This paper responds to the article by Pietrapertosa et al., doi:10.3390/ijerph17124434, published previously in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Its aim is to discuss the appropriateness of the studied method, to analyze its weak sides and to propose its robustness improvement. Thus, data presented in the above study were examined and recalculated, yielding, among others, indicators of annual energy savings (in kWh per m2 of total heated area) and specific proposals investment costs (in € per m2 of total heated area). By analyzing the obtained data for all public buildings, a significantly simplified approach to this problematic has been suggested while several other features of the research method and some presented results lack proper reasoning and discussion. Individual approach to each public building has been proposed and discussed point-by-point to enhance the method's applicability. As a result, more realistic outcomes are obtained, and suitable investment actions can be proposed.
Keywords: CO2 emissions reduction; energy saving measures; heat losses; investment prioritization; lighting refit.