SUMMARY EVALUATION REPORT ON FEED-BACK
GIVEN BY VISITORS OF THE ROAD SHOW EVENTS
Project Title:
EnPC-INTRANS Capacity Building on Energy Performance Contracting
in European Markets in Transition - Grant Agreement N° 649639
Deliverable N° 3.4
Lead Partner: CRES
30 November 2016
This project receives funding from the
Horizon 2020 European Union Research and Innovation Programme
under Grant Agreement N° 649639
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Imprint
This document is issued by the consortium formed for the implementation of the EnPC-INTRANS project under
Grant Agreement N° 649639 by the following partners:
GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (Germany)
KEA - Klimaschutz- und Energieagentur Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
EIHP - Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar (Croatia)
e-code - Education for continuous development (Slovakia)
CRES - Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (Greece)
KSSENA - Energy Agency of Savinjska, Šaleška and Koroška Region (Slovenia)
AE3R - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Agency Ploiesti-Prahova (Romania)
SCTM - Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (Serbia)
FIATU - Finance & Technology Ukraine (Ukraine)
ZREA - Zemgale Regional Energy Agency (Latvia)
Lead partner for the compilation of this document:
Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (CRES)
Contact
Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving
19th km Marathonos Ave, 19009, Pikermi Attiki, Greece
Ms. Fotini Karamani
Phone: (+30) 210 6603287; Fax: (+49) 210 6603301; Email:
[email protected]
Author of this report
Fotini Karamani, Catalin Csaszar, Olena Kotlyarska, Miodrag Gluščević, Radoslav Vician, Konstanze Stein, Evija
Erkske, Niko Natek, Ivana Grgurev, Bruno Wilhelm and Matija Vajdić
Disclaimer
Neither GIZ nor any other consortium member nor the authors will accept any liability at any time for any kind
of damage or loss that might occur to anybody from referring to this document. In addition neither the
European Commission nor the Agencies (or any person acting on their behalf) can be held responsible for the
use made of the information provided in this document.
30 November 2016
This project receives funding from the
This project receives funding from the
Horizon 2020
European Union Research and Innovation Programme
under Grant Agreement No 649639
German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development
2
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................3
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................3
Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................5
Executive summary........................................................................................................................................6
1
EnPC-INTRANS – the project ...................................................................................................................8
2
Scope of evaluation.................................................................................................................................9
3
Overall feedback received on 9 roadshow events ............................................................................... 10
4
Feedback received on individual road show events in the partner countries ..................................... 14
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
Croatia ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Germany.................................................................................................................................. 17
Greece ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Latvia ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Romania .................................................................................................................................. 24
Serbia ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Slovakia ................................................................................................................................... 29
Slovenia ................................................................................................................................... 32
Ukraine .................................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 37
Annex 1: Synopsis of received feedback data ............................................................................................ 38
Annex 2: Sample evaluation questionnaires .............................................................................................. 39
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Participants evaluation of the 9 road show events ................................................................. 13
Data provided by individual participants in Croatia on their previous EPC projects ............... 15
Data provided by individual participants in Germany on their previous EPC projects ............ 18
Data provided by individual participants in Romania on their previous EPC projects ............ 26
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Distribution of received feedback to countries and stakeholder groups ...................................6
Monitoring the starting situation and the overall ad-hoc impact of 9 events ...........................7
Participants’ overall evaluation of the 9 events .........................................................................7
Response rate per event .......................................................................................................... 10
Distribution of received feedback to countries and stakeholder groups ................................ 11
EPC experience of participants in all 9 events ......................................................................... 11
3
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
Figure 30:
Figure 31:
Figure 32:
Figure 33:
Figure 34:
Figure 35:
Figure 36:
Figure 37:
Figure 38:
Figure 39:
Figure 40:
Figure 41:
Figure 42:
Figure 43:
Figure 44:
Figure 45:
Figure 46:
Sectoral distribution of different levels EPC experience (all 9 events) .................................... 12
Participants’ prior EPC experience per target group (all 9 events).......................................... 12
Overall ad-hoc impact of 9 road show events ......................................................................... 13
Graphic presentation of the participants’ rating of 9 road show events ................................ 14
Institutional background of participants in Croatia ................................................................. 14
EPC experience of participants in Croatia ................................................................................ 15
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Croatia ............................................................................. 16
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Croatia .................................................... 16
Institutional background of participants in Germany .............................................................. 17
EPC experience of participants in Germany............................................................................. 17
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Germany ................................................. 18
Institutional background of participants in Greece ................................................................. 19
EPC experience of participants in Greece ................................................................................ 20
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Greece ............................................................................. 20
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Greece..................................................... 21
Institutional background of participants in Latvia ................................................................... 22
EPC experience of participants in Latvia .................................................................................. 22
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Latvia ............................................................................... 23
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Latvia....................................................... 23
Institutional background of participants in Romania .............................................................. 24
EPC experience of participants in Romania ............................................................................. 25
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Romania .......................................................................... 25
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Romania .................................................. 26
Institutional background of participants in Serbia................................................................... 27
EPC experience of participants in Serbia ................................................................................. 28
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Serbia ............................................................................... 28
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Serbia ...................................................... 29
Institutional background of participants in Slovakia................................................................ 30
EPC experience of participants in Slovakia .............................................................................. 30
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Slovakia............................................................................ 31
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Slovakia ................................................... 31
Institutional background of participants in Slovenia ............................................................... 32
EPC experience of participants in Slovenia .............................................................................. 32
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Slovenia ........................................................................... 33
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Slovenia .................................................. 34
Institutional background of participants in Ukraine ................................................................ 34
EPC experience of participants in Ukraine ............................................................................... 35
Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Ukraine ............................................................................ 36
Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Ukraine ................................................... 36
Synthesis of evaluation results of all 9 road show events ....................................................... 37
4
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AE3R
e-code
EE
EIHP
EMIS
EPC
ESC
ESCO
ESD
EU
EU28
FIATU
GIZ
H2020
IEA
IEE
KEA
KSSENA
SCTM
SME
ZREA
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Agency Ploiesti-Prahova
Education for continuous development
Energy Efficiency
Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar (Croatia)
Energy Management Information Systems
Energy Performance Contracting
Energy Supply Contracting
Energy Service Company
European Directive on Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services (Energy Services Directive)
European Union
European Union of the 28 Member States
Finance & Technology Ukraine (Ukraine)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (Germany)
HORIZON 2020 - European Union Research and Innovation Programme
International Energy Agency
Intelligent Energy Europe
Klimaschutz- und Energieagentur Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
Energy Agency of Savinjska, Šaleška and Koroška Region (Slovenia)
Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (Serbia)
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
Zemgale Regional Energy Agency (Latvia)
5
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Executive summary
In due course of EnPC-INTRANS project implementation, the partners organized 9 road show events, one in
each of the partner countries, promoting the market uptake of EPC in public buildings in these countries.
Participants were invited to give their feedback on the ad-hoc impact of the events as well as on the quality of
these events and the achieved outputs. A total of 481 of the 896 participants in the 9 events provided their
feedback. Responding participants represent all partner countries and target groups of the EnPC-INTRANS
project in a well-balanced way. Both the demand and supply side of the EPC market are represented almost
evenly, with the local government representatives forming the biggest group (28%). (Figure 1)
Therefore, and with regard to the high overall response rate of 53% (481/896), the results of the evaluation of
the received feedback are taken as representative for the entire audience of the 9 events.
Figure 1: Distribution of received feedback to countries and stakeholder groups
The audience of the events was split 3:1 between those who never had any exposure to EPC concepts for
public buildings before (76%) and those who had somehow been concerned already with the concept of EPC in
public buildings before (24%). Only 10% of the overall audience had any own project experience with actually
concluded EPC contracts. (Figure 2 left)
The performed events had a high ad-hoc impact on the participants’ information, awareness and interest in
EPC in public buildings. At the end of the road show events at least 61% of the overall audience had gained
concrete ideas how to apply EPC in public buildings and at least 70% of the participants confirmed to be
interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings (Figure 2 middle and right).
The high impact of the road show events is among other things due to the high level of participants’
satisfaction with the quality of the event organization and output of all 9 events. (Figure 3)
6
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 2: Monitoring the starting situation and the overall ad-hoc impact of 9 events
Figure 3: Participants’ overall evaluation of the 9 events
Finally the evaluation shows that all road show events succeeded to …




… involve the major target groups of the EnPC-INTRANS project.
… fulfil their participants’ expectations.
… achieve ambitious information, awareness raising and motivation objectives during the event.
… create a substantial impact on the further promotion of EPC in public buildings.
Further replication and dissemination of the EnPC-INTRANS road show concept to further countries, in
particular to newly emerging markets for EPC in public buildings in the EU and abroad, is recommended.
7
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
1
EnPC-INTRANS – the project
EnPC-INTRANS is a project implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH in cooperation with the Climate Protection and Energy Agency of Baden-Württemberg/Germany and
European competence centres on Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) in Croatia, Greece and Slovenia, a
competence centre for e-learning in Slovakia, and key actors for the promotion of EPC at the Local level in
Latvia, Serbia, Romania and Ukraine.
The main objective of the EnPC-INTRANS project is to increase the market uptake of technologies for the
improvement of Energy efficiency (EE) in public buildings and services by means of fostering private sector
participation in innovative Financing schemes for EE investments. The approach of the project is based on the
concept of European cooperation, creating substantial added-value at the European level through the transfer
and adaptation of best practices from established and emerging markets to prospective markets, and vice
versa. Partners from European countries at different stages of EPC market development in the public sector are
participating in the consortium for the implementation of the EnPC-INTRANS Project. The partners’ countries
include:
 Croatia
 Germany
 Greece
 Latvia
 Romania
 Serbia
 Slovakia
 Slovenia
 Ukraine
These countries are represented by the following partners in the project:










GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (Germany).
KEA: Klimaschutz- und Energieagentur Baden-Württemberg (Germany).
EIHP: Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar (Croatia).
e-code: Education for Continuous Development (Slovakia).
CRES: Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and Saving (Greece).
KSSENA: Energy Agency of Savinjska, Šaleška and Koroška Region (Slovenia).
AE3R: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Agency Ploiesti-Prahova (Romania).
SCTM: Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities (Serbia).
FIATU: Finance & Technology Ukraine (Ukraine).
ZREA: Zemgale Regional Energy Agency (Latvia).
The achieved impact of the large-scale capacity development on the European market for EPC projects is
continuously monitored and evaluated and the project results are disseminated to all EU member states.
8
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
2
Scope of evaluation
EnPC-INTRANS road show events were organized in all 9 partner countries between June and October 2016. A
detailed report on these events was published in November 2016 and is available for free download from the
project website www.enpc-intrans.eu.
In total 896 stakeholders and experts participated in the 9 road show events. Representatives of all target
groups of the project used the opportunity to discuss relevant issues related to EPC in public buildings and to
exchange concepts, ideas, expectations and experience with speakers and other participants. At the end of
each of these 9 events, all participants were invited to give their feedback on a series of pre-structured
monitoring and evaluation questions:
 Monitoring questions for the assessment of the ad hoc impact on participants of the road show events:
 Which type of institution do you represent?
 Have you been involved in EPC in public buildings before?
 Has your institution been involved in EPC in public buildings before?
 Have you got any ideas during the event for new EPC project?
 Will you further promote the concept of EPC in public buildings?
 Evaluation questions for the participants’ assessment of the quality and output of the events.
For evaluation purposes the participants were invited to indicate at the end of the event, to what extent
they agree in the following statements:
 The content of the event is important for my work.
 The content of the event met my expectations.
 I know how to apply the content in my work.
 I know how to pass on what I learnt to my colleagues.
 I know how to promote the lessons learnt in my organization.
 I know how to promote the lessons learnt to relevant decision makers.
 The event programme and materials are well elaborated.
 Participants were able to share their own experience and examples.
 I could relate the training content to my own experience and intentions.
These questions were communicated to the participants via questionnaires inviting them to give further details
on already implemented EPC projects, if there are any (see Annex 2). Most of those participants who had been
involved in any actually implemented EPC project before were however reluctant to provide in their feedback
statements any specific information or data on these projects.
This evaluation report presents and summarizes the participants’ overall feedback for all 9 performed events as
well as the specific feedback received for each of the 9 road show events individually.
9
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
3
Overall feedback received on 9 roadshow events
A total of 481 of 896 participants in 9 road show events provided their feed-back on the evaluation questions.
At the level of individual events, the response rates vary between one third and two thirds of participants
(Figure 4).
By general experience, the achieved response rates are high for audiences of public free-of-charge events,
which are offering an open space for the free exchange of concepts, ideas, experiences and concerns between
various actors and actor groups representing both the demand and supply sides of an emerging market for
innovative business models as EPC.
The lowest response rate (32%) appeared in Slovakia where the moderator of the event incidentally announced
the request for participants’ feedback relatively late, when a number of participants were already under
pressure to leave the venue in time and therefore missed the opportunity to give their feedback on the
evaluation questions. This affected representatives of all target groups in the same way and does therefore not
affect the representative character of the feedback received on the road show event in Slovakia.
Figure 4: Response rate per event
The high response rates may be taken as an indicator for the high interest of participants in encouraging
substantial follow-up on these events at all European, national, regional and local market levels.
Participants providing their feedback represent all partner countries and target groups of the EnPC-INTRANS
project in a well-balanced way. Both the demand and supply side of the EPC market are represented almost
evenly, with the local government representatives as the main potential customer group for EPC in public
buildings forming the biggest group (28%). (Figure 5)
10
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 5: Distribution of received feedback to countries and stakeholder groups
The audience of the events was split by approximately 3:1 between those who never had any exposure to EPC
concepts for public buildings before (76%) and those who had somehow been concerned with the basic
concept of EPC in public buildings before (24%). Only 10% of the overall audience had any own project
experience with an actually implemented EPC in public buildings before (Figure 6 left). This mix of more
experience experts and non-experienced persons participating in the road show events provided a sound
platform for the exchange of know-how and experience between these groups.
Figure 6: EPC experience of participants in all 9 events
One third of the participants, including a share of those who had not personally been involved in EPC before,
were delegated from organizations which had been involved in EPC in public buildings before (Figure 6 right).
This is a clear indicator that some institutions which are already involved in the market for EPC in public
11
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
buildings made use of this opportunity in order to expose additional staff to information and experience
exchange on the subject.
Figure 7: Sectoral distribution of different levels EPC experience (all 9 events)
All target groups were represented by participants with different levels of prior experience in EPC in public
buildings. Local governments, the main potential customer group for EPC in public buildings, were overrepresented among those who had no prior EPC experience at all (Figure 7). Those groups who came with a
relatively high level of prior EPC experience were energy suppliers, financing institutions, ESCOs, national
government representatives and facilitators (Figure 8). Local government representatives and representatives
of SMEs were among the least experienced groups participating in the road show events.
Figure 8: Participants’ prior EPC experience per target group (all 9 events)
12
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
The performed events had a high ad-hoc impact on the participants’ information, awareness and interest in
EPC for public buildings. At the end of the road show events at least 61% of the overall audience had gained
concrete ideas how to apply EPC in public buildings and at least 70% of the participants confirmed to be
interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Overall ad-hoc impact of 9 road show events
The high impact of the road show events was among other things based upon the high level of participants’
satisfaction with the quality of the organization and output of all 9 events. In average 83% of the participants
agreed in the proposed positive statements and rated the event “5” or “6” with “6” representing the maximum
score. The average rating per issue was between 5 and 5.4. (see Table 1 and Figure 10)
Table 1:
Participants evaluation of the 9 road show events
13
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 10: Graphic presentation of the participants’ rating of 9 road show events
4
Feedback received on individual road show events in the partner countries
4.1
Croatia
Figure 11: Institutional background of participants in Croatia
14
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
The event was duly organized by the Croatian project partner EIHP on 28 September 2016 in Zagreb. In total 50
of 83 participants provided their feedback (response rate 60%).
The share of national government and financing institutions in the audience of the event was relatively high,
while the share of local government was relatively low compared to the average (compare Figure 11 and Figure
5 right). The “other” include e.g.:
 NGOs promoting EE
 State joint-stock company
 Financing institution
 University
 Municipal joint-stock company
 Research institutes
With 76% of the audience having never been personally concerned with EPC in public buildings before (Figure
11), the level of experience of the audience fits in general very well into to average of 9 events. But 40% of
participants claim that the organizations they represent have been involved in EPC in public buildings before,
28% even with actually concluded contracts. (Figure 12) As additional information, some participants presented
a few figures on their previously implemented EPC projects (Table 2).
Target group
kWh/y Energy savings
€/y Energy cost savings
tons/y CO2 emission reduction
Financing Institution
200,000-1,000,000
-
-
150,000-5,000,000
-
-
200-500,000
130,000-150,000
2-100
ESCOs interested to offer
EPC services
SME interested to develop
EPC services
Table 2:
Data provided by individual participants in Croatia on their previous EPC projects
Figure 12: EPC experience of participants in Croatia
With at least 56% of the audience having gained new ideas how to apply EPC in their own spheres of
responsibility during the event, and with at least 58% of the audience confirming that they are as an outcome
of the event interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings, the ad-hoc impact of the event on the
information, awareness and motivation of participants was very high. (Figure 13) More detailed analysis
showed in particular that all representatives (100%) of local government, energy agencies, energy supply
15
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
companies and almost all representatives (85%) of financing institutions confirmed to be interested in further
promoting EPC in public buildings.
Figure 13: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Croatia
Participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event. Evaluation results
presented in Figure 14 are very well in line with the average of the 9 road show events.
Figure 14: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Croatia
16
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
4.2
Germany
The event was duly organized by the German project partner KEA on 15 September 2016 in Berlin. In total 63 of
99 participants provided their feedback (response rate 64%).
Figure 15: Institutional background of participants in Germany
The share of energy agencies and energy suppliers in the audience of the event was relatively high, while the
share of local government was relatively low compared to the average. The “other” include e.g.:
 Hospitals
 Housing associations
 Social services
 Consultants
Figure 16: EPC experience of participants in Germany
17
 Insurance companies
 Industry associations
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
With almost 50% of participants personally experienced in EPC in public buildings and almost 70% of
participants representing experienced organizations (Figure 16), the audience in the road show in Germany
was the most experienced. All involved target groups were almost evenly represented in both the nonexperienced and the experienced group of participants. On this background the event provided a sound
platform for the multi-sector exchange of experience and know-how bringing together more and less
experienced representatives of all target groups.
As additional information, some participants presented a few figures on their previously implemented EPC
projects (Table 3).
Stakeholder Category
kWh/y Energy savings
€/y Energy cost savings
tons/y CO2 emission reduction
Local/regional Energy agency
600,000
60,000
200
120,000
-
Financing Institution
Commercial Local Facilitators
Table 3:
300,000
Data provided by individual participants in Germany on their previous EPC projects
The high level of know-how and experience of the audience made it very challenging for the organizers of the
event as well as for the speakers to create an additional ad-hoc impact in terms of raising awareness,
instigating new project ideas and increasing the motivation of the participants regarding the further promotion
of EPC in public buildings.
Figure 17: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Germany
Nevertheless, when asked at the end of the day whether being interested in further promoting EPC in public
buildings, only 2% of participants denied. This may be taken as indicator for a high ad-hoc impact, at least on
the consolidation of already existing, if not the instigation of new, information, awareness and motivation for
18
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
EPC in public buildings among the participants of the event. The question whether the participants had gained
during the event some new ideas how to apply EPC in public buildings was not asked to the participants of this
event as it was evident that almost all of the participants came already with their own EPC project ideas to the
event.
Participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event. But a comparison with
the average rating of all 9 events shows that the higher level of expertise of the audience in the road show
made it probably more challenging to impress the audience with the excellent organization of the event and a
very high-level of content, which was actually provided by KEA and by the top-class speakers mobilized by KEA
(Figure 17).
4.3
Greece
The event was duly organized by the Greek project partner CRES on 4 October 2016 in Athens. In total 71 of
140 participants provided their feedback (response rate 51%).
Figure 18: Institutional background of participants in Greece
The share of local government was a bit less (Figure 18) compared to the average (Figure 5 right). Financial
institutions were not represented in the event. The “other” include e.g.:
 Public building owners
 Lawyers
 Energy consultants
 Universities
 Technical education institutes
 Research institutes
None of the representatives of national government institutions, energy agencies and of local public utilities
had ever been involved in EPC before, neither personally neither through the institutions they represent. And
only one representative of local government announce that she or he had ever be concerned with EPC before
19
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
although 50% of the local government representatives indicated that their authorities had already been
concerned with this issue.
Starting from this situation, the facts that 68% of participants confirmed at the end of the day that they had
gained new ideas how to apply EPC in public buildings in their own spheres of responsibility, and that at least
80% confirmed to be interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings, indicates a high level of success
and a strong ad-hoc impact of the event (Figure 20). Among those who were personally interested in further
promoting EPC in public buildings, were 90% of the representatives of local governments. 100% of the
representatives of local and regional energy agencies as well as of local public utilities confirmed that their
organizations will actively promote EPC in public buildings in the future in Greece.
Figure 19: EPC experience of participants in Greece
Figure 20: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Greece
20
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
The participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event (Figure 21). Ratings
are in some cases slightly above the average of the 9 road show events.
Figure 21: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Greece
4.4
Latvia
The event was duly organized by the Latvian project partner ZREA on 18 October 2016 in Jelgava. In total 50 of
81 participants provided their feedback (response rate 62%).
21
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 22: Institutional background of participants in Latvia
The institutional mix in the audience (Figure 22) represents very well the average of the 9 road show events.
Only the share of local public utilities and energy supply companies is a bit higher than in average. The “other
stakeholders” represent:
 Local energy agency
 State joint-stock company
 Financing institution
 University
 Municipal joint-stock company
Only 18% of the audience had been personally concerned with EPC in public buildings before and only 6% had
been involved in actually implemented EPC projects before. 30% of the audience were however representing
organizations with experience in EPC in public buildings. (Figure 22)
Figure 23: EPC experience of participants in Latvia
22
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 24: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Latvia
Figure 25: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Latvia
On this background the event had a strong ad-hoc impact on its audience, which had come with a relatively low
level of prior experience concerning EPC. At the end of the day at least 84% of the audience had gained
concrete ideas how to apply EPC in their own spheres of responsibility, and at least 66% confirmed to be
personally interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings. It is in particular important for the further
market uptake of EPC in public buildings in the country that further analysis showed that all national
23
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
government representatives and at least 80% of the local government representatives were among those who
confirmed there interest in further promoting EPC in public buildings, personally as well as through their
institutions. (Figure 24) The participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show
event (Figure 25). Evaluation results are very well in line with the average of the 9 road show events.
4.5
Romania
The event was duly organized by the Romanian project partner AE3R on 5 October 2016 in Ploiesti. In total 62
of 96 participants provided their feedback (response rate 65%).
The shares of local government, local public utilities, energy supply companies and financing institutions in the
audience of the event was relatively high (Figure 26) compared to the average. None of the representatives of
the few potential ESCOs participating in the event identified its institution as an ESCO. Those who could have
claimed to represent potential ESCOs identified themselves either as facilitators, public utilities or energy
supply companies. The “other” include finally:








NGOs promoting EE
Local and regional development agencies
Facilitators
Financing institutions
Figure 26: Institutional background of participants in Romania
24
Energy supply companies
Universities
Technical education institutes
Homeowner associations and individual
industries
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 27: EPC experience of participants in Romania
Figure 28: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Romania
Only 10% of the audience personally had any prior experience in EPC in public buildings although almost 30% of
participants confirmed that their organizations had been involved before (Figure 27). Among those who
announced that their organizations had been concerned with EPC before were 30% of the 21 representatives
of local government and 70% of the 7 representatives of energy supply companies. Only 1 representative of
each of the groups representing financing institutions, energy agencies, local public utilities and other had
announced that its organization had been involved in EPC in public buildings before.
25
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
As additional information, some participants presented a few figures on their previously implemented EPC
projects (Table 4).
Stakeholder Category
Local Government
Other
Table 4:
kWh/y Energy savings
€/y Energy cost savings
tons/y CO2 emission reduction
56,000
16,000
-
1,000
-
-
Data provided by individual participants in Romania on their previous EPC projects
Figure 29: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Romania
Starting from the low level of personal prior information and experience of participants and the low level of
organizations’ prior involvement in EPC, the event had a very high ad-hoc impact on the participants. At the
end of the day at least 87% had gained concrete ideas how to apply EPC in their spheres of responsibility and at
least 90%, among them all representatives of national and local government, confirmed their interest to
further promoting EPC in public buildings. (Figure 28)
The participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event (Figure 29). In most
aspects participants rated the quality and output of the event slightly higher than the average of 9 events.
4.6
Serbia
The event was duly organized by the Serbian partner SCTM on 22 September 2016 in Belgrade. In total 46 of
107 participants provided their feedback (response rate 43%).
26
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 30: Institutional background of participants in Serbia
Local government representatives were by far the biggest group among participants and their share in the
audience was much bigger than in the average of 9 events (Figure 30). But all other target groups of the EnPCINTRANS project, except financing institutions, were also represented well in the event so that both the
demand side and the supply side of the market met and participated in the exchange of information,
experience and ideas. The “other” included:
 NGOs promoting EE
 Universities and other technical
training institutes
 Industrial or bank associations
and individual industries
 Media
 Financing Institutions
 Research institutes
 International organizations (e.g.
UNDP, GIZ, SDC) promoting EE
 Representatives of foreign embassies
in Serbia
 Local and regional
development agencies
 National or regional
chambers of commerce
and industries
Almost 15% had been somehow concerned with EPC in public buildings before, but only 2% of them in the
context of actually contracted projects (Figure 30). The higher share (26%) of participants who announced that
their institutions had been involved in EPC in public buildings before relates to 4 local government
representatives, 1 representative of an energy agency, and 1 potential facilitator who claimed that their
organizations had been involved in EPC although they themselves had personally not been involved.
At the end of the day more than 90% of the 21 local government representatives were among those who had
gained concrete ideas how to apply EPC and who confirmed their interest in further promoting EPC in public
buildings. This shows that the ad-hoc impact of the event was probably the highest in the group of local
government representatives. This may lead to a relatively high impact of the event also on the market place, as
local governments own most of the public buildings in the country and thus represent the biggest potential
demand for EPC in public buildings. (Figure 32)
27
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 31: EPC experience of participants in Serbia
Figure 32: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Serbia
Participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event (Figure 33), which was
in almost all aspects rated slightly higher than the average of the 9 road show events.
28
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 33: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Serbia
4.7
Slovakia
The event was duly organized by the Slovakia project partner e-code on 26 October 2016 in Banská Bystrica. In
total 31 of 97 participants provided their feedback (response rate 32%). The relatively low response rate is due
to the moderator of the event who incidentally announced the invitation of participants’ feedback relatively
late, when a number of participants were already under pressure to leave the venue in time and therefore
missed the opportunity to give their feedback. This most probably affected representatives of all target groups
in the same way and does therefore not harm the representative character of the participants’ feedback
received on the road show event Slovakia.
The demand side of the market was represented by national and local governments and the supply side by
ESCOs and SMEs, with the facilitators serving both sides if requested (Figure 34).
29
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 34: Institutional background of participants in Slovakia
Almost one forth (23%) of the participants had been concerned with EPC in public buildings before, among
them all representatives of local government authorities. But none of them was involved in an actually
concluded EPC before. Only one representative of an ESCO confirmed, although she or he had not been
concerned with EPC personally, that her or his organization had concluded a few EPC already. (Figure 34)
Figure 35: EPC experience of participants in Slovakia
Starting from this situation the ad-hoc impact of the event was very high, resulting in at least 74% having at the
end of the day gained concrete ideas how to apply EPC in public buildings, and at least 68% being interested in
further promoting EPC in public buildings. (Figure 36)
30
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 36: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Slovakia
The participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event. Evaluation results
are very well in line with the average of the 9 road show events. (Figure 37)
Figure 37: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Slovakia
31
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
4.8
Slovenia
The event was duly organized by the Slovenian project partner KSSENA on 12 October 2016 in Ljubljana. In
total 42 of 91 participants provided their feedback (response rate 46%).
The demand side of the market was represented by national and local governments with their energy agencies:
the supply side was represented by ESCOs and SMEs, while the facilitators may serve as intermediators (Figure
38).
Figure 38: Institutional background of participants in Slovenia
Figure 39: EPC experience of participants in Slovenia
32
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
The “other” include e.g.:




NGOs promoting EE
Research institutes
Private companies offering
products and services related to
EE in buildings
International institute for
sustainable development



Local and regional development
agencies
Chambers of commerce and
industries
Private companies interested in
Energy refurbishment of their
building stock



Universities and other
technical education
institutes
Industrial associations and
individual industries
Media
With 43% of participants and of the institutions they represent having prior experience in EPC projects (Figure
39) the audience in the road show in Slovenia was among the most experienced of the 9 road show events.
Those who came with some prior EPC experience were representing local public authorities, energy agencies
and commercial facilitators.
The event met a relatively far developed EPC market and it was quite a challenge to create an additional ad-hoc
impact regarding the information, awareness and motivation of participants. Most of the 60% who denied to
have got new ideas during the event had most probably come with their own ideas for EPC projects before.
Only those who did not have any experience in EPC before were really challenged to develop new project ideas
during the day. But in any case the group of those who confirmed at the end of the day to be interested in
further promoting EPC in public buildings was bigger than the group who had already come with their own
experience in EPC in the morning. So there was definitely a positive ad-hoc impact of the event. (Figure 40)
Figure 40: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Slovenia
Monitoring results may lead to the conclusion that this kind of event in a further developed EPC market with an
experienced actors’ landscape may rather help further stabilising and broadening the EPC market base than
creating a new market push. Most probably, creating a new push in such kind of markets would need measures
going beyond information and awareness building. This could e.g. be legal or fiscal measures improving
administrative or financial framework conditions for EPC in public buildings.
Nevertheless, the participants were highly satisfied with the quality and outcome of the road show event.
Evaluation results are very well in line with the average of the 9 events. (Figure 41)
33
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Figure 41: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Slovenia
4.9
Ukraine
The event was duly organized by the Ukrainian project partner FIATU on 23 June 2016 in Poltava. In total 66 of
102 participants provided their feedback (response rate 65%).
Figure 42: Institutional background of participants in Ukraine
34
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Almost two thirds in the audience were local government representatives (Figure 42). This is due to the fact
that the regional administration of Poltava (Poltava was the venue of the event) and other regional
administrations in Ukraine, as well as various international donors promoting EE in public buildings, had been
very active during the past few years in sensitizing local administrations to go for an energy efficient
rehabilitation of their local public buildings. The fiscal situation of most of municipalities is however so weak,
that large investments in the rehabilitation of public buildings are not feasible for them without any private
sector participation. This is why the interest of local public authorities in more information on EPC for public
buildings is particularly high in Ukraine.
The supply side was represented by a number of energy agencies, public utilities and SMEs. Local ESCOs have
not yet emerged in large numbers and international ESCOs have not yet established active businesses
promoting EPC in large scale in the country. The “other” include e.g.:
 Universities
 International cooperation projects
promoting energy efficiency
 Financing institutions
 Public organizations
 NGOs promoting energy efficiency
 Local development agencies
Figure 43: EPC experience of participants in Ukraine
Despite the high awareness building and information efforts of different actors on EPC in public buildings in the
country only 24% of the audience had been personally concerned with EPC in public buildings before, and only
9% of the audience even had already some experience in actually implemented EPC projects (Figure 43). The
participants claiming that their organizations had been involved in EPC in public buildings in the past were
representing national government, local government authorities, energy agencies, local public utilities or SMEs,
with 50% of them representing local government authorities. And even 63% of those who claimed that their
organizations had been concerned with EPC in public buildings before were representing local government
authorities. Thus it may be concluded that local government authorities might be the strongest promoter for
the further market uptake of public buildings in the country.
The impact of the event on the participants’ information, awareness and motivation for EPC in public buildings
was very high. At the end of the day at least 59% of audience had got concrete ideas how to apply EPC in public
35
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
buildings, and at least 77% confirmed to be interested in further promoting EPC in public buildings in the
country (Figure 44). As high as the participants’ interest in EPC as high was their level of satisfaction with the
quality of the road show event and its outcome. Participants’ ratings of the event were in all aspects higher
than the average of 9 road shows. (Figure 45)
Figure 44: Ad-hoc impact of the road show in Ukraine
Figure 45: Participants’ evaluation of the road show event in Ukraine
36
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
5
Conclusions and recommendations
Despite the large variety in framework conditions in the partner countries, all events reached a high level of
quality in organization, contents and outputs from their participants’ points of view (Figure 46).
Figure 46: Synthesis of evaluation results of all 9 road show events
Evaluation results confirm furthermore that in newly emerging markets (e.g. Romania, Ukraine) this kind of
events may directly contribute to a market push and to a paradigm change in local actor’s perception of EPC
application potentials and benefits. In more developed EPC markets (e.g. Germany, Slovenia) such an event
may help further stabilising and broadening the EPC market base, but creating a new substantial market push
in these markets would probably need additional impulses, such as e.g. legal or fiscal measures further
improving administrative or financial framework conditions for EPC in public buildings. Finally the evaluation
shows that all road show events succeeded to …




… involve the major target groups of the EnPC-INTRANS project.
… fulfil their participants’ expectations.
… achieve ambitious information, awareness raising and motivation objectives during the event.
… create a substantial impact on the further promotion of EPC in public buildings.
Further replication and dissemination of the EnPC-INTRANS road show concept to further countries, in
particular to newly emerging markets for EPC in public buildings in the EU and abroad, is recommended.
37
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Annex 1: Synopsis of received feedback data
38
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Annex 2: Sample evaluation questionnaires
The organizers of the road show events distributed the agreed monitoring and evaluation questions via
questionnaires designed according to the following samples. Usually each participant received both parts of the
questionnaire and was asked to return both completed at the end of the road show event.
Personalized monitoring questionnaire (A)
My country of residence is:
Please tick as
appropriate
I represent the following type of organization:
National Government
Local Government
Local/regional Energy agency
Local public utility
Energy supply company
Financing Institution
ESCOs interested to offer EPC services
SME interested to develop EPC services
Commercial Local Facilitators
(architects, engineers etc.)
Other (please explain):
Please tick as
My personal involvement in EPC may
appropriate or
be classified as follows:
provide relevant
data
Yes; I have been involved in EPC for public buildings before
>10 EPC contracts concluded
5-10 EPC contracts concluded
1-5 EPC contracts concluded
No EPC contract concluded yet
Yes, my already implemented or planned EPC projects
account for (per contract in average):
~
kWh/y Energy savings
~
€/y Energy cost savings
~
tons/y CO2 emission reduction
No, I have never been involved in EPC for public buildings
before.
I am interested to promote EPC for
public buildings
I am not interested to promote EPC for
public buildings in the near future
Please tick as
My organization’s involvement in EPC
appropriate or
may be classified as follows:
provide relevant
data
Yes; my organization has been involved in EPC for public
buildings before
>10 EPC contracts concluded
5-10 EPC contracts concluded
1-5 EPC contracts concluded
No EPC contract concluded yet
Yes, our already implemented or planned EPC projects account
for (per contract in average):
~
kWh/y Energy savings
~
€/y Energy cost savings
~
tons/y CO2 emission reduction
No, my organization has never been involved in EPC for public
buildings before.
We intend to promote EPC for public
buildings
We do not intend to promote EPC for
public buildings in the near future
For follow-up and monitoring purposes, may we contact you by email during the duration of the EnPC-INTRANS project?
YES, my valid email address is:
Data and information provided shall be stored and processed exclusively for the purpose of this project, and no reference shall
be given to my email address in no case and under no circumstances towards any third party. Signature
The concept of a personalized monitoring questionnaire was not well accepted by participants providing their
feedback. Most of them did not provide their email addresses on the completed questionnaire.
39
EnPC-INTRANS – D3.4: Summary evaluation report on feed-back given by visitors of the road show events
Anonymous evaluation questionnaire (B)
The Questionnaire B is designed to assess the participants’ satisfaction with the performed events and it
consists of the following group of questions (Table 2):



Questions regarding the content of the event
Questions regarding the organization of the event
A question whether participants got concreate ideas at the end of the day of how to apply the lessons
learnt during the road show event
Dear participant, in order to support our internal
monitoring & evaluation, could you please be so kind to complete this
quick reference questionnaire. I totally agree
Please do not mention your name or any personal information on this questionnaire.
(Please tick as appropriate from your personal point of view)
Content relevance and transfer possibilities
The content of the event is important for my work.
The content of the event met my expectations.
I know how to apply the content in my work.
I know how to pass on what I learnt to my colleagues.
I know how to promote the lessons learnt in my organization.
I know how to promote the lessons learnt to relevant decision makers.
Organization and methods
The event programme and materials are well elaborated.
Participants were able to share their own experience and examples.
I could relate the training content to my own experience and intentions.
Have you already got concrete ideas of how to apply what you have learnt?
( ) Yes ( ) No
How can we further improve the training in the future?
(Please be so kind to give us your recommendations)
Thank you! Your EnPC-INTRANS team of partners.
40
I totally
disagree


+++
++
+
-
--
---