Date post: | 26-May-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | phungkhanh |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Energy Efficiency Governance in buildings: a multi-level
perspective
Thesis presented by:
Eleonora Annunziata
to
The Class of Social Sciences
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of
Management – Innovation, Services and Sustainability
Tutor: Prof. Marco Frey
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna
A.Y. 2012-2013
2
“Sustainable energy is a global priority…, because it is central to everything we do,
and central to everything we want to achieve”. (UN Secretary-General's remarks at Davos 2012)
3
Acknowledgements I am glad to thank all people who supported this research work. First of all, I would
like to show my gratitude to my tutor Professor Marco Frey for all the
encouragements and guidance over the years which have made it possible for me to
continue all the way. I am also grateful to Francesco Rizzi, Francesco Testa and
Professor Fabio Iraldo because they have given me the opportunity to develop my
research ideas. I make special thanks to all people who responded to my
questionnaire surveys, because they were very precious for my research work. I also
thank all my colleagues and friends at the SUM and at the Institute of Management.
My “super” thanks to Cecilia, Mayla, Benedetta, Consuelo, Barbara, Federica and
Emilia for their continuous support. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, there
are no words that can express how grateful I am to them.
4
Contents
Chapter 1 .................................................................... 10
Introduction .......................................................................................................................10
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.1 Brief introduction: the concept of energy efficiency related to buildings 10
1.1.2 Socio-technical system and multi-level governance in energy efficient
buildings ........................................................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Aims.............................................................................................................................................. 15
1.3 Methodological approach .................................................................................................... 18
References ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2 .................................................................... 22
Literature review on energy efficiency in buildings...............................................22
2.1 Energy consumption in buildings ..................................................................................... 23
2.2 Buildings: a complex socio-technical system ............................................................... 28
2.3 Barriers to energy efficiency improvements ............................................................... 33
2.4 Policies to promote energy efficiency ............................................................................. 36
2.4.1 Residential buildings ..................................................................................................... 38
2.4.2 Non-residential buildings ............................................................................................ 40
2.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 41
References ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 3 .................................................................... 49
Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: the state-of-art of national regulations
in Europe.............................................................................................................................49
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 50
3.2 Background Literature.......................................................................................................... 52
3.2.1 Integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements ..... 53
3.2.2 Translation of investments in energy saving into economic value ............. 54
5
3.2.3 Commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target ........................................... 56
3.3 Methodology and results ..................................................................................................... 56
3.3.1 Integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements ..... 57
3.3.2 Translation of investments in energy saving into economic value ............. 60
3.3.3 Commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target ........................................... 61
3.3.4 Overarching vision ......................................................................................................... 64
3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 68
3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 71
References ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 4 .................................................................... 79
The Role of Eco-design in the development of energy efficiency in buildings
...............................................................................................................................................79
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 80
4.2 The Survey Design .................................................................................................................. 83
4.3 Data description and variables construction ............................................................... 86
4.4 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 91
4.4.1Eco-design........................................................................................................................... 91
4.4.2 Strategic supporting factors for Eco-design ......................................................... 92
4.4.2.1 Energy and environmental strategy and performance ............................ 92
4.4.2.2 Cooperation with supply chain .......................................................................... 94
4.4.2.3 Training ...................................................................................................................... 95
4.4.2.4 Certification schemes ............................................................................................ 97
4.4.3 Barriers to Eco-design .................................................................................................. 98
4.5 Discussion and conclusions ..............................................................................................102
References .......................................................................................................................................105
Chapter 5 .................................................................. 113
The contribution of Green Public Procurement to Energy Efficiency
Governance in buildings .............................................................................................. 113
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................114
6
5.2 The uptake of GPP in Europe and Italy .........................................................................116
5.3 Governance of energy efficiency and GPP in buildings ..........................................120
5.4 Theory and Propositions....................................................................................................122
5.4.1 Technical and organizational support to the adoption of GPP practices 122
5.4.2 Energy efficiency and environmental strategy and EMS ...............................124
5.5 Research design and methodology ................................................................................126
5.5.1 Sample ...............................................................................................................................126
5.5.2 Model and variables .....................................................................................................127
5.6 Results .......................................................................................................................................130
5.7 Discussion and Conclusions ..............................................................................................133
References .......................................................................................................................................137
Chapter 6 .................................................................. 147
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 147
6.1 The outline of research work ...........................................................................................147
6.2 Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................149
6.3 Limitations...............................................................................................................................150
6.4 Managerial implications .....................................................................................................151
6.5 Future research .....................................................................................................................153
References .......................................................................................................................................154
7
List of Tables Table 2.1 – Drivers of energy use in buildings .......................................................................... 26
Table 2.2 - Characterization of energy-saving building technologies .............................. 27
Table 2.3 – Major barriers to energy efficiency in the building and construction sector ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 2.4 – The most important policy instruments to promote energy efficiency in the building and construction sector .............................................................................................. 36
Table 3.1 - Hierarchy of energy efficient measures in the 27 European Union Member States............................................................................................................................................................ 59
Table 3.2 - Targets for renewable sources in the 27 European Union Member States ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59
Table 3.3 - Incentives for sale of energy efficient buildings in the 27 European Union Member States ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 3.4 - Incentives for rent of energy efficient buildings in the 27 European Union Member States ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Table 3.5 – Penalties for energy performance requirement non-compliances in the 27 European Union Member States ....................................................................................................... 63
Table 3.6 - Minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment in the 27 European Union Member States ......................................... 64
Table 3.7 - Incentives for the diffusion of nearly zero-energy buildings in the 27 European Union Member States ....................................................................................................... 64
Table 3.8 - Summary of regulatory and policy instruments adopted by the 27 European Union Member States in their national regulatory framework ....................... 65
Table 4.1 – Summary statistics ........................................................................................................ 89
Table 4.2 – Designer characteristics: type of profession, type of registration, legal form of design firm, project type and type of main clients ..................................................... 90
Table 4.3 – Spearman test between Eco-design variables and designer characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................................ 92
Table 4.4 – Spearman test between environmental strategy variable and designer characteristics and between environmental strategy and performance variables and Eco-design variables .............................................................................................................................. 94
Table 4.5 – Spearman test between collaboration with supply chain and designer characteristics and between collaboration with supply chain and Eco-design variables ........................................................................................................................................................................ 95
Table 4.6 - Spearman test between training variable and designers characteristics and between training variable and Eco-design variables ....................................................... 97
Table 4.7 – Spearman test between certification variable and designer characteristics and between certification variable and Eco-design variables ............................................... 98
Table 4.8 – Spearman test between barriers variables and designer characteristics and between barriers variables and Eco-design variables ...................................................101
Table 5.1 – Sample’s details.............................................................................................................127
Table 5.2 – Descriptive statistics ...................................................................................................129
8
Table 5.3 – Results of logistic regression analysis for GPP adoption in the building and construction sector ......................................................................................................................132
Table 5.4 – Results of ordered logistic regression analysis for the level of GPP adoption in the building and construction sector ....................................................................132
9
List of Figures Figure 1.1 – Three interrelated analytic dimensions associated with transition towards energy efficiency improvements in buildings ............................................................ 14
Figure 2.1 – The interaction among stakeholders of building and construction sector ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 4.1 – Designer characteristics: organization size ....................................................... 90
Figure 4.2 – Classes of average Eco-design project value in EUR, number of respondents .............................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 4.3 – Classes of training hours per person, number of respondents................... 96
Figure 4.4 – Barriers to Eco-design approach during building design activity ...........100
10
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Brief introduction: the concept of energy efficiency related to buildings
By the early 1970s, most developed countries had exploited low energy prices and
plentiful fuel supplies, with a consequent high and growing per capita use of energy
(World Bank, 1993). After world energy crises, such as the 1973 oil shortage caused
by Yom Kippur war or the 1991 increase of the price of oil during the First Gulf war,
governmental concerns were raised on supply of and access to worldwide energy
resources. Therefore, the concept of energy efficiency - reduction in energy
consumption for a given service (heating, lighting, etc.) or level of activity - is
introduced in energy policy discussion.
Improving energy efficiency is the fastest and most cost-effective way in order to
provide solution to energy security, economic goals, but also climate change
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001; Productivity Commission, 2005;
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006; European Commission, 2006).
Consequently, policy makers and scholars have tried to implement strategies for
obtaining more energy efficient services in all end-use sectors (buildings, tertiary,
industry and transportation).
The building and construction sector can support the implementation of energy
efficiency improvements in order to achieve the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Looking at some figures, in most countries buildings currently account for up to 40%
of energy use, qualifying them among the largest end-use sectors. For instance, the
European building and construction sector accounts for 37.1% of total final energy
consumption (i.e. 1157.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2007) in the
European Union (EU-27) of which 284.6 Mtoe in residential buildings and 145.2 Mtoe
in non-residential buildings (European Union, 2010). Therefore, the IEA considers the
building and construction sector as one of the most cost-effective sectors for reducing
11
energy consumption, with estimated possible energy savings of 1509 Mtoe by 2050.
Moreover, by reducing the overall energy demand, improving energy efficiency in
buildings can significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from this sector. In
particular some projections estimates possible mitigations of 12.6 Gigatonnes (Gt) of
CO2 emissions by 2050 (IEA, 2010). Several studies highlight the role of energy
efficiency in the building and construction sector in order to achieve the reduction of
CO2 emissions and co-benefits associated (Wiel et al, 1998; Mirasgedis et al, 2004;
Georgopoulou et al, 2006; Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007; Gaglia et al, 2007; Uihlein and
Eder, 2010). In fact, the worldwide building and construction sector has a high CO2
mitigation potential which is associated with many co-benefits such as the creation of
jobs and business opportunities, increased economic competitiveness and energy
security, social welfare benefits for low income households, increased access to
energy services, improved indoor and outdoor air quality, increased comfort and
health, and quality of life (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007). A great contribution to energy
efficiency can derive from old buildings stocks with a poor energy performance
(Mirasgedis et al, 2004; Georgopoulou et al, 2006) assuming conventional energy
efficient technologies (Wiel et al, 1998; Gaglia et al, 2007; Uihlein and Eder, 2010).
Then, Wiel et al (1998) argue the importance of cooperation between developed and
developing countries in order to achieve energy efficient buildings and reduce CO2
emissions.
As a result, many countries consider the improvement of the energy efficiency of
buildings as a priority of their policy agendas. This commitment entails a great
challenge not only for policy makers, but also for firms and individuals related to
buildings and their components. Thus, the challenge of improving the energy
efficiency of buildings concerns not only building science, which consists of a
“growing body of knowledge about the relevant physical science and its application”
to buildings (Hutcheon and Handegord, 1983), but also a multidisciplinary approach
including economics, organizational theory, sociology, geography and political science
(Guy, 2006). In fact, the potential of technological solutions is crucial but not
sufficient to progress towards energy-efficient buildings (Golubchikov and Deda,
12
2012) and it is necessary to draw on policies, efficient markets and changes in
consumption patterns (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al, 2012). These considerations
underline that it is important to investigate the influencing factors and actors of the
implementation of energy efficiency in the building and construction sector by
integrating the concepts of socio-technical system and multi-level governance.
1.1.2 Socio-technical system and multi-level governance in energy efficient buildings
The process of developing energy efficient buildings has to tackle the complexity of
the building and construction sector (Lovins, 1992), because it is influenced by
technological solutions but also by several actors, rules and institutions (Rohracher,
2001). For this reason, the building and construction sector can be identified as a
specific socio-technical system.
The concept of socio-technical system indicates “a relatively stable configuration of
techniques and artefacts – as well as institutions, rules, practices and networks – that
determine the ‘normal’ developments and use of technologies in a particular area of
human needs” (Brown and Vergragt, 2008). A socio-technical system encompassing
production, diffusion and use of technology can provide a complete vision of
transition processes (Geels, 2004). Socio-technical systems are characterized by
stability and resilience which produce a slow change related to technology
innovations and institutions, professional norms, practices and others (Brown and
Vergragt, 2008).
This slowness of socio-technical systems to change affects also the system of the
building and construction sector which deals with an urgent transition towards more
sustainable practices and satisfaction of human needs (Brown and Vergragt, 2008).
As Boden argues (1996), sustainability issues, such as energy efficiency
improvements, influence not only technological practices in the building and
construction sector, but also its structure, its communication tools and its constituent
actors. Therefore, a more rapid and effective change in the socio-technical system
associated with buildings has to be supported by professions, actors and institutions
linked to building design, construction, maintenance and use (Rohracher, 2001;
13
Brown and Vergragt, 2008). Thus, the adoption of a socio-technical analysis can
investigate the role of designers, developers, governments, investors, manufacturers,
retailers and consumers in the development of energy efficiency improvements in
buildings.
To better understand transition processes, such as energy efficiency improvements in
buildings, Geels (2004) suggests an analytic distinction between socio-technical
systems, actors and institutions/rules. Figure 1 describes interactions between the
three identified dimensions. Therefore, the analysis of the role of actors in the
building and construction sector has to be associated with the understanding of
energy efficiency governance in buildings. Then, it is necessary to explain the
meaning of energy efficiency governance. In broader terms, governance refers to “any
of the myriad of processes through which a group of people set and enforce the rules
needed to enable that group to achieve desired outcomes” (Florini and Sovacool,
2009). Jollands and Ellis (2009) define energy efficiency governance as “use of
political authority, institutions and resources by decision-makers and implementers
to achieve improved energy efficiency”. This definition involves multiple scales (local,
regional, national and international) and a wide range of actors (government
institutions, firms, civil society, individuals and households). Generally, a governance
system consists of two components: resources and structures for governance and
governance activities (Jollands and Ellis, 2009). The former ones are identified as
institutional structures, human and financial resources, human capacity and training,
and political support/mandate. The latter ones are depicted by actions associated to
the governance system such as: energy efficiency strategies, policy development
processes, funding mechanisms, monitoring programmes, compliance and
enforcement, and R&D activities. This framework needs a multi-level governance,
which considers interactions between different levels and systems of governance
(Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Smith, 2007). Accordingly, an energy efficiency
governance with a multi-level perspective contributes to the success of energy
efficiency policy efforts (International Institute for Energy Conservation, 2007;
Laponche et al., 1997; Limaye et al., 2008). In particular, a multi-level approach in
14
energy efficiency governance is fundamental to develop energy efficiency in buildings
because of the complexity of the building and construction sector and its high energy
efficiency potential (Lovins, 1992).
Taking a multi-level governance perspective for energy efficiency in buildings entails
the involvement of “the multiple tiers of government and spheres of governance”
(Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005) which affect the development of energy efficiency in the
building and construction sector. On the other hand, the integration of multi-level
governance perspective for energy efficiency in buildings with the concept of socio-
technical system allows to take into account the role of actors belonging to the
building and construction sector associated with rules and institutions.
Figure 1.1 – Three interrelated analytic dimensions associated with transition towards energy efficiency improvements in buildings (Source: Geels, 2004)
15
1.2 Aims
This thesis investigates the influencing factors and actors related to energy efficiency
governance in the building and construction sector. Since all countries are committed
to the development of energy efficiency improvements, the implementation of energy
efficiency is a worldwide challenge which has to take into account the peculiarities
and complexity of the building and construction sector. This sector is a complex
system where several actors interact regarding rules and institutions. For this reason,
this thesis adopts the concept of socio-technical system in order to identify and
understand components and actors of the building and construction sector
(Rohracher, 2001; Geels, 2004). The influence of regulations and
international/national energy saving targets in the building and construction sector
requires the introduction of a multi-level governance perspective. The concept of
multi-level governance perspective allows to analyse the adoption of actions, tools
and policies to develop energy efficiency improvements in buildings concerning
different levels (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Smith, 2007; Jollands and Ellis, 2009) and
to appraisal the deployment of energy efficiency targets from international to local
institutions.
This thesis aims at providing an exploratory insight into the development of energy
efficiency improvements in buildings by filling the literature gap related to multi-level
governance perspective for energy efficiency in buildings and its interaction with
socio-technical system embodied by the building and construction sector. The
investigation of this interaction aims at providing managerial implications for policy
makers and practitioners from the perspective of organisational and inter-
organisational learning using the exploration/exploitation paradox (Andriopoulos
and Lewis, 2009). The exploration/exploitation paradox is adopted in order to
understand the challenges which policy makers and practitioners have to face in their
knowledge management for the development of energy efficiency in buildings.
To shed light on this research field, i.e. energy efficiency governance in buildings, this
thesis is structured as follows.
16
Chapter 2 offers a literature review of the main characteristics associated with the
implementation of energy efficiency in buildings. This review describes firstly energy
consumption in buildings and related technical solutions. Secondly, it identifies actors
in the building and construction sector, their role and related issues. Finally, the
review analyses studies on energy efficiency barriers and policies in the building and
construction sector. It concludes that it is necessary to integrate the efforts to
implement energy efficiency including key actors at all levels (i.e. international,
national and local) in order to develop an energy efficiency governance in buildings.
Chapter 3 aims at providing an overview of the current national regulatory
framework in the EU Member States. Since the European Union (EU) has taken charge
of achieving high energy performances in buildings, this commitment requires efforts
from all Member States. In fact, each Member State contributes to energy efficiency
governance in the building and construction sector through the adoption of suitable
regulatory and policy instruments. It investigates the efforts to develop an energy
efficiency governance from EU to national/regional level focusing on three specific
aspects which constitute the complex energy efficiency issue: 1) integration of energy
efficiency and renewable energy requirements, 2) translation of investments in
energy saving into economic value, 3) commitment towards “nearly zero-energy”
target. The study was carried out using primary data obtained by an online
questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was sent to 169 experts in regulations
concerning the 27 EU Member States and received 47 responses. The qualitative data
of the questionnaire were completed and confirmed with a review of publicly
available literature and legislation dealing with energy efficient buildings. The results
show that European countries have adopted different approaches in the design of
their national regulatory framework identifying four influencing factors. These
different approaches highlight the importance to understand how each European
country is addressing European Union’s energy saving targets and how to make these
efforts effective.
Chapter 4 focuses on the design phase of a building and consequently on designers
since the design can strongly influence the most significant environmental
17
performances, such as energy used in buildings for heating, cooling and lighting.
Designers are also key actors in socio-technical system related to the building and
construction sector. In particular, this section aims at investigating the factors that
favour and/or hinder the adoption of Eco-design in the building and construction
sector. By focusing on the design phase, this chapter wants to gain a better view on
how environmental concerns are really being integrated in the “core” process of the
building supply chain, the most operational and effective leverage that can be
activated to achieve more energy-efficient buildings. The data, collected by an online
questionnaire survey covering a considerable number of designers in the region of
Tuscany in Italy, were analysed with a correlation analysis method. The results reveal
that designers have a high environmental sensitivity, but there is a high potential for
a systematic adoption of the Eco-design approach. Furthermore, the analysis shows
the presence of the “internal” key factors to foster the inclusion of energy and
environmental criteria in the building design and highlights the crucial interaction
between designers and policy makers.
Chapter 5 introduces the role of public purchase as driver for the development of
energy efficiency in buildings. In particular, this chapter analyses public authorities,
such as municipalities as another key actor belonging to socio-technical system
associated with the building and construction sector. These authorities may provide a
great contribution to achieve energy efficiency improvements in the building and
construction sector, i.e. by carrying out energy efficiency governance at local level.
The analysis aims at investigating which factors impact on the development of Green
Public Procurement (GPP) practices in the building and construction sector as
supporting instrument for energy efficiency governance by the municipalities in
Tuscany. The data were collected by conducting a survey through an online
questionnaire run among a random sample of 81 municipalities and were analysed by
an econometric model. After the description of benefits regarding GPP and its uptake
in Europe and in Italy, the analysis highlights the relationship between energy
efficiency governance in buildings and GPP. Then, the GPP practices in the building
and construction sector can contribute to the energy efficiency governance at local
18
level if municipality undertakes a path which integrates increasing energy and
environmental awareness and technical know-how and expertise.
Chapter 6 contains final remarks, research limitations and implications.
1.3 Methodological approach
The thesis is conceived according to a multi-level perspective because it investigates a
phenomenon, i.e. the governance of energy efficiency in buildings, which can be
articulated from micro- to macro-level. Furthermore, the governance of energy
efficiency in buildings includes technical but also regulatory and organizational
issues. Accordingly, this thesis adopts a mix of inductive and deductive approaches in
order to learn from theory and empirical observations.
This mix of approaches is necessary to identify the key actors and governance levels
through theory and to observe them providing indications related to multi-level
governance perspective. During the analysis qualitative and quantitative methods are
used. After the literature review (Chapter 2) where main characteristics associated
with the implementation of energy efficiency in buildings are described, Chapter 3
carries out a qualitative analysis of EU Member States regulatory framework to
develop energy efficiency in buildings, Chapter 4 employs a quantitative method
through a correlation analysis in order to investigate influencing factors related to the
adoption of Eco-design in the building and construction sector and Chapter 5 uses
also a quantitative method testing an econometric model that analyses factors
associated with the development of GPP practices in the building and construction
sector as the supporting instrument for energy efficiency governance at local level.
19
References
Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and
organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization
Science 20, 696-717.
Boden, M., 1996. Paradigm Shift and Building Services. The Service Industries Journal
16 (4), 491-510.
Brown, H.S., Vergragt, P.J., 2008. Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of
systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 75, 107-130.
Bulkeley, H. , Betsill, M., 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance
and the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14 (1),42–63.
European Commission, 2006. Action Plan for energy efficiency: realising the potential.
COM(2006)545 final. Brussels. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/doc/com_2006_0545_en.
pdf [accessed 10.10.2010].
European Union, 2010. EU energy and transport in figures 2010, 228 pp.
Luxembourg: office for the Official Publications of European communities, 2010.
Florini, A.E., Sovacool, B.K., 2009. Who governs energy? The challenges facing global
energy governance. Energy Policy 37(12), 5239-5248.
Gaglia, A., Balaras, C.A., Mirasgedis, S., Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Laras, D., 2007.
Empirical assessment of the Hellenic non-residential building stock, energy
consumption, emissions and potential energy savings. Energy Conversion and
Management 48 (4), 1160-1175.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems -
Insisghts about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory.
Research Policy 33, 897-920.
Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Mirasgedis, S., Balaras, C.A., Gaglia, A, Lalas, D.P., 2006,
Evaluating the need for economic support policies in promoting greenhouse emission
reduction measures in the building sector. Energy Policy 34, 2012-2031.
Golubchikov, O., Deda, P., 2012. Governance, technology and equity: An integrated
policy framework for energy efficient housing. Energy Policy 41(0), 733-741.
20
Guy, S., 2006. Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and
buildings. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24 645- 659.
Hutcheon N.B., Handegord G., 1983. Building Science for a Cold Climate. JohnWiley,
Chichester, Sussex.
IEA, 2006. World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA, 2010. Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Strategies and Scenarios to 2050.
OECD/IEA, Paris.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), 2001. Climate Change 2001:
Mitigation. A report of Workin Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. IPCC Working Group III.
International Institute for Energy Conservation, 2007. Institutional Frameworks and
Policies for Energy Efficiency Implementation (IFPEEI) - International Workshop
Proceedings. Common Fund for Commodities, International Copper Association,
International Copper Study Group, International Institute for Energy Conservation,
Beijing.
Jollands, N., Ellis, M., 2009. Energy Efficiency governance: an emerging priority.
ECEEE 2009 Summer Study.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I., Jollands, N., Staudt, L., 2012. Global governance for
sustainable energy: The contribution of a global public goods approach. Ecological
Economics 83(0), 11-18.
Laponche, B., Jamet, B., Colombier, M., Attali, S., 1997. Energy Efficiency for a
Sustainable World. International Conseil Energie, Paris.
Limaye, D., Heffner, G., Sarkar, A., 2008. An analytical compendium of institutional
frameworks for energy efficiency implementation. World Bank energy sector
management assistance program ESMAP.
Lovins, A., 1992. Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities.
Strategic Issues Paper No. 1. E Source Inc., Boulder, CO.
Mirasgedis, S., Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Balaras, C., Gaglia, A., Lalas, D.P., 2004.
CO2 emission reduction policies in the greek residential sector: a methodological
framework for their economic evaluation. Energy Conversion and Management 45(4),
537-557.
21
Productivity Commission, 2005. The private cost effectiveness of improving energy
efficiency – Report No. 36. Australian Government Productivity Commission,
Canberra.
Rohracher, H., 2001. Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable
Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 13(1), 137-150.
Smith, A., 2007. Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable
energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 35, 6266-6280.
Uihlein, A., Eder, P., 2010. Policy options towards an energy efficient residential
building stock in the EU-27. Energy and Buildings 42(6), 791-798.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S., Levine, M.D., 2007. Mitigation CO2
emissions form energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research and
Information 35(4), 379-398.
Wiel, S., Martin, N., Levine, M., Price, L., Sathaye, J., 1998. The role of building energy
efficiency in managing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Environmental Science and Policy
1, 27-38.
World Bank, 1993. Energy Efficiency and Conservation in the Developing World: the
World Bank’s role. Washington DC.
22
Chapter 2
Literature review on energy efficiency in buildings
Abstract
Buildings play a crucial role in the socio-development of national energy and resources, including its use. Accordingly, the implementation of energy efficiency in buildings is a key target. Therefore, this literature review gives an overview of multi-disciplinary studies on the current state of the analysis of energy efficiency improvements in the building and construction sector. In doing so, it highlights the characteristics, policies and barriers that have an impact on energy performance in buildings. This analysis concludes that it is necessary to integrate the efforts to implement energy efficiency by involving the key actors of the building and construction sector at all levels (international, national and local) in order to develop an energy efficiency governance in buildings.
Keywords: energy efficiency improvements, building and construction sector, barriers, policies
23
2.1 Energy consumption in buildings
Buildings are constructed for residential1 and non-residential2 purposes all over the
world. They are major contributors to socio-economic development of a country and
employ a large part of energy and natural resources (Ramesh et al, 2010). Therefore,
it is important to know the relative importance of different uses of energy during all
phases of the building life cycle.
A building life cycle consists of the following phases: manufacture, operation and
demolition. Manufacture phase includes manufacturing and transportation of
building materials and technical installations used in erection and renovation of the
buildings. Operation phase considers all activities related to lifespan use of buildings.
These activities include maintaining comfort, condition inside the buildings, water
use and powering appliance. Finally, demolition phase includes destruction of the
building and transportation of dismantled materials to landfill sites and/or recycling
plants. A review of 73 international life cycle energy analyses3 of residential and
office buildings shows that the life cycle energy use of building depends on the
operation (80-90%) and manufacture phases (10-20%) (Ramesh et al, 2010).
Therefore, building’s life cycle energy demand can be reduced by controlling its
operating energy through the use of energy efficient technologies, although it slightly
increases energy utilized during manufacturing phase of building. Furthermore,
operation and maintenance practices strongly influence energy consumption in
buildings. In fact, the improvement of these practices can be defined as “no cost or
low cost retrofitting” (Yan-ping et al, 2009).
To develop energy efficiency improvements, it is crucial to know what the breakdown
of energy use in residential and non-residential buildings during operation phase is.
The largest use of energy in residential buildings in the US, Canada and the EU is for 1 The residential buildings consist of those structures such as single-family houses, multi-family houses and high-rise buildings occupied by households (both families and unrelated individuals) (Hirst, 1980). This sector encompasses a wide variety of structure sizes, geometries and thermal envelope materials (Swan and Urgusal, 2009). 2 The non-residential buildings are those structures which accommodate the service sector of economy such as retail and wholesale trade, finance and insurance, and government enterprises i.e. office buildings, schools, hospitals, museums (Hirst, 1980). 3 Life cycle energy analysis is an approach that accounts for all energy inputs to building in its life cycle (Ramesh et al, 2010).
24
space heating, followed by water heating and lighting and appliances. In non-
residential buildings space heating and lighting are the largest uses of energy in US,
Canada and the EU (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007a).
Unfortunately, final energy consumption is usually depicted as split into three main
sectors: industry, transport and “other” including agriculture, services sector and
residential. For instance, energy consumption in buildings other than dwellings forms
part of the services shared within the “other” key sector. The term “other sector” is
ambiguous, because many international, national and regional sources encompass
different uses within this concept. This classification underlines the difficulty to
collect information about building energy consumption (Perez-Lombard et al, 2008).
As shown by IEA work on in-depth energy indicators, the information about energy
demand at end-use level support better energy efficiency policy making and
evaluation (Taylor et al, 2010).
Moreover, the analysis of energy consumption in buildings has to consider the factors
that are driving energy use such as the building type, the climate zone and the level of
economic development of a given area. Table 2.1 summarizes and describes the
possible factors which drive and influence energy consumption in buildings.
As described above, there are several factors which drive energy use in buildings.
Therefore, it is necessary to take into account all components that work together to
create an energy-efficient building. The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) (2008) has identified five broad categories of products or
services that can influence a building’s energy efficiency (Table 2.2):
Design (shade, orientation, ventilation, “envelope”)
Materials
Equipment
Energy generation
Services
This categorization confirms the presence of several technological solutions in order
to achieve energy efficiency in buildings. Consequently, efforts can be addressed to
adopt single energy efficient technologies or a system of energy efficient technologies.
25
The first approach considers building’s individual parts, whereas the latter considers
the whole building. Furthermore, it is also possible to split technologies into the
“visible and portable technologies” which consumers can modify (e.g. HE-boilers,
solar energy, lighting and climate control technologies) and “less visible and non-
portable technologies” which can be adopted by the builders during the
construction’s process (Noailly, 2012).
The implementation of energy efficiency in buildings needs suitable technological
solutions, but also cooperation from actors belonging to the building and construction
sector. For this reason, the next section examines the actors of the sector.
26
Table 2.1 – Drivers of energy use in buildings (Modified from World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD), 2008) Driver Description Building type Buildings are constructed for different purposes and functions. Therefore,
each type of building has specific characteristics such as number of occupants, hours of operations, space and equipment needs. Consequently, these characteristics influence energy intensity and the breakdown of energy use.
Climate conditions The climate conditions influences the nature of buildings and their energy consumption. In fact, the climatic conditions affect the demand of energy needed to heat and cool a building because heating and cooling requirements are calibrated by outside air temperature. Therefore, climate influences space heating and cooling one of the largest use of energy in overall building sector. Climate strongly influences design, for example colder climates already tend to have better air tightness and insulation.
Demographics Growth in population has raised building energy consumption (Perez-Lombard et al., 2008). But other changes such as the age profile and migration can also influence energy needs, especially in developed economies. For instance, several European countries have a growing proportion of older people, which tends to lead to an increase in residential floor space per person because there is a higher proportion of single occupancy.
Economic Development Development is typically associated with increasing energy use due to industrialization and the growth of the service sector. Subsequently, a shift from manufacturing to services can reduce energy intensity in developed countries. Higher incomes incite people to spend more on residential energy, and development is associated with a shift from rural to urban centres. This shift creates demand for new housing in urban centres, which impacts on energy demand, and especially electricity demand.
Lifestyles Energy demand is determined by the use of buildings as well as the numbers being built. Growing prosperity means that people expect to live in larger buildings with higher comfort levels having air conditioning to combat heat and central heating to fend off the cold. Moreover, communications equipments and appliances increase energy use in buildings.
Energy sources The mix of energy sources for buildings varies widely from country to country. Electricity is much more diffused in developed countries, while countries such as China and India use especially biomass at site. Coal is also a significant site energy source in China. This mix of site energy use will change in China and India in the next years. Nowadays, the most of primary energy sources derive from fossil fuels and cause global carbon emissions. If energy demand from buildings increases without “decarbonising” the primary energy supply, greenhouse gases will rise. According to a study of Raupach et al. (2007), CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and industrial process have a growth rate of greater than 3% per year at a global scale. This study observes nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy in both developed and developing regions and no region is decarbonising its energy supply. CO2 emissions increase strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China.
Technology Technological development has introduced building management equipment, but also more affordable and energy-hungry IT equipments and appliances, e.g., broadband “always-on” Internet connections; data centres with increasingly dense servers. Therefore, the technology is available to achieve much greater efficiencies.
27
Table 2.2 - Characterization of energy-saving building technologies (Modified from WBSCD, 2008) Category Description Technologies
Design These factors affect the extent of heating from sunlight, the air-tightness of the building, and therefore the internal cooling or heating requirements, and the need for artificial ventilation.
Integrated design and modelling tools Favourable building siting Natural and mixed-mode ventilation
Thermal mass, trombe walls, and passive solar heating
Materials Structural materials affect the building’s thermal mass and therefore its ability to store heat and moderate temperature swings. Other construction materials affect the air-tightness and insulation of the building and the extent to which it absorbs heat from sunlight.
Building air-tightness
Cool roofing Electro-chromic windows High performance windows Improved insulation
Radiant barriers Phase change materials (PCM) Thermal energy storage materials (TES)
Equipment Improved equipment such as heat pump dryers, and improved use of equipment, such as power management on office equipment and metering, can save substantial energy during a building’s use, as well as more efficient equipment and appliances.
Lighting Compact Fluorescent lamps (CFL) Occupancy sensors for lighting control
Photosensor-based lighting controls Appliances and office equipment
Electronics with low standby power Enabling power management for office
equipment Heat pump dryer
Horizontal axis washing machines Non-biomass cooking, space heating, and
water heating
Energy generation
Heat pumps, combined heat and power systems, solar panels and wind turbines can generate energy on-site, possibly with the potential to feed unused energy into an intelligent grid.
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) Air-source heat pump Condensing boilers and fornace Condensing water heater
Dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) Displacement ventilation (DV) Electric heat pump water heater (HPWH) Heat and energy recovery ventilation
(ERV) Heating-only absorption heat pump Modulating (variable speed/capacity)
compressors Radiant ceiling panels
Commercial combined heat and power (CHP)
Residential combined heat and power (micro-CHP)
Variable-speed / ECPM
Water-cooled condensers Clean energy
Geothermal heat pumps Solar thermal heating
Solar photovoltaic Wind turbines
Services New approaches such as retro-commissioning can ensure that a building’s potential energy efficiency is achieved through fine-tuning building systems so they perform effectively.
Retro-commissioning
Ongoing-commissioning Duct sealing
28
2.2 Buildings: a complex socio-technical system
The building and construction sector often is characterized by fragmentation within
sections of the value chain and non-integration among them. There are many
stakeholders involved in this sector as follows:
Public authorities
Capital providers
Developers
Designers
Agents
Owners
Users
Material and equipment suppliers
Public authorities can influence the building and construction sector not only as
regulators, but also as building owners, tenants, developers and financiers in order to
implement energy efficiency in buildings (UNEP, 2007). In particular, local authorities
influence the value chain through building policies for their area setting codes and
standards for buildings. These policies are typically layered over national regulations
and embrace high levels of energy performance and cost considerations (WBCSD,
2008). The public sector could have an important impact on the market. In particular,
it could push more efficient products and building practices in the whole market
(Yan-ping at al., 2009).
Capital providers, as lenders or investors, take short-term decisions and according
to financial criteria. Moreover, energy efficiency is not sufficiently significant to
influence decisions.
Developers are the primary actors in commercial construction. They make large
financial commitments on speculative basis: they “want fast, cheap buildings” (Lovins,
1992). Speculative developers have only a short-term interest and want to sell
quickly to an owner or investor. They try to “maximize the net present value of the
building’s net income during the holding period and of potential resale value” (Lovins,
29
1992). The developer considers energy efficiency as a significant factor only if that is
taken into account by the potential buyers.
If developers have a long-term view, energy-saving investments become potentially
attractive. It is difficult for developers to reap the benefits of such investments due to
lengthy payback periods and because the energy savings goes to the user and the
developer incurs the investment cost. This situation prevents adequate investments
in energy efficiency (Jaffe and Stavins, 1994a).
Developers are conservative and naturally reluctant to take technical risks given the
scale of commercial risk involved in major projects and the perceived conservatism of
potential occupiers. For this reason the designers are inhibited to innovate in many
developments (WBSCD, 2008).
Designers (architects and engineers) have the most expertise in technical aspects of
construction and refurbishment, including energy efficiency, but usually have only
limited influence on key decisions (WBSCD, 2008). Architects and engineers work in
relative isolation, even when working for the same project. Financial and time
pressures can influence the elimination of proposed enhancements such as energy-
efficient features in a value-engineering exercise in later design stages, especially
because projects are typically carried out as a sequence of separate segments rather
than as an integrated process (Lovins, 1992). However, there is great potential in
multi-disciplinary work, especially by bringing together architects, engineers and
others responsible for projecting the building (WBSCD, 2008).
Construction contractor and subcontractor can have an important role in the
development of energy efficiency of a building. They are selected through
competitive tender on the basis of lowest-price offers. Therefore, contractors have to
cut costs in order to win (Winch, 2000). Moreover, fixed budget and schedule
discourage innovation and energy efficient improvements, but encourage well-
established practices. They have a practical approach and solve problems in ways
that satisfy their own needs and not always the designers’ or clients’ needs (Lovins,
1992). Moreover, the contractors very often work with small firms. An OECD’s report
(2002) states that the proportion of firms employing less than 10 persons was 81% in
30
the US (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), 93% in EU countries (Commission of the European
Communities, 1993) and 75% in Japan (Japan Management and Co-ordination
Agency, 1996)
Agents often operate between developers and tenants, and between owners and
occupiers. Their interests are typically short-term and financial. For example, the
agents who act for developers and tenants in a commercial transaction are interested
primarily in the lease agreement, focusing mainly on price. Their intermediation
could obstruct the communication between developers and potential tenants about
longer-term, non-financial aspects of buildings, including energy efficiency (WBSCD,
2008).
Owners do frequently not correspond with end users in residential or non-
residential buildings. The owners may have different objectives and consequently
perspectives. Some owners buy to sell on (and make a capital return), others buy to
lease (as an investment), and some buy to occupy. The latter group is in the best
position to consider energy efficient investments that may have lengthy paybacks.
Owners of investment properties are in a similar position to long-term developers.
They may be able to consider investments with lengthy payback periods, but may be
inhibited by split incentives, which means that they cannot reap the benefit of the
investments (WBSCD, 2008). The literature defines this mechanism as the principal
agent problem, also called the landlord/tenant or investor/user dilemma. Therefore,
either actor is inhibited from investing in energy efficient improvements (IEA, 2007).
Users are likely to be in the position to benefit from energy savings, but may not be
able to make the necessary investments (the reverse of the owner/developer
position). More significantly energy costs are likely to be a small proportion of their
total occupancy costs, and may therefore not receive enough attention to drive
energy-saving activity (WBSCD, 2008). It is crucial to highlight that users can strongly
influence energy consumption in buildings not only by their behaviour and their
choice of tenant-finish specifications, but also by their choices of equipment for the
building (Lovins, 1992). Moreover, the choice of energy technologies is based on their
physical invisibility or visibility. For example, a survey of 400 homes in Michigan
31
showed that the average resident wrongly believes that “she/he could save twice as
much money by reducing lighting than by using less hot water”. This belief is based
on the overestimation of the energy consumed by household lighting which is visible
and the underestimation of the energy used by water heaters since their consumption
occurs without human intervention (Stern, 1984).
Material and equipment suppliers encompass all firms and vendors which supply
materials and equipments for contractors in order to construct and refurbish
buildings. In particular, vendors tend to be conservative and to sell what they have
and know. Moreover, purchasers care about price, delivery time, familiarity, perhaps
warranty, because they are responsible for a capital budget and not operating budget
or comfort (Lovins, 1992). Consequently, there is the risk that energy efficient
products are not promoted and spread.
The description of these stakeholders highlights the complexity of interactions in the
building and construction sector, as shown in the Figure 2.1. Ryghaug and Sǿrensen
(2009) argue that the issue of energy efficiency in buildings is “a complex socio-
technical system where diverse actors act at the interaction of industry and market
structure, institution of governance, innovation systems, evaluation practices,
supplier-user chains, designer and engineering practices, etc.”. Thus, the analysis of
the actors of this socio-technical system helps to understand the variables and the
challenges ahead related to the improvement of building’s energy efficiency.
32
Figure 2.1 – The interaction among stakeholders of building and construction sector (Source: Modified from WBSCD, 2008)
33
2.3 Barriers to energy efficiency improvements
As Ürge-Vorsatz et al (2007a) show, even if several studies support and highlight the
crucial role of the building and construction sector in the reduction of energy use
demand and carbon dioxide emissions, there are some barriers to energy efficient
improvements. A barrier is represented by a mechanism that inhibits investment in
technologies that are energy and economically efficient (Sorrell et al, 2000). There is a
sizeable body of literature on the nature and operation of barriers to energy
efficiency, which is partly based on overlapping concepts from neo-classical
economics, institutional economics, behavioural economics, sociology and psychology
(Schleich, 2009; Stern, 1986; Howarth and Andersson, 1993; Jaffe and Stavins, 1994b;
Howarth and Sanstad, 1995; Brown, 2001; Sorrell et al, 2004). Moreover, there is a
wide discussion about the classification of barriers to energy efficiency. In 1997,
Weber argued that “each barrier will have economic, behavioural and organisational
aspects”.
According to some estimates, the number of barriers to energy efficiency is higher in
the building and construction sector than in any other sector (IPCC, 2007). Thus, it is
useful to identify and categorize these barriers. Carbon Trust (2005) has classified the
barriers to energy efficiency as follows: real market failures; financial costs/benefits;
behavioural/organizational non-optimalities; and hidden costs/benefits. Then, this
classification was integrated by IPPC’s report (2007). Table 2.3 defines and describes
these barriers.
Several studies identify mechanisms hampering the implementation of energy
efficiency in buildings. Some studies investigated the presence of barriers related to
the overall building and construction sector in different countries identifying more
frequently information barriers among practitioners, behavioural/organizational
non-optimalities and financial barriers (Intrachooto and Horayangkura, 2007; Nässén
et al, 2008; Ryghaug and SØrensen, 2009; Karkanias et al, 2010). Other studies are
focused on issues related to energy efficiency in residential buildings. The adoption of
energy efficiency in residential building is influenced mainly by information barriers,
economic/financial barriers and real market failures (Brechling and Smith, 1992,
34
1994; Scott, 1997; Elias, 2008; Meijer et al., 2009). Among real market failures, the
problem of principal-agent is widespread (Gillingham et al, 2009, 2010; Levinson and
Niemann, 2004; Davis, 2010): the builder (the agent) takes decisions on the energy
efficiency level of a building, while the occupant in the building (the principal) is the
one actually paying the energy bill. The incomplete information of the occupant about
the energy efficiency of the building does not foster the builder to invest in energy
efficiency technologies according to social optimum. Moreover, these studies show
the need to involve the actors of residential buildings in order to collect information
about energy performance of dwellings and cooperate in the implementation and
development of energy efficiency measures. Studies about the identification of
barriers in non-residential buildings highlight the importance of knowledge and
information in the organizations, mainly public authorities, which take energy
management decisions in order to overcome and remove the barriers identified, but
also the presence of organizational and financial barriers (Sorrell, 2000, 2003;
European Union, 2005; Thunselle et al, 2005; Rezessy et al, 2006).
These studies have identified a system of barriers which hinders the implementation
of energy efficiency in the building and construction sector. Therefore, it is not
sufficient to find solutions relating to practitioners only or other actors. All
stakeholders have to be involved and coordinated. In this context policy instruments
can drive this transition towards more energy efficient and sustainable buildings. The
next section gives an overview of policies to promote energy efficiency in buildings.
35
Table 2.3 – Major barriers to energy efficiency in the building and construction sector (Source: Carbon Trust, 2005; IPPC, 2007) Barrier categories Definition Examples
Real market failures Market structure and constraints that prevent the consistent trade-off between specific energy-efficient investment and the societal energy-saving benefits
Limitations of the typical building design process
Fragmented market structure Landlord/tenant split and
misplaced incentives Administrative and
regulatory barriers (e.g. in the incorporation of distributed generation technologies)
Imperfect information Unavailability of energy
efficiency equipment locally Economic/financial barriers Ratio of investment cost to value of
energy savings Higher up-front costs for
more efficient equipment Lack of access to financing
Energy subsidies Lack of internalization of
environmental, health, and other external costs
Behavioural/organizational non-optimalities
Behavioural characteristics of individuals and companies that hinder energy efficiency technologies and practices
Tendency to ignore small energy saving opportunities
Organizational failures (e.g. internal split incentives)
Non-payment and electricity theft
Tradition, behaviour and lifestyle, Corruption
Transition in energy expertise: Loss of traditional knowledge and non-suitability of Western techniques
Hidden costs/benefits Cost or risks (real or perceived) that are not captured directly in financial flows
Costs and risks due to potential incompatibilities, performance risks, transaction costs etc.
Poor power quality, particularly in some developing countries
Information barriers Lack of information provided on energy saving potentials
Lacking awareness of Consumers, building managers, construction companies, politicians
Political and structural barriers Structural characteristics of the political, economic, energy system which make energy efficiency investment difficult
Process of drafting local legislation is slow
Gaps between regions at different economic level
Insufficient enforcement of standards
Lack of detailed guidelines, tools and experts
Lack of incentives for EE investments
Lack of governance leadership/ interest
Lack of equipment testing/ certification
Inadequate energy service levels
36
2.4 Policies to promote energy efficiency
Literature argues that policy instruments are important tools in order to support and
facilitate the implementation of energy efficiency improvements, but also to
overcome the barriers described above (Table 2.3). In particular, some studies tend
to favour the adoption of a mix of policy instruments (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007a;
Chidiak, 2002; Rietbergen et al, 2002; Georgopoulou et al, 2006). Therefore, the
classification of policy instruments is useful in order to support policy makers in the
design of the suitable mix of policies considering the complexity of overall building
and construction sector. It is possible to classify policy instruments to promote
energy efficiency in buildings in four categories (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007b), as shown
in Table 2.4:
Regulatory and control mechanisms
Economic/market-based instruments
Fiscal instruments and incentives
Support, information and voluntary action
Table 2.4 – The most important policy instruments to promote energy efficiency in the building and construction sector (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007b) Control and regulatory instruments
Economic and market-based instruments
Fiscal instruments and incentives
Support, information and voluntary action
Appliance standards Building codes Mandatory labelling and certification programme Procurement regulations Energy efficiency obligations and quotas Mandatory demand-side management programme (DSM)
Energy performance contracting (EPC) or Energy service companies (ESCOs) Cooperative procurement Energy efficiency certificate schemes Kyoto protocol flexible mechanisms
Taxation (on CO2 or household fuels) Tax exemptions/reductions Public benefit charges Capital subsidies, grants, subsidised loans
Voluntary certification and labelling Voluntary and negotiated agreements Public leadership programmes Awareness raising, education, information campaigns Mandatory audit and energy management requirement Detailed billing and disclosure programmes
37
The adoption of effective policy instruments is crucial in order to achieve energy
saving targets, therefore they should be well-designed. In fact, any policy can fail if its
design, implementation and enforcement are compromised (Gann et al, 1998).
Therefore, social planners and policy-makers should know the parameters which can
influence the outcome of energy efficiency policies. Oikonomou et al (2009) identify
the effects of parameters that determine energy saving behaviour. They concludes
that policies can be targeting both use and investments; taxing individuals is not
enough for long-run energy saving, but it is also necessary to introduce information
campaigns and market instruments; policies stressing the moral obligation to
conserve energy can increase their acceptability; financial compensation for savings
must take place in the short-run in order to induce end-users to monitor their daily
energy use; behavioural change can be triggered in the medium-run by self-
monitoring policies; and enabling financing options through policy schemes can
overcome substantial market barriers of consumers towards energy efficiency
investments.
Furthermore, to support policy makers in the design of a policy framework, some
studies assess the effectiveness of policy instruments. A study appraising worldwide
policies demonstrates that the effectiveness of many policy tools is influenced by the
right economic, political and social conditions. This study concludes that it is
necessary to combine all policy instruments into policy packages in order to
overcome the several and diverse barriers in the building and construction sector to
exploit the advantages of synergistic effects (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007b). Lee and Yik,
(2004) confirm the difficulty of finding a consensus on which policy approach is the
most effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimize any negative
impact on economic development. Moreover, Lee and Yik argue the need to use a mix
of regulatory and voluntary approach in order to achieve more ambitious targets. The
studies cited argue that it is important to analyse the economic, political and social
context which influences the effectiveness of policies to promote energy efficiency,
but it is important to take into account the characteristics of residential and non-
residential buildings.
38
2.4.1 Residential buildings
Analyses from a number of countries argue that governments have to be involved in
the creation and implementation of a suitable policy framework for energy efficiency
improvements in dwellings (Amstalden et al, 2007; Owen, 2006; Tommerup and
Svendsen, 2006). Moreover, there is high agreement on the necessity to realise the
potential of energy efficiency in the residential sector through a diverse portfolio of
policy instruments associated with good enforcement (IPCC, 2007). Although the last
few decades have seen growing policy attention for the existing residential stock
(Kohler and Hassler, 2002; Thomsen and van der Flier, 2002; EuroACE, 2004; Kohler,
2006; Sunikka, 2006; Thomsen and Meijer, 2007; EURIMA, 2007), building
regulations and other instruments are still mainly focused on newly built dwellings.
Overall, the analysis of policies in order to encourage energy efficiency measures in
residential buildings has to be applied and considered according to different level of
governance (international, national and local/regional). National governments can
commit themselves to international target, but they have to cooperate with local
governments. Local authorities have several policy instruments for energy efficiency
in residential sector. In particular, local governments can try to encourage the
housing owners and other actors who have a stake to adopt energy efficient measures
using mainly fiscal instruments and incentives but also support, information and
voluntary action4 such as subsidy schemes, promotion campaigns, advertisements
and energy auditing in the residential sector. In practice, local authorities have legal
instruments in order to constrain homeowners to retrofit their property if its physical
status is below acceptable standards, but these instruments are only seldom used
(Hoppe et al, 2011). Therefore, it is interesting to analyse the capacity of local
governments to influence the energy efficiency level of existing dwellings in
residential sector. Hoppe et al (2011) run a multivariate regression analysis using 33
urban renewal projects on residential sites in the Netherlands. The analysis considers
as independent variables the local authority characteristics (motivational factors and
resources) and local actor networks. The outcome of the analysis shows that the most
4 see categorization in Ürge-Vorsatz et al (2007b)
39
significant explanation for a high level of ambition for energy efficiency is given by a
poor energy quality of the housing stock at the start of the project. Then, the ambition
of energy efficiency is weakly influenced by the variable “local authority efforts to
collaborate with local actors”. Thus, this correlation produces an indirect effect: the
more collaboration efforts a local authority engaged into, the greater the probability
the sites are chosen with a low initial energy value, which in turn means that a higher
level of ambition could be formulated.
Joelsson and Gustavsson (2008) show that policy instruments in order to encourage
homeowners to implement energy efficiency measures in accordance with the goals
of decision makers should be assessed considering the economic and perceptive
house-owner aspects related to societal economic perspective. Moreover, Adua
(2010) argues that the design of policies has to consider the role of lifestyle and other
human factors.
Furthermore, energy policies should encourage innovation in energy-saving
technologies in residential buildings. Beerepoot and Beerepoot (2007) consider
whether energy performance regulations has pushed innovations in Dutch residential
buildings. This study demonstrates that energy performance policy in the
Netherlands did not support the diffusion or development of really new innovation in
energy techniques (hot water production technologies) in residential buildings
during the 1996-2003 period. Therefore, the “designer” of policy instruments should
take into account the nature and features of residential buildings and overall building
and construction sector. Meijer et al (2009) highlight the need to use a mix of policy
instruments to improve the energy efficiency of the residential stock. In Europe, the
main instruments applied are subsidies, tax reductions and publicity campaigns.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of data on policy effects.
The studies reviewed show the importance of designing policies to promote energy
efficiency by considering the features of residential buildings and analysing the
effectiveness of policies implemented. The role of public authorities is crucial in order
to drive and implement energy efficiency in residential buildings.
40
2.4.2 Non-residential buildings
The adoption of policies to foster energy efficiency in non-residential buildings has to
consider different aspects compared to residential buildings. Firstly, public
authorities, which often constitute principal actors in the building and construction
sector, can contribute to the implementation of the energy efficiency measures in
non-residential buildings mainly as building owners, tenants, developers and
financiers (UNEP, 2007). Among public authorities, particularly local authorities have
a crucial role in the employment of end-use energy efficiency measures and in the
markets for energy services and energy efficient equipment (Rezessy et al, 2006). In
fact, local authorities can adopt several measures to support markets for energy
services: improving the efficiency of energy consumption in their buildings by
measures related to heating and lighting systems, and thermal insulation, and the
efficiency operation of district heating; improving the efficiency of street lighting
systems; enforcing and monitoring building codes (Rezessy et al, 2006). Therefore,
local authorities should be supported by national governments through suitable
regulation and funds.
Moreover, the policy initiatives to increase energy efficiency in non-residential
buildings should take into account the building and exogenous environmental
characteristic impacts on the intensity of energy utilization in non-residential
buildings. Buck and Young (2007) show a great potential for policy instruments in
order to improve energy efficiency in non-residential buildings using the stochastic
frontier approach. In particular, this analysis highlights two distinct factors which
have significant impacts on the efficiency of energy use: building ownership and the
main type of activity undertaken in non-residential building. These findings underline
that energy efficiency measures are effective if they are undertaken in buildings
owned by non-profit groups and catered to a customer-base who spend significant
amounts of time on-site (Buck and Young, 2007).
The design of policy for energy efficiency in non-residential buildings has to consider
the great impact of public buildings in this category of building and other technical
characteristics.
41
2.5 Conclusions
The building and construction sector plays a crucial role in the development of energy
efficiency improvements in order to achieve the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Thus, this chapter gives an overview of multi-disciplinary studies on the current state
of the analysis of energy efficiency improvements in the building and construction
sector and highlights the characteristics, policies and barriers that have an impact on
energy performance in residential and non-residential buildings. Firstly, the
literature review considers the characteristics related to energy consumption and
energy efficiency options in buildings. Then, it examines the actors of the building and
construction sector highlighting the complexity of interactions in this sector and
suggesting a deeper analysis of its actors.
The analysis of the literature on barriers to energy efficiency shows that lack of
information, behavioural/organizational non-optimalities and economic/financial
barriers represent significant barriers in the overall building and construction sector,
as well as in residential and non-residential buildings. Moreover, the results of
analysis confirm the importance of designing a suitable mix of policies in order to
promote energy efficiency by considering the features of overall building sector, but
also residential and non-residential sectors, and related barriers. The effectiveness of
policy instruments is mainly influenced by the role of public authorities as building
owner, tenant, developer and financier.
The key conclusion is that the energy efficiency improvements in buildings should be
achieved by a suitable governance framework and information system. According to
Jollands and Ellis (2009) energy efficiency governance can be defined as the “use of
political authority, institutions and resources by decision-makers and implementers
to achieve improved energy efficiency”. This definition includes local, regional,
national and international levels and encompasses decision-makers including
government and non-governmental organisations as well as addressing cross-cutting
issues such as: energy efficiency strategies, funding mechanisms, research and
innovation, monitoring energy efficiency programmes, compliance and enforcement,
political support/mandate, institutional structures, human capacity and training,
42
resourcing (finance and people) and policy development processes. Therefore, future
investigations should choose the level of analysis (international, national and
regional/local) in order to identify which public authorities and stakeholders are
suitable for the development and implementation of policies and system information
to promote energy efficiency in residential and non-residential buildings in the
related level of analysis. Finally, we can conclude that it is necessary to integrate the
efforts for energy efficiency improvements in buildings involving the key actors of the
building and construction sector.
43
References
Adua, L., 2010. To cool a sweltering earth: Does energy efficiency improvement offset
the climate impacts of lifestyle?. Energy 38, 5719-5732.
Amstalden, R., Kost, M., Nathani, C., Imboden, D.M., 2007. Economic potential of
energy-efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: the effects of
policy instruments and energy price expectations. Energy Policy 35, 1819-1829.
Beerepoot, M., Beerepoot, N., 2007. Government regulation as an impetus for
innovation: Evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential
building sector. Energy Policy 35, 4812-4825.
Brenchling, V., Smith, S., 1992. The pattern of energy efficiency measures amongst
domestic households in the UK. Commentary n.31, (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 7
Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE).
Brenchling, V., Smith, S., 1994. Household energy efficiency in the UK. Fiscal Studies
15(2), 44-56.
Brown, M.A., 2001. Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy policies,
Energy Policy 29, 1197-1207.
Buck, J., Young, D., 2007. The potential for energy efficiency gains in the Canadian
commercial building sector: A stochastic frontier study. Energy 32, 1769-1780.
Carbon Trust, 2005. The UK Climate Change Programme: Potential evolution for
business and the public sector. Available from:
http://www.carbontrust.com/media/84912/ctc518-uk-climate-change-programme-
potential-evolution.pdf [accessed 12.09.2012]
Chidiak, M., 2002. Lessons from the French experience with voluntary agreements for
greenhouse-gas reduction. Journal Cleaner Production 10 (2), 121-128.
Commission of the European Communities, 1993. Strategies for the Construction
Sector, A Final report of the Strategic Study on the Construction Sector.
Crawley, D., Aho, I., 1999. Building environmental assessment methods: application
and development trends. Building Research and Information 27 (4/5), 300-308.
Davis, K., 2010. Evaluating the slow adoption of energy efficient investments: are
renters less likely to have energy efficient appliances. NBER Working Paper 12130.
44
Elias, A.A., 2008. Energy efficiency in New Zealand's residential sector: A systemic
analysis. Energy Policy 36(9), 3278-3285.
EuroACE, 2004. Towards Energy Efficient Buildings in Europe. Final Report, June,
EuroACE, Brussels. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu [accessed 11.01.2011].
EURIMA, 2007. Sensitivity Analysis of Cost Effective Climate Protection in the EU
Building Stock. Ecofys Report No. VI. Available from: http://www.eurima.org
[accessed 11.01.2011].
European Union, 2005. Bringing Retrofit Innovation to Application in Public Buildings
– BRITA in PuBs(S07.31038), Deliverable D5: Socio-economic Analysis on Barriers
and Needs. Available from:
http://britainpubs.codelab.dk/fundanemt/files/BRITAResults/BRITA-in-PuBs-D5-
submitted-Dec-05.pdf [accessed 10.02.2010].
Gann, D.M., Wang, Y., Hawkins, R., 1998. Do regulation encourage innovation? – the
case of energy efficiency in housing. Building Research and Information 26(5), 280-
296.
Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Mirasgedis, S., Balaras, C.A., Gaglia, A, Lalas, D.P., 2006,
Evaluating the need for economic support policies in promoting greenhouse emission
reduction measures in the building sector. Energy Policy 34, 2012-2031.
Gillingham, K.T., Newell, R.G., Palmer, K., 2009. Energy efficiency economics and
policy. NBER Working paper 15031.
Gillingham, K., Harding, M., Rapson, D., 2010. Split incentives in residential energy
consumption. Working Paper. Standford University.
Hirst, E., 1980. Review of data related to energy use in residential and commercial
buildings. Management Science 26 (9), 857-870.
Hirst, E., Brown, M., 1990. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of
energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3 (4), 267–281.
Hoppe, T., Bressers, J.Th.A., Lulofs, K.R.D., 2011. Local government influence on
energy conservation ambitions in existing housing sites – Plucking the low-hanging
fruit?. Energy Policy 39, 916-925.
Howarth, R.B., Andersson, B., 1993. Market barriers to energy efficiency. Energy
Economics 15, 262-272.
45
Howarth, R.B., Sanstad, A.H., 1995. Discount rates and energy efficiency.
Contemporary Economic Policy 13, 101-109.
IEA, 2007. Financing energy efficient homes- Existing policy responses to financial
barriers, Paris.
IPCC, 2007. Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intrachooto, S., Horayangkura, V., 2007. Energy efficient innovation: Overcoming
financial barriers. Building and Environment 42, 599-604.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1994a. The energy-efficency gap: what does it means?. Energy
Policy 22, 80-810.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1994b. Energy-efficiency investments and public policy. The
Energy Journal 15, 43-65.
Japan Management and Co-ordination Agency, 1996. Establishment and Enterprise
Census of Japan, Tokyo, Japan Management and Co-ordination Agency.
Joelsson, A., Gustavsson, L., 2008. Perspective on implementing energy efficiency on
existing Swedish detached houses. Energy Policy 36, 84-96.
Jollands, N., Ellis, M., 2009. Energy Efficiency governance: an emerging priority.
ECEEE 2009 Summer Study.
Karkanias, C., Boemi, S.N., Papadopoulos, A.M., Tsoutsos, T.D., Karagiannidis, A., 2010.
Energy efficiency in the Hellenic building sector: An assessment of the restrictions
and perspectives of the market. Energy Policy 38, 2776-2784.
Kohler, N., 2006. A European perspective on the Pearce Report: policy and research.
Building Research and Information 34 (3), 287–294.
Kohler, N., Hassler, U., 2002. The building stock as a research object. Building Research
and Information 30 (4), 226–236.
Lee, W.L., Yik, F.W.H., 2004. Regulatory and voluntary approach for enhancing
building energy efficiency. Progress in energy and combustion science 30, 477-499.
Levine, M.D., Koomey, J.G., McMahon, J.E., Sanstad, A.H., Hirst, E., 1995. Energy
efficiency policy and market failures. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
20, 535–555.
46
Levinson, A., Niemann, S., 2004. Energy use by apartment tenants when landlords pay
for utilities. Resource and Energy Economics 26(1), 51–75.
Lovins, A., 1992. Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities.
Strategic Issues Paper No. 1. E Source Inc., Boulder, CO
Meijer, F., Itard, L., Sunikka-Blank, M., 2009. Comparing European residential building
stocks: performance, renovation and policy opportunities. Building Research and
Information 37(5-6), 533-551.
Nässén, J., Sprei, F., Holmberg, J., 2008. Stagnating energy efficiency in the Swedish
building sector—Economic and organisational explanations. Energy Policy 36, 3814-
3822.
Noailly, J., 2012. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of
environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy Economics 34(3),795-806.
OECD, 2002. Design of sustainable building policies: scope of improvement and
barriers, Paris.
Oikonomou, V., Becchis, F., Steg, L., Russolillo, D., 2009. Energy saving and energy
efficiency concept for policy making. Energy Policy 37, 4787-4796.
Owen, A.D., 2006. The National Board of Housing. Building and Planning, Karlskrona.
Perez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., Pout, C., 2008. A review on building energy consumption
information. Energy and Buildings 40, 394-398.
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K., 2010. Life cycle analysis of buildings: An
overview. Energy and Buildings 42, 1592-1600.
Raupach, M.R., Marland, G., Ciais, P., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J.G., Klepper, G., Field, C.B.,
2007. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the
National Academy Sciences of the United States of America.
Rezessy, S., Dimitrov, K., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Baruch, S., 2006. Municipalities and energy
efficiency in countries in transition. Review of factors that determine municipal
involvement in the markets for energy services and energy efficient equipment, or
how to augment the role of municipalities as market players. Energy Policy 34, 223-
237.
Rietbergen, M.G., Farla, J.C.M., Blok, K., 2002. Do agreement enhance energy efficiency
improvements? Analysing the actual outcome of long-term agreements on industrial
47
energy efficiency improvements in the Netherlands. Journal Cleaner Production 10
(2), 153-163.
Ryghaug, M., Sørensen, K.H., 2009. How energy efficiency fails in the buildings
industry. Energy Policy 37, 984-991.
Schleich, J., 2009. Barriers to energy efficiency: A comparison across the German
commercial and services sector. Ecological Economics 68, 2150-2159.
Scott, S., 1997. Household energy efficiency in Ireland: A replication study of
ownership of energy saving items. Energy Economics 19, 187-208.
Sorrell, S., Scleich, J., Scott, S., O’Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, U., Ostertag, K., Radgen, P.,
2000. Barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations. Final Report to
DG Research under the project Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Public and Private
Organisations. SPRU (Science and Technology Policy), University of Sussex, Brighton.
Sorrell, S., 2003. Making the link: climate policy and the reform of the UK construction
industry. Energy Policy 31, 865-878.
Sorrell, S., O’Malley, E., Schleich, J., Scott, S., 2004. The Economics of Energy Efficiency
–Barriers to Cost-effective Investment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Stern, P.C., Aronson, E., 1984. Energy use: the human dimension. Freeman&Co., New
York.
Stern, P.C., 1986. Blind spots in policy analysis: what economics doesn’t say about
energy use. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5, 200-227.
Sunikka, M., 2006. Policies for Improving Energy Efficiency in the European Housing
Stock, SUA Series, OTB Thesis, Delft University Press, Delft.
Swan, L.C., Ugursal, V.I., 2009. Modelling of end-use energy consumption in the
residential sector: A review of modelling techniques. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Review 13, 1819-1835.
Taylor, P.G., Lavagne d’Ortigue, O., Francoeur, M., Trudeau, M., 2010. Final energy use
in IEA countries : The role of energy efficiency. Energy Policy 38, 6463-6474.
Thomsen, A., Meijer, F., 2007. Sustainable housing transformation; quality and
improvement strategies of the ageing private housing stock in the Netherlands, in
Annual Bulletin of Housing and Building Statistics for Europe & North America,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Areas, ENHR Congress,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
48
Thomsen, A., van der Flier, K., 2002. Updating the housing stock; the need for
renovation-based approaches, in Proceedings of the International Research
Conference on Housing Cultures – Convergence and Diversity, ENHR & Europaforum
Wien, Vienna [CD-ROM].
Thunselle, K., Erhorn Kluttig, H., Mørck, O., Ferrari, S., Fuentes, M., Jicha, M.,
Kaklauskas, A., Kauppinen, T., Triantis, E., 2005. Bringing Retrofit Innovation to
Application in Public Buildings – BRITA in PuBs. Deliverable D5 - Socio-economic
Analysis on Barriers and Needs.
Tommerup, H., Svendsen, S., 2006. Energy savings in Danish residential building
stock. Energy and Buildings 38(6), 618-626.
UNEP, 2007. Buildings and Climate Change Status, Challenges and Opportunities.
United Nations Environment Programme, Paris.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S., Levine, M.D., 2007a. Mitigation CO2
emissions form energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research and
Information 35(4), 379-398.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Koeppel, S., Mirasgedis, S., 2007b. Appraisal of policy instruments
for reducing buildings’ CO2 emissions. Building Research and Information 35(4), 458-
477.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Industry Summary: 1997 Economic Census - Construction -
Subject Series.
Weber, L., 1997. Some reflections on barriers to the efficient use of energy. Energy
Policy 25, 833–835.
Winch, G.M., 2000. Institutional reform in British construction: partnering and private
finance. Building Research and Information 28(2), 141-155.
WBCSD, 2008, Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Business realities and opportunities.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available from:
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/EEBSummaryReportFINAL.pdf [accessed
10.02.2011].
Yan-ping, F., Yong, W., Chang-bin, L., 2009. Energy-efficiency supervision systems for
energy management in large public buildings: Necessary choice for China. Energy
Policy 37(6), 2060-2065.
49
Chapter 3
Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: the state-of-art of national regulations in Europe5
Abstract
Energy efficiency in buildings is an important objective of energy policy and strategy in Europe. A survey questionnaire was conducted among the 27 European Union Member States. This study aims to provide an overview of the current national regulatory framework focusing on three aspects: 1) integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, 2) translation of investments in energy saving into economic value, 3) commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target. The study shows that European countries have adopted different approaches in the design of their national regulatory framework. This heterogeneity consists of four main factors: different authorities involved in energy regulations, traditional building regulations and enforcement models, different contextual characteristics, and maturity of the country in the implementation of energy efficiency measures. These differences are important to take into account country’s profile in order to improve the sharing of best-practices and energy efficiency governance among European Union Member States.
Keywords: buildings, energy efficiency, regulations, comparative analysis, European policy
5 This paper has been accepted for publication in journal “Energy”: Annunziata, E., Frey, M., Rizzi, F., 2013. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy, in press.
50
3.1 Introduction
Buildings account for around 40% of total final energy use and are responsible for
36% of European Union’s total carbon dioxide emissions (European Commission,
2008). Reducing the energy consumption and increasing the use of energy from
renewable sources in the building sector are fundamental measures in order to
reduce the European Union’s dependency on energy imports, fossil fuels and
greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, European legislation has set out a cross-
sectional framework of ambitious targets for achieving high energy performances in
buildings. Key parts of this European regulatory framework are the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive 2002/91/EC (EPBD) (European Commission,
2002), and its recast (European Commission, 2010). The recast of EPBD has
established several new or strengthened requirements such as the obligation that all
the new buildings should be nearly zero-energy by the end of 2020. The transposition
of these Directives into national legislation influences the achievement of energy
saving targets.
Since EPBD came into force, the European Commission expected that European
regulation on buildings has been implemented in different ways in the European
Union Member States. Therefore, the European Commission has set up a range of
programmes in order to support Member States during the implementation (Ekins
and Lees, 2008).
Despite the European Commission’s support, some studies highlight the large
differences among results achieved by the European Member States in improving
energy efficiency in the building and construction sector. Among these, a study
examines different situations regarding the implementation and scope of application
of energy certification in buildings in each European country (Andaloro et al, 2010)
and an analysis of current barriers and instruments for the improvement of energy
efficiency in European buildings shows also significant differences in term of
commitments, financial potential and market conditions (Economidou, 2011).
Moreover, these differences are restated by the recast of EPBD. These results show
that all Member States have to put their efforts into the achievement of energy saving
51
targets exploiting the great unrealised potential for energy saving in buildings. In
particular, European countries have to encourage the retrofit of existing buildings,
the use of renewable energy in the building and construction sector (Höhne et al,
2011; Li et al, 2012), but also the transition towards “nearly zero-energy” buildings
(European Commission, 2010).
The commitment of each Member State should be supported not only by some
isolated policy instruments, but also by a wider holistic regulatory and policy
framework which composes energy efficiency governance (Jollands and Ellis, 2009)6,
because different regulatory and policy instruments need to be coordinated with each
other (Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010). Therefore, the importance and complexity of
policy makers’ choices among available regulatory and policy instruments encourage
the analysis of regulatory settings developed by each European Member State. The
paper concerns the spontaneous design of national regulatory framework on energy
efficient buildings regarding three specific aspects which so far have been
investigated distinctly: 1) the integration of energy efficiency and renewable
technologies targets (Georgopoulou et al, 2006; Gann et al., 1998; Beerepoot and
Beerepoot, 2007; Hejimans et al, 2010; Beerepoot, 2006), 2) the translation of energy
saving investments into economic value (Lorenz and Lützkendorf, 2008; Lützkendorf
and Speer, 2005; Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005), and 3) the commitment towards
“nearly zero-energy” buildings (Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010; Boermans et al,
2011). An integrated analysis of these aspects sheds light on policy instruments
adopted by Member States in order to achieve energy efficiency in the European
Union building and construction sector.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 makes an overview of the literature on
energy building regulatory and policy instruments and presents the objectives of the
analysis. Section 3 describes the methodology and results. Section 4 comments the
results. Finally, Section 5 concludes with some recommendations for the transfer of
best-practices to promote energy efficiency in the building and construction sector.
6 We use Jollands and Ellis’s definition of energy efficiency governance (2009): the “use of political authority, institutions and resources by decision-makers and implementers to achieve improved energy efficiency”
52
3.2 Background Literature
Each Member State has to regard all available instruments in order to achieve an
effective design of a national energy building regulatory and policy framework. The
most important regulatory and policy instruments to promote energy efficiency in
buildings are identified in the general literature on policy instruments for energy
efficiency (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007a; Grubb, 1991; Crossley et al, 1999; Crossley et al,
2000; Vine et al, 2003), but also on environmental policy instruments (Bürger et al,
2008; Fischer et al, 2003; Rizzi et al, 2011; Kuik and Osterhuis, 2008; Ürge-Vorsatz et
al, 2007a). Depending on the degree of strictness they are usually grouped into the
following three categories: direct regulation (command and control), economic
instruments and soft instruments (Bürger et al, 2008; Fischer et al, 2003; Rizzi et al,
2011; Kuik and Osterhuis, 2008).
Direct regulation includes standards as well as commands and prohibitions and can
be classified into: input regulation, process regulation, and output regulation.
Economic instruments consist of duties, tradable emission permits, environmental
liability (Kuik and Osterhuis, 2008), tax reduction and grants (Ürge-Vorsatz et al,
2007a). Environmental duties can be taxes, charges, dues, or extra duties. Their
function is either to increase State income, to give an incentive to the change of the
behaviour of the regulated subject, or to support the implementation of another
environmental and energy regulation.
Soft instruments include voluntary industry agreements, communication and
information measures as well as voluntary certification and labelling.
Within individual Member States, policy makers are expected to make choices
regarding the mix of instruments to increase adaptive flexibility and to reduce risk in
pursuing sustainability (Rammel and van den Bergh, 2003) and in particular energy
efficiency in buildings (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007b; Chidiak, 2002; Rietbergen et al,
2002). Any regulatory and policy instrument can fail if its design, implementation and
enforcement are compromised (Gann et al, 1998). It is necessary to combine all
regulatory and policy instruments into policy packages in order to exploit the
advantages of synergistic effects and maximize the positive impact on energy
53
performance in buildings (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007a). In doing so, policy makers have
to consider priority dimensions which constitute energy saving targets and to analyse
economic, political and social context where regulatory and policy instruments are
applied.
After a general categorization of regulatory and policy instruments, the following
paragraphs provide an overview of literature on the priority dimensions of the
European Union’s energy saving targets.
3.2.1 Integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements
Looking at the energy deployment life cycle, technologies have to overcome various
types of barriers that shift from the technical to the economic and institutional
dimension. These barriers require the development of a strategic approach to
deployment (Shum and Watanabe, 2009). Existing energy policy has mostly relied
upon financial subsidies, market-based instruments such as energy efficiency or
renewable portfolio standards, and production tax credits to stimulate the
installation and use of equipment. By orienting financial fluxes, national energy
strategies have the responsibility to favour not only the adoption of one technology or
the other, but also the development of a national industrial supply chain (Gross and
Foxon, 2003). This can lead energy regulation and policies to impact on specialization
or diversification trends for national technologies development and create a
hierarchy for energy technologies, but also to encouraging innovation in energy
saving technologies (Beerepoot and Beerepoot, 2007). From this perspective, it is
important to assess the existence of a hierarchy for energy efficiency measures in
buildings defined by the national regulation. A hierarchy could build a stable and
consistent policy framework which helps to create a national innovation system
aimed at improving risk/reward ratios for demonstration and pre-commercial stage
technologies (Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000).
The hierarchy for energy efficiency measures might also support the development of
technologies related to renewable sources. This feature highlights the possible
synergies between the targets for renewable energies and energy efficiency
54
technologies in the building and construction sector. This integration is desired by the
European Commission as stated by the recast of EPBD and the Promotion of the Use
of Energy from Renewable Sources Directive 2009/28/EC (European Commission,
2009). To this date, unfortunately, the calculations of the contribution of renewable
energy equipment in building energy performance should be embedded in the
general energy performance calculations to ensure that equal attention is paid to
renewable and conventional energy systems (Beerepoot, 2006). Moreover, the share
of renewable energy in the energy consumption of buildings must be explicitly
calculated in the output of the energy performance calculations (Beerepoot, 2006).
In this context, further research on national regulatory and policy instruments is
necessary to assess the hierarchy of the adoption of energy efficiency measures and
the level of integration between renewable sources and energy efficiency targets
through the presence of quantitative targets for integrating renewable energy
sources in buildings.
3.2.2 Translation of investments in energy saving into economic value
Theoretically, the real estate markets are expected to support the implementation of
energy efficiency improvements in buildings recognizing investments in energy
efficiency as added value. Therefore, market forces can strengthen the effectiveness
of energy policies and legislation (Lior, 2011). Unfortunately, the Energy Performance
of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU underlines “the inability of the national housing
markets to adequately address the challenges of energy efficiency”. In fact,
sustainable buildings or building projects are not yet provided and/or requested by
the majority of market agents (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005). Market participants
should be more aware of sustainable development and building performance, but also
of their potential effect on property valuation (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005). On the
contrary, very often property markets are affected by information asymmetries which
produce market failures. A comprehensive building information system could enable
an effective information change between market participants leading to a win-win
situation for the whole construction and property industry in general (Lützkendorf
55
and Speer, 2005). In this context, a study highlights the importance of a quantitative
risk analysis in order to correctly support the investment decision making process
(Mills et al, 2006) and remove “energy efficiency gap” which inhibits investments in
energy efficiency improvements (Hirst and Brown, 1990; Jaffe and Stavins, 1994;
Sanstad and Howarth, 1994; Levine et al, 1995; Van Soest and Bulte, 2001; Sorrell et
al, 2004). Other studies try to develop methods that can quantify the increase in the
value of energy efficient buildings (Popescu et al, 2012; Entrop et al, 2010; Sayce et al,
2010) and the economic benefits associated with energy efficient investments
(Audenaert et al, 2010).
There is also a literature on the economic implications of energy efficiency and
energy labels in the real estate sector. In particular, a paper gives the first evidence on
the adoption of energy performance certifications and related market implications in
the Dutch residential market. This study shows that, even though the adoption rate of
energy performance certificates is low, energy labels create transparency in the
energy performance of dwellings and are an effective market signal in the residential
sector (Brounen and Kok, 2011). Another paper provides the first empirical evidence
of the impact of the European Union energy performance certificates on the Dutch
commercial property market. The analysis shows that energy efficient office buildings
are rewarded with a higher rent than less efficient similar buildings. These findings
highlight that corporate tenants start to integrate information on energy efficiency
into their decision-making process (Kok and Jennen, 2011). On the other hand, a
study identifies the lack of effect on property prices as the most common barrier to
energy efficiency improvements (Tuominen et al, 2012).
These studies suggest the presence of an untapped potential in the implementation
and valorisation of energy efficiency improvements in real estate sector. Therefore,
the European Union Member States have to foster their national real estate markets
towards the offer of energy efficient buildings for sale and for rent establishing
economic and/or procedural incentives.
56
3.2.3 Commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target
According to the recast of EPBD all Member States address the objective of the
enhancing of energy performance of buildings. Therefore, each Member State could
consider market-based instruments as an option in order to achieve ongoing energy
efficiency improvements in buildings. A survey carried out in 2008 among 3000
Swedish owners of detached houses concludes that economic and information policy
instruments can be more useful than regulatory instruments in order to influence
owners to adopt building envelope measures (Nair et al, 2010). These findings are
supported by the numerous financial and fiscal measures adopted by European
countries to promote energy efficiency improvements in the building and
construction sector (Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010). Some studies analyse
economic measures adopted in order to reduce energy consumption in buildings and
carbon dioxide emissions in European countries (Georgopoulou et al, 2006;
Klinckenberg and Sunikka, 2006; EuroACE, 2009). These measures should be
coordinated with each other (Jollands and Ellis, 2009) and targeted to specific
dilemmas and issues (Klinckenberg and Sunikka, 2006).
As shown above, the literature is focused on the general analysis of economic
measures to promote energy efficiency in the building and construction sector, but it
is necessary to further investigate the use of economic and administrative measures
in order to punish energy performance requirement non-compliances prescribed in
building codes, monitor energy performances after the refurbishment and boost the
number of nearly zero-energy buildings.
3.3 Methodology and results
The study was carried out using primary data obtained by a questionnaire survey.
The data were collected by means of an online questionnaire from December 2011 to
July 2012. The questionnaire consisted of nine questions. It included multiple-choice
questions, but gave respondents the opportunity to provide more details in order to
improve the accuracy of answers. Before its diffusion, the questionnaire was tested
and validated by a small panel of experts in order to minimize common method bias
57
that can affect a questionnaire survey. We selected 169 experts in regulations
concerning the 27 European Union Member States. Sometimes, these experts
signalled other available colleagues to answer our questionnaire. These experts
belong to academic institutions, private companies and public authorities more
involved in regulatory process (Ministries, Energy Agencies, etc.). We achieved almost
one respondent for each European Union Member State. We received 47 responses.
The collected information from questionnaire were completed and confirmed with a
review of publicly available literature and legislation dealing with energy efficient
buildings. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the current European regulations on
energy efficiency in buildings was elaborated regarding three specific criteria: the
integration of energy efficiency and renewable technologies targets, the translation of
investments in energy savings into economic value and the commitment towards
“nearly zero-energy” buildings. The results were presented categorizing all countries
analysed in four sub-regions. Eastern Europe (EE): Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic.
Northern Europe (NE): Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Southern Europe (SE): Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.
Western Europe (WE): Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands. Finally, the presentation of the study in SDEWES2012 conference served
the scope of strengthening the analysis through open discussions within the experts’
community.
3.3.1 Integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements
As Table 3.1 shows, the majority of countries in all four sub-regions do not provide
designers with a hierarchy of energy measures in building through national
regulations. This absence of hierarchy shows a national commitment to develop all
technologies related to energy efficiency measures in order to improve overall energy
performance in buildings. In WE, only France has a national hierarchy of energy
efficiency measures confirming the 2007 programme of “Grenelle de
l’environnement” developed in order to encourage new technologies (Höhne et al,
58
2011). In EE there is just a slight predominance of absence of national hierarchy (5
out of 9). This national hierarchy could guide designers and generally building users
towards energy efficient buildings. In SE Cyprus and Slovenia have adopted a
hierarchy confirming their efforts in order to adapt their legislation to European
Union’s targets (Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010). Moreover, Italy has a hierarchy at
regional or local level.
All Member States (except for the Slovak Republic), which have a national hierarchy
of energy efficiency measures, assign high priority to roof, walls and window
insulation. Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovenia assign high
priority to sanitary hot water production (e.g. condensing water heater). Finland,
France, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovenia assign high priority to renewable technologies
(e.g. geothermal heat pumps, solar thermal heating, solar photovoltaic and wind
turbines). Cooling systems (e.g. water-cooled condensers) receive the lowest score
than other energy efficiency measures. Finland, France and Slovenia assign high
priority to the majority of energy efficiency measures. These results show that
countries with an established hierarchy of energy efficiency measures focus their
efforts in order to avoid thermal losses and to supply water and space heating mainly
through renewable energies. In fact, some findings show that the insulation of
buildings is much more effective on reducing energy consumption than the
improvement of boiler efficiency (Dovajak et al, 2010).
The integration between renewable energies and energy efficiency through
quantitative targets in national regulations, with the only exception of Malta which
states a general commitment for the integration of renewable sources in buildings, is
mainly realized by SE sub-region (Table 3.2). It is important to highlight that this sub-
region has a high potential for the exploitation of solar power. Moreover, Spain was
the first European country to introduce the obligation to use renewable energies in
new and retrofitted buildings (Höhne et al, 2010). Bulgaria for EE and Germany for
WE have established national quantitative targets for renewable sources employed in
buildings. In particular, Bulgaria has set a quantitative requirement for renewable
energies in all new and refurbished buildings, but Bulgarian renewable energy act
59
does not clarify how this requirement will be implemented, monitored and controlled
(Höhne et al, 2011). Therefore, the majority of countries in EE, NE and WE entail only
general orientations for renewable energies. Sweden and Austria do not explicitly
take into account renewable energies in their national energy building legislation.
Denmark has established targets for renewable energies at regional level.
The analysis shows that quantitative targets for the integration of renewable energies
in buildings could be usefully set as the percentage of energy used for space heating
and cooling and domestic hot water covered by renewable energies or as same
measures in relation to building’s surface. These quantitative targets are applied to
new buildings or major renovations.
Table 3.1 - Hierarchy of energy efficient measures in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national hierarchy Presence of national
hierarchy Presence of regional/local hierarchy
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland and Romania for EE; Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom for NE; Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain for SE; Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands for WE
Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic for EE; Finland and Ireland for NE; France for WE; Cyprus and Slovenia for SE
Italy for SE
Total: 17 countries Total: 9 countries Total: 1country
Table 3.2 - Targets for renewable sources in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national targets Presence of national targets Presence of regional targets The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic for EE; Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom for NE; Malta for SE; Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and The Netherlands for WE
Bulgaria for EE; Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain for SE; Germany for WE
Denmark for NE
Total: 18 countries Total: 8 countries Total: 1 country
60
3.3.2 Translation of investments in energy saving into economic value
Our analysis shows that the majority of European countries do not state national
incentives in order to foster the offer of energy efficient buildings in their real estate
market for sale (Table 3.3). Among countries with national incentives, Estonia,
Finland, Italy, Austria, Germany and Luxembourg have introduced national incentives
in order to support energy efficiency investments in residential and non residential or
just in residential buildings such as grants, target loans and tax relief. Sweden and
Slovenia have adopted other types of incentives. Sweden has introduced procedural
incentives for residential and non residential buildings. Slovenia has defined
subsidies for buyers of passive houses. Then, Belgium and the Netherlands have
incentives set at regional/local level.
Only five countries (Table 3.4) have foreseen incentives in order to foster energy
efficient buildings for rent at national level. These countries (except for the
Netherlands) adopt same instruments for sale and for rent. Dutch legislation states
that the landlords can include retrofitting costs in rent. Moreover, Belgium and
Lithuania have defined incentives at regional/local level. The results highlight a more
concrete commitment of WE countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany and the
Netherlands) for the promotion of energy efficient buildings for rent, whereas SE
countries do not adopt any incentive. Among NE countries, Finland and Sweden have
incentives. In EE, only Lithuania has established regional/local incentives. These
findings confirm the inability of many European Member States to tackle the
“landlord-tenant dilemma” through national regulations. The “landlord-tenant
dilemma” is the conflict of interests between the landlord and the tenant that
hampers the investments in energy efficiency in existing buildings (Scott, 1997;
Schleich and Gruber, 2009).
Member States have a great potential in order to boost energy efficient buildings in
their real estate markets (for sale and for rent). The main incentives adopted by
Member States are tax relief and grants for energy efficiency investments. The
success of these instruments depends also on the quality of communication
campaigns particularly for residential schemes (Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010).
61
Therefore, national regulations try to push real estate market towards energy
performance buildings more by increasing the supply of energy efficient buildings
than by introducing new sale and rent procedures.
Table 3.3 - Incentives for sale of energy efficient buildings in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national incentives
Presence of national incentives
Presence of regional/local incentives
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic for EE; Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom for NE; Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain for SE; France for WE
Estonia for EE, Finland and Sweden for NE; Italy and Slovenia for SE; Austria, Germany and Luxembourg for WE
Belgium and the Netherlands for WE
Total: 17 countries Total: 8 countries Total: 2 countries
Table 3.4 - Incentives for rent of energy efficient buildings in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national incentives
Presence of national incentives
Presence of regional/local incentives
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic for EE; Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom for NE; Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain for SE; France and Luxembourg for WE
Finland and Sweden for NE; Austria, Germany and the Netherlands for WE
Lithuania for EE; Belgium for WE
Total: 20 countries Total: 5 countries Total: 2 countries
3.3.3 Commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target
There are sixteen countries national regulations which have established
administrative and/or monetary penalties in case of non compliances with energy
performance requirements (Table 3.5). EE, NE and SE have the majority of their
countries with penalties established by national regulations. In WE Austria, Germany
and the Netherlands have national penalties. These results show that the majority of
62
European countries try to enforce the compliance of energy performance
requirements prescribed in buildings code through a more binding legislation.
The Czech Republic for EE, Sweden for NE, Spain for SE, France and Luxembourg for
WE have established penalties in other regulations such as regional laws or planning
and building acts.
Six countries have not defined penalties for building codes energy performance-
related non-compliances: Hungary and Latvia for EE, the United Kingdom for NE, Italy
and Malta for SE, and Belgium for WE. The lack of penalties for Hungary and Latvia is
a confirmation of their weak implementation of the European Union’s energy saving
targets.
National regulations establish a minimum threshold for the mandatory
communication about the effects of the refurbishment on energy performance in
buildings in eleven countries (Table 3.6). Regional/local regulations establish a
minimum threshold to communicate compulsorily changes in energy performance in
Lithuania, Italy and the Netherlands. The majority of western countries do not have a
minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about changes in energy
performance in case of refurbishment. The other countries without an established
minimum threshold for this mandatory communication are the Czech Republic, Latvia
and Romania for EE, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom for NE, and Greece,
Malta and Slovenia for SE.
Table 3.7 shows that the majority of countries have not yet established national
incentives for the diffusion of nearly zero-energy buildings, but it is worth describing
the experiences of countries which have already started to boost nearly zero-energy
buildings. WE is the more active sub-region since Austria, France and the Netherlands
have established national grants for demonstration projects for nearly zero-energy
buildings, Germany has allocated grants and reduced interest loans not only for
demonstration projects but also for realization of passive houses (standard very close
to nearly zero-energy buildings) and Belgium has established regional/local
incentives for nearly zero-energy buildings, because the implementation of the
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive is a regional responsibility. In NE
63
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom have established national grants for
demonstration projects. In particular, Danish Technology Institute has carried out
“EnergyFlexHouse” project in order to develop energy efficient technologies (Danish
Technology Institute, 2011), the Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government has financed in 2009 ten nearly zero carbon social housing
developments (Vermande and van der Heijden, 2011) and the United Kingdom has
introduced tax reliefs for “zero carbon homes”. In EE, Latvia has set national grants
for demonstration projects, and the Slovak Republic has foreseen easier
administrative procedures for nearly zero-energy buildings at national level. In SE,
Slovenia has established incentives for passive buildings and technologies related to
nearly zero-energy concept, and Greece has established national grants for
demonstration projects such as the “Green Neighbourhoods” program for the energy
upgrade of four social building blocks to almost zero energy consumption buildings.
Table 3.5 – Penalties for energy performance requirement non-compliances in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national penalties
Presence of national penalties
Presence of regional/local penalties
Presence of penalties established by other regulations
Hungary and Latvia for EE; the United Kingdom for NE; Italy and Malta for SE; Belgium for WE
Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic for EE; Denmark, Finland and Ireland for NE; Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Slovenia for SE; Austria, Germany and The Netherlands for WE
Spain for SE The Czech Republic for EE; Sweden for NE; France and Luxembourg for WE
Total: 6 countries Total: 16 countries Total: 1 country Total: 4 countries
64
Table 3.6 - Minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of national minimum threshold
Presence of national minimum threshold
Presence of regional/local minimum threshold
The Czech Republic, Latvia and Romania for EE; Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom for NE; Greece, Malta and Slovenia for SE; Austria, Belgium, France and Germany for WE
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic for EE; Ireland and Sweden for NE; Cyprus, Portugal, and Spain for SE; Luxembourg for WE
Lithuania for EE, Italy for and the Netherlands
Total: 13 countries Total: 11 countries Total: 3 countries
Table 3.7 - Incentives for the diffusion of nearly zero-energy buildings in the 27 European Union Member States Absence of incentives for nearly zero-energy buildings
Presence of national incentives for nearly zero-energy buildings
Presence of regional/local incentives for nearly zero-energy buildings
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania for EE; , Finland and Sweden for NE; Cyprus, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain for SE; Luxembourg for WE
Latvia and the Slovak Republic for EE; Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom for NE; Greece and Slovenia for SE; Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands for WE
Belgium for WE
Total: 15 countries Total: 11 countries Total: 1 country
3.3.4 Overarching vision
This section summarizes regulatory and policy instruments adopted by the 27
European Union Member States in their national regulatory framework (Table 3.8),
Firstly, those countries that have only recently committed themselves to implement
energy efficiency in buildings, are presented. These countries are then compared with
the front-runners. Finally, the peculiarities that characterise “grey” countries are
discussed
65
Table 3.8 - Summary of regulatory and policy instruments adopted by the 27 European Union Member States in their national regulatory framework Country Integration of energy
efficiency and renewable energy requirements
Translation of investments in energy saving into economic value
Commitment towards “nearly zero-energy” target
Hierarchy of energy efficient measures
Targets for renewable sources
Incentives for sale of energy efficient buildings
Incentives for rent of energy efficient buildings
Penalties for energy performance requirement non-compliances
Minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment
Incentives for nearly zero-energy buildings
Eastern Europe Bulgaria X X X
Czech Republic § Estonia X X X X Hungary X X
Latvia X Lithuania X R X R
Poland X X Romania X
Slovak Republic X X X X Northern Europe
Denmark R X X Finland X X X X Ireland X X X X
Sweden X X § X United Kingdom X
Southern Europe Cyprus X X X X
Greece X X X Italy R X X R
Malta Portugal X X X Slovenia X X X X X
Spain X R X Western Europe
Austria X X X X Belgium R R R
France X § X Germany X X X X X Luxembourg X § X
Netherlands R X X R X
Legend: X = national regulations, R = regional/local regulations, § = other regulations
There are two countries (the Czech Republic and Malta) which do not devise a
national regulatory framework composed by any of the regulatory and policy
instruments analyzed. Latvia and Romania have a similar national framework
because they have employed only one national instrument. Their approach is
opposite to other countries which are beginners to the implementation of energy
efficiency measures and have adopted a highly articulated national regulatory
framework such as: Bulgaria, Estonia, the Slovak Republic and Cyprus. In particular,
66
Cyprus, Malta and Estonia have set energy performance requirements for the first
time in order to implement EPBD (Economidou, 2011), but they have designed a
different regulatory framework, as displayed above. Hungary, Lithuania and Poland
have an intermediate approach because they have implemented two national
regulatory and policy instruments. Lithuania has also adopted two regional/local
regulatory instruments. Among these countries penalties and minimum threshold for
the mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment on energy
performance in buildings are the most common regulatory instruments in order to
monitor the trends of energy performance and promote improvements of energy
performance in buildings.
Slovenia has the most articulated national regulatory and policy framework among
new European Union members. In fact, Slovenia has designed an organic regulatory
and policy framework in order to improve energy performance in the building and
construction sector. This approach confirms the traditional Slovenian government’s
commitment to support energy efficiency measures such as regulation on building
insulation adopted in 2002 (Al-Mansour, 2011).
There are some countries which are front-runners in the adoption of regulatory and
policy instruments in order to achieve energy saving targets: Denmark, Finland and
Sweden for NE, and Germany and the Netherlands for WE. Being the front-runners,
these countries adopted, the following instruments: certification schemes,
requirements for thermal insulation/performance and low-interest loans. The
Netherlands and Denmark had already set up energy certification schemes for new
buildings at national level since 1995 and 1997 respectively. In particular, Denmark
has set up an energy certification scheme for selling existing single family houses and
owner-occupied flats. Finland has set minimum requirements for thermal insulation
since 1976 (Haakana, 2011). Germany has introduced thermal performance
requirements since 1977 (Geller et al, 2006) and since 2002 has adopted at national
level detailed requirements for the energy performance of new and refurbished
buildings and a compulsory energy certification for new buildings and major
renovations (Schettler-Köhler et al, 2011). Sweden introduced low-interest loans and
67
grants for energy efficiency investments in residential buildings in the 1970s so as to
improve energy performance in Swedish homes (Schipper et al, 1985). The
instruments described above have been set in different national regulatory
frameworks. Denmark has adopted softer national regulatory framework for energy
efficiency in buildings than the other front-runners. In particular, Denmark has not
many subsidies to carry out energy savings in buildings, and none directly connected
to the building energy performance certification scheme, but is committed to address
the challenge for a carbon dioxide emission free country by 2050 (Aggerholm et al,
2011). Germany has an articulated regulatory framework and confirms the
commitment for the ongoing improvement of energy performance in building
through grants and reduced interest loans for the realization of passive houses.
Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands have an intermediate approach related to
national regulatory framework, even though the Netherlands has also introduced
regional regulatory instruments.
The countries that have “grey” approaches to the commitment to the achievement of
European energy saving targets are described below. France and the United Kingdom
have a long tradition of attention for energy efficiency because they adopted energy
standards for new buildings in the past (Geller et al, 2006), but now they want to
increase their efforts towards energy savings boosting the nearly zero-energy
buildings. The United Kingdom has established incentives for “zero carbon homes”.
This choice confirms the British government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Höhne et al, 2011). France
addresses the achievement of real energy savings in buildings through the
introduction of zero percent rate eco-loan for energy efficiency investments for the
improvements of existing buildings (Roger et al, 2011) and grants for demonstration
projects for nearly zero-energy buildings.
Ireland is not traditionally judged a front-runner for the implementation of energy
efficiency in buildings but it has designed a well-defined national regulatory and
policy framework.
68
Italy has a fragmented national regulatory framework because the responsibility of
the implementation of EPBD is shared between national and regional governments
(Antinucci et al, 2011). This fragmentation could harm and delay a homogeneous
achievement of energy saving targets.
In SE Portugal and Spain have a similar national regulatory framework because both
define quantitative targets for the integration of renewable sources in buildings and
minimum threshold for the mandatory communication about the effects of the
refurbishment on energy performance in buildings. There is only one difference in the
definition of penalties for non compliances with the energy performance prescribed
in building codes, because penalties are established at regional level in Spain and at
national level in Portugal. In both these countries the command and control approach
is prevailing.
Also, Greece has a national regulatory framework based on a more command and
control approach, but foresees grants for demonstration projects for nearly zero-
energy buildings.
Belgium does not adopt any regulatory and policy instruments analysed at national
level, because regional governments of Brussels Capital, Flanders and Wallonia define
at local level the main regulatory and policy instruments in order to achieve
European Union’s energy saving targets. Luxembourg has a softer national regulatory
framework than other countries in WE (except for Belgium).
Austria has a well-defined national regulatory framework, but national regulations
have to face the efforts to harmonize regional energy regulations and buildings codes
(Jilek, 2011). This context could influence the definition of a stronger national
regulatory in order to increase energy efficient buildings.
3.4 Discussion
The results of analysis highlight that European Member States have adopted different
approaches in the design of their national regulatory framework. Almost all European
countries have employed at least one of the regulatory and policy instruments
69
analysed. There are only three exceptions: the Czech Republic for EE, Malta for SE and
Belgium for WE.
The analysis of national regulatory framework according to the three identified
aspects displays a wide employment of national penalties for energy performance
requirement non-compliances with building codes and of minimum thresholds for the
mandatory communication about the effects of the refurbishment on energy
performance in buildings. While these are instruments that are generally considered
easy-to-be-implemented, the employment of other regulatory and policy instruments
varies heavily in each European country. All countries have to strengthen their
national regulation in order to achieve European Union’s energy saving targets and
improve their contribution to energy efficiency governance. In particular, the
integration between renewable energies and energy efficient measures through
quantitative targets, the boost of energy efficient buildings in national real estate
markets and the transition towards “nearly zero-energy buildings” are in their early
stages of adoption.
This heterogeneous approach in national regulatory frameworks is also evident when
countries are categorized by four sub-regions of Europe.
This analysis suggests that such heterogeneity reflects four factors: different
responsibilities on building energy regulations, traditional building regulations and
enforcement models (Vermande and van der Heijden, 2011), contextual
characteristics (Cansino et al, 2011) and the maturity of the country in the
implementation of energy efficiency measures.
The division of responsibilities on building energy regulations can lead to a stronger
or softer regional/local regulatory system. In particular, some countries can leave at
regional and local authorities the definition of hierarchy of energy efficient measures,
penalties, energy performance requirements, economic or administrative incentives
in order to boost the offer of energy efficient buildings for sale and for rent and
increase the nearly zero-energy buildings, whereas other countries can promote the
implementation and enforcement of specific regulatory aspects at regional and local
70
level such as penalties and economic or administrative incentives (Vermande and van
der Heijden, 2011).
There is a typical categorization of building regulations and enforcement which
identifies traditional building regulations and enforcement models. This
categorization distinguishes among generic or detailed regulations on construct
standards and strict control on builders and building owners or their self-regulation
and self-assessment (Vermande and van der Heijden, 2011). For instance, the United
Kingdom confirms the classical Anglo-Saxon model because this country has generic
basic requirements associated to voluntary guidance documents and standards.
Contextual characteristics can play a fundamental role in setting regulatory and
policy instruments in each country (Cansino et al, 2011). In particular, the southern
countries (except for Malta) have adopted quantitative targets for the integration of
renewable energies in buildings because they are often influenced by their high
potential of solar power.
The maturity of the country in the implementation of energy efficiency measures is
defined by two aspects. Firstly, it is the presence of a long tradition in the
development of building energy regulations (Germany, Sweden and the United
Kingdom) or the absence of energy building regulations in permit procedure and
legislative background (Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic)
(Vermande and van der Heijden, 2011). Secondly, it is a recent or well-established
commitment to achieve European Union’s energy saving targets. In fact, “beginner
countries” more frequently have introduced a hierarchy of energy efficiency
measures in their national regulatory framework in order to drive designers but also
building users towards energy efficient buildings.
This analysis highlights the crucial role of country’s profile in the development of
national regulatory framework in each European country. Therefore, the different
approach adopted in national regulatory frameworks is not negative, but points out
the importance of understand countries’ peculiarities. Understanding these
peculiarities helps to strengthen and improves the design of the sharing of best-
practices and energy efficiency governance among Member States.
71
3.5 Conclusions
The European Union is committed to implement energy efficiency in buildings. This
commitment requires efforts from all Member States which contribute to energy
efficiency governance in the building and construction sector through the adoption of
suitable regulatory and policy instruments. Therefore, national regulatory and policy
instruments have to address the complex energy efficiency issue in the building
sector which may be identified in three priority dimensions: the integration of energy
efficiency and renewable technologies, the translation of investments in energy
savings into economic value and the commitment towards “nearly zero-energy”
target. Traditionally, literature has distinctly regarded these three dimensions. These
dimensions and their integration are pointed out as fundamental by EPBD recast.
Consequently, national regulations should integrate these dimensions in order to
achieve energy efficiency in buildings and contribute to energy efficiency governance.
After analyzing the design of national regulatory framework on energy efficient
buildings in European countries, we can argue that national energy building
regulations adopt different approaches. These different approaches highlight the
importance to understand how each European country is addressing European
Union’s energy saving targets. Therefore, the transfer of best-practices for energy
efficient improvements in buildings and related energy efficiency governance should
be supported and improved by this analysis of each country’s profile.
Since a descriptive analysis of regulations is useful but not sufficient in order to
describe energy efficiency national regulatory frameworks, further research should
extend this study in order to carry out the impact assessment of regulatory and policy
instruments adopted in the national legislation employing quantitative data
according to a cost/benefit analysis approach.
72
References
Aggerholm, S., Thomsen, K.E., Wittchen, K.B., 2011. Implementation of the EPBD in
Denmark. In: Country reports 2010. Available from: http://www.epbd-
ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-2011/Denmark.pdf [accessed
20.12.2011].
Al-Mansour, F., 2011. Energy efficiency trends and policy in Slovenia. Energy 36,
1868-1877.
Andaloro, A.P.F., Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., Andaloro, L., 2010. Energy certification of
buildings: A comparative analysis of progress towards implementation in European
countries. Energy Policy 38, 5840-5866.
Antinucci, M., Varalda, G., Macaluso, M., Marenco, L., 2011. Implementation of the
EPBD in Italy. In Country reports 2010. Available from: http://www.epbd-
ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-2011/Italy.pdf [accessed 20.12.2011].
Audenaert, A., De Boeck, L., Roelants, K., 2010. Economic analysis of the profitability
of energy-saving architectural measures for the achievement of the EPB-standard.
Energy 35, 2965-2971.
Beerepoot, M., 2006. Policy Profile: Encouraging Use of Renewable Energy by
implementing the Energy Performance of Building Directive. European Environment
16, 167-177.
Beerepoot, M., Beerepoot, N., 2007. Government regulation as impetus for innovation:
Evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential sector. Energy
Policy 35, 4812-4825.
Boermans, T., Hermelin, A., Schimschar, S., Grözinger, J., Offermann, M., 2011.
Principles for Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Buildings Performance Institute Europe
(BPIE). Available from:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4399528/BPIE/publications/HR_nZEB%20study.pdf
[accessed 10.01.2012].
Brounen, D., Kok, N., 2011. On the economics of energy labels in the housing markets.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62, 166-179.
Bürger, V., Klinski, S., Lehr, U., Leprich, U., Nast, M., Ragwitz, M., 2008. Policies to
support renewable energies in the heat market. Energy Policy 36, 3150-3159.
73
Cansino, J.M., Pablo-Romero, M., Román, R., Yñiguez, R., 2011. Promoting renewable
energy sources for heating and cooling in EU-27 countries. Energy Policy 39, 3803-
3812.
Chidiak, M., 2002. Lessons from the French experience with voluntary agreements for
greenhouse-gas reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 121-128.
Crossley, D., Hanrin, J., Vine, E., Eyre, N., 1999. Public Policy Implications of
Mechanisms for Promoting Energy Efficiency and Load Management in Changing
Electricity Businesses. Hornsby Heights. Task VI of the International Energy Agency
(IEA) Demand-side Management Program.
Crossley, D., Maloney, M., Watt, G., 2000. Developing Mechanisms for Promoting
Demand-side Management and Energy Efficiency in Changing Electricity Businesses,
Task VI of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Demand-side Management Program.
Danish Technology Institute, 2011. EnergyFlexHouse. Available from:
http://www.dti.dk/projects/energyflexhouse [accessed 24.08.2012].
Dovajak, M., Shukuya, M., Olesen, B.W., Krainer, A., 2010. Analysis on energy
consumption patterns for space heating in Slovenian buildings. Energy Policy 38,
2998-3007.
Economidou, M., 2011. Europe’s Buildings under the Microscope, A country-by-
country review of the energy performance of buildings, Buildings Performance
Institute Europe (BPIE). Bruxelles. Available from:
http://www.bpie.eu/eu_buildings_under_microscope.html [accessed 15.11.2011].
Ekins, P., Lees, E., 2008. The impact of EU policies on energy use in and the evolution
of the UK built environment. Energy Policy 36, 4580-4583.
Entrop, A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., Reinders, A.H.M.E., 2010. Evaluation of energy
performance indicators and financial aspects of energy saving techniques in
residential real estate. Energy and Buildings 42, 618-629.
EuroACE, 2009. Current financial and fiscal incentive programmes for sustainable
energy in buildings from across Europe. EuroACE. Belgium. Available from:
http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFj
AA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euroace.org%2FPublicDocumentDownload.aspx%3
FCommand%3DCore_Download%26EntryId%3D205&ei=PLs7T9PaNMjn-
gb77PisBw&usg=AFQjCNGtQGPhVTtseXFubuaXO7_fzjkGVw&sig2=QlvPzuJb7h5a2Uv
Ks52jYA [accessed 10.11.2011].
74
European Commission, 2002. Directive 2002/91/CE of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Bruxelles.
Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0091:en:HTML
[accessed 15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2008. Communication “Energy efficiency: delivering the 20%
target” COM(2008) 772 final. Bruxelles. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0772:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed
15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC
and 2003/30/EC. Bruxelles. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF)
[accessed 05.11.2011].
European Commission, 2010. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast).
Bruxelles. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF
[accessed 15.11.2011].
Fischer, C., Parry, I.W.H., Pizer, W.A., 2003. Instrument choice for environmental
protection when technological innovation is endogenous. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 45, 523-545.
Gann, D.M., Wang, Y., Hawkins, R., 1998. Do regulation encourage innovation? – the
case of energy efficiency in housing. Building Research and Information 26, 280-296.
Geller, H., Harrington, P., Rosenfeld, A.H., Tanishima, S., Unander, F., 2006. Polices for
increasing energy efficiency: Thirty years of experience in OECD countries. Energy
Policy 34, 556-573.
Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Mirasgedis, S., Balaras, C.A., Gaglia, A., Lalas, D.P., 2006.
Evaluating the need for economic support policies in promoting greenhouse emission
reduction measures in the building sector. Energy Policy 34, 2012-2031.
Gross, R., Foxon, T.J., 2003. Policy support for innovation to secure improvements in
resource efficiency. International Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management 3, 118–130.
75
Grubb, M., 1991. Energy Policies and the Greenhouse Effect, Vol. 1: Policy Appraisal,
Dartmouth. Aldershot.
Haakana, M., 2011. Implementation of the EPBD in Finland. In: Country reports 2010.
Available from: http://www.epbd-ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-
2011/Finland.pdf [accessed 20.12.2011].
Hejimans, N., Spiekman, M., 2010. The EPDB as a support for market uptake for
innovative systems: Summary report. Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE).
http://www.asiepi.eu/fileadmin/files/Files/SummaryReports/ASIEPI_InnovativeSys
tems_SummaryReport.pdf [accessed 14.01.2012].
Hirst, E., Brown, M., 1990. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of
energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3, 267–281.
Höhne, N., Geurts, F., Teckenburg, E., Becker, D., Blok, K., 2011. EU Climate Policy
Tracker 2011. Ecofys. Available from
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/wwf_ecofys_2011_%20eu_climatepolicytracker.p
df [accessed 10.01.2012].
Höhne, N., Vieweg, M., Blok, K., Becker, D., 2010. Climate Policy Tracker for the
European Union. Ecofys. Available from:
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/wwf%20climate%20policy%20tracker%20final
%20report_03%2011%2010_02.pdf [accessed 08.01.2012].
Jacobsson, S., Johnson, A., 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology an
analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 28, 625–640.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1994. The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation
technology. Resource and Energy Economics 16, 91–122.
Jilek, W., 2011. Implementation of the EPBD in Austria. In Country reports 2010.
Available from: http://www.epbd-ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-
2011/Austria.pdf [accessed 20.12.2011].
Jollands, N., Ellis, M., 2009. Energy efficiency governance: an emerging priority. 2009
Summer Study of the European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. ECEEE. Nice.
France. Available from:
http://www.eceee.org/conference_proceedings/eceee/2009/Panel_1/1.086/paper
[accessed 10.08.2012].
Klinckenberg Consultants, 2010. Making Money Work for Buildings. Financial and
Fiscal Instruments for Energy Efficiency in Buildings. EuroACE.
76
http://www.euroace.org/MediaPublications/PublicationsReports.aspx [accessed
10.01.2012].
Klinckenberg, F., Sunikka, M., 2006. Better Buildings Through Energy Efficiency: A
Roadmap for Europe. EURIMA. Available from:
http://www.eurima.org/uploads/ModuleXtender/Documents/89/documents/EU_Ro
admap_building_report_020307.pdf [accessed 10.11.2011].
Kok, N., Jennen, M., 2011. The Value of Energy Labels in the European Office Market,
Working paper.
Kuik, O., Osterhuis, F., 2008. Policy Instruments for environmental Innovations,
presented at the DIME Workshop “Empirical analyses of environmental innovation”
Fraunhofer ISI. Karlsruhe.
Li, D.H.W., Yang, L., Lam, J.C., 2012. Impact of climate change on energy use in the built
environment in different climate zones: A review. Energy 42, 103-112.
Lior, N., 2011. The ECOS 2009 World Energy Panel: an introduction to the Panel and
to the present (2009) situation in sustainable energy development. Energy 36, 3620-
3628.
Levine, M.D., Koomey, J.G., McMahon, J.E., Sanstad, A.H., Hirst, E., 1995. Energy
efficiency policy and market failures. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
20, 535–555.
Levinson, A., Niemann, S., 2004. Energy use by apartment tenants when landlords pay
for utilities. Resource and Energy Economics 26 (1), 51–75.
Lorenz, D., Lützkendorf, T., 2008. Sustainability in property valuation: theory and
practice. Journal of Property Investment and Finance 26, 482-521.
Lützkendorf, T., Lorenz, D., 2005. Sustainable property investment: valuing
sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Building Research
and Information 33, 212-234.
Lützkendorf, T., Speer, T.M., 2005. Alleviating asymmetric information in property
markets: building performance and product quality as signal for consumers. Building
Research and Information 33, 182-195.
Mills, E., Kromer, S., Weiss, G., Mathew, P.A., 2006. From volatility to value: analysing
and managing financial and performance risk in energy savings projects. Energy
Policy 34, 188-199.
77
Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., Mahapatra, K., 2010. Factors influencing energy efficiency
investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 38, 2956-2963.
Popescu, D., Bienert, S., Schützenhofer, C., Boazu, R., 2012. Impact of energy efficiency
measure on the economic value of buildings. Applied Energy 89, 454-463.
Rammel, C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2003. Evolutionary policies for sustainable
development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising. Ecological Economics 47, 121-
133.
Rietbergen, M.G., Farla, J.C.M., Blok, K., 2002. Do agreement enhance energy efficiency
improvements? Analysing the actual outcome of long-term agreements on industrial
energy efficiency improvements in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production 10,
153-163.
Rizzi, F., Frey, M., Iraldo, F., 2011. Towards an integrated design of voluntary
approaches and standardization processes: An analysis of issues and trends in the
Italian regulation on ground coupled heat pumps. Energy Conversion and Management
52, 3120-3131.
Roger, M., Remesy, R., Bonnemayre, P., Menager, Y., 2011. “Implementation of the
EPBD in France” in Country reports 2010; 2011. Available from: http://www.epbd-
ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-2011/France.pdf [accessed 20.12.2011].
Sanstad, A.H., Howarth, R.B., 1994. ‘Normal’ markets, market imperfections and
energy efficiency. Energy Policy 22, 811–818.
Sayce, S., Sundberg, A., Clements, B., 2010. Is sustainability reflected in commercial
property prices: an analysis of the evidence base. RICS research report. London:
Kingston University. Available from: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/15747/1/Sayce-S-
15747.pdf [accessed 20.01.12].
Schettler-Köhler, H.P., Kunkel, S., 2011. Implementation of the EPBD in Germany. In:
Country reports 2010. Available from: http://www.epbd-
ca.org/Medias/Pdf/country_reports_14-04-2011/Germany.pdf [accessed
20.12.2011].
Schipper, L., Meyers, S., Kelly, H., 1985. Coming in from the Cold: Energy-Wise
Housing in Sweden. Seven Locks Press: Cabin John, MD.
Schleich, J., Gruber, E., 2009. Beyond case studies: Barriers to energy efficiency in
commerce and the services sectors. Energy Economics 30, 449-464.
78
Scott, S., 1997. Household Energy Efficiency in Ireland: A replication of study of
ownership of energy savings item. Energy Economics 19, 187-208.
Shum, K.L., Watanabe, C., 2009. An innovation management approach for renewable
energy deployment—the case of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology. Energy Policy 37,
3535-3544.
Sorrell, S., O’Malley, E., Schleich, J., Scott, S., 2004. The Economics of Energy Efficiency
–Barriers to Cost-effective Investment. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Tuominen, P., Klobut, K., Tolman, A., Adjei, A., de Best-Waldhober, M., 2012. Energy
savings potential in buildings and overcoming market barriers in member states of
the European Union. Energy and Buildings 51, 48-55.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Koeppel, S., Mirasgedis, S., 2007a. Appraisal of policy instruments
for reducing building’s CO2 emissions. Building Research and Information 35, 458-
477.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S., Levine, M.D., 2007b. Mitigation CO2
emissions form energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research and
Information 35, 379-398.
Van Soest, D.P., Bulte, E.H., 2001. Does the energy-efficiency paradox exist?
Technological progress and uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics 18,
101–112.
Vermande, H.M., van der Heijden, J., 2011. The lead market initiative and sustainable
construction: Lot 1 screening of national building regulations. PRC Bouwcentrum
International. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/files/compet/national-
building-regulations/prc-final-report_en.pdf [accessed 20.01.2012].
Vine, E., Hanrin, J., Eyre, N., Crossley, D., Maloney, M., Watt, G., 2003. Public policy
analysis of energy efficiency and load management in changing electricity businesses.
Energy Policy 31, 405-430.
79
Chapter 4
The Role of Eco-design in the development of energy efficiency in buildings Abstract
The building and construction sector plays a crucial role in implementing energy efficiency and, more generally, in reducing environmental impacts. In this context, design is a key-phase for effective improvement in the whole sector. Therefore, the adoption of the Eco-design approach can be a “green” turning point for the strategies of this sector. This study aims to investigate factors and drawbacks that drive designers in the implementation of Eco-design. The data are collected by a questionnaire survey covering a considerable number of designers in the region Tuscany in Italy. The results reveal that designers have a high environmental sensitivity, but a systematic adoption of Eco-design approach is still far. Moreover, the study highlights the spreading in the sector of those “internal” key factors that normally foster the inclusion of energy and environmental criteria in the building design, e.g. training, cooperation with supply chain, certification schemes.
Keywords: Eco-design, designers, building and construction sector
80
4.1 Introduction
The building and construction sector is a major contributor to the growth of many
economic systems and can play a crucial role in implementing improvements towards
energy efficiency and, more in general, in reducing the most relevant environmental
impacts in order to prompt to sustainable development patterns and to favour the
transition to a low-carbon economy. Looking at the available data, it is easy to
understand that the European Union (EU) building and construction sector
substantially affects two crucial pillars of sustainability. On the one hand, it accounts
for 37.1% of total final energy consumption (1,157.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent
(Mtoe) in 2007) in the EU-27 of which 284.6 Mtoe in residential buildings and 145.2
Mtoe in non-residential buildings (European Union, 2010), and 35% of the
greenhouse emissions (European Commission, 2007). On the other hand, the building
and construction sector in the EU represents approximately 10% of Gross Domestic
Product and is the largest industrial employer with 14.8 million employees and 3.1
million enterprises in 2007 (Schultmann et al, 2010).
The economic and environmental relevance of this sector is demonstrated by the
intense and cross-sectional EU regulatory action. For example, the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive 2002/91/EC (EPBD) and its recast aim at
promoting energy performance improvements specifically in buildings (European
Commission, 2002, 2010a). Also, the EuP Directive 2009/125/EC (known as “Eco-
design Directive”) and the Directive 2010/30/EC establish a synergic framework for
the setting of design requirements and indications for labelling and standard product
information of energy-related products and in particular energy-related building
elements (e.g. heating systems) (European Commission, 2009, 2010b). There are also
other policy instruments that can support the reduction of environmental impacts in
the building and construction sector such as the Environmental Product Declaration
(EPD). In fact, EPD helps manufactures of building materials to provide life cycle
based environmental information on their products.
All the policies mentioned above rely on the assumption that the design of a building
can strongly influence the most significant environmental performances, such as
81
energy used in buildings for heating, cooling and lighting, the toxic materials included
in the structures, and even wastes produced at the end of life (Maciel et al, 2007; Isaac
and van Vuuren, 2009; Karkanias et al, 2010). It must be noted that because buildings
have a long service lifetime of approximately 100 years, the environmental impacts
associated with the “use phase” are generally extremely important (Schultmann et al,
2010). Therefore, adopting an Eco-design approach can strongly decrease the
environmental impacts throughout different life cycle stages (Karlsson and Luttropp,
2006) and, in particular improve environmental and energy performance during the
“use phase” of a building.
The inclusion of environmental considerations in design process provides economic
and non-economic benefits to consumers and policy makers. From a consumer’s point
of view, Eco-design reduces costs during the manufacturing and use phases by
optimizing the use of raw materials including recycled materials, by improving
logistics, and reducing energy consumption (Plouffe et al, 2011). Furthermore, the
Eco-design approach also provides non economic benefits satisfying consumers with
an increasing environmental awareness (Plouffe et al, 2011). In fact, 87% of
European citizens consider themselves as important players in protecting the
environment in their countries (European Commission, 2011). From a policy
perspective, the adoption of Eco-design supports policy makers encouraging
sustainable consumption and consequently eco-innovation in a region or country
(O’Rafferty, 2008). Therefore, the integration of the traditional building design with
environmental and energy concerns through Eco-design is both a challenge and an
opportunity for EU countries.
In this context, numerous Eco-design methods and tools have been developed in the
area of the industrial product design and, then, they have been applied in the building
and construction sector (Rio et al, 2013). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), for instance,
has been often applied to new and existing buildings’ design to enable the integratio n
of the environmental dimension with the conventional project processes which
originally had only addressed time, cost, and quality (Peuportier et al, 2013; Ofori,
1992).
82
Despite the availability of Eco-design tools and its large potential for environmental
improvement and benefits (Crosbie et al, 2010; Nemry et al, 2010; Plouffe et al,
2011), there is a scarce knowledge about diffusion of the Eco-design approach in the
building design process, from a designers’ perspective. Therefore, our analysis here
does not focus on technical knowledge about the Eco-design approach, but rather
investigates the role of a key actor in the process of knowledge transfer (Guy, 2006).
Consequently, we consider buildings as “material products of competing social
practices” (Guy, 2006), thus, in order to understand how to foster and simplify the
implementation of the Eco-design approach in buildings, we must analyze the
characteristics of actors, in particular designers, and related social processes that
support the production and development of buildings (Bijker et al, 1987). Designers
(architects and engineers) are key-players by directly introducing the environmental
concerns in the building design process, by indirectly influencing the choices and
behaviours of developers, contractors, material and equipment suppliers, and even by
interacting on the market with public authorities as clients within the building and
construction sector (Chan et al, 2009). Therefore, designers take on the role of system
integrator in the supply-demand chain of the building and construction sector
(Segerstedt and Olofsson, 2010), fostering building users towards a sustainable
consumption (Lilley, 2009). In fact, the possible increase of costs entailed by adopting
an Eco-design approach in refurbished and new buildings may discourage building
users, as confirmed by a recent European survey (European Commission, 2011);
therefore designers must coordinate the needs of building users and other actors of
the building and construction sector (Rohracher, 2001).
In recent years, designers have been covering a major role in determining the
environment-oriented strategies of the building and construction sector but also in
supporting policies for sustainable buildings; in fact they have increasingly been
involved in many studies investigating designers' perception of sustainability as a
proxy for the whole industry (Chong et al, 2009), their market estimations and
forecasts for green buildings (Chan et al, 2009), and the impact of energy efficiency
and energy saving public policies on building design activities (Adeyeye et al, 2007).
83
The setting chosen for this study is a specific Region (Tuscany) of Italy that well
reflects the dynamics and characteristics of the building and construction sector at
national level (negative economic trend persisting along the last 5-7 years and a
productive backbone made of small of very small firms). Because Italy is one of EU
countries with the larger building stock (Raya et al, 2011) and has an annual rate of
new constructions corresponding to European average (Meijer et al, 2009), the focus
on Italy was considered also suitable for analysing the capabilities of European
countries towards achieving EU targets for sustainable buildings. Findings of this
study also provide insights on the Italian building and construction sector field, so far
characterized by a chronic lack of data (Albino and Berardi, 2012),
Aim of our study was to investigate the factors that favour and/or hinder the
adoption of Eco-design in the building and construction sector. By focusing on the
design phase, we wanted to gain a better view on how environmental concerns are
really being integrated in the “core” process of the building supply chain, the most
operational and effective leverage that can be activated to achieve more sustainable
and energy-efficient buildings. By analysing in depth into the designers' motivations,
choices and strategic behaviour, we pursued multiple objectives:
To assess to what degree the “Eco-design approach” is actually adopted in the
building design process;
To identify what factors can boost the adoption of Eco-design in building
projects;
To highlight the main obstacles inhibiting adoption of Eco-design in building
design;
To recognize the implication of environmental policy making (that promoted
the Eco-design approach) on designers’ strategic choices and day-to-day
activity.
4.2 The Survey Design
The analysis was carried out using primary data obtained by a questionnaire survey.
The survey comprises all architects, construction engineers, civil engineers, and
84
structural engineers operating across Tuscany (Italy) and enrolled in the official
registers managed by professional associations at Province level7.
Because architects and engineers that are registered in the list do not necessarily
operate exclusively within building design, a comprehensive list of designers was not
available; therefore, the targeted audience was made up with all the registered
“designers” plus some self-selection mechanisms included in the survey instruments,
as described below.
Data were collected by means of an online questionnaire. The questions were
designed based on a review of literature relating to Eco-design and design process for
sustainable buildings. The questionnaire aimed to collect seven categories of
information: 1) general information about designers and their activities, i.e. name,
legal form and size of building design firms, project type, type of main clients; 2)
motivations for adopting Eco-design in building design and sensitivity/awareness on
environmental/energy performance of building materials; 3) ability and “intensity” of
co-operation with other actors of supply chain; 4) training activities in the area of
Eco-design; 5) projects developed according to Eco-design criteria (i.e. number and
value of projects); 6) barriers to Eco-design in the building design process; 7)
opportunities and ways to implement Eco-design in the building and construction
sector.
The questionnaire consisted of nineteen questions and Likert scales were designed in
accordance with accepted empirical methods.
Because studies have shown that question formulation may alter results by as much
as 50% (Cannell et al, 1989), the questionnaire was pre-tested. Based on the pre-
tests, the survey instrument was revised for simplicity and validated by professional
associations.
The survey's mailing and data collection were managed in close cooperation with the
professional associations. Each professional association selected the most suitable
7 According to Italian Legislation architects and engineers have to register with their professional
associations. These professional associations are arranged at the territorial level. Architects and engineers have to register with the professional association where they have the place of residence. Tuscany is divided in 10 provinces. Therefore, there are 10 professional associations for architects and 10 for engineers.
85
method for sending out the questionnaire to its registered designers. In particular,
the questionnaire was distributed by the following methods:
11 professional associations sent the questionnaire with a cover letter directly
to designers by email.
2 professional associations provided the database, including complete listing
of designers' email addresses, so we could send the questionnaires and cover
letter by e-mail.
3 professional associations released the questionnaire with a cover letter
through their website or newsletter.
2 professional associations created the database with all the email addresses
of the registered designers available from their website and we directly sent
the questionnaire with a cover letter by email.
In order to focus exclusively on designers, we included some self-selection
mechanisms: in the cover letter, we clearly stated that the questionnaire was
exclusively for designers and then included at the beginning of the questionnaire a
specific question on whether the respondent usually performed “design” in his/her
professional activity.
The survey process, carried out from September to November 2011, generated a total
of 204 responses, but 16 responses were ruled out because respondents resulted to
actually not be working in building design. Then, the analysis considered 188
responses (even if some responses were incomplete, because not every question in
the questionnaire was answered, particularly the questions related to training, Eco-
design projects, and barriers to Eco-design approach).
Although there are 11,800 professionals (including architects, construction
engineers, civil engineers, and structural engineers) operating in Tuscany and
registered in regional professional associations, only a small portion works exactly
and/or exclusively in the field of building design. Hence, based on the opinions from
the professional associations interviewed, we were able to estimate that the
statistical population of designers in Tuscany accounts to date approximately 5,000
practitioners.
86
As a consequence, our sample, which was randomly generated, is a representative
sample with 95% of confidence level and a sample error of 7%. This means that the
results of our survey are 95% true and the percentage of answers to the survey
questions have an error rate of 7%.
Because the study relies on data collected through survey techniques, we
preventively addressed possible limitations regarding the survey data. One issue
concerned the potential source of bias related to respondents’ apprehension that
made them less likely to edit their responses with the intent of appearing more
socially desirable, lenient, acquiescent, and consistent with how they think the
researcher wants them to respond (Podsakoff et al, 2003). This potential problem
was avoided by guaranteeing, at the beginning of the survey, complete anonymity and
no unauthorized disclosure of information associated with the data collected.
Another issue was the design of the questionnaire for which we used several
procedural remedies in order to minimize the common method bias that can affect a
questionnaire survey. Hence, we avoided use of ambiguous or unfamiliar terms;
vague concepts or complicated syntax; questions were simple, specific, and concise;
bipolar numerical scale values (e.g., –3 to 3) were also avoided, providing verbal
labels for the midpoints of scales.
4.3 Data description and variables construction
In order to analyse what factors could influence the uptake of the Eco-design
approach in the building and construction sector, we created a set of variables using
the answers to specific questions.
To measure the adoption of Eco-design we used different questions: we asked to
designers if they carried out projects relying on Eco-design criteria, how many
projects they completed, and total economic value of those projects. Then, we
calculated average value of the Eco-design projects carried out by respondents.
The conceptual framework suggests that the evolution and implementation of the
Eco-design approach in industrial product development has been supported and
affected by many factors (Roy, 1994; Handfield et al, 2001; Johansson, 2002; Lindahl,
87
2003; Boks, 2006) such as technical complexity, design expertise, commitment from
designer, financial risks, regulatory framework, organizational context, public
awareness and political concern. In particular, with respect to the adoption of the
Eco-design approach in building design, our study considered the following factors: a)
motivation of designer, b) sensitivity to energy and environmental issues and
performance of building materials and components, c) training on Eco-design
attended by the designer, d) cooperation with supply chain. Multiple-response
questions were asked to investigate the presence of these strategic factors driving
Eco-design. In detail, to measure the extent to which energy and environment-related
criteria affect respondents’ professional activity, we asked designers to indicate
through a five-point Likert scale the relevance that environmental protection and
energy efficiency had in their own business strategy.
Focusing on the operational level, we then asked designers how they considered
environmental and energy performance of building materials and component
combinations. The respondents replied using a three-point Likert scale, indicating
whether these performances were “very important”, “important like other
performance categories such as quality, safety, etc.” or “not important”.
Additionally, since the need for staff training could represent a key factor towards
adopting and applying Eco-design techniques (Knight and Jenkins, 2009), we asked
designers if they have attended training courses on Eco-design and the number of
training hours per person. Finally, since the cooperation along the supply chain has
proven to be a key determinant to improve environmental performance of product
and services (Testa and Iraldo, 2010), we asked designers if they have cooperated
with other actors along the building and construction supply chain for defining Eco-
design project.
Besides the influencing factors, we also investigated which drawbacks designers
normally encountered when introducing Eco-design principles and methods in the
building design process. Based on the main findings of the relevant literature (Lovins,
1992; Chong et al, 2009; Karkanias et al, 2010; Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011), we
investigated the extent to which specific factors (such as high costs, scarce
88
collaboration along the supply chain, lack of clients’ interest in eco-friendlier
solutions, inadequacy of regulation and technical tools) were obstacles to the
implementation of environmental and energy criteria in the design process.
Literature also emphasizes that Eco-design in the building and construction sector
might be fostered by the market's increasing need to measure buildings'
environmental and energy performance and obtain reliable data on these aspects
(Ding, 2008; Cole, 1999; Crawley and Aho, 1999). To date, such information and
quantitative assessments of environmental and energy aspects of a building (and
related components) are mainly provided by the existing building certification
schemes, such as energy certification, which is the most effective way to offer credible
and guaranteed information to the real estate market on the building energy
performance (Casals, 2006). On this basis, we asked designers how they assessed a
variety of certification schemes as driver and support for the uptake of Eco-design
projects: fundamental, fairly important, and not important.
The summary statistics of all variables used in the estimation are presented in Table
4.1.
89
Table 4.1 – Summary statistics
Variable Description Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max Environmental
strategy Motivation for Eco-design: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
188 3.68617 .9206021 1 5
Environmental performance
1 if energy and environmental performance of building materials and component combinations is fundamental, 2 if energy and environmental performance of building materials and component combinations is enough important, 3 if energy and environmental performance of building materials and component combinations is not important
188 1.531915 .5511704 1 3
Collaboration with supply
chain
1 if designers cooperate with supply chain during building design process, 0 if designers do not cooperate with supply chain during building design process
188 .6170213 .4874112 0 1
Training 1 if designers attend courses on Eco-design approach, 0 if designers do not attend courses on Eco-design approach.
184 .5434783 .4994651 0 1
Training hours for category
1 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 30, 2 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 50, 3 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 80, 4 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 100, 5 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 120, 6 if number of training hours per person is less than or equal to 160, 7 if number of training hours per person greater than 160.
80 3.725 2.104696 1 7
Eco-design 1 if designers carry out Eco-design projects, 0 if designers do not carry out Eco-design projects
183 .6174863 .4873343 0 1
Eco-design Number
Number of Eco-design projects 119 3.176471 8.357121 0 60
Eco-design Average Value
Average value of Eco-design projects for each respondents
49 1607628 5574928 200 37900000
Certification 1 if a variety of certifications is fundamental for diffusion of Eco-design projects, 2 if a variety of certifications are not the main drivers in order to carry out Eco-design projects, 3 if a variety of certifications does not boost the diffusion of Eco-design projects, but confuses clients
134 2.164179 .7377473 1 3
B1 - Uninterested clients in Eco-
design approach
Lack of clients’ interest in environmental/energy performance of building: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 3.593985 1.015319 1 5
B2 -Low cooperation with
other actors in the design team
No cooperation among agents of design team: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.902256 1.043484 1 5
B3 - Difficulties during project
execution
Eco-design projects cause more difficulties during project execution phase: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.75188 .9162342 1 5
B4 - Unsuitable regulations
Regulations are inadequate in order to boost the diffusion of Eco-design projects: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.879699 1.154947 1 5
B5 - Lack of suitable design
software
Design software are inadequate in order to to boost the diffusion of Eco-design projects: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.195489 .9248968 1 5
B6 - Higher project costs
High project costs: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.819549 .927971 1 5
B7 – Low cooperation with
other actors in building and construction supply chain
Lack of cooperation with supply chain: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.81203 1.008677 1 5
B8 – Lack of suitable training
Lack of adequate courses on Eco-design design: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no influence and 5 a great deal of influence
133 2.413534 .962382 1 5
90
The questions mentioned above could be affected by some characteristics of the
designers (Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1): the majority of respondents were architects
(72%) and had a master degree in science (94.7%). These designers had a wider area
of expertise than designers with a bachelor's degree and were enrolled in a specific
section of the official register managed by professional associations8. Building design
was mostly carried out in small firms: 90.4% of designers worked in a design studio
where they were partners or owners. 59.6% of the designers operated mainly to
retrofit existing buildings, and 94.7% had private clients. Respondents represented
all ten Provinces of Tuscany .
Table 4.2 – Designer characteristics: type of profession, type of registration, legal form of design firm, project type and type of main clients
Profession Type of registration Legal form Project type Type of main clients
Obs % Obs % Obs % Obs % Obs %
Architect 136 72 Master 178 94.7 Company 6 3.2 Retrofit 112 59.6 Private 178 94.7
Engineer 52 28 Bachelor degree
10 5.3 Partnership 12 6.4 New built
48 25.5 Public 10 5.3
Design studio
170 90.4 both 15 8
other 13 6.9
Total 188 100 Total 188 100 Total 188 100 Total 188 100 Total 188 100
Figure 4.1 – Designer characteristics: organization size
8 Each official register managed by professional associations (architects and engineers) is divided in two sections (A and B). Designers, who took a master of science, can register with section A. Designers, who took a bachelor degree, can register with section B.
91
4.4 Results
4.4.1Eco-design
The concept of Eco-design is defined as the integration of design aspects and
environmental concerns in the development of product and services (Karlsson and
Luttropp, 2006) in order to decrease the environmental impact throughout different
life cycle stages. Therefore, the Eco-design approach aims to determine the
environmental impact associated to the whole life-cycle and to consider
environmental factors during the design of products, processes and activities (Sun et
al, 2003; Pujari, 2006). In particular, Eco-design has been applied to “urban design”
processes, where the life cycle of a city consists of all the stages through which it
evolves, including the architectural design and construction stage (Farreny et al,
2010).
According to this view, we analysed the adoption of the Eco-design approach in
building design by asking designers whether they had considered energy efficiency
and environmental criteria over the past three years (2008-2011).
By analysing of results, it emerges that the majority of designers (113 out of 183) had
considered energy efficiency and environmental criteria during design process but
Eco-design did not represent the “core” of their professional activity. In fact, 60% of
the “eco-designers” indicating the number of Eco-design projects carried out in the
last three years (33 out of 55) stated that no more than three Eco-design projects had
been completed.
Moreover, the analysis of the economic value of these projects also showed that the
current application of the Eco-design approach in the building and construction
sector was still very low. Although only 49 out of 113 “eco-designers” provided more
detailed information, Figure 4.2 clearly shows that 28.6% of designers (14 out of 49)
carried out projects with an average value between 100,000 and 300,000 Euros and
18.4% (9 out of 49) with an average value between 300,000 and 500,000 Euros.
By focusing on the several designer characteristics (type of profession of designer,
organization size, project type and type of main clients) the Spearman test shows that
there is no correlation between these and the adoption of the Eco-design approach.
92
On the contrary, large design firms and designers working mainly on new buildings,
new and retrofitted buildings and other categories are positively related to average
value of Eco-design projects (Table 4.3).
Figure 4.2 – Classes of average Eco-design project value in EUR, number of respondents
Table 4.3 – Spearman test between Eco-design variables and designer characteristics
Profession Organization size Project type Type of main clients
Eco-design -0.047 0.050 0.016 -0.041 Eco-design Number -0.149 0.072 0.008 0.061 Eco-design Average
Value 0.080 0.279* 0.260* 0.117
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
4.4.2 Strategic supporting factors for Eco-design
4.4.2.1 Energy and environmental strategy and performance
The adoption of Eco-design is certainly influenced by the environmental “sensitivity”
of designers, and by their ability to catch the opportunities connected to energy
efficiency improvements and reduction in environmental impacts of buildings and of
the related materials (Chong et al, 2009). Our survey confirms that both energy and
93
environment are regarded as key-aspects of the design activity. In detail, 60% of
respondents considered energy efficiency and environmental protection as (at least)
an important objective of their projects.
This strategic relevance of energy and environmental-related issues is reflected also
at operational level. Half of the designers interviewed actually deemed environmental
and energy performance of building materials as the most important attributes that
influence their choice at the design stage.
These results highlight that designers have a high environmental awareness and
consciousness which is positively related to the adoption of Eco-design criteria. The
correlation analysis confirms that there is a strong positive relation between
“environmental strategy” (measured as relevance that environmental protection and
energy efficiency have in their business strategy) and two variables used to measure
the adoption of Eco-design (Table 4.4).
On the other hand, the level of importance of energy and environmental performance
of building materials and design solutions is not correlated to the adoption of Eco-
design. This is probably due to the fact that these performances are commonly
considered a crucial characteristic by designers, but it does not necessarily imply that
the designer who believes they are important adopts environmental criteria in the
building design process. Furthermore, the adoption of energy efficient and
environmentally friendly building materials and related design solutions is influenced
by an effective communication towards public and private clients (Sodagar and
Fieldson, 2008; Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011).
This means that only those designers that operate on the market by relying on strong
communication skills towards their clients and through effective and consolidated
marketing channels, are able to “go green” and launch a new strategy based on the
environmental and energy excellence of their projects.
Furthermore, correlation analysis shows that big design firms assess energy and
environmental performance of building materials and design solutions more
important (Table 4.4).
94
Table 4.4 – Spearman test between environmental strategy variable and designer characteristics and between environmental strategy and performance variables and Eco-design variables
Designer characteristics Eco-design variables Profession Organization
size Project
type Type of
main clients
Eco-design
Eco-design Number
Eco-design Average
Value
Environmental strategy
-0.012 -0.035 -0.019 0.019 0.297*** 0.392*** -0.102
Environmental performance
0.0219 -0.226*** 0.003 -0.009 -0.009 -0.027 0.167
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
4.4.2.2 Cooperation with supply chain
The building and construction sector is characterized by a complex supply chain
composed by several key actors having competing and different interests (Hakkinen
and Belloni, 2011). In particular, the demand pressures on designers and trades is
relevant and influences also all the actors of the supply chains (e.g. service and
material suppliers) (Lönngren et al, 2010; Mentzer et al, 2001).
Literature on supply chain management in the building and construction sector, since
the 1990s, has emphasized the importance of engaging and co-operating with the
actors that operate upstream and downstream (Segerstedt and Olofsson, 2010). Some
studies suggested a more integrated supply chain among contractors, suppliers and
clients (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) and argued that there is a tight relation between
supply chain management and market structure (Cox and Townsend, 1998). Other
studies highlighted the key-role of communications between different actors of the
supply chain during the design process (Dong, 2005; Hassan, 1996). A possible
solution to communication barriers is the partnering which improves social
collaboration in the design process and, consequently, the quality of the design
outcomes (Xie et al, 2010).
Elaborating on these findings of the relevant literature, one can argue that an effective
interaction among actors of supply chain can be a factor that favours the adoption of
an innovative approach as the Eco-design.
95
First of all, our study confirms that designers tend to network with their partners in
the supply chain: 61.7% of respondents stated they are used to cooperate within
supply chain, even if there is still a wide potential for improvement. Moreover, our
study shows that a strong collaboration with the supply chain fosters the adoption of
several Eco-design solutions embodied by more valuable Eco-design projects (Table
4.5).
Table 4.5 – Spearman test between collaboration with supply chain and designer characteristics and between collaboration with supply chain and Eco-design variables
Designer characteristics Eco-design variables Profession Organiza
tion size Project
type Type of
main clients
Eco-design
Eco-design
Number
Eco-design Average
Value
Collaboration with supply
chain
0.1244* 0.0523 -0.0552 0.0892 0.0515 -0.001 0.2745*
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
4.4.2.3 Training
Designers need to be considerably supported in the adoption of the Eco-design
approach during their activity. Vakili-Ardebili and Boussabaine (2005) highlight that
“the lack of knowledge about technologies and environmental aspects at the design
stage might lead to creation of a design not adapted to circumstances and project
surrounding environment”. Therefore, it is important to develop and improve the
know-how and competences of designers through suitable educational and training
programmes, as a pre-condition for them to develop the Eco-design approach, as a
pre-condition for them to develop the Eco-design approach (Howarth and Griffith,
1998; Iyer-Raniga et al, 2010; Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011; Santiago Fink, 2011).
In our study, 54.3% of respondents (100 out of 184) declared they had attended
training courses on Eco-design specifically for building design. Figure 4.3 shows
detailed information about training hours per person: 22.5% of designers attended
more than 30 and less than 50 hours, 17.5% less than or equal to 30 hours and
16.25% more than 160 hours. Based on the experience in other training areas, we can
96
conclude that designers require both professional training courses and more
structured training programmes on Eco-design.
These findings, however, are not validated by our study, which shows how training is
irrelevant in driving the uptake of Eco-design. The Spearman test shows that
engineers are more likely to attend at training courses than architects and that there
is a negative correlation if designers work mainly on retrofit. First of all, these
correlations emphasize that training needs are influenced by designer characteristics.
Furthermore, the results of our study clearly say that the attendance at training
courses is not correlated to Eco-design (Table 4.6). This strengthens the idea that
designers attend training courses on Eco-design because they want to become better
qualified, but this choice does not contribute to increasing the diffusion of the Eco-
design approach.
Figure 4.3 – Classes of training hours per person, number of respondents
97
Table 4.6 - Spearman test between training variable and designers characteristics and between training variable and Eco-design variables
Designer characteristics Eco-design variables Profession Organization
size Project type Type of
main clients
Eco-design
Eco-design
Number
Eco-design
Average Value
Training 0.1759** -0.1213 -0.1536** -0.070 0.087 0.150 -0.003
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
4.4.2.4 Certification schemes
Some studies show that rating systems and labelling programs, such as LEED,
BREEAM or Energy Star, have a crucial role in promoting sustainable buildings (Lee
and Yik, 2004; OECD, 2003; Ofori and Ho, 2004). These instruments, though, have to
be coordinated and mutually consistent, otherwise the presence of too many eco-
labels for green products and the lack of coherence between them may have the
counter-effect of restraining the diffusion of Eco-design projects (Fisher and
Rothkopf, 1989; OECD, 2003; Vine et al, 2006; Lee and Rajagopalan, 2008). In our
survey, 43.3% of designers (58 out of 134) considered the variety of certification
schemes moderately important to foster Eco-design projects, but for only 20.1% (27
out of 134) this was fundamental. On the contrary, 36.6% of respondents (49 out of
134) judged it useless to support the diffusion of sustainable buildings and related
materials, since clients can be confused by too many certification schemes and do not
understand the differences in the guarantees or information they provide and in the
level of accuracy, reliability and independency of the certification source (i.e. third
party). In the current scenario, the certification instruments and their level of
assurance are difficult to compare (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008).
The ineffective role of certification scheme is also confirmed by Spearman's test. In
fact, a positive correlation emerges between a good Eco-design performance and the
designers’ opinion that certification schemes do not provide a real support to design
sustainable buildings (Table 4.7). This therefore indicates the need for innovative
instruments that can provide clear and comparable information on environmental
98
performance of materials and equipment (Ding, 2008; Sodagar and Fieldson, 2008;
Hakkinen and Belloni, 2011).
Table 4.7 – Spearman test between certification variable and designer characteristics and between certification variable and Eco-design variables
Designer characteristics Eco-design variables Profession Organization
size Project
type Type of
main clients
Eco-design
Eco-design
Number
Eco-design Average
Value
Certification
0.076 -0.094 0.036 0.130 0.175** 0.199** 0.026
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
4.4.3 Barriers to Eco-design
Relevant literature provides several categorizations of the existing barriers to energy
efficiency and more environmentally-friendly practices in the building and
construction sector (Carbon Trust, 2005; Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2007; IPCC, 2007).
Overall, the most outstanding studies identify information, behavioural-
organizational and financial barriers to the energy efficiency improvements in
buildings (Chan et al, 2009; Ryghaug and Sørensen, 2009; Nässén et al, 2008;
Intrachooto and Horayangkura, 2007).
According to our study, the highest perceived barrier to Eco-design is the scarce
market demand. In fact, 56.4% of designers (75 out of 133) perceived clients as
uninterested in the application of environmental or energy-related design criteria
(Figure 4.4).
The several public incentives (i.e. fiscal incentives) recently introduced to stimulate
the private demand have achieved good results in the starting phase, yet a more
incisive action is needed, especially in times of economic crisis.
The other barriers are evaluated as much less significant for the uptake of Eco-design:
unsuitable regulations (27.8%), low cooperation with other actors in the supply chain
(27.1%), low cooperation with other actors in the design team (24.8%), higher
project costs with respect to traditional solutions or materials (23.3%).
99
Lack of suitable design software and lack of effective training are even less important
barriers, probably because nowadays there is a wide supply of these services on the
market.
Our correlation analysis shows that “low cooperation with other actors in the design
team” particularly influences in a negative way the adoption of Eco-design because of
the typical way of carrying out design projects is a sequence of separate segments
rather than in an integrated process (Lovins, 1992). This barrier leads to prefer
financial and time-effectiveness criteria over environmental ones during design
process (Lovins, 1992). Therefore, the adoption of the Eco-design approach could be
empowered by fully exploiting the great potential in multi-disciplinary work, bringing
together architects, engineers and others functions responsible for building design
(WBCSD, 2008).
As expected, low cooperation with other actors in the design team and with other
actors in the supply chain are perceived as barriers mostly by designers who do not
cooperate with other actors of the supply chain. These results confirm the importance
for designers to change their traditional way of working relatively alone (WBCSD,
2008). Architects, more than engineers, perceive unsuitable regulations, lack of
suitable design software, and high project costs as barriers. Unsuitable regulations
and difficulties during project execution increase their negative effects on adopting
the Eco-design approach when design firms are small and designers work mainly on
retrofitted buildings with private clients. Moreover, small design firms appear to be
more influenced by lack of suitable training, while designers working on retrofit feel
as relatively higher barriers the lack of suitable design software, high project costs
and lack of suitable training (Table 4.8).
100
Figure 4.4 – Barriers to Eco-design approach during building design activity (where: B1 - uninterested clients in Eco-design approach, B2 - low cooperation with other actors in the design team, B3 – difficulties during project execution, B4 – unsuitable regulations, B5 - lack of suitable design software, B6 – higher project costs, B7 – low cooperation with other actors in building and construction supply chain, B8 – lack of suitable training)
101
Table 4.8 – Spearman test between barriers variables and designer characteristics and between barriers variables and Eco-design variables
Designer characteristics Eco-design variables Profession Organization
size Project
type Type of
main clients
Eco-design
Eco-design
Number
Eco-design Mean Value
B1 - Uninterested
clients in Eco-design approach
0.038 -0.016 -0.034 -0.063 -0.114 -0.132 -0.049
B2 -Low cooperation with other
actors in the design team
-0.1086 -0.093 -0.004 -0.048 -0.186** -0.158 -0.128
B3 - Difficulties
during project
execution
0.0593 -0.2188** -0.1867** -0.1943** 0.1124 0.1451 0.1022
B4 - Unsuitable regulations 0.173** -0.220** -0.165* -0.145* 0.062 0.064 0.022
B5 - Lack of suitable design
software
0.196** -0.063 -0.234*** 0.038 0.013 -0.006 -0.026
B6 – Higher
project costs
0.292*** -0.103 -0.228*** 0.106 0.093 0.024 -0.032
B7 – Low cooperation with other actors in
supply chain
-0.036 -0.121 0.002 -0.034 -0.063 -0.039 -0.020
B8 – Lack of suitable training
0.052 -0.206** -0.150* 0.015 0.016 -0.080 -0.135
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
102
4.5 Discussion and conclusions
The aim of this paper is to understand if and to what extent Eco-design is already
embodied in the current building design process and what factors influence its
adoption.
A first set of results emerging from our study have emphasized that designers today
have a high environmental awareness and consciousness, although a systematic
adoption of the Eco-design approach is far from being fully accomplished. Our work
demonstrates that the internal key factors to foster the inclusion of energy and
environmental criteria in building design are already quite “entrenched” in the sector.
In particular, as acknowledged in the related literature (Hamza and Greenwood,
2009; Kevern, 2011; Santiago Fink, 2011), the majority of designers are used to
attending training courses, stimulated by a strategic interest towards Eco-design, in
order to achieve more specific competencies in energy efficient and more
environmentally-friendly buildings.
The high complexity of Eco-design projects and the small size characterizing Italian
building design firms force designers to cooperate with other actors of the supply
chain, in order to make design process more effective, e.g. by means of gaining
specific knowledge from the contractors and subcontractors and developing and
exploiting a favourable environment for communication (Xie et al, 2010).
Consistently with previous studies (Humphrey et al, 2003; Love et al, 2004), our
analysis shows that cooperation between designers and supply chain positively
influences the adoption of Eco-design for bigger complex building projects. The lack
of cooperation and communication between the parties involved could determine
poor performance of the supply chain in building and construction sector, therefore, a
good cooperation should be supported by trust among actors, de-centralized
responsibility for operational processes and IT support on the entire value-chain
(Lönngren et al, 2010). Although literature attributes a crucial role to designers
(Lovins, 1992; Adeyeye et al, 2007; Chan et al, 2009; Chong et al, 2009,) their
environmental awareness, as emphasized in our study, is not enough in order to
foster the adoption of Eco-design in the building and construction sector (WBCSD,
103
2008). In other words, there is a great potential of growth in terms of number and
economic value of Eco-Design projects that should be supported, for instance, by ad
hoc policy measures. A valuable example could be incentive measures to retrofit
existing buildings, especially considering that the majority of surveyed designers
mainly work on retrofit projects, and that inefficient buildings are a large stock of the
existing buildings (Meijer et al, 2009). An incentive measure, moreover, should take
into account the small dimension of building design firms, which could hinder the
development of Eco-design projects because of their complexity.
Additionally, these measures should be able to remove the main barrier identified by
designers: the “immaturity" of the market. The market still seems to be not mature
and sensitive enough to push designers towards energy efficient and more
environmentally-friendly solutions for buildings. Building users, in particular, mainly
perceived higher risk related to unfamiliar design solutions and techniques, and a
correlated lack of performance information (Hydes and Creech, 2000; Hakkinen and
Belloni, 2011). In this perspective, public policies should also support the spreading
of valuable and verifiable information to citizens and consumers, in order to reduce
the uncertainty towards eco-friendly solutions. Certification schemes could be a
useful tool only if and when they can truly provide information about building energy
and environmental performance and, consequently, to stimulate market demand in
sustainable buildings (Mlecnik et al, 2010). On the other hand, these schemes could
be also ineffective if they do not allow an easy understanding or a clear comparison
among different options (Ding, 2008; Sodagar and Fieldson, 2008; Hakkinen and
Belloni, 2011).
As a result of this survey, a number of recommendations can be formulated. First of
all, an effective adoption of Eco-design can be achieved by implementing design
solutions which really minimize energy consumption, environmental impacts, and life
cycle-cost especially in existing buildings. This objective could be achieved if policy
makers foster major renovations through fiscal incentives such as tax relief, but also
easier administrative procedures. Moreover, policy makers have to support designers
through documents that provide practical information to design without the need for
104
further interpretation of legislative requirements. Also design team and building
supply chain can give their support employing a holistic approach in the first stages of
design process.
Finally, clients should be encouraged to commission or approve energy efficient and
environmentally friendly building materials and design solutions. Therefore, policy
makers but also designers have to provide information about economic and
environmental benefits related to Eco-design approach to clients. Governmental and
local authorities as owners and developers can affect the adoption of the Eco-design
approach and push related building market.
There are some limitations to our study that we have to consider. Even if there are no
significant differences among building design activities across Italy, the focus on a
specific area such as a central region must be taken into account in case of
generalization. Moreover, the use of survey techniques, that collect self-reported data,
is surely valuable but should be integrated by focus groups, which allow a deeper
exploration on the drawbacks and opportunities for building professionals to use
Eco-design. Future research should take into account these limitations, for instance,
performing the analysis of environmental criteria by assessing the building design
projects and accounting for the environmental benefits.
105
References
Adeyeye, K., Osmani, M., Brown, C., 2007. Energy conservation and building design:
the environmental legislation push and pull factors. Structural Survey 25(5), 375-390.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., 2012. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian
case studie. Business Strategy and Environment 21, 387-400.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T., 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Boks, C., 2006.The soft side of Eco-design. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(15-16),
1346-1356.
Cannell, C., Oksenberg, L., Kalton, G., Bischoping, K., Fowler, F.J., 1989. New techniques
for pretesting survey questions. Research Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research
Center, University of Michigan,
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/NewTechniquesPretestingS
urveyQuestions_OCR.pdf [accessed 20.05.2012].
Carbon Trust, 2005. The UK Climate Change Programme: Potential evolution for
business and the public sector. Available from:
http://www.carbontrust.com/media/84912/ctc518-uk-climate-change-programme-
potential-evolution.pdf [accessed 20.05.2012].
Casals, X.G., 2006. Analysis of building energy regulation and certification in Europe:
Their role, limitations and differences. Energy and Buildings 38(5), 381-392.
Cole, R.J., 1999. Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intention.
Building Research and Information 27(4-5), 230-246.
Chan, E.H.W., Qian, Q.K., Lam, P.T.I., 2009. The market for green building in developed
Asian cities: the perspective of building designers. Energy Policy 37, 3061-3070.
Chong, W.K., Kumar, S., Haas, C.T., Beheiry, S.M.A., Coplen, L., Oey, M., 2009.
Understanding and Interpreting Baseline Perceptions of Sustainability in
Construction among Civil Engineers in the United States. Journal of Management in
Engineering 25(3), 143-154.
Cox, A., Townsend, M., 1998. Strategic Procurement in Construction, Thomas Telford,
London.
Crawley, D., Aho, I., 1999. Building environmental assessment methods: application
and development trends. Building Research and Information 27(4-5), 300-308.
106
Crosbie, T., Dawood, N., Dean, J., 2010. Energy profiling in the life-cycle assessment of
buildings. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 21(1), 20-
31.
Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable construction: The role of environmental assessment
tools. Journal of Environmental Management 86, 451-464.
Dong, A., 2005. The latent semantic approach to studying design team
communication. Design Studies 26(5), 445-61.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation. Construction Management and
Economics 20(7), 621-631.
European Commission, 2002. Directive 2002/91/CE of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Bruxelles.
Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0091:en:HTML
[accessed 15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2007. A lead market initiative for Europe, COM(2007) 860
final”, Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0860:FIN:en:PDF [accessed
20.05.2012].
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of Eco-
design requirements for energy-related products(recast). Bruxelles. Available
from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:285:0010:0035:en:
PDF [accessed 15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2010a. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast).
Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF
[accessed 15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2010b. Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related
products. Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
107
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0001:0012:en:PDF
[accessed 15.11.2011].
European Commission, 2011. Attitudes of European citizens towards the
Environment: Special Eurobarometer 365. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_365_en.pdf [accessed
10.11.2012].
European Union, 2010. EU energy and transport in figures 2010. Office for the Official
Publications of European communities, Luxembourg. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2010_energy_transport_figures.pdf
[accessed 10.02.2011].
Farreny, R., Oliver-Solà, J., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., Escribà, E., Montlleò, M., 2010.
The Eco-design and planning of sustainable neighbourhoods: the Vallbona case study
(Barcellona). Paper presented at the SB10mad Sustainable Building Conference,
Madrid, Spain, 28-30 April. Available from:
http://www.sb10mad.com/ponencias/archivos/c/C051.pdf [accessed 10.05.2012].
Fisher, A.C., Rothkopf, M.H., 1989. Market failure and energy policy: a rationale for
selective conservation. Energy Policy 17(4), 397-406.
Guy, S., 2006. Designing urban knowledge: competing perspectives on energy and
buildings. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, 645- 659.
Haapio, A., Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental tools.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, 469-482.
Hakkinen, T., Belloni, K., 2011. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building
Research and Information 39(3), 239-255.
Hamza, N., Greenwood, D., 2009. Energy conservation regulations: Impacts on design
and procurement of low energy buildings. Building and Environment 44, 929-936.
Handfield, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Curkovic, S., 2001. Integrating
environmental concerns into the design process: the gap between theory and
practice. ISEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(2), 189-208.
Hassan, T.M., 1996. Simulating information flow to assist building design management
PhD thesis, Civil and Building Engineering, University of Loughborough. Available
from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/6996 [accessed
11.05.2012].
108
Howarth, T., Griffith, A., 1998. Promoting Continuous Improvement in Construction
Education: Developing Curricula Through Graduate-Practitioner Reflection. Paper for
14th Annual ARCOM Conference, 9-11 September 1998; copy from Hughes, W (Ed),
University of Reading. Association of Researchers in Construction Management 1, 15-
21. Available from: http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar1998-015-
021_Howarth_and_Griffith.pdf [accessed 11.05.2012].
Humphrey, P., Matthews, J., Kumaraswamy, M., 2003. Pre-construction project
partnering form adversarial to collaborative relationship. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 8(2), 166-178.
Hydes, K., Creech, L., 2000. Reducing mechanical equipment cost: the economics of
green design. Building Research and Information 28(5-6), 403-407.
Intrachooto, S., Horayangkura, V., 2007. Energy efficient innovation: Overcoming
financial barriers. Building and Environment 42, 599-604.
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Available from:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html [accessed
10.02.2011].
Isaac, M., van Vuuren, D., 2009. Modeling global residential sector energy demand for
heating and air condition in the context of climate change. Energy Policy 37(2), 507-
521.
ISO, 2006. ISO CD 14025:2006 Environmental Labels and Declarations – Type III
Environmental Declarations – Principles and procedures. International Organisation
for Standardisation
Iyer-Raniga, U., Arcari, P., Wong, J., 2010. Education for sustainability in the built
environment: what are students telling us?. Paper for 26th Annual ARCOM
Conference, Leeds, UK, 6 - 8 September 2010, copy from in Egbu, C (Ed.), Proceedings,
1-10. Available from: http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2010-1447-
1456_Iyer-Raniger_Arcari_and_Wong.pdf [accessed 11. 05.2012].
Johansson, G., 2002. Success factors for integration of Eco-design in product
development – a review of state-of-the-art. Environmental Management and Health
13(1), 98-107.
109
Karkanias, C., Boemi, S.N., Papadopoulos, A.M., Tsoutsos, T.D., Karagiannidis, A., 2010.
Energy efficiency in the Hellenic building sector: An assessment of the restrictions
and perspectives of the market. Energy policy 38(6), 2776-2784.
Karlsson, R., Luttropp, C., 2006. Eco-design: What’s happening? An overview of
subjected area of Eco-design and of the papers in this special issue. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14, 1291-1298.
Kevern, J.T., 2011. Green Building and Sustainable Infrastructure: Sustainability
Education for Civil Engineers. Journal of professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice 137(2), 107-112.
Knight, P., Jenkins, J.O., 2009. Adopting and Applying Eco-Design Techniques: A
Practitioners Perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(5), 549-558.
Lee, S.E., Rajagopalan, P., 2008. Building energy efficiency labeling programme in
Singapore. Energy Policy 36(10), 3982-3992.
Lee, W.L., Yik, F.W.H., 2004. Regulatory and voluntary approaches for enhancing
building energy efficiency. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 20, 477-499.
Lilley, D., 2009. Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Design
Studies 30 704-720.
Lindahl, M., 2003. Designers’ utilization of DfE methods. Paper presented at the 1st
International workshop on sustainable consumption, March 19-20, Tokyo, Japan
Lönngren, H.M., Rosenkranz, C., Kolbe, H., 2010. Aggregated construction supply
chains: success factors in implementation of strategic partnerships. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 15(5), 404-411.
Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Edwards, D.J., 2004. A seamless supply chain management
model for construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 9(1), 43-
56.
Lovins, A., 1992. Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities.
Strategic Issues Paper No. 1. E Source Inc., Boulder, CO. Available from:
http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQFj
AB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rmi.org%2Fcms%2FDownload.aspx%3Fid%3D4969
%26file%3DEnergy-
Efficient%2BBuildings%253B%2BInstitutional%2BBarriers%2Band%2BOpportuniti
es%2B-
%2BE%2BSource%2BOfficial.pdf%26title%3DEnergy%2BEfficient%2BBuildings%2
110
53A%2BInstitutional%2BBarriers%2Band%2BOpportunities&ei=bMgOUK65M-
ek4ASZq4CoBw&usg=AFQjCNFcI5Jj-iz2AloOufOz4-
pturNg7w&sig2=EEnV6NMOVFGpsosXxH3ZMA [accessed 10.02.2011].
Maciel, A.A., Ford, B., Lambert, R., 2007. Main influences on the design philosophy and
knowledge basis to bioclimatic integration into architectural design – the example of
best practices. Building and Environment 42(10), 3762-3773.
Meijer, F., Itard, L., Sunikka-Blank, M., 2009. Comparing European residential building
stocks: performance, renovation and policy opportunities. Building Research and
Information 37(5-6), 533-551.
Mentzer, J.T., De Witt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G.,
2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22(2), 1-25.
Mlecnik, E., Visscher, H., van Hal, A., 2010. Barriers and opportunities for labels for
highly energy-efficient houses. Energy Policy 38, 4592-4603.
Nässén, J., Sprei, F., Holmberg, J., 2008. Stagnating energy efficiency in the Swedish
building sector—Economic and organisational explanations. Energy Policy 36, 3814-
3822.
Nemry, F., Uihlein, A., Makishi Colodel, C., Wetzel, C., Braune, A., Wittstock, B., Hasan,
I., Kreißig, J., Gallon, N., Niemeier, S., Frech, Y., 2010. Options to reduce the
environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union - Potential and
costs. Energy and Buildings 42, 976–984.
OECD, 2003. Environmentally Sustainable Buildings, Challenges and Policies . OECD
Publications Service, Paris, France. Available from:
http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/Paris-SustBuildings_OECD.pdf [accessed
11.02.2011].
Ofori, G., 1992. The environment: the fourth construction project objective?.
Construction Management and Economics 10(5), 369-395.
Ofori, G., Ho, L.K., 2004. Translating Singapore architects’ environmental awareness
into decision making. Building Research and Information 32(1), 27-37.
O’Rafferty, S., 2008. Designing Interventions for Ecodesign?. Business Strategy and the
Environment 16, 77-78.
Peuportier, B., Thiers, S., Guiavarch, A., 2013. Eco-design of buildings using thermal
simulation and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 39, 73-78.
111
Plouffe, S., Lanoie, P., Berneman, C., Vernier, M., 2011. Economic benefits tied to
ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 573-579.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879-903.
Pujari, D., 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the
influences on market performance. Technovation 26(1), 76–85.
Raya, J.M., Isasa, M., Gazulla, C., 2011. Development of European Ecolabel and Green
Public Procurement Criteria for Office Buildings: JRC IPTS Draft Report. Available
from:
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/buildings/docs/market%20and%20economic%20an
alysis.pdf [accessed 10.06.2012].
Rio, M., Reyes, T., Roucoules, L., 2013. Toward proactive (eco)design process:
modeling information transformations among designers activities. Journal of Cleaner
Production 39, 105-116.
Roy, R., 1994. The evolution of Eco-design. Technovation 14(6), 363-380.
Rohracher, H., 2001. Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable
Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 13(1), 137-150.
Ryghaug, M., Sørensen, K.H., 2009. How energy efficiency fails in the buildings
industry. Energy Policy 37, 984-991.
Santiago Fink, H., 2011. Promoting behavioral change towards lower energy
consumption in the building sector. The European Journal of Social Science Research
24(1-2), 7-26.
Schultmann, F., Hiete, M., Kuehlen, A., Ludwig, J., Schulte Beerbuehl, S., Stengel, J.,
Vannieuwenhuyse, M., 2010. Collection of background information for the
development of EMAS pilot reference sectoral documents: The Construction Sector.
French-German Institute for Environmental Research DFIU, Karlsruhe.
Segerstedt, A., Olofsson, T., 2010. Supply chain in the construction industry. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 15(5), 347-353.
Sodagar, B., Fieldson, R., 2008. Towards a sustainable construction practice.
Construction Information Quarterly 10(3), 101-108.
112
Sun, J., Han, B., Ekwaro-Osire, S., Zhang, H., 2003. Design for environment:
methodologies, tools and implementation. Journal of Integrated Design & Process
Science 7(1), 59–75.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. Shadows And Lights Of GSCM (Green Supply Chain
Management): Determinants And Effects Of These Practices Based On A Multi-
National Study. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(10-11) 953 – 962.
Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Harvey, L.D.D., Mirasgedis, S., Levine, M.D., 2007. Mitigation CO2
emissions form energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research and
Information 35(4), 379-398.
Vakili-Ardebili, A., Boussabaine, A.H., 2005. The Intricacy of Eco-Building Design.
Paper for Eco Design 2005 Fourth International Symposium on Environmentally
Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 12-14 December 2005, 649- 654.
Vine, E., Rhee, C.H., Lee, K.D., 2006. Measurement and evaluation of energy efficiency
programs: California and South Korea. Energy 3, 1100-1113.
WBCSD, 2008, Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Business realities and opportunities.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available from:
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/EEBSummaryReportFINAL.pdf [accessed
10.02.2011].
Xie, C., Wu, D., Luo, J., Hu, X., 2010. A case study of multi-team communications in
construction desing under supply chain partnering. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 15(5), 363-370.
113
Chapter 5
The contribution of Green Public Procurement to Energy Efficiency Governance in buildings Abstract
In the next years the building and construction sector will tackle the great challenge of improving its energy performance. Therefore, public authorities will play a crucial role fostering demand for energy efficient buildings through Green Public Procurement (GPP) and contributing to energy efficiency governance at local level. Using an econometric analysis, this study investigates which factors influence the development of GPP practices in the building and construction sector as supporting instrument for energy efficiency governance by the municipalities in Tuscany (Italy). The results highlight that GPP practices in the building and construction sector can contribute to the energy efficiency governance at local level if municipality undertakes a path which integrates increasing energy and environmental awareness and technical know-how and expertise.
Keywords: Green Public Procurement, local authorities, governance, energy efficiency, building and construction sector
114
5.1 Introduction
The building and construction sector can contribute to sustainable development
generating social and economic benefits to society and reducing related
environmental impacts (UNEP, 2007). In fact, buildings account for about 40% of the
world’s energy use. Therefore, the building and construction sector has to face the
challenge of improving energy use in buildings and consequently minimizing
greenhouse gas emissions. This challenge involves all stakeholders of the complex
supply chain of the building and construction sector (Lovins, 1992). For this purpose,
public authorities can play a crucial role in the sector, not only as regulators but also
as building owners, tenants, developers and financiers. Then, public authorities can
foster a demand for energy efficient buildings that can have a positive impact directly
on the market. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
“governments should seek to explore this opportunity to influence the building sector
not only as a regulator, but also as an actor, putting up a good example for others to
follow” (UNEP, 2007).
The importance of public institutions as market players is confirmed by the great
impact of public procurement on Gross Domestic Product (GDP): between 8 and 25%
in OECD countries and 19.7% in EU-27 countries (OECD, 2000; European
Commission, 2010a). The magnitude of public purchasing power could concretely
stimulate production and consumption trends towards a demand of energy efficient
and environmentally friendly products and services (Li and Geiser, 2005, Edler and
Georghiou, 2007, Ambec and Lanoie, 2008). In particular, buildings belong to a
product group which represents one of the biggest share of GPP budget and
consequently the public procurement associated to the building and construction
sector can exert a considerable impact on the market (Kahlenborn et al, 2011).
In general, the integration of green criteria (e.g. energy saving criteria) in public
tenders could produce environmental benefits (Parikka-Alhola, 2008). For instance,
the selection of greener energy supplies in public sector could bring savings for 60
million tons of greenhouse gases, i.e. 18% of quotas assigned to the European Union
by the Kyoto Protocol. The adoption of energy-efficient computers in all EU public
115
authorities could achieve the reduction of 830 thousand tons of CO2 released in the
atmosphere (Ochoa and Erdmenger, 2003). The study of PricewaterhouseCoopers et
al. (2009) estimates an average reduction of CO2 emission of 25% related to adoption
of Green Public Procurement (GPP) practices in 2006-2007 in seven European
countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands and
Sweden) for ten product groups9 analysed. The adoption of GPP practices could also
increase the development of innovations, because it fosters the deployment of
solutions to satisfy a “new” demand for products and services (Geroski, 1990;
Marron, 2003). Consequently, GPP could be a policy instrument able to improve
environmental and competitive performance in firms (Testa at al, 2011).
Furthermore, the adoption of GPP practices could support public institutions during
their purchase decisions from an economic point of view, because a careful analysis of
initial capital costs and long-run operating costs among possible solutions would
favour the more energy-efficient and the greener one (PricewaterhouseCoopers et al,
2009; Marron, 2003).
These benefits have fostered the adoption of GPP policies and national plans in many
countries including countries in the EU (Bouwer et al, 2006; DEFRA, 2007;
Kahlenborn et al, 2011) but also the United States (McCrudden, 2004; Swanson et al,
2005), Canada (Brammer and Walker, 2011), South Africa (Bolton, 2006, 2008), Asia
(Ho at al, 2010), Australia (Chang and Kristiansen, 2006) and Japan (Brammer and
Walker, 2011). These GPP policies are more frequently focused on some product
groups and particularly on the building and construction sector (Kahlenborn et al,
2011).
The role of public purchases as a stimulus for energy efficient and environmental
friendly products and services has been a recent strand of research (McCrudden,
2004; Weiss and Thurbon, 2006; Nissinen et al, 2009; Walker and Brammer, 2009).
Furthermore, studies of green procurement carried out in the public sector are only
few compared to studies on environmental and sustainable supply chain
management in the private sector (Walker and Brammer, 2012). Walker and 9 This study analyses the following product groups: cleaning products and services, construction, electricity, catering and food, gardening, office IT equipment, paper, textiles, transport and furniture.
116
Brammer (2012) have made a review on existing studies of sustainable public
procurement and found that previous studies have analysed the level of adoption of
GPP in social housing (Hall and Purchase, 2006) and the development of tools to
assist the adoption of GPP in the building and construction sector (Molenaar et al,
2010; Willis, 2010; Tarantini et al, 2011). Using an econometric analysis, this study
investigates which factors influence the development of GPP practices in the building
and construction sector as supporting instrument for energy efficiency governance by
the municipalities in Tuscany, one of the Italian Region with more advanced policies
on public procurement. The analysis considers GPP practices in buildings at
municipal level because they are an effective instrument in order to achieve energy
efficiency improvements in the building and construction sector and can contribute to
carry out an energy efficiency governance at local level. As Laponche et al (1997)
argue, the implementation of energy efficiency improvement is a decentralized
activity and consequently municipalities have an essential role to support the use of
related measures.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 5.2 describes the uptake of GPP in Europe
and Italy. Section 5.3 introduce the relation between governance of energy efficiency
and GPP in the building and construction sector at local level. Section 5.4 explores
theoretical insights and presents the propositions underlying the analytical
framework. Section 5.5 addresses research design and methodology. Section 5.6
presents the main results of the analysis. Finally, Section 5.7 addresses implications of
the results for policy issues and future research.
5.2 The uptake of GPP in Europe and Italy
The European Union (EU) has promoted the adoption of GPP practices as tool in
order to decrease environmental impacts since 2001 (European Commission, 2001a,
2001b). Then, the Directive 2004/18/EC foresees the inclusion of the environmental
criteria in public procurement process (European Commission, 2004). In 2008 the
European Commission established that 50% of overall public tendering procedures
should be green by 2010 and provided information to reduce environmental impacts
117
coming from public sector consumption (European Commission, 2008). Several other
European documents continue to support GPP and highlights related benefits (Testa
et al, 2012). The Communication “EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth” encourages the use of GPP as instrument to achieve smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth (European Commission, 2010b). The proposal for a
Directive on Public Procurement (COM (2011) 896) recommends the setting of
mandatory objectives and targets in sector-specific legislation and promotes the
development and use of European approaches to life-cycle costing for purchasing
decisions (European Commission, 2010c). Furthermore, European regulations
underline that public authorities play a crucial role through public procurement
supporting the development of efficient end-use of energy, Eco-design of products
and nearly-zero energy buildings (European Commission, 2009, 2010d, 2012).
The European Commission has concretely supported Member States in the
implementation of GPP by publishing a guidebook to include environmental criteria
in tender documents (a first version in 2004 and an updated version in 2011)
(European Commission, 2011a), establishing GPP criteria for 19 product groups10 and
promoting training and awareness events.
The effects of the EU’s efforts to spread and develop GPP practices have been
assessed in a number of studies. In 2006, a study measured the level of GPP across
EU-25 and showed that 7 countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great
Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden – called as the "Green 7”) adopt more frequently
GPP practices and deploy several kind of instruments to foster GPP (Bouwer et al,
2006). PricewaterCoopers et al (2009) investigate the levels and impact of GPP
among the “Green 7” from 2006 to 2007. This study uses two indicators: percentage
green purchases of total procurement value and percentage green purchases of total
number of contracts. The best countries are the UK with 75% green purchases of total
procurement value and Austria with 62% green purchases of total number of
contracts. There is a wide difference on the level of GPP between the analysed ten
product groups: electricity, office IT and furniture attain the highest scores;
10
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm
118
construction, gardening and transport the lowest ones. This study estimates
economic and environmental benefits related to GPP practices: an average reduction
of CO2 emissions of 25% and an average decrease of overall costs for public
organizations of around 1% in 2006-2007. In particular, construction is one of three
product groups where the adoption of GPP produces a reduction in CO2 emissions
and related costs.
Two other recent studies investigates the uptake of GPP in the EU. Kahlenborn et al
(2011) aim at providing a comprehensive review of experiences in public
procurement not only to promote environmental, but also social and innovative
aspects. This study shows that the majority of countries have developed specific
National Action Plan (NAP) on GPP. Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK
are front-runners on GPP with long-standing policies and programmes, but also the
high adoption for requirements in contracts. GPP targets of various Member States as
stated in their NAPs and their total budget for public procurement are used to
estimate GPP budget volumes. Three priority product groups represent the biggest
shares of GPP national budget: buildings, transport and office IT. Moreover, buildings
and transport are priority product groups for GPP throughout Europe. A second study
(Renda et al, 2012a) aims at measuring the level of uptake of core green criteria set at
the EU level by different types of procuring authorities in the EU-27 from 2010 to
2011. The results shows that public authorities in the EU-27 put significant efforts to
diffuse GPP, but have to continue working in order to reach the 50% target of
procurement for many product groups. The uptake of EU core GPP criteria varies
across countries and product groups. Despite construction is a priority product
groups, this product group still lags significantly behind with an uptake level below
20%. This study is broadly in line with the PricewaterCoopers et al (2009) and
Kahlenborn et al (2011)’ s studies, with some exceptions. Belgium, Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Sweden are top performers in terms of number of contracts. Finland
is top performer for value of procurement, followed by the Netherlands, Latvia,
Hungary, and Lithuania.
119
Against this background, Italy has been committed to GPP since 2003 (Kahlenborn et
al, 2011). This commitment was confirmed firstly by the adoption of Directive
2004/18/EC and NAP on GPP and then by the carrying out of several national and
mainly regional/local initiatives in order to adopt environmental criteria for
procurement in public administrations (Iraldo and Testa, 2007; Kahlenborn et al,
2011). After the adoption of NAP, Italian Ministry of Environment has defined a set of
minimum environmental requirements for some product/service groups to support
the introduction of green criteria in public tenders (Iraldo et al, 2008). At the
moment, the Ministry of Environment is working on minimum environmental
requirements for buildings. Furthermore, in Italy GPP practices are also boosted by
awards to the “greenest” procurers (e.g. Italian Ministry of Economy has promoted a
GPP award since 200811) and the Italian government engages other levels of
government by creating working groups or similar initiatives to foster the
implementation of GPP policies (Kahlenborn et al, 2011). As stated above, there are
several regional and local experiences to develop GPP practices. In particular,
Tuscany Region has started to promote GPP practices since the nineties. Tuscany has
emanated some regional laws to foster the use of recycled materials and the diffusion
of energy efficient practices in buildings and renewable sources for hot sanitary
water in all local authorities, such as municipalities (Rete delle Agende 21 locali della
Toscana, 2007). Moreover, the regional administration has established grants to
support local authorities for the procurement of recycled plastic products since 2011.
A recent survey shows that Italian public administrations included at least one of the
EU core green criteria in 73% and all EU core green criteria in 30% of contracts
(Renda et al, 2012b). There are differences among product groups for green criteria.
Italian institutions are top “green” performers for office IT equipment, furniture, and
copying and graphic paper, and poor performers for clean service and products, and
construction (Renda et al, 2012b). Tarantini et al (2011) confirm the Italian delay for
activities on GPP of building products. Their results highlight that Italy achieved great
improvements in the adoption of GPP, but needed to develop GPP practices according 11https://www.acquistinretepa.it/opencms/export/sites/acquistinrete/documenti/PREMIO_GPP/Premio_GPP_2012/Premio_GPP_2012-Bando.pdf
120
to a more holistic view. Furthermore, they argue that GPP practices should not be
judged as burden but a tool to support evaluation process to award a contract.
5.3 Governance of energy efficiency and GPP in buildings
There is a worldwide consensus on the need for energy efficiency and particularly
energy efficiency in buildings. According to European Energy Efficiency Plan (2011)
buildings along with transport have the greatest energy saving potential. Therefore,
widespread energy efficiency policies are put in place, but their implementation
proceeds very slow and energy efficiency potential is not maximized (Gupta and
Ivanova, 2009; Jollands and Ellis, 2009). Some studies argue that it is crucial to deploy
a suitable energy efficiency governance which is not only technocratic but also
integral and socially oriented (Gupta and Ivanova, 2009; Jollands and Ellis, 2009;
Golubchikov and Deda, 2012).
Drawing on the governance literature and the characteristics of energy efficiency
(Rhodes, 2000; Bulkeley, 2005; Murphy and Yanacopulos, 2005; Hisschemoeller et al,
2006; Biermann, 2007; Improvement and Development Agency for local government,
2008), energy efficiency governance can be defined as “use of political authority,
institutions and resources by decision-makers and implementers to achieve
improved energy efficiency” (Jollands and Ellis, 2009). This definition crosses many
spatial dimensions (local, regional, national and international) including a wide range
of actors (government and non-governmental organisations/subjects). Jollands and
Ellis (2009) state that a governance system consists of two components: resources
and structures for governance and governance activities. The former ones can be
identified as institutional structures, human and financial resources, human capacity
and training, and political support/mandate. The latter ones are represented by
actions associated to the governance system such as: energy efficiency strategies,
policy development processes, funding mechanisms, monitoring programmes,
compliance and enforcement, and R&D activities. This framework needs a multi-level
governance (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Smith, 2007) in order to develop an effective
energy efficiency governance. For instance, energy efficiency targets established by
121
national institutional structures influence local level actors and related resources and
capacity. Then, an effective articulation of energy efficiency governance framework
supports the success of energy efficiency policy efforts (International Institute for
Energy Conservation, 2007; Laponche et al, 1997; Limaye et al, 2008).
A multi-level approach in energy efficiency governance is fundamental to implement
energy efficiency in buildings, because the building and construction sector has a high
energy efficiency potential and is a complex sector (Lovins, 1992). Then, the
deployment of energy efficiency in the building and construction sector requires “a
strong institutional milieu” which stimulates the deployment of energy efficient
solutions, informs consumer choice concerning these options, foster behavioural
change and balances different interests (Golubchikov and Deda, 2012). In fact,
progress towards energy efficient buildings needs not just technical solutions but also
social and institutional support (Rohracher, 2001). Furthermore, energy efficiency
policies has to be integrated in the whole policy mix to increase energy efficiency
policy effectiveness in buildings (Hoppe et al, 2011; Golubchikov and Deda, 2012).
Gupta and Ivanova (2009) underline the importance of a global energy efficiency
governance, but the improvement of energy efficiency especially in the building and
construction sector is a decentralized activity and is supported by a network of
partners (e.g. enterprises, local authorities, government services, households, etc.)
(Laponche et al, 1997). In this context local authorities, such as municipalities, can
ensure conditions and solutions for energy efficiency improvements (Rezessy et al,
2006). Local authorities can assume several roles in order to support energy
efficiency in the building and construction sector. In particular, they can be market
initiators, buyers, borrowers and implementers for energy efficiency measures in
buildings (Rezessy et al, 2006). Consequently, local authorities can promote an
energy efficiency policy in the building and construction sector through the
deployment of GPP practices. The adoption of GPP in the building and construction
sector becomes an instrument which contributes to energy efficiency governance.
In any case, it is important to take into account that the success of energy efficiency
policy from local authorities is linked to some preconditions which can predict the
122
success and effectiveness of local environmental but also energy efficiency policy
(Barrutia et al, 2007; Evans et al, 2005; Nijkamp and Perrels, 1994). These
preconditions can be identified with the following factors: knowledge mix,
employment of experts, the presence of motivated and knowledgeable people in the
municipal organisation, adequate institutional support to energy efficiency targets in
the whole municipal organisation, sustainable management approach, the presence of
favourable political parties to energy efficiency policies, an official who checks policy
agenda, support from higher levels of government, favourable supporting network
outside the municipal administration and capacity to influence local target groups
(Hoppe et al, 2011). Therefore, it is crucial to analyse the factors which influence the
contribution of local authorities to energy efficiency governance in buildings through
GPP practices.
5.4 Theory and Propositions
5.4.1 Technical and organizational support to the adoption of GPP practices
The adoption of GPP practices can tackle several obstacles. Previous studies have
identified the main barriers which may be informative (i.e. lack of information about
the real environmental impacts of the products and lack of guidelines by higher-order
authorities), organizational (i.e. lack of organizational resources, difficulty in the
preparation of call for tenders and purchasing, difficulty in finding suppliers, lack of
co-operation between authorities) and political (i.e. lack of political support) (Bouwer
et al, 2006; Parikka-Alhola et al, 2007, Walker and Brammer, 2009, Testa et al, 2012).
In particular, some studies underline the difficult implementation of GPP practices in
the building and construction sector (Bouwer et al, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers et
al, 2009; Renda et al, 2012a). The adoption of GPP in this sector needs technical
expertise and know-how which often are missing in the environmental and financial
department of a municipality. In fact, a recent study on practices and issues regarding
green procurement of construction contracts in Sweden reveals that the lack of
knowledge is one of the limits on the application of environmental procurement
preferences in constructions contracts (Varnas et al, 2009).
123
Several studies have analyzed effective tools to support the implementation of green
procurement in local authorities such as suitable legislation and information
(Günther and Scheibe, 2006; Thomson and Jackson, 2007; Fet et al, 2011). In order to
foster the development of GPP, governments have a fundamental role consisting in
the provision of clear legislative and regulatory support in decentralised public
organizations (Lundqvist, 2001).
Many actions were adopted by European Commission and Italian Government in
order to overcome related barriers which hinder the implementation of GPP for all
product groups, but the achieved results are not fully satisfying. For instance, the
ambitious EU target of 50% of GPP by 2010 was not fully achieved. For this reason,
our study aims to verify if these instruments and tools were really effective to
stimulate GPP practices in the buildings and construction sector which is one the
most crucial and representative product group. The first proposition states that:
Proposition n. 1: The knowledge of GPP toolkit and official documents provided by
national governments and European Union policy makers increases the probability to
adopt GPP practices in the building and construction sector
The attendance of civil servants at ad hoc training sessions on GPP is a signal of the
commitment of public authorities and procurement professionals to foster the
implementation of GPP practices (Drumwright, 1994). In fact, the lack of training is
one of the most important informative barriers to GPP (Bouwer et al, 2006) and
represent a crucial factor to stimulate the adoption of GPP practices (Carter et al,
1998; Powell et al, 2006) and in particular in the building and construction sector.
The second proposition states that:
Proposition n. 2: The participation of public civil servants to ad hoc training sessions on GPP increases the probability to adopt GPP practices in the building and construction sector
The lack of internal expertise and opportunity to increase internal capabilities on GPP
was often considered a consequence of the small size of the public authorities. Some
124
studies find a correlation between the size of the public organization and the focus on
green procurement in the first years of implementation of GPP practices (Michelsen
and de Boer, 2009; Testa et al, 2012). Significant progress has been achieved in the
last years in terms of uptake of GPP also in small municipalities, therefore the
assumption that small-sized public authorities influence negatively the development
of GPP practice is not anymore convincing. This evidence leads to third proposition.
Proposition n. 3: The size of public authority does not affect the probability to adopt GPP
practices in the building and construction sector
5.4.2 Energy efficiency and environmental strategy and EMS
The adoption of GPP can belong to a broader environmental strategy of public
authorities, i.e. relevance that environmental protection and energy efficiency have in
their decisions and activities. According to some scholars public administrations tend
to overestimate their environmental strategy (Varnas et al, 2009; Ochoa and
Erdmenger, 2003). Therefore, an environmental strategy cannot be sufficient to
foster the development of GPP in a complex sector as the building and construction
one. These considerations suggest the following proposition:
Proposition n. 4: The presence of an overall environmental strategy in public authorities
does not affect the probability to adopt GPP practices in the building and construction
sector
The implementation of GPP practices in the building and construction sector can be
supported by a special tool such as environmental management system (EMS), which
can be deployed through formal standards such as ISO 14001 and EMAS (Iraldo et al,
2009). In fact, an EMS foresees the definition of a scheme for organizations in order to
manage their environmental impacts and continuously improvement of their
environmental performance. Italian public administrations adopt more frequently,
than other EU Member States and OECD countries, certified EMSs. For instance, in
June 2012 Italian public authorities were more than the 20% of total EMAS
registrations and the public sector represented the first sector for number of EMAS
125
registrations. In general, public administrations choose to implement an EMS because
they are influenced by their characteristics and functions (Lozano and Vallés, 2007,
Daddi et al, 2010).
Consequently, the adoption of an EMS enable to define operative procedures to
manage indirect environmental aspects which ISO 14001 and EMAS define as “an
environmental aspect which can result from the interaction of an organization with
third parties and which can, to a reasonable degree, be influenced by an
organization”. Among all organizations, public authorities tackle several indirect
environmental aspects because of the way they provide their services and carry out
their land and energy planning and control powers (Von Malmborg, 2003; Emilsson
and Hjelm, 2007). In particular, public administrations with a certified EMS have to
manage the indirect environmental impacts associated with the environmental
performance and practices of their contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the
building and construction sector. Then, EMS can help tenders to take into account
environmental management measures during service or work (Varnas et al, 2009).
Therefore, EMS and GPP could create a synergy supporting relative goals (Rüdenauer
et al, 2007). A recent study has not found a very significant relation between ISO
I4001 adoption and GPP, because public administrations start to focus on “direct
environmental aspects” and thus leave out the management of the “indirect” ones
(Testa et al, 2012). Starting from these considerations, and employing a sample of
Tuscan municipalities, this analysis aims at demonstrating that the stage of adoption
of a certified EMS is not a sufficient to stimulate the adoption GPP in the building and
construction sector. The last proposition states that:
Proposition n. 5: The Stage of EMS adoption in public authorities does not affect the
probability to adopt GPP practices in the building and construction sector
126
5.5 Research design and methodology
5.5.1 Sample
This analysis uses primary data from a questionnaire survey conducted among
municipalities of Tuscany. Tuscany Region is traditionally committed in the diffusion
of GPP in local public administrations (Rete delle Agende 21 locali della Toscana,
2007). Therefore, Tuscany confirms the diffused and increased experiences in
supporting GPP in some Italian regions (Iraldo and Testa, 2007).
The survey was implemented between September and December 2011 by an online
questionnaire. After telephone calls in order to identify qualified department for GPP
practices in the building and construction sector, we sent via e-mail questionnaire
and cover letter to a random sample of 81 municipalities out of a total number of
287. Among these 287 municipalities of Tuscany, we considered all 10 provincial
capitals as self-representative and then we added 71 municipalities randomly
selected which are representative with 95% of confidence level and a sample error of
10%. After 15 days from the first forwarding, we called back municipalities which had
not yet filled in the questionnaire in order to know if municipalities received the
questionnaire and needed to be supported for the filling. In case of failed reception,
we sent again questionnaire and cover letter. After 30 and 45 days from the first
forwarding, we called back non-respondents to remind them to fill in the
questionnaire.
The questionnaire included 21 questions structured around five categories of
information: 1) general information of municipality; 2) awareness on environmental
issues at strategic level; 3) description of procurement function; 4) level of
implementation of GPP practices 5) identification of drivers and barriers to GPP
practices.
The survey collected 62 responses, from all Provinces of Tuscany, with a response
rate of 76.5%. The respondents were purchasing, environmental and public works
managers. More detailed information about respondent municipalities and sampled
population are summarized in Table 5.1.
127
Table 5.1 – Sample’s details
Population % of population Number of municipalities
% of municipalities
Tuscany 3,749,813 287 Sampled municipalities
1,946,028 51.9 81 28.6
Respondent municipalities
1,026,114 27.4 62 21.6
5.5.2 Model and variables
In order to analyse which factors influence the GPP practices in the building and
construction sector in the Tuscany region, the study uses the following theoretical
model:
GPP in buildings = 0 1 (Knowledge of GPP toolkit) 2 (Training on GPP) 3
(Population) 4 (Environmental strategy) 5 (Stage EMS adoption) 6 (Structure
of purchasing process)
(1)
As reported by literature, the diffusion of GPP practices has been measured in several
ways: questionnaires (Ochoa and Erdmenger, 2003; Brammer and Walker, 2011;
Testa et al, 2012), interviews (Michelsen and de Boer, 2009; Varnas et al, 2009) and
tender analysis (Bouwer et al, 2006; Nissinen et al, 2009). Each method has
advantages and disadvantages (Testa et al, 2012). This study collected data by a
survey questionnaire seeking to provide an overview of the nature of engagement
with GPP practices in the building and construction sector within sample in Tuscan
municipalities.
In order to obtain more robust results, the dependent variable, defined as the level of
GPP, was measured in two ways. Respondents were asked to indicate if their
administrations have set up procedures according to GPP practices in the building
and construction sector. Therefore, we constructed a binary variable. Then,
participants were asked how many categories of application (i.e. work, service and
supply) for GPP practices they had adopted. By using four alternatives provided we
obtain a categorical variable. To avoid possible biases associated to a different
128
interpretation of green procurement, a procurement is considered as “green” if it uses
the environmental criteria identified at EU and/or Italian level in their official
guidelines and document in each stage of the tender. Thus, a methodological annex
was sent to interviewees and a sample of tenders was controlled in order to test the
reliability of answers.
This analysis used a set of binary variables to measure if public procurers were
trained to include energy efficient and environmental criteria during purchasing
process; and if procurers frequently used the GPP toolkit and official documents
provided by national and European policy makers.
The size of public authority was measured using population data from 2011 National
Demographic Balance12 published by the Statistical National Institute (ISTAT) for all
Italian municipalities.
The adoption of an environmental management system was measured considering
the stage of adoption (not adopted, in phase of implementation and adopted) of a
certified EMS (ISO 14001 standard or EMAS regulation) by collecting this information
on the official web-site of Italian Accreditation Body – Accredia for ISO 14001 and of
Italian Competent Body for EMAS registration.
Finally, the study also takes into account the level of importance of environmental
issues for municipalities at the strategic level and the structure of purchasing system
in order to capture the effect of political and organizational structure. Table 5.2
presents descriptive statistics for the key variables.
Since the different nature of two dependent variables, a logistic regression analysis
was adopted to test the adoption of GPP practices in the building and construction
sector and an ordinal logistical regression appears the most suitable model for testing
the level of adoption of GPP in the building and construction sector. Another aspect to
take into account is the potential presence of common method biases that generally
affect survey data (Podsakoff et al, 2003). We have adopted several procedural
remedies to reduce biases such as: minimizing item ambiguity avoiding vague
concepts, complicated syntax and unfamiliar terms; keeping questions simple, 12 National Demographic Balance consists of last census data updated by annual births and deaths and annual changes of residence.
129
specific, and concise; avoiding the use of bipolar numerical scale values and providing
verbal labels for the midpoints of scales and by guaranteeing respondents anonymity.
Table 5.2 – Descriptive statistics Variable Description Obs Mean Std.
deviation Min Max
GPP in buildings 1 if municipality adopts GPP practices in purchasing function for the building and construction sector 0 if municipality does not adopt GPP practices in purchasing function for the building and construction sector
48 .6875 .4684 0 1
Level of GPP in buildings
1 if municipality does not adopt GPP practices in purchasing function for the building and construction sector, 2 if municipality has adopted GPP practices in only one category of application (work or service or supply), 3 if municipality has adopted GPP practices in two categories of application (work, service and supply), 4 if municipality has adopted GPP practices in all three categories of application (work, service and supply)
48 2.292 1.11 1 4
Training on GPP 1 if public procurers were trained to include energy efficient and environmental criteria during purchasing process, 0 if public procurers were not trained to include energy efficient and environmental criteria during purchasing process
45 .333 .476 0 1
Knowledge of GPP toolkit and guidelines
1 if public procurers frequently used the GPP toolkit and official documents provided by national and European policy makers, 0 if public procurers did not use the GPP toolkit and official documents provided by national and European policy makers
45 .467 .504 0 1
Environmental strategy
Level of importance for environmental issues for municipality at the strategic level: five-point Likert scale 1 indicating no importance and 5 extremely important
62 3.242 .8235 1 5
Stage EMS adoption
1 if municipality did not adopt any a certified EMS, 2 if municipality is implementing a certified EMS, 3 if municipality has adopted a certified EMS
62 1.435 .760 1 3
Population Number of residents in municipality 62 16550 28929 504 161131
Structure of purchasing process
1 if municipality has a centralized purchasing function, 2 if municipality has both centralized and decentralized purchasing function, 3 if municipality has decentralized purchasing function
48 2.458 .797 1 3
130
5.6 Results
The analysis of determinants of GPP adoption and level of GPP adoption in the
building and construction sector showed that the knowledge of GPP toolkit and
official documents and the attendance of civil servants at training courses on GPP are
strong drivers to foster GPP practices in the building and construction sector. Both
confirmed the first two propositions: “Training on GPP” and “Knowledge of GPP
toolkit and guidelines” increase the probability to adopt GPP practices in the building
and construction sector (Table 5.3 and 5.4). Therefore, European and national efforts
through information and awareness campaigns about GPP advantages and related
training courses start to give positive outcomes in the public authorities (Iraldo et al,
2007; Testa el al, 2012). In particular, the lack of knowledge is an important barrier to
the implementation of GPP in the building and construction sector (Varnas et al,
2009). These results underline the urgency to provide more and more detailed
technical guidelines to support civil servants during purchasing process for a complex
product such as a building and related materials. Regarding the Italian context, a
stimulus to the development of GPP in the building and construction sector might
come from the approval of national minimum environmental requirements for
buildings. The actual level of development of GPP in the European and Italian building
and construction sector points out a great potential for the improvement of energy
performance in buildings (Meijer et al, 2009; Bouwer et al, 2006). Therefore, suitable
training programmes and toolkits can improve also the quality and effectiveness of
adoption of GPP practices in the building and construction sector. This aspect is
highlighted by the high odds ratios associated to “Training on GPP” and “Knowledge
of GPP toolkit and guidelines” in both equations (Table 5.3 and 5.4). In particular,
guidelines for GPP practices increase the probability of GPP adoption and related
quality in the building and construction sector more than training courses on GPP.
Furthermore, these instruments can increase the internal capabilities of the entire
municipal organization, because they assume an interdisciplinary role influencing
positively individual knowledge of civil servants but also decision making process of
entire local authorities (Nissinen et al, 2009).
131
The population (as a proxy of municipality’ s size) does not influence the GPP
adoption and the level of GPP adoption in the building and construction sector. We
believe that this finding is not affected by the adopted measure of municipality
dimension, since a recent study - which used the natural logarithm of the
organisation’s total purchasing expenditure as proxy of public organization
dimension - confirms that organisation’s dimension does not influence the adoption
of sustainable procurement practices (Walker and Brammer, 2012).
The two estimated equations do not find that the presence of general environmental
strategy in municipalities is a significant driver for the development of GPP practices
in the building and construction sector. These results confirm a common trend among
public authorities to overestimate the application of green choices (Varnas et al,
2009; Ochoa and Erdmenger, 2003). Probably, the adoption of an environmental
strategy needs a formalisation within organisation and time to be implemented.
The stage of EMS adoption is not significant in the two equations: the GPP adoption
and the GPP level of adoption in the building and construction sector. Probably, the
implementation of EMS is not sufficient to support the adoption of GPP practices in
the building and construction sector. Several studies emphasise the difficulty of
implementing EMSs in the construction industry since this industry has specific
characteristics which hinder the application of traditional management systems
(Gangolells et al, 2011; Ball, 2002; Griffith and Bhutto, 2008). Consequently, the only
adoption of EMS does not guarantee a successful development of GPP practices in the
building and construction sector. EMS can be rather a first step which should be
followed by training and guidelines on GPP.
Finally, this study finds that the structure of purchasing process is not significant
regarding the GPP adoption and the level of GPP adoption in the building and
construction sector (Table 5.3 and 5.4). This result suggests that GPP practices are
promoted by the expertise of civil servants in municipalities.
132
Table 5.3 – Results of logistic regression analysis for GPP adoption in the building and construction sector GPP in buildings
Coeff. Odds Ratio z
Training on GPP 4.53 93.54 2.16**
Knowledge of GPP toolkit and guidelines
4.78 119.11 2.22**
Environmental strategy .3871 1.47 0.44
Stage EMS adoption .813 2.25 0.97
Population .0000777 1.00 1.38
Structure of purchasing process
-.954 .385 -1.05
Constant -3.48 .030 -1.02
Number of observations 44
LR chi2 22.32***
Pseudo-R2 0.4054
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
Table 5.4 – Results of ordered logistic regression analysis for the level of GPP adoption in the building and construction sector Level of GPP in buildings
Coeff. Odds Ratio z
Training on GPP 3.54 34.51 2.72***
Knowledge of GPP toolkit and guidelines
4.20 67.12 3.32***
Environmental strategy .045 1.05 0.09
Stage EMS adoption .656 1.93 1.56
Population .0000186 1.00 0.95
Structure of purchasing process
-.560 .57 -1.44
Number of observations 44
LR chi2 25.46***
Pseudo-R2 0.2115
***, ** and * indicate the significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
133
5.7 Discussion and Conclusions
This study aimed to explore factors which influence the development of GPP in the
building and construction sector as supporting instrument for energy efficiency
governance by local authorities such as municipalities.
The results underline the strong importance of qualified and well-informed personnel
on GPP practices in the building and construction sector. An increasing awareness on
GPP practices fosters the complex supply chain of the building and construction
sector to improve energy performance of buildings and related materials. Moreover,
suitable training activities and guidelines for civil servants can develop the
knowledge of overall local authorities on environmental and mainly energy efficiency
issues. Moreover, the development of GPP practices in the building and construction
sector can lead municipalities to complement the energy management of their
building stock with the promotion of energy efficiency measures also in residential
buildings (Hoppe et al, 2011). Consequently, this process of internal growth in the
municipalities might improve their contribution to energy efficiency governance in
the building and construction sector. As European legislation foresees, local
authorities have a crucial role and have to increase their efforts to implement energy
efficiency measures in buildings (European Commission, 2012).
The significance of guidelines on GPP practices in the building and construction
sector highlights the role of the EU and national governments which have to support
decentralised public authorities through clear regulations and technical guidelines in
order to raise their level of awareness and expertise, but also to create a favourable
context for the adoption of GPP (Lundqvist, 2001; Bouwer et al, 2006). Therefore, a
coordination between central governments and municipalities is needed to improve
the development of GPP practices in the building and construction sector and the
deployment of energy efficiency governance at local level (Sperling et al, 2011).
The fact that the dimension of municipalities does not influence the adoption of GPP
practices in the building and construction sector can raise some evaluations. As
mentioned above, the development of GPP in the building and construction sector
requires specialised personnel. Therefore, the support provided by training and
134
guidelines on GPP practices is decreasing possible differences among small and large
municipalities. On the other hand, strong budget constraints affect all public
authorities because of current economic crisis. Consequently, a suitable knowledge of
GPP practices for the building and construction sector might lead to shift from the
purchase cost approach to life-cycle cost approach in order to manage more
efficiently public resources (Sterner, 2002; Varnas et al, 2009).
Another relevant issue to be discussed concerns the relationship between the
presence of a general environmental strategy in municipalities and the development
of GPP in the building and construction sector. The presence of a general
environmental strategy in the local authorities might foster the adoption of GPP
practices in the building and construction sector only with a strong leadership
(Bansal and Roth, 2000). This leadership has to be able to foster the transformation of
environmental and energy awareness into effective technical solutions for buildings
and related materials. Otherwise, the implementation of GPP faces the overestimation
of green preferences and thus the plucking “low hanging fruits” related to energy
efficiency measures in local authorities (Rezessy et al, 2006; Hoppe et al, 2011).
A controversial result regards the lack of significance of the relationship between the
stage of EMS and the development of GPP practices in the building and construction
sector. As Emilsson and Hjelm (2002) state, the implementation of EMS is often
considered as a project and not as continuous and integrated processes in local
authorities in order to improve organisation’s environmental performance. Moreover,
some studies show that public authorities apply EMSs focusing mainly on “direct
environmental aspects” and overlooking the importance of the “indirect aspects”
which are associated to the environmental performance and practices of their
contractors, subcontractors and suppliers (Von Malmborg, 2003; Testa et al, 2012).
For this reason, the adoption of EMS does not necessarily foster the deployment of
GPP initiatives in the building and construction sector triggering a synergy. Then, the
municipality’ s motivation is crucial to drive an effective implementation of EMS in
order to support other municipal policies such as GPP practices (Emilsson and Hjelm,
2002).
135
These findings highlight that GPP practices in the building and construction sector
can contribute to the energy efficiency governance at local level, if municipality
undertakes a path which integrates increasing energy and environmental awareness
and technical expertise. In fact, the energy efficiency governance in buildings needs
resources and structures for governance, i.e. technical expertise and know-how, and
governance activities, i.e. energy efficiency strategies (Jollands and Ellis, 2009). Since
the public procurement decisions are complex processes where several external
stakeholders and decision makers within administration act (Günther and Scheibe,
2006), the implementation of GPP initiatives in the building and construction sector
constitutes a sort of training for municipalities in order to deploy an energy efficiency
governance at local level.
This study presents some limitations. The data were self-reported through a
questionnaire survey. Despite drawbacks associated with the questionnaire, the
study used this method in order to collect information about “green” purchase
practices, structure and characteristics of municipalities which tender analysis is
unable to provide. Despite the widespread presence of experiences to develop GPP
practices in Italian regional and local authorities decreases possible differences
among Italian regions and the focus on municipalities in Tuscany must be taken into
account in case of generalization.
There are several implications of the study for policy makers and public procurement
practitioners and for future research. Policy makers may need to be supported to
improve the level of awareness and know-how on GPP instrument and its
involvement in energy efficiency governance in the building and construction sector
within municipalities. In addition, policy makers should start to consider energy
efficiency as an overall objective which includes the development of GPP practices as
a supporting tool in their municipality. Practitioners should employ their expertise to
steer municipalities towards more cost-effective energy efficient measures in their
buildings and to improve interaction with actors of supply chain in the building and
construction sector. Finally, further research is needed to investigate the relationship
136
between energy management of municipal building stock and energy efficiency policy
in residential and commercial buildings.
137
References
Ambec, S., Lanoie, P., 2008. Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview. Academy
of Management Perspectives 22(4), 45-62.
Ball, J., 2002. Can ISO 14000 and eco-labelling turn the construction industry green?.
Building and Environment 37(4), 421- 428.
Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological
responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 717-36.
Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., Aguado, I., 2007. Local Agenda 21 Implementation:
Networking vs. Other Forms of Policy Making. paper presented at Joint Congress of
the European Regional Science Association (47thCongress) and ASRDLF (Association
de Science Régionale de Langue Francaise, 44thCongress), 29 August–2 September
2007, Paris.
Biermann, F., 2007. ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global
change research. Global Environmental Change 17, 326-337.
Bolton, P., 2006. Government procurement as a policy tool in South Africa. Journal of
Public Procurement 6, 193-217.
Bolton, P., 2008. Protecting the environment through public procurement: the case of
South Africa. Natural Resources Forum 32, 1–10.
Bouwer, M., Jonk, M., Berman, T., Bersani, R., Lusser, H., Nappa, V,, Nissinen, A.,
Parikka, K., Szuppinger, P., Viganò, C., 2006. Green Public Procurement in Europe
2006 – Conclusions and recommendations. Virage Milieu & Management bv, Korte
Spaarne 31, 2011 AJ Haarlem, the Netherlands. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/take_5.pdf [accessed 26.11.2010].
Brammer, S., Walker, H., 2011. Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an
international comparative study. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 31(4), 452-476.
Bulkeley, H., 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of
scale and networks. Political Geography 24, 875-902.
Bulkeley, H., Betsill, M., 2005.Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and
the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14 (1),42–63.
138
Carter, C.R., Ellram, L.M., Ready, K.J.,1998. Environmental purchasing: benchmarking
our German counterparts. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management 34(4), 28-38.
Chang, H.C., Kristiansen, P., 2006. Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’. Australian
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50(1),103–113.
Daddi, T., Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. A cluster-based approach as an effective way to
implement the Environmental Compliance Assistance Programme: evidence from
some good practices. Local Environment 15(1), 73-82.
DEFRA, 2007.Securing the Future: UK Government Sustainable Procurement Action
Plan Incorporating the Government response to the Report of the Sustainable
Procurement Task Force. DEFRA, London.
Drumwright, M., 1994, Socially responsible organisational buying: environmental
concern as a non-economic buying criteria. Journal of Marketing 58, 1-19.
Edler, J., Georghiou, L., 2007. Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the
demand side. Research Policy 36, 949–963.
Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2002. Implementation of standardised environmental
management systems in Swedish local authorities: reasons, expectations and some
outcomes. Environmental Science and Policy 5(6), 443-448.
Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2007. Managing Indirect Environmental Impact within Local
Authorities’ Standardised Environmental management Systems. Local Environment
12, 73-86.
European Commission, 2001a. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy COM(2001)
68 final. Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0068en01.pdf [accessed
18.08.2012].
European Commission, 2001b. Commission Interpretative Communication on the
Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating
environmental considerations into public procurement. COM(2001) 274 final.
Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0274:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed
18.08.2012].
European Commission, 2004. Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for
139
the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service
contracts. Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0018:en:HTML
[accessed 18.08.2012].
European Commission, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions Brussels, Public procurement for a better environment,
COM(2008) 400/2. Brussels.
European Commission, 2010a. Public Procurement Indicators 2010. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/indicators2010_en.p
df [accessed 18.08.2012].
European Commission, 2010b. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions Brussels, Europe 2020 A strategy for smart. Sustainable
and inclusive growth (COM(2010) 2020 final. Brussels. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/investing-in-research-european-
commission-europe-2020-2010.pdf [accessed 18.08.2012].
European Commission, 2010c. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on public procurement. COM(2011) 896 final.
Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0896:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed
17.09.2012].
European Commission, 2011a. Buying Green! A Handbook on Environmental Public
Procurement, Brussels. Available from: http://www.interact-
eu.net/downloads/4691/European%2520Commission%2520PP%2520Guidance%2
520%257C%2520Buying%2520green%2520%257C%252007.12.2012.pdf [accessed
18.11.2012].
European Commission, 20111b. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions Bussels, Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. COM(2011) 109
final, Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0109:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed
17.09.2012].
European Commission, 2012. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives
140
2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and
2006/32/EC, Brussels. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0001:0056:EN:PDF
[accessed 18.11.2012].
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., Theobald, K., 2005. Governing Sustainable Cities,
London.
Fet, A., Michelsen O., de Boer L., 2011. Green public procurement in practice — The
case of Norway. Society and Economy 33(1), 183-198.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Gassó, S., Forcada, N., Roca, X., Fuertes, A., 2011. Assessing
concerns of interested parties when predicting the significance of environmental
impacts related to the construction process of residential buildings. Building and
Environment 46(5), 1023-1037.
Geroski, P.A., 1990. Government Procurement as a Tool of Industrial Policy.
International Review of Applied Economics 4, 182-198.
Golubchikov, O., Deda, P., 2012. Governance, technology and equity: An integrated
policy framework for energy efficient housing. Energy Policy 41(0), 733-741.
Griffith, A., Bhutto, K., 2008. Contractors’ experiences of integrated management
systems. Management, Procurement and Law 161(3), 93-98.
Günther, E., Scheibe, L., 2006. The Hurdle Analysis. A Self-evaluation Tool for
Municipalities to Identify, Analyse and Overcome Hurdles to Green Procurement.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13, 61–77.
Gupta, J., Ivanova, A., 2009. Global energy efficiency governance in the context of
climate politics. Energy Efficiency 2, 339–352.
Hall, M., Purchase, D., 2006. Building or bodging? Attitudes to sustainability in UK
public sector housing construction development. Sustainable Development 14, 205-
218.
Hisschemöller, M., Bode, R., van de Kerkhof, M., 2006. What governs the transition to a
sustainable hydrogen economy? Articulating the relationship between technologies
and political institutions. Energy Policy 34, 1227–1235.
Ho, L.W.P., Dickinson, N.M., Chan, G.Y.S., 2010. Green procurement in the Asian public
sector and the Hong Kong private sector. Natural Resources Forum 34, 24–38.
141
Hoppe, T., Bressers, J.Th.A., Lulofs, K.R.D., 2011. Local government influence on
energy conservation ambitions in existing housing sites – Plucking the low-hanging
fruit?. Energy Policy 39, 916-925.
Improvement and Development Agency for local government (IDeA), 2008.
Definitions of sustainable development governance. Improvement and Development
Agency for local government IDeA, London.
International Institute for Energy Conservation, 2007. Institutional Frameworks and
Policies for Energy Efficiency Implementation (IFPEEI) - International Workshop
Proceedings. Common Fund for Commodities, International Copper Association,
International Copper Study Group, International Institute for Energy Conservation,
Beijing.
Iraldo, F., Testa F., 2007. Il Green Public Procurement: le novità normative e le
esperienze in Italia e In Europa sul tema degli acquisti verdi. Largo Consumo 12, 32-
39.
Iraldo, F., Melis M., Testa F., 2007. L’attuale sviluppo del Green Public Procurement.
Economia delle Fonti di Energia e dell’Ambiente 1, 5-19.
Iraldo, F., Testa F., Ricotta S., 2008. Il GPP in Italia: l’emanazione del Piano Nazionale
degli Acquisti Verdi. Inquinamento 3, 56- 62.
Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Frey, M., 2009. Is an environmental management system able to
influence environmental and competitive? The case of the eco-management and audit
scheme (EMAS) in the European union. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1444–1452
Jollands, N., Ellis, M., 2009. Energy Efficiency governance: an emerging priority.
ECEEE 2009 Summer Study.
Kahlenborn, W., Moser, C., Frijdal, J., Essig, M., 2011. Strategic Use of Public
Procurement in Europe – Final Report to the European Commission
MARKT/2010/02/C. Berlin: adelphi. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/s
trategic-use-public-procurement-europe_en.pdf [accessed 18.08.2012].
Laponche, B., Jamet, B., Colombier, M., Attali, S., 1997. Energy Efficiency for a
Sustainable World. International Conseil Energie, Paris
Li, L., Geiser, K., 2005. Environmentally responsible public procurement (ERPP) and
its implications for integrated product policy (IPP). Journal of Cleaner Production 13,
705-715.
142
Limaye, D., Heffner, G., Sarkar, A., 2008. An analytical compendium of institutional
frameworks for energy efficiency implementation. World Bank energy sector
management assistance program ESMAP.
Lovins, A., 1992. Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities.
Strategic Issues Paper No. 1. E Source Inc., Boulder, CO.
Lozano, M., Vallés, J., 2007. An analysis of the implementation of an environmental
management system in a local public administration. Journal of Environmental
Management 82 (4), 495-511.
Lundqvist, L.J., 2001. Implementation from above: the ecology of power in Sweden’s
environmental governance. Governance – An International Journal of Policy and
Administration 14(3), 319-37.
Marauhn, T., 2003. A global energy strategy as a viable means for redressing climate
change. Heidelberg Journal of International Law 63(2), 281–994.
Marron, D., 2003. Greener public purchasing as an environmental policy instrument
OECD. Journal on Budgeting 3, 71–105.
McCrudden, C., 2004. Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural
Resources Forum 28(4), 257–267.
Meijer, F., Itard, L., Sunikka-Blank, M., 2009. Comparing European residential building
stocks: performance, renovation and policy opportunities. Building Research and
Information 37(5-6), 533-551.
Michelsen, O., de Boer, L., 2009. Green procurement in Norway; a survey of practices
at the municipal and county level. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 160–
167.
Molenaar, K.R., Sobin, N., Antillón, E.I., 2010. A Synthesis of Best-Value Procurement
Practices for Sustainable Design-Build Projects in the Public Sector. Journal of Green
Building 5(4), 148-157.
Murphy, J., Yanacopulos, H., 2005. Understanding governance and networks: EU-US
interactions and the regulation of genetically modified organisms. Geoforum 36, 593-
606.
Nijkamp, P., Perrels, A., 1994. Sustainable Cities in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of
Urban Energy-Environmental Policies. Earthscan, London.
143
Nissinen, A., Parikka-Alholaa, K., Ritab, H. 2009. Environmental criteria in the public
purchases above the EU threshold values by three Nordic countries: 2003 and 2005.
Ecological Economics 68, 1838 – 1849
Ochoa, A., Erdmenger, C., 2003. Study contract to survey the state of play of green
public procurement in the European Union. Final report. ICLEI European Secretariat,
Eco-Procurement Programme. Available at: ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp [ac
cessed: 28.11.2010].
OECD, 2000. Greener Public Procurement: Issues and Practical Solutions.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Parikka-Alhola, K., Nissinen, A., Ekroos, A., 2007. Green award criteria in the most
economically advantageous tender in public purchasing. In: Thai, K.V., Piga, G. (Eds.),
Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge sharing.
PrAcademic Press, Boca Raton, Floria, pp. 257–279.
Parikka-Alhola, K., 2008. Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green public
procurement. Ecological Economics 68, 472–485.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879-903.
Powell, J.C., Tinch, T., White, O., Peters, M., 2006. Successful approaches to sustainable
procurement: a report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affaires.
London, United Kingdom: Environmental Futures Ltd. Defra.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Significant and Ecofys, 2009. Collection of statistical
information on Green Public Procurement in the EU: Report on data collection results.
January 2009. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/statistical_information.pdf [accessed
12.9.2012].
Renda, A., Pelkmans, J., Egenhofer, C., Schrefler, L., Luchetta, G., Selçuki, C., Ballesteros,
J., Zirnhlet, A.C., 2012a. The Uptake of Green Public Procurement in the EU27. Main
Report. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and College of Europe (CoE). 29
February 2012. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/CEPS-
CoE-GPP%20MAIN%20REPORT.pdf [accessed 20.8.2012].
Rete delle Agende 21 locali della Toscana, 2007. L’ABC degli acquisti verdi pubblici.
Available from: http://agende21toscana.comune.fi.it/cgi-
144
bin/agende21toscana/gdl_scheda.pl?nsito=1&ngdl=2&chiuso= [accessed
17.09.2012].
Renda, A., Pelkmans, J., Egenhofer, C., Schrefler, L., Luchetta, G., Selçuki, C., Ballesteros,
J., Zirnhlet, A.C., 2012b. The Uptake of Green Public Procurement in the EU27. Main
Report. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and College of Europe (CoE).
Annex A: A comparison of our findings with other studies. February 2012. Available
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/CEPS-CoE-GPP%20ANNEXES.pdf
[accessed 20.8.2012].
Rezessy, S., Dimitrov, K., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Baruch, S., 2006. Municipalities and energy
efficiency in countries in transitino. Review of factors that determine municipal
involvement in the markets for energy services and energy efficient equipment, or
how to augment the role of municipalities as market players. Energy Policy 34, 223-
237.
Rhodes, R., 2000. Government and public administration. In: Debating Governance:
Authenticity, Steering and Democracy (Ed. J. Pierre), pp.54-88. Oxford University
Press.
Rohracher, H., 2001. Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable
Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 13(1), 137-150.
Rüdenauer, I., Dross, M., Eberle, U. , Gensch. C.O., Graulich, K., Hünecke, K., Koch, Y.,
Möller M., Quack, D., Seebach, D., Zimmer, W., Hidson, M., Defranceschi, P., Tepper, P.,
2007. Costs and Benefits of Green Public- General Recommendations Procurement in
Europe, Service contract number: DG ENV.G.2/SER/2006/0097r. Available from:
ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/ [accessed:19.11.2010].
Schrumm, A., 2006. The energy blindspot: The absence of global energy governance in
the United Nations. Queen’s International Observer 3(2), 14–17.
Smith, A., 2007. Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable
energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 35, 6266-6280.
Sperling, K., Hvelplund, F., Vad Mathiesen, B., 2011. Centralisation and
decentralisation in strategic municipal energy planning in Denmark. Energy Policy 39,
1338–1351.
Sterner, E., 2002. Green Procurement of Buildings: Estimation of Environmental
Impact and Life-Cycle Cost, PhD Thesis, Lulea University.
145
Swanson, M., Weissman, A., Davis, G., Socolof, M., Davis, K., 2005. Developing priorities
for greener state government purchasing: a California case study. Journal of Cleaner
Production 13, 669–677.
Tarantini, M., Loprieno, A.D., Porta, P.L., 2011.A life cycle approach to Green Public
Procurement of building materials and elements: a case study on windows. Energy
36(5), 2473–2482.
Testa F., Iraldo F., Frey M., 2011. The effect of environmental regulation on firms’
competitive performance: the case of the Building & Construction sector in some EU
regions. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 2136 – 2144.
Testa, F., F. Iraldo, Frey, M., Daddi, T., 2012. What factors influence the uptake of GPP
(green public procurement) practices? New evidence from an Italian survey.
Ecological Economics 82(0), 88-96.
Thomson, J, Jackson, T., 2007. Sustainable procurement in practice: Lessons from
local government. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(3), 421-
444.
UNEP, 2007. Buildings and Climate Change Status, Challenges and Opportunities.
United Nations Environment Programme, Paris.
Varnas, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental consideration in
procurement of construction contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities
in green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17(13), 1214–1222.
Von Malmborg, F., 2003. Environmental Management Systems: What is in it for Local
Authorities?. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5, 3 – 21.
Walker H., Brammer, S. 2009. Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public
sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14, 128 – 137.
Walker, H., Brammer, S., 2012. The relationship between sustainable procurement
and e-procurement in the public sector. International Journal of Production Economics
140(1), 256-268.
Weiss, L., Thurbon, E., 2006.The business of buying American: public procurement as
trade strategy in the USA. Review of International Political Economy 13(5), 701–724.
Westphal, K., 2005. Energy Security: Challenges to Global Governance, Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton
Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005.
146
Willis, K.G., 2010. Is all sustainable development sustainable? A cost-benefit analysis
of some procurement projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management 12(3), 311-331.
147
Chapter 6
Conclusions
6.1 The outline of research work
It is recognized worldwide that the building and construction sector can support the
implementation of energy efficiency improvements in order to achieve the transition
to a low-carbon economy. As a result, many countries assume the improvement of the
energy efficiency of buildings as a priority of their policy agendas. This commitment
entails a great challenge not only for policy makers, but also for all actors related to
buildings and their components. Thus, the challenge of improving the energy
efficiency of buildings requires a multidisciplinary approach which fosters the
adoption of energy efficient technologies but also of suitable policies and energy
efficient consumption patterns.
Therefore, this thesis has analysed the transition process which the building and
construction sector has to tackle in order to achieve energy efficient buildings and to
exploit great energy saving potential. In particular, it has investigated the influencing
factors and actors related to energy efficiency governance in the building and
construction sector. Firstly, this analysis has taken into account the complexity of the
building and construction sector where several actors interact regarding rules and
institutions. To understand the transition process towards energy efficient buildings,
the thesis has adopted the concept of socio-technical system to identify components
and actors of the building and construction sector (Rohracher, 2001; Geels, 2004).
Then, the analysis has introduced the multi-level governance perspective in order to
analyse the adoption of actions, tools and policies to develop energy efficiency
improvements in buildings concerning different levels (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005;
Smith, 2007; Jollands and Ellis, 2009) and to appraisal the deployment of energy
efficiency targets from international to local institutions. Finally, the interaction
between multi-level governance perspective for energy efficiency in buildings and the
socio-technical system associated with the building and construction sector has
148
provided useful managerial implications for policy makers and practitioners in order
to improve and accelerate the transitions towards energy efficient buildings.
Since the development of energy efficiency in building is known mainly as a technical
issue, Chapter 2 offered a literature review on main characteristics associated with
the implementation of energy efficiency in buildings: energy consumption in
buildings, energy efficiency technical solutions, the actors of the building and
construction sector, barriers and policies. The review concluded that there is the need
to integrate the efforts to implement energy efficiency including key actors at all
levels (international, national and local) in order to achieve an effective energy
efficiency governance in buildings. Then, this thesis focused on two crucial aspects
which influence the transition towards energy efficient buildings: rules/institutions
(Chapter 3) and key actors in the building and construction sector (Chapter 4 and
Chapter 5) .
Chapter 3 aimed at providing an overview of the current national regulatory
framework in the EU Member States in order to investigate the efforts to develop an
energy efficiency governance from EU to national/regional level. The analysis focused
on three specific aspects which constitute the complex energy efficiency issue: 1)
integration of energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, 2) translation of
investments in energy saving into economic value, 3) commitment towards “nearly
zero-energy” target. This analysis showed a heterogeneous approach among
European countries which can hinder the development of energy efficiency
governance from EU to local level. Then, country’s profile assumes a crucial role in
the development of national regulatory framework in each European country.
Therefore, the different approach adopted in national regulatory frameworks is not
negative, but points out the importance of understand countries’ peculiarities.
Understanding these peculiarities helps to strengthen and improves the design of the
sharing of best-practices and energy efficiency governance among Member States.
Chapter 4 aimed at understanding if and to what extent Eco-design is already
embodied in the current building design process and what factors influence its
adoption. To understand how to foster and simplify the implementation of the Eco-
149
design approach in buildings, it has analysed the characteristics of actors, in
particular designers, and related social processes that support the production and
development of buildings. The emerging results have emphasized that designers
today have a high environmental awareness and consciousness, although a
systematic adoption of the Eco-design approach is far from being fully accomplished.
The analysis stressed the role of information about building materials and design
solutions as an important driver in order to push an immature market. It identified
three main sources of information: policy makers, designers and certification
schemes. Finally, it underlined the importance of collaboration between clients, policy
makers, designers and supply chain in order to achieve energy efficiency in buildings.
Chapter 5 aimed at investigating influencing factors of GPP practices in the building
and construction sector as support for energy efficiency governance in buildings at
local level. The results underlined the strong importance of qualified and well-
informed personnel on GPP practices in the building and construction sector.
Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that GPP practices in the building and
construction sector can contribute to the energy efficiency governance at local level if
municipalities have undertaken a path which integrates increasing energy and
environmental awareness and technical know-how and expertise. From an operative
point of view, the energy efficiency governance in buildings needs resources and
structures for governance, i.e. technical expertises and know-how, and governance
activities, i.e. energy efficiency strategies (Jollands and Ellis, 2009). Then, local
authorities has to provide themselves with these components, but their efforts should
be supported by other actors of the building and construction sector.
6.2 Concluding remarks
This thesis points out the presence of heterogeneous approaches in order to carry out
international energy efficiency targets at national level. This evidence can hinder the
transition towards energy efficient buildings and more generally low-carbon
economy, but it is increasing the discussion about the development of an effective
global governance of sustainable energy and energy efficiency (Florini and Sovacool,
150
2009; Gupta and Ivanova, 2009; Jollands and Ellis, 2009). Despite the difficulty of
carrying out international energy efficiency targets at national and then local level, it
is worldwide considered a win-win option for all states to cooperate to achieve
energy efficiency (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al, 2012). Thus, international institutions,
such as the EU, can establish energy efficiency targets, but then should constantly
monitor policies, actions and regulations adopted in order to implement energy
efficiency and particularly energy efficiency in buildings (Sovacool, 2011). Probably, a
multi-level governance perspective, where “multiple overlapping and interconnected
horizontal spheres of authority are involved in governing particular issues” (Bulkeley
and Betsill, 2005), might support the integration of international targets in different
countries taking into account their specific characteristics.
Furthermore, this thesis underlines and confirms the importance of cooperation
among the actors of the building and construction sector in order to carry out an
effective energy efficiency governance in buildings. Unfortunately, the lack of
information about energy efficiency measures and related benefits is a crucial issue
for practitioners and policy makers. Therefore, a first attempt of cooperation among
the actors of the social-technical system associated with the building and
construction sector might concern the exchange of information about all energy
efficiency issues. This exchange of information should develop an ongoing
communication system among all actors of the building and construction sector.
These findings shed light on the issue of change in social and institutional structures
in order to achieve energy efficiency targets. In particular, the thesis argues the
involvement of policy makers and practitioners at all levels in the transition towards
energy efficient buildings, because they belong to and are equally involved in same
socio-technical system associated with the building and construction sector.
6.3 Limitations
The overall analysis included in this thesis was carried out at two different levels:
international (Chapter 3) and regional (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). This choice has to
be taken into account in the examination of results. The mentioned approach was
151
adopted, because the thesis aimed at articulating the analysis according to a multi-
level governance perspective in order to investigate the development of energy
efficiency at different levels. In particular, the analyses carried out in Chapter 4 and
Chapter 5 were focused on Italy, because the Italian building and construction sector
has to tackle the same next challenge for energy efficiency as other European
countries and there is a lack of studies in Italy (Albino and Berardi, 2012). Finally,
another limitation might be represented by data. The data employed were collected
by questionnaire surveys because a lack of reliable data on the diffusion of energy
efficiency improvements and related issues. To avoid common method bias, several
procedural remedies were adopted as described in the previous chapters.
6.4 Managerial implications
Despite limitations mentioned above, the thesis can provide new and useful
contributions to support the implementation of energy efficiency improvements in
buildings. In particular, this research work provides some managerial implications
regarding policy makers and practitioners from a perspective of organisational and
inter-organizational learning.
The transition towards energy efficient buildings is a great challenge for the actors of
socio-technical system associated with the building and construction sector at
international, national and local level, in particular for policy makers and
practitioners. In fact, this transition influences organisational but also inter-
organisational learning processes where policy makers and practitioners should be
able to balance the exploitation of existing knowledge and technologies and the
exploration of new knowledge and technologies (March, 1991; Andriopoulos and
Lewis, 2009; Eriksson, 2012) in order to achieve an organisational ambidexterity
(Duncan, 1976).
Policy makers have a multiple role as regulators and clients. As regulators, they have
started to make efforts at national and regional level since some years because they
are fostered by the international commitment to implement energy efficiency in
buildings. Unfortunately, there are two open issues which influence the effectiveness
152
of regulations and policies related to energy efficiency in buildings: monitoring and
enforcement. In fact, public authorities tackle the difficulty of monitoring the
effectiveness of their regulatory and policy framework and enforcing the application
of regulations. Then, policy makers have to cooperate with all actors influenced by
regulations and policies in order to improve the exchange of information which can
support monitoring and enforcement phases. It is also important to improve the
exchange of information between central and local institutions. As clients, they have
to choose technical solutions for public (new and existing) buildings, but very often
they need a suitable technical expertise and clear information about building options
and related materials. Therefore, they have to convert their environmental and
energy awareness into practices through training programs for personnel but also
collaboration with the actors of supply chain.
Practitioners, such as designers, deal with clients which need increasing information
about energy efficiency measures related to buildings. Accordingly, they have to
provide more clear information which might support clients during their decision
process. Moreover, practitioners have to intensify relationships with other actors of
the building and construction sector because these stable relations help the transition
towards the development of energy efficiency improvements in buildings. Finally,
practitioners has to adopt a long-term thinking during their work activities and in
particular during design process.
The above-mentioned peculiarities of policy makers and practitioners underline the
importance of ambidexterity perspective in the building and construction sector in
order to implement energy efficiency measures in buildings. These findings confirm
Eriksson’s argumentations (2012) about the risk of inadequate extent of exploration
and exploitation in the building and construction sector. In particular, collaborative
tools, such as teambuilding activities, integration of supply chain and joint IT-tools,
can be drivers for an ambidexterity perspective not only at organisational but also
inter-organisational level, because these instruments create a common identity and
motivate different actors to cooperate according to a long-term perspective.
153
6.5 Future research
The thesis has integrated socio-technical system concept with multi-level governance
perspective in order to investigate key actors and influencing factors for the
development of energy efficiency improvements in buildings. Firstly, the analysis
focused on a descriptive analysis of national regulations among the EU Member
States, but a next and useful step will consist of the impact assessment of regulatory
and policy instruments adopted in the national legislation employing quantitative
data. Then, the thesis examined influencing factors for the adoption of the Eco-design
approach from designers perspective. To enhance the analysis of interactions among
actors belonging to the socio-technical system associated with the building and
construction sector, it is worth investigating the role of the material and equipment
suppliers in the push of immature market for energy efficiency measures in buildings
but also examining the relationship between the material and equipment suppliers
and their clients. Finally, this thesis concerned factors related to the development of
GPP practices in the building and construction sector as supporting instrument for
energy efficiency governance at local level. To understand and improve the support of
local public authorities in the implementation of energy efficiency in the building and
construction sector, further research is needed to identify and analyse other
supporting instruments for energy efficiency governance in buildings at local level
such as energy audits in public buildings.
154
References
Albino, V., Berardi, U., 2012. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian
case studie. Business Strategy and Environment 21, 387-400.
Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and
organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization
Science 20, 696-717.
Bulkeley, H., Betsill, M., 2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance
and the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14 (1),42–63.
Duncan, R., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for
innovation. R. Kilman, L. Pondy, eds. The Management of Organizational Design. North
Holland, New York, 167–188.
Eriksson, P.E., 2012. Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations:
Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in
construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, in press.
Florini, A.E., Sovacool, B.K., 2009. Who governs energy? The challenges facing global
energy governance. Energy Policy 37(12), 5239-5248.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems -
Insisghts about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory.
Research Policy 33, 897-920.
Gupta, J., Ivanova, A., 2009. Global energy efficiency governance in the context of
climate politics. Energy Efficiency 2, 339–352.
Jollands, N., Ellis, M., 2009. Energy Efficiency governance: an emerging priority.
ECEEE 2009 Summer Study.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I., Jollands, N., Staudt, L., 2012. Global governance for
sustainable energy: The contribution of a global public goods approach. Ecological
Economics 83(0), 11-18.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Scienze 2, 71–87.
Rohracher, H., 2001. Managing the Technological Transition to Sustainable
Construction of Buildings: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 13(1), 137-150.