Upgrade or replace?: The effect of the EPBD on the choice between improvement or replacement

What is better: improvement or replacement by new construction? The choice between life cycle extension and replacement of existing buildings is at itself a vital but very difficult decision, involving a wide range of different aspects and affecting several contrary and often conflicting interests. The emerging ecological awareness of the building and real estate trade tends up to now mainly towards improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The introduction of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is intended to seduce proprietors of existing buildings to upgrade their stock to the green top of the label range. Especially in the case of older building, the question will raise to what extent the investments needed to achieve that level countervail replacement by new construction. In the past decade we studied the decision making on demolition in the Netherlands. Based on the available literature and statistical data we analysed the actual practice in the Netherlands and built a conceptual framework for further comparative and case study research. In addition to this research we placed the choice between improvement and replacement in a sustainable context, made an inventory of existing literature about comparative findings, analysed the outcomes and compared them with our own findings. Overlooking the results so far we concluded that life cycle extension by renovation and reuse of existing stock is generally more sustainable, more effective and more efficient as replacement by new construction. But how valid is this conclusion under different circumstances, in particular substantially aggravated energy performance requirements? To answer this question, our paper distinguishes the most determining variables for the decision-making, discusses the possible outcomes and concludes with recommendations for the decision-making process.