Assessing microclimate thresholds for heritage preventive conservation to achieve sustainable and energy efficiency goals in a changing climate

Abstract

This research addresses the issue of the heritage preventive conservation in the perspective of energy sustainability, for contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and towards the EU Green Deal. The study analyses and compares four cases associated with different microclimate thresholds as suggested by the standard EN 16893:2018 (Cases 1-3) and as derived from the outputs of three degradation models for preserving paper, wood, and canvas paintings (Case 4). Weather-based indices (degree and gram days) were calculated to estimate trends in the potential energy demand of collection facilities in three European cities belonging to different Köppen-Geiger climate zones (Cfb, Csa, and Dfb), under recent past (1981-2010) and near/far future climate scenarios (2021-2050 and 2071-2100) from two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5). The findings suggest that adapting facilities' management strategies to focus on collections preservation can facilitate the achievement of 5 out of 17 SDGs, offering a viable alternative to costly energy retrofits and encouraging the development of shared solutions for similar facilities in the same climate zone. The results can contribute to inform the revision of EN 16893 and to face major challenges such as the preservation of paper collections in southern latitudes.

Keywords: Changing climate; Collections facilities; Degradation models; Heritage preventive conservation; SDGs; Standard.

Figure 1

Time evolution of degree-days (DD in °C) and gram-days (GD in g∙kg⁻¹) in three sites corresponding to three different climate zones in the recent past (RP, 1981–2010) in case 1 (a-c) and 2 (d–f).

Figure 2

Bar plots of degree-days (HDD and CDD in °C) and gram-days (DGD and HGD in g∙kg⁻¹) in three sites corresponding to three different climate zones from recent past (RP, 1981–2010) towards near future (NF, 2021–2050) and far future (FF, 2071–2100) based on SSP2− 4.5 and SSP5− 8.5 scenarios in case 1 (a–c) and 2 (d–f).

Figure 3

Time evolution of degree-days (DD, panels a and c) and gram-days (GD, panels b and d) in three sites corresponding to three different climate zones (Cfb, Csa, and Dfb) from recent past (RP, 1981–2010) towards near future (NF, 2021–2050) and far future (FF, 2071–2100) based on SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios in case 1 (a, b) and 2 (c, d) climate control.

Figure 4

Annual energy demands in kWh·m⁻³ estimated in buildings located in three sites corresponding to three different climate zones from recent past (RP, 1981–2010, black bars) towards near future (NF, 2021–2050, solid bars) and far future (FF, 2071–2100, dashed bars) based on SSP2-4.5 (green bars) and SSP5-8.5 scenarios (red bars) in cases 1 and 2. Building features: A/V = 1·m⁻¹; U_value = 1.0 W·m⁻²·K⁻¹; ACH = 1 h⁻¹.

Figure 5

Relative risk of degradation diagrams. RH versus T diagrams with the T and RH area without relative risk of damage, where the green area is related to EN 16893:2018 and the white area is estimated by the degradation models: (a) canvas paintings (considering an annual average RH = 65% of highly sensitive materials), (b) wooden objects and (c) cellulose-based objects (considering low-quality acidic paper with pH = 5 and DP = 600). The grey area indicates the T-RH relative risk of damage.