Article

Short- and long-term ecological consequences of methodological discrepancies in building energy efficiency calculations

Volodymyr Chupa, Iryna Vashchyshak, Serhii Maksymiuk, Kyrylo Novytskyi
Abstract

In the context of global decarbonisation, the accuracy of assessing building energy efficiency has become a critical factor for predicting environmental impacts and achieving vital climate goals. Existing discrepancies between national and international calculation methodologies have created significant risks during the planning of large-scale thermal modernisation strategies. This article aims aimed to quantitatively assess the ecological consequences of methodological discrepancies between quasi-stationary and hourly dynamic approaches to calculating building energy consumption. A comprehensive approach was developed, including hierarchical modelling and a detailed methodology for converting energy consumption into carbon emission mass with a thorough assessment. It was established that the key sources of methodological discrepancy are the choice of the time model, the format of presenting climatic data, the description of thermal inertia, and the algorithm for interpreting internal heat gains. Research proved that the difference in annual energy demand when changing calculation methods reaches several tens of percent. This was equivalent to deviations in carbon dioxide emission mass in the range of hundreds of kilograms. To address this, the concept of a “zone of discrepancy” was proposed, introducing a threshold T to determine the feasibility of using simplified methodologies depending on the required accuracy. A methodology for aggregating individual deviations to the building stock level, based on a deterministic comparison of representative scenarios, is justified. These mathematical dependencies for quantitative assessment increase environmental monitoring reliability, allowing specialists to develop precise regulatory requirements and reduce the construction sector’s carbon footprint

Download article

Received 03.12.2025

Revised 04.05.2026

Accepted 12.06.2026

Published 30.06.2026

https://doi.org/10.63341/esbur/1.2026.79
Retrieved from Vol. 17, No. 1, 2026
Pages 79-87

Suggested citation

Chupa, V., Vashchyshak, I., Maksymiuk, S., & Novytskyi, K. (2026). Short- and long-term ecological consequences of methodological discrepancies in building energy efficiency calculations. Ecological Safety and Balanced Use of Resources, 17(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.63341/esbur/1.2026.79

References

  1. Bahaterenko, A.O., et al. (2013). Problems and prospects of Ukraine’s European integration. Scientific Bulletin of the Institute of International Relations NAU. Series: Economics, Law, Political Science, Tourism, 1(1), 1-14.
  2. Carpino, C., Bruno, R., Carpino, V., & Arcuri, N. (2022). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis to moderate the risks of energy performance contracts in building renovation: A case study on an Italian social housing district. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, article number 134637. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134637.
  3. Chiesa, G., Pizzuti, S., & Zinzi, M. (2025). A new approach to assess the building energy performance gap: Achieving accuracy through field measurements and input data analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 102, article number 111941. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.111941.
  4. Chupa, V., Adamenko, Y., Boychuk, V., & Kotsyubynska, Y. (2024). Comparative assessment of the content of heavy metals in the ash of solid fuel pellets and different types of sorted and unsorted solid domestic waste. Ecological Engineering & Environmental Technology, 25(5), 25-31. doi: 10.12912/27197050/184236.
  5. Dashko, I.M., & Krylov, D.V. (2021). Energy efficiency: Problems of assessment and current state. Bulletin of Khmelnytskyi National University, 3, 108-112. doi: 10.31891/2307-5740-2021-294-3-17.
  6. DBN V.2.6-31:2021. (2022). Thermal insulation and energy efficiency of buildings. Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page.html?id_doc=98037.
  7. Deng, Y., Zhou, Y., Wang, H., Xu, C., Wang, W., Zhou, T., Liu, X., Liang, H., & Yu, D. (2023). Simulation-based sensitivity analysis of energy performance applied to an old Beijing residential neighbourhood for retrofit strategy optimisation with climate change prediction. Energy and Buildings, 294, article number 113284. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113284.
  8. DSTU 9190:2022. (2022). Energy performance of buildings: Method for calculating energy use for heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and domestic hot water. Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page.html?id_doc=98995.
  9. Farenyuk, H.H., & Farenyuk, Ye.H. (2025). Implementation of the parametric method in modern building energy efficiency standards. Science and Construction, 35(1), 3-8. doi: 10.33644/2313-6679-1-2023-1.
  10. Hossin, M.A., Alemzero, D., Wang, R., Kamruzzaman, M.M., & Mhlanga, M.N. (2023). Examining artificial intelligence and energy efficiency in the MENA region: The dual approach of DEA and SFA. Energy Reports, 9, 4984-4994. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.03.113.
  11. ISO 52016-1:2017. (2017). Energy performance of buildings – energy needs for heating and cooling, internal temperatures and sensible and latent heat loads – part 1: Calculation procedures. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/65696.html.
  12. Johari, F., Munkhammar, J., Shadram, F., & Widén, J. (2022). Evaluation of simplified building energy models for urban-scale energy analysis of buildings. Building and Environment, 211, article number 108684. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108684.
  13. Kang, E., Lee, H., Yoon, J., Cho, H., Chaichana, C., & Kim, D. (2024). Investigating the influence of uncertainty on office building energy simulation through occupant-centric control and thermal comfort integration. Energy and Buildings, 322, article number 114741. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114741.
  14. Komelina, O.V., & Komelina, A.A. (2022). Environmental risks in implementing a sustainable development model: A scientific and practical approach. In Monitoring of geological processes and ecological condition of the environment: 16th international conference (pp. 1-5). Bunnik: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.2022580268.
  15. Kosova, T.D., & Titarenko, A.D. (2021). Problems of forming integrated sustainable development reporting in the energy sector. In Development of economy and business administration: Scientific trends and solutions (pp. 211-212). Kyiv: National Aviation University.
  16. Kryshtof, N.S. (2017). Energy efficiency – an effective mechanism for ensuring energy security and structural modernisation of Ukraine’s economy. Investments: Practice and Experience, 6, 104-110.
  17. Menegaki, A. (2014). On energy consumption and GDP studies: A meta-analysis of the last two decades. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 31-36. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.081.
  18. Nasouri, M., & Delgarm, N. (2025). A new method for simulation-based sensitivity analysis of building efficiency for optimal building energy planning: A case study of Iran. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 10(2), 202-224. doi: 10.1007/s40974-024-00338-4.
  19. Norouziasl, S., Vosoughkhosravi, S., Jafari, A., & Pang, Z. (2024). Assessing the influence of occupancy factors on energy performance in US small office buildings. Energies, 17(21), article number 5277. doi: 10.3390/en17215277.
  20. Shlapak, M., et al. (2024). Greenhouse gas emission factor for electricity production and consumption. Kyiv: NGO “DIXI GROUP”.
  21. Shovkalyuk, M.M. (2018). Development of programs to stimulate building energy efficiency improvement in Ukraine. In Energy management: Status and prospects – PEMS (pp. 116-117). Kyiv: National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”.
  22. Smereka, S.B., & Lifyrenko, S.M. (2025). Peculiarities of regulatory and legal support for energy efficiency. Visnik of the Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University, 289(3), 87-92. doi: 10.33216/1998-7927-2025-289-3-87-92.
  23. Sovacool, B.K., & Griffiths, S. (2020). Culture and low-carbon energy transitions. Nature Sustainability, 3(9), 685-693. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0519-4.
  24. Vashchyshak, I., Tsykh, V., Chernetska, I., & Dotsenko, Y. (2025). Improving the energy inspection methodology of the underground heating networks. In Y. Zabulonov, I. Peer & M. Zheleznyak (Eds.), Liquid radioactive waste treatment: Ukrainian context (pp. 249-259). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-95663-8_25.
  25. Xue, Q., Gu, M., Yang, Y., Bai, P., Wang, Z., Jiang, S., & Duan, P. (2025). Calibration study of uncertainty parameters for nearly-zero energy buildings based on a novel approximate Bayesian approach. Energy, 322, article number 135823. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.135823.
  26. Zhang, H., Tian, W., Tan, J., Yin, J., & Fu, X. (2024). Sensitivity analysis of multiple time-scale building energy using Bayesian adaptive spline surfaces. Applied Energy, 363, article number 123042. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123042.
  27. Zhu, L., Zhang, J., Gao, Y., Tian, W., Yan, Z., Ye, X., Sun, Y., & Wu, C. (2022). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of cooling and heating loads for building energy planning. Journal of Building Engineering, 45, article number 103440. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103440.