Grant Agreement No.: 314229
Project acronym: RetroKit
Project title: RetroKit - Toolboxes for systemic retrofitting
Funding scheme: Collaborative Project
Thematic Priority: EeB.NMP.2012-2 - Systemic Approach for
retrofitting existing buildings, including envelope upgrading, high
performance lighting systems, energy-efficient HVAC systems and
renewable energy generation systems
Starting date of project: 1st of September, 2012
Duration: 48 months
D1.4–Success criteria for market implementation: Perspective
of players involved in construction
Due date of deliverable M23, 30.07.2014. (DRAFT: 28.02.2014)
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: SINTEF
Dissemination Level
PU
Public
X
PP
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission
Services)
RE
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the
Commission Services)
CO
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the
Commission Services)
Table of Contents
1
2
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
Aspects that make building owners agree to ambitious retrofit ..................................... 3
2.1 Findings from the research project BESLUTT ........................................................ 3
2.1.1 Society level ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Organizational and individual level ................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Conclusions and guidelines for a successful decision making process............ 8
2.2 Findings from the questionnaire survey ................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Focus and objective ....................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 What make building owners agree to ambitious retrofitting? .......................... 12
2.2.3 What are the most important areas to be addressed in retrofitting? ............... 15
2.2.4 Which actors influence the decision making process the most? .................... 16
2.2.5 What characterizes good retrofitting design? ................................................. 18
3 Matching the RetroKit Toolbox solutions and the needs of the users ......................... 20
3.1 The RetroKit Toolbox solutions ............................................................................. 20
3.2 Decision makers view on the proposed solutions ................................................. 23
3.2.1 Main findings of the web questionnaire .......................................................... 25
3.3 Understanding users' needs ................................................................................. 37
4 Success criteria for market implementation ................................................................ 41
4.1 What make building owners agree to ambitious renovation.................................. 41
4.2 Decision makers view on the RetroKit solutions ................................................... 43
4.3 Marketing and business possibilities of the RetroKit solutions.............................. 44
References ........................................................................................................................ 46
Annex A: Questionnaire for Decision Makers
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
1
1 Introduction
The present document constitutes Deliverable 1.4 “Success criteria for market
implementation: Perspective of players involved in construction” in the framework of the
RetroKit project.
This deliverable reports on the success criteria for the RetroKit Toolbox from the decision
makers point of view and on the reasons that make building owners agree to ambitious
retrofit. This deliverable refers to activities carried out within Work package1, and
specifically within Task 1.3 “Attractive and applicable RetroKit Toolbox from decision
makers point of view”.
In the RetroKit project 11 partnering countries collaborate in developing prefabricated
solutions for ambitious and holistic retrofitting of multi-family apartment buildings in Europe
built between 1945 and 1980. When these buildings were designed and built, producing
enough houses for the European population was a far more prominent design criterion
than energy efficiency. As a result, the multi-family apartment building typology is the
building type with the largest energy demand in Europe, consuming 68% of the total final
energy use in buildings in Europe in 2009 (BPIE, 2011). Due to age most of them now
require retrofitting and hence large energy savings may be achieved in this process.
International studies show that energy efficiency improvement is one of the cheapest,
simplest and most effective climate action (IEA, 2009; IPCC, 2007).
The overall project goal in RetroKit is to increase comfort for the residents and at the same
time reduce the buildings energy demand. To make sure that good concepts and solutions
are developed, knowledge on the needs and views of the decision makers involved in
retrofitting is needed. If decision makers are not convinced and do not see the benefits of
the RetroKit solutions, market implementation will be impossible. Our research started out
with two research questions that we seek to answer in this report:
1. What are the success criteria (and bottle necks) for the RetroKit Toolbox from the
decision makers' 1 point of view?
2. What make building owners/companies agree to ambitious retrofitting?
To answer these questions an electronic questionnaire survey was carried out among
decision makers in Poland, Romania, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Greece,
Sweden, Norway and The Netherlands. This survey provides the empirical input to chapter
2 in this report. In a second survey, the proposed solutions of the RetroKit Toolbox were
presented to selected decision makers in order to get their opinion on them. Each of the
RetroKit solutions was presented and accompanied with a set of questions for the decision
makers to answer. This survey provides the empirical input to chapter 3 in this report. The
decision makers were reached by direct contact through the networks of Dragados, DAPP,
DVG, ICPE, EMVS, BGTEC, SINTEF and ABGNOVA.
1
Decision makers = building owners, architects, consultants, contractors, prefab manufacturers and authorities.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
2
2 Aspects that make
ambitious retrofit
building
owners
agree
to
In this chapter the findings from the BESLUTT project and the findings from the
questionnaire survey among stakeholders of retrofitting are presented.
2.1 Findings from the research project BESLUTT
The research project BESLUTT –Decision making processes in housing cooperatives is a
two year Norwegian project financed by the Research Council of Norway. The project was
finished in 2011 and the main objective was to investigate which factors that leads to
ambitious renovation of multifamily apartment buildings.
The main findings from the BESLUTT project that also are of relevance to the RetroKit
project are provided in the following.
Based on 30 qualitative interviews with professional advisors in cooperative housing
associations and the boards and residents of three case studies (Gullveien, Krohnsminde,
Myherenga), an analysis of opportunities and barriers for a common decision on ambitious
renovation is provided by the BESLUTT project. The main research question was: What
factors increase the chance that the residents/owners in housing cooperatives agree on a
sustainable energy efficient renovation?
The findings show that success criteria and barriers can be found within the societal level
as well as within the organizational/individual level. Barriers and success criteria within
the societal level were identified as; lack of knowledge among professional actors and
decision makers, owner structure, and current regulations and incentives.
Barriers and success criteria within the organizational and individual level were identified
as: time frame of the process, organization of the process, understanding the residents`
needs, personal economy, information, and available exemplary projects and role models.
2.1.1 Society level
Lack of knowledge among professional actors and decision makers
Informants in cooperative housing associations highlight a lack of knowledge on energy
efficiency in the society as one of the main barriers to upgrading to energy efficient
buildings. The knowledge in the market about new technical solutions is low, and it will
take time to train consultants and construction workers in using these. Also decisionmakers have insufficient knowledge to make good decisions on upgrading. Networks and
education offers are named as means to overcome knowledge gaps. Informants in
cooperative housing associations appreciate different networks they participate in to learn
more about energy efficiency. There is a need for a "paradigm shift" in which actors at all
levels must be involved. In order to bring up the level of knowledge, also exemplary
projects (pilot buildings), regulatory and economic instruments may affect the speed of the
knowledge elevation in the society.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
3
Owner structure
Norway has special challenges for renovation of multiple dwellings because of its large
number of freeholders. It is difficult to agree on what measures should be prioritized when
a building has many different owners. Also differences in personal economy give owners
different starting points. Having many different owners, it is also more difficult to introduce
holistic changes, e.g. changes in the structure across the apartments, which could open up
for several possible technical and architectural solutions. In addition, it is also difficult to
achieve energy efficiency due to unknowledgeable owners.
Regulations and incentives
The Norwegian government works towards a more energy efficient building stock mainly in
four ways (Boasson, 2009): Technical regulations, energy marking of buildings, bank loans
with lower rent/ support (The Norwegian State Housing bank), and support programs for
exemplary projects (Enova). As the interviews conducted in cooperative housing
associations show, the application procedures for subsidies are perceived as complex for
exemplary projects (Enova), and in many cases, subsidies are too low to have an effect on
decisions. Many informants also miss coordination and a clearer link between the various
subsidies, support programs and energy marking of buildings. Also low energy prices in
Norway compared to many other European countries, good household economy, and
clean energy sources due to hydropower, can make it harder for Norwegians to realize
that also they have a responsibility for saving energy.
The Hearing Committee for energy efficiency in buildings in Norway states that the
legislation on building renovation should be stronger, and that the government should
require passive house components and passive house level for "total renovation of
buildings" (Arnstad, 2010). The Hearing Committee define "total renovation" in line with the
EU directive on energy efficiency of buildings (EU, 2010); a renovation that costs more
than 25% of the building's value, or more than 25% of the building is undergoing complete
renovation. "General renovation" is according to the technical regulation in Norway defined
as a significant renewal of the entire building, and the current technical regulation for new
buildings applies.
2.1.2 Organizational and individual level
Time frame of the process
The interviews in the cooperative housing associations and the analysis of the case
studies show that it is important that the time frame of the process should not be too tight.
All residents must have the possibility to understand the importance of the renovation and
to develop a feeling of ownership towards the project, which may support emotionally
based choices (Steg & Vlek, 2009). They should not feel that they are persuaded to by the
board, advisors, or the cooperative housing association. The cooperative housing
associations recommended a time frame of 1-3 years for decision processes on renovation
projects, depending on project size and complexity.
The interviews also show that in successful processes, the board in the housing
cooperative had spent time on the process, and let the project and the decisions mature.
The residents could understand the necessity, the benefits, and the challenges of the
renovation project. The informants also give examples on how housing boards are afraid
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
4
to let information out before the project is well enough planned, resulting in residents
knowing too little to make a decision about renovation. If they do not know enough, the
fear of changes will make them skeptical. The voting over the renovation project proposal
should not be hurried. The experience of the informants in the cooperative housing
associations implies that voting should not be done before the residents have understood
the content and importance of the renovation.
The interviews in the case studies show that processes that were rushed were
unsuccessful. Two of the case studies, Gullveien and Krohnsminde, illustrate that the
voting on the renovation project was held too early in the process. They could not engage
the majority of the residents to vote for the renovation in first place, and the residents were
uncertain of the economic consequences and plans. At Krohnsminde, the renovation was
accepted eventually several years later.
Organization of the process
The interviews indicate that the organization of the process by the board is of main
importance for a successful decision process on renovation. The experiences of the
informants in the housing associations have shown that the boards in the housing
cooperatives need guidelines. A precondition is that the advisors in the cooperative
housing associations and the board are good initiators in the process. Successful
processes are dependent on trustworthy and engaged individuals organizing and initiating
the process. The engaged individuals do not have to be the leader of the housing
cooperative, but may as well be consultants, as the example of the process at Myhrerenga
shows. Successful processes seem to depend on creating engagement by persons
involved, no matter if they are representatives of the board, advisors, or just engaged
residents. The case study of Krohnsminde is an example of the importance of engaged
residents that refused to give up when the project was turned down. They organized oneto-one conversations with every resident in the housing cooperative to explain the benefits
of the renovation. This eventually led to success.
The case study of Gullveien, where the residents declined the renovation, the board had
not appeared united, and the board members disagreed on the project plans. The
ambiguous signals the board sent out had a negative effect on the residents' voting. In
cases where the board does not agree on the most suitable solutions for renovation, the
residents may be confused and unmotivated to support the boards` ideas.
The cooperation between the board, the housing association and advisors is also a crucial
factor during the process. The informants in the cooperative housing associations have
years of experience, and in their opinion, the chances for unfortunate decisions increase if
the board overestimates its competence and does not involve the other professional
parties sufficiently in its plans.
Understanding the residents` needs
The interviews point to the value of conducting a resident study/ interview with each
resident about the renovation project in the beginning of the process. This may be time
consuming, but it gives a clear picture of what the residents are concerned about in the
renovation project, and what their needs are. A resident study opens for the dialog with the
residents and their input on the renovation to be taken seriously. If the residents
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
5
experience to be understood by the board and advisors, this increases the residents'
feeling of ownership towards the project. In the case study of Krohnsminde, two engaged
and dedicated residents visited every single apartment in the blocks, and explained the
importance of the renovation project, and listened to the residents' worries. This seems to
be the most important success factor for the breakthrough of the decision on renovation at
Krohnsminde. Such residents visits were not done in the other two case studies, but at
Myhrerenga, the frequent resident meetings may have compensated for it.
The interviews with the residents showed that the main reasons for renovation for them
were improving the standard of the buildings, and enlarging the balconies. The residents
focus on the visual parts of the upgrading, rather than general (invisible) maintenance or
environmental issues. Contribution to environmental protection was considered a bonus
for most of the residents, but a few of them explained their environmental concern as a
driving force to renovate. The residents in the case studies were mostly concerned about
personal economy.
When the input from the residents is not heard, there is a risk that the residents do not
develop an ownership towards the renovation project. According to the informants in the
cooperative housing associations, it is more difficult to engage inhabitants in renovation
projects where the residents do not have a long-term perspective, but are planning to
move. This makes the process heavier in deprived housing areas.
Personal economy
The Myhrerenga case, a successful renovation towards passive house standard, showed
that a combination of governmental subsidies and good economic planning of the process,
resulted in lower monthly costs for the residents than a traditional renovation would have
done. During the process at Myrerenga it was demonstrated that there was very little
economic difference between a traditional and an ambitious renovation. The differences in
costs were bridged by financial subsidies and calculated savings due to lower costs for
heating. The process also showed that the board and its advisors had sufficient
information on existing subsidies. This positive economic outcome at Myhrerenga is
however dependent on the condition of the housing cooperative before renovation. When
a major renovation is needed, it is easier to make the renovation cost-effective. Sometimes
the economic subsidies are important to bridge gaps between costs of traditional and
ambitious renovation. Today, the building stock has to be in very bad condition to make a
total renovation pay off from the residents' point of view.
Interviews show that residents are commonly concerned about increases in monthly costs.
In the case studies of Krohnsminde and Gullveien the residents were uncertain of the
economic consequences. In projects where the residents are insecure on the economic
consequences, it is likely that the majority will not support an ambitious renovation. The
same outcome is likely when the project is too expensive compared to traditional
renovation, and the advantages with the ambitious alternative do not compensate for the
investment costs. Especially residents with weak personal economy, or residents who plan
to move soon, and who anticipate a decline in the sales value of their apartment, are
concerned with increases in monthly costs.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
6
It is especially important to be clear about economic consequences, because personal
economy and differences in economy among residents are threats to ambitious renovation
projects. The informants have given detailed advises on how to present the economic
costs to increase the understanding of the renovation among the residents. A general rule
of thumb should be that the residents get detailed information about the monthly costs for
the renovation and what they can save on less energy use for heating. Then the influence
on personal economy will be comprehensible.
Information
Experiences from informants in cooperative housing associations show that if the residents
get presentations of the planned renovation in an easy language, with pictures and
illustrations, they are able to understand the meaning of the renovation for their everyday
life. If the information is given in small portions over a longer time span, the ground for
decision-making is well-prepared. The informants also give examples from large housing
cooperatives, were long term maintenance plans are open and available to the residents,
and despite a significant increase in monthly costs, the residents are looking forward
towards renovation and the positive changes they expect. If residents would not have been
told about the planned changes, it would have been more difficult to engage them. This
confirms the necessity to involve the residents in the renovation plans at an early stage to
make the decision mature within the residents. It is a common mistake that the board waits
too long giving information to the residents. The first meeting with the residents should be
early in the process, and relevant information should always be presented in regularly
resident meetings and on the housing cooperative's webpage or in letters/posters. Some
of the informants have good experience with giving responsibility to one resident pr.
entrance for providing a better information flow between the board and resident groups.
The best person to present presenting the renovation project for the first time is an
inspiring person the residents rely on. Also the advisors' competence should be utilised in
information meetings with the residents. If the information arrives too late, is difficult to
understand or is insufficiently communicated, people may be negative towards the project.
Few residents have building technical knowledge or financial expertise to understand
complicated project accounts. It is always the visual and practical changes that get people
engaged in a renovation project, numbers and costs may seem difficult to relate to.
Detailed information to oppose or answer to specific concerns from individuals is
important. Experiences show that there are usually a few individuals who are difficult to
cooperate with, individuals who do not want to contribute to the community, or individuals
who are afraid of changes or new technologies. Some also think that they have a good
enough house, do not use very much energy, or want to do the job themselves instead of
engaging professionals. These attitudes can be discussed in an understanding way at
resident meetings.
Exemplary projects and role models
The interviews in the three case studies show that the residents are curious about
renovation projects in other housing cooperatives. Informants in housing cooperatives
believe that if the housing company nearby has gone through successful renovations, it is
easier to make a decision about upgrading in housing companies around. The residents
want the same quality as their neighbors. They are also afraid that sales prices will sink if
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
7
buyers compare them with apartments in the newly renovated neighboring buildings.
Similarly, informants in cooperative housing associations state that it is harder to get
residents involved in sustainable renovation where there are no good examples in the
neighborhood. The study shows that the power of examples is strong. In order to make an
environmentally friendly upgrade become a natural choice, good examples of sustainable
upgrades are valuable.
2.1.3 Conclusions and guidelines for a successful decision making process
The BESLUTT project summarizes what should be done on a superior level to change the
societal context to make it easier for individuals and housing organizations to make the
right choices when it comes to ambitious renovation. These contextual changes may
influence sustainable renovation not only in housing cooperatives, but also among people
in general, professionals included.

Coordinate and harmonize regulations, incentives and other support systems for
energy efficiency of buildings.

Continue pursuing and strengthening the work to support exemplary projects with
high ambitions on energy efficiency.

Introduce regularly condition reports decreed by law for housing cooperatives.

Go through policy instruments critically to develop a detailed regulation system that
gives motivation for high ambitions for sustainability, regardless of the scope of the
renovation.

Continue pursuing knowledge elevation of actors in all segments.
In order to influence residents in housing cooperatives to agree to sustainable energy
efficient renovation, the project concluded with 10 guidelines for a successful decision
making process. Some of these guidelines may be transferred to similar decision
processes among unprofessional housing owners and renters that have an influence on
decisions on renovation. The 10 guidelines were published in a guide for board members
in housing cooperatives which can be downloaded free of charge 2.
2
file:///C:/Users/tommyk/Downloads/NBBL_VeilederFaaOppslutning.pdf
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
8
Figure 2.1 One of the outcomes of the BESLUTT project was a guide on how to gain support for sustainable
renovation. The guide lists 10 criteria for a successful decision making process.
10 criteria for a successful decision making process
1. Be open about the plans. Go out early with information on necessary renovation and
prepare for a good dialogue with the owners and residents.
2. Invest plenty of time. Let the project and decisions mature.
3. Seek advice. Involve the cooperative housing associations or equivalent advisors early
in the process.
4. Agree within the board on a joint proposal for renovation.
5. Involve people who create enthusiasm once the project shall be marketed to the
owners and residents.
6. Let the owners/ residents take the floor. Remember that the need for information
among owners and residents is great. They must be able to ask questions, have
objections, and introduce new ideas.
7. Take the owners' and residents' suggestions seriously. This is important to create
confidence and anchor the project.
8. Provide information in small portions, both orally and written. Use examples, pictures
and a simple language.
9. Set up the calculations showing the financial consequences for the individual owner.
Show how the costs and energy savings affect monthly costs over time.
10. Do not vote on the renovation until you are sure that shareholders are adequately
informed. Then you will be more likely to gain support for the project.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
9
2.2 Findings from the questionnaire survey
The questionnaire survey focuses on the experience and thoughts of stakeholders using
prefabricated modules in retrofitting of buildings. The survey covers the 11 European
countries Poland, Romania, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden,
Norway and The Netherlands. The informants that received the questionnaire were
building owners, architects, consultants, contractors, prefab manufacturers and authorities.
2.2.1 Focus and objective
The objective of the survey is to identify stakeholders experience in using prefabricated
modules in retrofitting projects. This knowledge is to be used as input to the development
of the RetroKit Toolbox. The questionnaire provides input to both deliverable D1.1 and
deliverable D1.4.The last part of the Questionnaire is dedicated to this report (deliverable
D1.4). The research questions covered here are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What make building owners agree to ambitious retrofitting?
What are the most important areas to be addressed in retrofitting?
Which actors influence the decision making process the most?
What characterizes good retrofitting design? 3
The great majority of the informants were approached by direct mail request to participate
in the survey. An invitation to take part in the survey was sent to 4697 genuine e-mail
addresses in the 11 countries mentioned above. Approximately 400 of the addresses had
issues and were therefore rejected from the survey. In addition to the direct mail approach,
a number of organizations associated to the building industry distributed newsletters about
the RetroKit project among their members with a request to answer the questionnaire.
Some of these organisations also promoted the survey on their home pages on the
internet.
A total of 526 answered the questionnaire, giving a response rate of close to 12%. This is
quite typical for this type of research. It is not possible to draw 100% decisive conclusions
on these empirical data. However, the material gives a good indication on the views and
needs of the stakeholders involved in retrofitting.
The distribution of answers by role is shown in Figure 2.1. Four roles are dominant,
together accounting for 83% of all the answers. These are, in descending order; architect
(30,3% of the answers), other (18,9% of the answers), authority (18% of the answers) and
consultant (15,4% of the answers). In the three countries with the highest response rates,
architects dominate the response rate in Germany and Spain while authorities have the
highest response rate in Norway. The three roles with fewest answers are Building owner
(8,9% of the answers), contractor (5% of the answers) and lastly prefab manufacturers
(3,5% of the answers).
3
The response to this question was also referred to in deliverable 1.1
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
10
For more information on how the survey was carried out and the methodology that were
applied, see chapter 3 in deliverable D1.1 Requirements of societal aspects for a
successful and beneficial implementation of RetroKit Toolbox4.
Authority (18% / 93)
Architect (30,3% / 157)
Consultant (15,4% / 80)
Building owner (8,9% / 46)
Contractor (5% / 26)
Prefab manufacturer (3,5 % / 18)
Other (18,9% / 98)
Figure 2.2: Distribution of answers in relation to role. The two numbers in parenthesis separated by a slash
denotes the percentage of answers and the number of answers (frequency) for that group.
The distribution of answers by country is shown in Figure 2.2. Norway, Germany and
Spain stand out with the highest response rates with a share of 35%, 17,5% and 17,1%
respectively. The survey results for each of these three countries are therefore collected
separately for reference use when relevant. The rest of the countries in the survey have a
share of 2-5% of the total number of answers which means that only 10 to 30 persons
responded in these countries.
4
http://www.retrokitproject.eu/reports
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
11
Poland (4% / 21)
Romania (3,2% / 17)
Germany (17,5% / 92)
Switzerland (1,5% / 8)
Ireland (4,4% / 23)
Italy (2,1% / 11)
Spain (17,1% / 90)
Greece (1,9% / 10)
Sweden (5,5% / 29)
Norway (35% / 184)
The Netherlands (3,4% / 18)
Austria (2,7% / 14)
Figure 2.3: Distribution of answers in relation to country. The two numbers in parenthesis separated by a
slash denotes the percentage of answers and the number count of answers (frequency).
The last part of the questionnaire is titled "Agreeing to ambitious retrofit" and is made up of
four questions. See the Appendix named "Questionnaire" at the end of this report. The
findings from the four questions are presented in the following sections.
2.2.2 What make building owners agree to ambitious retrofitting?
In the first question of this part of the questionnaire (question 13) the respondents were
asked to rate what in their opinion make building owners agree to ambitious retrofitting
(Figure 2.4). The two reasons that stand out with the highest score are that the building is
in need for rehabilitation, closely followed by energy efficiency. The fact that a building is in
need of rehabilitation in the first place opens up for introducing energy efficiency measures
as part of the rehabilitation works. The extra cost for improving energy performance is
fairly low compared to the benefits achieved, which was also found in the BESLUTT
project. This is most likely the reason for the high score of "need for rehabilitation" in this
question. A couple of examples that illustrates this is adding extra insulation when the
exterior cladding needs to be refitted or installing extra insulation when the drainage
around a structures basement has to be renewed. Improving a buildings' energy efficiency
in itself was rated as the second highest reason for building owners to decide on ambitious
retrofitting. This indicates that there is a focus on reducing running costs (for heating,
cooling and ventilation primarily) and being environmentally conscious.
The third most reported reason for ambitious retrofitting is improved indoor environment
quality and comfort for residents. This either implies a concern for the residents' well-being
and health, or that the residents have complaints on the indoor environment quality in their
flats that trigger retrofitting. This reason for retrofitting goes hand in hand with, or is rather
the result of, improving the buildings' energy efficiency.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
12
Not important 1
Green image/ company policy
2
4
10%
23%
27%
40%
24%
14%
45%
28%
4% 9%
Very important 5
36%
25%
7%
Improved indoor environment quality and comfort
1% 8%
for residents
To give the building a facelift
3
Energy efficiency
1%4%
16%
39%
40%
Need for rehabilitation
2%
1%
19%
37%
42%
To be competitive in the letting market
Expectations from the planning authorities
Meeting law and regulation requirements
Government funding
9%
3% 8%
27%
32%
3%
17%
27%
31%
16%
15%
38%
27%
17%
15%
32%
32%
15%
6%
30%
0%
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
Figure 2.4: Question 13.What in your opinion makes building owners agree to ambitious retrofitting?
The possibilities of receiving government funding and giving the building a face lift
(improve the quality of the architectural expression of the building) were reported as the
fourth and fifth most important reasons for ambitious upgrading respectively.
Expectations from the planning authorities stand out as the least important of the listed
reasons for building owners to carry out ambitious retrofitting. Meeting laws and regulation
requirements also scores low as a reason to retrofit. This is in line with the response to the
questions related to laws and regulations as well as the mapping of retrofitting laws and
regulations in Europe. Both surveys reported absent, unclear or vague regulations on
retrofitting. See deliverable D1.1 for more details on this.
The prospects of giving the building a green image was not reported as a viable reason for
ambitious retrofitting, scoring inn as the second least important reason for doing ambitious
retrofitting. To be competitive in the letting market also scores on the lower side, making it
not such an important reasons for ambitious renovation either. This implies that a green
image or an ambitiously renovated building is not seen as a big enough advantage in the
letting market to trigger an ambitious renovation in themselves.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
13
Figure 2.5 under show the same information as Figure 2.4 above, albeit with coarser
resolution. This representation gives a somewhat clearer picture on how the various
reasons for ambitious retrofitting score relative to each other, albeit at the price of less
detail.
Unimportant
Neutral
32%
36%
Green image/ company policy
Improved indoor environment quality and comfort
for residents
To give the building a facelift
Important
33%
67%
24%
9%
59%
28%
13%
Energy efficiency
5%
16%
79%
Need for rehabilitation
3%
19%
79%
To be competitive in the letting market
Expectations from the planning authorities
Government funding
44%
31%
25%
11%
18%
38%
44%
Meeting law and regulation requirements
47%
32%
21%
27%
62%
0%
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
Figure 2.5: Same as Figure 2.4 (Question 13) but with coarser resolution. Scores 1 and 2 are grouped and
labelled as unimportant, score 3 is labelled neutral and scores 4 and 5 are grouped and labelled important.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
14
2.2.3 What are the most important areas to be addressed in retrofitting?
In question 14 the respondents were asked to select the three most important areas to be
addressed in retrofitting from a list of seven different areas. The results of the answers are
shown in Figure 2.6, indicating which areas were most frequently selected as being the
most important in retrofitting.
Reducing energy demand is perceived as the most important area to be addressed (79%)
followed by thermal comfort and indoor air quality (69%). Cost (47%) and durability (45%)
is regarded approximately equally important, but moderately important compared to the
other areas listed. The areas that were least selected as important from the list were
improved day lighting (13%), architectural quality (21%) and added qualities for residents
(23%).
Overall, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, cost and durability are regarded significantly
more important than improved daylight, architectural quality and added qualities for the
residents. This is also the trend throughout the survey. The exception is the response to
the open questions where the "softer qualities" of architecture and aesthetics are given
more weight and higher importance relative to the response to the surveys' closed
questions.
No
Thermal comfort and indoor air quality
Yes
69%
31%
Improved day lighting
13%
87%
Architectural quality
79%
21%
Added qualities for residents (balcony, storage,
entrance areas)
77%
23%
Durability
Reducing energy demand
45%
55%
79%
21%
The cost
53%
47%
0%
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
Figure 2.6: Question 14.What do you see as the most important areas to be addressed in retrofitting?
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
15
2.2.4 Which actors influence the decision making process the most?
In question 15 the respondents were asked to select which actors they experience as the
most influential in the decision making process. The most influential, the second most
influential and the third most influential should be selected from a curtain menu containing
owner, resident, architect consultant, contractor and authorities. The results for each actor
are shown below in Figure 2.7.
The most influential
The owner is by far perceived as the most influential actor receiving 67% of the votes as
"most influential", followed by the architect who receives 14% of the votes as "most
influential". Authorities receive 8% of the votes as "most influential".
The second most influential
The second most influential actor is the architect with 26% of the responses as "second
most influential", followed by the authorities (22%) and then the Owner (18%). Residents
and consultants receive both 13% of the responses as being the second most influential
actors.
The third most influential
The third most influential actor is the architect with (23%) of the responses as "third most
influential", followed by the contractors (22%) and then the authorities (18%). Residents
receive 13% of the votes as being the third most influential and the consultants 11%.
Summing up all responses, we see that the most influential actor is seen as the owner, the
second most influential is seen as the architect and the third most influential is seen as the
authorities according to this questionnaire survey. Building owner and architect is selfexplaining actors and easily identifiable. Authorities are less clear, but in this context we
should think of them as the maintainers of building laws and regulations. Hence, the
RetroKit Toolbox should communicate to, and meet the needs of building owners and
architects especially, and be in accordance with or adaptable to current laws and
regulations.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
16
Owner
5%
Residents
4%
13%
13%
14%
Architects
Consultant
Contractor
Authorities (local and/or national)
Prefab manufacturer
67%
18%
Most influential
26%
23%
2. most influential
3%
13%
11%
3%
6%
8%
3. most influential
22%
22%
21%
1%
2%
5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 2.7: Question 15.Which three actors in your experience influence the decision making process the
most? (Most influential – Second most influential – Third most influential)
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
17
2.2.5 What characterizes good retrofitting design?
The final question of the survey provided the respondents the opportunity to elaborate
freely on retrofitting with this question as a starting point: What in your opinion
characterizes good retrofitting? The answers to this particular question also provided
empirical input to the analysis in deliverable 1.1 "Requirements of societal aspects for a
successful and beneficial implementation of the RetroKit Toolbox".
A total of 176 responses were received and analysed. However when evaluating the open
answers in question 16 we have chosen to focus on the answers from the countries where
there was the greatest number of responses, Norway, Germany and Spain. 38
respondents from Norway provided comments, 29 from Germany and 45 from Spain. Out
of these responses, seven basic areas of focus were identified:






energy efficiency
cost
ease of application
flexibility
maintaining existing integrity of the architecture
improvement of the aesthetic quality and user comfort
Interest in the seven areas of focus varied dependent on the country answering. This
difference was determined by evaluating the relative number of responses which were
counted across the seven topics of interest within each of the three countries. Amongst the
responses the most referenced element in good retrofitted design was energy efficiency.
Cost was noted as the next most important and aesthetics (architectural expression and
design) as the third most important.
Amongst the Norwegian open answers several respondents point out that more than one
consideration is important when considering retrofitting. For example a respondent from a
Norwegian housing cooperative states that there is a need for a, "Combination of several
requirements, e.g. the need for facade rehabilitation, balconies, ventilation, repairing
moisture damage etc. Combined with energy-related upgrades, improved comfort,
architectural lift etc. It is important that the process is good, fast and efficient, the residents
should have acceptable living conditions or been offered good temporary solutions if they
have to move out, good financial management and control of progress and good
calculations when it comes to finances and effects (energy saving etc.)."
Within the terminology used by respondents there is a focus on certain words or phrases.
Energy efficiency is a central consideration. Within the 38 open answers 14 suggested that
energy efficiency was an important consideration, but it was rarely the only factor
considered. For example a materials producer suggests that "Good energy efficiency,
good layout, more space, better utilization and renewal" are important factors. Other
factors which are mentioned are cost (8 respondents), aesthetic quality (7 respondents)
and easy maintenance (5 respondents).
Amongst the 29 open answers from German respondents 7 showed an interest in
preserving the original appearance of the building is an important consideration, for
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
18
example a respondent stated that "preserving the original character and appearance of the
building with additional modern design components if allowed". Only 2 of the Norwegian
respondents commented on conservation issues. In addition 7 respondents mentioned that
the architectural or visual quality of the building was also important. These 14 open
answers from German respondents show therefore a marked interest in the visual
appearance of the buildings being retrofitting. 7 respondents commented on the
importance of keeping costs down and 6 stated that energy efficiency was an important
consideration. Aesthetic issues appear therefore to be more important in Germany than
energy efficiency. Another term which is referred to be German respondents is technology.
The cost of implementing a deep retrofit is the primary consideration among Spanish
respondents. 25 of the 45 respondents mentioned cost in their open comments. Energy
efficiency is a common requirement amongst Spanish respondents, when considering
retrofitting. 19 respondents suggested that this was an important consideration. A Spanish
architect suggests that a good project has "sufficient sensibility to highlight and protect the
elements which need to be kept and which take into account energy efficiency." Aesthetic
quality is an important aspect, 14 respondents mentioned design, architecture,
conservation or the visual appearance of the building as being important qualities during
retrofitting. User comfort or requirements is an aspect which Spanish respondents focus
on but which is not primary for Norwegian or German respondents.14 respondents
mentioned usability, user needs or comfort in their open answers. As is the case in the
Norwegian and German responses, the majority of answers combine a number of aspects
when aiming at a good retrofitting process "functional design for users. Reduction in
energy demand. A rigorous technical and economic study but one which is understandable
to users". An efficient process was mentioned by 7 respondents as being important.
Amongst the responses in the open question on characteristics of good retrofit design the
most referenced element was energy efficiency. Cost was noted as the next most
important and aesthetics (architectural expression and design) as the third most important.
However it is important to note that the focus on the three most referenced elements
varied between Norway, Germany and Spain. For example amongst the German
respondents there is marked interest in visual or aesthetic qualities, whilst there is less
interest in energy efficiency. In Norway the opposite was the case, there was more interest
in energy efficiency than there was in aesthetic qualities. The severe financial crisis may
explain the strong focus on cost in Spain. It is possible that the difference in focus is not a
basic cultural difference, but is due to the role of stakeholders who have answered the
questionnaire. For example a greater number of architects answered the questionnaire in
Germany than in Norway (see deliverable 1.1 for details).
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
19
3 Matching the RetroKit Toolbox solutions and the
needs of the users
3.1 The RetroKit Toolbox solutions
The solutions that will be integrated within the RetroKit Toolbox fall under the following
categories:
• Windows;
• Façade;
• Ventilation;
• Heating;
• Cooling;
• Roofs, energy producing;
• Energy production.
Table 3.1 resumes the possible combinations of the previously mentioned solutions.
Table 3.1: RetroKit Toolbox combinations
Toolbox solution
Window renewal
Window plus insulation
frame
Construction
Geometric
Material
Number of
glazes
Position in wall
Wood,
PVC, Metal
Number of
channels per
board
According to
the geometries
of the selected
pipes and ducts
Window plus technical
box
Technical
integration
of
Heating
Cooling
Ventilation
ICT
ISE Insulation board with
integrated heating pipes
and air ducts
Level of
prefabrication
Already mounted,
Has to be finalized
on-site
Already mounted,
Has to be finalized
on-site
EPS / XPS
Mineral wool
(not tested yet)
Thickness
between pipes
and original
wall
ETICS
Thickness of
the second
insulation layer
Building
envelope
Insulation board
in EPS, Mineral
wool
Base coat
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
Today: Direct
application of single
components on site
Future:
Prefabrication
20
render
• Organic acc
DIN EN
15824
• Mineral acc
DIN EN 9981
components off side
with mounting and
finishing on site
Top coat render
• Organic acc
DIN EN
15824
• Mineral acc
DIN EN 9981
ETICS with additional
surface functionality
Functionality in
top coat render
or façade paint
ETICS with functionality
in insulation boards
Functionality
hidden in ETIC
system, nonvisible
ETICS with PV/T
insulation boards
Façade Integrated Space
Cooling Desiccant Air
Handling Unit.
PV/T on top of
ETICS, visible
The position in
wall might be
different but
always
immediately
below of Façade
Integrated Heat
Exchanger.
Solar collector
glazed area
height. (always
up to 2 meter
high)
Façade paint
acc DIN EN
1062-1
Self-cleaning
See above ETICS
IR activity in top
coat
FAW system
Air ducts
pipes
and
Insulation boards
pre-fabricated and
mounted on side
Mounted on side
Façade Module
frame might be
manufactured in
different
materials; wood,
PVC, metal, etc.
Detailed description and information of each solution and about the RetroKit Toolbox will
be extracted from Deliverables D2.1 and D3.1.
According to the analysis performed in the sub-chapter 6.1 of the D3.1, the adaptability
according the climate conditions of the Toolbox and in particular of DSS are due to the
following issues:
1) The subdivision of 5 main climate zones classified by the heating and cooling needs as
low, medium and high (A, B, C, D, E, for the details see sub-chapter 6.1 of the D3.1) that
influence the thickness of ISE Insulation board with integrated heating pipes and air ducts:
•
•
•
•
•
Zone F thickness 150 mm;
Zone E thickness 100 mm;
Zone D thickness 70 mm;
Zone C thickness 40 mm;
Zone B thickness 30 mm.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
21
2) The subdivision of 5 main climate zones classified by the solar irradiance and as
consequence the potential solar electricity generation (1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, for the details see subchapter 6.1 of the D3.1) and also in this case it is possible address the DSS in this way
(Table 3.2):
Table 3.2: PV and Solar Thermal selection according to climate zones
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
Solution for roof or façade
PV and Solar Thermal
PV and Solar Thermal
PV and Solar Thermal
Solar Thermal
Solar Thermal
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
22
3.2 Decision makers view on the proposed solutions
In order to understand specific needs and requirements of the decision makers a
questionnaire has been set up by the partners involved in WP1.
Decision makers are the stakeholders involved in the design and building process and of
course have to be convinced that using the RetroKit Toolbox is an adequate way of
refurbishing a building.
Market implementation of the RetroKit Toolbox and solutions will be possible only if
decision makers see benefits in using them.
Decision makers of the construction process include architects, engineers, builders,
authorities. A specific question is reported in the questionnaire, asking the specific role
within the value chain.
The questionnaire foresees 7 different questions and 4 additional questions that will be
repeated for the solutions individuated in the previous paragraph, for a total of 35
questions. The first part is focused on defining the goal of the questionnaire and asking for
some background information. In this part it is requested to identify the own or company
role within the value chain. The introduction says:
“The goal of this questionnaire is to determine your needs and requirements in respect to
the prefabricated solutions being developed within RetroKit project. Please answer
according to your understanding and feel free to provide any other input or feedback you
may think is needed to complete the analysis of requirements of different stakeholders
involved in the energy efficient building retrofitting and renovation.”
The questions are as follows:
1. Are you aware of the availability on the market of solutions for the implementation of
energy efficient retrofit/renovation projects based on prefabricated modules? (Yes / No)
2. If yes, select among the following and please thick the boxes below
3. Would you accept to use those prefabricated solutions with a higher cost in respect to
the standard traditional solution, but allowing you to save time and cost during the
following installation phase?
Questions 4 to 7 are included for each of the proposed RetroKit solutions. For each
solution a description of the solution, picture and/or drawings and a description of the
single elements constituting the solution is provided.
4. In your opinion, which is the importance of the following elements (described above)
integrated within the windows prefabricated solution?
5. What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to on site production?
6. What do you think are the pitfalls of retrofitting with this particular prefabricated solution
as opposed to on site production?
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
23
7. How do you judge globally this particular prefabricated solution as opposed to on site
production?
8. Considering all the solutions presented above, which of them in your opinion can be
combined to achieve a higher impact during an energy efficiency renovation/retrofit
process?
9. Do you currently make use of ICT tools for?
10. Would having a tool allowing the selection of combined solutions to be implemented in
the retrofit/renovation process to achieve a benchmark established during the design
phase be of interest to you?
11. Which "external" parameters do you think influence the selection of the solutions
described above?
All the questions are closed questions, in order to maximize the following phase of data
analysis. A screenshot of the Excel questionnaire is shown under, figure 3.1.
Window module with technical integration
1) Description of the solution
2) Picture and/or drawings
3) Description of the single elements
1
2
In your opinion, which is the importance of the following elements (described above) integrated within the 1 - No
relevance
windows prefabricated solution?
Window frame / Insulation Frame
Window Technic box
Integration of air in-/outlet
Integration of shading device
Solar thermal
Other (Please specify and rank) :
2 - Low
importance
3 - Medium
importance
4 - High
importance
5 - Crucial
importance
1 - An
What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this particular prefabricated solution as opposed tadvantage
Efficient construction
Less disruption for the residents
Freedom in architectural design
Improved built quality
Fewer building defects
Smoother design process
Good from a construction/technical stand point
Easier to secure a “dry building”
Other (Please specify) :
Other (Please specify) :
Other (Please specify) :
2 - Neutral
Figure 3.1: Screenshot of the questionnaire
The complete questionnaire proposed is reported in Appendix A of the present report.
The second phase of the task foreseen to spread the questionnaire around the community
of the stakeholders individuated. The questionnaire has been created with Google Form,
the free on-line application that allows the creation of web surveys. The application create
automatically a spreadsheet (like MS Excel) in which all responses are saved. From this
file you can then analyse the data gathered.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
24
3.2.1 Main findings of the web questionnaire
In this sub-chapter the outcomes of the questionnaire analysis are briefly explained.
As introduction, it is wise to report that respondents filled in the questionnaire with the help
of four explanation files (downloadable directly from the questionnaire), describing the
different solutions developed within RetroKit in order to get them acquainted as much as
possible with the different solutions.
Figure 3-2 reports the awareness of the questionnaire respondents of market availability of
prefabricated modules for retrofitting and the availability to accept to use prefabricated
solutions with a higher cost compared to traditional on site production, but allowing to save
time and cost during the following installation.
From the first question it clearly emerges that there is a lacking of information on
prefabricated solution available on the market while from the second one, respondents are
willing to use prefabricated solutions under certain conditions.
16
14
12
10
8
Yes
No
6
4
2
0
Awareness of availability of market prefab
solutions
Acceptance of use of expensive prefab
solutions, cost effective during installation
Figure 3-2: Awareness of the respondent on availability of market prefab solutions and acceptance of use of
prefab solutions
Next four graphs (Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6) are referred to the
prefabricated windows module solution.
The first graph, Figure 3-3, reports the importance of different elements that can be
integrated in the windows solution: Window frame / insulation frame, Technical box,
Integration of air in-/out-let, Integration of shading devices, Integration of heat exchanger,
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
25
Solar Thermal. It is clearly highlighted that in general all the solution are considered
relevant.
In your opinion, what is the importance of the following elements integrated
within the windows prefabricated solution?
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crucial importance
High importance
Medium importance
Low importance
No relevance
Window
frame /
insulation
frame
Technical box Integration of Integration of Integration of Solar Thermal
air in-/out-let
shading
heat
exchanger
devices
Figure 3-3: Importance of different element to be integrated within prefab windows
As it is possible to see from Figure 3-4 below, the characteristics listed in the question
(Efficient construction, Less disruption for the residents, Freedom in architectural design,
Improved built quality, Fewer building defects, Smoother design process, Good from a
construction/technical stand point, Easier to secure a "dry building") are considered
advantages of the windows prefabricated solution, except for “Freedom in architectural
design“ and “Smoother design process”.
What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this particular
prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
An advantage
Not an advantage
Figure 3-4: Windows module: advantages
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
26
Considering the characteristics that can be pitfalls (Resulting in a poor architecture,
Disruption for the residents, Limited architectural freedom, Inefficient construction, More
building defects, Complicated design process, More time consuming, Expensive) , only
three of them result alike.
What do you think are the pitfalls of retrofitting with this particular
prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A pitfall
Not a pitfall
Figure 3-5: Windows module: pitfalls
Figure 3-6 reports the global opinion of the stakeholders on the Windows prefabricated
solution.
How do you judge globally this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Very poor
Figure 3-6: Windows module: global opinion
Following graphs are referred to the prefabricated façades solution.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
27
The first graph, Figure 3-7Figure 3-3, reports the importance of different elements that can
be integrated in the prefabricated façade solution: Prefabricated insulation panel with
integrated air ducts - Fresh Air Wall, Multifunctional insulation boards, Façade
functionalization and Integration of PV and/or Solar Thermal. It is clearly highlighted that
in general all the solution are considered relevant.
In your opinion, which is the importance of the following elements
integrated within the façade prefabricated solution?
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crucial importance
High importance
Medium importance
Low importance
Prefabricated
insulation panel with
integrated air ducts Fresh Air Wall
Multifunctional
insulation boards
Façade
functionalization
Integration of PV
and/or Solar Thermal
No relevance
Figure 3-7: Importance of different element to be integrated within façade prefab solutions
As it is possible to see from Figure 3-8 below, the characteristics listed are considered
advantages of the prefabricated façades solution, except for “Freedom in architectural
design“ and “Smoother design process”.
What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site production/installation?
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
An advantage
Not an advantage
Figure 3-8: Façade solutions: advantages
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
28
Considering the characteristics that can be pitfalls, only three of them result alike: resulting
in a poor architecture, limited architectural freedom and expensive.
What do you think are the pitfalls of retrofitting with this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site production/installation?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
A pitfall
0
Not a pitfall
Figure 3-9: Façade solutions: pitfalls
Figure 3-10 reports the global opinion of the stakeholders on the prefabricated façades
solution.
How do you judge globally this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Very poor
Figure 3-10: Façade solutions: global judgment
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
29
Figure 3-11Figure 3-3, reports the possible integration of photovoltaic system (PV) and/or
Solar Thermal elements (S/T) in different systems such as roof, windows and façade.
In your opinion, which is the importance of the following elements
concerning PV and S/T integration?
12
10
8
Crucial importance
High importance
6
Medium importance
4
Low importance
No relevance
2
0
Integration in the roof
Integration in windows
Integration in façade
Figure 3-11: Importance of type of integration of photovoltaic system and solar thermal system
Figure 3-12 below reports the characteristics considered as advantages of the PV and S/T
integration in building elements, except for “Freedom in architectural design“ and
“Smoother design process”.
What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this particular
prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
An advantage
0
Not an advantage
Figure 3-12: PV and S/T integration: advantages
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
30
Characteristics that can be pitfalls are reported in Figure 3-13, only three of them result
alike: resulting in a poor architecture, limited architectural freedom and expensive.
What do you think are the pitfalls of retrofitting with this particular
prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A pitfall
Not a pitfall
Figure 3-13: PV and S/T integration: pitfalls
Figure 3-14 shows the global opinion of the stakeholders on the possible integration of PV
and S/T in the building elements.
How do you judge globally this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Very poor
Figure 3-14: PV and S/T integration: global judgement
Figure 3-15Figure 3-3 reports the importance of developing the Dessicant-Air Handling
Unit (DEC-AHU) according to the stakeholders view.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
31
In your opinion, which is the importance of the
following prefabricated solution?
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Crucial
importance
High
importance
Medium
importance
Low
importance
No relevance
Figure 3-15: Importance of the Dessicant-Air Handling Unit (DEC-AHU)
Figure 3-16 below reports the characteristics considered advantages of the DEC-AHU
system, again “Freedom in architectural design“ and “Smoother design process” are
excluded from the list.
What do you think are the advantages of retrofitting with this
particular prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on
site production/installation?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
An advantage
Not an advantage
Figure 3-16: DEC-AHU system: advantages
Characteristics that can be pitfalls are reported in Figure 3-17, only two of them result
alike: resulting in a poor architecture and limited architectural freedom.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
32
What do you think are the pitfalls of retrofitting with this particular
prefabricated solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
A pitfall
Not a pitfall
Figure 3-17: DEC-AHU system: pitfalls
In Figure 3-18 the global opinion of the stakeholders on the possible integration of DECAHU units in buildings is shown.
How do you judge globally this particular prefabricated
solution as opposed to traditional on site
production/installation?
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Very poor
Figure 3-18: DEC-AHU system: global judgement
The two pictures below (Figure 3-19 and Figure 3-20) report the answers on the possibility
of integration of the different solutions present, according to the stakeholders point of view.
The first graph shows how many time each solution has been chosen by stakeholders as
possibility of integration with the other (e.g. 12 out of 15 stakeholders think that solution
n°1 can be usefully integrated with the others).
Second graph shows the different combination of integration selected by the stakeholders.
The most selected is the combination of the prefabricated multifunctional window module
with the façade systems.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
33
Considering all the solutions previously presented, which of
them can in your opinion be combined to achieve a higher
impact on energy efficiency in a renovation project?
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 - Prefabricated
multifunctional
window module
2 - Façade element 3 - Photovoltaic and
Solar Thermal
4 - DEC - AH unit
Figure 3-19: Solutions integration
Solutions integration
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1-2 -4
1
2-3
1-4
2
1-2 -3 1-2 -3 4
1-2
Figure 3-20: Combination of different solutions integration
Figure 3-21 and Figure 3-22 are referring to the use of ICT and tool during the whole life
cycle of a building.
From the first graph it is possible to retrieve the confidence that stakeholders have with
ICT tools: it is evident that while this kind of SW are widely used to evaluate energy
aspects of the building (being in part mandatory with the Energy Performance Certification)
and for rendering works (made by professionals) they are less considered for the home
management and for the material selection.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
34
Current use of ICT tools
8
7
6
5
4
3
Never
2
Rarely
1
From time to time
0
Usually
Always
Figure 3-21: Use of ICT tools for different stage of building life cycle
From the second graph clearly emerges the need of a tool (93% of the answers) allowing
the selection of the best retrofit solutions in order to achieve a defined benchmark
established during the design phase.
Would having a tool allowing the selection of combined
solutions to be implemented in the retrofit/renovation
process to achieve a benchmark established during the
design phase be of interest to you?
93%
Yes
No
7%
Figure 3-22: Availability to use a decision support tool for solutions selection
Figure 3-23 shows the external parameters that stakeholders consider important that can
influence the selection of specific retrofit solutions. All of them are considered in scope.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
35
Which "external" parameters do you think influence the selection of the
solutions described above?
12
10
8
Crucial importance
High importance
6
Medium importance
4
Low importance
No relevance
2
0
Building's
neighborhood
Climate
conditions
Building's year of Size and shape
Installation
construction
of the building already in place
Figure 3-23: External parameters influencing the choice of the solutions
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
36
3.3 Understanding users' needs
Who are the potential customers or main users of RetroKit and why will they use it? This is
the crucial question to be answered.
The research referred to in chapters 2.1 an 2.2 gives an idea of the focus of different
involved actors in renovation projects. For bringing the RetroKit Tool box successfully to
the market we have to clearly distinguish between:
a. Primary users like architects, contractors and manufacturers of prefabricated
solutions.
b. Secondary users like building owners, subcontractors, etc.
The primary group must see a set of advantages by using the tool so they are interested in
investing in implementation and training in using it. Beside the needs of more efficient
retrofitting processes, flexibility, guiding for achieving energy efficient solutions and a good
design the tool should be a mean to ease interactions between involved actors. The
primary users will then see this tool as an opportunity to build better connections both to
customers and to other involved actors in the projects. As this will increase the trust
between all involved actors, this will strengthen the relations between them beyond the
single project.
The secondary users must have a low threshold for getting access to the information
relevant to him or her. The interface for this group which will not be “professional users”
must therefore be easy understandable and at same time give a trustworthy impression by
clarifying the options to be decided.
What are the real needs to be fulfilled for whom?
The designers (architects and technical advisors) of a renovation project are faced with
the challenge to match the house owner's real needs and the best available solution which
covers the identified needs. From the survey presented in chapter 2.2 the respondents
answered that "need of rehabilitation" closely followed by "energy efficiency" were the
most important reasons for house owners to agree on ambitious retrofitting. If we had
asked the residents, may be they would answered "improved indoor environment quality
and comfort", which was rated as third most important in the survey. It is a pitfall for
technical experts that the discussion about "needs" focus too much on the physical
aspects and less on non-energy benefits (Skumatz, 2000), (Nair, 2010), (Risholt 2012)
which are important for the end customer such as; nice building which also reflects status,
comfortable indoor temperature, less dust, indoor quality which reduces asthmatic
problems, etc.
This means that the designer needs a tool which helps asking the right questions towards
the house owner. Based on the answers there should be given relevant input for retrofitting
strategies involving prefabricated elements (which usually will contain more than energy
efficiency). Preferably, the tool should be compatible with existing design tools most
commonly used by architects and technical planners.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
37
The findings presented in subchapter 3.2.1 show that decision makers expect that by
using prefabricated solutions for retrofitting, means less architectural freedom and a less
smooth design process. The same point was found in subchapter 3.5.3 in the RetroKit
deliverable D1.1 report. The main challenges from moving from on site to prefabricated
solutions are:
•
•
Limited architectural freedom (28%)
Less smooth design process (13%)
As this still is a virgin market, designers have little or no experience with prefabricated
solutions, and might find it too risky. There is therefore a need for increased knowledge
about how to make good and efficient design by using prefabricated solutions.
These needs should also be met by the RetroKit Toolbox.
The manufacturers of prefabricated solutions main need is to get access to the market
for their solutions and to communicate with the other involved actors during planning and
execution of the project. There is a strong need for; flexibility and adaptability to cover
different needs, and at same time make sure that there is congruence between the
different parts of the project which involve both structural and technical subjects.
Manufacturers of prefabricated solutions use already software for planning their projects.
The RetroKit toolbox must either cover all aspects of existing software or be compatible
with it. The added value for using the RetroKit toolbox should be that it is also used by
designers of retrofit projects using prefabricated elements, and that there is an interface
also for contractors.
As a new capital intense emerging business there will be a limited number of serious
suppliers. There might show up some poorly financed companies which fail to complete
their projects in a proper manner. This may result in negative attention to the concept of
prefabricated solutions. This was the case for the most ambitious retrofit project in Norway
using prefabricated elements for a big office building, The Norwegian Tax Authority
Building in Oslo. The manufacturer of elements went bankrupted at the end of the project.
(IEA SHC Task 47, 2013). The Retrofit Toolbox should be addressed to solid actors which
are capable to develop this market.
The main contractor (could also be the manufacturer of prefabricated solutions) needs to
have easy access to technical specifications, guidelines and timelines for all construction
activities. The involved sub-contractors need the same for their respective parts, but also
enough overall information in order to identify their critical interactions with other crafts.
The added value for the contractors is an integrated quality assured construction process
with little or no idle time.
Through the value chain there is a need of quality assurance with special attention on the
critical links between different professional actors.
Use of prefabricated solutions means less hours spent on construction site for the main
contractor. This fact, may also lead to some resistance among some of the actors in the
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
38
industry. For contractors which face lack of capacity may on the other hand see this as an
opportunity to take on responsibility for more projects.
The owner of the building uses either an internal or external resource as project manager
to follow up the project from planning to completion. This person needs "hands on"
information about the progress of the project. The added value for the project manager is
to have a complete picture of the whole project and precise information to be used for
decision making through the project. Further, it would be an advantage if the RetroKit tool
eases the communication with the house owner and the residents of the building.
According to the Norwegian project BESLUTT (chapter 2.1), this target group (as it
includes unprofessional persons) appreciate examples (for instance by visualization) so
they can relate to their own situation.
The final decision of how to retrofit a building is taken by the owner(s) of the building
(according to the survey described in chapter 2.2 the owner is the one with strongest
influence on chosen solutions). If the owner is a professional company with focus on
profitability, the preferences are different from a social cooperative. Whether the energy
costs are included or not in the rent will also influence the priorities between measures to
be implemented. There are also different national regulations regarding how an owner may
increase the rent or terminate a tenancy agreement. All these aspects have to be taken
into account during the planning phase. The owner(s) needs to see how different
retrofitting strategies affect the building in terms of (not listed according to owner's
priorities):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Architectural expression
Comfort and other important qualitative aspects*
Functions/operations
If needed; period of relocation of residents
Operational costs, including energy (before and after)
Construction costs
Value (before and after). This also includes increased the attractiveness due to
improved green image of the building
*These may also include other non-energy benefits such as improved accessibility,
improved or increased outdoor space (for example a balcony), alarm systems/tele-care,
digital services, improved green profile, etc.
The findings in chapter 3.2.1 showed that decision makers expect higher costs by using
prefabricated solutions. As few have experience with prefab, it is a natural response at
this early stage of market development.
If the building is owned by the residents either through direct shares or through a
cooperative, the decision making process is more complex, as described in the Norwegian
project BESLUTT (subchapter 2.1) because it may need consensus or a big majority, as
for example 2/3 majority in Norwegian housing cooperatives, for concluding renovation
strategy. The owners have different knowledge and preferences which complicate the
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
39
process additionally. Each of the owners needs to understand how each retrofitting
solution affect his situation in terms of economy and improved qualities.
According to our survey described in chapter 2.2 the most important reason for agreeing in
ambitious retrofitting is that there is a need for rehabilitation, which is the case for many of
the buildings from that period. On site retrofitting means high degree of disturbance and
inconvenience for the residents. So when an owner of a building comes to the point where
it is needed to upgrade the building, use of prefabricated elements should demonstrate
such advantages compared to on site construction, see chapter 3.5.3 of RetroKit
deliverable report D1.1:
•
•
•
•
•
Less disruption for the residents (72 % of respondents considered this as an
advantage). If this is extensive, the option for many projects is to relocate the
residents during parts of the retrofitting process.
Efficient construction (70 %)
Easier to secure a "dry building" (69%)
Fewer building defects (63%)
Improved built quality (60%)
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
40
4 Success criteria for market implementation
Decision makers that are involved in the design and building process have to be convinced
that using the RetroKit Toolbox is beneficial for the retrofitting process and the retrofitting
task. If decision makers are not convinced and do not see the benefits of the RetroKit
solutions, market implementation will be impossible.
In this chapter the findings from the previous chapters are concluded with a special focus
on the success criteria for market implementation of the RetroKit Toolbox.
1. Findings from the questionnaire survey and the BESLUTT project
2. Decision makers view on the proposed RetroKit solutions
3. Marketing and business possibilities of the RetroKit solutions
4.1 What make building owners agree to ambitious renovation
The research project BESLUTT focused on what make ambitious retrofitting happen in
housing cooperatives. The main findings were that good communication, information
and involvement of the residents are of prime importance 5. A retrofitting project needs
to mature; therefore plenty of time should be invested in the process. Also, people who
create enthusiasm when the project ideas are to be presented for the owners and
residents should be involved.
This translates to that the RetroKit Toolbox should provide a visual profile/output that
communicates well with lay people not accustomed with the building industry. In this way
the RetroKit Toolbox can be a useful communication tool providing input to the decision
making process.
In the RetroKit questionnaire survey it was found that the most important reason for a
building owner to carry out ambitious retrofitting is that the building already is in need of
retrofitting.
The second most important reason was to improve the buildings' energy efficiency. A
reduction in energy use reduces running costs, improve comfort for residents and make
the building more environmentally friendly.
The third most important reason for ambitious retrofitting is to improve thermal comfort
and indoor air quality for the residents.
The RetroKit Toolbox should provide information on how much energy can be saved when
the RetroKit solutions are applied as well as indicating improvements in thermal comfort
and indoor air quality. The RetroKit toolbox should stand out as an attractive solution to
buildings that are in bad need of retrofitting.
5
The residents own their own flat in the cases investigated in the BESLUTT project, making the findings unique to this
owner structure.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
41
The building owner is seen as the most influential actor in the decision making process.
The second most influential is seen as the architect and the third most influential is seen
as the authorities according to this questionnaire survey. Building owner and architect is
self-explaining actors and easily identifiable. Authorities are less clear, but in this context
we should think of them as the maintainers of building laws and regulations.
The RetroKit Toolbox should communicate to, and meet the needs of building owners and
architects especially, and be in accordance with or adaptable to current laws and
regulations.
The final question of the survey provided the respondents the opportunity to elaborate
freely on retrofitting. Seven basic areas of focus were identified in the responses; energy
efficiency, cost, ease of application, flexibility, maintaining existing integrity of the
architecture, improvement of the aesthetic quality and user comfort.
Amongst the responses in the open question on characteristics of good retrofit design the
most referenced element was energy efficiency. Cost was noted as the next most
important and aesthetics (architectural expression and design) as the third most
important.
The RetroKit Toolbox should stand out as a cost effective alternative to energy efficient
retrofitting. Additionally, the RetroKit should provide room to adapt the architectural
expression of the retrofitting modules to the specific building and its context.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
42
4.2 Decision makers view on the RetroKit solutions
From the analysis of the online questionnaire on the RetroKit solutions first of all clearly
emerges the availability of the stakeholders involved in the retrofitting/renovation value
chain to adopt prefabricated solutions that allow saving time and money during the
installation phase. The main point of attention is related to the dissemination of the results
achieved in the project and, as a consequence, on the marketing strategy to be adopted
for the products selling, in order to make people more aware of this kind of solutions.
Considering all the solutions presented, the integration of traditional element (windows,
façades, PV, S/T) with new functionality and new elements is seen in a positive way,
average “high importance”. The stakeholder recognized the relevance of the solutions
proposed and have a good opinion on that.
“Freedom in architectural design“ and “Smoother design process” are not seen as main
characteristics of this type of renovation/retrofitting process. The innovation proposed by
the project have as objective to direct the attention to those building built between 1945
and 1980 that a part from a high energy demand, most of them are multifamily big building
with no special constraints in architectural design criteria.
As a consequence, “poor architecture” and “limited architectural freedom” are the main
drawbacks identified by the stakeholders on this type of intervention.
The integration of the different solutions presented is seen as positive. The most selected
option is the combination of the prefabricated multifunctional window module with the
façade systems. This is one of the solutions that are under development for the demo
buildings within the RetroKit project.
The creation of the RetroKit toolbox will be reflected in the development of the RetroKit
Design Support Tool (DST, a paper manual) and of the RetroKit Design Support System
(DSS, an ICT online tool).
From the analysis, the need of such a tool (93% of the answers) allowing the selection of
the best retrofit solutions in order to achieve a defined benchmark established during the
design phase it is clearly highlighted.
The education of the different stakeholders involved in the value chain to use such tool will
be relevant: from the answers provided, it is evident that while software are widely used to
evaluate energy aspects of the building, being in part mandatory with the Energy
Performance Certification, and for rendering works, made only by professionals (both uses
are for peculiar technical activities), software is less considered for the home management
and for the material/technology selection.
Finally, a lot of attention will be given during the setup of the DST and of the DSS because
of the external parameters (non-technical) that can influence the selection of specific
retrofit solutions.
Building's neighbourhood (high price areas versus low prices areas), climate conditions,
building's year of construction, size and shape of the building, current technical installation
already in place and ownership structure are all considered in scope.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
43
4.3 Marketing and business possibilities of the RetroKit solutions
Potential
As stated in the introduction of this report, 68% of the total final energy use in buildings in
Europe in 2009 is used in multi-family apartment buildings. According to IEA ECBCS
Annex 50 (2011), about 40% of the European dwelling stock is suitable for prefabricated
retrofitting solutions. This illustrates that the market potential is huge for prefabricated
elements and therefore also good planning tools for the whole process.
If the RetroKit Toolbox may be universal for all European countries, the Toolbox will also
be relevant also for several countries outside Europe. When the market for prefabricated
solutions has become mature we will expect that all primary users (element producers,
architects/other designers and main contractors) see interest in buying and using the
RetroKit Toolbox.
Success criteria
The main success criteria for the RetroKit Toolbox is to bring value propositions to all
primary users, including helping them improve their communication with the
secondary users described in the introduction of chapter 3.3.
If the tool is well accepted by only one of the main target groups, it will fail to win the
market. The idea is that the RetroKit Toolbox shall be an enabler of a smooth and
efficient construction process through the value chain. This means that there may not
be a missing link in the interface between the different actors involved in the process. The
tool should aim all primary users to make added value for the final customer.
In order to secure that the RetroKit Toolbox brings relevant value propositions to the users,
the expectations and challenges discussed in previous chapters have to be addressed
during the development process. In particular we will stress the important point made in
the previous chapters about the expectation among decision makers that this form of
retrofitting means less freedom in architectural design and less smoother design process.
The Retrokit Toolbox should demonstrate the contrary if possible.
For each case various ambition levels will normally be considered independent of
construction method (on site or prefabricated). The basic option will always be the national
building code. In addition national definitions of "low energy houses", passive house,
nearly Zero-Energy Buildings or even Plus House levels may be considered.
Consequences of each of the options concerning the elements below will be important for
the decision making:
•
•
•
•
Additional investment costs
Additional non energy benefits
Additional value of the building – and consequently increased rent
Additional reduction of energy costs
The two main challenges for increasing the ambition level are; increased investment
costs and vague information about the consequences (benefits). The RetroKit Toolbox
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
44
should cope with primarily with the latter point, but also partially the first point by enabling
more efficient processes.
In the introduction phase, it is the manufacturers of prefabricated elements which have the
strongest interest in such a tool. Designers, consultants and contractors may expect that
they get free access (from the element producers) for using it.
In the launching of the tool to the market, it is therefore important to gain strong
interest from the manufacturers of prefabricated solutions. There are already several
such actors supplying prefabricated solutions to new construction. Due to the expected
need of retrofitting of existing buildings, this market should be of interest for these
companies.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
45
References
BPIE, Europe’s buildings under the microscope, October 2011, Published by Buildings
Performance Institute Europe (BPIE).
Hauge, Åshild L., Thomsen, Judith, Löfström, Erica (2013). How to get residents/owners in
housing cooperatives to agree on sustainable renovation. Energy Efficiency Volume 6,
Issue 2, pp 315-328. Springer, Netherlands.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-012-9175-5
IEA (2009). World Energy Outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf
IPCC Fourth Assesment Report (2007). Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report.
Olsson, Henry, Sörensen, Stefan 2003 Forskningsprosessen: Kvalitative and kvantitative
perspektiver. Oslo. Gyldendalnorskforlag AS.
Thomsen, Judith, Eikemo, T.A. Aspects of Student Housing Satisfaction: A quantitative
Study. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Vol. 25 No. 3 September 2010.
Boasson, E. L. (2009). Norsk byggenergipolitikk – mangfolding og inkonsistent.
(Norwegian building energy policy - multiple and inconsistent.) Oslo: Fritjof Nansen
Institute.
Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.
Arnstad, E. (2010). Energi effektivisering av bygg, en realistisk og ambisiøs plan fram mot
2040. KRDs arbeidsgruppe for energieffektivisering av bygg.
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/krd/aktuelt/nyheter/2010/Rapport-fra-arbeidsgruppa-forenergieffektivisering-av-bygg.html?id=612776
EU (2010). 5386/3/10. Legislative acts and other instruments. Position of the council at
first reading with a view to the adaption of a directive of the European parliament and the
council on the energy performance of buildings. Brussels.
Skumatz, L. A., Dickerson C.A. and Coates B. (2000), "Non –Energy Benefits in the
Residential and Non-Residential sectors –Innovative Measurements and Results for
Participants Benefits", ACEEESummer Study, Monterey, US, pp 8353-8364.
Nair, G., et al.(2010), "Owner's perception on the adoption of building envelope energy
efficiency measures in Swedish detached houses," Applied Energy, vol. 87, pp. 24112419, 2010
Risholt, B. and Berker, T. (2012), "Success for energy efficient renovation of dwellings.
Learning from private homeowners," Energy Policy, vol. 63, pp. 1022-1030.
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
46
IEA SHC Task 47, 2013
http://task47.iea-shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/Norwegian_Tax_Directorate.pdf
IEA ECBCS Annex 50, 2011, Prefabricated Systems for Low Energy Renovation of
Residential Buildings, http://www.empa-ren.ch/A50/A50.htm
D1.4 “Success criteria for market implementation”
47