TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4
2.disputable recommendations ................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Make available financial support and programs more appealing to the owners
(talar) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 lacking completeness.................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 feasibility constraints.................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Target the owner at key trigger points (roos) ............................................................. 8
2.2.1. Lacking completeness ............................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Feasibility constraints.............................................................................................. 10
3. Improved recommendations ............................................................................................... 11
3.1. Talar.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.1 traditional financial instruments ............................................................................... 11
3.1.2 financial instruments and tools that have been put to the test and are currently
expanding .......................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 novel and groundbreaking financial instruments and tools ...................................... 12
3.1.4 long-term cost-benefit analysis ................................................................................ 13
3.2. Improved recommendations (roos) ............................................................................ 13
3.2.1 implement community-based social interventions ................................................... 14
3.2.1.1. Incentivize group initiatives ................................................................................. 14
3.2.2 introduce referral marketing campaigns ................................................................... 14
3.2.3 invest in peer pressure as social control ................................................................... 15
4. Individual argumentation map ........................................................................................... 16
4.1 argumentation map talar ............................................................................................. 16
4.2 argumentation map roos .............................................................................................. 18
5. References ........................................................................................................................... 20
appendices ............................................................................................................................... 22
appendix 1. Reflections ...................................................................................................... 22
1.1 reflection roos ................................................................................................................ 22
1.2 reflection talar ............................................................................................................... 23
appendix 2. Hours declaration .......................................................................................... 24
appendix 3. Argumentation map current report ............................................................. 28
argumentation map: ........................................................................................................... 28
appendix 4. Argumentation map current report ............................................................. 31
complication roos ................................................................................................................ 31
,complication talar ............................................................................................................... 33
appendix 5: topic lists ......................................................................................................... 35
5.1 expert ............................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 author: ........................................................................................................................... 36
5.3 client:.............................................................................................................................. 37
appendix 6: interview with expert..................................................................................... 39
appendix 6: interview client ............................................................................................... 75
appendix 7: interview author .......................................................................................... 110
appendix 8: consent form expert ..................................................................................... 124
appendix 9: consent form client ...................................................................................... 125
appendix 10: consent form author .................................................................................. 126
,1. INTRODUCTION
In the context of the European Union (EU) committing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and achieve climate neutrality by 2050, it becomes crucial to address GHG emissions
from buildings. However, the path to climate neutrality in the building sector is challenging.
Most energy needs for heating and cooling are still met by fossil fuels, and a significant portion
of the built environment requires energy-efficient renovations to reduce its carbon footprint.
Currently, buildings in the EU contribute to approximately 36% of total GHG emissions,
making up a substantial portion of energy-related emissions and consuming about 40% of the
EU's energy. Residential buildings, in particular, are responsible for around two-thirds of the
total energy consumption within the EU's building sector.
One of the reasons why energy efficiency policies for buildings often fall short of their intended
impact could be attributed to a lack of attention to the influence of human behavior on
investment decisions related to energy-efficient renovations. Traditional approaches and
policies have typically centered around financial incentives and monetary aspects, often
neglecting the critical role played by human behavior and decision-making in the adoption of
more efficient technologies in buildings. This knowledge gap regarding behavioral factors may
contribute to the shortcomings in delivering effective energy efficiency measures for buildings.
That results in the following main question of this report: “What measures need to be
highlighted that are hindering the implementation of energy efficiency renovations in the
residential sector and, in general, to support the green transition and the European Green
Deal objectives?”
Ramboll wrote a report because of this main question. Within this report Ramboll did a couple
of interviews and literature research. As indicated several times in the report, there is still a
knowledge gap and not all factors have been discussed. Following this, we investigated this
further and held interviews with both the client, author and expert. These revealed that the
report is indeed incomplete and that there is a lack of completeness. We, Talar and Roos,
prospective consultants, each took a closer look at our own recommendation. This in order to
answer the question, what should the EEA do besides the recommendations to achieve their
main goal?
Roos took the recommendation key factors that influence the choice of homeowners under the
loop. This is because this recommendation has feasibility constraints and completeness lacked.
, It lacked completeness because there was missing depth and balance concering the social norms
argumentation and because of the lacking completeness there were feasibility constraints.
There was a shortage of time for the authors that resulted in a not balanced pro- and contra
arguments. During the interviews with the expert, client and author, Roos found out that there
is indeed a lack of depth in the social norms. The EEA should indeed include social norms
(peer pressure) as a main influence for homeowners’ decision to renovate. That resulted in the
following question: “how can social factors lead to homeowners being more energy
sufficient?”
To answer this question there were interviews and literature research. After the interviews,
Roos dug deeper into the literature on this subject and, in combination with the interviews,
came up with the following recommendations. The EEA should implement community
interventions, incentivize group initiatives, implement referral marketing campaigns and invest
in peer pressure as social control to tackle the rebound effect. Besides that the research showed
social influences are a main driver for decision making and is therefore very important as an
influence on behavior, informational feedback on energy consumption is considered a low-cost
strategy for saving energy (Ebrahimigharehbaghi et al., 2021). While Talar mainly focused on
the recommendation of making available financial support and programmes more appealing to
the owners. The recommendation provided by Ramboll, while is valid, lacks completeness. It
identifies barriers such as perceived financial risk and uncertainty of benefits but could benefit
from more comprehensive data and analysis. Providing examples of the existing financial plans
that the client could take a look at and consider when implementing the recommendation. While
increased incentives and appealing programs may attract homeowners, there are concerns about
limited budgets and the dynamic nature of political constraints. Therefore, the
recommendations to include a comprehensive exploration of various financial instruments such
as grants, subsidies, tax incentives, and loans, as well as innovative tools like energy efficiency
obligations, energy service companies, and energy performance contracts. Furthermore, novel
approaches like on-bill finance, property assessed clean energy financing, and energy-efficient
mortgages are proposed to enhance energy efficiency financing in the European Union. Long-
term cost-benefit analysis is also suggested to provide homeowners with insights into the
financial advantages of energy-efficient upgrades, considering factors like energy
consumption, costs, and potential return on investment for different retrofit measures.
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4
2.disputable recommendations ................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Make available financial support and programs more appealing to the owners
(talar) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 lacking completeness.................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 feasibility constraints.................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Target the owner at key trigger points (roos) ............................................................. 8
2.2.1. Lacking completeness ............................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Feasibility constraints.............................................................................................. 10
3. Improved recommendations ............................................................................................... 11
3.1. Talar.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.1 traditional financial instruments ............................................................................... 11
3.1.2 financial instruments and tools that have been put to the test and are currently
expanding .......................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 novel and groundbreaking financial instruments and tools ...................................... 12
3.1.4 long-term cost-benefit analysis ................................................................................ 13
3.2. Improved recommendations (roos) ............................................................................ 13
3.2.1 implement community-based social interventions ................................................... 14
3.2.1.1. Incentivize group initiatives ................................................................................. 14
3.2.2 introduce referral marketing campaigns ................................................................... 14
3.2.3 invest in peer pressure as social control ................................................................... 15
4. Individual argumentation map ........................................................................................... 16
4.1 argumentation map talar ............................................................................................. 16
4.2 argumentation map roos .............................................................................................. 18
5. References ........................................................................................................................... 20
appendices ............................................................................................................................... 22
appendix 1. Reflections ...................................................................................................... 22
1.1 reflection roos ................................................................................................................ 22
1.2 reflection talar ............................................................................................................... 23
appendix 2. Hours declaration .......................................................................................... 24
appendix 3. Argumentation map current report ............................................................. 28
argumentation map: ........................................................................................................... 28
appendix 4. Argumentation map current report ............................................................. 31
complication roos ................................................................................................................ 31
,complication talar ............................................................................................................... 33
appendix 5: topic lists ......................................................................................................... 35
5.1 expert ............................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 author: ........................................................................................................................... 36
5.3 client:.............................................................................................................................. 37
appendix 6: interview with expert..................................................................................... 39
appendix 6: interview client ............................................................................................... 75
appendix 7: interview author .......................................................................................... 110
appendix 8: consent form expert ..................................................................................... 124
appendix 9: consent form client ...................................................................................... 125
appendix 10: consent form author .................................................................................. 126
,1. INTRODUCTION
In the context of the European Union (EU) committing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and achieve climate neutrality by 2050, it becomes crucial to address GHG emissions
from buildings. However, the path to climate neutrality in the building sector is challenging.
Most energy needs for heating and cooling are still met by fossil fuels, and a significant portion
of the built environment requires energy-efficient renovations to reduce its carbon footprint.
Currently, buildings in the EU contribute to approximately 36% of total GHG emissions,
making up a substantial portion of energy-related emissions and consuming about 40% of the
EU's energy. Residential buildings, in particular, are responsible for around two-thirds of the
total energy consumption within the EU's building sector.
One of the reasons why energy efficiency policies for buildings often fall short of their intended
impact could be attributed to a lack of attention to the influence of human behavior on
investment decisions related to energy-efficient renovations. Traditional approaches and
policies have typically centered around financial incentives and monetary aspects, often
neglecting the critical role played by human behavior and decision-making in the adoption of
more efficient technologies in buildings. This knowledge gap regarding behavioral factors may
contribute to the shortcomings in delivering effective energy efficiency measures for buildings.
That results in the following main question of this report: “What measures need to be
highlighted that are hindering the implementation of energy efficiency renovations in the
residential sector and, in general, to support the green transition and the European Green
Deal objectives?”
Ramboll wrote a report because of this main question. Within this report Ramboll did a couple
of interviews and literature research. As indicated several times in the report, there is still a
knowledge gap and not all factors have been discussed. Following this, we investigated this
further and held interviews with both the client, author and expert. These revealed that the
report is indeed incomplete and that there is a lack of completeness. We, Talar and Roos,
prospective consultants, each took a closer look at our own recommendation. This in order to
answer the question, what should the EEA do besides the recommendations to achieve their
main goal?
Roos took the recommendation key factors that influence the choice of homeowners under the
loop. This is because this recommendation has feasibility constraints and completeness lacked.
, It lacked completeness because there was missing depth and balance concering the social norms
argumentation and because of the lacking completeness there were feasibility constraints.
There was a shortage of time for the authors that resulted in a not balanced pro- and contra
arguments. During the interviews with the expert, client and author, Roos found out that there
is indeed a lack of depth in the social norms. The EEA should indeed include social norms
(peer pressure) as a main influence for homeowners’ decision to renovate. That resulted in the
following question: “how can social factors lead to homeowners being more energy
sufficient?”
To answer this question there were interviews and literature research. After the interviews,
Roos dug deeper into the literature on this subject and, in combination with the interviews,
came up with the following recommendations. The EEA should implement community
interventions, incentivize group initiatives, implement referral marketing campaigns and invest
in peer pressure as social control to tackle the rebound effect. Besides that the research showed
social influences are a main driver for decision making and is therefore very important as an
influence on behavior, informational feedback on energy consumption is considered a low-cost
strategy for saving energy (Ebrahimigharehbaghi et al., 2021). While Talar mainly focused on
the recommendation of making available financial support and programmes more appealing to
the owners. The recommendation provided by Ramboll, while is valid, lacks completeness. It
identifies barriers such as perceived financial risk and uncertainty of benefits but could benefit
from more comprehensive data and analysis. Providing examples of the existing financial plans
that the client could take a look at and consider when implementing the recommendation. While
increased incentives and appealing programs may attract homeowners, there are concerns about
limited budgets and the dynamic nature of political constraints. Therefore, the
recommendations to include a comprehensive exploration of various financial instruments such
as grants, subsidies, tax incentives, and loans, as well as innovative tools like energy efficiency
obligations, energy service companies, and energy performance contracts. Furthermore, novel
approaches like on-bill finance, property assessed clean energy financing, and energy-efficient
mortgages are proposed to enhance energy efficiency financing in the European Union. Long-
term cost-benefit analysis is also suggested to provide homeowners with insights into the
financial advantages of energy-efficient upgrades, considering factors like energy
consumption, costs, and potential return on investment for different retrofit measures.
