O3.4 – 1A Bremerhaven
Report on Future Investments in Participating Mu‐ nicipalities ‐ Feasibility Study for Bremerhaven: The
Lars Holstenkamp [email protected]
Lead partner for delivera‐ Leuphana University of Lüneburg ble:
Document type: Report
Related Group of Activi‐ GoA 3.4 ties:
Language versions: English (1A), German (1B)
Submission date: 19.11.2020
Dissemination level: Public (PU)
Author(s): Lars Holstenkamp with support from Moritz Ehrtmann, Heinrich Degen‐ hart, Tim‐Oliver Kray (Leuphana University of Lüneburg)
Reviewer(s): Till Scherzinger (Magistrate of the City of Bremerhaven, DE)
Contact: Leuphana University of Lüneburg Institute of Banking, Finance and New Venture Management Universitätsallee 1 21335 Lüneburg Germany E‐Mail: [email protected] Tel.: +49 4131 677‐1931
The Act Now! project (Action for Energy Efficiency in Baltic Cities) is supported by the European Union in the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The Act Now! project duration is October 2017 – March 2021.
Index Figures and Tables ...... 2 Abbreviations ...... 3 1. Background ...... 5 1.1. Geography, Socio‐Economics and Governance ...... 5 1.2. Financial Situation ...... 6 2. Planned Investment ...... 7 2.1. Overview ...... 7 2.2. Assets ...... 8 2.3. Financial Structure...... 9 2.4. Organisational Concept ...... 11 2.4.1. Overview of Actors Involved ...... 11 2.4.2. Cooperative Organisations ...... 14 2.4.3. Housing Improvement Districts (HIDs) and “Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaften” (ESGs) . 16 2.4.4. Investment Funds ...... 17 3. Issues Raised ...... 18 3.1. Economic feasibility and rental prices ...... 18 3.2. External investors ...... 19 3.3. Accounting and investment logic ...... 19 4. Conclusions: Lessons Learnt ...... 19 References ...... 21
1 Figures and Tables
Figures Figure 1 Bremerhaven in the Lower Weser Region (Source: Regionalforum Unterweser, https://www.bremerhaven.de/de/verwaltung‐politik/politik/regionalforum‐unterweser/ueber‐ uns.13375.html)...... 6
Tables Table 1 Basic Data for Bremerhaven (Source: Own compilation based on Arbeitskreis "Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen der Länder", 2020; Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven, 2019b; Statistisches Landesamt Bremen)...... 5 Table 2 Financial and Organisational Characteristics of Investment Planned in Bremerhaven – “Klimameile” project ...... 8
2 Abbreviations AfZ Arbeitsförderungs‐Zentrum im Lande Bremen GmbH AG Aktiengesellschaft AWI Alfred Wegener Institute BAFA Bundesanstalt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle BEG Bremerhavener Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH BEKS Bremer Energie‐Konsens BID business improvement district BIS Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsförderung und Stadtentwicklung mbH BMI Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat BremKEG Bremisches Klimaschutz‐ und Energiegesetz BVV Bremerhavener Versorgungs‐ und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH CHP combined heat and power EEA European Energy Award eG eingetragene Genossenschaft ENaQ Energetisches Nachbarschaftsquartier Fliegerhorst Oldenburg ERDF European Reconstruction and Development Fund EPC energy performance contracting ESG Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft ESG‐Lehe Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. EU European Union e.V. eingetragener Verein ExWoSt Experimenteller Wohnungs‐ und Städtebau GbR Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts GHG greenhouse gases GmbH Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung GmbH & Co. KG Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung und Compagnie Kommanditgesellschaft HID housing improvement districts IG BAU Industriegewerkschaft Bauen/Agrar/Umwelt IKS Integriertes Klimaschutzgesetz JESSICA Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas KEP Klimaschutz‐ und Energieprogramm KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau LEEG Local Energy Efficiency Group MAU Masterplan aktive Umweltpolitik PPP public‐private partnership PR public relations PV photovoltaics
3 SDG Sustainable Development Goal SME small and medium enterprise STÄGRUND Städtische Grundstücksgesellschaft Bremerhaven mbH STÄWOG Städtische Wohnungsgesellschaft Bremerhaven swb Stadtwerke Bremen UDF urban development fund UID urban improvement district VGB Verkehrsgesellschaft Bremerhaven Aktiengesellschaft VkoG Vorkaufsortsgesetz WESPA Weser‐Elbe Sparkasse
4 1. Background Category Values Population 117,7461 GDP per capita € 36,626 (2017)2 Unemployment rate 13.3% (2019)3 Local authorities system Single‐tier local government within federal state
Reporting CO2‐emissions reporting Financial situation Severe budget constraints Financial system Highly developed bank‐based system with strong national support schemes Table 1 Basic Data for Bremerhaven (Source: Own compilation based on Arbeitskreis "Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen der Länder", 2020; Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven, 2019b; Statistisches Landesamt Bremen).
1.1. Geography, Socio‐Economics and Governance
Bremerhaven belongs to the federal state of Bremen (DE50). Around 110,000 to 120,000 people live in Bremerhaven. Until recently the population had been shrinking, but is stable now. The per‐capita income (Gross Domestic Product, GDP) was € 36,626 in 2017, which is below the German average of € 39,258 and the average for the federal state of Bremen (€ 47,358; Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder, 2020). Bremerhaven has a high unemployment rate around 12.5% to 13% as of 2019. This makes combating un‐ employment and related poverty the major and dominating policy issue. In addition to this, low property prices further inhibit energy retrofit projects.
Bremerhaven is governed by a city council [Stadtverordnetenversammlung], last elected in 2019. The mag‐ istrate [Magistrat] heads the local authorities. It is composed of the Lord Mayor [Oberbürgermeister], his deputy called mayor [Bürgermeister] and, currently, eight councillors [Stadträte]. The mayor is responsible for the finance department/municipal treasury. Reponsibility for the real estate management entity of the municipality is divided between Lord Mayor, Mayor and Councillor for Building. The Office for Climate Pro‐ tection [Klimastadtbüro] is part of the environmental services department.
Bremerhaven is surrounded by different Lower Saxon districts with which some relationships have been developed despite of federal state borders, which complicates cooperation. The regional forum for the lower Weser region [Regionalforum Unterweser, formerly: Regionalforum Bremerhaven] is an example of institutionalised cooperation involving the city of Bremerhaven, which also includes exchange on energy issues. Interconnections with the surrounding district of Cuxhaven are also visible through local banks We‐ ser‐Elbe Sparkasse and Volksbank eG Bremerhaven‐Cuxland.
A certified quality management for the municipaly’s energy efficiency has been existing since 2006 (Euro‐ pean Energy Award®, EEA, since 2012). Seestadt Immobilien, a dependent municipal firm, manages munic‐ ipal buildings. In addition, there is a municipal building society called STÄWOG that manages publicly owned houses including subsidised flats. Utility companies include swb (electricity, heating, water supply) with its
1 Data vary between sources. According to data provided by the Statistical Office of the Federal State of Bre‐ men, based on the 2011 census, there were 113,634 inhabitants living in Bremerhaven at the end of 2018. 2 Based on census 2011 data for inhabitants. 3 Annual average; Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven (2019b) gives a share of 12.1% at the end of 2019. Overall, numbers are lower in the statistical report by the Magistrate of the City of Bremerhaven.
5 subsidiary wesernetz Bremerhaven (grids) and BEG Group (waste management). Wesernetz Bremerhaven and BEG are public‐private partnerships between the City of Bremerhaven on the one hand and swb or REMONDIS, respectively on the other hand.
Figure 1 Bremerhaven in the Lower Weser Region (Source: Regionalforum Unterweser, https://www.bremerha‐ ven.de/de/verwaltung‐politik/politik/regionalforum‐unterweser/ueber‐uns.13375.html). Important climate protection legislation has been enacted on a federal state level, but includes the city of Bremerhaven: The Climate Protection and Energy Programme [Klimaschutz‐ und Energieprogramm, KEP 2020], established under the former Bremen Energy Law, has been updated regularly. A general revision of KEP2020 has been forseen for the end of 2018 according to the Bremen Climate Protection and Energy Law [Bremisches Klimaschutz‐ und Energiegesetz, BremKEG] of 2015. Together with EEA and the Regional‐ forum’s Integrated Climate Protection Concept [Integriertes Klimaschutzkonzept, IKS] of 2014, the Master‐ plan for Active Environmental Policy [Masterplan aktive Umweltpolitik, MAU] of 2009, the Climate Action Plan 2010 and the Climate Adaptation Strategy of 2018 it builds a network of provisions and goals that any concrete measure can point to. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting for CO2 is fixed in Sec. 5 of BremKEG. Despite of this dense web of laws, strategies and collection of potential measures, there is a perceived lack of implementation.
1.2. Financial Situation
The marine industry and tourism dominate Bremerhaven’s economy, which has undergone several struc‐ tural changes in the past, especially since the demise of the ocean‐going fleet and the shipbuilding industry. In addition to these industries, there are several research institutions, some of which are globally wellknown such as Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI). Bremerhaven has been a highly indebted city due to the structural
6 changes in the city’s economy, before the federal state decided to take over the municipal debt at the beginning of 2020. While this debt relief helps to create room for future activities, budget constraints are still in place as no new debt is allowed.
The Senator of Finance of the Federal State of Bremen supervises the municipality in financial matters. Other than many municipalities in most federal states of Germany, there is still a cameralistic accountancy, i.e. simple entry bookkeeping. Real estate assets are not yet fully valued.
Germany has a highly developed bank‐based financial system with strong local banks and development banks on national as well as federal state level. Support schemes are available on a national level, e.g. through the German development bank KfW and the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control [Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA]. On the federal state level, there is a development bank, Bremer Aufbau‐Bank GmbH4. RKW Bremen GmbH, a subsidiary of RKW Nord Rationalisierungs‐ und Innovationszentrum der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., gives technical support to small and medium enter‐ prises (SMEs). The energy agency Bremer Energie‐Konsens (BEKS) is owned by the municipality of Bremen, but also operates in Bremerhaven. At the municipality level, a private sector development agency BIS [Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsförderung und Stadtentwicklung mbH], which is by majority owned by the Magistrate of Bremerhaven, also operates in the energy sector. Moreover, the Magistrate of Bremerhaven manages an own fund to support small‐scale climate protection projects.
2. Planned Investment
2.1. Overview
Bremerhaven has successfully applied for funding through KfW programme 432 – Energetic Urban Rede‐ velopment [Energetische Stadtsanierung], a grant programme of the German Federal Ministry of the Inte‐ rior, Building and Community (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat; BMI). The KfW 432 pro‐ gramme funds two consecutive operations: KfW 432 Part A finances the development of an energetic re‐ furbishment concept for a neighbourhood. Part B provides funding for implementation management for three and possibly two further years. In Bremerhaven, an energy rehabilitation concept will be drawn up first, the completion of which will include the local energy efficiency group (LEEG) and follow the method‐ ology of the Act Now project. The implementation management will be applied for as the actual “future investment” of the municipality, promised in the Act Now project application. The application for KfW 432 Part A includes financing for an energy strategy development in the neighbourhood of “Alte Bürger” in the inner city of Bremerhaven. Overall, it can be characterised as a sophisticated process including technical and behavioural components for multiple buildings of mixed ownership at an early stage of implementa‐ tion. The energetic refurbishment concept will be carried out after finalisation of the tender process. The call has been delayed due to restrictions in the so‐called “budgetless” period [haushaltslose Zeit]. As a result of relatively late elections in May 2019 and subsequent coalition negotiations, the legislator was not able to draw up and approve the budget for 2020/21 for the federal state of Bremen. According to procedures detailed in the Bremen state constitution [Bremer Landesverfassung, BremLV], Art. 132a, new expenditures
4 Bremer Aufbau‐Bank GmbH is fully‐owned by private sector development agency WFB Wirtschaftsförderung Bremen GmbH, which, in turn, is owned by the federal state of Bremen (92.27%), the city of Bremen (6.95%) and the city of Bremerhaven (0.78%).
7 are blocked. Exceptions have to be cross‐checked by the city finance department, then approved by the magistrate and agreed by the economic and financial committee, which prolongs processes.
Ideas for the project called “Klimameile” (climate mile) started to be developed around 2010. Through var‐ ious stages and after having integrated it into the Act Now project, political support, including budget money, could be secured in 2019. The main idea is to make the Klimameile a demonstration project that may induce similar activities in the neighbouring city districts. The project aims at carbon neutrality in 2050 and energy autonomy (on balance sheet) of the neighbourhood. At the same time, the project tries to achieve these goals in line with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 keeping costs at an affordable level, thus also complying with SDG 115 (Koch & Krellenberg, 2018). Thus, it addresses an issue that has been receiving significant political and scientific interest (Castello & Böcher, 2018; Chegut, Eichholtz, & Hol‐ termans, 2016; Großmann et al., 2014; Grossmann, 2019; Weber & Wolff, 2018; Wolff, Schubert, & Gill, 2017). Therefore, the investment programme has to include measures to prevent what has been called “environmental gentrification” (Bunce, 2009; Checker, 2011; Eckerd, 2011; Pearsall, 2010) or “low‐carbon gentrification” (Bouzarovski, Frankowski, & Tirado Herrero, 2018). The “Alte Bürger” neighbourhood seems ideal for a demonstration project of this kind, as it is inhabited by a mix of people including persons who show a high engagement in local matters and high affinity to environmental concerns. Thus, the rationale behind this choice is that a project of high complexity as the Klimameile will not work anywhere else in the city if it does not work in this neighbourhood.
Dimension Value Number of buildings Neighbourhood Type of buildings Art deco, mixed use Ownership Mixed Type of investment Reduction of consumption (zero emissions) Investment volume Energetic refurbishment implementation manager: € 0.3 m / 3 years Financing National grant (KfW), own and third‐party equity Organisation Various public and private actors to be coordinated, concept study, use of established structures, e.g. “caretaker” [Quartiersmeisterei] Table 2 Financial and Organisational Characteristics of Investment Planned in Bremerhaven – “Klimameile” project
2.2. Assets
The objects of financing (assets) at later stages are a programme of refurbishment (energy efficiency), re‐ newable energy installations for electricity and heating, projects to influence energy use behaviour of in‐ habitants and businesses, and climate‐friendly mobility projects.
Refurbishment: Some houses have already been retrofitted energetically (modern windows, front insula‐ tion). One building has been deeply renovated within the former urban redevelopment in West Germany [Stadtumbau West] support programme. The exact types of retrofit projects of these mainly Wilhelmian style buildings are not yet defined, but have to be explored in the feasibiity study. They will mostly be re‐ finance over longer periods through premia on rental fees. The motivation of investors could also include increased property values, which, however, increases the danger of gentrification. Energy performance
5 SDG 11 includes the target 11.1 “Safe and affordable housing”. Target 11.1 reads: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.” See United Nations (n.d.).
8 contracting (EPC) has not been used much in Northern Germany yet, but could also form part of the overall programme.
Solar PV: According to the existing solar cadastre, there is a high technical potential for solar photovoltaics (PV). Concrete sites or business/financial models have yet to be defined. Due to regulatory circumstances, the implementation of solar PV rooftop installations will aim at high percentages of self‐consumption for the projects to be economically viable. However, establishing collective prosumer models will be challeng‐ ing in the current regulatory environment (Campos et al., 2020). Owners of the building could make use of the “landlord to tenant electricity model” (Campos et al., 2020; Hall, Brown, Davis, Ehrtmann, & Hol‐ stenkamp, 2020; Yildiz et al., 2019).
Heating: Besides one building owned by STÄWOG, which has a combined heat and power (CHP) unit, all other buildings are heated using fossil fuels (natural gas and heating oil). Therefore, an exchange of heating installations will most probably constitute a part of the investment programme within the Klimameile pro‐ ject. A connection to district heating operated by wesernetz Bremerhaven GmbH (see below) will be inves‐ tigated. According to statements during the third regional Act Now workshop, wesernetz aims at including renewable energies besides the existing waste‐fueled power station. This heating plant is operated by Bremerhavener Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH (BEG), which is partly owned (25.1%) by the City of Bremer‐ haven (Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven, 2019a).
The possibility of integrating solar thermal collectors and feed the heat into the existing grid will be inves‐ tigated.
Mobility: Three types of mobility projects are listed in the KfW application: (1) an exchange of busses with more climate‐friendly drive systems compared to existing diesel engines, (2) car‐sharing/‐pooling, i.e. the extension of existing services and creation of a mobility hub, and (3) support for e‐mobility and bicycle traffic.
Energy usage patterns: In addition to these four areas, the Klimameile project shall also address and initiate changes in energy usage patterns by tenants and businesses. Moreover, the application lists ideas for edu‐ cational programmes that address tenants and especially visitors to cultural locations and restaurants in the “Alte Bürger” neighbourhood. While changes in usage patterns may help to achieve the social mission of the programme, they do not yield any direct financial benefits.
2.3. Financial Structure
The application for funding includes a financing plan for the energetic refurbishment management. Accord‐ ing to the support programme, KfW grants up to 65% of the money needed. The rest has to be financed through the municipalities’ budget. In case of severely indebted municipalities, own equity can partly be substituted by EU funding. As a result, Bremerhaven will fund the energetic mnanagement through public money from three different sources: KfW grant (65%), EU funding (30%) and own equity (5%).
The feasibility study has to include an organizational and financing concept for concrete energy efficiency measures, which yet have to be defined. Most probably, the project will use a blend of public and private funding during the implementation phase. It could include, among others, the following components:
▪ Federal support programmes managed by KfW and BAFA, either in the form of grants or subsidised loans, will most probably used for single projects. Subsidised loan programmes
9 for private persons are usually distributed through local banks – in the case of Bremerha‐ ven especially the regional savings bank Weser‐Elbe Sparkasse (WESPA)6 and the cooper‐ ative bank Volksbank eG Bremerhaven‐Cuxland. ▪ Equity from the different relevant actors in the neighbourhood (see next section) will flow into projects by respective actors. ▪ Crowdfunding by Bremerhaven’s inhabitants among socially and environmentally minded people and businesses could help to collect funds. ▪ Smaller projects might use the existing climate protection fund managed by the Magistrate of Bremerhaven.
If bundled either at “sectoral level” (see next section), on the level of the neighbourhood or at a higher level (city or region), a “programme of activities”, managed by an existing or newly created entity, could be fi‐ nanced from different sources. This entity can also collect money from external sources. There are two basic types of entities that can be established at different levels (see also next section): (1) cooperative entities of relevant actors or community energy cooperatives and (2) investment funds. Both basic types exert different functions: pool funds from different sources, establish a joint management, make use of local knowledge and create economies of scale by bundling of projects.
Cooperative entities or joint ventures are vehicles to collect equity that are used for several joint projects. Pooling of projects and equity capital may not only generate economies of scale, but could also improve bankability or, more generally, financiability of projects.
Investment funds used in the field of urban redevelopment often combine different financial instruments. These urban development funds (UDFs) sometimes use EU structural fund money such as the European Reconstruction and Development Fund (ERDF). UDFs may apply financial engineering techniques such as the “waterfall principle”, i.e. dfferent layers of financing bearing different risks. They may fully finance pro‐ jects or invest in parallel into projects together with other investors. In the latter case, types of financing can vary between equity, mezzanine and debt capital. Often the idea behind creating a UDF is to re‐use repayments in a revolving matter – hence the name “revolving funds” or “revolving loan funds”.
Social investment: To the knowledge of the authors there is no study on the potential of social investments in Bremerhaven yet. Living near the waterfront attracts better‐off people, some of which may be willing to invest in their new neighbourhood. However, the potential has to be further explored during the energetic redevelopment concept for the Klimameile project and will deliver comprehensive renewed approaches to refurbishment management.
Behaviour change and educational programmes: Some research findings indicate that engagement in sus‐ tainable energy initiatives may induce changes in energy usage patterns (Al Katsaprakakis & Voumvoulakis, 2018; Coenen, Hoppe, Chalkiadakis, Akasiadis, & Tsoutsos, 2017). Besides these indirect effects, any explicit behaviour change or educational programme will have to be financed through grants, donations or as part of social responsibility activities, since they usually do not yield any financial benefit.
6 The savings bank is structured as public‐law institution [Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts], governed by a public special purpose association [Zweckverband], which, in turn, is owned in equal parts by the foundation under public law “Sparkassenstiftung Bremerhaven” and the district of Cuxhaven. The former is governed by the city council [Stadtverordnetenversammlung] of Bremerhaven. WESPA evolved as a merger of two savings banks, Kreissparkasse Wesermünde‐Hadeln and Sparkasse Bremerhaven, in 2014.
10 As will be outlined in the next section, collecting private equity from home owners and businesses may pose challenges, especially if it targets general funds and not specific projects. Moreover, the Corona pandemic will most probably exacerbate this problem. The feasibility study, therefore, should include interviews or surveys on the willingness to contribute to collective efforts on redevelopment of the Alte Bürger neigh‐ bourhood.
2.4. Organisational Concept
2.4.1. Overview of Actors Involved
The organisational concept rests on an existing dense network of umbrella organisations, STÄWOG as local “anchor” investor and the neighbourhood caretaker as node. The application for KfW funding does not spell out any specific organisational structure for the programme as this is object of the feasibility study still to be carried out. In the neighbourhood, several “sectors” can be identified:
▪ Public housing
STÄWOG owns several houses in the neighbourhood of Alte Bürger. It is envisaged as an “an‐ chor investor” to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of climate‐friendly solu‐ tions, especially to show that retrofit and technical installations based on renewable energies are compatible with affordable housing. As a public housing company with an annual turnover of € 33 million, a balance‐sheet total of € 194 million and 66 employees it is a company of medium size (STÄWOG Unternehmensgruppe, 2019).
STÄWOG has a fully‐owned subsidiary responsible for energy management, STÄWOG Service GmbH, and a property development subsidiary, Städtische Grundstücksgesellschaft Bremerha‐ ven mbH (STÄGRUND). In principle, STÄWOG Service could execute technical services within the neighbourhood beyond own premises.
▪ Privately‐owned houses or flats
This group of homeowners includes single owners and owner’s associations. Most are located in the neighbourhood or other parts of Bremerhaven. They partly use the same service com‐ pany for property management, which, therefore, forms a node in the network of these home‐ owners. However, this group also includes property owners from Berlin and Munich. Proper‐ ties formerly owned by investment funds located in Luxembourg have been sold to different owners throughout Germany via Union Investment, the investment arm of the central bank of the cooperative sector DZ Bank Group.
While national and international investors will most probably be motivated mainly by financial returns, investment motives of local or regional homeowners may involve social and environ‐ mental criteria. In the former case, the investments in energy efficiency have to prove to in‐ crease the economic value of properties (Chegut et al., 2016). For local homeowners, a more in‐depth study of motivations and willingness to jointly invest in climate protection measures should be undertaken. Communities of heirs and home/property owners associations tend to deviate in their investment behaviour from the other two sub‐groups. Particularly, decision‐
11 making processes tend to take longer. Lack of contact persons and conflicting motivations com‐ plicate decision‐making (Behrendt, Clausen, Degenhart, Fiedrich, & Holstenkamp, 2010; Krau, 2011).
There are several examples of private investors who follow sustainable local development ideas and strategies. In the Goethe neigbourhood, for instance, investors like Hartmut Mahnkopf, Andreas Obermeier, Thomas Schröter or Rolf Thörner try to enhance the value of their buildings, but at the same time prevent gentrification processes (Beenen, 2018; Schwan, 2017). In the Alte Bürger neighbourhood, the property management firm Hausverwaltung Schramm plays a similar role (see infobox).
Hausverwaltung Alexander Schramm – “Bürger 202”
Hausverwaltung Alexander Schramm is a property management firm with offices in the Alte Bürger neighbourhood. In a partnerhips of owner‐builders, the firm has retrofitted a 24‐families Jugendstil house in Bürgermeister‐Smidt‐Straße 202. The project won the prize “Das Plus für Arbeit und Umwelt” [The Plus for Labour and Environment”] sponsored by Greenpeace and IG BAU in 2002 as a seal of qual‐ ity. The basic idea was to combine environmental and social criteria, e.g. by employing local craftspeople for executing different tasks.
▪ Local businesses
The ground floors of many houses are occupied by small businesses (catering trade, cultural institutions, small service companies, retail shops), three with sustainable business models. Many of these small businesses are organised in an advertising association, “Werbegemein‐ schaft Alte Bürger“, which could function as a platform for executing climate protection pro‐ jects.
▪ Cultural locations
The friends’ association “Förderverein Alte Bürger e.V.” functions as umbrella organisation for cultural locations that are not members of Werbegemeinschaft Alte Bürger. As a neighbour‐ hood association, it organises the civil society in the neighbourhood and hosts cultural events. It could function as a project platform in a similar manner as the advertising association.
▪ Public transport companies and car‐sharing services
Local public transport is organised by Bremerhavener Versorgungs‐ und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH (BVV) under the brand name “BremerhavenBus”. Its subsidiary Verkehrsgesellschaft Bremerhaven Aktiengesellschaft (VGB) operates the transport services. Depending on strategic priorities, especially in the context of the current pandemic and the economic problems that it causes, VGB will most probably contribute a change of busses to the Klimameile concept. As a publicly‐owned company, BVV would certainly contribute to any mobility concept for the neighbourhood.
12 Car‐sharing services are currently provided by a private initiative of four private users and by cambio StadtAuto Bremen CarSharing GmbH7. The Office for Climate Protection wants to de‐ velop current services into a mobility hub according to the Bremen mobil.punkt concept. The mobil.punkt concept has been developed in Bremen in 2003 under the aegis of the Bremen Ministry for Climate Protection, the Environment, Mobility, Urban Development and Housing Development.8 The organisational structure for the mobility hub has yet to be defined. How‐ ever, all of the actors mentioned are candidate partners in such a project as they may all profit from it.
▪ Electricity and heating utilities
swb group is the utility company operating in Bremerhaven. It is nearly 100% owned by EWE AG, which, in turn, is owned by 21 municipalities in Lower Saxony through a public special purpose association, EWE‐Verband, and its investment companies. The group includes elec‐ tricity and heating sales company swb Bremerhaven GmbH and grid operator wesernetz Brem‐ erhaven GmbH. The City of Bremerhaven owns some, though few, shares of wesernetz, has invested further money in the form of a silent partnership, and is connected to wesernetz also through the concession contract, which includes provisions on support from wesernetz to the municipality, especially in the area of energy planning (Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven, 2019a; swb AG, 2019).
swb is a very large company with high and long‐standing expertise in all segments of the energy sector. As such, it is principally a well‐equipped partner for all types of projects envisaged in the Klimameile project. Based on the concession contract, swb’s subisidiary wesernetz will be included in the project as a provider of data relevant for the development of distributed supply models for residents.
The application for KfW funding further includes the following four (groups of) actors:
▪ Neighbourhood caretaker [Quartiersmeisterei]
Since 2011, the federal state employment promotion agency Arbeitsförderungs‐Zentrum im Lande Bremen GmbH (AfZ) has been employing a neighbourhood caretaker for the Alte Bürger area. The caretaker is a central person and hub in the social networks of the neighbourhood. As such it plays a central networking and facilitation role in the Klimameile project.
▪ Office for Climate Protection [Klimastadtbüro]
The Office for Climate Protection is located at the edge of the city quarter. It creates ideas for and manages various climate protection projects. In the latter case, the city of Bremerhaven formally works as responsible body and recipient of funding, while Klimaschutzbüro executes the projects. It is well established as network hub. However, it has only a small team.
▪ Tenants
7 Part of the cambio franchise network. 8 The mobil.punkt concept of shared mobility hubs is currently further developed in the SHARE‐North project funded within the INTERREG North Sea Region programme.
13 The neighbourhood is mostly inhabited by less affluent persons, but includes a mix of age groups (students, elderly). Gentrification has not yet taken place. Tenants in the Alte Bürger neighbourhood are not the primary addressees of investment programmes. It is likely that most of them do not dispose of enough wealth to act as (social) investors in energy efficiency measures or renewable energy installations, even if some may participate, e.g., in an energy cooperative (see below). Also they could be target of a landlord‐to‐tenant electricity scheme. The primary focus for including this group of actors is their role as users and, thus, they are target of programmes to influence energy usage patterns.
▪ Customers and guests
Similarly, customers of local businesses and tourists are rather considered target groups of educational and behavioural programmes in the KfW funding application, even if environmen‐ tally‐minded recurrent guests may also be willing to invest in local projects. The first ideas listed in the application include changes in the business models of restaurants and catering businesses9 and “education for sustainable development” (Barth, Michelsen, Rieckmann, & Thomas, 2018) projects together with education and research institutions in Bremerhaven.
It is not clear yet if there will be funding on the programme level. However, the overall institutional setup would allow to create an umbrella programme governed by existing or newly created organisations. Pooling could be done according to types of assets as outlined above or according to types of actors across assets. Moreover, the Klimameile project could be integrated into a larger city redevelopment programme. Overall, this leads to at least four different kinds of organisational setups for the implementation of the Klimameile project:
▪ Single projects developed by varying networks of partners or single project partners ▪ “Sectoral” bundling of projects under the aegis of respective network nodes and hubs ▪ Creation of joint ventures or cooperative entities for several projects ▪ Programme(s) of activities executed and/or financed through pools of funds
We will briefly explore three types of organisational setups, for which experiences exist that the Klimameile project developers can take into account: (1) cooperative organisations, (2) housing improvement districts or “Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaften” and (3) urban development funds.
2.4.2. Cooperative Organisations
A third party realising projects can take the form of a cooperative organisation of homeowners, businesses, public entities and/or users. It can be legally structured as
1. registered cooperative [eingetragene Genossenschaft, eG], 2. limited liability partnership [Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung und Compagnie Kom‐ manditgesellschaft, GmbH & Co. KG], 3. “community” joint stock company [Aktiengesellschaft, AG], or, less frequently, 4. limited liability company [Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, GmbH],
9 These project ideas, if implemented, merit further scientific investigation as there are several studies on sustainable business models and business model innovation – see e.g. Long, Looijen, and Blok (2018) for a study of the food industy –, but only few in the restaurant and catering industry; but see Nyheim (2012).
14 in case of small projects with less risks also as 5. civil law association/partnership organised under the Civil Code [Gesellschaft bürgerli‐ chen Rechts, GbR or BGB‐Gesellschaft].
The potential benefits ascribed to cooperative forms of organisation include higher social acceptance of projects and a facitating role in behaviour changes (for more see e.g. Berka & Creamer, 2018).
▪ (Urban) Redevelopment: “Citizen Cooperatives”
In general, ESGs explained in the next section can also be characterised as cooperative organisations in an economic sense. Besides, there are also examples of registered cooperatives, often started by engaged citizens, which execute various projects for redevelopment of their municipalities. These “citizen coopera‐ tives” demonstrate that it is possible to collect money from private persons for redevelopment purposes, even if some initiatives failed to overcome this challenge and reach a critical amount of equity from citizens. To our knowledge, there is no scientific study yet on success factors in this respect and on sociodemo‐ graphics of the initiatives. Moreover, most of these citizen cooperatives work in a rural context, where they can build on existing dense relationships (social capital).
However, the Klimameile could build on experiences made in the context of several research projects, e.g. in the context of the “Kommunen innovativ” [innovative municipalities] programme:
▫ Bürgerfonds, a project that used a national fund cooperating with citizen groups in different small to medium‐sized municipalities (Henger, 2019); ▫ KoDa eG, which dealt with the creation of citizen cooperatives in the southwest of Germany, and ▫ KuDeQua, which experimented with “neighbourhood laboratories” in the city of Dortmund and different financing solutions (Dahlbeck & Schlieter, 2019).
▪ Energy Cooperatives
In the context of the Klimameile project, the willingness to invest in a joint venture of citizens like a coop‐ erative arises. In many German energy cooperatives, it is rather better equipped (upper) middle class citi‐ zens that participate (Holstenkamp et al., 2018; Holstenkamp & Radtke, 2020). The sociodemographics of the Alte Bürger neighbourhood differ substantially from this profile. However, the composition differs sub‐ stantially in various cases. Moreover, the Alte Bürger neighbourhood seems to show some affinity to coop‐ erative ideas, at least in some of the milieus represented in the quarter.
As there are many student living in the Alte Bürger neighbourhood, teaming up with the Bremerhaven Uni‐ versity of Applied Sciences could make sense. There are several universities in Germany, at which solar initiatives have been initiated (“unisolar”). While there is no systematic analysis of these initiatives yet, the Klimameile project could still use experiences made, e.g. at the University of Bremen with UniBremen SO‐ LAR eG.
Overall, experiences with energy cooperatives illustrate that for the business to be economically viable it needs a pipeline of several projects with a minimum amount of investments – at least a small six‐figure amount. As the application gives a technical potential of more than 12,000 m² of usable roof areas, the investment could easily exceed this threshold. Nevertheless, the question arises if it is feasible to setup an energy cooperative for a single neighbourhood.
15 Financial participation through an energy cooperative for a city quarter has been explored in the “Energe‐ tisches Nachbarschaftsquartier Fliegerhorst Oldenburg” (ENaQ) research project. A study written in this context advises to extend activities of the existing cooperative and not to create a cooperative for a single neighbourhood. Project partners have not yet taken a decision on how to integrate local citizens.
Depending on the concrete business model applied, partnering up with a developer and/or licensed sup‐ plier is advisable or – e.g. in the case of the landlord to tenant electricity model – necessary.
▪ Perspectives
If discussions with key stakeholders and surveys among potential members during the feasibility study in‐ dicate that there is a critical number of persons interested in participating and if techno‐economic analyses show that the project pipeline is sufficient, the setup of an energy cooperative in the neighbourhood should be seriously considered. In addition, the existing energy cooperative Neue Energien Bremerhaven‐Cuxland eG should be included in the analysis of actors.
There are also experiences with cooperative forms of organising urban redevelopment. Registered cooper‐ atives in this area are mostly active in rural parts of Germany. However, there are various experiences with interactive forms of governance of urban redevelopment processes and respective experiences that the Klimameile project can resort to (see next section).
2.4.3. Housing Improvement Districts (HIDs) and “Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaften” (ESGs)
Redevelopment activities may create externalities also for owners that have not participated in the execu‐ tion and financing of these measures. The anticipation of this effect may lead to free‐riding behaviour. In‐ ternalisation of positive externalities through a developer as described in Thorsnes (2000) does not work in existing building stock owned by a diversity of actors. Moreover, some of the type of owners are typically reluctant to participate and hard to convince to do so. In such contexts, legal provisions have been devel‐ oped in various locations to enforce collective action or publicly managed redevelopment activities includ‐ ing fees or additional taxes to be paid by private businesses and persons. In Germany, this “formal” ap‐ proach has only been used in the city of Hamburg. Sometimes, informal and voluntary forms of cooperation between public and private entities are tried out. Concepts are known as business improvement districts (BIDs), urban improvement districts (UIDs) or housing improvement districts (HIDs) (Brenner, 2010; Kreutz, 2009).
▪ “Eigenstümerstandortgemeinschaften” (ESGs)
A programmatic approach in the Klimameile project may resort to experiences made under the Experi‐ mental Housing and Urban Development (Experimenteller Wohnungs‐ und Städtebau, ExWoSt) programme with so‐called local property owners’ associations [Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaften, ESGs]. The 14 ESGs in the ExWoSt programme are all registered formally as associations [eingetragener Verein, e.V.]. They mostly rest upon voluntary work; only few ESGs have a professional management. Usually, they conduct a mix of small‐scale and larger projects, from public relations (PR) activity to upgrading of backyards and modernisation of buildings. Experiences made in the different locations illustate the importance of PR work, transparent communication among members and the need to give time for decision‐making processes (Tan‐ tow, 2012).
16 The ExWoSt ESG programme also included an ESG in Bremerhaven, called Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. (ESG‐Lehe), which still exists (Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. [ESG‐Lehe], n.d., 2019). In 2014, another ESG was founded in the “Klushof” neighbourhood (ESG Klushof, n.d.). Several activities of the associations are documented on their websites and in the ESG‐Lehe brochure on the 10th anniversary, including development of green spaces, historical pathways through the neighbourhood, support for larger projects of active individual members and thematic exchange. Overall, it seems that budgets for general activities of the communities are relatively small. Hence, the importance seems to lie in the networking and information exchange through which larger‐scale projects become feasible.
▪ Endowment Funds (“Verfügungsfonds”) and other types of financing
Through the constitution of endowment funds [Verfügungsfonds], financed up to 50% through public grants from urban redevelopment programmes and 50% or more from private sources, ESGs can fund some of their investments. After experimentation with this instrument during the ExWoSt research programme, it was implemented as regular support scheme in 2010. Fund sizes are in a majority of cases between € 10,000 and € 50,000 per year (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat [BMI], 2017).
Private persons and businesses in some places put their contributions to urban redevelopment into foun‐ dations, which are another organisational form of how to pool donations from private (and public) sources. Stiftung “Soziale Stadt” in Dortmund is one example of this type.
▪ Perspectives
Experiences with HIDs and ESGs show the necessity to identify “change agents”, especially individual sus‐ tainable property investors and to use existing networks. In the Alte Bürger neighbourhood, Werbegemein‐ schaft Alte Bürger e.V. could fullfil a similar role as an ESG.
2.4.4. Investment Funds
Investment funds represent a direct form of pooling money from different sources that is invested into projects, which may be predefined or for the selection of which at least criteria have been set up. Invest‐ ment funds of the latter kind are called “blind pools”. Investment funds may invest in single large‐scale projects, a pool of several projects or into several investment funds (fund‐of‐fund, in the terminology of the EU initiative JESSICA ‐ Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas – also: holding funds). These funds may invest in various assets. In the case of urban redevelopment projects, they are called urban development funds (UDFs), especially if they include a kind of public‐private partnership (PPP).
One of the differences to ESGs is that investment funds are usually managed professionally.
▪ Urban Development Funds and the JESSICA Initiative
UDFs have been created in different countries worldwide to execute redevelopment programmes in differ‐ ent cities, including retrofit of buildings (Degenhart, Holstenkamp, & Clausen, 2011; Nadler & Nadler, 2018; Nischwitz & Andreas, 2019). Financial and organisational structures vary from simple to highly complex. While bundling of money from different sources and pooling of projects can generate economies of scale, the structuring of UDFs usually comes with high transaction costs. Therefore, they will only be economically feasible if the overall investment exceeds a certain minimum amount. Moreover, complexity of structures increases the needed capacity of the management and is more demanding for potential investors.
17 While small and simply structured investment funds may be managed by existing network organisations or local banks, more complex fund structure will need experienced managers such as federal state or federal development banks (i.e. Bremer Aufbau‐Bank, KfW), public banks (e.g. NordLB) or larger banks (e.g. the central bank of cooperative banks, DZ Bank).
▪ Other experiences with fund structures
Besides the JESSICA initiative and funds created as a response to this support scheme, there are several other experiences, which a UDF‐like structure in the Bremerhaven case could build on. The Bürgerfonds project mentioned above is one of these examples. In Bavaria, several rural municipalities tried out the implementation of municipal development funds [kommunale Entwicklungsfonds] within the realm of the “Ort schafft Mitte .de” programme (Oberste Baubehörde im Bayerischen Staatsministerium des Innern, für Bau und Verkehr, 2013). These UDFs used funds to purchase properties that are redeveloped and sold out after successful project closure, i.e. the funds own properties only for an interim use. Rural municipalities implemented these funds. Results of the programme indicate that the envisaged revolving nature of the funds is difficult to achieve in structurally weak areas.
▪ Perspectives
Overall, proper UDFs with a certain level of complexity only pay off in cases of ambitious large‐scale invest‐ ment programmes. However, the general idea of pooling and single elements applied in UDFs can also be utilised for smaller investment funds.
3. Issues Raised
During the interviews in Bremerhaven, in preparation of the regional workshops and in discussions between expert and municipal partner, several issues have been raised:
▪ Economic feasibility of energy retrofit; ▪ Non‐resident (external) investors; ▪ Accounting and investment logic.
3.1. Economic feasibility and rental prices
Several interview partners raised the issue of rental prices and the economic feasibility of building retrofits: Property owners usually recover costs for retrofit measures through an increase of rental payments. Low levels of rental prices limit these possibilities for cost recovery. Interviewees cite average prices of 4.60 €/m² to 4.70 €/m² in certain neighbourhoods in Bremerhaven. Moreover, one interviewee highlights the fact that the energetic situation of the buildings seems not to be a relevant criterion for tenants when they close the rental contract. Rather, demographics (“barrier free”) plays a central role. As a result, retrofit of buildings hardly pays off for property owners in these neighbourhoods.
Private investors try to change the social composition of the neighbourhoods and attract tenants with higher incomes (Beenen, 2018). However, the idea is to upgrade flats and increase rental prices smoothly to prevent the socially weak from being crowded out of the neighbourhood – a process known as gentrifi‐ cation. Many of those buildings that need a retrofit are located in socially weak neighbourhoods. Structural changes in the Bremerhaven economy with the descent of the fishing industry and shipbuilding industries
18 and the withdrawal of the US army resulted in social problems that agglomerate in these neighbourhoods. On the other side, there are also waterfront developments where higher rental price are possible. Overall, this illustrates the need for “patient capital” and public support schemes.
3.2. External investors
Some of the buildings in several neighbourhoods in Bremerhaven have been sold to external investors, partly international investors, who do not have any knowledge of the local property market. This has initi‐ ated a vicious circle with financial losses for investors leading to a deterioration of the buildings that, in turn, negatively influences values of adjacent properties.
Following the introduction of the Local Law of Preemption [Vorkaufsortsgesetz, VkoG] in 2009, owners of selected, run down buildings specified in the law have the duty to offer these properties to the municipality of Bremerhaven first. Through these legal provisions, the municipality acquired and demolished at least some run down buildings to improve the overall economics of neighbouring properties.
However, it seems that the general problem persists despite of joint activities by the municipality and en‐ gaged private property owners, e.g. through ESGs. The Klimameile project may build the ground for exper‐ imentation with incentives given to these external investors in order to mobilise investments into these buildings.
3.3. Accounting and investment logic
Interviewees highlighted that a municipal budget logic prevails over life‐cycle cost considerations or CO2 footprints. Public buildings are renovated only if and to the extent to which it is urgently needed. Deep retrofit measures, even if economically feasible in the long term, are lacking almost entirely. Interviewees explain this by the prioritisation of labour market and associated social issues and by the difficult budgetary situation of the municipality.
4. Conclusions: Lessons Learnt
We can draw several lessons from the Bremerhaven case:
▪ The Klimameile project can build on existing, well‐established structures in the Alte Bürger neighbourhood, most prominently existing associations. In principle, a strong institutional background exists that helps to implement this complex project, which can build on this social capital. All relevant actors are well known and most directly involved. All of this forms a good basis for the complex approach and governance structure needed. ▪ Collecting private money poses challenges, especially in post‐Corona times. The in‐depth feasibility study that the municipality contracts out should therefore explore motivations of different stakeholders and their willingness to contribute financially. ▪ Concrete business models have yet to be defined. The different stakeholders especially have to mitigate the potential tensions between environmental and social concerns, which is of utmost political importance in Bremerhaven. ▪ The project illustrates the sometimes very long planning processes needed to implement such undertakings. Proponents in the administration need tenacity and perseverance to
19 stand the erratic local political processes. “Green new deal” rhetorics and subsequent pro‐ grammes on supranational, national and federal state level may create a window of op‐ portunity to implement larger projects of this kind.
20 References
Al Katsaprakakis, D., & Voumvoulakis, M. (2018). A hybrid power plant towards 100% energy autonomy for the island of Sifnos, Greece: Perspectives created from energy cooperatives. Energy, 161, 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.198
Arbeitskreis "Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen der Länder" (2020). Regionaldatenbank Deutsch‐ land. Retrieved from https://www.regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/
Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M., & Thomas, I. (Eds.) (2018). Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. London, New York: Routledge; Earthscan.
Beenen, J. (2018, January 20). "Ne Asi‐Gegend" kämpft um ihren Ruf. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/goethequartier‐in‐bremerhaven‐ne‐asi‐gegend‐ka‐ empft‐um‐ihren‐ruf‐1.3832291‐0
Behrendt, D., Clausen, S., Degenhart, H., Fiedrich, G., & Holstenkamp, L. (2010). Brachflächen‐Fonds: Ent‐ wicklung und Überprüfung eines privatwirtschaftlichen Fonds‐Konzepts zur Mobilisierung von Brachflä‐ chen in Hannover. Bericht zum BMBF‐Projekt "Nachhaltiges Flächenmanagement Hannover". Hanno‐ ver, Lüneburg.
Berka, A. L., & Creamer, E. (2018). Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable en‐ ergy: A review and research agenda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.050
Bouzarovski, S., Frankowski, J., & Tirado Herrero, S. (2018). Low‐carbon gentrification: When climate change encounters residential displacement. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(5), 845–863.
Brenner, J. (2010). Private initiatives in German urban development policy. Urban Research & Practice, 3(2), 219–228.
Bunce, S. (2009). Developing sustainability: Sustainability policy and gentrification on Toronto's water‐ front. Local Environment, 14(7), 651–667.
Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat (2017). Der Verfügungsfonds ‐ ein Angebot zur koope‐ rativen Zentrenentwicklung. Retrieved from https://www.staedtebaufoerderung.info/StBauF/DE/Pro‐ gramm/AktiveStadtUndOrtsteilzentren/Programm/Instrumente/Verfuegungsfonds/verfuegungs‐ fonds_node.html
Campos, I., Pontes Luz, G., Marín‐González, E., Gährs, S., Hall, S., & Holstenkamp, L. (2020). Regulatory challenges and opportunities for collective renewable energy prosumers in the EU. Energy Policy, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111212
Castello, M., & Böcher, M. (2018). Soziale Kälte bei der Wärmewende?: Eine Untersuchung sozialer Ne‐ benwirkungen politischer Steuerung im Wohnsektor. Soziologie und Nachhaltigkeit, 4(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.17879/SUN‐2018‐2383
21 Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical pol‐ itics of urban sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210–229.
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P., & Holtermans, R. (2016). Energy efficiency and economic value in affordable housing. Energy Policy, 97, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.043
Coenen, F., Hoppe, T., Chalkiadakis, G., Akasiadis, C., & Tsoutsos, T. (2017). Exploring energy saving policy measures by renewable energy supplying cooperatives (REScoops). In european council for an energy efficient economy (Chair), eceee Summer Study, Belambra Presqu'île de Giens. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec92/38d3041272456f212b5824c8b4c1cc980f10.pdf
Dahlbeck, E., & Schlieter, D. (2019). Kooperationen zwischen Bürgerschaft und Kommunen für das Quartier (Forschung Aktuell No. 2019‐09). Gelsenkirchen. Retrieved from Institut Arbeit und Technik website: https://kommunen‐innovativ.de/sites/default/files/forschung_aktuell_09_2019.pdf
Degenhart, H., Holstenkamp, L., & Clausen, S. (2011). Flächenfonds als öffentlich‐private Partnerschaft: Ein Finanzierungskonzept zur Mobilisierung von Brachflächen am Beispiel der Stadt Hannover. Baden‐Ba‐ den: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845228433
Eckerd, A. (2011). Cleaning up without clearing out?: A spatial assessment of environmental gentrification. Urban Affairs Review, 47(1), 31–59.
Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. (n.d.). ESG‐Lehe. Retrieved from http://www.esglehe.de/in‐ dex.htm
Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. (2019). Zehn Jahre Eigentümerstandortgemeinschaft Lehe e.V. Bremerhaven. Retrieved from http://www.esglehe.de/doc/ESG/10_Jahre_ESG‐Lehe_‐_Ju‐ bil%C3%A4ums‐Brosch%C3%BCre.pdf
ESG Klushof (n.d.). ESG Klushof: Eigentümer‐Standort‐Gemeinschaft in Bremerhaven. Retrieved from https://www.klushof.de/
Grossmann, K. (2019). Using conflicts to uncover injustices in energy transitions: The case of social im‐ pacts of energy efficiency policies in the housing sector in Germany. Global Transitions, 1, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.10.003
Großmann, K., Bierwirth, A., Bartke, S., Jensen, T., Kabisch, S., Malottki, C. von, . . . Rügamer, J. (2014). Energetische Sanierung: Sozialräumliche Strukturen von Städten berücksichtigen. GAIA ‐ Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(4), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.4.5
Hall, S., Brown, D., Davis, M., Ehrtmann, M., & Holstenkamp, L. (2020). Business Models for Prosumers in Europe (Deliverable No. D4.1). Retrieved from PROSEU ‐Prosumers for the Energy Union: Mainstream‐ ing active participation of citizens in the energy transition website: https://proseu.eu/sites/de‐ fault/files/Resources/PROSEU_D4.1_Business%20models%20for%20collective%20prosumers.pdf
Henger, R. (2019). Bürgerfonds für den Erhalt leerstehender Gebäude: Potenziale und Weiterentwicklungs‐ möglichkeiten. Gutachten im Rahmen des vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) geförderten Verbundprojekts „Kommunen innovativ–Bürgerfonds“. Köln. Retrieved from Institut der
22 deutschen Wirtschaft Köln website: https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Gutach‐ ten/PDF/IW‐Gutachten_2019‐Buergerfonds.pdf
Holstenkamp, L., Centgraf, S., Dorniok, D., Kahla, F., Masson, T., Müller, J., . . . Yildiz, Ö. (2018). Bürger‐ energiegesellschaften in Deutschland. In L. Holstenkamp & J. Radtke (Eds.), Handbuch. Handbuch Ener‐ giewende und Partizipation (pp. 1061–1080). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐ 658‐09416‐4_62
Holstenkamp, L., & Radtke, J. (2020). Stadt‐Land‐Disparitäten in der Energiewende: Empirische Erkennt‐ nisse zu finanzieller Bürgerbeteiligung. In J.‐H. Kamlage & S. Engler (Eds.), Dezentral, partizipativ und kommunikativ: Zukunft der Energiewende (pp. 137–176). Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.
Koch, F., & Krellenberg, K. (2018). How to contextualize SDG 11?: Looking at indicators for sustainable ur‐ ban development in Germany. ISPRS International Journal of Geo‐Information, 7(12).
Krau, I. (2011). Energy Efficency in Urban Planning: Innovative Solutions for Local Energy Supply. GAIA ‐ Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 20(3), 176–180.
Kreutz, S. (2009). Urban Improvement Districts in Germany: New legal instruments for joint proprietor ac‐ tivities in area development. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 2(4), 304–317.
Long, T. B., Looijen, A., & Blok, V. (2018). Critical success factors for the transition to business models for sustainability in the food and beverage industry in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.067
Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven (2019a). Beteiligungsbericht 2018: Beteiligungen, Wirtschafts‐ und Ei‐ genbetriebe der Stadt Bremerhaven. Bremerhaven. Retrieved from https://www.bremerha‐ ven.de/sixcms/media.php/94/Beteiligungsbericht_2018.pdf
Magistrat der Stadt Bremerhaven (2019b). Statistischer Kurzbericht 4. Quartal 2019. Bremerhaven. Retrie‐ ved from https://www.bremerhaven.de/sixcms/media.php/204/Statistischer+Kurzbe‐ richt%2C+4.+Quartal+2019.pdf
Nadler, M., & Nadler, C. (2018). Promoting investment in sustainable urban development with JESSICA: Outcomes of a new EU policy initiative. Urban Studies, 55(9), 1839–1858.
Nischwitz, G., & Andreas, V. (Eds.) (2019). Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Vol. 26. Stadtentwicklungsfonds: Ein neues Instrument zur Unterstützung nachhaltiger Stadtentwicklung? Hannover: Akademie für Raum‐ forschung und Landesplanung.
Nyheim, P. D. (2012). Factors that lead to environmentally sustainable practices in the restaurant industry: A qualitative analysis of two green restaurant innovators (Dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/7508
Oberste Baubehörde im Bayerischen Staatsministerium des Innern, für Bau und Verkehr (2013). Ort schafft Mitte.de: Städtebauförderung in Bayern. Abschlussbericht des Modellvorhabens. München. Retrieved from https://www.stmb.bayern.de/assets/stmi/buw/staedtebaufoerder‐ ung/36_oeff_osm_modellvorhaben_freyung_abschlussbericht.pdf
23 Pearsall, H. (2010). From brown to green?: Assessing social vulnerability to environmental gentrification in New York City. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 872–886.
Schwan, S. (2017, October 5). Lehe ist im Sanierungsfieber. Nordsee‐Zeitung. Retrieved from https://www.nord24.de/bremerhaven/Lehe‐ist‐im‐Sanierungsfieber‐14733.html
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (2020). Bruttoinlandsprodukt ‐ in jeweiligen Preisen ‐ 1991 bis 2019 (WZ 2008): Revision 2019. Retrieved from https://www.statistik‐ bw.de/VGRdL/tbls/tab.jsp?rev=RV2019&tbl=tab01&lang=de‐DE
Statistisches Landesamt Bremen. Bremen Infosystem. Retrieved from https://www.statistik.bremen.de/
STÄWOG Unternehmensgruppe (2019). Geschäftsbericht 2018. Bremerhaven. Retrieved from https://www.staewog.de/sixcms/media.php/52/Sta%CC%88wog‐Gescha%CC%88ftsbe‐ richt%202018%20final.pdf
Swb AG (2019). Stadt der Zukunft: Geschäftsbericht 2018. Bremen. Retrieved from https://www.swb.de/‐ /media/files/publikationen/swb‐geschaeftsbericht‐2018.pdf
Tantow, D. (2012). Urban improvement districts in urban restructuring: First results of the German ESG research initiative. Urban Research & Practice, 5(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2012.727559
Thorsnes, P. (2000). Internalizing Neighborhood Externalities: The Effect of Subdivision Size and Zoning on Residential Lot Prices. Journal of Urban Economics, 48(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2000.2173
United Nations (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform: Sustainable Development Goal 11. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11
Weber, I., & Wolff, A. (2018). Energy efficiency retrofits in the residential sector: Analysing tenants’ cost burden in a German field study. Energy Policy, 122, 680–688.
Wolff, A., Schubert, J., & Gill, B. (2017). Risiko energetische Sanierung? In K. Großmann, A. Schaffrin, & C. Smigiel (Eds.), Energie und soziale Ungleichheit: Zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension der Energiewende in Deutschland und Europa (pp. 611–634). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Yildiz, Ö., Gotchev, B., Holstenkamp, L., Müller, J. R., Radtke, J., & Welle, L. (2019). Consumer (co‐) owner‐ ship in renewables in Germany. In J. Lowitzsch (Ed.), Energy transition: Financing consumer co‐owner‐ ship in renewables (pp. 271–293). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
24