The health and indoor environmental quality impacts of residential building envelope retrofits: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrofitting existing buildings to improve energy efficiency is an important strategy to meet increasingly stringent energy efficiency targets. While the primary objective of energy efficiency retrofits is to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, retrofits can also result in non-energy impacts (NEIs), which contribute to decision-making processes and overall value of the retrofit. NEIs have been studied extensively in retrofitted residential buildings; however, these studies have historically grouped passive (i.e., building envelope) and active (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and energy system) upgrades, making it difficult to identify the underlying mechanism(s) of action for each NEI and developing effective retrofit strategies, based on occupant need. The purpose of this study was to better account for NEIs, based on a literature review, summarizing the current state of knowledge on NEIs associated with residential building envelope retrofits. We limited our search to health- and indoor environmental quality-related NEIs. The review identified strong evidence that building envelope retrofits improve acoustic comfort, wintertime thermal comfort, and respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes. IAQ outcomes were mixed, with studies reporting both increases and decreases to indoor contaminant concentrations following retrofits. The strength of the effect was generally governed by pre-retrofit contaminant concentrations and whether indoor concentrations were dominated by indoor or outdoor sources. Most studies evaluating summertime thermal comfort identified increased incidence of summertime overheating; however, none of these studies linked the change in thermal conditions to health outcomes. Recommendations for future work include expanding studies to include more market rate housing and the health impacts of summertime overheating in retrofitted buildings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".