retrofit practices due to the need to maintain architectural integrity and cultural significance.
(4)
Policy challenges—Inadequate policy support, such as the localization of standards and requirements, lack of incentives, and delays in the approval process, have significantly affected the implementation of NZEB retrofits. Good policy change should support energy retrofit projects and empower local authorities to scale up retrofit programs across the region, often including challenges to the retail energy market and empowering local authorities and their partners. Current policies in most areas do not create opportunities for households vulnerable to energy poverty to access low-cost or free retrofit options.
In the future, net-zero energy building retrofits must be improved and developed in the following directions. First, at the technological level, research and application of new technologies, such as digital twins and cutting-edge algorithms (including the Go-Explore algorithm and the Transform reinforcement learning algorithm), should be strengthened to improve energy modeling accuracy and system operation stability. Second, better financing mechanisms and incentive policies (e.g., green credit, green bonds, government subsidy and incentive programs, and energy service company (ESCO) models) should be established at the economic level to promote investor motivation. A standardized sustainable building value assessment system should be developed. In addition, at the social level, there is a need to strengthen public education and publicity to increase awareness and understanding of NZEB and establish a comprehensive data and information platform to promote communication and cooperation among stakeholders. The data platform collects data on building energy consumption, material use, and the indoor environment and integrates data from different sources, including sensors, monitoring systems, and building management software. Finally, at the policy level, countries should introduce and improve regulations and standards related to net-zero energy buildings as soon as possible and provide policy incentives, such as subsidies and tax incentives, to promote the full implementation of NZEB retrofits. Regional climates should prepare the specification, clearly defining and identifying assessment criteria and performance indicators, such as green building certification standards, energy efficiency, and indoor air quality.
Although this study contributes to the body of knowledge in the field, there are some limitations. Firstly, the articles included in this study were mainly sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, which may not cover all current research. Future reviews could expand the range of databases, including, but not limited to, well-known databases such as China Knowledge (CNKI) and IEEE Xplore.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.X. and Y.J.; methodology, Q.X. and Y.J.; software, Q.X. and Y.J.; validation, A.H.A., N.A.H., T.H.L. and N.A.B.; formal analysis, Q.X. and Y.J.; investigation, Q.X. and Y.J.; resources, Q.X. and Y.J.; data curation, Q.X. and Y.J.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.X. and Y.J.; writing—review and editing, Q.X. and Y.J.; visualization, Q.X. and Y.J.; supervision, A.H.A., N.A.H., T.H.L. and N.A.B.; project administration, Q.X. and Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the anonymous reviewers and editors for their honest advice on this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lin, Y.; Zhong, S.; Yang, W.; Hao, X.; Li, C.-Q. Towards Zero-Energy Buildings in China: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jaysawal, R.K.; Chakraborty, S.; Elangovan, D.; Padmanaban, S. Concept of Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)—A Literature Review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 11, 100582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A.; Voss, K. Net Zero Energy Buildings: A Consistent Definition Framework. Energy Build. 2012, 48, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmed, A.; Ge, T.; Peng, J.; Yan, W.-C.; Tee, B.T.; You, S. Assessment of the Renewable Energy Generation towards Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Review. Energy Build. 2022, 256, 111755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, W.; Skye, H.M. Residential Net-Zero Energy Buildings: Review and Perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 142, 110859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, X.; Zhang, S.; Xu, W. Impact of Zero Energy Buildings on Medium-To-Long Term Building Energy Consumption in China. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ferreira, M.; Almeida, M.; Rodrigues, A.; Silva, S.M. Comparing Cost-Optimal and Net-Zero Energy Targets in Building Retrofit. Build. Res. Inf. 2014, 44, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sustainable Energy Development Authority of Malaysia (SEDA). Zero Energy Building (ZEB) Facilitation Program. Available online: https://www.seda.gov.my/energy-demand-management-edm/zeb-renovation-for-existing-buildings/ (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  9. Faculty of Engineering UPM. [Montage Video] Rooftop Solar PV UPM Project. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywGuW4l7wAI (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  10. Juferi, N.E. UPM-TNB-GSPARX Sdn. Bhd. Collaborate on Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Project. Available online: https://cirnet.upm.edu.my/berita/upm_tnb_gsparx_sdn_bhd_jalin_kerjasama_bagi_projek_rooftop_solar_photovoltaic-65196 (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  11. Faculty of Engineering UPM. UPM’S Energy Transition Initiative. Available online: https://eng.upm.edu.my/upload/dokumen/20240119090250Floating_Solar_and_Walkway_compressed.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2024).
  12. Wells, L.; Rismanchi, B.; Aye, L. A Review of Net Zero Energy Buildings with Reflections on the Australian Context. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Satola, D.; Wiberg, A.H.; Singh, M.; Babu, S.; James, B.; Dixit, M.; Sharston, R.; Grynberg, Y.; Gustavsen, A. Comparative Review of International Approaches to Net-Zero Buildings: Knowledge-Sharing Initiative to Develop Design Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 71, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Christopher, S.; Vikram, M.P.; Bakli, C.; Thakur, A.K.; Ma, Y.; Ma, Z.; Xu, H.; Cuce, P.M.; Cuce, E.; Singh, P. Renewable Energy Potential towards Attainment of Net-Zero Energy Buildings Status—A Critical Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 405, 136942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brown, D.; Tokede, O.; Li, H.X.; Edwards, D. A Systematic Review of Barriers to Implementing Net Zero Energy Buildings in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 467, 142910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, Y.; Arulnathan, V.; Heidari, M.D.; Pelletier, N. Design Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings for Intensive, Confined Poultry Production: A Review of Current Insights, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Directions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Falana, J.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Tam, V.W. Towards Achieving a Net Zero Carbon Building: A Review of Key Stakeholders and Their Roles in Net Zero Carbon Building Whole Life Cycle. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 82, 108223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Noh, Y.; Jafarinejad, S.; Anand, P. A Review on Harnessing Renewable Energy Synergies for Achieving Urban Net-Zero Energy Buildings: Technologies, Performance Evaluation, Policies, Challenges, and Future Direction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kong, J.; Dong, Y.; Poshnath, A.; Rismanchi, B.; Yap, P.-S. Application of Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) in Net-Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs). Energies 2023, 16, 6401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, Y.; Mao, Y.; Wang, W.; Wu, N. Net-Zero Energy Consumption Building in China: An Overview of Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Case and Initiative toward Sustainable Future Development. Buildings 2023, 13, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Welch, V.; Petticrew, M.; Petkovic, J.; Moher, D.; Waters, E.; White, H.; Tugwell, P.; the PRISMA-Equity Bellagio Group. Extending the PRISMA Statement to Equity-Focused Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): Explanation and Elaboration. J. Dev. Eff. 2016, 8, 287–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hutton, B.; Catalá-López, F.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement Extension for Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-Analysis: PRISMA-NMA. Med. ClíNica 2016, 147, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Junjia, Y.; Alias, A.H.; Haron, N.A.; Bakar, N.A. A Bibliometric Review on Safety Risk Assessment of Construction Based on CiteSpace Software and WoS Database. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Junjia, Y.; Alias, A.H.; Haron, N.A.; Abu Bakar, N. A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review of Safety Risk Assessment for IBS Hoisting Construction. Buildings 2023, 13, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bjelland, D.; Brozovsky, J.; Hrynyszyn, B.D. Systematic Review: Upscaling Energy Retrofitting to the Multi-Building Level. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 198, 114402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Paul, J.; Jacob, J.; Pandey, A.K.; Vaka, M.; Samykano, M.; Kadirgama, K.; Abd Rahim, N.; Selvaraj, J. Meta Data Analysis on Building Thermal Management Using Phase Change Materials. J. Energy Storage 2024, 76, 109760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cabeza, L.F.; Chàfer, M. Technological Options and Strategies towards Zero Energy Buildings Contributing to Climate Change Mitigation: A Systematic Review. Energy Build. 2020, 219, 110009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dahiya, D.; Laishram, B. Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Buildings: A Systematic Review. Build. Environ. 2024, 252, 111160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonçalves, M.; Figueiredo, A.; Almeida, R.M.S.F.; Vicente, R. Dynamic Façades in Buildings: A Systematic Review across Thermal Comfort, Energy Efficiency and Daylight Performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 199, 114474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hawks, M.A.; Cho, S. Review and Analysis of Current Solutions and Trends for Zero Energy Building (ZEB) Thermal Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 114028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kang, Y.; Xu, W.; Wu, J.; Li, H.; Liu, R.; Lu, S.; Rong, X.; Xu, X.; Pang, F. Study on Comprehensive Whole Life Carbon Emission Reduction Potential and Economic Feasibility Impact Based on Progressive Energy-Saving Targets: A Typical Renovated Ultra-Low Energy Office. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 58, 105029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, Z.; Jin, Y.; Huang, L.; Zhang, N.; Luo, X.; Wang, X. Appraisal of Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) in Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB): A Literature Review. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2023, 29, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chung-Camargo, K.; González, J.; Austin, M.C.; Carpino, C.; Mora, D.; Arcuri, N. Advances in Retrofitting Strategies for Energy Efficiency in Tropical Climates: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Buildings 2024, 14, 1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Antonakis, J.; Bastardoz, N.; Liu, Y.; Schriesheim, C.A. What Makes Articles Highly Cited? Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 152–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aksnes, D.W. Characteristics of Highly Cited Papers. Res. Eval. 2003, 12, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, H. Digital-Twin-Based Evaluation of Nearly Zero-Energy Building for Existing Buildings Based on Scan-To-BIM. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6638897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hong, X.; Shi, F.; Wang, S.; Yang, X.; Yang, Y. Multi-Objective Optimization of Thermochromic Glazing Based on Daylight and Energy Performance Evaluation. Build. Simul. 2021, 14, 1685–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Opher, T.; Duhamel, M.; Posen, I.D.; Panesar, D.K.; Brugmann, R.; Roy, A.; Zizzo, R.; Sequeira, L.; Anvari, A.; MacLean, H.L. Life Cycle GHG Assessment of a Building Restoration: Case Study of a Heritage Industrial Building in Toronto, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Figueroa-Lopez, A.; Arias, A.; Oregi, X.; Rodríguez, I. Evaluation of Passive Strategies, Natural Ventilation and Shading Systems, to Reduce Overheating Risk in a Passive House Tower in the North of Spain during the Warm Season. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hong, Y.; Ezeh, C.I.; Deng, W.; Hong, S.-H.; Peng, Z.; Tang, Y. Correlation between Building Characteristics and Associated Energy Consumption: Prototyping Low-Rise Office Buildings in Shanghai. Energy Build. 2020, 217, 109959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rabani, M.; Madessa, H.B.; Ljungström, M.; Aamodt, L.; Løvvold, S.; Nord, N. Life Cycle Analysis of GHG Emissions from the Building Retrofitting: The Case of a Norwegian Office Building. Build. Environ. 2021, 204, 108159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Albatayneh, A.; Jaradat, M.; AlKhatib, M.B.; Abdallah, R.; Juaidi, A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The Significance of the Adaptive Thermal Comfort Practice over the Structure Retrofits to Sustain Indoor Thermal Comfort. Energies 2021, 14, 2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mitchell, R.; Natarajan, S. UK Passivhaus and the Energy Performance Gap. Energy Build. 2020, 224, 110240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Colclough, S.; Hegarty, R.O.; Murray, M.; Lennon, D.; Rieux, E.; Colclough, M.; Kinnane, O. Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 Retrofit NZEB Dwellings the Impact of High In-Use Interior Temperatures on the Predictive Accuracy of the NZEB Energy Standard. Energy Build. 2021, 254, 111563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Apostolopoulos, V.; Giourka, P.; Martinopoulos, G.; Angelakoglou, K.; Kourtzanidis, K.; Nikolopoulos, N. Smart Readiness Indicator Evaluation and Cost Estimation of Smart Retrofitting Scenarios—A Comparative Case-Study in European Residential Buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 82, 103921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Radhakrishnan, S.; Erbis, S.; Isaacs, J.A.; Kamarthi, S. Novel Keyword Co-Occurrence Network-Based Methods to Foster Systematic Reviews of Scientific Literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yuan, C.; Li, G.; Kamarthi, S.; Jin, X.; Moghaddam, M. Trends in Intelligent Manufacturing Research: A Keyword Co-Occurrence Network Based Review. J. Intell. Manuf. 2022, 33, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brusco, M.; Steinley, D.; Watts, A.L. A Comparison of Spectral Clustering and the Walktrap Algorithm for Community Detection in Network Psychometrics. Psychol. Methods 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Toth, C.; Helic, D.; Geiger, B.C. Synwalk: Community Detection via Random Walk Modelling. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2022, 36, 739–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Grames, E.M.; Stillman, A.N.; Tingley, M.W.; Elphick, C.S. An Automated Approach to Identifying Search Terms for Systematic Reviews Using Keyword Co-Occurrence Networks. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1645–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.; Hug, S.E. Visualizing the Context of Citations Referencing Papers Published by Eugene Garfield: A New Type of Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis. Scientometrics 2017, 114, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Senturk, A.; Ozcan, M. Nearly Zero Energy Building Design and Optimization: A Residential Building Transformation in Türkiye. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2023, 42, 997–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Jiang, F.; Zhao, X. Multivariate Evaluation of Photovoltaic Utilization Potential of Primary and Secondary School Buildings: A Case Study in Hainan Province, China. Buildings 2024, 14, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wang, T.; Yin, N.; Xu, Z. Research on Ultra-Low Energy Consumption Renovation of Teaching Buildings in Severe Cold Areas under EPC Mode. E3S Web Conf. 2024, 490, 02004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, J.; Lu, L.; Jia, L.; Gong, Q. Performance Evaluation of High-Rise Buildings Integrated with Colored Radiative Cooling Walls in a Hot and Humid Region. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Han, T.; Liu, P.; Niu, C.; Li, Q. Evaluation of Energy-Saving Retrofit Projects of Existing Rural Residential Envelope Structures from the Perspective of Rural Residents: The Chinese Case. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 25, 8419–8446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Radomski, B.; Mróz, T. Application of the Hybrid MCDM Method for Energy Modernisation of an Existing Public Building—A Case Study. Energies 2023, 16, 3475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Campamà Pizarro, R.; Bernardo, R.; Wall, M. Streamlining Building Energy Modelling Using Open Access Databases—A Methodology towards Decarbonisation of Residential Buildings in Sweden. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nutakki, T.U.K.; Kazim, W.U.; Alamara, K.; Salameh, T.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Experimental Investigation on Aging and Energy Savings Evaluation of High Solar Reflective Index (SRI) Paints: A Case Study on Residential Households in the GCC Region. Buildings 2023, 13, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, R.; Feng, W.; Wang, L.; Lu, S. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zero Energy Buildings in Cold Regions: Actual Performance and Key Technologies of Cases from China, the US, and the European Union. Energy 2021, 215, 118992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kuwahara, R.; Kim, H.; Sato, H. Evaluation of Zero-Energy Building and Use of Renewable Energy in Renovated Buildings: A Case Study in Japan. Buildings 2022, 12, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Krarti, M.; Ihm, P. Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Residential Buildings in the MENA Region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 22, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rodriguez-Ubinas, E.; Rodriguez, S.; Voss, K.; Todorovic, M.S. Energy Efficiency Evaluation of Zero Energy Houses. Energy Build. 2014, 83, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shao, S.; Deng, G.; Xue, H.; Xu, Z.; Yang, Y. Integrated Building Envelope Performance Evaluation Method towards Nearly Zero Energy Buildings Based on Operation Data. Energy Build. 2022, 268, 112219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lin, B.; Chen, Z. Net Zero Energy Building Evaluation, Validation and Reflection—A Successful Project Application. Energy Build. 2022, 261, 111946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, X.; Lin, A.; Young, C.-H.; Dai, Y.; Wang, C.-H. Energetic and Economic Evaluation of Hybrid Solar Energy Systems in a Residential Net-Zero Energy Building. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, 113709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sun, Y.; Huang, G.; Xu, X.; Lai, A.C.-K. Building-Group-Level Performance Evaluations of Net Zero Energy Buildings with Non-Collaborative Controls. Appl. Energy 2018, 212, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shin, M.; Baltazar, J.-C.; Haberl, J.S.; Frazier, E.; Lynn, B. Evaluation of the Energy Performance of a Net Zero Energy Building in a Hot and Humid Climate. Energy Build. 2019, 204, 109531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Abdul-Zahra, A.S.; Al Jubori, A.M. Potential Evaluation and Analysis of Near-To-Net Zero Energy Building in Hot and Dry Climate. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2021, 12, 100146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kampelis, N.; Gobakis, K.; Vagias, V.; Kolokotsa, D.; Standardi, L.; Isidori, D.; Cristalli, C.; Montagnino, F.M.; Paredes, F.; Muratore, P.; et al. Evaluation of the Performance Gap in Industrial, Residential & Tertiary Near-Zero Energy Buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 148, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pernetti, R.; Garzia, F.; Filippi Oberegger, U. Sensitivity Analysis as Support for Reliable Life Cycle Cost Evaluation Applied to Eleven Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings in Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yi, H.; Srinivasan, R.S.; Braham, W.W.; Tilley, D.R. An Ecological Understanding of Net-Zero Energy Building: Evaluation of Sustainability Based on Emergy Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 654–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Arif, S.; Taweekun, J.; Ali, H.M.; Theppaya, T. Techno Economic Evaluation and Feasibility Analysis of a Hybrid Net Zero Energy Building in Pakistan: A Case Study of Hospital. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 668908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bruno, R.; Bevilacqua, P.; Cuconati, T.; Arcuri, N. Energy Evaluations of an Innovative Multi-Storey Wooden near Zero Energy Building Designed for Mediterranean Areas. Appl. Energy 2019, 238, 929–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, S.; Zhao, L.; Zheng, L.; Bi, G. A Rapid Evaluation Method for Design Strategies of High-Rise Office Buildings Achieving Nearly Zero Energy in Guangzhou. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, C.; Xu, W.; Li, A.; Sun, D.; Huo, H. Energy Balance Evaluation and Optimization of Photovoltaic Systems for Zero Energy Residential Buildings in Different Climate Zones of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1202–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lee, S.; Park, S. A Study on Economic Evaluation of Design Elements of Zero-Energy Buildings according to Energy Consumption and Production. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dell’Anna, F.; Bottero, M.; Becchio, C.; Corgnati, S.P.; Mondini, G. Designing a Decision Support System to Evaluate the Environmental and Extra-Economic Performances of a Nearly Zero-Energy Building. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2020, 9, 413–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kalibatas, D.; Kalibatiene, D. Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings by Applying Multi-Attribute Assessment. Energy Build. 2017, 143, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tamašauskas, R.; Šadauskienė, J.; Bruzgevičius, P.; Krawczyk, D.A. Investigation and Evaluation of Primary Energy from Wind Turbines for a Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB). Energies 2019, 12, 2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Huo, H.; Xu, W.; Li, A.; Wu, J.; Guo, J. A Simple Evaluation Method of External Venetian Blind Shading Performance for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings. Renew. Energy 2023, 218, 119260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Oliveira Panão, M.J.N. The Overall Renewable Energy Fraction: An Alternative Performance Indicator for Evaluating Net Zero Energy Buildings. Energy Build. 2016, 127, 736–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Marino, C.; Nucara, A.; Panzera, M.F.; Pietrafesa, M. Towards the Nearly Zero and the plus Energy Building: Primary Energy Balances and Economic Evaluations. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2019, 13, 100400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nagaoka, A.; Ota, Y.; Sakai, K.; Araki, K.; Matsuo, H.; Kadota, N.; Maeda, K.; Nakajima, A.; Nishioka, K. Performance Evaluation and Spectrum-Based Analysis of a Wall-Mounted Photovoltaic System for Zero-Energy Building. Renew. Energy 2021, 174, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ascione, F.; Borrelli, M.; De Masi, R.F.; Vanoli, G.P. Hourly Operational Assessment of HVAC Systems in Mediterranean Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings: Experimental Evaluation of the Potential of Ground Cooling of Ventilation Air. Renew. Energy 2020, 155, 950–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Amaripadath, D.; Velickovic, M.; Attia, S. Performance Evaluation of a Nearly Zero-Energy Office Building in Temperate Oceanic Climate Based on Field Measurements. Energies 2022, 15, 6755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jiang, K.; Li, H.; Ye, X.; Lei, Y.; Lao, K.-W.; Zhang, S.; Hu, X. Energy Efficiency Evaluation and Revenue Distribution of DC Power Distribution Systems in Nearly Zero Energy Buildings. Energies 2022, 15, 5726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhang, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, C.; Huang, Z.; Lv, T. Reward–Penalty Mechanism Based on Daily Energy Consumption for Net-Zero Energy Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jin, B.; Bae, Y. Prospective Research Trend Analysis on Zero-Energy Building (ZEB): An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Khakian, R.; Karimimoshaver, M.; Aram, F.; Zoroufchi Benis, S.; Mosavi, A.; Varkonyi-Koczy, A.R. Modeling Nearly Zero Energy Buildings for Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Energies 2020, 13, 2593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, Y.; Yang, X.; Hou, Q.; Tao, J.; Dong, J. Quantitative Study on the Life-Cycle Carbon Emissions of a Nearly Zero Energy Building in the Severe Cold Zones of China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Famiglietti, J.; Aprile, M.; Spirito, G.; Motta, M. Net-Zero Climate Emissions Districts: Potentials and Constraints for Social Housing in Milan. Energies 2023, 16, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gaeta, M.; Nsangwe Businge, C.; Gelmini, A. Achieving Net Zero Emissions in Italy by 2050: Challenges and Opportunities. Energies 2021, 15, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Basher, M.K.; Nur-E-Alam, M.; Rahman, M.M.; Alameh, K.; Hinckley, S. Aesthetically Appealing Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems for Net-Zero Energy Buildings. Current Status, Challenges, and Future Developments—A Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. D’Agostino, D.; Mele, L.; Minichiello, F.; Renno, C. The Use of Ground Source Heat Pump to Achieve a Net Zero Energy Building. Energies 2020, 13, 3450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Attia, S. Spatial and Behavioral Thermal Adaptation in Net Zero Energy Buildings: An Exploratory Investigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hong, J.; Park, J.; Kim, S.; Lim, C.; Kong, M. Energy Analysis of a Net-Zero Energy Building Based on Long-Term Measured Data: A Case Study in South Korea. Buildings 2023, 13, 3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tirelli, D.; Besana, D. Moving toward Net Zero Carbon Buildings to Face Global Warming: A Narrative Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hirvonen, J.; Kosonen, R. Waste Incineration Heat and Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage for Promoting Economically Optimal Net-Zero Energy Districts in Finland. Buildings 2020, 10, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lu, Y.; Alghassab, M.; Alvarez-Alvarado, M.S.; Gunduz, H.; Khan, Z.A.; Imran, M. Optimal Distribution of Renewable Energy Systems Considering Aging and Long-Term Weather Effect in Net-Zero Energy Building Design. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lou, H.-L.; Hsieh, S.-H. Towards Zero: A Review on Strategies in Achieving Net-Zero-Energy and Net-Zero-Carbon Buildings. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shen, K.; Ding, L.; Wang, C.C. Development of a Framework to Support Whole-Life-Cycle Net-Zero-Carbon Buildings through Integration of Building Information Modelling and Digital Twins. Buildings 2022, 12, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tuyet, T.; Delinchant, B.; Phan, A.T.; Bui, V.C.; Nguyen, D.-Q. A Practical Approach to Launch the Low-Cost Monitoring Platforms for Nearly Net-Zero Energy Buildings in Vietnam. Energies 2022, 15, 4924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lim, H.-W.; Kim, J.-H.; Lee, H.-S.; Shin, U.-C. Case Study of Load Matching and Energy Cost for Net-Zero Energy Houses in Korea. Energies 2021, 14, 6407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Lv, T.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Sun, Y. Optimal Control of Energy Systems in Net-Zero Energy Buildings Considering Dynamic Costs: A Case Study of Zero Carbon Building in Hong Kong. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mohammed, B.U.; Wiysahnyuy, Y.S.; Ashraf, N.; Mempouo, B.; Mengata, G.M. Pathways for Efficient Transition into Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) in Sub-Sahara Africa. Case Study: Cameroon, Senegal, and Côte D’Ivoire. Energy Build. 2023, 296, 113422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Szymańska, E.J.; Kubacka, M.; Woźniak, J.; Polaszczyk, J. Analysis of Residential Buildings in Poland for Potential Energy Renovation toward Zero-Emission Construction. Energies 2022, 15, 9327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kotarela, F.; Kyritsis, A.; Papanikolaou, N. On the Implementation of the Nearly Zero Energy Building Concept for Jointly Acting Renewables Self-Consumers in Mediterranean Climate Conditions. Energies 2020, 13, 1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Richter, M.; Lombardi, P.; Arendarski, B.; Naumann, A.; Hoepfner, A.; Komarnicki, P.; Pantaleo, A. A Vision for Energy Decarbonization: Planning Sustainable Tertiary Sites as Net-Zero Energy Systems. Energies 2021, 14, 5577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hamzah, A.H.; Go, Y.I. Design and Assessment of Building Integrated PV (BIPV) System towards Net Zero Energy Building for Tropical Climate. E-Prime—Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy 2023, 3, 100105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Moghaddasi, H.; Culp, C.; Vanegas, J. Net Zero Energy Communities: Integrated Power System, Building and Transport Sectors. Energies 2021, 14, 7065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kim, D.; Cho, H.; Mago, P.J.; Yoon, J.; Lee, H. Impact on Renewable Design Requirements of Net-Zero Carbon Buildings under Potential Future Climate Scenarios. Climate 2021, 9, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Alghamdi, H.; Meza, A. A Novel Strategy for Converting Conventional Structures into Net-Zero-Energy Buildings without Destruction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Souza, R.; Lima, J.; Giovani, E.; Sampaio, R.R.; Nascimento, S.; Saba, H. Renewable Energy Generation Technologies for Decarbonizing Urban Vertical Buildings: A Path towards Net Zero. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Li, Y.; Feng, H. GIS for the Potential Application of Renewable Energy in Buildings towards Net Zero: A Perspective. Buildings 2023, 13, 1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Makvandia, G.; Safiuddin, M. Obstacles to Developing Net-Zero Energy (NZE) Homes in Greater Toronto Area. Buildings 2021, 11, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Komninos, N. Net Zero Energy Districts: Connected Intelligence for Carbon-Neutral Cities. Land 2022, 11, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Isaac, S.; Shubin, S.; Rabinowitz, G. Cost-Optimal Net Zero Energy Communities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Alam, S.; Airaksinen, M.; Lahdelma, R. Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Wang, S.; Tae, S.; Jang, H. Prediction of the Energy Self-Sufficiency Rate of Major New Renewable Energy Types Based on Zero-Energy Building Certification Cases in South Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mancò, G.; Guelpa, E.; Colangelo, A.; Virtuani, A.; Morbiato, T.; Verda, V. Innovative Renewable Technology Integration for Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings within the Re-COGNITION Project. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wei, J.; Li, J.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X. Hot Topics and Trends in Zero-Energy Building Research—A Bibliometrical Analysis Based on CiteSpace. Buildings 2023, 13, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mahmoodi, M.; Rasheed, E.; Le, A. Systematic Review on the Barriers and Challenges of Organisations in Delivering New Net Zero Emissions Buildings. Buildings 2024, 14, 1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Moghaddasi, H.; Culp, C.; Vanegas, J.; Ehsani, M. Net Zero Energy Buildings: Variations, Clarifications, and Requirements in Response to the Paris Agreement. Energies 2021, 14, 3760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Le, A.; Rodrigo, N.; Domingo, N.; Senaratne, S. Policy Mapping for Net-Zero-Carbon Buildings: Insights from Leading Countries. Buildings 2023, 13, 2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Jin, Y.; Li, J.; Wu, W. I-Yard 2.0: Integration of Sustainability into a Net-Zero Energy House. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Azam, U.; Farooq, M.; Munir, M.A.; Riaz, F.; Sultan, M.; Rehman, A.U.; Imran, M. Modelling Framework for Reducing Energy Loads to Achieve Net-Zero Energy Building in Semi-Arid Climate: A Case Study. Buildings 2023, 13, 2695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhang, S.; Wang, K.; Xu, W.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Athienitis, A.; Ge, H.; Cho, D.W.; Feng, W.; Okumiya, M.; Yoon, G.; et al. Policy Recommendations for the Zero Energy Building Promotion towards Carbon Neutral in Asia-Pacific Region. Energy Policy 2021, 159, 112661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Alaifan, B.; Azar, E. Potential for Net-Zero Energy Communities in Kuwait: An Empirical Techno-Economic Modeling and Optimization Approach. Buildings 2023, 13, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Morelli, M.; Rønby, L.; Mikkelsen, S.E.; Minzari, M.G.; Kildemoes, T.; Tommerup, H.M. Energy Retrofitting of a Typical Old Danish Multi-Family Building to a “Nearly-Zero” Energy Building Based on Experiences from a Test Apartment. Energy Build. 2012, 54, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Dong, J.; Schwartz, Y.; Korolija, I.; Mumovic, D. Unintended Consequences of English School Stock Energy-Efficient Retrofit on Cognitive Performance of Children under Climate Change. Build. Environ. 2024, 249, 111107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chung-Camargo, K.; González, J.; Solano, T.; Yuil, O.; Velarde, V.; Austin, M.C. Energy-Efficiency Measures to Achieve Zero Energy Buildings in Tropical and Humid Climates; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Garcia-Teruel, R.M. Overcoming the “Tenant-Owner Dilemma” to Foster Energy Efficiency in Residential Private Rented Housing. J. Prop. Plan. Environ. Law 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Jansson-Boyd, C.V.; Robison, R.A.V.; Cloherty, R.; Jimenez-Bescos, C. Complementing Retrofit with Engagement: Exploring Energy Consumption with Social Housing Tenants. Int. J. Energy Res. 2016, 41, 1150–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Tozer, L.; MacRae, H.; Smit, E. Achieving Deep-Energy Retrofits for Households in Energy Poverty. Build. Cities 2023, 4, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Gigante, A.; Papadaki, D.; Mazzoli, C.; Ntouros, V.; De Masi, R.F.; Assimakopoulos, M.-N.; Ferrante, A. Indoor Quality-Oriented Approach for the Performance Evaluation of Building Retrofit with Façade Transformation: Case Study of Student Dormitory in Mediterranean Climate. Energy Build. 2024, 312, 114227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Menconi, M.; Painting, N.; Piroozfar, P. Modelling and Simulation of Low-Risk Energy Retrofit Measures for Traditional Listed Dwellings in the UK. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 82, 108346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Jannat, N.; Hussien, A.; Abdullah, B.; Cotgrave, A. Application of Agro and Non-Agro Waste Materials for Unfired Earth Blocks Construction: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Oh, J.; Hong, T.; Kim, H.; An, J.; Jeong, K.; Koo, C. Advanced Strategies for Net-Zero Energy Building: Focused on the Early Phase and Usage Phase of a Building’s Life Cycle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Jradi, M.; Madsen, B.E.; Kaiser, J.H. DanRETwin: A Digital Twin Solution for Optimal Energy Retrofit Decision-Making and Decarbonization of the Danish Building Stock. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Park, H.; Park, J.; Kim, S.; Chang, S.J. Energy Retrofit Technology for Modern and Contemporary Educational Historical Buildings Considering Preservation and Utilization Aspects. Energy Rep. 2024, 11, 3995–4007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dzulkifly, S.; Aris, H.; Jorgensen, B.N.; Santos, A.Q. Methodology for a Large Scale Building Internet of Things Retrofit. In Proceedings of the University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark), Selangor, Malaysia, 24 August 2020; pp. 62–67. [Google Scholar]
  144. Thomas, A.; Menassa, C.C.; Kamat, V.R. A Systems Simulation Framework to Realize Net-Zero Building Energy Retrofits. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 405–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ma’bdeh, S.N.; Ali, H.H.; Al-Momani, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Retrofit Measures in Existing Healthcare Facility Buildings: The Case of Developing Countries. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2022, 12, 418–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Loveday, J.; Morrison, G.M.; Martin, D.A. Identifying Knowledge and Process Gaps from a Systematic Literature Review of Net-Zero Definitions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Fichera, G.; Guardo, V.; Margani, G.; Tardo, C. Application of a Retrofit System to Improve the Seismic and Energy Performances of RC Framed Buildings. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2024, 55, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pyloudi, E.; Papantoniou, S.; Kolokotsa, D. Retrofitting an Office Building towards a Net Zero Energy Building. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2014, 9, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Irulegi, O.; Ruiz-Pardo, A.; Serra, A.; Salmerón, J.M.; Vega, R. Retrofit Strategies towards Net Zero Energy Educational Buildings: A Case Study at the University of the Basque Country. Energy Build. 2017, 144, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Gajić, D.; Peulić, S.; Mavrič, T.; Sandak, A.; Tavzes, Č.; Malešević, M.; Slijepčević, M. Energy Retrofitting Opportunities Using Renewable Materials—Comparative Analysis of the Current Frameworks in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Zuo, J.; He, Q.; Rameezdeen, R. Achieving Energy Efficient Buildings via Retrofitting of Existing Buildings: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3605–3615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Prada, A.; Cappelletti, F.; Gasparella, A. Optimization of Government Subsidization Strategies for Building Stock Energy Refurbishment. In Proceedings of the International Building Physics Conference 2018, Syracuse, NY, USA, 26 September 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Jack, M.W.; Konings, H.B. Seasonal Variation in Electricity Demand of Solar-Powered Net-Zero Energy Housing in Temperate Climates. Energy Build. 2024, 303, 113826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Liu, Y.; Liu, T.; Ye, S.; Liu, Y. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Energy Efficiency Retrofit of Existing Buildings: A Case Study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Moran, P.; O’Connell, J.; Goggins, J. Sustainable Energy Efficiency Retrofits as Residenial Buildings Move towards Nearly Zero Energy Building (NZEB) Standards. Energy Build. 2020, 211, 109816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Asaee, S.R.; Ugursal, V.I.; Beausoleil-Morrison, I. Development and Analysis of Strategies to Facilitate the Conversion of Canadian Houses into Net Zero Energy Buildings. Energy Policy 2019, 126, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Junjia, Y.; Alias, A.H.; Haron, N.A.; Bakar, N.A. Machine Learning Algorithms for Safer Construction Sites: Critical Review. Build. Eng. 2024, 2, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. “SURIA 16” project.
Figure 1. “SURIA 16” project.
Energies 17 03826 g001
Figure 2. Research process.
Figure 2. Research process.
Energies 17 03826 g002
Figure 3. Annual issuance of significant publications.
Figure 3. Annual issuance of significant publications.
Energies 17 03826 g003
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurring network.
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurring network.
Energies 17 03826 g004
Figure 5. Strategies for promoting net-zero energy building retrofits.
Figure 5. Strategies for promoting net-zero energy building retrofits.
Energies 17 03826 g005
Table 1. Search terms applied in Scopus and Web of Science.
Table 1. Search terms applied in Scopus and Web of Science.
Abatement GoalUnitScale and TypologyUpgrading Type
Nearly zeroEnergyDwellingRetrofitting
Net zeroHouseRefurbishment
ZeroBuildingModernization
LowOfficeRenovation
Table 2. Retrieve code applied in Scopus and Web of Science.
Table 2. Retrieve code applied in Scopus and Web of Science.
DatabasesRetrieve Code
ScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY ((“low” OR “nearly zero” OR “net zero” OR “zero”) PRE/2 (energy) AND (“dwelling” OR “house” OR “building” OR “office”) AND (“retrofitting” OR “refurbishment” OR “modernization” OR “renovation”) AND (“evaluation”))
Web of ScienceTS = (((low OR “nearly zero” OR “net zero” OR zero) NEAR/2 (energy)) AND (dwelling OR house OR building OR office) AND (retrofitting OR refurbishment OR modernization OR renovation) AND (evaluation))
Table 3. The top 10 highly cited articles.
Table 3. The top 10 highly cited articles.
PaperDOITotal CitationsTC per YearNormalized TC
Zhao et al. (2021) [37]10.1155/2021/6638897399.752.82
Hong et al. (2021) [38]10.1007/s12273-021-0778-7399.752.82
Opher et al. (2021) [39]10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123819389.502.75
Figueroa-Lopez et al. (2021) [40]10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102607358.752.53
Hong et al. (2020) [41]10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109959306.002.00
Rabani et al. (2021) [42]10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108159297.252.10
Albatayneh et al. (2021) [43]10.3390/en14102946235.751.66
Mitchell et al. (2020) [44]10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110240224.401.47
Colclough et al. (2022) [45]10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111563217.002.57
Apostolopoulos et al. (2022) [46]10.1016/j.scs.2022.103921206.672.45
Table 4. NZEB retrofit evaluation methodology.
Table 4. NZEB retrofit evaluation methodology.
SourceLocationMethodEvaluation IndicatorsLimitations
[53]TurkeyModeling energy performance (DesignBuilder)Payback period (NPV)Only cost effectiveness was considered.
[54]ChinaModeling energy performance (PVsyst 7.2)Dynamic payback period (NPV)Only for photovoltaic retrofit projects
[55]ChinaModeling energy performance (Dest-C)Net present value (NPV) ratioOnly for cold regions
[56]ChinaModelling energy performance (EnergyPlus)Economic and carbon reduction benefitsOnly for a colored radiant cooling wall retrofit
[57]ChinaLogic-AHP-TOPSIS methodUpfront investment, payback period, heating cost savingsOnly available in Lanzhou, China.
[58]PolandDEMATEL-AHP/ANP-VIKOR method, modelling energy performance (ArCADia-TERMOCAD)Total operating costs, compliance with air quality parameters, the impacts of the building and its facilities on the surrounding environment, total building completion time, etc.The choice of decision criteria needs to be tailored to the specifics of the decision maker’s preferences.
[59]SwedenModeling energy performance (Grasshopper/Rhinoceros 3D/EnergyPlus)Thermal performance of buildingsSmall sample size
[60]United Arab EmiratesCase studyReduction in cooling loadOnly for energy-saving retrofits with high solar reflectance index (SRI) coatings
[61]China, USA, EuropeMultiple case studiesBenefits, costs, heat sources, and technologySmall sample size
[62]JapanModeling energy performance (BEST)Heat, power generationThe impact of the amount of hot water obtained from the HFCs on reducing the building’s energy consumption cannot yet be determined.
[63]Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regionModelling energy performance Orientation, window location and size, glazing type, wall and roof insulation levels, lighting fixtures, appliances, and the efficiency of heating and cooling systemsBuilding envelope insulation needs to vary by climate.
[64]EuropeanComparative analysis (actual data)Energy, the function of the house, and its internal comfortThe local competition and the described concept of post-competition use influenced the energy efficiency assessment.
[65]ChinaParameter reverse identification and load forward calculationInternal heat gainOnly for integrated building envelopes
[66]United StateComparative analysis (actual data)Electricity consumption and generationHistorical average data, such as weather conditions, usually do not match actual operating conditions.
[67]SingaporeModeling energy performance (RNSYS 17)Energy savings and annual cost (NPV)The setting of economic parameters has a considerable impact.
[68]ChinaModeling energy performance (TRNSYS)Building energy use and renewable energy generations, economic cost, load matching, and grid interactionA simplified battery model did not consider the battery’s energy loss during charging, storage, and discharging.
[69]United StateModeling energy performance (ASHRAE Inverse Modeling Toolkit (IMT))Measured data on building energy consumption and photovoltaic power outputThe effects of the building orientation, envelope improvements, and HVAC system upgrades using calibrated simulation models were not considered.
[70]IraqModeling energy performance (TRNSYS/TRNBuild)Energy consumption rate and costFailure to consider the impact of passive structures
[71]EuropeanModelling energy performance (SketchUp/Open Studio/EnergyPlus)Electricity and primary energy consumptionThe ability to use energy building modeling to describe the hourly heat demand of a building is not possible.
[72]EuropeanDifferential sensitivity analysis (DSA), elementary effects methodInterest rates, building and equipment maintenance costs, structural element costs, and electricity pricesSmall sample size
[73]South KoreaComparative analysis (actual data)Operational energy consumption and total environmental costsEnergy measurement masks the complexity of building energy flows and ignores the large-scale thermodynamics (economic, cultural, informational, etc.) surrounding the building.
[74]PakistanModelling energy performance (HOMER Pro)Solar radiation potential, operating costs, initial capital costs, energy generated by PV, payback period, and NPV costsOnly for hospital buildings
[75]ItalyModeling energy performance (FATA-e®)Electricity demand (sum of HVAC, hot water, and artificial lighting), PV generation, electricity absorbed from the grid, and PV surplus exported to the gridOnly for multi-story timber buildings
[76]ChinaSensitivity analysisBuilding geometry, building envelope thermal performance, equipment energy efficiency, and internal heat sourcesThe range of applications is limited by geography and building type.
[77]ChinaModeling energy performance (TRNSYS/RETScreen)Tilt angle, orientation, volumetric ratio, PV conversion efficiency, location, and power generationThe difference between the simulated and calculated results is about 10%.
[78]South KoreaModeling energy performance (TRNSYS)Passive element S/V ratio (surface-to-volume ratio) for the building type, building orientation, final energy consumption, and investment costs for active elements (building-integrated PV)Failure to consider the life cycle of a net-zero energy building
[79]ItalyPreferred method of sorting organizationEnergy consumption, life cycle costs, carbon emissions, property values, and indoor comfort standardsAssumed spatial changes in appreciation of NZEB buildings in the property market
[80]LithuanianMulti-Attribute Decision Making Methods for Optimal Solutions (MADM-opt)Heat exchange, relative air humidity, air temperature, air flow rate, surface area-to-volume ratio, noise insulation, and annual heat demandFor brick dwellings only
[81]LithuanianPrimary energy consumption formulaAverage power generation, wind speed, wind turbine capacity, conversion efficiency, and turbine power consumptionFor wind turbines only
[82]ChinaModelling energy performance (EnergyPlus)Baseline cooling demand, typical incident solar radiation, direct solar transmittance, and percentage of solar energy savings from exterior shading blindsThe external shading devices were not quantified only for external louver sunshade shading performance and geometric (e.g., slat width and shape) and physical (e.g., front and rear side slat solar reflectance) parameters.
[83]PortugalPrimary energy consumption formulaRenewable energy ratio (RER) and onsite energy fraction (OEF)Options for exporting energy carriers (e.g., electricity) are always better than options for self-consumption energy generated on-site.
[84]ItalyModeling energy performance (HOMER Pro\PV Sol)User well-being, energy and greenhouse gas savings, and cost optimizationOnly for photovoltaic power plant projects
[85]JapanComparative analysis (actual data)Spectral variation, solar radiation, electricity generationFor wall-mounted PV systems only
[86]ItalyComparative analysis (actual data)Building load, photovoltaic power generation, indoor comfortOnly for typical Mediterranean climates
[87]BelgiumComparative analysis (actual data)Thermal comfort and energy parametersNo post-occupancy qualitative assessment was considered regarding thermal comfort.
[88]ChinaEnergy efficiency assessment method based on time-series current simulationsProportion of energy storage capacity, annual electricity use, yearly electricity consumption, energy efficiency, and stakeholder incomeSystem costs do not include the cost of losses from poor power quality.
Table 5. Challenges of NZEB retrofit.
Table 5. Challenges of NZEB retrofit.
CategorizationIDChallengeValidation Reference
TechnologyT1Mechanisms of solar cell aesthetics and carrier transport layers and interfaces[95]
T2Air source heat pumps are prone to failure in cold climates.[96]
T3Failure to consider operational and occupant behavioral changes[97]
T4PV systems are prone to module ruptures, inverter failures, performance degradation, and other failures.[98]
T5High initial construction costs[99]
T6Energy simulation does not provide the best results because many potential system configurations are untested.[100]
T7Failure to consider the aging of the power generation system[101]
T8Implicit carbon in the life cycle of a building is not considered.[102]
T9Insufficient use of new technologies, such as digital twins and artificial intelligence algorithms[103]
T10Modeling methods cannot capture all the geometric features in the category represented by the prototype.[104]
EconomicsE1The payback period is about 10 years.[105]
E2Dynamic electricity and oil prices hinder the accuracy of cost measurements.[106]
E3Financing mechanisms and incentives[107]
E4Uncertainty in energy supply markets makes people pessimistic and reluctant to make decisions.[108]
E5Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) indicators are not comprehensive.[109]
E6Using energy storage systems (electrical and thermal) increases losses, increasing the energy demand and electricity bills.[110]
E7Lack of standardized value assessments for sustainable buildings[111]
SocietyS1Most communities have not yet published up-to-date measurements of NZEB’s success, and no data on its energy performance exist.[112]
S2Limited information on climate change data[113]
S3Insufficient understanding, communication, and trust between stakeholders[114]
S4The currently applied NZEB retrofit technologies are dominated by solar photovoltaics, with a small share of other energy sources such as wind, biomass, and micro-hydro.[115]
S5Lack of platforms to integrate data, including city castle maps, building information, building models and projects, and energy networks[116]
S6Public awareness of NZEB remains low.[117]
S7The immaturity of innovative city systems, smart grids, smart meters, and local energy trading platforms[118]
S8The complex impact of urban density on costs[119]
S9Lack of NZEB building professionals such as owners, facility managers, building design engineers, and builders[120]
S10Conflict of interest with traditional electricity suppliers[121]
S11Regional differences in types of renewable energy[122]
S12Instability and variations in regional climate and local weather conditions[123]
S13Fewer members of the public, businesses, or NGOs are involved and on board in realizing zero-energy buildings.[124]
PolicyP1Localization of standards and requirements, such as source and supply requirements, timescales, emission sources, and grid connections[125]
P2Decarbonization strategies and mechanisms are not in place in lagging countries.[126]
P3The region does not have a policy for excess electricity to be recovered by the national grid.[127]
P4Incentive policies such as subsidies and tax breaks are not provided.[128]
P5Lack of consensus on the definition and calculation of NZEB[129]
P6Delays in the NZEB approval process[130]
Note: The above challenges are derived from [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88] and are secondarily validated by the validation references.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiaoxiang, Q.; Junjia, Y.; Haron, N.A.; Alias, A.H.; Law, T.H.; Abu Bakar, N. Status, Challenges and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits: A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review. Energies 2024, 17, 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153826

AMA Style

Xiaoxiang Q, Junjia Y, Haron NA, Alias AH, Law TH, Abu Bakar N. Status, Challenges and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits: A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review. Energies. 2024; 17(15):3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153826

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiaoxiang, Qin, Yin Junjia, Nuzul Azam Haron, Aidi Hizami Alias, Teik Hua Law, and Nabilah Abu Bakar. 2024. "Status, Challenges and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits: A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review" Energies 17, no. 15: 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153826

APA Style

Xiaoxiang, Q., Junjia, Y., Haron, N. A., Alias, A. H., Law, T. H., & Abu Bakar, N. (2024). Status, Challenges and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Net-Zero Energy Building Retrofits: A Bibliometrics-Based Systematic Review. Energies, 17(15), 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153826

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop