Evaluating Health Benefits of Urban Energy Retrofitting: An Application for the City of Turin

  • Cristina Becchio
  • Marta C. Bottero
  • Stefano P. Corgnati
  • Federico Dell’AnnaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


The European Union (EU) has committed to lower GHG emissions for a 20% with respect to 1990 by 2020, reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. Renewable energy and buildings retrofitting will be key measures in cutting environmental impacts according to the new climate targets. The development of these energy-efficiency measures requires significant financial resources. The promotion of renewable-energy sources needs public acceptance to facilitate financial support for government. There is a growing body of literature that recognizes how the benefits of applying energy-efficiency measures outweigh the realization costs. Within this context, an evaluation of the whole range of co-impacts is crucial to compare different alternatives with the same objective. To implement a tool to assess the feasibility of a retrofitting project, firstly it is indispensable to identify the various possible benefits in a standardized manner and monetary terms. Secondly, it is fundamental to specify a logical path for assessing the attainment of these benefits, based on the features of the project. Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in the evaluation of benefits. Despite this interest, very few studies have investigated the impact of the energy improvements of buildings on indoor comfort and human- health conditions. This work contributes to close the data gap in this context, investigating the health benefits connected to retrofitting interventions in residential buildings. A hybrid approach based on Contingent Valuation Method and economic analysis was applied to assess the impacts delivered by the energy retrofitting to an urban district in the city of Turin (Italy). A questionnaire was employed to elicit an estimate of consumers’ Willingness-To-Pay for better indoor comfort conditions and fewer hazards to health, reducing poor building features in terms of energy efficiency and air quality. A bidding game model was created to converge to the expected annual economic value of acceptable comfort conditions in the residential houses.


Co-benefits Energy retrofit Stated preferences Socio-economic assessment Bidding game 


  1. Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M., & Jakob, M. (2008). Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics, 30(2), 503–516. Scholar
  2. Barthelmes, V. M., Becchio, C., Bottero, M. C., & Corgnati, S. P. (2016). Cost-optimal analysis for the definition of energy design strategies: The case of a “nearly-Zero Energy Building”. Valori e Valutazioni, 16, 61–76.Google Scholar
  3. Bayoumi, A. M. (2004). The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics. PharmacoEconomics. Scholar
  4. Becchio, C., Bottero, M., Corgnati, S. P., & Dell’Anna, F. (2017). A MCDA-based approach for evaluating alternative requalification strategies for a Net-Zero Energy District (NZED). In Multiple Criteria Decision Making (pp. 189–211). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bisello, A., Grilli, G., Balest, J., Stellin, G., & Ciolli, M. (2017). Co-benefits of smart and sustainable energy district projects: An overview of economic assessment methodologies. Green Energy and Technologies (pp. 127–164). Scholar
  6. Bonnefoy, X. (2007). Inadequate housing and health: An overview. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 30(3/4), 411. Scholar
  7. Buso, T., Dell’Anna, F., Becchio, C., Bottero, M. C., & Corgnati, S. P. (2017). Of comfort and cost: Examining indoor comfort conditions and guests’ valuations in Italian hotel rooms. Energy Research & Social Science. Scholar
  8. Capolongo, S., Buffoli, M., Oppio, A., Nachiero, D., & Barletta, M. G. (2013). Healthy indoor environments: How to assess health performances of construction projects. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ). Retrieved from
  9. Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide †. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(8), 1413–1418. Scholar
  10. Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., & Schulze, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: A state of the arts assessment of the contingent method. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69.Google Scholar
  11. Damigos, D., Menegaki, M., & Kaliampakos, D. (2016). Monetizing the social benefits of landfill mining: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation survey in a rural area in Greece. Waste Management, 51, 119–129. Scholar
  12. Damigos, D., Tourkolias, C., & Diakoulaki, D. (2009). Households’ willingness to pay for safeguarding security of natural gas supply in electricity generation. Energy Policy, 37(5), 2008–2017. Scholar
  13. Deschenes, O. (2015). Green Jobs. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Elsevier. Scholar
  14. Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S., Aas, O., Sovacool, B., LaBelle, M. C., & Ruud, A. (2017). A conceptual framework for understanding the social acceptance of energy infrastructure: Insights from energy storage. Energy Policy, 107, 27–31. Scholar
  15. EC. (2013). Energy roadmap 2050.
  16. European Commission. (2003). External costs: Research results on socio environmental damages due to electricity and transport, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2014). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Publications Office of the European Union.
  18. Frew, E. J., Wolstenholme, J. L., & Whynes, D. K. (2004). Comparing willingness-to-pay: Bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy. Scholar
  19. Galvis, B., Bergin, M., Boylan, J., Huang, Y., Bergin, M., & Russell, A. G. (2015). Air quality impacts and health-benefit valuation of a low-emission technology for rail yard locomotives in Atlanta Georgia. Science of the Total Environment, 533, 156–164. Scholar
  20. Giordano, V., Gangale, F., Jrc-ie, G. F., Sánchez, M., Dg, J., Onyeji, I. … Maschio, I. (2011). Smart grid projects in Europe : Lessons learned and current developments. Europe. 2011.
  21. Giuffrida, S., Napoli, G., & Trovato, M. R. (2016, July). Industrial areas and the city. equalization and compensation in a value-oriented allocation pattern. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 79–94). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harlan, S. L., & Ruddell, D. M. (2011). Climate change and health in cities: Impacts of heat and air pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 126–134. Scholar
  23. Hervás Soriano, F., & Mulatero, F. (2011). EU Research and Innovation (R&I) in renewable energies: The role of the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Energy Policy, 39(6), 3582–3590. Scholar
  24. Hou, Z., Chang, J., Yue, D., Fang, H., Meng, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Determinants of willingness to pay for self-paid vaccines in China. Vaccine, 32(35), 4471–4477. Scholar
  25. Howden-Chapman, P., Crane, J., Matheson, A., Viggers, H., Cunningham, M., Blakely, T. … Waipara, N. (2005). Retrofitting houses with insulation to reduce health inequalities: Aims and methods of a clustered, randomised community-based trial. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 61(12), 2600–10. Scholar
  26. International Energy Agency. (2014). Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency: Executive summary. Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency, 18–25.
  27. Klose, T. (1999). The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. Scholar
  28. Kondili, E., & Kaldellis, J. K. (2012). Environmental-social benefits/impacts of wind power. In Comprehensive Renewable Energy (Vol. 2, pp. 503–539). Scholar
  29. Kroes, E. P., & Sheldon, R. J. (1988). Stated preference methods, an introduction. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Retrieved from
  30. Lee, C.-Y., & Heo, H. (2016). Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy, 94, 150–156. Scholar
  31. Liddell, C., & Guiney, C. (2015). Living in a cold and damp home: Frameworks for understanding impacts on mental well-being. Public Health, 129(3), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liddell, C., & Morris, C. (2010). Fuel poverty and human health: A review of recent evidence. Energy Policy, 38(6), 2987–2997. Scholar
  33. Loomis, J. B. (2014). Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 39(1), 34–46. Scholar
  34. Lombardi, P., & Cooper, I. (2016). Inter-generational justice: Time to tackle our evaluation practices?. Valori e Valutazioni, 17, 19-24.Google Scholar
  35. Maxim, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 65, 284–297. Scholar
  36. NAO. (2009, February). The warm front scheme. Office, 1–35.Google Scholar
  37. Napoli, G., Gabrielli, L., & Barbaro, S. (2017). The efficiency of the incentives for the public buildings’ energy retrofit. The case of the Italian Regions of the “Objective Convergence”. Valori e Valutazioni, 18(18), 25–39.Google Scholar
  38. Nomura, N., & Akai, M. (2004). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy, 78(4), 453–463. Scholar
  39. O’Brien, B., & Viramontes, J. L. (1994). Willingness to pay: A valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Medical Decision Making, 14(March), 289–297. Scholar
  40. Oerlemans, L. A. G., Chan, K. Y., & Volschenk, J. (2016). Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Scholar
  41. Oreszczyn, T., Hong, S. H., Ridley, I., & Wilkinson, P. (2006). Determinants of winter indoor temperatures in low income households in England. Energy and Buildings. Scholar
  42. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Wiersma, G. (2003). Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 49–64. Scholar
  43. Scarpa, R., & Willis, K. (2010). Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 129–136. Scholar
  44. Schucht, S., Colette, A., Rao, S., Holland, M., Schöpp, W., Kolp, P. … Rouïl, L. (2015). Moving towards ambitious climate policies: Monetised health benefits from improved air quality could offset mitigation costs in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy. Scholar
  45. Silveira, C., Roebeling, P., Lopes, M., Ferreira, J., Costa, S., Teixeira, J. P. … Miranda, A. I. (2016). Assessment of health benefits related to air quality improvement strategies in urban areas: An impact pathway approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 694–702. Scholar
  46. Simkhovich, B. Z., Kleinman, M. T., & Kloner, R. A. (2008). Air pollution and cardiovascular injury: Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Mechanisms. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 52(9), 719–726. Scholar
  47. Stigka, E. K., Paravantis, J. A., & Mihalakakou, G. K. (2014). Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 100–106. Scholar
  48. Strantzali, E., & Aravossis, K. (2016). Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 885–898. Scholar
  49. Sudman, S., Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Contemporary Sociology, 20. Scholar
  50. Tang, D., Wang, C., Nie, J., Chen, R., Niu, Q., Kan, H. … Perera, F. (2014). Health benefits of improving air quality in Taiyuan, China. Environment International, 73, 235–42. Scholar
  51. Tourkolias, C., & Mirasgedis, S. (2011). Quantification and monetization of employment benefits associated with renewable energy technologies in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 2876–2886. Scholar
  52. Turney, D., & Fthenakis, V. (2011). Environmental impacts from the installation and operation of large-scale solar power plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 3261–3270. Scholar
  53. UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties (COP). (2015). Paris climate change conference-November 2015, COP 21. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President. (Vol. 21932). Retrieved from
  54. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Herrero, S. T., Dubash, N. K., & Lecocq, F. (2014). Measuring the Co-Benefits of climate change mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(October), 549–582. Scholar
  55. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Scholar
  56. Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278. Scholar
  57. Whitehead, J. C., & Blomquist, G. C. (2006). The use of Contingent Valuation in Benefit-Cost Analysis. Handbook of Contingent Valuation, 92–115.Google Scholar
  58. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2010). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality. Nutrition Journal, 9, 454. Scholar
  59. Zaharna, M., & Guilleminault, C. (2010). Sleep, noise and health: review. Noise Health, 12(47), 64–69.[pii]\r10.4103/1463-1741.63205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zahnd, A., & Kimber, H. M. (2009). Benefits from a renewable energy village electrification system. Renewable Energy, 34(2), 362–368. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Becchio
    • 2
  • Marta C. Bottero
    • 1
  • Stefano P. Corgnati
    • 2
  • Federico Dell’Anna
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and PlanningPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Department of EnergyPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations