MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES
Department of International Relations and European Studies
Community-Oriented Energy Efficiency Policies in the European Union
Master’s Thesis
Author: Aryuna Shoynzhonova UČO: 442839 Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Osicka, Ph.D. Study Field: Energy Security Studies Year of Enrollment: 2015
Brno, 2017
1 Statement of Authorship
I hereby declare that this thesis I submit for assessment is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work.
Date:______Aryuna Shoynzhonova______
2 Acknowledgments
I would like to first of all thank my thesis supervisor, Jan Osicka, Ph.D. for his truly extensive assistance and invaluable advice to prepare this work. I would also like to express my gratitude to all the other professors and lecturers of the Energy Security Studies program at Masaryk
University, who through their cumulative efforts have made this academic journey an intellectually enriching and positively challenging experience. I want to thank all my comrades at arms, the program students, who throughout the studies showed exemplary cooperation and went to great length to help each other. Finally, I would like to thank my partner and friend Michal, who has been tremendously supportive, caring and patient to me throughout my studies.
3 Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations 6 Abstract 7 I. Introduction 8 1.1 Targeting Building Stock of the European Union 1.2 The Middle-Out Approach to Energy Inefficiency in the Building Sector 6 II. Theoretical Framework 14 2.1 The Energy Efficiency Gap and Barriers to Energy Efficiency 2.1.1 Economic Barriers: Market Failures 2.1.2 Economic Barriers: Non-Market Failures 2.1.3 Behavioural Barriers 2.1.4 Organizational Barriers 2.2 Behavioural and Contextual Aspects of Energy Inefficiency 2.3 Community Approach to Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment 2.3.1 Definition of Community and the Role of Stakeholders 2.3.2 Identifying the Middle Agents in Local Energy Efficiency Projects 2.4 Example of Community Approach in the EU: Concerto Initiative 2.5 Weaknesses of the Middle-Out Approach III. Methodology 42 3.1 Preliminary Analysis 3.2 In-Project Elimination and Comparison Grounds 3.3 Data Collection and Processing 3.4 Expectations 3.5 Limitations IV. Results and Discussion 49 4.1 Energy in Minds 4.1.1 Background 4.1.2 Zlin 4.1.3 Neckrasulm 4.1.4 Falkenberg 4.1.5 Weiz-Gleisdorf 4.2 Exploring the Middle Agents and Their Capacities 4.2.1 Neckrasulm: Energy Agency as the Main Driver 4.2.2 Zlin: Green Housing Association as the Agent of Change 4.3 Barriers Encountered 4.4 Other Key Stakeholders: Private House Owners and Apartment Owners
4 V. Conclusion 76 Bibliography Appendix 1. House Owner Interview Questions. General Outline 75 Appendix 2. Apartment Owner Survey Questions 76
5 List of Abbreviations
EC – European Commission
EIM – Energy in Minds
EU – European Union
EUCR – European Union Committee of the Regions
PV – photovoltaics
RES – Renewable Energy Sources
6 Abstract
The unsatisfactory rate of development of the EU’s climate change mitigation policies, both on national and international levels, has been found to be locked in the inability of regulators to push forward the energy efficiency agenda in residential sector. The built environment, meanwhile, appears to contain the greatest potential for energy savings, accounting for over 30% of CO2 emissions in the region. To unlock this potential, however, regulators need to look beyond conventional top-down policy implementation. The extremely low adoption rates of RES and energy- and cost-efficient technologies have prompted policy makers to reconsider the ways policy measures are introduced to the market. Borrowing from the structuralist perspective of
Agency and Capacity as well as the grassroot theories legislators are actively exploring the ways to engage a variety of sub-national actors to help realize the objectives of the energy efficiency agenda. This study is concerned with the concept of the “middle-out” approach to policy implementation in the realm of energy efficiency, that incorporates ideas of local governance through special agents of choice and community stakeholder participation.
Keywords: energy efficiency, barriers, middle-out, community, local, governance, sustainability, building sector, residential sector
7 I. Introduction
Tackling the challenges of energy efficiency is a pivotal task within the energy security strategy of the European Union (EU). The current transition towards a low-carbon economy is facilitated by the promotion of renewable energy sources (RES) and reduction of the CO2 emissions. However, the unsatisfactory penetration rates of innovative technologies and ineffective energy saving measures especially in the European built environment have proved that traditional policy tools are no longer adequate to address these challenges effectively (Janda
& Parag 2014, Koopmans & Velde 2001).
The conventional market thinking about policy implementation in the areas of energy conservation and dissemination of the RES has often found itself limited to deliver large-scale impact (Linden et al. 2006). Simple provision of technology and standardization from the “top” do not tackle complex implementation issues on the ground, and economic incentives fail to motivate consumers to modify their energy-inefficient behaviour (Janda & Parag 2014, Jaffe &
Stavins 1994, Cook 2013). On the other hand, the grassroot activism, or the “bottom”, cannot provide conditions for extensive and lasting transformations due to the lack of resources, knowledge and control over processes (Janda & Parag 2014, Reed 2008). Modern research shows that besides traditional market failures there is a myriad of non-market obstacles that appear to significantly hinder and deter the adoption of cost- and energy-efficient technologies, among which are social and behavioural barriers (Shove 1998, Cook 2013, Sorrell et al. 2000,
Tuominen 2012, Stengel 2104, Perlaviciute & Steg 2014).
One of the approaches to energy transition in buildings argues that the solution to the ineffective policy implementation lies in establishing a link between the “top” and “bottom”
8 (Janda & Parag 2014). Borrowing from the structuralist concept of Agency and Capacity the perspective claims that there exist some “middle agents”, who can foster the complex energy transformation due to their ability and will to remove the barriers. These catalysts are considered to be municipalities, communities, professional networks, energy services companies, housing associations, NGOs and other local organizations that can reach out to, provide assistance/services to and organize end users and hence influence norms and values of the groups
(Cook 2013, Quitzau 2013, Janda & Parag 2014). The assumption is that these particular actors possess the characteristics of both the “top” and “bottom” and, therefore, can induce necessary change in the structure of established energy systems.
Thus, while the general goal of this study is to contribute to the knowledge of complex implementation processes of energy efficiency policies in the EU, the objective focuses on exploring the concept of the “middle agents”, and how these agents attempt to implement energy efficiency policies in the building sector. To achieve this objective the paper looks at one implementation model at a community level, initiated and funded by the European Commission.
The research question is the following:
How does the “middle-out” approach contribute to the implementation of energy
efficiency measures in the built environment?
1.1 Targeting Building Stock of the European Union
The problem of low energy efficiency is especially acute in the building sector. Buildings in Europe account for about 40% of the total final energy consumption and are responsible for
36% of the total CO2 emissions in the region (European Commission, Stengel 2014, Quitzau
9 2012).1 Half of the stock consists of rapidly aging units primarily in the residential sector that were constructed before 1970s, i.e. before the introduction of energy performance regulations
(Quitzau 2012, Meijer et al. 2009, European Commission 2014). The significance of renovating the building stock lies not only in the possibility to unlock the energy saving potential, which is estimated to amount to 27-33% of the total energy savings (by 2020), but also in economic and social gains it can generate for people (Tuominen et al. 2012, Holmes 2012, Hope & Booth 2014,
Loring 2007).
The construction of buildings, that fell subject to the energy efficiency requirements in the 2000s, produced units consuming 30% to 60% less energy than the houses developed in the
1990s (Caputo & Pasetti 2015). However, these policies, notably the Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive2, aim at establishing sustainability standards in regard to the newly built units only, and the latter represents additions of less than 1% per annum, reflecting rather limited impact on the energy savings (Meijer et al. 2009, Hope & Booth 2014, Nair 2010). As the EU statistics shows a substantial portion of the stock in some countries has never been retrofitted even after the regulations were adopted due to their historical and/or cultural value (for instance, in Italy & the UK), while the portion of buildings, that fell under the immediate post-1970 regulation and was renovated, however, now requires another round of retrofitting measures because the efficiency measures implemented then are outdated today.3 Further on, as some buildings exhibit inferior conditions than others a cost-benefit analysis shows that demolition would still prove to be unfeasible due to complex processes involved, deep financial spending
1 European Commission: Energy. Buildings. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energyefficiency/bui - ldings 2 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2002 and its subsequent amendments. Available at http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32010L0031&from=EN 3 EU Buildings Factsheets. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-factsheets.
10 required and environmental concerns they may arouse, and currently the share of demolition- prone buildings comprises the miniscule 0.025% to 0.23% in the EU (Meijer et al. 2009).
Measures like house insulation and refurbishment, connection to district heating, installation of various renewable energy technologies and ventilation systems appear to be a more realistic and economically viable option than fully replacing the existing stock with newly built sustainable units (Dowson 2012).
Additionally, the aging building stock presents an opportunity for policy makers in terms of economic and social improvements (Ibid.). In some member states social housing represents a significant share of the total national stock and may display signs of urban blight. These areas apart from the energy upgrades also require extensive community revitalization measures (de- ghettoization in Spain) and reducing energy poverty (the UK) (DiNucci et al. 2010). Thus, a greater level of integrative mechanisms is needed to produce lasting impact on the communities.
1.2 The Middle-Out Approach to Energy Inefficiency in the Building Sector
Attempts to undertake complex energy transformation in the built environment presuppose equally complex changes to take place within the multiple levels of organization of the sector, from adoption and dissemination of the technological know-how to behavioural adjustments (Thollander et al. 2010, Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright 2004, Caputo & Pasetti
2015). The reviewed literature widely confirms that in many cases of the traditional energy efficiency initiatives regulators tend to not look beyond the technological and market parameters.
This happens because the conventional implementation targets mainly big utility companies and millions of users, or focuses on fixing market-related issues only (Janda & Parag 2011, Cook
11 2013). As a result generic methods are used across a spectrum of stakeholders. Meanwhile, socio-psychological and organizational factors influence all stages of the implementation process and, in fact, play far greater role than it was thought before (Linden 2006).
Such obstacles as hidden costs, lack of trust and time, inertia or risk aversion have often hindered various energy efficiency measures in many member states regardless of their energy strategies (Cook 2013, Walker 2010). It is, therefore, argued that for successful implementation to take place the directives from the top must be supported by the bottom. The coordination of
efforts must be enforced through special actors, who
possess greater capabilities than individual users, and
thus are seen as community mobilizers (Janda & Parag
2013, Hakkinen et al. 2016; see image)4. These agents
of change are usually situated at a sub-national levels
and, depending on the context of the measures, may
vary from builders associations and commercial developers to environmentalists groups and resident affiliations. More often, though, the role of a community “enabler” is understandably granted to local authorities, city governments and municipalities (Hakkinen et al. 2016, Caputo & Pasetti 2015).
The idea essentially revolves around connecting the “top” with the “bottom” by means of widening the local capacity to act on the directives in an integrative way, and not merely follow the prescribed standards and regulation. This is achieved through delegation of greater powers to sub-national institutions: municipalities, for instance, as the drivers for sustainable community
4 Image borrowed from “Presentation on Integrating Social Science in Energy Research” by Dr. Kathryn Janda at https://www.slideshare.net/CPRIndia/presentation-on-integrating-social-science-in-energy-research-by-dr-kathryn- janta
12 development, must proactively promote participation in the local pool of stakeholders (Cook
2013, Quitzau 2013). The strategy, therefore, underscores the significance of local capital to make a change: communities should utilize their social, administrative, financial and infrastructure resources in such a way that would allow to comprehensively realize the European objectives, and without being imposed upon by overbearing directives from the top (Hakkinen et al. 2016, EUCR). The local resource stimulation should subsequently spur innovative thinking due to the diversity of participants and the complex task of multifaceted transformation (Iglar,
Gigler & Pol 2009, Reed 2008). Measures like stakeholder-targeted information campaigns and engagement, customized evaluations and retrofits, community outreach, inclusion of house owners into the decision-making process, networking are the crucial elements of the approach.
Policy makers claim that the model should also lead to socio-economic benefits due to the overall improved energy security, energy and financial savings, greater cohesion in the community, increased trust among stakeholders, sense of independence and control over one’s own resources (Walker 2007, Klevas et al. 2009, Hoffman & High-Pippert 2010).
Further on, heterogeneity of the European stock too dictates for the necessity of finding some level of integrative mechanisms (Stengel et al. 2014). The characteristics of buildings in member states range greatly displaying a wide array of multi- and single houses, rented and owned, detached from and connected to central energy systems: some comprise a higher share in one country, others are prevalent in different states, which makes comparability of the stocks difficult (EC 2014). The comparability factor is important in terms of developing a meaningful database for potential replication and knowledge-sharing (Meijer et al. 2009). Consequently, tools that narrowly and clearly define objects of the planned efficiency measures seem to be
13 more adequate to deliver a structure to the whole implementation process, rather than the “one size fits all” tradition. Moreover, the highly tailored evaluation and targeting should improve assistance to property owners as it would provide greater understanding of the owners’ needs
(Cook 2013, Hope & Booth 2014).
Lastly, it should be noted that the “middle-out” approach cannot serve as a substitute for either the top-down or bottom-up perspectives, rather it represents a complementarity of the two, a process where the agents of change serve as a bridging between regulators and consumers
(Janda & Parag 2014, Hakkinen et al. 2016, Caputo & Pasetti 2015).
II. Theoretical Framework
2.1 The Energy Efficiency Gap and Barriers to Energy Efficiency
The phenomenon of slow diffusion of mature technologies in the building sector has been a persistent problem for a long time, despite their availability on the market and support from regulators. In the mid-1990s Jaffe and Stavins termed the issue as “energy paradox”, also known as the “energy efficiency gap”, and promulgated the idea that certain obstacles, or barriers, appeared to be the explanation for gradual adoption of the cost- and energy-efficient technologies (Jaffe & Stavins 1994, Weber 1997).
14 Jaffe and Stavins describe the development of the
technology diffusion as an S-shaped graph, where
the adoption rate takes off slowly, then becomes
faster and eventually slows, when nears the
saturation point (see image).5 They further on argue that the development model takes on the characteristics of an epidemic, i.e. the increase in adoption rates is catalyzed by a chain reaction of successful replication by new users. The latter is facilitated by the provision of information on availability and expected economic returns of the new technology (within conventional economic framework): “if existence and profitability
[expected economic return, riskiness, absolute magnitude of investment, size of adopting firms] are increasing functions of prevalence of use of a technology, then use of that technology can be expected to spread like a disease: the profitability that a non-user will adopt in any time period will be an increasing function of the fraction of the population that has already adopted” (p.95).
It is, thus, imperative that users have adequate access to information on the technology and methods of implementation, because without that knowledge consumers cannot utilize the potential locked in the energy saving measures, argue the authors.
However, lack of access to information is only one of the many barriers to energy efficiency, especially in the residential building sector (Hakkinen et al. 2016). The knowledge of existing barriers and their impact on the energy efficiency implementation is well documented and broad. When it comes to an exact definition of the “barriers” a few authors seem to differ: the majority point out to the underlying investment decisions that depend on one or a series of
5 Image borrowed from “Energy Efficient Technology Diffusion Factors: A Systematic Review” by Suchismita Bhattacharjee and Andrew P. McCoy at http://www.ijser.org/paper/Energy-Efficient-Technology-Diffusion-Factors-- A-Systematic-Review.html
15 factors. So Sorrell et al., for instance, frame these factors as “postulated mechanisms”, while
Weber simply offers the semantic analogue of “impediments” - but both definitions, among other variations, necessarily accentuate the relevance of the investment potential that is either obstructed or not accounted for during the decision-making process in regards to efficiency measures. Further on, following this description Jaffe and Stavins additionally underline the difference between the needs for investment in new buildings and existing units: for the investors in new sustainable dwellings the question is merely whether to capitalize on the opportunity or not, while for the investor seeking to renovate an already existing building the question is also about “when” (Jaffe & Stavins 1994). The latter notion is significant because investors seek to avoid unnecessary risk and attempt to foresee long-term potential of the efficiency measures
(future energy prices, prices and adoption rates of technology, availability of economic incentives) (Ibid., Farsi 2010). Therefore, the provision of relevant information must take into account the distinction between the two types of investors. This will come up as an important caveat later in the discussion.
Although, the barriers may appear in tandem and/or separately, the empirical studies show that it is more common to witness a whole group of obstacles hindering the implementation process due to the multiplicity of interests involved (Thollander et al. 2010, Pelenur et al. 2012).
The specifics of barriers vary from country to country and depend on such contextual factors as policy approach, financial conditions, climatic conditions, types of buildings and technology used etc., nonetheless, the reviewed literature suggests a general classification is still possible. In this paper a categorization suggested by Thollander et al. will be used as it appears to be the most
16 coherent and encompassing (for general analysis), and comprehensively covers the major published works on the topic.6
Thollander et al. divide the barriers into three customary categories: “economic, organizational and behavioural”. The authors note that this classification is not, however,
“unambiguous” due to the fact that one phenomenon can be explained “by several of the theoretically derived barriers presented” (Weber 1997). Additionally, the economic barriers are differentiated as market and non-market failures. The former include: imperfect information, adverse selection, principal-agent relationship and split incentives; the latter cover hidden costs limited access to capital, risk and heterogeneity. The second large group - behavioural barriers - consists of: form of information, credibility and trust, values, inertia, bounded rationality. Last group of organizational barriers comprises of power and culture.
In order to better understand the variety of barriers and arrive at a correct “barrier model” the authors offer the following question suggested by Weber, “what is an obstacle to whom reaching what in energy conservation?” (Weber 1997, Sorrell et al. 2000)7.
2.1.1 Economic Barriers: Market Failures
Thollander et al. define market failures as undermining the principles of “mainstream economic theory”, and Brown specifies that such market barriers “inhibit socially optimal levels of investment in energy efficiency”, and therefore may justify “public policy intervention”
(Brown 2001).
a. Imperfect information
6 Other similar examples of classification can be found in Weber (1997), Vogel (2015). 7 For additional definitions see Shove (1998), “barriers are non-technical obstacles”.
17 Imperfect information is widely cited as a common barrier across different markets and also include insufficient information, cost of obtaining information and the information accuracy.
This barrier significantly hampers policy implementation as consumers may be inadequately informed, or not informed at all about market conditions, technology characteristics and their own energy use; moreover, consumers may have difficulty obtaining the necessary information or incur costs associated with acquiring such information. In addition, dissemination of un- targeted and/or incorrectly emphasized information further exacerbates lack of knowledge of economic advantages of energy efficiency measures due to a diversity of stakeholders who have different information needs (Iglar 2014, Stengel et al. 2014, Painuly 2000).
b. Adverse Selection
Adverse selection signifies an asymmetric relationship between two parties: for instance, a situation in which producers of energy efficient equipment are more knowledgeable about technology than prospective buyers (Thollander et al. 2010)
c. Principal-Agent Relationship
Principal-agent relationship characterizes lack of trust between two parties involved in an organization or transaction. This barrier often hinders energy efficiency measures in multi-family buildings, where tenants have no control over the building management (Cook 2013, Jaffe &
Stavins 1994). Another example of this problem can be lack of acceptance of measures being implemented, which in turn arises out of low public awareness/knowledge, and consequently leads to difficulty acquiring a permission for such measures (Iglar 2009, Dowson 2012).
d. Split Incentives
18 Split incentives are also described as a “landlord-tenant” relationship: actual owners of the rented property, where efficiency measures are to be performed, may refuse to make investments because the potential savings would benefit the tenants of the building who pay the energy bill, while tenants also have little incentive to finance costly upgrades, if they are not guaranteed long-term occupancy (Cook 2013, Tuominen et al. 2012, Dowson 2012).
2.1.2 Economic Barriers: Non-Market Failures
As opposed to market-failure barriers these barriers are not related to market failure per se, but are “obstacles which nevertheless contribute to the slow diffusion and adoption of energy- efficient measures” (Brown 2001)
a. Hidden Costs
Hidden costs are associated with expenditures on information-seeking, inconvenience, meeting with sellers, production disruption etc. Another example of this type of barriers can be negative externalities, such as pollution, that are not included in explicit costs and, thus, present unaccounted for expenditures (Tuominen et al. 2012)
b. Limited Access to Capital
Innovative energy-efficient technologies can be expensive, while obtaining capital to finance its purchase is also an obstacle to certain groups of consumers like low rates of funding or restrictions on lending (Iglar 2009).
c. Risk
Uncontrolled factors like future energy prices or market conditions can pose risk to investors who seek long-term savings in operating costs and need to ensure that investing
19 conditions are transparent and reliable. Additionally, quite often companies/individuals lack time and funds to reduce risk by calculating the necessary requirements (Thollander et al. 2010).
d. Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity is concerned with the difference among prospective users and technology available on the market: certain companies and individuals can afford expensive equipment, while others cannot afford even the most cost-effective - the situation that may lead to problems in production processes of goods or compatibility problems in the implementation process (Jaffe
& Stavins 1994, Stengel et al. 2014).
2.1.3 Behavioural Barriers
Behavioural barriers are “barriers derived from behavioural sciences that explain the
‘gap’”, i.e. those obstacles to energy efficiency from the perspective of psychology and human behaviour. Weber defines this type of barriers as related to peoples’ values and attitudes towards energy conservation, which manifest as a missing link between the attitudes and action. In addition, as Weber notes, societal norms and individual lifestyle patterns may inhibit more efficient use of energy.
a. Form of Information
Studies have shown that people react only to certain forms of information and are not
“active information seekers”. The stakeholder-oriented assessment study by Stengel et al. further confirms that highly-tailored approach to information presentation have desired results on targeted objects, i.e. by analyzing the stakeholder pool it is possible to draft an individual/company-specific mechanism of communication based on one’s needs and thus
20 successfully influence a positive perception/adoption of efficiency measures (Stengel et al.
2014).
b. Credibility and Trust
The information receiver may not trust the information provider and question the
“credibility” of sources. People tend to rely on the sources and expertise that exhibit most authority and knowledge in the given matter, moreover, people may base their trust on whether they find the information provider as “honest, open and concerned for the public” (Perlaviciute
& Steg 2014). A good example of this type of barriers is illustrated by Thollander et al. in a U.S. case, where residents were distributed pamphlets with information on energy saving methods in homes by two different sources, one being a utility company, another – a state regulatory agency.
The results showed that those who received state-published pamphlets used 8% less electricity than the ones who were sent the utility pamphlets (Thollander et al. 2010).
c. Values
Values have been confirmed to play a significant role in acceptability of energy measures: strong altruistic values concerning collective outcomes (well-being of people in general and environmental quality) have shown to make people accept alternative energy sources more readily (Perlaviciute & Steg 2014). However, Thollander et al. further note that moral norms in household sector have strong impact only on cost-free energy efficiency measures.
d. Inertia
Thollander et al. define this barrier as established behavioural traits of people who are in essence “creatures of habit and routines”. Quite often individuals are reluctant to change their environments due to the general avoidance of risk and uncertainty in their lives - this can be also
21 interpreted as inability to get out of one’s comfort zone. Residents may opt out of implementation measures because they loathe “hassle of refurbishment” (Dowson 2012).
Interestingly, the difficulty in overcoming inertia can also be attributed to an individual’s reluctance to change his/her course of action due to the need for justification of a previously made decision, “downgrade contradictory information” (Sorrell et al. 2000). What it means is that people may not want to change their decisions, even if it leads to a better cost-effective solution, in order to avoid admitting a mistake. In addition, the complex process of decision- making itself (complex structure, multiple stakeholders) may inhibit a motivation for action
(Tuominen et al. 2012)
e. Bounded Rationality
The mentioned multiplicity of stakeholders, on the other hand, often results in contradictory interpretations of the expected advantages of energy efficiency measures at different levels of organization or even within same departments (Stengel et al. 2014). Decision- making regarding complex renovation procedures, for instance, requires equally complex solutions and often in a most optimal cost-effective way. Thollander et al. further note that organizations in some cases end up acting on decisions that were made as a rule of thumb, and not as a result of a comprehensive deliberation.
2.1.4 Organizational Barriers
This type of barriers deals with general organizational structures.
a. Power
22 Lack of power may characterize absence of actions, i.e. energy managers can lack authority or status and face obstacles when attempt implementation procedures (Sorrell et al.
2000)
b. Culture
Sorrell et al. define this barrier as not a barrier per se, but rather as “an explanatory variable” of why certain companies may opt out of energy efficiency adoption. Thollander et al. specify that culture is a collection of separate values, however, where certain individuals like company/departmental leaders exert greater influence than the rest of the staff, and in this manner mold the company culture.
It should also be noted that the typology of barriers is also closely related to the ownership structures present on the local market and characteristics of the property such as age and physical parameters. Property owners have direct stake in the implementation measures - a factor, that if overlooked, may cause significant resistance to proposed measures or diminish motivation to participate (Dowson 2012). Jaffe and Stavins, for instance, underline the difference between investment needs for new buildings and existing units: for an investor in a new sustainable dwelling the question is merely whether to capitalize on the opportunity or not, while for an investor seeking to renovate an already existing building the question is also about “when”
(Jaffe & Stavins 1994). This distinction is significant because investors seek to avoid unnecessary risk and attempt to foresee long-term potential of the efficiency measures (future energy prices, prices and adoption rates of technology, availability of economic incentives)
(Ibid., Farsi 2010). Further on, Stengel et al. provide eight commonly known ownership types:
“individual owner-occupiers, owners/leaseholders/freeholders associations, commercial owner-
23 occupiers, public authorities as owner-occupiers, small-scale private landlords, large private sector landlords, housing cooperatives and state-owned or social housing providers”. These stakeholders are differentiated “by their roles, occasions, questions, activity-related characteristics, knowledge-level and factors impeding or supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use” (Stengel et al. 2014). Hence recommendations on new policy approaches suggest that key stakeholders be included in the decision-making process and provided with information according to their “information needs” (Ibid.).
A lion share of the literature confirms the proposition that exploitation of energy efficiency potential is limited by mainly non-technological obstacles. Economic, organizational and behavioural barriers dominate the decision-making process, making it hard for policy makers to realize energy efficiency programs effectively. Directly unobservable as they are these barriers seriously hinder the policy implementation strategies (Weber 1997).
2.2 Behavioural and Contextual Aspects of Energy Inefficiency
It is rather self-evident that daily energy consumption is a physical action, however, it is less evident that energy use is intrinsically a psychological matter as well. Daily energy use mainly pertains to our lives through the routine exploitation of various electronic devices and equipment. We normally do not think about how energy is delivered to us, when we need to plug a kettle in or switch a TV set on. The motifs that make us use energy happen almost at a subconscious level because energy is inseparable from a modern life. As a result we have developed certain sets, or patterns, of actions that help us apply less effort to maintain our comfort and save us time, but which are energy inefficient (Nair 2010).
24 Within the theory of energy efficiency gap the behavioural aspect can be regarded as the main culprit, hence its distinction from economic and organizational aspects. The efficiency gap itself is a rather difficult phenomenon to measure, while behavioural patterns of energy use are almost impossible to empirically identify and evaluate, unless consumers themselves partake in the process of evaluation and measurement (Reed 2008).8 However, even before that happens the consumers must have realized the necessity of doing it. Moreover, economic and organizational aspects both directly and indirectly relate to behavioural barriers simply because it is human actors, who are able to bring about a change to the system, either as individuals or as part of a community. Linden notes that human behaviour, in fact, influences energy use “to the same extent as more efficient equipment and appliances, and household behaviour may vary to such an extent that residential energy use differs by a factor of two, even when the equipment and appliances are identical” (Linden 2006). This means that energy-saving behavioural patterns produce significant impact on the way we utilize energy and, consequently, can improve the overall efficiency indicators.
Perlaviciute and Steg further explain that psychological factors play an equally important role along with economic considerations in the acceptability of alternative measures. To shed light on the reasons why people prefer certain sources of energy over others and why financial motivation sometimes fails to deliver public acceptability the authors offer to look at a community energy. Drawing on the case of community resistance to hydropower in Norway, they suggest differentiating between general public acceptability and narrowly defined community
8 Also see Weber (1997):”Barriers cannot be empirically classified because they are invisible. They are real but not observable. The typology […] is derived from theory and propelled by different concepts of action in order to remove obstacles, i.e. theories of institutions, economic theories, organizational theories and theories of human behaviour”.
25 acceptability of RES. They further argue that individuals subconsciously distinguish between the measures that are for a “greater good” (collective costs and benefits) and the measures that target locally-framed objectives (individual costs and benefits) (Perlaviciute and Steg 2014). The study revealed that what an individual considered as a necessary measure for sustainable environment in general (e.g. one can be pro-hydropower) did not necessarily translate into acceptability of same measures, when applied to one’s immediate environment (e.g. one may dislike hydropower due to its pervasive image in the landscape or lack of direct benefits to the individual) (Ibid.,
Linden 2010).9 Similar cases were also recorded in the UK, where large scale and privately owned wind farms became an obstacle to successful dispersal of the RES to wider groups of consumers (Walker 2008, also see Ch.2.3.1).10
As the authors further suggest, acceptability of alternative measures closely correlates with such cognitive constructions as values, trust and self-identification of individuals (Weber
1996). Residents of a small, especially tightly knit, community tend to develop what authors term “place-attachment and place-identity”, the concepts that refer to one’s feelings of belonging to a certain place, his/her association with it and values and attitudes a person holds in relation to that specific community. These dimensions are in close interaction and may exert strong influence on the opinions and actions of the individual. Thus, values correspond to what is important to people, and as such may transcend beyond the customary networks of relations.
Consequently, there must exist two distinct types of interest, i.e. self-interest and altruism, or what the authors call “self-enhancement” and “self-transcendence” respectively:
“Self-transcendence values refer to primarily considering collective outcomes,
9 The significance of direct benefits of community energy to individuals is discussed later on in the text (see Ch.2). 10 The UK experimentation with community energy, that sprung up in the early 1990s, offers a great deal of information on the potential and weaknesses of the approach. For more details see works of G. Walker.
26 with two main types of these values being distinguished in the environmental
domain: altruistic values, focusing on the well-being of other people and society,
and biospheric values, focusing on environmental quality. Self-enhancement values,
on the other hand, drive one’s attention to individual costs and benefits” (Perlaviciute and
Steg 2014, p.369).
As a result, the more emphasis is placed on the self-transcendent values, the likelier it is for groups to consider the collective benefits of alternative energy sources and their subsequent acceptability. In contrast, when the “emotional bonds” that individuals create with their locales are not accounted for, they may transpire into low collective acceptability of the measures or even resistance to them (Ibid.).11 Consequently, residents start viewing the measures as
“disruptive” and triggering “symbolic” violation of an individual’s identity that has been developed in connection with the community (Perlaviciute & Steg 2014).
To overcome behavioural barriers Linden suggests avoiding the top-down approach to policy implementation. Because of the complex interaction of the psychological and contextual determinants of acceptability the internal motivation is needed, not an external enforcer: “developing environmental awareness, the environmental effects of behaviour and energy consumption must be known” and “to process such knowledge a set of values about environmental issues must be present” (Linden 2010, Weber 1996). Linden further explicates that values consist of “a wider and more general set of attitudes”, meanwhile the attitudes constitute views about phenomena, and argues that there exists “some correspondence between the two”.
So Linden effectively suggests building a horizontal communication framework for regulators
11 Notable cases on the studies of “place-attachment” can be found in the works of P. Devine-Wright and M.Vorkinn & H.Reise.
27 and consumers, where the interaction includes feedback, and is based on the principles of reciprocity: “both partners represent same share of importance and have same roles
(interchangeably) as sender and receiver” (Ibid.). Therefore, inclusion of owners into the decision-making process is considered vital and underscores measures that engage the heterogeneity of stakeholders, evaluate their information needs and focus on provision of customized and targeted consulting (High-Pippert 2010, Stengel et al. 2014, EUCR).
Because achieving energy efficient behaviour essentially depends on our cognitive evaluations of the measures we want to adopt and our perception of costs and benefits of such measures, how well we understand them, opinions that we hold about the impact of fossil generation on our environment or (un)willingness to be part of a collective action - all influence our acceptability of proposed measures (Ibid.). It is, thus, important to recognize the causes of our decisions, factors that help us to evaluate given situations and take action and, consequently, formulate effective mechanisms to modify ineffective behavioural patterns. 56% of Europeans, for instance, consider themselves as well-informed about the impact of climate change, however, when it comes down to investment decisions on energy efficiency measures the results are disparate, closely reflecting differences in such additional parameters as age, income, education level, marriage status and other circumstantial characteristics (Nair 2010, Pelenur 2012). Further on, such tools as community-based social marketing, raising environmental awareness through targeted information campaigns, workshops, lectures and demonstration projects in energy efficiency must be articulated in policy formulation and practically applied in the subsequent implementation (Hope & Booth 2014, Cook 2013). The described examples do not seek to directly and immediately modify behaviour, as does top-down regulation, but rather encourage
28 normative stimulation first, by exposing the benefits of energy-efficient thinking and doing.
Combined with economic incentives these soft measures can set in motion the change of inefficient behavioural patterns (Reed 2008, Linden 2006).12
Congruent to the idea that successful technology diffusion resembles an “epidemic”
(Jaffe and Stavins 1996), policy makers need to ensure that the adoption rate can reach the critical “saturation” point. However, it should be noted that it is not always so that knowledge, values and attitudes necessarily lead to a behavioural change. In order to achieve that policies must put forward the best examples of implementation measures, which demonstrate to users their effectiveness, affordability, availability and adequacy. Thus, the degree of visibility of newly adopted behaviour patterns must be as well heightened. The technology adoption rate will not only start to increase more smoothly, but can be realistically sustained, once new users of innovative technologies can also replicate and share values of sustainable thinking (enhancement of cognitive motivation). Hence spreading “lifestyles and impressions it makes on other actors” by means of establishing networks, partnerships and showcasing best examples should be supported and enhanced (Linden 2010, Jand & Parag 2014). Consequently, there exists higher chance of wider “public acceptability” once the measures seeking to modify cognitive change are put in place and people start conscientiously adopting efficient technologies and new behaviours
(Perlaviciute & Steg 2014).
12 In regards to acceptance, Perlaviciute and Steg also stress that monetary incentives do not necessarily increase public support for alternative measures, but in some cases can even reduce it (e.g. nuclear or wind energy). Additionally, they found out that in some cases public support services were seen more acceptable than monetary assistance (Perlaviciute & Steg 2014, p.366).
29 2.3 Community Approach to Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment
As traditional forms of production begin to compete with RES so changes the way we view the structure of energy systems, i.e. fossil-fuel based production of energy no longer seems to be a prevalent model. Development of renewables heralded shift from centralized generation to distributed generation and led to the emergence of prosumers, whereas the structure of
“supplier-consumer” relations is also changing, and has no longer a passive dependent receiver on one end and a regulated supplier on the other (Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright 2004). Within the broader picture of energy transition developing this relationship into a working system requires a new comprehensive outlook that takes into account the progressive modes of energy production and entrance into the market of novel suppliers.
The conventional “command and control” regulation cannot be fully effective in regard to energy transition, as has been stressed earlier. Building codes and efficiency standards for appliances have been designated to play the main role in promoting energy conservation, but because issues like efficient use of energy and consumption management also deal with the psycho-social organization of the society the uniform methods do not address the unobserved barriers (Walker 2007, Hope 2014, Cook 2013, Perlaviciute & Steg 2014). Values, norms and attitudes also partake in the shaping of the new identity of prosumers and sustainable behaviour.
This is especially of high importance if to take into consideration that the demand-side participation is the key to successful technology diffusion (Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright
2004, see Ch.2.2). Consequently, in search for a more comprehensive solution to policy
30 implementation central governments have turned to local authorities to foster the ambitious energy efficiency goals (Caputo & Pasetti 2015, Hakkinen et al. 2016, EUCR).
In theory benefits of the local approach to wide-scale system transformations are positively acknowledged: concepts of path dependence and lock-ins in unsustainable modes of production along with the notion of “peak oil”, and the ensuing need for dissemination of RES - all underscore the need to search for extensive solutions (Seyfang & Haxeltine 2010, Walker
2007). It has been argued that municipalities and city governments have more capacity to act on directives from the “top”, are aware of the resources available to them in their own locale and can, therefore, mobilize residents, provide meaningful feedback and monitoring during and after implementation activities (Quitzau 2013, Pol 2007, Caputo & Pasetti 2015). Essentially, municipalities and local leaders have become to be seen as powerful nodes with capabilities to penetrate the multiple layers of organizational and resource structures, specifically because of their immediate sphere of influence and, thus, the ability to connect to energy consumers faster than central governments (Linden 2010). Quitzau further notes that the “municipal planning systems” are adequately equipped to shift the climate change mitigation objectives to the local level, while Hakkinen et al. consider municipalities, in fact, to be more effective mediums than the current global efforts.
The community perspective on policy implementation has been known since the 1970s, when grassroot sustainability movements started to spring up in several OECD countries, centered around agricultural concerns (Walker 2008, Bomberg & McEwen 2012). However, any practical development in terms of energy transition has reached considerable recognition relatively recently, around the late 1990s-early 2000s, when terms like “local” and “community”
31 began to appear on the energy policy documents more often (Ibid.). To the rapid popularization of “community” thinking added the already existing knowledge and experience of community projects in a few member states like Denmark, Austria and the UK in the areas of biomass, wind power development and energy efficiency (Walker 2008, Walker 2010). As a result many member states started introducing energy strategy plans at a local level (Quitzau 2013).
2.2.1 Definition of a Community and the Role of Stakeholders
Notable research on communities in the context of modern energy governance is done by
Gordon Walker and Patrick Devine-Wright. Authors state that interpretation of the term
“community” has diverse meanings depending on who attempts to frame and use it. Under the banner of energy transition the term “community” oftentimes encompasses a wide array of definitions: non-commercial projects led by charitable companies, physically defined areas used by community members, projects with emphasis on local participation but without an ownership share, or vice versa, oftentimes the projects also carry certain “ideological and rhetorical ends”
(Walker & Devine-Wright 2007).
Walker himself defines “community” as a socially and culturally constructed concept, strategically deployed and locally manifest in many different and complex forms (Walker 2008).
However, based on the research conducted in the UK between 2004-06 at least two commonly perceived parameters could be drawn behind the term “community”: who the project is developed and led by (“process”), and who it is developed for (“outcome”) - quite similarly to how Sorrell et al. define “barriers” (Ibid., Reed 2008). In other words, who initiates the project and runs it, and who benefits from this project. Importantly, the two dimensions are sometimes
32 found in a strident dichotomy where cost-benefit distribution is inequitable and may lead to conflict or resistance to the project; to demonstrate this - a private company may claim a right to develop a wind installation project on the common land under the auspices of “community - based development”, however, generates profits from selling the produced energy without giving back to the same community (Perlaviciute & Steg 2014). It is, therefore, important to align the two parameters by actively engaging the local stakeholders into the process of implementation, if the project to bear “community” label (Walker & Devine-Wright 2007, Rogers et al. 2008).
Walker further emphasizes the positive effect of the participatory rhetoric (grassroot activism) in the definition of the community in order to construct a workable “discursive coalition”. The significance of a community approach to energy transition essentially lies in its social aspect of the transformation. This view is also further shared by Reed, who argues that
“stakeholder participation” can bring strong benefits to any project in the form of “normative” and “pragmatic claims”, i.e. the overall advantages of a democratic society, like equity and citizenship, and the practical significance of better “adaptability” of the policies and technologies being introduced. The former, thus, enhances a greater cohesion in the society as marginalized participants are now involved in the decision-making process, while the latter speeds up adoption and diffusion of innovative technologies through “durable and quality environmental decisions
[through engagement of stakeholders] being made possible (Reed 2008). Topics like self- empowerment, local mobilization, resident engagement and participation were borrowed from the grassroot environmental activism and stroke the right accord with policy makers, who realized that same notions or elements thereof could be embedded in the energy strategy (Walker
2008, Walker 2010). Therefore, emphasis on developing a relationship with key stakeholders
33 emerged as the leading parameter for effective community approach to energy efficiency.
However, Walker warns that one must be cautious about stretching the definition of
“community” too far to not accidentally include irrelevant actors. Paradoxically, though, as the studies of grassroot activism in the UK showed flexible definitions can sometimes encourage large scale participation due to non-discriminatory inclusion of a wide variety of interests
(Walker 2007). The encompassing interpretation, thus, lies somewhere in between, in the area where policy makers can guard against legitimizing “poorly conceived private interest projects as community driven” (Ibid.). Chaskin, on the other hand, provides a definition of a “community” as existence of a certain “sense” of interconnectedness among actors in addition to a participatory role, and as recognition of “mutuality of circumstance, collectively held norms, values and vision” (Chaskin 2001). This idea of an unconstrained community definition is also supported by Janda and Parag, who extend the meaning of “community” to professional associations, non-governmental organizations, citizens’ affiliations and such, and whose active goals are formulated in the context of the “capacity building”, not spatiality.
In sum, whatever definition of a “community” project seems to be most appropriate within a given context (be it a wind turbine construction in a scarcely inhabited area, solar PV installation in a busy city district, or a building insulation of a group of dwellings) it, nevertheless, must emphasize the central position of the community members in the first place.
Because without active engagement of the key stakeholders the very notion of “community” becomes irrelevant due to the high level of commitment necessary on behalf of the hosting community for an energy project to become successful.
34 2.2.2 Identifying the Middle Agents in Local Energy Efficiency Projects
If communities are indeed to become the paramount movers of energy transition they need to ensure that initiatives at the local level receive active support and cooperation from both private and public actors (Hakkinen et al. 2016, Janda & Parag 2014). Commitment of the individual private stakeholders, however, is twice a challenge solely on the basis of complex ownership structures in the residential sector.13 This highly diverse and at times fragmented market does not respond well to generic policy instruments and for obvious reasons does not fit well within the grassroot movements either (Hope & Booth 2014). So the natural question is how to attract and involve in participation the disengaged user?
The difficulty in formulating a correct approach to attract consumers into the decision- making process about energy conservation lies primarily in an equally problematic process of identifying the right “middle agents” to commence that activity. Within the proposed framework of the “middle-out” theory these special actors appear to be the modus operandi for the innovative community-energy initiatives as they provide the crucial linkage between regulators and consumers. Accordingly, the middle agents are called upon to mobilize disenfranchised stakeholders, and are seen as to be able to sustain consumer participation, which is the broader ambition of the energy transition (Hoffman & High-Pippert 2010). Although historically this role has been attributed to municipalities and other local authorities, they, however, do not necessarily have to be the ones. Janda and Parag argue that the choice for the right “enabler” of mobilization, in fact, depends on the context, thus, any organization with enough capacity to act can be deemed
13Although individual market characteristics vary across the EU, the indicators of market fragmentation are rather homogeneous, i.e. according to the ownership or tenure types. The differences are mainly in the ratios: “Germany’s private rental sector comprises around 47% of all dwellings”, while “UK’s private renters account for 18%” (Hope & Booth 2014).
35 as a “middle agent”, if appropriate enough to the local circumstances and the project objectives
(see Ch.1.2) (Janda & Parag 2014). The significance of the correct identification of the “middle agents” is underscored here because it relates to the problem of the community definition and irrelevant actors, thoroughly discussed by Walker (see Ch.2.2.1).
Bomberg and McEwen further discuss the contextual requirements for a successful community project and point out two main conditions that must be present: structural and symbolic resources. The former concerns the “wider political structures or conditions that shape opportunities for collective action” (state technological and financial support, general openness of the system, opportunity to partake in dialogues with policy makers); while the latter refer to non-material aspects such as “community identity and autonomy”. In addition, the authors note that, while state support appears to be the “core” resource within the corresponding group, it is not always equally available to all. Consequently, they argue it is important to ensure that at least certain actors are “instrumental in harnessing” material resources and “getting projects off the grounds” - for instance, entrepreneurs (Bomberg and McEwen 2012). As we can see the “middle agents” can be not only regional or sub-regional authorities but even individuals. What matters most, though, is the connections these agents can provide (and at the same time create) and capabilities they possess to utilize the endowed opportunities (again, within a given context).
Addressing the second group of resources, offered by Bomberg and McEwen, inevitably brings us to several fundamental concepts originated in the grassroot mobilization theories. Other authors also concur with the idea that some level of normative prerequisite is necessary. For example, Hoffman and High-Pippert reiterate that a drastic mistake of the previous and current policy makers lies in omitting the discussion of the community identity and all the concurrent
36 matters in direct relation to community’s social development. The notion of community identity is an important insight into how to activate local potential and should be the central topic of the state-provided incentives (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2010, Walker 2007). Within this paradigm the following concepts of “local governance”, “civic engagement”, “sustained participation” and
“participation potential” are re-introduced and can be operationalizable within the “middle-out” approach (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2010). Moreover, not the least meaning is devoted to the sense of “neighbourliness” (similarly to the epidemic model by Jaffe and Stavins)14 that helps to sustain participation by recruitment, as more actors start adopting new technologies thanks to their personal contacts and, thus, inadvertently creating greater cohesion within the community.
Devine-Wright further expands the idea of developing a stakeholder-centered framework to analyze different approaches and makes additional emphasis on the stakeholder relationships, which tend to create “new behavioural patterns” in the society (Devine-Wright 2007).
It is, thus, in these two mutually supportive and reinforcing paradigms, structural relevance and symbolism of the community energy (i.e. the “middle-out” approach), the “middle agents” disclose themselves, and become to function as the centrifugal force for both the community and regulators.
2.4 Example of Community Approach in the EU: Concerto Initiative
Between 2005-2010 the European Commission launched and co-funded the Concerto initiative that showcased various sustainability projects in 58 communities in 23 member states.
The primary objective was to reduce energy consumption of the European building stock in a 14 Here a distinction between “epidemic model” and “neighbourliness” should be made as the former explains the increase in adoption rate due to the multiplication effect caused by incentive-based policies, while the latter approaches stimulating adoption from the social point of view, but both rely on the same idea of replication.
37 cost-efficient manner, the secondary objective aimed at socio-economic improvement of selected communities. To achieve these objectives policy makers strongly recommended to consolidate efforts of such sub-national organizations as municipalities, building and energy agencies, utility companies, private firms, inhabitants, NGOs etc., hence integrative measures at city, district and neighborhood levels were proposed.
The EC saw optimizing whole
communities to be more efficient as
opposed to optimizing individual
buildings (Concerto, 2012a). Thus,
the “localness” parameter was further
seen as enabling communities to
utilize own resources in the way most
fit to their energy needs and
infrastructure. Projects were
encouraged to explore a broad range
of technical, financial and organizational solutions for an integrative implementation. In this respect the EC fostered greater independence in decision-making process as the heterogeneity of applicants prompted a variety of solutions possible. As described by Concerto these the objectives included: “innovative technologies ready to be applied, use of renewable energies sources for cities, energy efficiency measures, sustainable building and district development, economic assessments, affordable energy, energy transparency for citizens” (Concerto).
38 The idea behind allowing for flexible execution strategies lied in creating implementation designs that would essentially encourage a community-led transformation based on the local knowledge and capacity. The combined efforts of municipalities and the key actors at a local level were to target the most energy inefficient buildings in both public and private sectors, help switch to sustainable energy production, actively disseminate the RES, promote sustainable construction, retrofits and insulation, foster networking, raise awareness about energy consumption, educate residents about the benefits of the energy efficiency measures – all methods deemed to effectively penetrate multi-layers of complex energy transformation. In addition to the main technical objectives a number of selected locales were also targeted for additional socio-economic improvement through such measures as de-ghettoization, creation of employment opportunities for residents, enhancement of community cohesion by means of active engagement and voluntary participation (Klevas 2009). The European level of the program, on the other hand, aimed at achieving scalability and included not only direct applicants but also non-participant communities, who acted as observers and took part in the knowledge and experience sharing activities with the main participants. Innovative measures that were to be applied in one community could be replicated in another in case of successful implementation, thus, producing a learning curve as others would follow to adopt similar technologies.
But, when it comes down to specific cases the following terms “innovative” and “ready to be applied” present room for interpretation, as for some communities the former, for instance, may signify solar water heaters, while for others such technology is not new. Consequently, although the initiative proved to become an overall success for policy makers and produced great outcomes in several cities like Hanover (Germany) and Almere (the Netherlands), some projects
39 struggled to show desirable results on time due to actual implementation difficulties, delays or change of targets; a few projects withdrew from the initiative altogether due to financial problems or did not show any significant change in some parameters like “sustainability” (Iglar
2009, Gigler & Pol 2009, DiNucci 2010). Additionally, for some companies who had been already applying innovative sustainable techniques of construction even before the participation in the project, unambitious plans may have presented a discouraging objective, as they may have found it demotivating to participate in a project that does not bring the benefits of knowledge- building or knowledge-sharing (Quitzau 2013).
In sum, the initiative ambitiously sought to foster a wide-scale demonstration project that could serve as a precursor for a wide-scale regional energy transition through utilization of local resources, innovative thinking, sustainable construction, while aiming to produce some socio- economic spillover effects, transparency and affordability for citizens (Concerto). In practical terms, whether this plan succeeded is further discussed in the following chapters.
2.5 Weaknesses of the Middle-Out Approach
There are at least two main weaknesses of the “middle-out” approach that are known today, based on the reviewed literature. The first problem lies in the potential risk that agents attempting to take on the role of a community leader may, in fact, pursue their own hidden agenda (Janda & Parag 2014). The second issue, to a lesser extent, relates to the stakeholder participation concept, which may be difficult to measure and evaluate.
Regarding the first notion, Janda and Parag argue that it is rather impossible to know the true intentions of the middle agents, should it become an obstacle to the implementation. The
40 authors suggest that the main disadvantage of the middle-out approach lies in the very complexity of unobservable individualized stakes that participating actors hold, and are willing to promote under the auspices of a community activity. Walker explains this suggestion well, when he attempts to define the “community” and the reasons why it is so problematic to draw the boundaries of a community (see Ch.2.3.1), i.e. because there exists a great diversity of interests, which are prone to conflict with each other, confirming Janda and Parag’s view. In addition,
Quitzau argues that these agents, municipalities particularly, can be rather limited in their capacities to act due to the hierarchy in the organizational structure of the decision-making process in individual member states, thus, also highlighting the external factors that may hinder the middle-out application in real life, and where bureaucratic obstacles and organizational deficiencies are a plenty. This is especially true in regard to the building regulations system, where local builders have to apply for permits to undertake certain projects or follow strict guidelines in the majority of the studied countries (Quitzau 2013).
A third and less mentioned weakness in the literature refers to what Reed frames as a prevalence of “existing structures” that may collude with the newly empowered marginal groups of stakeholders. The latter face limitations endorsed by the “veto power” present in the process of implementation as a result of inherent power inequalities. Consequently, the emphasis is made on the stakeholders’ inability, or powerlessness, to effectively influence the decision- making process. This situation is explored by Quitzau as well, who in a study of Finnish municipality participation showed that at times local municipalities may refuse to enforce sustainable building requirements in attempt to avoid the sensitive political issue of limiting the use of private property. In addition, general frameworks of national regulation may not be ready
41 to support energy agenda at a local level (administrative immaturity), a common characteristic in new member states and Eastern European states (Ibid.).
III. Methodology
The purpose of this study was to obtain understanding of the concept of the “middle-out approach”, and how it is applied by policy experts to improve energy performance parameters of the residential building stock. To achieve this objective the concepts of “energy efficiency gap and energy efficiency barriers”, “middle agents” and “stakeholders” were closely examined.
Upon completion of the theoretical part the following evaluation formula was derived: who implements what for whom. Further on, within this definition the relationship and interactions of the three elements were explored, using detailed analytical reports, a field study and a comparison approach.
3.1 Preliminary Analysis
The research undertook a single-case study of the Energy in Minds project in the city of
Zlin, Czech Republic. The project was part of the bigger European demonstration initiative in the energy efficiency measures that lasted from 2005 to 2010 and apart from Zlin also included the communities of Neckarsulm (Germany), Falkenberg (sweden) and Weiz-Gleisdorf (Austria).
This all-regional program, called Concerto initiative, was launched and co-funded by the
European Commission and covered 58 communities in 23 states.
The selection of Energy in Minds (EIM) as a principal case for analysis was dictated by the availability and quality of data, both of which were examined by independent analysts for EC post-implementation assessment report and later included in the Concerto Plus database. Thus,
42 the report claims that the EIM project was the only group of participants with the highest quantity of data, and in addition displayed high-to-medium data quality. The classification was compiled, based on the following criteria: “1. correctness of data; 2. clear and univocal data definition (including units); 3. explicit reference to external/internal sources; 4. critical comments on validity of data communicated; 5. consistency with Concerto Plus requirements (in particular with regard to monitoring” (DiNucci 2010, pp.12-14, see image below). Finally, the close proximity of Zlin played a role in the selection process, as the researcher was able to undertake a three-day trip to the city and conduct interviews and a survey with the community members.
Concerto had three main and convergent goals, as mentioned earlier: to increase the adoption of renewable energy sources, reduce energy losses in a cost-efficient way in accords with local capacity and characteristics, as well as raise energy efficiency awareness along with knowledge-building. Specifically regarding the EIM objectives the communities were able to achieve the designated objectives quite successfully. However, the success rate was understandably different among the participating communities, based not on only the distinct
43 local parameters (i.e. existing state support and legislation in energy matters, immediate available capacity, size), but also on the targets set.
3.2 In-Project Case Elimination and Comparison Grounds
Based on the independent assessment study reports, in particular the Planning and
Implementation Assessment Reports15, it appeared that within EIM the communities of
Neckarsulm and Falkenberg had the most ambitious goals in regard to both technological heterogeneity of measures and scale. In terms of reaching the assigned targets, all four sub- projects achieved considerable success, with the exception of Weiz-Gleisdorf that, while having displayed a wide array of measures undertaken and the largest floor area covered by retrofits
(35,000 sq.m.) within EIM, was not included into the final post-implementation report, hence its elimination from the analysis, although some supplementary notes and observations from the general project descriptions may become useful later in the discussion. In addition, no detailed information was provided in the Concerto report on the measures taken by Weiz-Gleisdorf in regard to raising energy awareness - only a very general statement on the success of “publicity” exposure is mentioned as a success factor. Finally, the case of Falkenberg, albeit its satisfactory post-implementation characteristics, must be eliminated as well due to the difficulty of acquiring relevant data as a result of the prevailing language barrier. The latter, however, should not pose any concern for integrity of the research as Falkenberg is somewhat positioned similarly to
Neckarsulm within EIM in terms of its achievements, judging by the indicators in the reports.
Therefore, it is safe to say that both cases represent equally the success criteria in EIM, and both
15 Other reports include Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report, Overall Energy Performance Assessment Report and Report on the Quality of Integration of Renewable Sources and Energy Efficiency Measures. All reports are available online and are of free access at https://www.concertoplus.eu/.
44 can be contrasted interchangeably with the least performer.
The selection of Zlin appeared to be adequate for the role of the least performer. Albeit
Zlin has managed to cover and complete all the objectives assigned by Concerto, had same parameters as other participants in terms of the criteria fitness (leader in solar energy and sustainable development), it was the biggest community within EIM with the population of almost 76,000 people and displayed very similar stakeholder structure as in other communities.
However, it achieved the least ambitious targets in the participant group. For the purpose of this research Zlin, therefore, is appropriately equipped to answer the call for the research question presented in this study, i.e. how does “middle-out” approach contribute to the successful implementation of energy efficiency measures at a local level.
Thus, congruent to the conceptual design drafted in the previous sections, the cases of
Neckarsulm and Zlin will be drawn for a closer analysis, with the main focus on the community of Zlin
3.3 Data Collection and Processing
The research was carried out using primary and secondary sources. The primary sources included one semi-structured interview, two semi-structured and electronically conducted interviews and one semi-structured door-to-door survey. The secondary sources mainly consisted of academic journal articles, government documentation and project assessment reports. The empirical scope of the study initially covered six private houses and one apartment complex with
24 apartments. However, due to the low response rate the study ended up with data only from three apartments and one private house. Nonetheless, the bulk of information received and
45 effectively used in the study came from quite productive cooperation with the program coordinator, and to a lesser extent a local energy agency.
The interviews and the survey were compiled following the theoretical outline and included sections with questions corresponding to the main concepts of the “middle-out” approach, as described earlier. The content of questions was slightly modified in accords with the distinction between the respondents based on their ownership types. Thus, multi-apartment building residents were not asked to answer questions on financing as the preliminarily obtained information indicated that no individual contribution was made to fund the retrofit measures. In contrast, the house owner was requested to comment at extent on the topics directly related to her financing methods as well as individual input and participation motifs, again to highlight the difference between the two types of stakeholders. The questions regarding personal behavioural traits, opinions on the retrofit outcome, attitudes as well as general knowledge of the energy saving measures were applied to both groups of respondents without discrimination, reflecting the earlier derived behavioural concepts of “values, attitudes and habits”. The background information was also included to analyze the role of contextual factors that may have contributed to respondents’ opinions and attitudes towards the measures. The compiled questions, thus, resulted in the four following sections: “feedback”, “knowledge, values and attitudes”, “habits” and “background information”.
The first semi-structured electronic interview was conducted with the project coordinator, who had previously declined the invitation to an in-person interview, opting instead for an electronic mail exchange. The electronic messaging covered a month-long period and initially consisted of semi-structured questions. However, as the interaction proceeded it became clear
46 that highly detailed and specific questions were more likely to achieve desirable results. The inability to experience respondents’ reactions and spontaneous answers were partly the reason of such time-consuming discussion as each follow-up question had to be precisely worded and put down in writing, hence the effect of the “discussion” was absent. Content-wise the questions aimed at exploring the outlined concepts from the point of view of the “middle agent”, thus, themes like role and responsibilities, direct input and cooperation with other stakeholders, barriers encountered and solutions applied were emphasized.
The second semi-structured electronic interview was conducted in the same fashion with an energy agency representative, who was asked to provide information on the role of his company in the project. However, the electronic exchange was rather short-lived and resulted in a very generic outline of the company’s responsibilities during the implementation process, and in addition included information that was already available on the official website of Energy in
Minds, thus, providing no valuable insight into the stakeholder’s role. The interviewee failed to respond to follow-up questions.
Lastly, the in-person questions were translated into Czech, voice recorded, transcribed and analyzed. Both the door-to-door survey and the house interview were accompanied by a non- professional interpreter.
3.4 Expectations
The overall expectations were moderate, considering that the Energy in Minds project was completed seven years ago. However, the expectations were rather high regarding the main stakeholders’ willingness to participate in the survey and in-person interviews. The
47 overestimation occurred mainly because Zlin’s sustainable construction sector is rather well developed for a city with the population of around 75,000 people. The city’s dedication and contribution to sustainable construction and promotion of RES is rather well-known even abroad.
The city heralds a local non-profit organization, who specializes in passive houses, which has a long history of building so-called earth-sheltered houses that occupy a separate district (the details on this particular actors are further discussed in the following sections). In addition, the rates of photovoltaics installation are among highest in the country. Consequently, a certain level of energy awareness and openness to partake in a social study was expected.
3.5 Limitations
The main limitations of the study consisted in a low response rate in the primary case of the study in Zlin and lack of empirical data in the secondary case of Neckarsulm.
In Zlin only 3 out of 24 apartment residents agreed to participate in the survey, around half of the total number refused and around a third were absent; among the 6 house owners the study covered only 1 agreed to give interview, 2 refused and the rest were absent. Hence, the empirical data presented in this study does not allow to draw any generalizations and, therefore, is not representative. In regards to Neckarsulm, the data is derived using predominantly independent post-implementation reports and online secondary sources, and lacks empirical evidence. However, it should be noted that the latter case is drawn mainly to provide comparative background for the analysis of Zlin, the principal focus of this study, and despite the low rate of responses from the survey and interviews the study was still able to generate enough data that could provide valuable insights into the project’s implementation process and outcomes.
48 The further analysis of the transcripts revealed that the main topics within the scope of this study have been satisfactorily addressed, albeit not extensively.
Other limitations included time constraints and to some extent language barrier in reference to the data collection. As the assisting interpreter was a non-professional, there is a probability that certain semantic nuances were omitted, not translated correctly or misinterpreted, resulting in slightly altered meanings of the questions. On the other hand, it also seems highly probable that the respondents simply lacked general knowledge on certain issues.
IV. Results and Discussion
4.1 Energy in Minds
4.1.1 Background
The project Energy in Minds (EIM) was part of the Concerto Initiative, and as many other similar projects was designed as an international partnership of several cities, dispersed throughout the region and distinguished in alternative energy system development. EIM included four main participating communities that had previously proved to become national leaders in solar power procurement: Neckarsulm (Germany), Falkenberg (Sweden), Zlin (Czech Republic) and Weis-Gleisdorf (Austria); and two project observers: Torino (Italy) and Gornji Grad
(Slovenia). The project focused on reducing energy consumption “without negative impact on the living standards of the local population” - this precluded targeted socio-economic improvement, focusing mainly on the implementation processes of energy efficient measures
(EIM). In addition all participating members were expected to have included various information campaigns and educational activities that aimed at raising energy awareness within the
49 communities. By means of engaging the local population projects were supposed to proactively disseminate knowledge about energy and sustainability issues, and thus, to have had positive spillover effects in the social, if not the economic, realm of the community.16
Three strategies were designed to achieve energy savings: increase the use of RES (solar thermal, photovoltaics and biomass), reduce energy loss in the built environment through refurbishment and insulation, construct new low-energy houses, efficiently reconstruct and connect district heating systems, organize various information campaigns about energy efficiency measures and energy consumption. Following the drafting of the proposed measures the project consortium was subsequently formed in partnership with a German energy consulting firm, Steinbeis-Transferzentrum EGS, who became the main coordinator of the EIM implementation processes in all participating communities.
4.1.2 Zlin
Zlin is an industrial city in the southeastern part of Czech Republic with a population of
75,000 people. In the 1920s the city was the center of the Bata shoe empire and due to the company’s urban development strategies it gained the fame of a “pioneer city” (Concerto). In addition to its industrial fame Zlin has gained a reputation of a sustainable community and solar energy development leader in Czech Republic, hence its selection as a member-participant. The city is well known for its earth-sheltered energy efficient dwellings that feature passive house building practices and occupy a separate district. Zlin’s solar thermal and PV installations
16 Energy in Minds did not have socio-economic targets as such according to the Concerto objectives, however, regardless of the individual objectives communities were still encouraged to utilize local knowledge and resources to actively pursue advancement of any sort of social and/or economic benefits as deemed fit and appropriate to local context. Many communities opted for rigorous information campaigns and workshops, as the least financially challenging alternative.
50 account for the highest number in the country and together with achievements in sustainable construction have made the city a frequent participant in many international partnerships and projects. The Concerto demonstration project took place in one of its three districts, Louky (see image)17, where a variety of energy consumers are well represented, i.e. single-family and multi- family buildings, public, office and commercial buildings.
The demonstration area was exactly specified and energy checks were first conducted for all office, industrial and private buildings to identify the worst performing units (20% least efficient). After the evaluation was completed the selected houses were thermally insulated and new windows were installed, several private houses and office buildings had solar thermal systems installed. In addition, small and two large-scale photovoltaic systems were mounted.
Other sub-projects included an installation of a fermentor, outside the city, for re-processing of biodegradable wastes, which could be used for re-processing of bio-wastes such as waste 17 The image is borrowed from the Energy in Minds website. Available at http://www.energy-in-minds.de/
51 biomass, sludge from the sewage plants, kitchen and other wastes of animal and vegetational origin. In Zlin this plant is currently used for re-processing grass, leaves, wood branches and non-recyclable paper (EIM). The fermentor plant was the second important renewable energy source in the project. The capacity of the plant is 1 500 tons of biodegradable wastes, with the output of 900 tons of the energy compost (the energy yields is approx. 2,88 GWh/year). This compost is combusted in the district heat plant that supplies heat for the city center and southern parts of the demonstration area. In addition, an old heat and water plant was successfully upgraded and an eco-settlement was constructed. The upgrading process was split into two stages, where in 2006 a measurement system for online monitoring was installed, and in 2007 the focus was on reducing fluctuations in domestic heat water pressure and temperature latter contributed to surpluses of unnecessary energy needs. The new settlement was composed of low- energy earth-sheltered houses with one of them being utilized as a training center for study visits
(Ibid.).
Solar thermal systems for combined heating and domestic hot water were also installed in
20 single-family houses (approx. 150 m2 totally) and on public buildings (300 m2). In addition, 6 photovoltaic systems were installed in private family houses (5 kWp each) and 2 large-scale photovoltaic systems (40 and 550 kWp) on commercial and public buildings. The fermentor plant producing energy compost was the second important renewable energy source in the project. The capacity of the plant is 1 500 tons of biodegradable wastes, with the output of 900 tons of the energy compost (the energy yields is approx. 2,88 GWh/year). This compost is combusted in the district heat plant that supplies heat for the city center and southern parts of the demonstration area.
52 Optimization of the heat and domestic hot water supply resulted in 6% savings of heat and 38% savings of electricity for pumps, 10% heat and 25% electricity for pumping work.
Additional actions to improve energy efficiency in the community involved the refurbishment of
12 single family houses, 120 apartments in multi-family houses, 1 public, and 4 office buildings with the goal to reduce the energy demand for space heating by a minimum of 50% compared to the status before the refurbishment and 30 % below the current national standards.
As an international project Energy in Minds was partially financed by the EU. However, the majority of the implementation works was financed from local sources, public and private.
The EU subsidies represented 35 % for investment (demonstration) activities, 50 % for research/innovation activities and 100 % for training and management activities, which altogether accrued to around 1730 000€.
4.1.3 Neckarsulm
Neckarsulm is a city with a population of 26,000 people near Stuttgart in the northern part of the Baden-Wurttemberg state and part of the district Heilbronn in Germany (see image).18
The city has a lasting tradition of wine-growing and hosts a world-famous car industry. In addition, various IT companies have their headquarters in the city trading center. Neckarsulm has been an active implementor of energy saving measures for decades, well-known in the country for its development of photovoltaics and innovative building practices. In 2000 the city established its own first support program for climate protection and environmentally-friendly energy supply. The demographic data shows that the city is rather diverse and mostly aging, reflecting “the nationwide development”, with the foreign population comprising around 20% of
18 The image is borrowed from Google Maps.
53 the total population (Concerto Report).
Energy in Minds was realized in five city districts, Kernstadt, Viktorshohe, Neuberg,
Amorbach and Amorbach II, with the total project coverage estimated at approximately 20,000 people. The building stock of Neckarsulm is relatively diverse consisting mainly of single- family, multi-family, and twin houses, the majority of which were built in the 1950s (and a smaller share of the house built before WWII), however, the replenishment of the stock has been steady and growing. One district, Amorbach II, boasts an efficient district heating system built in
1990s that utilizes a large scale solar thermal installation.
Neckarsulm has always been regarded as one of the most ambitious cities in Germany in
54 terms of its energy efficiency objectives, especially in the realm of solar power development. As such the principal measures of the project included installation of solar thermal and photovoltaics systems. Solar thermal installations accounted for 1.200 m² along with 1.400 kWp of PVs, in addition, 1.100 kW of biomass power generation was added. Moreover, when it became clear that the central sewage treatment plant had to be retrofitted and thus had to be replaced, a solution was found in the form of a new solar-sludge-drying plant that was constructed in 2009.
The plant utilizes solar energy to dry out the sludge more efficiently in a nearby greenhouse, also solar-powered, and decreases water content in the sludge to less than 25%. As a result the volume and weight of the sludge reduces up to 70%. Further on, the dried "sludge" is either disposed of or used as a biofuel in a wood-chip central heating station. The main economic advantage of the process is that helps to significantly decrease transport and disposal costs. The
CO2 reductions amounted to 7.000 t/a. In residential sector the districts of Viktorshohe,
Amorbach and Neuberg were also revamped with solar thermal and PV installations. Particularly in Amorbach the heating system was extended and supplemented with additional thermal collectors, and a heat pump was constructed as well to increase the solar input.
Apart from the solar power enhancement the retrofit measures were pursued and resulted in four houses fully refurbished with the total improvement of 30% above the national standard.
Around 3.000 single retrofit measures were realized such as the outside walls insulations, replacement of roofs and windows. Overall 13.000 m² of multi-family houses and public buildings were retrofitted, while the construction of new units resulted in 11.000 m² of floor area.
The total savings of all these single measures realized during the project duration, i.e. from 2005 to 2010, correspond to the savings of about 200 complete retrofits of single-family houses
55 (Concerto Report). In addition, energy checks were realized through distribution of questionnaires, constituting a total of 390 checks, which resulted in retrofitting measures being taken up by around 10% of the participants as a direct result of the counseling efforts. The assessment report highlights that requests for counseling steadily increased especially during the last years of the project, with an average of three to four interviews a day, of which the majority were private citizens. In regards to alternative energy sources, the demand for consultancy also increased marking heightened interest in innovative technologies. Specific attention was paid to heating systems and energy saving measures in buildings. In parallel to the increased interest in technology people also sought to acquire more energy certificates for residential buildings.
However, the latter was predominantly due to the newly issued regulation of energy performance requirement.
Overall, the Concerto analysts regard the completion of the project as successful with the approximate energy gaining achieved at 33,3% (above the national standards) and the energy output from renewable sources amounting to 11%, with the solar energy development leading the city of Neckarsulm to the status of the "Solar City" of Germany.
4.1.4 Falkenberg
Falkenberg is a small community of 20,000 people in the Falkenberg municipality of the
Halland county that sits on the coastal side of Sweden (see image).19 Similarly to Neckarsulm and Zlin, the town is one of the leaders in renewable energy systems development. The main measures implemented included utilization of various renewable sources, renovation of the
19 The image is borrowed from Halland County Council Slideshare. Available at https://www.slideshare.net/palvelu- seteli/halland-county-council
56 existing stock and construction of new housing.
The building stock of Falkenberg that fell under the project renovation targets consists of multi-family and private houses, no public or commercial buildings were included, the total area of renovation constituted around 15,000 m². The main works were performed on two largest units, the apartment complex Linsen and Lövet and a smaller residence of Passaren. The former contains 178 apartments, and was built between 1954-1962. Along with the conventional measures like thermostats installation and ventilation-heating optimization the project also undertook utilization of smart technologies in the form of internet-based control system, that was installed to help monitor the building energy parameters. The reported energy savings reached were reported to be around 25.4 %. The second building was built in 1970 and was refurbished using same technologies and methods, with the addition of window replacement. However,
57 energy savings amounted to slightly higher 30%, as reported by the project analysts.
New additions to the stock were four multi-story low-energy building with 108 apartment constructed in 2008 and successfully followed the municipal standards for passive houses. The buildings have mechanical ventilation systems, boast large facade-mounted solar air collectors
(to preheat air) as well as a “smart box” with touch screens in every apartment for regulation and information.
In regards to renewable energy technologies, the report estimates that more than 900 m² of solar thermal, almost 500 m² solar air collector systems were installed on private houses as well as 100 pellet boilers replaced fossil-fuel-based systems. Additionally, one large district heating system at the Falkenberg locality itself and another two smaller systems at Vessigebro
(14 km from Falkenberg) and Ullared (32 km from Falkenberg) were extended, although not directly subject to the Falkenberg objective, they were nevertheless included in the Concerto monitoring. Moreover, over 500 buildings are connected to the large district heating system at
Falkenberg, consuming around 51.5 GWh annually, with the largest share (93%) of the demand covered by renewable energy sources. Finally, from the beginning of 2007 five wind turbines were constructed at the Lövstaviken Windpark (the Falkenberg seashore), with each carrying a capacity of 2.3 MW and generating the total output of roughly 30GWh. This output is equivalent to the annual energy demand of about 7,000 households. The turbine is 100 meters tall and is credited to have decreased around 24,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year. The turbines are owned by the Falkenberg municipality.20
Finally, in terms of social impact the strongest point of the Falkenberg project was
20See for more details http://www.energy-in-minds.de/PDF/Other_documents/Falk_monitoring_wind%20farm_distr ict%20heating_heat%20pump.pdf
58 successful implementation of sophisticated energy monitoring for residents. The energy checks were able to cover up to 20% of the residential population.
4.1.5 Weiz-Gleisdorf
The Weiz-Gleisdorf community
was initiated to create a partnership
between 17 villages and two cities, Weiz
(8,854 inhabitants) and Gleisdorf (10,456),
in the southern part of Austria (see images
below). The community has the highest
density of solar thermal and photovoltaic
installations in Austria, hence the selection
for the participation under the Concerto
requirements. The community had earlier
received a distinguished award for the
achievements in the solar power
development, the European Solar Energy
award. The objective of this cooperation was to foster and implement renewable energy sources as well as retrofit a diverse building stock, altogether covering almost 40,000 inhabitants in total.
The region particularly excelled at showcasing stellar innovative solar thermal and PV systems.
During the project duration the community was able to install 8 large solar systems and 111
59 smaller systems (ranging between 15 m² and 40 m²), in combination estimated to comprise a total of 2,860 m². The total of 25 PV system installations were implemented, of which 20 installed in private houses had a capacity of 60kW, and one featured a 5 kWp system, which has a “2-axis solar-tracking function to optimize the orientation towards the sun and thereby increase its annual yield”.21 Moreover, additional solar thermal systems and 122 pellet boilers were installed in 70 private houses with the total capacity of 1,956 kW. The boilers were also coordinated with the solar thermal collectors similarly to the Falkenberg approach, where the latter functioned as a backup for biomass boilers, and combined together, reflected in the 100% renewable energy output.
Apart from solar power development a brand new biogas-fueled cogeneration plant was built, which subsequently involved the organization of a whole biofuel infrastructure that included “pilot plants”, i.e. demonstration plants, as well as a launch of 30 vehicles running on biofuel and opening of the community’s first biofuel station.
In regards to renovation measures, they covered in total more than 35,000 m² of residential, public, private and office buildings, and additional 13,000 m² of new low-energy houses were constructed. The main retrofit efforts consisted of renovating a “hostel for pensioners”, which later was used as a showcase in the “Energy Region Weiz-Gleisdorf”. The measures primarily included wall insulation and connection to the biomass-based district heating.
The heating system, however, also features a controlled ventilation system that allows to recover up to 70% of heat and a solar thermal system (160 m²). According to the passive house
21 kWp is referred to the nameplate capacity of the PV (added by the author), Also: ”kWp is essentially the rate at which the system generates energy at peak performance. The kWp of a domestic solar system will vary depending on how much a customer wants to spend and the roof area available to accommodate the panels.” Available at http://www.solarmango.com/dictionary/kw-peak/
60 calculation method (PHPP)22 the energy demand was reduced from 157 kWh/m²a to 24 kWh/m²a, thus reaching the passive house standard.23 The energy consumption for heating and domestic hot water has been measured at 138 kWh/m²a before and 55 kWh/m²a after the retrofit, signifying the drastic positive change of 83 kWh/m²a. Besides the energy demand the energy costs also strongly decreased from about 30,000 to 4,000 euro per annum, as indicates the report.
Finally, the Weiz-Gleisdorf community was quite instrumental in establishing Austria’s first waste water heat recovery plant with the total output of 90 kW and the Bison linear generator. The former uses heat from sewage treatment facility to supply heating and cooling. The temperature, as reported varies from a minimum of 10°C in winter to a maximum of 20°C in summer. The generation is additionally supported by an electrical heat pump and services one office building. The latter, the linear generator, is basically a steam engine run on pellets and wood chips, with the electrical output of 0,3 to 2 kWel24 and the thermal power of 3 to 16 kW. Albeit, an old invention it was first proved to be effective and
22 Description of the Passive House Calculation method is available at https://passipedia.org/planning/calculatin- g_energy_efficiency/phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package 23 Description of Passive House standards is available at https://www.passivehouse-international.org/index.php? page _id=80 24 Kilowatt electricity.
61 adaptable for a household use and was demonstrated as one of the first in its line in the region.
4.2 Exploring the Middle Agents and Their Capacities
As discussed by Janda and Parag identifying adequate middle agents is the foremost task for the success of implementation measures. The substantial part of theoretical work incorporated in this study confirms the assumption that involvement of municipalities or other local authorities acting as the middle agents is highly desirable. However, the empirical finding in this study shows that preference for a municipal leadership may have a two-faceted consequence.
First, assigning the role of a middle agent to a sub-national agency has its obvious advantage in the form of explicit capacity to act, as confirmed by Janda & Parag, Quitzau and
Hakkinen et al. Municipalities have inherent powers to endorse and support proposed measures and effectively influence both decision-making and implementation processes through local regulation and incentives, i.e. jurisdiction. At the same time, they are able to draw additional support from national authorities as they are aware of the internal organizational structure and mechanisms that can help resolve financial problems or resolve bureaucratic stoppages.
Second, although municipal participation can be beneficial, at times it may present a substantial barrier as well. This particular problem is of organizational nature (Thollander et al.
2010), which is caused by the same hierarchical structure of the national regulation, mentioned above as a benefit. Municipalities oftentimes choose to not interfere with the bureaucratic procedures for the fear of stirring a conflict with superiors, presence of inertia in the management, lack of knowledge or administrative limitations (lack of jurisdiction, see Quitzau
2012).
62 As argued earlier in the text, the choice of middles agents is not limited to local authorities, any organization or even individuals can become the leaders of the community action. To reiterate the idea behind the “middle-out approach”: what is more important is that these parties possess capacity to organize and act (expertise, knowledge, experience, resources), or potential and ability to assume such capacity - the reasons why municipalities have been historically nominated for this role. However, municipalities too are prone to failures and inadequacy. Therefore, as Linden suggests, the key to avoid misplacing the middle agent is to reformat the conventional communication strategy, which is vertically constructed, into a
“horizontal” exchange.
Following Linden’s “horizontal” communication strategy that embodies the middle-out approach through the prism of reciprocity, feedback takes the central position in the relations between policy facilitators and the community (see Ch.2.2). Consequently, the correct identification of a middle agent narrows down to properly identifying whether a potential actor is actually able to create durable liaisons with key stakeholders and the community as a whole, whether the actor can act on the feedback and improve communication, or establish steps
(networks) that would help sustain participation in current and future implementation processes.
4.2.1 Neckarsulm: Energy Agency as the Main Driver
The community project in Neckarsulm experienced rather a slow and unimpressive start.
Improvement began to develop once the city established a local energy enterprise Solar- and
Energy Initiative Heilbronn. Other key stakeholders included the City of Neckarsulm, the local utility company Stadtwerke Neckarsulm, residents themselves and managers of the small-to-
63 medium enterprises.
Examination of the reported barriers and solutions underscores the significant role the
Heilbronn agency played during the process, particularly being able to facilitate the provision of community liaisons. Thus, the company appeared to have become the point of contact with the house owners, who resisted the retrofit measures in the beginning of the project. At the initial phase general scepticism was recorded among owners towards pellet boilers, which required high initial investment costs, and combined with low financial support discouraged many from applying for retrofit. In addition, rather demanding requirement of 30% for energy savings by
Concerto, higher than national standards, seemed overarching and also contributed to the lack of enthusiasm. To remove the financial barriers the agency derived a plan that aimed at a closer cooperation with the city government and gradual implementation of retrofit measures. As a result the City of Neckarsulm developed a multi-faceted funding package that was combined with the Concerto support and became the most effective policy instrument.
In regard to retrofits, they seemed to be the hardest to realize as many private house owners initially did not support the measures.25 It is worth noting that in contrast to the rapid implementation efforts and attempts to increase savings indicators within a 5-year timeframe, as suggested by the program, Neckarsulm’s approach to the building stock sought to avoid reinforced and swift changes. The coordinators pursued instead a gradual refurbishment program that re-oriented the measures towards multi-family housing and two public buildings instead of the private housing. This was explained as the following: “the city of Neckarsulm is convinced that it is important to realize energy efficient retrofits of communal buildings below the national energy standard and realize innovative projects thus showing good examples to the population”
25 Due to the absence of empirical data, it is not possible to provide details of this barrier.
64 (DiNucci et al. 2010). To this decision also contributed the presence of a local, already running and successful program that had previously improved the rate of modernization in family housing. The city had established its own “Förderprogramm Klimaschutz” project several years prior to the Concerto participation and which supported non-complex energy efficiency measures. Therefore, at a closer look it was revealed that the Concerto retrofit objectives were clearly overlapping with the existing local initiative and hence were not as successful as other measures.
The cornerstone of the project success in Neckarsulm the analysts see in its highly effective information campaigns. The information campaigns were a continuous process that lasted for the whole period of the implementation works and gained attention in the public eye, among the industry and business circles, leading to several publications in the local and regional newspapers, promotion at various information events, like the yearly “Energy Days”.26
Additionally, workshops and seminars were actively organized by the local energy utility
Stadtwerke Neckarsulm that held highly-targeted consultation groups aiming at senior citizens and schools to discuss technical issues of energy and energy behaviour. Moreover, educational activities were carried out in schools and senior houses that taught people how to reduce their energy consumption habits and learn to implement retrofitting measures.
In regard to the development of RES the community has achieved far greater results than in retrofit measures, surpassing the Concerto objectives twofold. The explanation of the high diffusion rate of PV installations lies in an effective reimbursement strategy provided by the national government: people received competitive pays for feeding the “green” electricity into the grid; simultaneously, the government issued generous loans.
26 More information on the event can be found here http://eusew.eu/about-energy-days
65 In sum, as the post-implementation analysis showed the key benefits of the project in
Neckarsulm resulted in the total energy savings estimated at 33%, higher than the national requirement of 30%, while the RES comprised a share of 11% in the total power output. The striking distinction of Neckarsulm can also be seen in the fact that despite the initial barriers encountered during the implementation process similar to the ones of other participants, the community was able to outstrip the rest of the group and became a leader in PV installations, even surpassing the Concerto targets. The evaluation report states that establishment of a local energy advice center, i.e. Solar- and Energy Initiative Heilbronn, played a significant part in achieving success. The main weakness of the project in Neckarsulm has been acknowledged to be low retrofit rates in the private housing sector caused by limited financial support as well as the competing interests of the EIM and the previously established independent local program.
4.2.2 Zlin: Green Housing Association as the Agent of Change
The project implementation in Zlin has been considered as a success in the reviewed post-implementation report. However, in comparison to other participants in EIM its targets appeared to be less ambitious despite its largest size withing the group. The main stakeholders included the City of Zlín, utility company Teplo Zlín a.s., Ekosolaris a.s. Kromeriz (supplier of solar-thermal and photovoltaic systems) and local residents, house and apartment owners. The project also lists the regional Energy Agency as one of the key stakeholders, however, its role has not been described in detail by the company representative. The main project coordinator was
Green Housing Association, a local NGO specializing in sustainable building.
From the onset of the background information provided in the post-implementation report
66 as well as the interview with the managing director, the Green Housing Association emerges as an ideal candidate for the role of the middle agent. Indeed, the company has been active for over a decade in sustainable housing development and environmental issues, and has successfully showcased a number of projects across the region. Its extensive international relations and partnerships boast solid network connections and knowledge of the field. The company’s services include educational, consulting, legal, and organizational assistance for construction of sustainable buildings. Its mission, as stated on the website, is “to support morally, legally and professionally the idea of low-energy, eco-friendly buildings and other systems reducing negative influence of housing to the nature, landscape and environment” (GHA).27 The company consists of 60 members, 3 members of the board of directors, 2 inspection committee members and a managing director. GHA is funded by membership fees, local sponsorship, partially by the
Energy Agency of the Zlin Region and other parties. It was, therefore, not unexpected that the
Concerto participation was in fact offered directly to the company and not the local government, as was the case in many other projects.
Further on, in contrast to Neckrasulm, the role of the City government during the implementation process was rather passive. Contrary to the post-implementation report, which listed the City of Zlin as a coordinator of the project along with GHA, the interview with the managing director revealed that the City only fulfilled non-essential obligations, limited to such administrative tasks as providing space for conferences and meetings, organization of exhibits and tours. It, therefore, became clear that local authorities did not play a significant role in either the decision-making or implementation processes. The significance of this fact will come up later in the discussion.
27 Green Housing Association. Available at http://www.zelenebydleni.eu/info-in-english.html
67 Regardless of the cooperation status with the local authorities, GHA seemed to have realized the assigned targets quite successfully. Although, the company was quite experienced in energy efficiency even before the start of the EIM, it still faced lack of skills and technological knowledge prescribed by Concerto for implementation objectives. The PVs, retrofit measures, solar thermal systems were never used by the company before and were completely novel to them, according to the interviewee. The narrow specialization of the company, it turned out, was rather a disadvantage at the initial stage of the project, similarly to Neckrasulm. However, the technological barrier was easily overcome during the preparation and implementation process thanks to the established network connections with other participating partners. Thus, GHA hired expert subcontractors and consulted other companies, notably from Austria and Germany, on the implementation methods. The interview further revealed that this particularly effective international collaboration helped the company to successfully complete the project.
To summarize the findings we can say that in both cases middle agents were adequately prepared to fulfill the obligations. In the case of Neckarsulm, Solar- and Energy Initiative
Heilbronn, was better equipped to solve the problem of funding, by acting in cooperation with the local government it was able to raise additional financial support. Meanwhile, GHA was effective in taking over the city coordination as soon as it saw that the authorities were not fit to carry out the measures.
4.3 Barriers Encountered
The role of middle agents can be further exposed in more details once we look at the barriers encountered and solutions found (Janda & Parag 2011). As the analysis shows the whole
68 spectrum of the most common barriers is represented in both projects: economic (funding), organizational (administrative), behavioural (social resistance to retrofitting measures) and technical (lack of technical knowledge and expertise). However, the solutions applied were somewhat different, reflecting the difference in such factors as the position and functions of the middle agents in two separate communities and their working capacities (Ibid., Caputo & Pasetti
2015, Quitzau 2013).
The most hindering obstacle appeared to be the lack of financing, which was also encountered in other group projects across the region. According to the Concerto funding scheme the EC pledged to cover 35% of the eligible costs on all demonstration projects within EIM, however, in case of Zlin the real costs turned out to be much higher: “eligible costs for retrofits of older buildings were max. 35 EUR per 1 square meter of the living space, which was in fact some 12 % of the actual costs for retrofit of the building”. Situation with photovoltaics was similar: “for 1 kWp of photovoltaics installed the eligible costs stated was 3700 €, while the real costs in 2005 was some 5000 €”, which means that the real investment costs made by private owners were higher than 75%. The solution to this barrier, as discussed above, is closely intertwined with the capacities of the middle agent (i.e. its ability to procure additional funding).
However, contextual factors play a significant role too, as, for instance, in regard to national state support and related legislation. So in case of Neckarsulm the German national law on subsidizing solar-generated power provided for extensive reimbursement, which drastically increased the adoption rate in the community. In addition, the access to loans and an uncomplicated application process could painlessly resolve this barrier, as evidenced in said case. In contrast to
Neckarsulm, the interviewed private house owner in Zlin was discouraged to apply for additional
69 refurbishment measures due to low state subsidy.
The characteristics of organizational barriers are usually strictly state-dependent as they in direct relation to the state organization and specifics of bureaucratic procedures in individual countries. No drastic distinction was recognized in the two cases, except in the case of
Neckarsulm the municipality after initial reluctance agreed to cooperate with the agency to provide additional funding. However, in the case of Zlin the city authorities participated at a minimal level by facilitating meetings with investors and lending conference space, no major involvement in the decision-making process was revealed during the interview. It is noteworthy, though, that in the latter situation GHA did not expect assistance from the city, as told by the interviewee. This perhaps was due to the company’s established expertise in the building sector of Zlin.
However, major administrative barriers occurred that strongly hindered the effectiveness of implementation in the both cases. Notably in the case of Zlin, the city government discouraged many homeowners from taking up the measures by establishing a long and complex application procedure, “the financial rules of Concerto were further complicated by the city internal regulations – e.g. there was 9 page long application form and the applications were evaluated by the city committee. This discouraged many investors”. The unproductive cooperation with the city forced the program coordinators to delegate the key responsibilities to
GHA, leaving the former with the non-essential administrative tasks, which were described earlier. Moreover, at the European level an equally complicated application process for the
Concerto participation was also seen as a major bureaucratic impediment by GHA, which
“discouraged [us] from applications for other EU projects”. The administrative barrier, however
70 short-lived, occurred in Neckarsulm as well, in the beginning phase of the implementation work, when authorities perceived the proposed measures as lacking economic feasibility. But in the latter case the issue was resolved with relative ease, and no serious administrative barriers were recorded at later stages of the implementation.
Behavioural (social) barriers were also prevalent in most of the cases and mainly were reflected in residents’ reluctance to undertake retrofit measures, as reported by the coordinators.
Both communities struggled to persuade potential private investors to participate in the retrofit measures. Reluctance to engage in the project was dictated, at least in Zlin, mainly by the lack of knowledge about the methods of implementation and its benefits: “because they [technologies] were new to them”. Residents seemed distrustful towards unknown technologies and defensive of their properties. The most common answers were “you will injure my roof” and “the returnability of investments will be too long“, as explained by the interviewee. The risk aversion in regard to investment decision was also indicated in construction of new units, where people seemed to show less eagerness to commit financially to a long-term project. Although the latter can be considered as an economic barrier, it is closely related to behavioural concepts of trust and attitudes hence can be as well put in the discussed category. Further on, when asked whether there was a distinction among residents in terms of intensity of resistance, the interviewee responded that it mainly depended on “particular people”, perhaps indicating contextual factors.
Most importantly, though, once the first measures were implemented more people wanted to participate, thus, confirming the replication effect suggested by Jaffe and Stavins: “Of course, the most complicated were the first implementations. Then, when there were good examples, the persuading of other people was much easier.” To attract more residents GHA, therefore, set up
71 intensive information campaigns in the form of “brochures, meetings, exhibitions”, which appeared to relieve gradually stringent attitudes of the residents. Neckrasulm also launched an aggressive information campaign along with frequent building energy checks. These solutions led to improved response rate of 10% among owners (compared to Zlin’s 6%), where 39 out of
390 households chose to pursue complete retrofits. Such social and educational activities as workshops, lectures, energy days, energy platform, information brochures, university summer courses, training of technical staff and guided tours to demonstration projects were carried out, and significantly increased the retrofit uptake rate.
Surprisingly, technical barriers in the realm of retrofit were widely common in both cases, which to a certain extent contradicts the majority of the reviewed sources. This barrier, though, can arguably be referred to the group of economic factors as well, wherein lack of knowledge interprets as lack of resources. Both communities struggled to attain the necessary skilled power in the beginning of the project, but as the program proceeded knowledge base was rapidly built and effectively utilized.
4.4 Other Key Stakeholders: Private House Owners and Apartment Owners
The stakeholders in both Zlin and Neckarsulm consisted of two main groups: primary services providers, such as the city governments and utility companies, who collaborated with the middle agents, and “third” parties, or residents and owners of the buildings, who were the direct beneficiaries of the retrofit measures. Unfortunately, the data collected in the residential sector is rather inconclusive due to an extremely low rate of responses: out of 6 initially planned
72 interviews with private house owners only one was successful, representing only 16.7% of the total respondents, while the response rate in the apartment complex was even less with only 3 out of 24, showing even a lower rate of 12.5%; meanwhile Neckrasulm lacks any empirical evidence, and therefore, is not the main focus in this particular instance. Nevertheless, some valuable insights were gained that may help shed light on the role of the stakeholders in the project implementation.
Firstly, in contrast to Walker’s term of “community” the two cases were defined by
Concerto using strictly geographical borders. As a result this particular style of area delineation resulted in some negative implications in Neckarsulm, where the project only concentrated on the town center, omitting other districts with high potential for energy savings. Consequently, a few residents were refused participation, because their houses were located outside the designated area, and therefore, not covered by the Concerto measures.
Second, the participation level of these actors varied in accords to their assigned roles and was rather on the receptive end for third parties. Because this particular group of cities (EIM) did not initially presuppose socio-economic objectives, hence no objectives of job creation or neighbourhood revitalization were drawn. Thus, residents were not recruited as skilled force, affiliated by their expertise level or actively mobilized to help take the project off the ground
(Walker 2008). However, following Thollander et al.’s suggestion of the “horizontal communication” strategy, the reciprocity mode was well established between the middle agents and property owners, allowing for a constructive dialogue that further enabled retrofit measures to take place. As described earlier, information campaigns proved to be effective in both communities resulting in higher rate of general public acceptability of the measures, especially
73 after the first practical examples were demonstrated, albeit without active and direct engagement of the private stakeholders.
Third, although both the post-implementation report and the GHA indicated the overall positive impact of information campaigns there is no clear evidence that project coordinators indeed managed to successfully opertionalize the information on the heterogeneity of owners. In accords with theoretical findings and the reviewed case studies the assignment of objectives for retrofit measures was supposed to be correspondent with the said types of ownership as well as to take into consideration the building structures, a multi-family or a detached private house. The point of such differentiations lies in its high effectiveness to reach out to the most difficult property owners based on detailed characterization of their information needs (Cook 2013).
Moreover, as Stengel et al. suggest, implementation process has a higher chance of successful completion, if these information needs are further formulated in clear, transparent and comprehensive forms easily accessible by various groups of property owners. The report and interview data show that high heterogeneity of the ownership types in Zlin was included in the project description, multi- and single-family dwellings were acknowledged as separate targets for renovation. However, no evidence was presented as to whether this knowledge was somehow practically utilized in regard to the objectives. As for contextual factors, socio-economic parameters were hard to verify in detail due to the low rate of responses, but the results suggest they are more heterogeneous in terms of economic indicators, and rather homogeneous in such indicators as age and employment status, i.e. all of the respondents were in their mid to late 50s and retired.
Lastly, the feedback examination derived from the survey and interview analysis
74 concludes that all of the respondents appeared to be generally satisfied with the outcome of the retrofits, with some difference in terms of expectations. For instance, one person in the apartment building, who lived on the top floor, was not fully satisfied with the roof insulation because the insulation helped to preserve heat inside the building, but no ventilation system was installed hence the temperature rose during hot days: “I like it but I expected during summer the apartment would be colder, it’s very hot during summer”. The expectation of the measures that were not implemented can signify either low awareness of what was planned to be done or inneffective information dissemination among apartment owners (however, this should be considered with carefulness as the data is incomplete; additionally, respondent’s personal motifs migh have played a role in her attitude). Further on, the point where 3 out of 5 respondent agreed was the improved aesthetic looks (1 person noticed no change) and the indoor climate, especially the increased warmth. However, all of the respondents noted that energy bills did not decrease, with one person indicating that it even increased, and one person could not verify because she did not pay for energy bills. This phenomenon, known as a “rebound effect”, can be explained by a few factors, one of them being an increased level of energy consumption after the efficiency measures were installed: in this case households start to immediately enjoy the savings achieved and tend to overconsume. Another explanation, encountered quite often, people were actually unaware of their spending habits prior to the implementation measures. Third explanation may lie in an ineffective insulation method, and in this case exact consumption measurements would have to be conducted along with evaluation of the insulation type and methods applied. The notable distinction between the house owner and apartment residents was observed in that the former was very eager to continue with further improvements, however, was financially
75 constrained and indicated that the subsidy size was rather low to pursue another renovation.
V. Conclusion
This study undertook an investigation of what is termed as a “middle-out” approach to energy efficiency implementation in the built environment. Three main themes were explored within this concept: the definition and roles of the middle agents, stakeholder participation and common barriers to energy efficiency. Following the research question, the interaction of all three elements and their cumulative effects on the implementation process were examined.
The results of theoretical and empirical analysis were concluded as follows: in order to successfully apply the middle-out perspective to energy efficiency implementation, the agents of change must be correctly identified and stakeholder-targeted mechanisms developed. The potential of middling-out can be considered promising, especially in the context of the failing conventional regulation, consequently new methods of addressing the energy inefficiency should be developed. The main advantage of the “middle-out” approach lies in its dual functionality to reach out to the passive consumer from one side, while fulfilling the commands of an inflexible regulator from the other. This is achieved by creating a “filler” in between, or a medium, that can effectively communicate with both ends. However, finding the right medium can be challenging due to the diversity of interests involved. The empirical study has confirmed the theoretical underpinning that at least two conditions must be met in order to satisfactorily fulfill the role of the middle agents.
First, the middle agent ought to have both structural and symbolic resources, i.e capacity.
The former refers to such “core” resources as expertise, knowledge, ability to procure funding,
76 and not at the least, some level of state support or form of cooperation with local authorities. The latter group of resources refers to the agent’s ability to create and sustain effective communication channels with the community stakeholders as well as the capacity to create effective and flexible mechanisms that can overcome barriers to energy efficiency. Examples of such mechanisms include networking, strategic partnerships, negotiation means, customized and targeted consumer evaluations.
Finally, the middle-out approach cannot be regarded as a substitute for the standard regulation and economic incentives, but rather needs to complement the two approaches and be applied in a synergistic way.
77 References
Brown,P 2014 ‘Retrofitting Social Housing Reflections by Tenants on Adopting and Living With Retrofit Technologies’, Energy Efficiency, Vol.7, pp.641-653. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260518813_Retrofitting_social_housing_Reflec tions_by_tenants_on_adopting_and_living_with_retrofit_technology Cook, R 2013 ‘Empowering Communities to Overcome Barriers to Multifamily Energy Efficiency’, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT Energy Efficiency Strategy Project. Available at http://web.mit.edu/energy-efficiency/docs/EESP_- Cook_EmpoweringToOvercomeMultiFamilyBarriers.pdf Devine-Wright, H,Devine-Wright, P 2004 ‘From Demand Side Management to Demand Side Participation: Tracing an Environmental Psychology of Sustainable Electricity System Evolution’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6(3), pp.167-177. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285257782_From_demand_side_management_t o_demand_side_participation_Towards_an_environmental_psychology_of_sustainable_e lectricity_system_evolution Di Nucci, M, Pol, O, Gigler, U 2010 ‘Concerto: Planning and Implementation Process Assessment Report’, Austria. Dowson, M et al. 2012 ‘Domestic UK Retrofit Challenge: Barriers, Incentives and Current Performance Leading into the Green Deal’, Energy Policy, Vol.50, pp.294-305. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515001706 Iglar, B et al. 2009 ‘Implementing Ambitious Energy Performance Targets for Buildings in New Urban Development Areas: the Example of Concerto Communities’, 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science, pp.369-376. Chaskin, R 2001 ‘Building community Capacity: a Definitional Framework and Case Studies From a Comprehensive Community Initiative’, Urban Affairs Review, Vol.36(3), pp.291- 323. Janda, K, Parag, Y 2011 ‘A Middle Out Approach for Improving Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings’, ECEEE Summer Study, pp.1203-12. Available at http://www.climateacce- ss.org/sites/default/files/Janda_A%20middle%20out%20approach.pdf Jaffe, A, Stavins, R 1994 ‘The Energy Paradox and the Diffusion of Conservation Technology’, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol.16(2), pp.91-122. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0928765594900019 Nair, G et al. 2010 ‘Owner’s Perception on the Adoption of Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Measures in Swedish Detached Houses’, Applied Energy, Vol.87, pp.2411-19. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261910000358 Painuly, P 2001 ‘Barriers to Renewable Energy Penetration: a Framework for Analysis’, Renewable Energy, Vol.24, pp.73-89. Available at http://www1.upme.gov.co/SGIC- /sites/default/files/Barriers%20to%20renewable%20energy%20penetration.pdf Perlaviciute, G, Steg, L 2014 ‘Contextual and Psychological Factors Shaping Evaluations and Acceptability of Energy Alternatives: Integrated Review and Research Agenda’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 35, pp.361-381. Pol, O 2009 ‘Integration of Supply and Demand Side Activities in Concerto Communities: a
78 Preliminary Assessment of Planning and Implementation for Sustainable Local Energy Strategies’, Proceedings of the 10th IAEE (International Association for Energy Economics) European Conference. Quitzau, M 2013 ‘Municipalities as First Movers for Promoting Low Energy Buildings’, Aalborg University. Available at http://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/municipalities-as-first-movers- -for-promoting-low-energy-buildings%28622e9c82-9a1e-49d4-b8ae- 23ae3152e987%29.html Seyfang, G, Haxeltine, A 2012 ‘Growing Grassroot Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions’, Government and Policy, Vol.30, pp.382-400. Available at http://base.socioeco.org/docs/c10222.pdf Schoor, T, Scholtens, B 2015 ‘Power to the People: Local Community Initiatives and the Transition to Sustainable Energy’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.43, pp.666-675. Shove, E 1998 ‘Gaps, Barriers and Conceptual Chasms: Theories of Technology Transfer and Energy in Buildings’, Energy Policy, Vol.26/15, pp.1105-1112. Stengel, J et al. 2014 ‘Solutions for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Use in Buildings: Basics and Results of a Stakeholder-Oriented Economic Assessment’, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Thollander, P et al. 2010 ‘Categorizing Barriers to Energy Efficiency: an Interdisciplinary Perspective’. Available at http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/11463/InTech-Categorizing_ba- rri-ers_to_energy_efficiency_an_interdisciplinary_perspective.pdf Tuominen, P et al. 2012 ‘Energy Savings Potential in Buildings and Overcoming Market Barriers in Member States of the European Union’, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 51, pp.48-55. Walker, G 2008 ‘What are the Barriers and Incentives for Community Owned Means of Energy Production and Use?’, Energy Policy, Vol.36, pp.4401-05. Walker, G et al. 2010 ‘Trust and Community: Exploring the Meanings, Contexts and Dynamics of Community Renewable Energy’, Energy Policy, Vol.38, pp.2655-63. Walker, G, Devine-Wright, P 2008 ‘Community Renewable Energy: What Should It Mean?’, Energy Policy, Vol.36, pp.497-500. Walker, G et al. 2008 ‘Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol.7(2), pp.64-82. Weber, L 1997 ‘Some Reflections on Barriers of the Efficient Use of Energy’, Energy Policy, Vol.25(10), pp.833-35.
79 Appendix 1 House Owner Interview Questions. General Outline. 1. Tell me about Implementation measures. What, who, how? 2. How did you finance the retrofit? Costs, options, difficulties, solutions. 3. Implementation process. Relocation or not; if yes, any discomfort incurred, duration. 4. How do you like the outcome? Expectations and outcome, areas for improvement or change, energy savings achieved, indoor climate, comfort level, general satisfaction level, whether recommend it to friends. 5. How did you decide to participate? Motivation, knowledge access, sources of information, where/how to access it, any associated costs. 6. Is energy efficiency important? Knowledge, values, attitudes towards energy issues like efficiency, climate change, significance of the issues to the person, energy saving habits, new knowledge acquisition. 7. Background information
80 Appendix 2 Apartment Owner Survey Questions. Feedback (impact of the retrofit measures, satisfaction of the residents) 1. Were you living in the building during the retrofit measures? 2. Can you describe what was done? 3. How do you like your apartment/building after the retrofit? 4. Are there any noticeable changes in comfort, indoor temperature, aesthetics of the building? 5. Were your expectations met? Was there anything you did not like about the measures? 6. Has your energy bill decreased after the retrofit? 7. Were there any problems during or after the retrofit process? Knowledge, Values and Attitudes (assessment of the general knowledge, interest level in EE, held values about energy savings and measures, willingness to participate) 8. What do you think about such measures? 9. What motivated you to participate in the retrofit? 10.Are building retrofits important, why? What other measures do you know? 11.What could be done to encourage people to participate in retrofits? 12.How did you learn about retrofit? 13.Were you involved in the decision-making process? 14.What/who was/is your most trusted source of information in regards to the retrofit? Habits (daily habits, routines in regards to energy saving measures) 15.What do you personally do to save energy? 16.Did this retrofit affect your behaviour/habits? Background information 17.Age, sex, income, employed/not/retired, marital status, education level, number of occupants, if any kids (age), tenant or owner, who pays the energy bill, number of bedrooms.
81