Comprehensive Study of Building Energy renovation-MJ0319963ENN

Comprehensive study of
building energy renovation

activities and the uptake of
nearly zero-energy buildings
in the EU
Final report
Prepared by:
Ipsos Belgium
Public Affairs
Rooigemlaan 2
9000 Gent
Belgium
www.ipsos.com
Navigant
Am Wassermann 36
50829 Cologne
Germany
www.navigant.com
Prepared for:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Energy
Directorate C, Renewables, Research and Innovation, Energy Efficiency
Unit C4, Energy Efficiency, Buildings and Products
E-mail: [email protected]
This study was ordered and paid for by the European Commission, Directorate-General
for Energy under contract No ENER/C3/2016-547/02/SI2.753931.
The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which
may be made of the information contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
© European Union, November 2019

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Energy
Directorate C, Renewables, Research and Innovation, Energy Efficiency
Unit C4, Energy Efficiency, Buildings and Products
E-mail: [email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussel
Comprehensive study of
building energy renovation
activities and the uptake of
nearly zero-energy buildings
in the EU
Final report
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you)
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
PDF ISBN 978-92-76-14632-2 doi: 10.2833/14675 MJ-03-19-963-EN-N
© European Union, 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – Key messages ..................................................................... 1
FINAL REPORT ........................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 7
2. Methodology .................................................................................................. 9
3. Covered indicators ......................................................................................... 13
4. Findings ....................................................................................................... 15
4.1. Renovation rates, achieved energy savings and investment costs .................. 15
4.2. Uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) ........................................... 39
4.3. Determinants for performing energy renovations ......................................... 43
5. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 78
COUNTRY REPORTS ............................................................................................... 88
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 88
Austria .............................................................................................................. 90
Belgium ............................................................................................................. 94
Bulgaria ............................................................................................................. 98
Croatia ............................................................................................................ 102
Cyprus............................................................................................................. 106
Czech Republic ................................................................................................. 110
Denmark.......................................................................................................... 114
Estonia ............................................................................................................ 118
Finland ............................................................................................................ 122
France ............................................................................................................. 126
Germany.......................................................................................................... 130
Greece............................................................................................................. 134
Hungary .......................................................................................................... 138
Ireland ............................................................................................................ 142
Italy ................................................................................................................ 146
Latvia .............................................................................................................. 150
Lithuania.......................................................................................................... 154
Luxembourg ..................................................................................................... 158
Malta ............................................................................................................... 162
Netherlands...................................................................................................... 166
Poland ............................................................................................................. 170
Portugal ........................................................................................................... 174
Romania .......................................................................................................... 178
Slovakia........................................................................................................... 182
Slovenia .......................................................................................................... 186
Spain .............................................................................................................. 190
Sweden ........................................................................................................... 194
United Kingdom ................................................................................................ 198
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................ 202
1. Definitions .................................................................................................. 202
1.1. Renovation & uptake of NZEB ................................................................. 202
1.2. Building type characterisation and used reference buildings for measuring
renovation activities ....................................................................................... 204
1.3. Nearly zero-energy building definitions as used in the surveys .................... 212
2. Indicators ................................................................................................... 235
2.1. Approach of the quantitative indicator development ................................... 235
2.2. Approach of the qualitative indicator development ..................................... 235
2.3. Theoretical background for the development of the qualitative indicators ..... 237
2.4. Needs of the current study related to qualitative indicators ......................... 239
2.5. Development of qualitative indicators ....................................................... 240
3. Methodology ............................................................................................... 242
3.1. Renovation rates ................................................................................... 242
3.2. Energy savings ...................................................................................... 247
3.3. Investment costs ................................................................................... 250
3.4. Uptake of nearly-zero energy buildings .................................................... 256
3.5. Survey methodology .............................................................................. 260
3.6. Limitations............................................................................................ 290
4. EU28 building stock inventory ....................................................................... 291
4.1. Approach residential buildings ................................................................. 291
4.2. Approach non-residential buildings .......................................................... 292
5. New construction activities in the EU28 .......................................................... 294
5.1. Approach for calculating the newly constructed floor area and buildings in the
residential sector ............................................................................................ 294
5.2. Approach for calculating the newly constructed floor area and buildings in the
non-residential sector ..................................................................................... 295
5.3. Used reference building sizes of new constructions .................................... 295
6. References ................................................................................................. 297
Comprehensive study of building energy renovation activities and the
uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings in the EU
Executive Summary – Key messages
Objective
The objective of this study is to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the renovation

activities and nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) uptake in the EU from 2012 to
2016, applying indicators in line with the Building Stock Observatory (BSO). The
following main results are available for the EU and for each of the 28 Member States:
 Precise definitions in the context of energy renovation of buildings
 EU28 building stock inventory and new construction data
 Renovation rates and investment costs; split into energy renovation, non-
energy renovation, residential and non-residential buildings, and renovation depths
 Related primary energy savings; split into residential and non-residential

buildings, and different renovation depths
 Avoided greenhouse gas emissions through energy renovation; split into

residential and non-residential buildings
 Impact on employment rate of overall building renovation
 Rates for the uptake of NZEB; split into new construction and renovation
 Information on triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives.
Methodology
Secondary data was obtained through extensive desk research and purchase of market
data on some renovation measures. In order to obtain primary data on energy renovation
activities and NZEB uptake in the EU28 Members States, three surveys were conducted,
taking into account the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
1
 The large-scale online consumer survey (30,118 respondents in the EU28,
18,302 energy renovators) targeted consumers that have performed (energy)
renovations. The sample is composed of three main groups; owners, tenants and
landlords. It provides information on residential buildings and respondents’ drivers
and barriers to perform energy renovation.
 The online architect survey (1,581 respondents in the EU28) focused on both
residential and non-residential buildings. The data is also used to explore architects’
and their clients’ drivers and barriers to conduct energy renovation.
 The main contractor and installer telephone survey (2,009 respondents in the
EU28) was tailored towards the supply side. This survey focused on residential and
non-residential renovation projects and NZEB. It provides insight into the drivers
and barriers for energy renovation of main contractors, installers and their clients.
Energy savings, renovation rates, and investment costs were derived based on a detailed
simulation using inputs from secondary and primary data collection.
Results and conclusions
Renovation
The determination of renovation rates and depths requires a clear common understanding
of what renovation “rate” and “depth” mean. To reduce uncertainty about definitions, this
study proposes and applies clear definitions for different renovation depths, relating
them to non-renewable primary energy savings achieved in a specific calendar year:
 Below threshold (x < 3% savings)
 Light renovations (3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings)
 Medium renovations (30% < x ≤ 60% savings)
 Deep renovations (x > 60% savings)
“One-off” deep renovation gets significant attention in discussions about a decarbonised

building stock. Yet, with an estimated rate of only around 0.2% - 0.3% in terms of affected
floor area, deep renovations only occur sporadically in the EU28.
In practice, step-by-step renovations with little primary energy savings per step
dominate the market. “Below threshold”, “light” and “medium” renovations are more
prevalent than “deep” renovation (the lower the depth the higher the rate). This typically
means that only a few measures are implemented.
The speed at which the building stock improves its energy performance can be expressed
as annual reduction of the total building stock’s primary energy consumption. This
weighted energy renovation rate is calculated to be about 1%.1
1
This is in line with other estimations of the European Commission (0.4-1.2% depending on the Member State).
2
If this rate persists, the building sector will clearly and significantly fail to deliver
its share of the overall need for primary energy reduction and consequently a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Significant acceleration is needed.
Energy renovations and non-energy renovation highly coincide. At the same time
repairs, regular maintenance and inspections are major triggers for energy renovation.
Furthermore, do-it-yourself activities have a significant share in building renovation. This
underlines the necessity to interpret deep renovations as a journey with several
milestones that needs to be planned ahead and coordinated.
Another concern is the economic law of diminishing marginal utility. Naturally “low-hanging
fruit renovations” (typically light renovations) with most favourable cost-benefit ratios will
be realised first. Hence, future renovations will have a tendency to feature less
attractive cost-benefit ratios. This might potentially further slow-down the
renovation process. Within an unchanged market and policy environment, it will get
increasingly hard to even keep the current too slow speed.
In the EU28, residential sector current investments in energy renovations 2 are

about 200 billion Euros per year and another 300 billion Euros for non-energy
renovations in the residential sector. Another 200 billion appears to be invested in
non-residential buildings. Further significant growth would occur if renovation activities
moved towards a level that ensures a decarbonised building stock by 2050. Then energy
renovation investments would probably exceed those in non-energy renovation.
There is a strong link between investments in (energy) renovation and the work force being
active to execute these works. The average total number of fulltime employees in the
construction sector involved in renovation of residential buildings is estimated to
be about 4.6 million per year for the period 2012-2016 and 1.9 million for renovation
of non-residential buildings. This illustrates the significant additional work force
needed if the intensity of energy renovations (speed and depths) should increase
significantly in the next few years. Additional spill-over effects would be generated amongst
manufacturers, i.e. more capacity and personnel would also be needed there. This poses
the question whether the European labour market is ready for this challenge.
The new energy policy framework that has been created with the “Clean Energy for all
Europeans” package provides several opportunities to properly address the aforementioned
issues. Instruments like the long-term renovation strategies or the Smart Finance for Smart
Buildings initiative can provide the proper context for the transformation ahead.
Uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings
Nearly zero-energy targets – depending on their ambition level - could represent the
way towards a decarbonised building stock, both in renovation and new construction.
However, this study revealed significant differences in approaches to achieve NZEB levels
in new constructions compared to renovations. Furthermore, some of today’s published
national performance targets for NZEB clearly exceed the performance benchmarks
provided in the European Commission’s recommendation on nearly zero-energy buildings3.
2
Calculated as full cost, not as incremental cost on top of renovations that would take place anyway.
3
European Commission (EC) (2016): Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1318 of 29 July 2016. on
guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings and best practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new
buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings.
3
Based on market perceptions (and not on actual NZEB definitions), this study found a
slight upward trend of NZEB for the period 2012-2016 in new construction across
the EU28.4
It is important to point out that these results are based on perceptions of important market
players and multiplicators such as architects. Therefore, this does not need to be in line
with already mandatory requirements in some countries that all new buildings already need
to be NZEB (e.g. France or Luxembourg), but it reflects the reality on the market.
Determinants of energy renovation
This study also looked at triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives on the demand side
(consumers split into tenants, owner-occupiers and landlords) and supply side (architects,
main contractors and installers).
The most common triggers for all types of consumers turned out to be necessary
maintenance, replacement of a defective component, budget becoming available to
carry out the renovation or the will to counteract shortcomings that lead to health issues.
Recent studies showed a clear relationship between the quality of dwelling, energy
poverty and health. Therefore, the most relevant aspects of energy renovation for
consumers are not the energy savings, but the cost savings and making their home more
comfortable and healthier.
Results show that different instruments such as EPCs (recommendations and rating),
information on the energy bill and energy labels for energy using components have
different levels of importance throughout the “renovation journey”. While most of these
instruments have limited function as triggers, their influence is much higher once
the renovation decision has been taken. Then they help to justify the decision, to select
or recommend the right solutions from different options, or to increase the ambition level.
This asks for more promotion of EPCs especially amongst intermediaries.
Intermediaries - architects, main contractors and installers – appear to be a group

whose influence on energy renovation decision making is largely underestimated.
These intermediaries are not only the ones being assigned the most prominent role in
quality assurance of energy renovation measures by investors. They are also the persons
consumers listen to when deciding about the extent or depth of energy efficiency measures.
Consumers but also commercial investors report uncertainty about what to expect
from installers, which probably partly explains the high share of laymen (tenants,
home owners) taking responsibility for quality controls. Half of all installers across
Europe already dealing with energy renovations report energy efficiency measures being
too complicated to install. This certainly also hampers quality and signals a high need for
capacity building.
Even many architects find it hard to select the most suitable measures. This is time
consuming, which continues on the construction site, where many architects feel quality
controls of energy efficiency measures take too long. Education is needed here, too.
Only if intermediaries fully support energy efficiency measures, they will

effectively catalyse renovation activities – speed and depth - in the market.
4
The period covered by the study (2012-2016) did not allow to comprehensively examine the NZEB uptake
according to the NZEB definitions which are supposed to be mandatory only after 2020 (or 2018 for public
buildings).
4
Last but not least, consumers, architects and contractors/installers across the board view
financial and administrative barriers as being the main roadblocks for consumers
carrying out energy renovation works or for those on the supply side to recommend such
renovations. For commercial clients financing and savings are even stronger drivers. In this
context, it is striking, that a vast majority of consumers use their own capital to finance
renovation works, suggesting that consumers don’t undertake energy renovations unless
they have sufficient own capital.
Results show that energy renovation and uptake of NZEB are not a ‘simple’ story, but the
result of their complex determinants like drivers, barriers and incentives.
5
“The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official
opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither
the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be
made of the information contained therein.”
6
FINAL REPORT
1. Introduction
Within the 2030 climate and energy framework, the European Union (EU) has
committed to several key targets for the period 2021-2030. The overall target for
2030 is to cut the energy system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40% as
compared to the 1990 levels. Furthermore, the Renewable Energy Directive requires a
binding minimum share of 32% of renewable energy for final energy use as EU-
average. The Energy Efficiency Directive sets an indicative target of at least 32.5%
improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 at EU level versus the projections. This is
expected to lead the way towards a low-carbon economy and to meet the
commitments under the Paris agreement.
A key measure to accomplish this goal is the improvement of the energy performance
of buildings. The building sector is the largest single energy consumer in Europe. It is
estimated that today’s buildings will make up at least 75% of the 2050 building stock.
Therefore, energy renovation is key to shift to a low carbon building stock. The
bulk of the current building stock was built without significant energy performance
requirements and for that reason offers a high potential for energy saving
measures. However, neither the rate nor the depth of current energy renovation -
0.4-1.2% depending on the country according to the European Commission’s
estimations - live up to that savings potential.
It has to be kept in mind that also new constructions serve as technology locomotive
for energy renovation; buildings erected between today and 2050 will still have a
significant share of 20-25% in the building stock and therefore need high attention as
well.
The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) is the main policy instrument to
tackle this challenge within both existing and new buildings. According to the EPBD, all
new buildings are required to be nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) from 2021
onwards (public buildings from 2019 onwards). Following the introduction of minimum
energy performance requirements, new buildings today consume only half as much as
buildings constructed in the 1980s. Instruments like Energy Performance Certificates
(EPCs) are to deliver a demand-driven market signal for energy efficient buildings in
the stock and to provide recommendations for energy renovation measures. This
Directive is complemented by building related elements in Ecodesign Directive and
Energy Labelling Regulation, and in the Energy Efficiency Directive.
Improving the energy performance of the building stock has multiple benefits for
various stakeholders such as reduced energy bills, improved indoor air quality and a
higher comfort level for households. It also contributes to increased productivity and
competitiveness in firms, and to job creation and higher energy security for the public.
The EPBD was revised as part of the “Clean Energy for all Europeans” package with
two complementary objectives: (i) to accelerate the renovation of existing buildings by
2050; and (ii) to support the modernisation of all buildings with smart technologies
and make a clearer link to clean mobility.
Recent initiatives like the “Smart Finance for Smart Buildings” initiative complement
the clean energy legislative framework with actions to help redirect private capital
towards energy efficiency, and in particular towards buildings and their renovation.
7
A new buildings database, the EU Building Stock Observatory (BSO), was recently
established to track the energy performance of buildings and other characteristics
across Europe. The BSO serves as a centralised, official repository of information on
Europe’s buildings stock and informs policy making.
The objective of this study is to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the renovation

activities and NZEB uptake in the EU from 2012 to 2016. Data was obtained through
extensive desk research and three large-scale surveys with consumers, architects, and
main contractors and installers in the EU28. The findings will be used to inform the
design, monitoring and evaluation of energy efficiency policies. For this purpose, a set
of quantitative and qualitative indicators was developed (section 3) in line with the
indicators of the BSO. A EU28 building stock inventory (Annex section 4) and the
collection of new construction data in the EU (Annex section 5) further informed the
analysis. Renovation rates, achieved energy savings and investment costs are broken
down by type of renovation, building type and renovation depth (section 4.1) as far as
the data allows. The uptake of NZEB has been analysed for both renovation and new
construction in both residential and non-residential buildings (section 4.2). The study
also explores triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives for energy renovation, as well
as prevalent financing sources (section 4.3). The methodology is outlined in detail in
the Annex to this report, section 3.
8
2. Methodology
In order to obtain primary data on energy and non-energy renovation activities and
NZEB uptake in the EU28 Members States, three surveys were conducted, taking into
account the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The table below presents the
sample size, complementary objectives and fieldwork dates of the three surveys. The
questionnaires were built on quantitative and qualitative indicators that were
developed at the very beginning of the project (section 3). For a detailed description
of the survey methodology, see Annex section 3.
 The large-scale online consumer survey targeted consumers with (energy)
renovation experience to collect data related to residential buildings. The
sample is composed of three main groups: Owners1, tenants2 and landlords3.
 The online architect survey focused on the demand side, both for residential
and non-residential buildings (e.g. offices, schools, hospitals, etc.). Despite
extensive efforts to secure participation of independent architects and architect
firms, the survey still resulted in a small sample size of architects (1,581)
which does not allow for generalisations of the findings at regional or country
level but provides insight at the overall EU level.
 The main contractors4 and installers5 telephone survey was tailored
towards the supply side. The aim was to understand the demand and supply
chain as well as the quality of the works related to energy efficiency and NZEB.
This survey focused on residential and non-residential renovation projects and
NZEB.
1 Respondents who own the residence they live in, with no other residential property that is rented out to
individuals.
2 Respondents who rent the residence they live in, with no other residential property that is rented out to
individuals.
3 Respondents who rent out residential dwellings.
4 Companies that offer (either themselves or through subcontractors) or coordinate all required installer services
for new construction or renovation projects.
5 Companies that offer installer services for new construction and renovations products, usually focusing on one (or
sometimes several) specific trades, such as installing windows or installing heating systems.
9
Table 1 : Overview of surveys
Survey of construction
companies (main contractors)
Consumer survey Architects survey
and suppliers (installers) of
construction materials
Method Computer-Assisted Web Computer-Assisted Web Computer-Assisted Telephone

Interview (CAWI) Interview (CAWI) Interviewing (CATI)
Achieved N = 30,118 of which 18,302

N = 1,581, EU28 N = 2,009, EU28
sample size energy renovators, EU28
Sampling Representative sample of the Convenience sample Sample based on Dun &
national population 18+ Bradstreet company database
Target Consumers with (energy) The European Architects Construction companies

respondents renovation experience Council’s (ACE) member involved in renovation
organisations activities + suppliers of
Objective Collect data on renovation of Collect data for residential and Collect data for residential and
residential buildings (time non-residential buildings, non-residential buildings,
span: 2012 – 2016) covering renovation and NZEB covering renovation and NZEB
(time span: 2012 – 2016) (time span: 2012 – 2016)
Timing 16 August – 28 September 27 August 2018 – 15 March 13 August – 6 November 2018

fieldwork 2018 2019
For the purposes of this study, the following works are considered as non-energy
renovations:
 Facade renovation without applying insulation

 Roof renovation without applying insulation
 Building extensions without applying insulation
 Electric installations
 Interior wall painting, plastering or wallpapering
 Interior flooring
 Renovation/installation of the bathroom or toilet
 Renovation/installation of the kitchen
 Grinding & painting doors or window frames
 Renovation/installation of stairs
 Dry-wall or ceiling constructions
 Renovation/installation or replacement of elevator
Accordingly, the following works are considered as energy renovations:
 Replacement of windows
 Replacement of the/a building entrance door
 Installation of thermal insulation on the facade (incl. cavity wall insulation)
 Installation of thermal insulation of the roof
 Installation of thermal insulation on the ground plate (floors)
10
 Installation of thermal insulation inside basements
 Installation of thermal insulation on the attic’s floor
 Replacement or first-time installation of a space heat generator
 Replacement or first-time installation of a water heater (incl. solar thermal
collector on the roof)
 Replacement or first-time installation of a radiator
 Replacement or first-time installation of a floor heating system
 Replacement or first-time installation of a mechanical ventilation system
 Replacement or first-time installation of a space cooling system (air-
conditioner)
 Installation of a photovoltaic system (solar modules for electricity generation
on the roof)
 (Automatic) shading system for windows to avoid overheating in summer
 New lighting installations (lamps)6
Different complex approaches were designed to quantify different renovation rates,

energy savings and investment costs for residential and non-residential buildings. The
possibility to split results by sub-groups such as single and multi-family homes or
office buildings and other types of buildings was pursued. For this purpose, the
surveys’ results were combined with overall market data providing information on
installed technologies in existing buildings. For some of the considered renovation
measures, data has been purchased, e.g. for windows and insulation from
Interconnection Consulting and for space, and water heating technologies as well as
ventilation systems from BRG Building Solutions. The aim was to extrapolate specific
results from the survey samples to the general market with the overall objective to
calculate renovation rates, total investments and energy savings.
The approaches also include a number of assumptions. This is particularly the case for
non-residential buildings for which considerably less data is available and was
intended to be obtained from the surveys (e.g. observed average specifications were
applied to those countries where the sample sizes were by far too small to calculate
meaningful outputs).
For calculating the achieved energy savings from the renovations, for each renovation
case in the sample, the Navigant Building Energy Performance (BEP) Model based on
ISO 52016 was used. More information about the approaches and used sources can be
found in the Annex, section 3 (e.g. a list of considered investment costs per
renovation measure in Annex section 3.3).
Although results have been calculated for different residential and non-residential
building types (see Annex section 1.2), due to different complications during the
analysis, the gathered data was not representative to provide meaningful projections.
Therefore, it was decided to present results collectively for residential buildings and
also for non-residential buildings (see Annex, section 3.6).
For the task of assessing the NZEB uptake in EU Member States (MS), the results of
the architect survey described above were used and combined with information from
“The architectural professions in Europe sector studies” by the Architect’s Council of
Europe (ACE). Therefore, it is based on the conducted surveys and represents the
perceived uptake from an architect perspective. This may differ from an uptake based
on today’s definitions of NZEB by Member States, as far as already available. Due to
significant lack of Member States’ definitions for the investigated period 2012-2016,
6 Lighting was not considered for determining renovation rates of residential buildings as it is not a default part of
the primary energy uses of residential buildings according to EPBD Annex I.
11
the perceived uptake was chosen instead. Since “the architectural professions in
Europe sector studies” are just published biannually, the perceived uptake was
calculated for the years 2012, 2014 and 2016 and interpolated for the years in
between. Details of the approach can be found in the Annex, section 3.4.
Based on an extensive literature research, most common triggers, drivers, barriers

and incentives for energy renovation were selected to be assessed in this study. Their
actual prevalence was investigated using the three surveys mentioned above.
Consumers, architects, installers and main contractors all provided insights into their
own triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives. Furthermore, architects and main
contractors also reported on their clients’ perspective. Information from the surveys,
purchased data (as already mentioned above) and extensive desk research were used
to evaluate investment needs.
12
3. Covered indicators
In order to measure all required aspects of building renovation activities, the uptake of
NZEB, as well as drivers and barriers, a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators
was developed.
Quantitative indicators provide all relevant information to quantify the renovation

activities and measure the uptake of NZEB in the EU28. The main dimensions are:
renovation rate, investments costs, primary energy savings achieved and
number of NZEB constructed.
These main dimensions were combined with other variables to create the final grid
(set of quantitative indicators) that guides the collection of all required information
(see Annex section 2). These additional variables are:
 countries (the EU28 Member States),

 years (2012-2016),
 renovation type (energy and non-energy renovations),
 energy renovation depths (below threshold, light, medium and deep7),
 sector (residential and non-residential),
 building types (according to Annex I EPBD),
 reference unit (building floor area and number of buildings), and
 relative/absolute reference (relative compared to stock or compared to status
before renovation; absolute for all renovations or specific per m² of renovated
building floor area).
While this study focusses on the calculation of the renovation rates, depths, savings
and investments in the EU and in each of the Member States, it also looks at
determinants for energy renovation decisions. These determinants are understood as
“qualitative indicators” and complement the set of quantitative indicators.
All energy renovation measures are the consequence of investors’ decisions. Each
decision is the result of one or several determinants such as motivations/drivers,
triggering events, barriers or incentives. Obtaining a clearer picture of the
relevance of these determinants for decisions on energy renovations allows areas in
which policy measures are or can be most effective to be identified, as well as any
differences between regions, building and investor types. Policy instruments need to
be continuously developed, evaluated and adapted to effectively lower barriers and
strengthen drivers, with the goal to increase the renovation rate and depth in Member
States and leverage investments in the building stock.
In addition to what is usually understood as “drivers and barriers”, the qualitative

assessment also looks at:
 the role of stakeholders during the renovation process,

 quality assurance during the renovation process,
 funding of the renovation works,
 the prominence of energy renovation, and
 reasons for recommendations (of certain products/measures).
7 Renovations in category “below threshold” comprise all renovations with primary energy (PE) savings <3%,
“light” renovations those with PE savings from 3% ≤ 30%, “medium” renovations those with PE savings from 30%
≤ 60% and “deep” renovations those with PE savings > 60%. – For details see Annex, section 1.1.
13
The result of this task is an extensive set of quantitative and qualitative indicators
which are presented in Figure 1. A detailed list of all covered indicators is provided in
the Annex (section 2).
Figure 1: Illustration of main indicators covered in the study
14
4. Findings
In this section, the findings for the following key areas are presented:
 renovation (section 4.1)
 uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) (section 4.2)
 determinants for performing energy renovations (section 4.3).
In general, all these items are addressed for both the EU28 and each Member States.
Section 4.1 on energy renovations presents the different renovation rates (below
threshold, light, medium and deep) for the period 2012-2016 for both residential and
non-residential buildings and for both energy and non-energy renovations.
Furthermore, related primary energy savings and investment costs are included. The
study also addresses some wider benefits related to energy renovations such as
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions and work force employed in renovation of
buildings.
The uptake of NZEB is covered in section 4.2. The analysis is based on the conducted
surveys and represents the uptake as perceived by architects in the Member States for
the period 2012-2016, because only a few Member States had an NZEB definition in
place during this period. It presents the shares of NZEB for both residential and non-
residential buildings in new constructions and renovation.
The surveys undertaken in this study provided deep insight into various determinants
for performing energy renovations, like triggers, drivers, barriers and available
funding. Results on all determinants that were covered in the surveys are presented in
section 4.3.
As mentioned in section 2, results are presented collectively for residential buildings

and also for non-residential buildings.
4.1. Renovation rates, achieved energy savings and investment costs
4.1.1 Achieved renovation rates
The report presents average annual values for the period 2012-2016.8 The full set of
definitions underlying these results is provided in the Annex to this report, section 1.1.
Energy renovation rates have been calculated both based on floor area and number of
buildings. Here, results based on floor area are presented, while data based on
number of buildings can be found in the Annex.9
Please note that all findings are based on surveys and market data as shortly
explained in section 2 and in more detail in Annex section 3.
8 More details can be found in Data Annex_Renovation Results EU28

9 More details can be found in Data Annex_Renovation Results EU28
15
Energy renovation in residential buildings
Renovation rates steeply decrease when moving from “below threshold”, to “light”, to
“medium” and “deep” renovations. 10 The annual amount of deep renovations in
the EU28 is only around 0.2%, with relatively small variation when looking at
individual Member States. This clearly shows that in practice such “one-off’ deep
renovations occur only very sporadically within all renovation activities. From the
surveys it became very clear that the vast majority of renovations are implemented as
individual or step-by-step measures.
The average total annual energy renovation rate of residential buildings, namely
the sum of all different levels of energy renovation depths from “below threshold” to
“deep renovations”, for the period 2012-2016 based on floor area is estimated to be
at around 12% for EU28 as a whole.
For residential buildings, the annual weighted energy renovation rate was
estimated close to 1% within the European Union.11 This is in line with other
estimations of the European Commission (0.4-1.2% depending on the Member State)
and highlights the insufficient progress in the building sector in terms of moving
towards decarbonisation of the building stock.
Results show significant differences between countries. Notably, Eastern European

countries show high values, which is mainly driven by comparatively high numbers of
“below threshold of 3% savings” and “light” renovations. Nevertheless, this striking
trend in Eastern European countries has also been reported in ACE’s 2016 sector
study12.
Table 2: Energy renovation in residential buildings (average 2012-2016)
Energy Energy Energy

Energy Energy
related: “below related: related:
related: “Total” related: “Light”
Threshold” “Medium” “Deep”
EU28 12.3% 7.1% 3.9% 1.1% 0.2%

Austria 11.6% 6.3% 3.3% 1.7% 0.2%
Belgium 15.6% 7.8% 6.5% 1.0% 0.2%
Bulgaria 20.1% 10.1% 8.6% 1.3% 0.1%
Croatia 21.7% 13.4% 6.7% 1.5% 0.1%
Cyprus 15.5% 9.9% 3.2% 2.0% 0.4%
Czech Republic 13.7% 6.7% 5.2% 1.6% 0.1%
10 Renovations in category “below threshold” comprise all renovations with PE savings <3%, light renovations
those with PE savings from 3% ≤ 30%, medium renovations those with PE savings from 30% ≤ 60% and deep
renovations those with PE savings > 60%. More details can be found in the Annex, section 1.1.
11 As renovation depths have been classified based on achieved primary energy savings, it was possible to
summarise these numbers into a weighted energy renovation rate meaning the annual reduction of primary energy
consumption, within the total stock of buildings (residential or non-residential respectively), for heating, ventilation,
domestic hot water, lighting (only non-residential buildings) and auxiliary energy, achieved through the sum of
energy renovations of all depths.
12 The architectural professions in Europe 2016. A Sector Study by the Architect’s Council of Europe (ACE), table
4-15
16
Denmark 7.5% 3.6% 3.2% 0.6% 0.0%
Estonia 11.2% 6.8% 3.6% 0.7% 0.1%
Finland 9.9% 6.4% 3.2% 0.3% 0.0%
France 13.3% 7.4% 4.7% 1.0% 0.2%
Germany 9.8% 5.4% 3.5% 0.9% 0.1%
Greece 8.9% 5.3% 2.3% 1.1% 0.2%
Hungary 8.9% 5.0% 2.9% 0.9% 0.1%
Ireland 8.0% 3.9% 3.4% 0.6% 0.1%
Italy 13.7% 8.0% 4.0% 1.5% 0.3%
Latvia 9.8% 5.4% 3.4% 0.9% 0.0%
Lithuania 8.9% 5.1% 2.9% 0.7% 0.2%
Luxembourg 7.1% 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% 0.1%
Malta 13.0% 10.0% 2.4% 0.6% 0.1%
Netherlands 12.7% 7.5% 4.3% 0.8% 0.1%
Poland 17.4% 8.9% 7.0% 1.5% 0.0%
Portugal 16.3% 8.8% 6.0% 1.3% 0.1%
Romania 24.1% 13.4% 9.3% 1.3% 0.1%
Slovakia 9.7% 5.1% 3.5% 1.0% 0.1%
Slovenia 9.8% 5.4% 3.1% 1.3% 0.1%
Spain 17.0% 13.0% 2.1% 1.7% 0.3%
Sweden 13.0% 8.0% 4.3% 0.7% 0.1%
United
7.9% 4.0% 2.7% 1.1% 0.1%
Kingdom
As for renovation rates based on number of buildings13 as well as for absolute

numbers (floor area, numbers of buildings) see Data Annex_Renovation Results EU28.
Energy renovation in non-residential buildings
Renovation rates significantly decrease when moving from “below threshold”, to

“light”, to “medium” and “deep” renovations. The annual amount of deep
renovations in the EU28 is estimated to be only around 0.3%, with seemingly a
bit more variation when looking at individual Member States compared to residential
buildings.
Hence, like with residential buildings, in most countries ‘one-off’ deep renovations only
occur sporadically; yet there are few exceptions, for example Italy or Portugal which
appear to have higher rates of deep renovation.
The average total annual energy renovation rate of non-residential buildings -

including all levels of renovation depths - for the period 2012-2016 based on floor
area is estimated to be at around 10% for the EU28. Similar to residential
buildings, there are significant differences between countries.
13 Note that rates for the EU as a whole differ from those based on m², as they are calculated based on different
weighting factors per country, i.e. the renovated floor area or renovated numbers of buildings per Member State
respectively. As reference buildings are not the same size in every country, the weighted EU28 average differs
between floor area and numbers of buildings approach.
17
As for residential buildings the study also confirms that, on average, for non-
residential buildings the weighted energy renovation rate is estimated to be
close to 1% within the European Union.
Table 3: Energy renovation in non-residential buildings (average 2012 – 2016)

Energy related:
Energy related: Energy related: Energy related: Energy related:
“below
“Total” “Light” “Medium” “Deep”
Threshold”
EU28 9.5% 4.1% 3.0% 2.1% 0.3%

Austria 6.8% 3.8% 2.2% 0.6% 0.2%
Belgium 21.4% 9.1% 5.3% 6.0% 1.0%
Bulgaria 17.9% 7.2% 4.8% 5.3% 0.6%
Croatia 18.8% 12.8% 4.7% 1.1% 0.2%
Cyprus 26.6% 12.1% 5.8% 7.7% 1.0%
Czech Republic 15.9% 8.6% 5.5% 1.4% 0.4%
Denmark 9.1% 4.6% 3.1% 1.2% 0.2%
Estonia 6.0% 2.8% 2.2% 0.8% 0.2%
Finland 7.7% 3.5% 2.7% 1.4% 0.2%
France 6.0% 2.5% 1.9% 1.4% 0.2%
Germany 6.9% 3.3% 2.1% 1.3% 0.2%
Greece 10.6% 4.0% 3.2% 2.9% 0.4%
Hungary 7.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.8% 0.2%
Ireland 3.9% 2.1% 1.3% 0.4% 0.1%
Italy 17.4% 6.8% 5.1% 4.9% 0.6%
Latvia 9.0% 4.7% 2.8% 1.3% 0.3%
Lithuania 6.2% 3.1% 2.3% 0.6% 0.2%
Luxembourg 13.0% 8.2% 3.7% 0.8% 0.2%
Malta 18.4% 9.0% 7.1% 1.9% 0.4%
Netherlands 8.9% 3.6% 2.8% 2.2% 0.3%
Poland 11.6% 5.1% 3.8% 2.3% 0.3%
Portugal 18.8% 7.5% 5.3% 5.1% 0.8%
Romania 19.3% 11.1% 5.9% 1.9% 0.4%
Slovakia 14.6% 6.2% 4.5% 3.4% 0.5%
Slovenia 8.8% 4.2% 2.9% 1.5% 0.3%
Spain 11.2% 4.3% 3.5% 2.9% 0.5%
Sweden 14.8% 7.0% 5.4% 2.0% 0.3%
United
9.6% 3.2% 3.7% 2.4% 0.4%
Kingdom
As for renovation rates based on number of buildings14 as well as for absolute

numbers (floor area, numbers of buildings) see Data Annex_Renovation Results EU28.
18
For the total building stock, consisting of residential and non-
residential buildings, this study confirms that the weighted energy
renovation rate is close to 1% within the European Union, as
estimated by other European Commission sources.
Non-energy renovation
The results of the study also allow for

an estimate of non-energy renovation
rates.
Non-energy renovation
Non-energy renovation takes place
both as a stand-alone measure (e.g.
interior painting or flooring)15 or in
combination with energy renovation
measures. Both these shares are
included in the numbers presented for
the total non-energy renovation rates
energy renovation as illustrated with the green elliptical-
shaped set in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Illustration of building sets for non-energy-renovation and energy renovation
Non-energy renovation in residential buildings
More than 90% of residential energy renovations take place in combination

with non-energy renovation measures. This means that less than 10% of energy
renovators reported only “energy” renovation measures. On the other hand, four
times as many respondents indicated to have implemented “non-energy” renovation
measures only, i.e. without any energy renovation measure. Altogether, this leads to
the survey results suggesting significantly higher non-energy renovation rates
than energy renovation rates for the EU28 as a whole and for most of its Member
States. While approx. 12% of the total residential floor area is estimated to be
affected by whatever level of depth of energy renovation, for non-energy
renovation measures this number appears to be around 14% for the EU28.
15 For a complete list of measures included in the consumer-survey compare section 2.
19
Figure 3: Non-energy renovation in residential buildings
Non-energy renovation in non-residential buildings
The study results also allow for an estimate of non-energy renovation rates. Results
for non-residential buildings have been estimated by calculating the total investment
costs spent for energy renovations and subtracting this amount from provided
turnover numbers from Euroconstruct & EECFA where data was provided. Based on
this analysis, an average ratio between investment costs spent for non-energy and
energy renovations was calculated. Combining this with average specific investment
costs for non-energy renovations allows the calculation of non-energy renovations and
rates16. The renovation rate is estimated to be slightly lower than for residential
buildings, about 12% for the EU28.
Figure 4: Non-energy renovation in non-residential buildings
16 More details about the approach can be found in the Annex, section 3.1.
20
As for non-energy renovation rates based on number of buildings 17 as well as for
absolute numbers (floor area, number of buildings) see Data Annex_Renovation
Results EU28.
An overview of the quantitative results related to renovations and the uptake of NZEB
is presented in Figure 17.
4.1.2 Achieved energy savings
Achieved primary energy savings in residential buildings
In line with the EPBD, energy savings have been calculated in terms of primary
energy. Different aspects have been looked at: the relative saving that is achieved on
average if a building is affected by any depth of energy renovation; the corresponding
average absolute savings; as well as the absolute annual total primary energy savings
achieved within the residential building stock of a country or the European Union as a
whole, respectively.
The relative annual primary energy savings per residential renovation

(comparing the performance of the building before and after renovation),
taking the average of all energy renovations across the EU28 that took place
between 2012 and 2016, is estimated to be at around 9% (8.8%). Concretely
this means the average relative annual reduction of primary energy consumption after
an average renovation18 compared to the status before that renovation. 19 It is
presented for all energy renovations and split up by renovation depths. After the
renovation this saving continues.
The relatively low average saving achieved again highlights the above mentioned
finding that a typical energy renovation is characterised by only one or few measures
that yield comparatively little savings. Evidently, there is variation across countries,
yet the general finding holds for all countries. The numbers confirm that “one-off”
deep renovations only occur occasionally.
Table 4 not just shows the annual savings achieved within all energy renovations
(“total” ), but also within the categories “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and
“deep”. As a European Union average, they amount to approx. 0.2%, 13%, 41% and
66%.
18 Average of all renovations (below threshold, light, medium, deep) that have taken place between 2012-2016.
19 Example: A building undergoes a light renovation in 2013. After that renovation the annual primary energy
consumption is 15% lower than before the renovation. This reduced consumption is assumed to continue through
2016 (and beyond).
20 These values represent the achieved average savings in all energy renovations. It considers the quantitative
share of renovations per depth and the achieved savings by each renovation depth.
21
Table 4: Relative primary energy savings in residential buildings (average savings per year for
the period 2012-2016)
Energy related:
“below
Threshold”
EU28 8.8% 0.2% 12.7% 41.1% 66.0%

Austria 11.1% 0.3% 12.7% 42.1% 66.8%
Belgium 9.0% 0.4% 12.4% 40.8% 66.4%
Bulgaria 9.1% 0.0% 14.6% 40.4% 71.7%
Croatia 7.9% 0.1% 15.0% 41.4% 68.1%
Cyprus 10.5% 0.2% 14.5% 44.5% 64.0%
Czech Republic 10.8% 0.2% 14.1% 40.4% 65.4%
Denmark 9.1% 0.3% 12.1% 41.4% 66.9%
Estonia 7.3% 0.3% 13.7% 37.5% 69.9%
Finland 4.8% 0.2% 11.1% 37.5% 0.0%
France 8.1% 0.3% 11.2% 41.0% 66.3%
Germany 8.9% 0.2% 12.6% 41.7% 66.1%
Greece 10.7% 0.1% 13.2% 44.5% 66.1%
Hungary 9.0% 0.3% 12.5% 39.6% 62.0%
Ireland 9.2% 0.3% 12.0% 43.8% 63.9%
Italy 9.8% 0.3% 13.5% 40.8% 67.0%
Latvia 8.7% 0.2% 12.8% 40.7% 72.7%
Lithuania 8.7% 0.3% 12.4% 41.2% 64.7%
Luxembourg 7.6% 0.2% 12.5% 43.5% 73.4%
Malta 4.9% 0.1% 12.5% 45.6% 63.7%
Netherlands 7.3% 0.2% 12.2% 39.1% 67.1%
Poland 8.6% 0.3% 12.8% 37.2% 62.3%
Portugal 8.7% 0.3% 12.7% 41.7% 63.7%
Romania 7.8% 0.2% 13.3% 41.5% 64.1%
Slovakia 10.3% 0.2% 14.3% 41.9% 65.1%
Slovenia 10.3% 0.2% 14.8% 39.1% 62.4%
Spain 7.0% 0.1% 14.4% 41.0% 66.1%
Sweden 6.3% 0.3% 11.4% 41.0% 67.3%
United Kingdom 11.4% 0.2% 13.2% 42.3% 64.2%
In terms of absolute savings, the average energy renovation within the European
Union is estimated to reduce a residential building’s specific primary energy
consumption by 14 kWh/(m².y).21
21 Note that in order to calculate the primary energy consumption the same primary energy factors have been
used for all Member States, applying the default values from ISO 52000-1:2017 Energy performance of buildings --
Overarching EPB assessment -- Part 1: General framework and procedures.
22
As can be expected from the differences in relative savings between the different
categories, very significant differences can be observed for the average absolute
specific savings when doing “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep”
renovations according to the definitions used in this project. For the EU28 they
amount to approx. < 1 kWh/(m².y), 19 kWh/(m².y) ), 64 kWh/(m².y) and 122
kWh/(m².y) respectively.
For the average primary energy consumption “before renovation” of those buildings
that have been renovated “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep” it means
that energy performance before renovation was 154 kWh/(m².y), 152 kWh/(m².y),
156 kWh/(m².y) and 185 kWh/(m².y) respectively .22
On average deep renovation actually tackles the worst performing buildings, which on
the one hand is economically plausible, but on the other hand will lead to a situation
where it is getting more and more difficult to keep up with the current rate of primary
energy savings due to a decreasing number of worst performing buildings that can be
renovated very cost-effectively.
Table 5: Specific primary energy savings in residential buildings (average savings per year for
Energy related:
“below
Threshold”
kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y)
EU28 14 1 19 64 122
Austria 25 1 25 96 177
Belgium 14 1 19 66 117
Bulgaria 11 0 17 51 105
Croatia 17 0 30 92 174
Cyprus 16 0 18 71 108
Czech
23 0 29 88 206
Republic
Denmark 19 1 23 92 164
Estonia 24 1 44 122 241
Finland 16 1 35 127 -
France 15 0 18 76 159
Germany 18 0 25 87 158
Greece 15 0 16 62 98
Hungary 21 1 27 92 198
Ireland 21 1 24 110 183
Italy 10 0 12 43 90
Latvia 35 1 48 168 395
Lithuania 41 2 56 194 346
22 Example: the average absolute annual saving in EU28 achieved in a "medium" renovation is 64 kWh/(m².y)
according to Table 5. According to Table 4 the corresponding relative saving is 41.1%. This means the average
primary energy consumption before renovation of all buildings that underwent “medium” renovation must have
been approx. 156 kWh/(m².y).
23
Luxembourg 11 0 14 70 158
Malta 8 0 15 84 113
Netherlands 10 0 14 63 141
Poland 18 1 25 81 130
Portugal 3 0 4 17 43
Romania 15 0 25 87 159
Slovakia 17 0 22 71 140
Slovenia 25 0 34 100 171
Spain 6 0 9 36 97
Sweden 12 1 21 81 141
United
15 0 17 54 93
Kingdom
Total primary energy savings from all residential energy renovations have been
estimated. Within EU28 they amount to an average of approx. 3 Mtoe per year
in the period 2012-2016.23 This roughly equals 1% primary energy reduction
per year considering all EPBD related energy uses.24 Light and medium renovations
contributed the bulk of savings during that period.
Table 6: Total primary energy savings in residential buildings (average savings per year for the
period 2012-2016)
Energy
Energy related: related: Energy related: Energy related: Energy related:
“Total” “below “Light” “Medium” “Deep”
Threshold”
TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year

EU28 3,016,336 42,669 1,351,815 1,290,839 331,013
Austria 89,594 1,078 25,974 51,796 10,745
Belgium 112,873 2,378 63,047 34,544 12,904
Bulgaria 38,007 752 25,220 10,803 1,232
Croatia 39,258 531 22,002 15,051 1,673
Cyprus 9,183 88 2,135 5,437 1,523
Czech Republic 91,173 883 43,228 41,524 5,538
Denmark 39,951 574 21,350 15,895 2,132
Estonia 9,331 218 5,618 2,967 528
Finland 30,694 782 22,356 7,556 -
France 447,412 7,492 194,183 175,591 70,146
Germany 577,030 7,909 276,009 239,745 53,367
Greece 41,462 229 11,865 22,300 7,068
Hungary 46,605 881 19,675 21,312 4,737
23 1 Mtoe = 11.63 TWh

24 According to an analysis conducted for the impact assessment of the EPBD, the total primary energy
consumption for space heating, hot water generation, space cooling, ventilation and auxiliary energy in residential
buildings was approx. 304 Mtoe in 2013.
24
Ireland 19,752 314 9,801 7,704 1,934
Italy 279,789 3,698 95,362 127,486 53,244
Latvia 15,838 196 7,700 7,332 610
Lithuania 26,215 636 11,794 10,040 3,745
Luxembourg 1,907 22 800 666 419
Malta 2,122 16 766 1,043 298
Netherlands 89,818 1,090 43,226 35,129 10,373
Poland 274,601 4,932 156,985 109,456 3,228
Portugal 19,208 296 9,053 8,018 1,842
Romania 107,739 1,334 67,399 33,176 5,830
Slovakia 24,196 294 11,553 9,978 2,371
Slovenia 13,810 137 5,851 7,248 573
Spain 164,003 750 29,208 92,369 41,675
Sweden 63,696 1,745 36,906 21,945 3,099
United
341,067 3,412 132,748 174,729 30,177
Kingdom
Achieved primary energy savings in non-residential buildings
The relative annual primary energy savings per non-residential renovation

(comparing the performance of the building before and after renovation),
taking the average of all energy renovations across the EU28 that took place
between 2012 and 2016, is estimated to be at around 17% 25.26
It is presented for all energy renovations and split up by renovation depths. After the
renovation this saving continues. The relatively low average saving achieved again
highlights the above mentioned finding that a typical energy renovation is
characterised by only one or few measures that yield comparatively little savings.
Evidently, there is variation across countries, yet the general finding holds for all
countries. The numbers confirm that “one-off” deep renovations only occur
occasionally.
Table 4 not just shows the annual savings achieved within all energy renovations
(“total”), but also within the categories “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and
“deep”. As a European Union average, they amount to approx. 0.4%, 16%, 44% and
66%27.
26 Example: A building undergoes a light renovation in 2013. After renovation that renovation the annual primary
energy consumption is 15% lower than before renovation. This reduced consumption is assumed to continue
through 2016 (and beyond).
27 These values represent the achieved average savings in all energy renovations. It considers the quantitative
share of renovations per depth and the achieved savings by each renovation depth.
25
Table 7: Relative primary energy savings in non-residential buildings (average savings per year
for the period 2012-2016)
Energy related:
“below
Threshold”
EU28 17.1% 0.4% 16.0% 44.4% 65.8%

Austria 11.6% 0.5% 16.0% 46.5% 66.3%
Belgium 21.3% 0.7% 18.0% 47.7% 69.5%
Bulgaria 20.4% 0.0% 18.3% 44.6% 71.2%
Croatia 8.6% 0.3% 20.0% 46.7% 65.0%
Cyprus 20.8% 0.3% 18.1% 49.1% 63.5%
Czech Republic 12.4% 0.4% 18.8% 48.6% 64.9%
Denmark 13.0% 0.6% 15.2% 45.7% 66.4%
Estonia 14.1% 0.5% 17.2% 41.4% 69.4%
Finland 13.8% 0.4% 13.9% 41.4% 59.8%
France 16.8% 0.5% 15.2% 41.1% 64.7%
Germany 16.0% 0.4% 17.4% 44.9% 71.2%
Greece 20.9% 0.2% 17.8% 46.7% 65.1%
Hungary 18.3% 0.6% 15.6% 43.7% 61.6%
Ireland 12.1% 0.6% 15.1% 48.4% 63.5%
Italy 18.9% 0.5% 14.0% 44.1% 63.1%
Latvia 13.8% 0.5% 16.0% 44.9% 72.1%
Lithuania 12.1% 0.7% 15.5% 45.5% 64.3%
Luxembourg 8.8% 0.3% 15.7% 48.0% 69.2%
Malta 12.7% 0.1% 15.6% 50.3% 63.2%
Netherlands 19.8% 0.4% 14.3% 51.8% 67.1%
Poland 15.5% 0.6% 16.0% 41.1% 61.9%
Portugal 20.0% 0.6% 15.9% 46.1% 63.3%
Romania 10.4% 0.4% 15.4% 42.3% 62.1%
Slovakia 18.5% 0.4% 17.9% 46.3% 64.6%
Slovenia 15.3% 0.4% 18.6% 43.1% 61.9%
Spain 18.9% 0.1% 15.2% 43.4% 65.6%
Sweden 13.1% 0.5% 14.4% 45.3% 66.8%
United Kingdom 19.3% 0.5% 15.8% 43.4% 62.2%
In terms of absolute savings, the average energy renovation within the

European Union is estimated to reduce a non-residential building’s specific
primary energy consumption by 47 kWh/(m².y).28 This is more than the average
absolute savings achieved in residential buildings as the average primary energy
28 Note that the same primary energy factors have been used for all Member States, applying the default values
from ISO 52000-1:2017 Energy performance of buildings -- Overarching EPB assessment -- Part 1: General
framework and procedures.
26
consumption before renovation exceeds that of residential buildings and the relative
saving achieved per renovation is estimated to be slightly higher.
As can be expected from the differences in relative savings between the different
categories, very significant differences can be observed for the average absolute
specific savings when doing “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep”
renovations according to the definitions used in this project. For the EU28 they
amount to approx. < 1 kWh/(m².y), 50 kWh/(m².y) ), 116 kWh/(m².y) and 167
kWh/(m².y) respectively.
For the average primary energy consumption “before renovation” of those buildings
that have been renovated “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep” it means
that energy performance before renovation was 195 kWh/(m².y), 311 kWh/(m².y),
262 kWh/(m².y) and 254 kWh/(m².y) respectively.29
Although differences in consumption before renovation are smaller than for residential
buildings, the still low average savings per renovation pose a significant risk for
creating lost-opportunities (meaning lost savings potentials by lack of a set of well-
coordinated measures) in energy renovations of non-residential buildings, too.
Table 8: Specific primary energy savings in non-residential buildings (average savings per year
for the period 2012-2016)
Energy related:
“below
Threshold”
kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y) kWh/(m².y)
EU28 47 1 50 116 167

Austria 50 1 73 190 270
Belgium 75 1 66 167 259
Bulgaria 49 1 51 99 159
Croatia 50 1 123 254 386
Cyprus 58 1 51 140 165
Czech Republic 58 1 104 166 314
Denmark 53 1 68 180 250
Estonia 91 2 128 241 367
Finland 90 1 103 250 364
France 54 1 51 136 166
Germany 43 1 46 122 177
Greece 80 0 71 175 259
Hungary 81 2 78 182 301
Ireland 54 1 69 217 278
Italy 47 1 37 110 149
29 Example: the average absolute annual saving in EU28 achieved in a "medium" renovation is 116 kWh/(m².y)
according to Table 8. According to Table 7 the corresponding relative saving is 44.4%. This means the average
primary energy consumption before renovation of all buildings that underwent “medium” renovation must have
been approx. 262 kWh/(m².y).
27
Latvia 109 2 140 330 603
Lithuania 113 4 164 381 528
Luxembourg 24 0 41 137 200
Malta 38 0 44 166 173
Netherlands 51 0 36 138 154
Poland 62 1 73 160 198
Portugal 16 0 12 34 65
Romania 22 1 33 94 90
Slovakia 60 1 66 139 213
Slovenia 74 1 100 196 261
Spain 30 0 29 55 149
Sweden 49 1 62 159 215
United
33 1 34 69 65
Kingdom
Total primary energy savings from all non-residential energy renovations have been
estimated as well. Within the EU28, they amount to an average of approx. 2.6
Mtoe per year in the period 2012-2016. This roughly equals 1% primary energy
reduction per year considering all EPBD related energy uses. 30 Light and medium
renovations contributed the bulk of savings during that period. The following table also
illustrates the huge differences in total consumption between Member States.
Table 9: Total primary energy savings in non-residential buildings (average savings per year for
Energy
Energy related: related: Energy related: Energy related: Energy related:
“Total” “below “Light” “Medium” “Deep”
Threshold”
TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year TOE/year
EU28 2,597,667 20,473 874,933 1,393,257 309,005

Austria 43,360 583 20,960 15,529 6,289
Belgium 145,035 1,081 31,937 89,772 22,245
Bulgaria 47,866 392 13,426 28,669 5,380
Croatia 28,082 313 17,154 8,497 2,118
Cyprus 3,820 16 738 2,645 421
Czech Republic 80,634 765 50,035 19,940 9,894
Denmark 59,110 694 25,906 25,791 6,719
Estonia 6,954 73 3,568 2,583 730
Finland 47,555 329 18,776 23,297 5,153
France 269,758 2,054 80,573 160,172 26,959
Germany 486,427 5,539 161,397 256,538 62,953
30 According to an analysis conducted for the impact assessment of the EPBD, the total primary energy
consumption for space heating, hot water generation, space cooling, ventilation, auxiliary energy and lighting in
non-residential buildings was app. 215 Mtoe in 2013.
28
Greece 99,937 143 27,040 60,510 12,244
Hungary 78,253 625 22,083 45,611 9,934
Ireland 12,782 192 5,407 5,051 2,131
Italy 248,579 1,047 56,787 162,355 28,390
Latvia 12,875 106 5,047 5,704 2,017
Lithuania 16,787 293 9,029 5,302 2,163
Luxembourg 1,277 16 628 453 180
Malta 2,611 5 1,161 1,180 265
Netherlands 122,121 451 27,367 80,509 13,795
Poland 230,219 2,275 89,491 118,565 19,887
Portugal 23,753 126 5,286 14,045 4,296
Romania 23,706 482 11,063 9,963 2,199
Slovakia 31,782 202 10,773 17,234 3,574
Slovenia 13,916 91 6,160 6,261 1,404
Spain 161,456 178 49,681 78,660 32,937
Sweden 91,083 1,040 41,632 40,097 8,314
United
207,928 1,362 81,828 108,325 16,413
Kingdom
4.1.3 Investment costs
Based on in-depth research on specific investment cost, the financial investments

related to the above explained activities have been estimated for the EU28 as a whole
and each Member State (a list of considered investment costs per measure and
country including sources is provided in the Annex in section 3.3). Results are
presented for both total investments and specific investments of energy renovations.
Investment costs in residential buildings
The findings show that energy renovation of residential buildings is not yet at the level
needed (neither in terms of speed, nor in terms of structure and investment costs) to
achieve a climate neutral building stock by 2050. Yet, for the period 2012-2016, it is
estimated that more than 200 billion Euros for energy renovations and 300
billion Euros for non-energy renovations which adds up to an estimated half a
trillion Euro of annual investments in residential building renovation was
invested in the European Union. This highlights the significant impact building
renovation already has within the European economy. It would see further significant
growth if renovation activities moved towards a level that ensures a decarbonised
building stock by 2050.
It has been mentioned above that energy renovations very often go hand in hand with
non-energy renovations or vice versa. But there are also significant non-renovation
activities without any accompanying energy renovation. In general, investments in
non-energy renovations exceed investments in energy renovations because on
average non-energy renovations both have higher rates and higher specific
investment cost than energy renovations.
29
The following figure shows the development of spent investments for residential
building renovations in the EU between 2012 and 2016.
Figure 5: Residential renovation investments in million Euro per year
The growing discrepancy between the two curves is a result of reportedly more
intensively growing non-energy renovation rates compared to energy renovation rates
in combination with a constant ratio of specific non-energy costs (Euro per m² floor
area) to specific energy renovation costs. As the specific energy renovation costs are a
direct result of the realised shares of different renovation depths per year, also
variances in specific non-energy renovation costs result and influence the curves.
The following tables first show total investments (in million Euro) and then specific
(per m2 floor area) investments.
Table 10: Total investments in residential buildings (average investment costs per year in the
period 2012-2016)
Energy
Energy Energy Energy Energy Non-energy
All reno- related:
related: related: related: related: related
vations “below
“Total” “Light” “Medium” “Deep” “Total”
Thres-hold”
EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO

(MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM)
EU28 541,113 209,326 78,155 76,642 44,148 10,381 331,788
Austria 14,608 4,845 1,326 1,733 1,555 230 9,763

Belgium 17,814 8,395 2,594 3,688 1,495 618 9,419
Bulgaria 3,341 1,414 430 562 406 16 1,926
Croatia 3,278 1,240 557 393 278 12 2,037
30
Cyprus 2,247 414 229 51 124 10 1,833
Czech
6,606 2,567 701 1,059 716 91 4,039
Republic
Denmark 11,929 4,187 1,333 1,977 780 97 7,742
Estonia 550 173 43 69 52 8 377
Finland 11,550 3,459 1,595 1,483 381 - 8,092
France 75,066 34,262 11,095 14,185 6,145 2,836 40,804
Germany 100,632 41,083 11,736 16,592 10,490 2,265 59,548
Greece 4,800 2,248 1,058 428 581 182 2,551
Hungary 4,076 1,732 748 592 320 73 2,343
Ireland 3,235 1,228 332 591 183 122 2,006
Italy 47,583 20,141 8,473 6,429 4,037 1,202 27,443
Latvia 570 219 85 82 47 5 351
Lithuania 1,341 437 187 122 102 26 905
Luxembourg 612 192 42 85 48 17 420
Malta 548 195 117 40 31 7 354
Netherlands 31,814 11,660 5,979 4,293 1,181 207 20,154
Poland 22,089 9,894 3,584 4,354 1,884 72 12,195
Portugal 8,343 2,491 1,069 969 401 53 5,852
Romania 7,486 2,808 1,171 1,035 528 74 4,678
Slovakia 2,414 934 311 375 219 28 1,480
Slovenia 1,080 550 257 140 140 13 530
Spain 42,284 13,811 10,388 1,992 1,330 101 28,473
Sweden 36,261 10,599 4,618 4,418 1,421 142 25,661
United
78,957 28,147 8,099 8,905 9,271 1,871 50,811
Kingdom
Table 11: Specific investments in residential buildings (average investment costs per year in the
period 2012-2016)
Energy
related:
“below
Threshold”
EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m²

EU28 83 56 104 154 219 -
Austria 115 58 156 230 257 177
Belgium 91 63 103 174 296 89
Bulgaria 36 23 43 86 79 47
Croatia 46 35 54 93 110 58
Cyprus 61 54 31 130 130 87
Czech Republic 56 35 62 115 120 72
Denmark 168 117 198 313 271 235
Estonia 38 22 52 117 50 72
31
Finland 151 111 208 389 - 268
France 97 64 121 193 310 103
Germany 112 58 146 285 306 124
Greece 68 56 50 144 157 83
Hungary 66 54 71 113 125 85
Ireland 110 64 130 266 308 128
Italy 62 44 66 121 204 84
Latvia 41 30 44 86 270 56
Lithuania 59 47 60 138 59 92
Luxembourg 94 57 125 241 392 162
Malta 59 47 73 190 158 81
Netherlands 113 98 124 181 242 162
Poland 55 42 66 78 111 64
Portugal 37 31 40 54 107 62
Romania 34 27 37 84 82 57
Slovakia 57 40 64 118 81 81
Slovenia 86 57 120 129 122 82
Spain 46 46 52 38 51 80
Sweden 171 122 227 388 366 275
United
103 66 129 157 293 162
Kingdom
Investment costs in non-residential buildings
For the period 2012-2016, it is estimated that on average more than 73 billion Euros
per year for energy renovations and 145 billion Euros per year for non- energy
renovations which adds up to more than 200 billion Euros per year wer
invested in non-residential building renovation in the European Union.
Numbers underline the fact that also in non-residential buildings there are significant
non-renovation activities. Investments in non-energy renovations are clearly
exceeding investments in energy renovations because on average non-energy
renovations are estimated to have almost twice as high specific investment cost than
energy renovations.
The following figure shows the development of spent investments for non-residential
building renovations in the EU between 2012 and 2016.
32
Figure 6: Non-residential renovation investments in million Euro per year
The following tables first show total investments (in million Euro) and then specific
(per m2 floor area) investments.
Table 12: Total investments in non-residential buildings (average investment costs per year in
Energy
All reno- related:
vations “below
Thres-hold”
EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO EURO

(MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM) (MM)
EU28 228,212 71,312 14,679 21,960 29,084 5,589, 156,900
Austria 3,385 1,226 279 573 293 80 2,160
Belgium 6,007 2,513 522 293 1,341 356 3,494
Bulgaria 2,365 803 113 177 471 43 1,562
Croatia 1,468 499 132 239 107 21 969
Cyprus 284 96 24 9 57 7 188
Czech Republic 2,976 1,038 269 392 287 90 1,937
Denmark 6,115 2,077 657 765 535 120 4,038
Estonia 138 47 8 18 19 1 91
Finland 4,777 995 269 342 324 59 3,783
France 34,838 8,237 1,341 2,653 3,640 603 26,601
Germany 50,308 15,954 3,195 4,111 7,202 1,447 34,353
Greece 4,289 1,455 306 440 610 100 2,833
Hungary 2,481 962 214 254 439 54 1,519
Ireland 998 338 83 128 96 31 659
Italy 31,071 7,049 1,254 1,806 3,405 584 24,022
33
Latvia 196 66 18 20 23 5 129
Lithuania 329 111 36 43 30 3 217
Luxembourg 177 60 19 24 12 4 117
Malta 198 67 16 25 21 5 131
Netherlands 11,310 4,906 958 1,434 2,125 389 6,404
Poland 7,851 2,744 682 1,021 894 147 5,108
Portugal 3,079 1,046 232 274 424 115 2,033
Romania 2,849 967 174 512 199 81 1,882
Slovakia 1,440 489 90 135 227 37 951
Slovenia 637 217 51 94 64 9 420
Spain 13,949 6,114 1,247 1,725 2,649 493 7,836
Sweden 11,566 3,919 1,077 1,559 1,085 199 7,647
United Kingdom 23,132 7,316 1,413 2,895 2,504 504 15,816
Table 13: Specific investments in non-residential buildings (average investment costs per year
in the period 2012-2016)
Energy
related:
“below
Threshold”
EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m² EURO/m²

EU28 111 53 107 209 260 182
Austria 121 50 171 308 294 198
Belgium 113 55 53 215 358 250
Bulgaria 70 24 58 141 110 64
Croatia 76 30 147 275 329 88
Cyprus 129 71 53 266 227 213
Czech Republic 65 31 70 206 247 88
Denmark 161 101 173 322 385 265
Estonia 53 19 57 156 57 87
Finland 161 96 161 299 358 265
France 141 55 143 267 319 229
Germany 120 50 100 295 350 170
Greece 101 56 100 152 182 189
Hungary 86 46 77 150 142 141
Ireland 123 56 142 355 351 202
Italy 116 52 101 200 265 224
Latvia 49 25 48 114 137 80
Lithuania 65 41 67 186 68 106
Luxembourg 97 49 137 322 384 159
Malta 85 41 81 258 308 140
Netherlands 176 85 164 313 375 349
34
Poland 64 36 72 104 126 105
Portugal 59 33 54 88 151 97
Romania 76 24 132 162 286 174
Slovakia 79 34 70 158 189 130
Slovenia 100 49 132 173 140 165
Spain 97 52 86 161 192 160
Sweden 183 106 199 370 442 301
United
99 57 103 137 171 132
Kingdom
For the total building stock, for the period 2012-2016, annual investments in
energy renovation are estimated to be about 280 billion Euros and about 480
billion Euros in non-energy renovation, adding up to about 760 billion Euros.
4.1.4 Wider-benefits
Today, the major, ultimate goal of reducing primary energy consumption across the
European Union is to mitigate climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) need
to decrease dramatically during the next three decades. Applying equal GHG emission
factors31, the study determined the average relative specific GHG emission reduction
for each m2 floor area that underwent energy renovation, and then using the total
renovated floor area for each year between 2012 and 2016 the total annual GHG
reduction for all renovated area per Member State and the EU28.
Residential buildings
The relative annual GHG reduction per residential renovation (comparing the
performance of the building before and after renovation), taking the average
of all energy renovations across the EU28 that took place between 2012 and
2016, is estimated to be roughly 9%32. After the renovation this saving continues.
In absolute terms, year by year energy renovations in residential buildings on

average reduced emissions by roughly 11 MtCO2eq per year during the period
2012-2016.
31 See Annex, section 3.2.

35
Figure 7: Emission mitigation in ktCO2e/a, residential buildings (average 2012-2016)
Figure 8: Emission mitigation in %, residential buildings (average 2012-2016)
With regards to the workforce employed in renovation of buildings the total number
of fulltime employees (FTE) in the construction sector involved in renovation
of residential buildings is estimated to be about 4.6 million per year on
average33 for the period 2012-2016. This also illustrates the additional workforce
needed if the intensity of energy renovations (speed and depths) should increase
significantly in the next few years. Additional spill-over effects would be generated
amongst manufacturers, i.e. more capacity and personnel would also be needed there.
33 A factor of 8.52 FTE per million EURO spent has been applied based on Janssen & Staniaszek (2012) and Amélie
Cuq et al (2011)
36
Figure 9: Jobs maintained by building renovations in FTEs, residential buildings (average 2012-
2016)
Non-residential buildings
The relative annual GHG reduction per non-residential renovation (comparing

the performance of the building before and after renovation), taking the
average of all energy renovations across the EU28 that took place between
2012 and 2016, is estimated to be roughly 18%34. After the renovation this
saving continues.
In absolute terms, year by year energy renovations in non-residential buildings

on average reduced emissions by roughly 11 MtCO2eq per year during the
period 2012-2016.
Figure 10: Emission mitigation in ktCO2e/a, non-residential buildings (average 2012-2016)
37
Figure 11: Emission mitigation in %, non-residential buildings (average 2012-2016)
The total number of fulltime employees (FTE) in the construction sector

involved in energy and non-energy renovation of non-residential buildings is
estimated to be about 1.9 million35 per year on average for the period 2012-
2016. This adds to the bottleneck already produced by residential buildings that may
occur if the intensity of energy renovations (speed and depths) should increase
significantly in the next few years also in the non-residential sector. Similarly to
residential buildings, additional spill-over effects would be generated amongst
manufacturers, i.e. more capacity and personnel would also be needed there.
Figure 12: Jobs maintained by building renovations in FTEs, non-residential buildings (average
2012-2016)
The data Annex of this report provides a detailed overview of the results of the
analysis in Excel format. The following topics are covered in the data set for the time
period 2012 to 2016 on Member State and on EU28 level:
 Renovated residential and non-residential building floor area and number of

buildings (absolute and relative) for all considered types and depths of
renovations.
35 A factor of 8.52 FTE per million EURO spent has been applied based on Janssen & Staniaszek (2012) and Amélie
Cuq et al (2011)
38
 Spent investments for building renovations in residential and non-residential
buildings for all considered types and depths of renovations (total and specific
per renovated m²).
 Primary energy savings from renovation activities in residential and non-
residential buildings for all considered depths of renovations (total in toe,
specific in kWh per renovated m² and relative in percentage of saved energy
comparing the performance of the building before and after renovation).
 Co benefits: Jobs maintained by building renovations (in full time employees)
and emission mitigation (total in ktCO2e and relative in percentage of mitigated
emissions comparing the performance of the building before and after
renovation).
4.2. Uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB)
According to the EPBD all new buildings have to be NZEB from 2021 onwards (for
public buildings this obligation applies as of 2019). This study covers the period 2012-
2016, which is well before the actual obligation for new buildings to be NZEB. For that
reason, the uptake of NZEB has been measured in this study from a market
perspective, meaning how market players perceive the uptake of a building
standard, which in the local market is commonly understood to be “nearly
zero”. Therefore, the here presented numbers should not be understood as the rate of
buildings being compatible with an official NZEB definition that may exist today.
For achieving this aim, information has been collected from the architect survey of this
study and from “The architectural professions in Europe sector studies” by the
Architect’s Council of Europe (ACE). Details of the approach can be found in the Annex
to this report, section 3.4.
The following graph illustrates the qualitative uptake towards NZEB in terms of total
number of buildings, and the share of these buildings within the construction market,
i.e. of total constructed new and renovated buildings in the EU.
The results show that the number and share of buildings constructed in nearly-zero
energy standard increased with a peak in 2014 and slightly decreased between 2014
and 2016. However, the overall trend of constructing towards to NZEB standards is
positive for the period 2012 to 2016.
Figure 13: Overview of total number of buildings newly constructed or renovated to nearly-zero
energy buildings standard and its share in the construction market on EU28 level
39
The following graph illustrates the share of buildings constructed with high performing
standards among all new building constructions and renovations on Member State
level for the years 2012 and 2016. The shares include both constructed new buildings
and renovated buildings in each year. On EU28 level, buildings with standards close to
NZEB are built 38% more often in 2016 than in 2012.
Figure 14: Overview of the perceived share of NZEB and its share of the total constructed new
and renovated buildings on Member State and EU28 level.
The next two graphs give an overview of the share of buildings with high performing
(NZEB) standards compared to all new buildings (Figure 15) and compared to all
renovated buildings (Figure 16) in 2012 and 2016. The results show that nearly-zero
energy standards are preferably applied to newly constructed buildings, i.e. on EU28
level 27% times more new buildings are constructed in nearly-zero energy buildings
standard than renovated buildings.
Figure 15: Overview of share of NZEB and its share of total constructed new buildings on
Member State and EU28 level
40
Figure 16: Overview of share of NZEB and its share of total renovated buildings on Member
State level
It should be noted again that the shares are presented from a market perspective,
meaning that stakeholders have been asked about their view on realised the NZEB
requirements. However, this does not need to be in line with already mandatory
requirements in some countries that all new buildings already need to be NZEB (e.g.
France or Luxembourg).
The exact methodology for calculating these numbers including the used sources can
be found in Annex section 3.4.
The data Annex of this report provides a detailed overview of the results of the
analysis in Excel format. The following topics are covered in the data set or the time
period 2012 to 2016 on Member State and on EU28 level:
 Total number of NZEB and for new residential and non-residential, as well as
renovated residential and non-residential buildings.
 The share of NZEB in relation to the overall construction activities within each
of the categories new residential and non-residential, as well as renovated
residential and non-residential buildings.
 Total square meter of NZEB for new residential and non-residential, as well as
renovated residential and non-residential buildings.
 The share of square meter in NZEB in relation to the overall construction
activities within each of the categories new residential and non-residential, as
well as renovated residential and non-residential buildings.
41
Figure 17: Overview of the quantitative results related to renovations and the uptake of NZEB
42
4.3. Determinants for performing energy renovations36
As outlined in section 2, in addition to the calculation of energy renovation and NZEB

uptake, this study collected qualitative data to identify triggers, drivers, barriers and
incentives to perform energy renovations. In order to take the perspectives of multiple
stakeholders into account, surveys were conducted with consumers 37, architects, main
contractors and installers (for an extensive overview of the survey methodology see
Annex section 3.5)38. Building professionals were further asked about factors that
have influenced their clients’ decision to invest in energy renovations 39. The fact that
different aspects are relevant for different stakeholders, is reflected in the target
group specific indicators in each questionnaire. As described above, the findings are
meant to feed into future development of policy instruments to increase the rate of
energy renovation in the EU. A section on policy implications is included at the end of
this section.
The different determinants are further divided into groups. These groups may relate to
personal/emotional or external/practical determinants. For instance, for some
respondents a personal benefit or environmental concerns may be more decisive,
while for others structural aspects and opportunities (e.g. financing options,
administrative requirements, repair, etc.) have more influence. The following groups
are represented in the analysis:
 Repair, replacement and maintenance (e.g. necessary inspection, replacement

of a defective component)
 Technical (e.g. technical constraints, complicated installation)
 Information and recommendation (e.g. information from media or on the
energy bill, recommendation from installer)
 Ratings and certificates (e.g. rating on the energy label of a component or the
EPC)
 Guarantee and security (e.g. energy cost saving guarantee)
 Administrative and regulatory (e.g. administrative requirements, regulations)
 Financial (e.g. budget, financing conditions, payback time)
 Skills (e.g. confidence to do works independently, complexity of calculating
costs and benefits)
 Transaction (e.g. change or purchase of residence)
 Environment (e.g. protection of the local environment and from the effects of
global warming)
 Profit and personal (benefits) (e.g. improved health, improved home/property,
increased profit, no personal benefit, negative consequences of renovation)
 Client (benefits) (e.g. installation of high quality components, healthier living or
working, difficulty to explain benefit to client)
36 This section only reports on the aspects that were most often indicated by respondents, i.e. they either “fully
agreed“ or “rather agreed“, or indicated an aspect as “very important” or “rather important”.
37 Renovation works could have been commissioned by the property owner, tenant him/herself or the landlord.
38 Only data of consumers and building professionals who have performed energy renovations is discussed in this
section.
39 Includes both residential and non-residential clients.
43
Firstly, triggers for consumers and clients of architects and main contractors are
presented. Drivers for these groups as well as architects, main contractors and
installers are described in the next section. Barriers and incentives per group follow in
the subsequent sections. Funding sources of consumers and commercial/public clients
of architects are outlined in the next section, followed by ascribed responsibility for
quality assurance of renovation projects. Policy implications of the findings are
specified at the end. A summary box of the triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives
analysis is provided below and at the end of each section.
Table 14: Summary box – triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives
Consumers and commercial/public clients
 Financial aspects (available budget, costs) are consistently of relevance.
 For consumers, reducing energy costs and improving their health and
comfortability through energy renovations are important factors.
 Repairs and maintenance provide opportunities to invest in energy renovation.
 Structural barriers are strongly perceived, particularly by younger consumers and

those with a lower income.
 Information from media, the social circle and financial institutions is more
encouraging for younger consumers to perform energy renovations.
Building experts: Architects, main contractors and installers
 Environmental aspects are of high relevance to recommend energy renovations.
 Benefits for the client may have more weight than personal profit/benefits.
 Structural barriers are strong, particularly administrative and regulatory.
 Architects note a barrier due to unavailability of qualified installers.
 Main contractors and installers view clients as highest barrier.
 Increased opportunities for cooperation, exchange and receiving

recommendations/training among building experts are requested.
44
4.3.1 Triggers
Triggers for (energy) renovation can be various events or circumstances that

encourage the decision to invest in energy renovations, for instance the urgent repair
of a defective component (boiler in winter), the change of a tenant or a recent
purchase of a building. This section explores the triggers for those who have
performed energy renovations, either as consumers or building professionals.
The EPBD define triggers as “opportune moments in the life cycle of a building, for
example from a cost-effectiveness or disruption perspective, for carrying out energy
efficiency renovations”.
In the European Commission’s Recommendations on building renovation from 2019 40,

differentiation is made between three categories of triggers:
a) a transaction (e.g. the sale, rental or lease of a building, its refinancing, or a

change in its use);
b) renovation (e.g. an already planned wider non-energy-related renovation; and
c) a disaster/incident (e.g. fire earthquake, flood).
The scientific background used for the design of the surveys significantly overlaps with
this recent Commission recommendation. The category ‘transaction’ is fully covered in
this report, while the other two categories overlap with other aspects that can be put
under the headings “opportune moments in the life-cycle of the decision maker” and
“triggers related to relevant EU legislation”, like Energy Labelling, Energy Efficiency
and Energy Performance of Buildings Directives, as this appeared to be most
appropriate for the purpose of this study.
This section explores the role of triggers.
Consumers41
Among consumers (who have conducted energy renovations), situations
related to (necessary) repairs, replacements and maintenance are considered
as strong triggers. Budget and health-related aspects also play a central role when
investing in energy renovations. In contrast to the information on the energy bill,
which is required by the Energy Efficiency Directive, energy labels on components
(Energy Labelling Directive) or the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) are reported
less commonly as triggers (Figure 18).
40 Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019H0786
41 Question to consumers: “Which circumstances triggered your energy renovation/installation actions?”
45
Figure 18: Triggers for consumers
Younger consumers are more triggered by a transaction which might indicate that this
population group more often acquires property or changes their residence, and/or that
energy-related concerns when moving to a new home are more prevalent among this
group. Health-related concerns are also a stronger trigger for younger tenants and
owners compared to older cohorts. On the other hand, recommendations from
installers have more weight in older owners’ and landlords’ decision to invest in energy
renovations (Figure 19).
46
Figure 19: Triggers - age differences
Overall, the different triggers are more prevalent in Eastern and Southern Europe.
Results suggest that emergency works occur less often in Northern regions, which
may be an indication of slightly better maintained technical building systems.
Concerns that shortcomings may cause poor health might indicate a prevalence of
these shortcomings in the country. This is in line with findings on housing problems
from the EU SILC survey. (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Triggers - regional differences
In comparison to other European regions, consumers in Western Europe more often

stated that they performed energy renovations to improve the rating on the energy
label of a component (Figure 21).
47
Figure 21 : Triggers – (bad) rating on the energy label of a component by country
Consumers in Eastern Europe are more often triggered by information on cost and
amount of energy consumption on their energy bill than consumers in other regions.
This information is the least relevant in Austria and Germany (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Triggers – information on the energy bill by country
Clients of architects 42
In line with consumers, architects report that repairs and health-related aspects
are the strongest triggers for their clients to perform energy renovations.
Architects attribute more weight to transactions and favourable financing conditions to
their clients than consumers do for themselves. This is probably due to the fact that
architects – here mainly consulting on non-residential buildings - have a significant
share of commercial clients who are more business and financially driven than
consumers. In this segment, obviously, the EPC rating plays a much stronger role than
for consumers.
42 Question to architects and main contractors: “What circumstances trigger your typical [non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients to perform energy renovation?”
48
Figure 23 : Triggers for clients of architects
Clients of main contractors and installers 43

Similar to architects, main contractors view health-related aspects, transaction
and repairs as strong triggers for their clients. However, they give more
relevance to information and ratings/certificates than architects and consumers
(Figure 24). In this context, it should be noted that only main contractors were
interviewed who are also active in non-residential renovation.
43 Question to architects and main contractors: “What circumstances trigger your typical [non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients to perform energy renovation?”
49
Figure 24: Triggers for clients of main contractors
Table 15: Summary box - triggers
 For consumers and clients of building experts, it is not possible to identify a

specific group of triggers as most impactful. Both practical and personal
determinants function equally as triggers.
Necessary maintenance, non-emergency replacement of a defective

component, available budget and shortcomings that may cause poor health
are important triggers for consumers.
 Clients of building experts – residential and non-residential – likewise

emphasise health-related concerns and repairs, but also the purchase of
a building and favourable financing conditions.
50
4.3.2 Drivers
Drivers or motivations in the context of energy renovations are assumed to be of

economic, personal (attitudes) or environmental manner. In contrast to triggers, they
do not depend on a specific event or circumstance but on the person and her/his
environment. Motivations are for example increased profit, improved health, or the
protection from consequences of global warming. This section explores the drivers for
those who have performed energy renovations, either as consumers or building
professionals.
The EPBD requires Member States’ long-term renovation strategies (LTRSs) to include
an evaluation of wider benefits of improved energy performance, for instance in
relation to health, safety or air quality. In this study, these benefits are assessed as
drivers and (partly) incentives.
Consumers44
Consumers report various drivers for performing energy renovations that differ in their
nature. Personal benefits, health, environmental and financial aspects (lower
costs) are all strong motivations (Figure 25). The driver to improve the
residence is the strongest. This is important for communication, as obviously
respondents who already did an energy renovation feel they can improve their
residence and its value by performing an energy renovation.
Figure 25 : Drivers for consumers
44 Question to consumers: “To what extent do you agree with the following statements? I did these energy
renovations/installations, because I believe …”
51
Younger consumers are more motivated to perform energy renovations because of
their confidence in their own necessary skills (51% vs 32% of older consumers). For
older consumers, the circumstance to have installers they trust is more relevant in the
decision for energy works compared to younger cohorts (90% vs 77%). Similarly,
consumers with a higher income level are rather motivated by this aspect than those
with a lower income level (85% vs 77%).
Architects report financial aspects and personal benefits as strong drivers for
their clients, most noteworthy the reduction of energy costs. They view
environmental factors as less motivating than consumers themselves (Figure 26).
Figure 26 : Drivers for clients of architects
Clients of main contractors 46
In line with architects, main contractors indicate financial aspects and personal benefits
as strongest drivers for their clients to perform energy renovations. Again,
environmental concerns are seen as less prevalent among clients, though still very
relevant (Figure 27).
45 Question to architects and main contractors: “To what extent do you agree that the following factors motivate
your [non-residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients to perform energy
renovations?”
46 Question to architects and main contractors: “To what extent do you agree that the following factors motivate
your [non-residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients to perform energy
renovations?”
52
Figure 27: Drivers for clients of main contractors
Architects47
The study also asked building experts about their drivers, barriers and incentives to be
involved in energy renovation. Architects are most motivated to recommend
energy renovation because it benefits the environment 48 and the client.
Personal profit and benefits – though still strong drivers – are less motivating (Figure
28). Architects are particularly driven to promote the use of renewable
energy when working on non-residential construction projects (86% compared
to 78% for residential projects).
Figure 28: Drivers for architects
47 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “To what extent do you agree with the following
statements about energy renovations: I believe that energy renovations …”
48 More architects stated to “fully agree” compared to “rather agree” that they are motivated to contribute to the
protection from global warming and to protect the local environment.
53
Main contractors and installers 49
Similar to architects, main contractors and installers attribute most relevance
to environmental50 and client-related drivers for themselves to recommend
energy renovation. Nevertheless, the vast majority also mentions profit and
personal benefits as motivational factors to recommend energy renovation
(Figure 29).
The relevance of the different drivers differs by construction sector. Environmental

aspects are most relevant for heating (87%). A competitive advantage and healthier
living and working is expected in particular from works on air-condition/photovoltaic
(66% and 88%. respectively).
Figure 29 : Drivers for main contractors and installers
Main contractors and installers across the EU28 view the relevance of drivers
differently. Following the same pattern as consumers, construction professionals in
Eastern and Southern Europe report the drivers most frequently which suggests that –
in comparison to Western and Northern Europe - addressing the drivers in these
regions with appropriate policy instruments may have a stronger impact on the
frequency energy renovation is recommended. Differences are most noteworthy
related to personal benefits, the environment and health, as illustrated in Figure 30.
Figure 30 : Drivers – regional differences
49 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “To what extent do you agree with the following
statements about energy renovations: I believe that energy renovations …”
50 More main contractors and installers stated to “fully agree” compared to “rather agree” that they are motivated
to contribute to the protection from global warming.
54
Table 16: Summary box – drivers
 Environmental aspects and benefits for the resident in terms of health,

comfortability and finances are strong drivers.
Environmental aspects, personal benefits (improved homes and health)

and financial factors (increased marked value and reduced energy cost) are
similarly important drivers for consumers. Building experts also report a high
relevance of these determinants for their clients but attribute less weight to
environmental aspects.
Environmental aspects (countering consequences of global warming) and

benefits for clients (healthier living/working) are most driving for building
experts (compared to profit and personal advantages).
4.3.3 Barriers
Barriers address the various aspects that may prevent the implementation of energy
renovation. Like drivers, they are specific to the person and her/his environment, for
instance attitudes, technical or regulatory barriers. It is important to note, given the
nature of the study, only respondents who have performed energy renovations were
asked about barriers they have encountered and overcome.
Competence and skills are key to implement requirements defined by the EPBD and
other policy instruments. Therefore, this section also explores the relevance of, for
example, availability of qualified and certified installers as a barrier.
Consumers51
Consumers are motivated or triggered to perform energy renovations by various
factors, therefore it is not surprising that they also strongly experience barriers to
invest in energy renovation. These have different origins, though the vast majority of
consumers have encountered financial barriers. Interestingly, a high proportion
of consumers would not invest because they do not see the (personal) benefits of it
(Figure 31). Tenants are more concerned that benefits will be reaped by
landlords than the other way around (68% of tenants; 54% of landlords).
51 Question to consumers: “How important were the following aspects as a barrier for your energy
renovation/installation?”
55
Figure 31: Barriers for consumers
The younger population group most often reports administrative and

regulatory barriers. Older consumers, on the other hand, are more restrained by the
necessity to take out a loan or mortgage, as illustrated in Figure 32.
56
Figure 32 : Barriers – age differences
Consumers with a lower income more frequently experience administrative and

regulatory barriers to invest in energy renovations. They are also more sceptical
towards energy-related works and the trustworthiness of building professionals (Figure
33).
Figure 33 : Barriers – differences by income level
Figure 34 shows the strongest differences between European regions in terms of

barriers. Barriers are most often perceived in Eastern Europe (as are triggers and
drivers).
57
Figure 34 : Barriers – regional differences
Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe report most frequently that regulations that
require more than they would do, have posed a barrier to perform energy renovations.
Most noticeable are the high proportions in Cyprus and Lithuania (Figure 35).
Figure 35 : Regulations require more than consumer would do by country
Architects attribute very similar weight to different kinds of barriers their clients may
have as consumers do for themselves. (Figure 36). A higher weight especially of “too
long payback time” probably reflects the share of commercial clients in architects’
portfolio.
52 Question to architects: “How important do you think the following aspects were as a barrier for your non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house clients to perform energy renovation?”
58
Figure 36 : Barriers for clients of architects

In comparison to architects, main contractors report very similar proportions of
prevalence of barriers, except for personal benefits for which they see significantly
lower barriers (approx. minus 10%) on the side of their clients (Figure 37).
53 Question to architects: “How important do you think the following aspects were as a barrier for your non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house clients to perform energy renovation?”
59
Figure 37 : Barriers for clients of main installers
Architects54
Beyond the experiences of their customers, architects themselves report high barriers.
They have frequently encountered administrative and regulatory barriers to
recommend energy renovation to clients. For the vast majority, it has also been
difficult to explain the benefits to clients. The unavailability of installers poses
another barrier (Figure 38).
54 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “How important are the following aspects as a barrier for
you to recommend energy renovations?”
60
Figure 38 : Barriers for architects
Architect firms more often struggle to find Architects state that it is more
installers. Necessary quality checks restrain complicated to calculate costs and
in particular independent architects to benefits of energy renovation for
recommend energy renovation. residential than non-residential
construction projects.
Figure 39 : Barriers – differences by architect type
Figure 40 : Complexity of calculating costs
and benefits by type of construction
project
61
Main contractors and installers report several barriers. Client-related aspects pose
the highest barriers to recommend energy renovation (Figure 41). Barriers are
more often experienced by installers compared to main contractors, though the
differences are small. Interestingly, negative consequences are of least concern for
airconditioning/phovoltaic works (47%).
Figure 41 : Barriers for main contractors and installers
Table 17: Summary box - barriers
 Structural barriers are most prevalent among all groups. Unawareness of

benefits provides another high barrier.
Financial (taking out a loan or mortgage, general costs of renovations),

technical (constraints, skills) and administrative/regulatory
(requirements) barriers are prevalent among consumers and clients of
building experts. However, the high percentage of those not seeing a personal
benefit of energy renovations is also noteworthy.
Architects see regulatory prohibitions/requirements and unavailability

of installers as main barriers.
Main contractors and installers see client-related aspects (high cost and
convincing clients of benefits) as strongest obstacle.
55 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “How important are the following aspects as a barrier for
you to recommend energy renovations?”
62
4.3.4 Incentives
Incentives have two objectives: Foster favourable motivations or weaken unfavourable

motivations to overcome barriers. For example, incentives can be of financial,
regulatory or informational nature. Incentives covered in this study logically
correspond to the before mentioned barriers. This section explores the incentives for
those who have performed energy renovations, either as consumers or building
professionals.
In their recommendations on building renovation from 2019 56, the European

Commission specifies incentives to use smart technologies and skills, such as
education in the construction and energy efficiency sectors – which is covered in this
analysis.
Consumers57
Incentives have a high importance for consumers. Information on cost and amount
of energy consumption on the energy bill is the strongest incentive to invest in
energy renovation. Similarly encouraging are recommendations from installers
(interestingly, the survey findings suggest that this is a relatively weak trigger, which
also suggests that installers are involved when a renovation decision has already been
made). Guarantees, ratings and certificates likewise function as central
incentives (Figure 42). The importance of some factors as incentives but less as
triggers suggests the unavailability or unawareness of these factors to function as
trigger.
56 Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019H0786
57 Question to consumers: “How important were the following aspects to help you overcome barriers for your
energy renovations/installations?”
63
Figure 42 : Incentives for consumers
Information from media, the social circle and financial institutions is more
encouraging for younger consumers to perform energy renovations. The same
applies to consumers with a lower income, though the differences in the income
category are smaller. Older cohorts see recommendations from installers as stronger
incentive. For older tenants, administrative and regulatory aspects are more
incentivising than for younger tenants (Figure 43).
64
Figure 43 : Incentives – age differences
Favourable financing options are relevant incentives in all EU28 countries, with
Croatia, Cyprus and Malta standing out in particular (Figure 44).
Figure 44 : Available subsidies, grants, low interest loans, or tax rebates for energy renovation
by country
Regulations are most incentivising in Eastern Europe. Consumers in Croatia, Cyprus

and Lithuania are most encouraged by regulations to invest energy renovation (Figure
45).
Figure 45 : Regulations simply require certain energy renovation measures by country
65
In Eastern and Southern Europe, recommendations on the EPC are particularly
incentivising, with Cyprus, Lithuania and Slovakia at the top. In Austria, Denmark
and Germany, information on the EPC are less encouraging, but the majority still
views it as incentive (Figure 46).
Figure 46 : Recommendations for energy renovation on the EPC of my building by country
Information on the energy bill is a main incentive in all EU28 countries, and
specifically in Eastern Europe. Almost all consumers in Malta view it as encouraging
(Figure 47).
Figure 47 : Information on the energy bill by country
66
Architects highlight favourable financial and administrative options as
incentives for clients to invest in energy renovation. In line with consumers,
they also emphasise information on the energy bill. Interestingly, they see
recommendations of themselves or other building experts as more encouraging than
consumers reported (86% vs 71%), which may stem from consumers having little
contact with architects (Figure 48). Compared to incentives reported by consumers,
this means that architects may specifically underestimate the influence of installers’
savings guarantees and recommendations; for all other criteria, architects’ view on
customers’ incentives is very similar to those consumers report.
Figure 48 : Incentives for clients of architects
58 Question to architects and main contractors: “How important were the following aspects to help your [non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients overcome the barriers to perform
energy renovation?”
67
Likewise, contractors’ view on their clients’ incentives reflects well what consumers
report. However, they attribute considerably more weight (even higher than architects
do) to financial incentives than consumers do for themselves. From a regulation
point of view, it is encouraging that similar to consumers and architects, main
contractors report information on the energy bill as a central incentive (Figure
49).
Figure 49 : Incentives for clients of main contractors
59 Question to architects and main contractors: “How important were the following aspects to help your [non-
residential/residential single-family house/residential multi-family house] clients overcome the barriers to perform
energy renovation?”
68
Architects60
Different aspects are helpful for architects to overcome barriers and recommend
energy renovation to clients. Most noteworthy, supportive administrative and
regulatory conditions, as well as training or seminars. Information or
recommendation from manufacturers is also of importance (Figure 50).
According to architects, flexible and responsive administration at municipality level is
particularly encouraging for non-residential construction projects (87% vs 81% for
residential projects).61 From the point of view of regulation, it is a pity that
recommendations on the EPC rank last.
Figure 50 : Incentives for architects
60 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “How important are the following aspects to help you to
overcome barriers to recommend energy renovations?”
61 More architects stated that flexible and responsive administration is “very important” compared to “rather
important”
69
In line with architects, main contractors and installers also underline
recommendations from manufacturers and training as strong incentives. It
becomes clear that this group very much appreciates hassle free-components
(installation and after care) and relations with manufacturers (Figure 51).63
Figure 51 : Incentives for main contractors and installers
Across the EU28, the different incentives are viewed as helpful to overcome barriers to
recommend energy renovation. Eastern and Southern Europe have, again, particularly
high proportions of building experts reporting the incentives (Figure 52).
62 Question to architects, main contractors and installers: “How important are the following aspects to help you to
overcome barriers to recommend energy renovations?”
63 More main contractors and installers stated that reliable products and trainings and seminars are “very
important” compared to “rather important”.
70
Figure 52 : Incentives – differences by region
Table 18: Summary box - incentives
 Quality, favourable conditions, low administrative barriers and guarantees are

important incentives, highlighting the central role of building experts and
suppliers in overcoming barriers.
 Aspects related to guaranteeing lower costs and less energy

consumption - in particular by energy suppliers and building experts –
are strong incentives for consumers. Favourable financing options are also
important. Building experts also highlight requirements set out by
regulations as incentives for their clients.
Building experts view administrative/regulatory aspects, information,

recommendations, favourable conditions from other building experts and
manufacturers, as well as training as strong incentives. High quality of
products is also very relevant.
4.3.5 Funding sources
The vast majority of consumers64 have used their own capital to finance
renovation works, suggesting that consumers undertake energy renovations
when they have sufficient capital. Some respondents took out a loan at market
condition, and only a handful used a loan with a below-market interest rate or from
friends/family (Figure 53). The most popular financing option is a combination
of own capital and a loan at market condition. The second most prevalent
combination is own capital with a loan from friends or family. Overall, 29% of
consumers indicated having used two funding sources.
64 Question: “How was this financed? In case of multiple renovations, please consider the most expensive
renovation. You can tick maximum 3 options (focus on the most important options).”
71
In comparison to consumers (i.e. residential buildings), non-residential renovation
work is less frequently financed by own capital, as indicated by architects for their
clients. Loans and grants are more often used than among consumers. One-third of
non-residential renovation work is (partly) financed by a loan at market condition, and
one-fourth by a loan with a below-market interest rate or a grant (Figure 53).
Figure 53: Funding sources of consumers and commercial/public clients of architects
Owners finance energy renovation with their own capital more often than
tenants or landlords. Landlords, on the other hand, more frequently use a loan with
a below interest rate or a loan from family or friends than owners do. A higher
proportion of older consumers finance their energy renovations with their own capital
compared to younger cohorts. The younger population group uses loans more often
than older consumers. There is also a difference in terms of income level. Consumers
with a higher income make stronger use of their own capital. Those with lower income
more frequently use a loan or grant than high-income earners. This result is in line
with results presented in Figure 32 and Figure 44.
In general, there is a significantly negative attitude towards loans, the older the
cohort the stronger. This clearly explains the high shares of own capital used for
financing energy renovation measures and its increase with increasing age of
respondents. On the other hand “grants, loans etc.” are mentioned to be a very strong
incentive to overcome financial barriers. As grants and loans have been put into the
same question, it can be assumed that people prefer grants over loans.
4.3.6 Quality assurance
The consumer survey provides interesting insights into who is seen to be responsible
or is assigned for the quality of energy renovation works. 65 Consumers themselves or
main contractors and installers are most often perceived as responsible. However, the
responsibility assignment depends of course on who carried out the work because this
person is seen as responsible for assuring quality.
65 Question: “Who was responsible for the quality of these energy renovation/installation works? In case of
multiple renovations, please consider the most expensive renovation. You can tick multiple answers.“
72
Figure 54: Responsible for quality assurance
Yet, there are differences between tenants, owners and landlords. For tenants there is
a rather equal distribution between themselves, main contractors and installers.
Owners have a clear emphasis on being responsible themselves (more than 40%),
while landlords have the highest share for architects (around 12%) and main
contractors (around 37%).
For younger consumers, and particularly those between 34 to 54 years old, each actor
involved in the energy renovation works (themselves, architects, contractors, etc.) has
a stronger responsibility to ensure the quality of the works. Older consumers attribute
less responsibility to each person or professional group.
There are variations across countries in terms of perceived responsibility for the
quality of renovations works. Differences can also be observed for different groups;
results for owners are presented below (Figure 52).
Figure 55: Proportion of owners reporting to be personally responsible for the quality of
renovation works by country
73
Figure 56: Proportion of owners reporting architects to be responsible for the quality of
Figure 57: Proportion of owners reporting main contractors to be responsible for the quality of
Figure 58: Proportion of owners reporting installers to be responsible for the quality of
74
Some other results related to quality:
 From the literature it is known that “construction team” approaches have a

positive impact on quality. Yet, there is strong mistrust among consumers but
also commercial investors towards installers (cf. Figure 31 and Figure 38,
Figure 41), which certainly explains the high share of laymen taking
responsibility for quality controls.
 Another reason for concern with regards to quality is that a clear majority of
independent architects feel that quality checks take too much time (Figure 39).
 Finally, the perception of about half installers across Europe that energy
efficiency measures are too complicated to install, certainly also hampers
quality.
4.3.7 Observed impact of selected policy instruments
As mentioned above, all energy renovation measures are the consequence of

investors’ decisions. Each decision is the result of one or several determinants such
as motivations/drivers, triggering events, barriers or incentives. These
determinants can be influenced by policy instruments in form of regulations,
(financial) incentives and information (including education).
The above analysis of triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives included several
elements from EU Directives, aiming to stimulate investments in energy renovation,
namely
 Energy Performance Certificates (EPC)
 Energy audits/inspections
 information on energy bills
 Energy labels
In the following, insights on these instruments are summarised.
Energy performance certificates
The results of the surveys revealed different magnitudes of impact of EPCs depending
on the stage in the decision process, type of decision maker and country.
The first stage in the decision process is to be triggered to do an energy renovation at

all. For consumers who are owners or tenants of their dwelling, EPCs only have a
modest trigger function compared to e.g. maintenance and repair, available budget,
shortcomings that cause poor health, recommendations of installers or information
from the energy bill (see Figure 18). Yet the triggering impact increases for groups
having a commercial interest. For landlords of residential dwellings, a slight increase
can be observed across the EU, although there are significant differences between
countries. About 20% or more landlords in Croatia, Denmark, Ireland and Slovakia
report EPCs as having been a trigger for energy renovation, while e.g. in Belgium not
even 3% mention this aspect.
The triggering impact of EPCs for stakeholders with commercial interest gets
significantly more pronounced when looking at what architects (Figure 23) but
especially main contractors (Figure 24) report on their clients. These clients include a
significant share of commercial clients owning and/or operating non-residential or
75
residential buildings. EPCs impact further increases within the subsequent decision
stage, i.e. when the decision to renovate at all has been taken (see Figure 42). This is
when recommendations on the EPC get relevant to overcome the wide-spread
uncertainty about which measures to take (Figure 46) and where the rating itself
motivates to improve (Figure 42).
Results hint at architects underestimating the importance of EPCs for their clients.
Architects assume less importance of the recommendations on the EPC for their clients
as an incentive (Figure 50) than consumers do for themselves (Figure 42) and main
contractors assume for their clients (Figure 49).
This asks for more promotion of EPCs amongst architects as an incentive to do more
and deeper measures, especially since the view of main contractors and installers is
more positive towards these items (Figure 49, Figure 51).
Figure 59: EPC rating as trigger and incentive
Energy audits/inspections
Necessary maintenance and inspection is the strongest trigger of consumers to

undertake energy renovations (Figure 18). Therefore, information on potential energy
renovation measures should be closely linked to these inspections. In this context, it
might be surprising that architects see energy audits or inspections of heating or
airconditioning systems as only a moderate trigger for their clients e.g. compared to
repairs, which score highest (Figure 23). The picture changes when asking main
contractors and installers about their clients – here energy audits score much higher
(Figure 24).
A reason might be that compared to main contractors and installers, architects deal
less with technical building systems, which are typically the subject of audits and
inspections. This again highlights the need for promoting different instruments
differently amongst diverse potential multiplicators for energy efficiency measures on
the supply side. However, compared to EPCs, inspections appear to have more
influence on triggering energy renovation than on subsequent phases.
Energy labels
Main contractors report energy labels on components playing a perceptible role in

triggering energy renovations (Figure 18, Figure 21, Figure 23, Figure 24) for their
clients, while this impact is much less pronounced as self-reported by consumers and
reported by architects for their clients (Figure 60). They gain importance when it
comes to finding the right product, both from the point of view of consumers
76
themselves and from suppliers’ reports on their clients (Figure 42, Figure 48, Figure
49). The highest impact, however, energy labels seem to have to support
recommendations of architects and main contractors/installers (Figure 50, Figure 51),
although they do not rank amongst the top incentives that help these groups to
provide recommendations.
Figure 60: Energy label rating for individual components as trigger and incentive
Information on energy bills
Amongst consumers, information provided on energy bills has a strong impact on

triggering energy renovation, stronger than EPCs (Figure 18) or energy labels. This is
different for clients of architects (Figure 23) and main contractors/installers (Figure
24) for whom the impact is equally strong, although on quite different levels.
A much higher impact can be observed when it comes to overcoming barriers for
energy renovation, i.e. for the information on energy bills serving as an incentive,
which can be observed across all EU countries (see e.g. Figure 42, Figure 47, Figure
48, Figure 49). In this context, information on the energy bills is amongst the
top incentives. The information also helps architects and main contractors/installers
in their argumentation in favour of energy renovation (Figure 50, Figure 51). This also
fits with the very high relevance all groups assign to financial energy savings as a
driver for energy renovation.
It leads to the conclusion that many energy renovators only start looking closer at
their energy bills and the impact an energy renovation could have, when already
having taken an unspecified decision to renovate.
Last but not least, the existence of “regulations that simply require energy renovation
measures” receives quite different weights amongst consumers as an incentive (Figure
45), while it is seen as very helpful support to recommend energy renovations by
architects (Figure 48, Figure 51).
Figure 61: Information on the (client’s) energy bill as trigger and incentive
77
5. Conclusion
Conclusions of the analyses and results of this study are presented per area:
 renovation
 uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB)
 determinants for performing energy renovations.
Renovation
This study contributes to the discussion about renovation rates and depths in the EU28
building stock. The information provided in this study through the development of
three different surveys intends to support policy makers and relevant stakeholders to
understand the impact of policy measures and about the distance that needs to be
bridged to get on track towards a decarbonised building stock by 2050.
The determination of renovation rates and depths requires a clear common

understanding of what renovation “rate” and “depth” mean. For this reason, the study
proposes and applies clear definitions for different renovation depths (also in line with
the definitions applied in the EU Building Stock Observatory), relating them to
annually achieved primary energy savings:
 Below threshold (x < 3% savings)66

 Light renovations (3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings)
 Medium renovations (30% < x ≤ 60% savings)
 Deep renovations (x > 60% savings)
It is strongly recommended that these or similar - but uniform - definitions should be

applied throughout Europe for the sake of speaking a common language.
Approximately 12% of residential floor area or 9.5% of non-residential floor area is

estimated to be affected each year by an energy renovation according to one of above
mentioned four categories. Out of this approximately 7% are below threshold
renovations in residential buildings and 4% in non-residential buildings. Light and
medium renovations together affect approximately 5% of both the residential and
non-residential floor area67, while the annual rate of “one-off” deep renovations is only
around 0.2% - 0.3% in the EU28. Thus, in practice, deep renovations only occur
sporadically while step-by-step renovations dominate by far. This is also reflected in
significantly and increasingly higher rates of medium, light and “below threshold”
renovations. In reality, therefore, a climate neutral level of the building stock cannot
be achieved only by deep renovations, but by a series of light and medium
renovations.
66 It was decided to include this minimum threshold in order to avoid misleadingly large numbers of light
renovations and separate out and highlight those renovations, where significant lost-opportunities have been
created as for improving the energy performance.
67 For residential buildings 3.9% accounts for light renovations and 1.1% for medium; For non-residential
buildings the rates are 3.0% and 2.1% relatively.
78
According to these results an average renovation 68 saves about 9% (14 kWh/(m².y))
annual primary energy consumption in residential buildings and about 17% (47
kWh/(m².y)) in non-residential buildings. The corresponding relative annual GHG
reduction is 9% in residential buildings and 18% in non-residential buildings, i.e. close
to the numbers for primary energy.
The relatively low average saving achieved again highlights the above mentioned
finding that a typical energy renovation is characterised by only one or few measures
that yield comparatively little savings.
Split up by renovation depths, an average light or medium renovations save 13% or

41% of annual primary energy consumption in residential buildings and 16% or 44%
in non-residential buildings (comparing the performance of the building before and
after renovation). An average deep renovation achieves approximately 66% primary
energy savings in both residential and non-residential buildings.69
The question arises how the determined rates for different renovation depths translate
into the speed at which the building stock approaches a decarbonised level. An
appropriate measure to answer this question is the annual reduction of the total
building stock’s primary energy consumption through energy renovation. This rate, the
weighted energy renovation rate, was determined to be around 1% for both
residential and non-residential buildings, which is in line with other estimations of the
European Commission (0.4-1.2% depending on the Member State.70
If this rate of 1% persists, the building sector will clearly and significantly fail to
deliver its share in the overall need for primary energy reduction and consequently a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. A very significant uptake of the renovation
rate is urgently needed to meet long-term primary energy and greenhouse gas
emissions targets, as e.g. set out in the European Commission’s communication “A
Clean planet for all”.71
A tripling to 3% primary energy savings per year would need to be achieved by a

combined uptake of renovation rate (floor area) and average renovation depth, i.e.
average achieved primary energy savings per renovation.72 Currently light and
medium renovations account for 80%-90% of total annual primary energy savings in
the building stock. These categories can be expected to continue dominating the
renovation market in terms of achieved savings. Therefore, the focus of incentives,
removing barriers and funding should be on
 increasing the rate of currently together 5% (in terms of floor area) of these
two renovation depths e.g. towards 7-8%,
68 Average for the assessed period 2012-2016 , including all four renovation depths mentioned above.
69 „Below threshold“ renovations yield negligible savings of on average less than 1%.
70 Within EU28 total annual primary energy savings amount to an average of approximately 3 Mtoe per year in the
period 2012-2016 in residential buildings and approximately 2.6 Mtoe per year in non-residential buildings.
Corresponding average reduced greenhouse gas emissions are approximately 11 MtCO2eq per year for both
residential and non-residential buildings.
71 COM(2018) 773 final.
72 Note that primary energy can be saved by on-site or „off-site“ renovations or improvements, where off-site
improvements could be a decreasing primary energy factor of e.g. power, gas or district heat supply. This aspect
will gain importance in the future due to rising electricfication of and currently still low renewable energy share
within heat supply.
79
 managing a shift from light towards medium renovations, as their current rate
is significantly lower than that of light renovations, e.g. resulting in average
primary energy savings of light and medium renovations of 30%-40%,
compared to less than 20% today,
 organising renovations towards a carbon neutral level as a chain of light and

medium renovations (step-by-step renovations) where lost opportunities and
lock-in effects are effectively avoided.
The latter item needs special care. The economic law of diminishing marginal utility
leads to picking the “low-hanging fruits” first. For this reason, light and medium
renovations having most favourable cost-benefit ratios will typically come first.
Subsequent light or medium renovations within the same renovation package will
typically appear less favourable when being treated as stand-alone measures.
Therefore, policy and market conditions need to ensure that investing in packages of
energy efficiency renovations is attractive, too. This can be achieved by switching to a
mind-set where deep renovation is not only considered as a one-off renovation, but
also as a package consisting of a coordinated chain of medium and light energy
renovations eventually leading to the same savings as a deep renovation being in line
with a carbon neutral building stock. Whenever possible, cost-benefit analyses should
be done for the whole package rather than for individual measures. Otherwise,
measures at the end of the chain will be disincentivised and the already too slow
renovation can be expected to even further slow down.
In the face of this reality, incentives for building renovation must put a strong focus on
packages of step-by-step renovations and how to make them cost-effective without
creating lock-in effects or lost-opportunities. This dynamic around individual building
renovation should also be reflected in the Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs).
Already today EPCs have a significant market impact specifically once the renovation
decision has been made. To build on this strength EPCs could play a relevant role in
incentivising a shift from light towards medium renovations that do not create lock-in
effects. Thus, recommendations for “lock-in-proof” renovations are needed, which in
several “medium” steps ideally will achieve a level, which is compatible with a carbon
neutral building stock.
The risk of lock-in increases with high rates of “below threshold” and “light”
renovations. Notably, some Eastern European countries show high renovation values,
mainly driven by comparatively high numbers of “below threshold” and “light”
renovations. Higher renovation rates in Eastern European countries have been
confirmed by ACE’s 2016 sector study73. These countries therefore have a great
potential and could benefit from good practices and examples to significantly improve
the energy performance of their buildings.
Complementary optional schemes such as renovation roadmaps or “building

renovation passports” for individual buildings gain a very high relevance for
coordinating this series of measures in a way that is cost-effective and avoids lock-in
effects. Without such coordination, there is a significant risk to lose cost-effective
savings potentials and waste financial resources on a large scale.
This study also revealed a high coincidence of energy renovation and non-energy
renovation. Furthermore, a high proportion of respondents reported repairs, regular
maintenance and inspections to be typical trigger points for energy renovation. These
73 The architectural professions in Europe 2016. A Sector Study by the Architect’s Council of Europe (ACE), table
4-15
80
insights underline the necessity to interpret deep renovations as a journey with
several milestones - rather than a “one-off” action - that needs to be coupled to
regular maintenance, non-energy renovations and natural obsolescence of
components. Integrating all those natural trigger points for energy renovation into
individual building renovation roadmaps templates and getting this step-by-step
reality more on the political agenda to adapt regulations, information and financial
incentives accordingly is an urgent challenge that needs to be addressed.
Reality also includes do-it-yourself activities (DIY). The findings of the surveys suggest
that these activities have a significant share in building renovation – and thus need
coordination as well for the same reasons mentioned above: lock-in effects need to be
avoided, with potential lack of quality of works – and thus missed potential savings -
having increased importance in DIY. One-stop-shops also for DIY activities could be
considered as support.
Deep renovations and cost-effective renovation towards NZEB levels which are
achieved step-by-step are not covered by the abovementioned definitions of
renovation depths. Step-by-step renovations, being a series of a set of e.g. light or
medium renovations, may stretch over a couple of years or even decades. It is
recommended to further develop the definitions and monitoring of renovation activities
into this direction as it is expected to be the dominating reality of renovations towards
decarbonisation of the buildings stock. National long-term renovation strategies in line
with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive appear to be the right place to
address this challenge.
In spite of lagging behind the needed speed of renovation, this study estimated that
current activities amount to annual investments of already more than 200 billion Euros
for energy renovations and another 300 billion Euros for non-energy renovations in
the residential sector in the EU28. Another 200 billion is invested in non-residential
buildings. This highlights the significant impact building renovation already has within
the European economy, and it highlights the interconnection of energy renovation with
the even bigger market of non-energy renovation. It would see further significant
growth if renovation activities moved towards a level that ensures a decarbonised
building stock by 2050. If for example the current weighted energy renovation rate
would triple from 1% to 3%, a corresponding tripling of needed investments in energy
renovation to about 800 billion Euros could be expected. Evidently, this needs new and
different funding schemes and financing instruments. This will also involve more
private funding. For attracting private funding further de-risking of investments in
energy renovation is needed.
Obviously, there is a strong link between investments in (energy) renovation and the
workforce being active to execute the works. The average total number of fulltime
employees in the construction sector involved in renovation (energy and non-energy)
of residential buildings is estimated to be about 4.6 million per year for the period
2012-2016 and another 1.9 million for non-residential buildings. This also illustrates
the additional workforce needed if the intensity of energy renovations (speed and
depths) should increase significantly in the next few years. Depending on productivity
increases resulting from higher production an additional workforce of 2 – 4 million
fulltime employees in the construction sector could be expected due to a tripling of
energy renovation efforts. Additional spill-over effects would be generated amongst
manufacturers, i.e. more capacity and personnel would also be needed there.
The new energy policy framework that has been created with the “Clean Energy for all
Europeans” package provides several opportunities to properly address the
aforementioned issues. Instruments like the long-term renovation strategies or the
81
“Smart Finance for Smart Buildings”74 initiative can provide the proper context for the
transformation ahead.
Uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB)
In the context of achieving a decarbonised building stock by 2050 new buildings also
deserve utmost focus, as 20%-25% of 2050’s building stock is still to be built. Mainly
because a significant share of already existing buildings will be hard to transform to
NZEB or close to NZEB standards. According to the European Commission’s
recommendation on nearly zero-energy buildings75 the “NZEB level … cannot be … less
stringent … than the 2021 cost-optimal level … The NZEB level of energy performance
for new buildings will be determined by the best technology that is available and well
introduced on the market at that time, financial aspects and legal and political
considerations at national level.” Based on this understanding and findings from the
study76 “Towards nearly zero-energy buildings” the recommendation includes
benchmarks for NZEB energy performance for different EU climatic zones. Yet, some
of today’s published national performance targets for NZEB clearly exceed the
performance benchmarks provided in the recommendation.
Although NZEB means a big leap towards a decarbonised building stock, it does not
automatically tick the “decarbonised” box.77 In this context there still is significant
development potential for NZEB.
With the current low progress of increasing the performance of the existing building
stock, NZEB in new construction inevitably must deliver their contribution to
decarbonisation by 2050. NZEB, which for new public buildings are already mandatory
since 1st January 2019 and will be mandatory for all other new buildings from 1 st
January 2021 on, need to be the answer to the challenge of making new buildings
compatible with carbon-neutrality. However, although this study found a slight upward
74 The “Smart Finance for Smart Buildings” initiative, which, launched by the European Commission in close
cooperation with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Member States, could support the development of
flexible financing platforms at national level and make more attractive financing options available on the market.
This initiative encourages the more effective use of public funds, help aggregation and assistance of projects and
tries to de-risk investments in energy efficiency and make them more trusted and attractive for project promoters,
financiers and investors.
75 European Commission (EC) (Hg.) (2016): Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1318 of 29 July 2016. on
76 Schimschar, Sven; Hermelink, Andreas; Boermans, Thomas; Pagliano, Lorenzo; Zangheri, Paolo; Voss, Karsten;
Musall, Eike (2013): Towards nearly zero-energy buildings. Definition of common principles under the EPBD.
Research report by order of the European Commission. ECOFYS; Politecnico di Milano; University of Wuppertal.
Cologne, Milan, Wuppertal Schimschar, Sven; Hermelink, Andreas; Boermans, Thomas; Pagliano, Lorenzo;
Zangheri, Paolo; Voss, Karsten; Musall, Eike.
77 A 90% reduction of emissions until 2050 compared to 1990 would require average emissions in the building
stock of approx. 3 kg CO2eq/(m2.y), which can be considered a benchmark that definitely should not be exceeded
by a NZEB(cf. Boermans, Thomas; Hermelink, Andreas; Schimschar, Sven; Grözinger, Jan; Offermann, Markus;
Engelund, Kirsten et al. (2011): Principles for nearly zero-energy buildings. Paving the way for effective
implementation of policy requirements). Such interpretation of NZEB could be taken up by Energy Performance
Certificates’ top performance class like “A+” or “A++”.
82
trend of NZEB for the period 2012-2016,78 by 2016 the perceived share of high
performing buildings (similar or close to NZEB definitions) in new construction was just
above 20% across the EU28. It is important to point out that these results are based
on architect surveys and therefore represent the subjective perceptions of these
important market players.79 However, this does not need to be in line with already
mandatory requirements in some countries that all new buildings already need to be
NZEB (e.g. France or Luxembourg), but it reflects the qualitative perception in the
market.
New constructed buildings with high standards also deserve attention for another
reason: Typically, they serve as locomotives of innovations in the construction sector,
which afterwards are adopted in renovation. From this perspective it makes sense that
the EPBD requires NZEB for new buildings first and asks Member States to gradually
increase the share of NZEB in renovation. Like with new buildings this study found an
upward trend for NZEB in renovation as well, although on a lower level.
Specifically for NZEB, it is very hard to compare ambition levels across Member States
due to very different approaches across Member States for defining them and to
calculate their energy performance.80 To allow Member States an easier exchange of
experience and to avoid losing focus on the efficiency first principle, a similar approach
for NZEB that would produce an indicative performance level being comparable across
Member States would be of help. As this study covered the period 2012-2016 it is
hard to predict whether Member States will have fully implemented NZEB by 2020
meeting an ambition level as e.g. set out by the Commission’s NZEB
recommendation.81 For 2016 architects in EU28 perceived a share of newly
constructed “high performance buildings” being just above 20%. When extrapolating
the 2012-2016 trend of slow market uptake of buildings which architects perceive to
be NZEB to the end of 2020, a 100% implementation of such ambition level does not
seem to be very likely. Yet in the light of the EPBD requirements for all new buildings
to be NZEB by 2021, Member States should ensure maximum ambition, clear legal
framework and suitable market conditions to avoid lost opportunities.
Several projects with well-designed NZEB have demonstrated that ambition levels like
the benchmarks set out in the Commission’s recommendation are achievable at
reasonable cost, typically being only slightly above the cost-optimal point if well-
designed. The Commission’s cost-optimality guidelines82 encourage Member States to
use the left border of the cost-optimal range as guidance for the definition of their
78 For all buildings, new and renovation, for EU28 level the share of buildings with standards close to NZEB rose
from 14.4% in 2012 to 19.8% in 2016. This is a relative increase of 38%.
79 The period covered by the study (2012-2016) did not allow to comprehensively examine the NZEB uptake
according to the NZEB definitions which are supposed to be mandatory only after 2020 (or 2018 for public
buildings).
80 In this study, primary energy savings achieved through energy renovation have been calculated using the same
set of primary energy factors and the same calculation algorithm for all countries while considering differences in
climate and building types.
81 European Commission (EC) (Ed.) (2016): Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1318 of 29 July 2016. on
82 EC Guidelines Regulation No 244 (2012): Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No
244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-
optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements.
83
cost-optimal level. This is one possibility to increase the ambition level and to merge
NZEB and cost-optimality. As NZEB gain market shares across Europe, the gap
between NZEB and cost-optimal levels is expected to steadily decrease and eventually
disappear, which means that NZEB will become cost-optimal.
Full implementation of NZEB by 2020 does not just require the availability of suitable
technology, it also requires full readiness of all market players meaning a steep uptake
of NZEB capacities till then. In this context, it is alarming that a recent study of the
Architect’s Council of Europe found a significant decline in the proportion of architects
who are designing to nearly zero-energy standards more than 50% of the time – from
14% in 2016 to 11% in 2018.83 This hints at significant challenges for both capacity
building and market readiness towards NZEB.
Determinants of energy renovation
Apart from pure numbers on status and progress of energy renovation and uptake of
NZEB, this study also looked at triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives on the
demand side (consumers split into tenants, owner-occupiers and landlords) and supply
side (architects, main contractors and installers).
The most common triggers for all types of consumers turned out to be necessary
maintenance, replacement of a defective component (in a non-emergency situation),
the available budget to carry out the renovation or the will to counteract shortcomings
that lead to health issues.
This means that information on potential energy renovation measures should be

closely linked to maintenance and inspections as it serves as an effective trigger.
Maintenance and inspections are the business of main contractors and installers.
Hence, specifically these groups must be used as ambassadors for promoting energy
renovation of technical building systems. Interestingly, inspections - compared to
EPCs - appear to have more influence on triggering energy renovation than on
subsequent phases.
Going back to the long list of most common triggers for policy making, it is important
to note that not only “hard” factors like technical necessities (breakdown of
components, maintenance) trigger energy renovations but also “soft” emotional
factors, and especially health. Recent studies have shown a clear relationship between
the quality of dwelling, energy poverty and health. 84 For a high-energy performance
scenario the Commission mentions annual health benefits of €64-140 billion through
improved life quality, less public health spending and fewer missed days of work. 85
The most relevant aspects of energy renovation for consumers are not the energy
savings, but the cost savings, making their home more comfortable and healthier. This
is another aspect that needs to be considered in Member States’ long-term renovation
83 Architects' Council of Europe (2019): The Architectural Profession in Europe 2018. A Sector Study.
84 VELUX; Ecofys Germany GmbH; Fraunhofer Institut für Bauphysik (Fraunhofer IBP); Copenhagen Economics
(2017): Healthy Homes Barometer 2017. Buildings and Their Impact on the Health of Europeans and Ecofys - A
Navigant company; Fraunhofer IBP; Velux (2018): Healthy Homes Barometer 2018. (Un)healthy homes, offices,
and suburbanisation in Europe. Edited by Velux.
85 Kephalopoulos, Stylianos; Geiss, Otmar; Barrero-Moreno, Josefa; D'Agostino, Delia; Paci, Daniele (2017):
Promoting healthy and energy efficient buildings in the European Union: National implementation of related
requirements of the Energy Performance Buildings Directive (2010/31/EU). JRC Science for Policy Report.
84
strategies and the set of measures that aim to activate the market towards achieving
a decarbonised building stock.
Results show that different instruments like EPCs (recommendations and rating),
information on the energy bill and energy labels for energy using components have
different levels of importance throughout the “renovation journey”. While most of
these instruments have limited function as triggers, their influence is much higher
once the renovation decision has been taken. Then they help to justify the decision, to
select or recommend the right solutions from the maze of options, or to increase the
ambition level. For example, the surveys revealed that component labels are
especially useful for installers both as a quality indicator and as a means to convince
their clients to choose an efficient product.
Focusing on the example of EPCs, there are significant differences between countries.
In some countries EPCs are a significant trigger for energy renovation, while in others
this impact is lower. EPCs’ relevance significantly increases the moment the decision
to renovate has been taken. This is when recommendations on the EPC get relevant to
overcome the uncertainty about which measures to take and where the rating itself
motivates to improve
However, the study reveals that in many cases the importance of EPCs is
underestimated. More promotion of EPCs is needed, especially amongst architects,
main contractors and installers.
The in-depth analysis of the demand side that has been conducted, shows noteworthy
differences between countries but also between age groups within countries. Aspects
like information sources used, share of own capital in the investment, willingness to
take out loans or the importance of health improvements significantly differ between
age groups and need to be carefully considered when setting up national policy
instruments for financial support, regulations and information. It is another aspect to
be included in the currently ongoing drafting of national long-tern renovation
strategies. Above mentioned health as a driver to do better or deeper renovations
appears to be a consumers’ driver, which at the same time tends to be
underestimated by architects and installers and probably could be utilised more in
their communication towards the demand side.
Talking about architects and installers leads to another topic that the study concludes
is under-represented in the current discussion; the role of so-called intermediaries in
renovation activities, meaning architects, but also - and specifically - main contractors
and installers. Above all these are the people consumers mostly listen to when
deciding about the extent and depth of energy efficiency measures.
Analyses show that intermediaries themselves are driven both by their own
motivation, e.g. to benefit the environment but also and mainly by a most-hassle-free
delivery, installation and after-care. These aspects are related to the quality and
service offered by manufacturers of components and technical building systems, which
creates strong links between installers or main contractors and those manufacturers
who manage to provide them with such “convenient all-in-one packages”.
From the literature it is known that “construction team” approaches have a positive
impact on quality. Yet consumers but also commercial investors feel uncertain about
what to expect from installers, which certainly partly explains the high share of
laymen taking responsibility for quality controls. Finally, the attitude of about half
installers across Europe already dealing with energy renovations that energy efficiency
measures are too complicated to install certainly also hampers quality. More
85
collaborations of this kind towards “one-stop-shops” also taking architects on board
will create benefits both on the demand side and supply side.
These insights highlight a clear need for a differentiated, target group-oriented

communication and trainings both on the demand side (tenants, owners, and
landlords) and on the supply side (installers, main contractors, architects) due to the
quite different views and habits in different countries.
Fostering collaboration between installers, main contractors and manufacturers might

not only help to mitigate both the relatively wide-spread uncertainty about what to
expect from installers or main-contractors. It also might support installers to master
the complexity of energy efficiency components and change their view of efficiency
components being too complex or too hard to install.
Even many architects find it hard to select the most suitable components or products,
which is time-consuming. This over-consumption of time related to energy efficiency
measures in the eyes of many architects continues on the construction site, where
they feel quality controls of energy efficiency measures take too much time.
This study confirmed that intermediaries appear to have a much-underestimated

impact on the uptake of energy renovation with regard to both speed and depth. As
long as these intermediaries do not fully support energy efficiency measures, they will
not act as the main lever for boosting renovation activities in the market which they
could be. Hence, policy measures and long-term renovation strategies need to find
solutions on how to better activate installers, main contractors and architects for the
benefit of reaching a climate neutral building stock.
Talking about quality assurance, there are very different views on responsibility.
Tenants equally distribute it between themselves, main contractors and installers.
Owners have a clear emphasis on being responsible themselves (more than 40%),
while landlords assign highest shares to architects (around 12%) and main contractors
(around 37%).
Last but not least, consumers, architects and contractors/installers across the board
view financial and administrative barriers as being the main roadblocks for consumers
carrying out energy renovation works or for those on the supply side to recommend
such renovations. In this context, it is striking, that a vast majority of consumers use
their own capital to finance renovation works, suggesting that consumers don’t
undertake energy renovations unless they have sufficient own capital. The most
popular combination is with a loan at market conditions rather than with a preferential
loan. Still only 29% of consumers indicated having used two or more funding sources.
It indicates the strong negative attitude towards loans, the older the consumer the
stronger. On the other hand “grants, loans etc.” are mentioned to be a very strong
incentive to overcome financial barriers. Merging these two findings, it can be
assumed that consumers clearly prefer grants over loans. These findings confirms the
need to simplify administrative process, to de-risk energy efficiency investments for
buildings and significantly leverage the private investments for buildings; renovation –
in line with the pillars of the “Smart Finance for Smart Buildings” initiative. For
commercial clients financing and savings appear to be even bigger drivers than for
consumers.
Results show that energy renovation and uptake of NZEB is not a ‘simple’ story but
the result of their complex determinants like drivers, barriers and incentives.
86
For effective policy making, results show that it is worthwhile segmenting into
landlords, tenants and owners as well as age groups, income levels, professional or
private investors, regions or countries – and to not forget intermediaries. This will help
policy-makers to design tailor-made effective packages of policy instruments to get
building renovation on a track towards a carbon-neutral economy.
87
COUNTRY REPORTS
Introduction
This report presents findings from the 2018-2019 “comprehensive study of building
energy renovation activities and the uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings in the EU”
at EU Member State level.
The overall aim of this study is to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the renovation
activities and nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) uptake in the EU and Member
States from 2012 to 2016. For this purpose, a combination of sound statistical
analyses was applied, including the conduction of surveys with consumers, architects,
installers and main contractors, and the purchase and analysis of market data on sales
of relevant components. A set of quantitative and qualitative indicators was developed
in line with the indicators of the Building Stock Observatory (BSO). The development
of a EU28 building stock inventory and the collection of new construction data in the
EU further informed the analysis. Data was collected and analysed separately for
residential and non-residential buildings. The findings will be used to inform the
design, monitoring and evaluation of energy efficiency policies.
Each Member State report includes the following:
 Population size (Eurostat, demo_pjan)
 Cooling/heating degree days: “Heating degree day (HDD) index is a

weather-based technical index designed to describe the need for the heating
energy requirements of buildings. Cooling degree day (CDD) index is a
weather-based technical index designed to describe the need for the cooling
(air-conditioning) requirements of buildings. HDD and CDD are derived from
meteorological observations of air temperature, interpolated to regular grids at
25 km resolution for Europe.” (Eurostat, nrg_chdd_a)
 Dampness damages in buildings as percentage of the population: This

information is based on the EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU
SILC question HH040): “Do you have any of the following problems with your
dwelling/accommodation? A leaking roof; damp walls/floors/foundation; rot in
window frames or floor”. As different sources such as Eurostat (mdho01) and
the Healthy Homes Barometer 2017 have shown, adults living in a damp
dwelling have a significantly higher probability to report poor health.
 Emission mitigation [ktCO2e/a], residential/non-residential (average

2012-2016): This is the average reduction of all residential / non-residential
building stock’s total annual GHG emissions - from heating, cooling, ventilation,
domestic hot water, lighting (only non-residential buildings) and auxiliary
energy - that was achieved compared to the previous year during the period
2012-2016 by means of energy renovation.
 Jobs maintained by building renovations [FTEs], residential and non-

residential (average 2012-2016): This number indicates the total number
of fulltime employees (FTE) in the construction sector involved in renovations
per year on average for the period 2012-2016. A factor of 8.52 FTE per million
Euro spent has been applied based on Janssen and Staniaszek (2012) and
Amélie Cuq et al. (2011).
88
 Total building stock [floor area, m²] shares (2016): Different sources
were used to determine the EU and Member State building stock, obtaining
data per building floor area and number of buildings.
 Renovation rate [%/stock] (average 2012-2016): This is the cumulated

affected building floor area [m2] of all buildings that underwent an energy
renovation in calendar year x (e.g. 2013) divided by the total floor area [m2]
of the building stock in the same period. The unit is [%]. The total energy
renovation rate is defined as the sum of all renovation rates of the covered
depths: “below threshold” (x < 3% savings), “light” (3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings),
“medium” (30% < x ≤ 60% savings) and “deep” (x > 60% savings).
 Total investments [Euro in million] (average 2012-2016): The approach

for calculating the investment costs is based on the investment cost database
for building construction products, and direct cost information obtained from
the surveys.
 Primary energy savings total [TOE] (average 2012-2016): This is the

average reduction of all residential / non-residential building stock’s total
annual primary energy use - from heating, cooling, ventilation, domestic hot
water, lighting (only non-residential buildings) and auxiliary energy - that was
achieved compared to the previous year during the period 2012-2016 by
means of energy renovation.
 Specific primary energy savings [kWh/(m².y)] (average 2012-2016):

This is the average improvement of the energy performance of a residential /
non-residential building through an average energy renovation (before- after
comparison). It is expressed as kWh primary energy savings per m2 floor area
and year.
 Definition of nearly-zero energy buildings (NZEB): The numbers

presented reflect a market perspective, meaning how market players perceive
the uptake of a building standard, which in the local market is commonly
understood to be “nearly zero-energy building”. Therefore, the numbers should
not be understood as the rate of buildings being compatible with an official
NZEB definition that may exist today. The factsheets also provide a numerical
indicator of primary energy use for NZEB which could reflect the official
Member State’s definition or be representative for what is expected for this
Member State based on different sources.
 Total number of nearly-zero energy buildings and their share of the

construction market [%] by year: This information is based on survey data
and represents the perceived uptake from the perspective of architects. This
may differ from an uptake based on current definitions of NZEB by Member
States.
89
Austria
Jobs maintained by
Population (2018) 8,822,267 building renovations
[FTEs], residential 125,000
(average 2012-
Cooling/heating 2016)
32.6/3196.5
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
building renovations
Dampness damages [FTEs], non- 29,000
in buildings [% of 12% residential (average
population] 2012-2016)
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 310/180
residential (average
2012-2016)
Total building stock [floor area, m²] shares, 2016
90
Renovation rate [%/stock], average 2012-2016
Total investments [Euro (million)], average 2012-2016
91
Primary energy savings total [TOE], average 2012-2016
Specific primary energy savings [kWh/(m2.y)], average 2012-2016
92
NZEB1
Total number of nearly-zero energy buildings and their share of
the construction market [%] by year
Indicative numerical indicator of
primary energy use:
Residential:
125 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
125 kWh/(m².y)
1
The numbers presented reflect a market perspective, meaning how market players
perceive the uptake of a building standard, which in the local market is commonly
understood to be “nearly zero”. Therefore, the numbers should not be understood as the
rate of buildings being compatible with an official NZEB definition that may exist today. The
factsheets also provide a numerical indicator of primary energy use for NZEB which could
reflect the official Member State’s definition or be representative for what is expected for
that Member State based on different sources. For further information see annex to the
final report, section 1.3.
93
Belgium
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
33.1/2513.9
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
94
95
Specific primary energy savings [kWh/(m².y)], average 2012-2016
96
NZEB2
Total number of nearly-zero energy buildings and their share of the
construction market [%] by year
primary energy use:
Residential:
30-70 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
45-100 kWh/(m².y)
2
97
Bulgaria
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
125.5/2357.9
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
98
99
100
NZEB3
primary energy use:
Residential:
40 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
40 kWh/(m².y)
3
101
Croatia
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
144.6/2148.2
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
102
103
104
NZEB4
primary energy use:
Residential:
55 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
90 kWh/(m².y)
4
105
Cyprus
Jobs maintained by
Population (2018) 864,236 building renovations
(average 2012-
805.7/476.9
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
106
107
108
NZEB5
primary energy use:
Residential:
100 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
125 kWh/(m².y)
55
109
Czech Republic
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
45.8/2996.4
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
110
111
112
NZEB6
primary energy use:
Residential:
50 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
75 kWh/(m².y)
6
113
Denmark
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
14.0/3051.1
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
114
115
116
NZEB7
primary energy use:
Residential:
20 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
25 kWh/(m².y)
7
117
Estonia
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
25.6/4064.7
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
118
119
120
NZEB8
primary energy use:
Residential:
65 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
110 kWh/(m².y)
8
121
Finland
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
8.8/5363.5
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
122
123
124
NZEB9
primary energy use:
Residential:
90 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
100 kWh/(m².y)
9
125
France
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
64.9/2183.6
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 1,670/1,148
2012-2016)
126
127
128
NZEB10
primary energy use:
Residential:
80 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
110 kWh/(m².y)
10
129
Germany
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
51.2/2775.8
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 1,988/1,966
2012-2016)
130
131
132
NZEB11
primary energy use:
Residential:
40 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
75 kWh/(m².y)
11
133
Greece
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
306.2/1382.7
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
134
135
136
NZEB12
primary energy use:
Residential:
80 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
85 kWh/(m².y)
12
137
Hungary
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
124.5/2471.6
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
138
139
140
NZEB13
primary energy use:
Residential:
105 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
90 kWh/(m².y)
13
141
Ireland
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
0.0/2756.0
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
142
143
144
NZEB14
primary energy use:
Residential:
15-30 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
40-55 kWh/(m².y)
14
145
Italy
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
232.7/1753.7
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 893/1,038
2012-2016)
146
147
148
NZEB15
primary energy use:
Residential:
45 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
60 kWh/(m².y)
15
149
Latvia
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
23.5/3890.7
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
150
151
November 2019 70
NZEB16
primary energy use:
Residential:
95 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
95 kWh/(m².y)
16
153
Lithuania
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
24.7/3696.1
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
154
155
156
NZEB17
primary energy use:
Residential:
60 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
80 kWh/(m².y)
17
157
Luxembourg
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
47.2/2669.6
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
158
159
160
NZEB18
primary energy use:
Residential:
45 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
60 kWh/(m².y)
18
161
Malta
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
625.7/366.1
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
162
163
164
NZEB19
primary energy use:
Residential:
55 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
175 kWh/(m².y)
19
165
Netherlands
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
31.4/2526.8
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
166
167
168
NZEB20
primary energy use:
Residential:
25 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
40 kWh/(m².y)
20
169
Poland
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
29.7/3125.4
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 1,027/925
2012-2016)
170
171
172
NZEB21
primary energy use:
Residential:
75 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
125 kWh/(m².y)
21
173
Portugal
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
233.2/1304.6
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
174
175
176
NZEB22
primary energy use:
Residential:
35 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
130 kWh/(m².y)
22
177
Romania
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
84.9/2749.1
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
178
179
180
NZEB23
primary energy use:
Residential:
120 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
90 kWh/(m².y)
23
181
Slovakia
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
53.0/2922.0
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
182
183
184
NZEB24
primary energy use:
Residential:
45 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
65 kWh/(m².y)
24
185
Slovenia
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
51.1/2583.8
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
186
Residential: Renovation rate [%/stock], average 2012-2016
187
188
NZEB25
primary energy use:
Residential:
80 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
55 kWh/(m².y)
25
189
Spain
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
239.2/1799.7
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
190
191
192
NZEB26
primary energy use:
Residential:
50 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
100 kWh/(m².y)
26
193
Sweden
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
4.5/5162.8
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
2012-2016)
194
195
196
NZEB27
primary energy use:
Residential:
85 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
100 kWh/(m².y)
27
197
United Kingdom
Jobs maintained by
(average 2012-
1.1/2936.3
degree days (2018)
Jobs maintained by
Emission mitigation
[ktCO2e/a],
residential/non- 1,112/824
2012-2016)
198
199
200
NZEB28
primary energy use:
Residential:
45 kWh/(m².y)
Non-residential:
150 kWh/(m².y)
28
201
ANNEXES
1. Definitions
This section provides insights into the partial overhaul of definitions which partly
already existed from the EU Building Observatory. For the purpose of this study, also
new definitions were developed.
1.1. Renovation & uptake of NZEB
Renovation & uptake of NZEB

Energy An energy renovation means the change of one or more building elements,
renovation according to EPBD Art. 2, 9 (i.e. building envelope and technical building systems),
having the potential to significantly affect the calculated or measured amount of
energy needed to meet the energy demand associated with one or several of the
following building services (according to ISO 52000-1) which correspond to a typical
use of the assessed building;
 Space heating and cooling;
 Hot water;
 Ventilation (incl. humidification and dehumidification);
 (built-in) Lighting
 Auxiliary energy needed by TBS to provide these services is also included.
In the following we call such change of a building element a “technical measure”.
Affected building floor area: The building floor area affected by an energy
renovation is the floor area affected by a specific technical measure. For a proper
use of this indicator in subsequent calculations of renovation rates, it needs to be
known whether a technical measure just affects one (or more) building unit(s) (e.g.
one apartment) or the whole building, as the respective floor area needs to be
considered.
Effective date of energy renovation: A renovation measure is assigned to the

calendar year, where the measure has been completed. In case one measure is
completed in January of a calendar year and another measure in December of the
same calendar year, the cumulated impact of both measures is assigned to that
calendar year and treated as one package, even if both measures are decoupled
from a technical perspective.
Depth of energy renovation: Four renovation depths are defined that represent
different ranges of primary energy savings achieved with a specific measure or
package of measures that has/have been implemented in a calendar year:
 Below threshold (x < 3% savings)
 Light renovations (3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings)
 Medium renovations (30% < x ≤ 60% savings)
 Deep renovations (x > 60% savings)
The different depths by definition do not necessarily need to cover a specific

minimum number of measures but are just classified depending on the savings
achieved compared to the primary energy performance level of the building in the
calendar year before the energy renovation.
202
Step-by-step energy renovations: In case a building or building unit undergoes
energy renovation measures in one calendar year that represent only a part of a
multi-calendar year renovation (e.g. following an individual building energy
renovation roadmap, i.e. a package consisting of a series of technical measures
aiming at higher savings), only the technical measures and its specific savings will
be assigned to the calendar year x where that individual technical measure has been
completed. Measures realised in other calendar years will also just be counted in the
year the measures have been completed.
Rate of energy renovation: This is the cumulated affected building floor area [m2]
of all buildings that underwent an energy renovation in calendar year x (e.g. 2013)
divided by the total floor area [m2] of the building stock in the same period. The
rate of energy renovation can be further split up geographically (e.g. EU28, each EU
Member State), by building type (e.g. residential and non-residential buildings) or
by depth of energy renovation.
The unit is [%].
The total energy renovation rate is defined as the sum of all renovation rates of the
covered depths “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep”.
Other measures for the rate of energy renovation can be derived from that
approach: the cumulated affected building floor area [m 2] of all buildings that
underwent an energy renovation in calendar year x (e.g. 2013) can be transformed
into an estimation of the number of buildings/building units that underwent an
energy renovation when there is useful information or reasonable assumptions can
be made about the average floor area of all buildings that underwent an energy
renovation.
Non- Non-energy renovations are those that do not affect building elements according to
energy EPBD Art. 2, 9 (i.e. building envelope and technical building systems) and thus do
renovation not have the potential to significantly affect the calculated or measured amount of
energy needed as described for “energy renovation”.
Examples: electric installations, interior wall painting and plastering, interior

flooring, new tiles, new kitchen, new bathroom, new carpets etc.
Energy An energy renovation is classified as a renovation “below threshold” in cases in

renovations which the primary energy demand of a building (based on calculated or measured
below performance) has been reduced by x < 3% savings compared to the primary energy
threshold demand of the building in the calendar year before the energy renovation.
It was decided to include this minimum threshold in order to

a) avoid misleadingly large numbers of light renovations (caused by including
technical measures like e.g. replacing a few light bulbs in a non-residential
building) and
b) separate out and highlight those renovations, where significant lost-
opportunities have been created as for improving the energy performance
(e.g. full painting of all exterior walls without using the opportunity to
improve the energy performance by adding /thick enough) insulation).
Light An energy renovation is classified as light renovation in cases in which the primary
renovation energy demand of a building (based on calculated or measured performance) has
been reduced by 3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings compared to the primary energy demand
of the building in the calendar year before the energy renovation.
Medium An energy renovation is classified as medium renovation in cases in which the
renovation primary energy demand of a building (based on calculated or measured
performance) has been reduced by 30% < x ≤ 60% compared to the primary
energy demand of the building in the calendar year before the energy renovation.
203
Deep An energy renovation is classified as deep renovation in cases in which the primary
renovation energy demand of a building (based on calculated or measured performance) has
been reduced by x > 60% compared to the primary energy demand of the building
in the calendar year before the energy renovation.
Weighted This is the cumulated saved primary energy consumption [kWh] of all buildings that
energy underwent an energy renovation (i.e. the sum of all “below threshold”, “light”,
renovation “medium” and “deep” renovations) in calendar year x (e.g. 2013) divided by the
rate total primary energy consumption [kWh] of the building stock in the same period.
The weighted energy renovation rate can be further split up geographically (e.g.
EU28, each EU Member State), or by building type (e.g. residential and non-
residential buildings).
The unit is [%].
The total energy renovation rate is defined as the sum of all renovation rates of the
covered depths “below threshold”, “light”, “medium” and “deep”.
NZEB To respect official national definitions for NZEB (new buildings and renovations) that
uptake might be available in the Member States, NZEB are not defined based on a specific
uniform primary energy saving threshold (like above with light, medium and deep
renovation), but official national NZEB renovation definitions will be used to track
NZEB renovations under “NZEB uptake”.
Official NZEB definitions are considered as such when there has been an official
Member States publication until 31 December 2017 which includes the final national
NZEB definition. Also, similar definitions if their specifications are unambiguously
covered by the official national NZEB definition will be included within NZEB uptake
if published before 31 December 2017.
In countries without a NZEB definition in place till 31 December 2017, market actors
will be asked for proxy standards that in their view meet the definition given in
EPBD (2010) Art. 2, 2: “a building that has a very high energy performance […] The
nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very
significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from
renewable sources produced on-site or nearby”.
Due to the period covered by the survey (2012—2016) when almost no official
definitions have been in place and market actors have not been familiar with the
NZEB concept, NZEB uptake will be quantified rather based on qualitative
information sources (such as the surveys undertaken). However, in cases in which
the number of NZEBs has been tracked on an official level and this information is
available until end of 2018, this data will be used as well.
1.2. Building type characterisation and used reference buildings for

measuring renovation activities
Residential building types and information on reference buildings used
As further described in section 3.5, each of the surveyed persons (residential cases)
has been allocated to a reference building from the TABULA/EPISCOPE project. By
taking this approach, several questions about the building or dwelling the respective
respondent is referring to could be avoided. The TABULA/EPISCOPE project provides a
complex database of different residential building types of different construction
periods in the majority of EU countries. The database contains information about the
geometry of these buildings, including window fractions, number of dwellings and floor
area, but also about the energetic reference situation. Accordingly, in the surveys, the
respondent is asked to select the main building category s/he is referring to, including
the construction period. This information has later been used to clearly allocate each
204
case to one of the TABULA/EPISCOPE reference buildings. The main building types
provided as options in the questionnaires are presented in the overview below.
Building type Description Example pictures [IWU, 2015 & VITO, 2011] 1
Single family Detached residential

house (SFH), buildings with one or
detached two dwelling units.
Semi- One-sided attached

detached SFH residential building
type with one or two
dwelling units
constructed as row
end house, duplex
house or similar.
Terraced / Two-sided attached

row single- residential building
family house type with one or two
(TH) dwelling units
constructed as row
house.
Small multi- Residential building

family house type with 3-6
(MFH) dwellings
Medium MFH Residential building

type with 7-12
dwellings
1 http://www.building-typology.eu/downloads/public/docs/brochure/DE_TABULA_TypologyBrochure_IWU.pdf
http://episcope.eu/fileadmin/tabula/public/docs/scientific/BE_TABULA_ScientificReport_VITO.pdf
205
Large MFH / Residential building
Apartment type with 13 or
Block (AB) more dwellings
Table 1 presents which residential reference buildings have been used during the data
processing stage for the calculations. The different construction periods per country
have been embedded in the questionnaires to be able to directly allocate the specific
case (respondent) to a specific reference building according to the TABULA/EPISCOPE
building typology. In case of countries that are not covered in TABULA/EPISCOPE,
based on an analysis of the climate (heating degree days) and GDP, the most suitable
TABULA/EPISCOPE target country with data has been identified. The reference
buildings of this “comparable” country have later been used for data processing for
this country.
Table 1: List of addressed reference building parameters used in the surveys
Country Single Semi- Terraced / Small Medium Large MFH If not

family detached row multi- MFH / covered in
house SFH single- family Apartment TABULA/E
(SFH), family house Block (AB) PISCOPE,
detached house (MFH) data taken
(TH) from
country
Austria … 1919
1919 - 1944
… 1919
1919 - 1944
… 1919
1919 - 1944
… 1919
1919 - 1944
1945 - 1960 1945 - 1960 1945 - 1960 1945 - 1960
1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980
1981 - 1990 - 1981 - 1990 - 1981 - 1990 1981 - 1990
1991 - 2000 1991 - 2000 1991 - 2000 1991 - 2000
2001 - 2009 2001 - 2009 2001 - 2009 2001 - 2009
2010 … 2010 … 2010 … 2010 …
Belgium … 1945
1946 - 1970
.. 1945
1946 - 1970
… 1945
1946 - 1970
… 1945
1946-1970
… 1945
1946 - 1970
… 1945
1946 - 1970
1971 - 1990 1971 - 1990 1971 - 1990 1971 - 1990 1971 - 1990 1971 - 1990
1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005
2006 - 2011 2006 - 2011 2006 - 2011 2006 - 2011 2006 - 2011 2006 - 2011
2012 … 2012 … 2012 … 2012 … 2012 … 2012 …
Bulgaria … 1918 … 1918 … 1918 .. 1918
1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929
1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959
1960 - 1998 - 1960 - 1998 - 1960 - 1998 1960 - 1998
1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008
2009 … 2009 … 2009 … 2009 …
Croatia … 1918
1919 - 1929
… 1918
1919 - 1929
… 1918
1919 - 1929
.. 1918
1919 - 1929
Bulgaria
1) HDD per
1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 year: Croatia
1960 - 1998 - 1960 - 1998 - 1960 - 1998 1960 - 1998 = 2798;
1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 Bulgaria =
2009 … 2009 … 2009 … 2009 … 2953
Cyprus … 1980 … 1980 … 1980
1981 -2006 1981 -2006 1981 -2006
2007 - 2013 - 2007 - 2013 - 2007 - 2013 -
2014 … 2014 … 2014 …
Czech … 1920 … 1920 … 1920 … 1920
1921 - 1945 - 1921 - 1945 - 1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945
Republic 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960
206
(TH) from
country
1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980 1961 - 1980
1981 - 1994 1981 - 1994 1981 - 1994 1981 - 1994
1995 - 2010 1995 - 2010 1995 - 2010 1995 - 2010
2011 … 2011 … 2011 … 2011 …
Denmark … 1850 … 1850 … 1850
1851 - 1930 1851 - 1930 1851 - 1930
1931 - 1950 1931 - 1950 1931 - 1950
1951 - 1960 1951 - 1960 1951 - 1960
1961 - 1972 1961 - 1972 1961 - 1972
- - -
1973 - 1978 1973 - 1978 1973 - 1978
1979 - 1998 1979 - 1998 1979 - 1998
1999 - 2006 1999 - 2006 1999 - 2006
2007 - 2010 2007 - 2010 2007 - 2010
2011 … 2011 … 2011 …
Estonia Poland
1) GDP per
capita:
… 1945 … 1945 … 1945 … 1945
Estonia =
1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966
13651;
1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985
Poland =
1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 1986 - 1992
12409
1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002
2) HDD per
2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008
year: Estonia
2008 … 2008 … 2008 … 2008 …
= 4731;
Poland =
3725
Finland Sweden
1) GDP per
capita:
Finland =
… 1960 … 1960
43052;
1961 - 1975 1961 - 1975
Sweden =
1976 - 1985 - - - 1976 - 1985 -
49587
1986 - 1995 1986 - 1995
2) HDD per
1996 - 2005 1996 - 2005
year: Finland
= 5251;
Sweden =
4496
France …1914 …1914 …1914 …1914
1915 - 1948 1915 - 1948 1915 - 1948 1915 - 1948
1949 - 1967 1949 - 1967 1949 - 1967 1949 - 1967
1968 - 1974 1968 - 1974 1968 - 1974 1968 - 1974
1975 - 1981 1975 - 1981 1975 - 1981 1975 - 1981
- -
1982 - 1989 1982 - 1989 1982 - 1989 1982 - 1989
1990 - 1999 1990 - 1999 1990 - 1999 1990 - 1999
2000 - 2005 2000 - 2005 2000 - 2005 2000 - 2005
2006 - 2012 2006 - 2012 2006 - 2012 2006 - 2012
2012 … 2012 … 2012 … 2012 …
Germany … 1859 … 1859 … 1859 … 1859
1860 - 1918 1860 - 1918 1860 - 1918 1860 - 1918
1919 - 1948 1919 - 1948 1919 - 1948 1919 - 1948
1949 - 1957 1949 - 1957 1949 - 1957 1949 - 1957
1958 - 1968 1958 - 1968 1958 - 1968 1958 - 1968
1969 - 1978 1969 - 1978 1969 - 1978 1969 - 1978
- -
1979 - 1983 1979 - 1983 1979 - 1983 1979 - 1983
1984 - 1994 1984 - 1994 1984 - 1994 1984 - 1994
1995 - 2001 1995 - 2001 1995 - 2001 1995 - 2001
2002 - 2009 2002 - 2009 2002 - 2009 2002 - 2009
2010 - 2015 2010 - 2015 2010 - 2015 2010 - 2015
2016 … 2016 … 2016 … 2016 …
Greece …1980 …1980
1981 - 2000 1981 - 2000
- - - -
2001 - 2010 2001 - 2010
2011 … 2011 …
Hungary …1944 …1944 …1944
1945 - 1979 1945 - 1979 1945 - 1979
1980 - 1989 - - - 1980 - 1989 1980 - 1989
1990 - 2005 1990 - 2005 1990 - 2005
2006 … 2006 … 2006 …
207
(TH) from
country
Ireland … 1899 … 1899 … 1899
1900 - 1929 1900 - 1929 1900 - 1929
1930 - 1949 1930 - 1949 1930 - 1949
1950 - 1966 1950 - 1966 1950 - 1966
1967 - 1977 1967 - 1977 1967 - 1977
- - -
1978 - 1982 1978 - 1982 1978 - 1982
1983 - 1993 1983 - 1993 1983 - 1993
1994 - 2004 1994 - 2004 1994 - 2004
2005 - 2010 2005 - 2010 2005 - 2010
2011 … 2011 … 2011 …
Italy … 1900 … 1900 … 1900 … 1900
1901 - 1920 1901 - 1920 1901 - 1920 1901 - 1920
1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945
1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960
- -
1961 - 1975 1961 - 1975 1961 - 1975 1961 - 1975
1976 - 1990 1976 - 1990 1976 - 1990 1976 - 1990
1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005 1991 - 2005
2006 … 2006 … 2006 … 2006 …
Latvia Poland
1) GDP per
capita 2018:
… 1945 … 1945 … 1945 … 1945
Latvia =
1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966
10731;
1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985
Poland =
1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 1986 - 1992
12409
1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002
2) HDD per
2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008
year: Latvia
2008 … 2008 … 2008 … 2008 …
= 4566;
Poland =
3725
Lithuania Poland
1) GDP per
capita:
… 1945 … 1945 … 1945 … 1945
Lithuania =
1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966
11671;
1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985
Poland =
1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 1986 - 1992
12409
1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002
2) HDD per
2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008
year:
2008 … 2008 … 2008 … 2008 …
Lithuania =
4311; Poland
= 3725
Luxem- Netherlands
… 1964 … 1946 … 1964 … 1964 … 1964
1) HDD per
bourg 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974
year:
1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991
- Luxembourg
1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005
= 3290;
2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014
Netherlands
2015 … 2015 … 2015 … 2015 … 2015 … = 3125
Malta Greece
1) GDP per
…1980 …1980
capita 2018:
1981 - 2000 1981 - 2000
- - - - Malta =
2001 - 2010 2001 - 2010
18473;
2011 … 2011 …
Greece =
20485
Nether- … 1964 … 1946 … 1964 … 1964 … 1964
1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974 1965 - 1974
lands 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991 1975 - 1991
-
1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005 1992 - 2005
2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014 2006 - 2014
2015 … 2015 … 2015 … 2015 … 2015 …
Poland … 1945 … 1945 … 1945 … 1945
1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966 1946 - 1966
1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985 1967 - 1985
1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 - 1986 - 1992 1986 - 1992
1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002 1993 - 2002
2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008 2003 - 2008
2008 … 2008 … 2008 … 2008 …
208
(TH) from
country
Portugal Greece
1) GDP per
capita 2018:
Portugal =
…1980 …1980 19629;
1981 - 2000 1981 - 2000 Greece =
- - - -
2001 - 2010 2001 - 2010 20485
2011 … 2011 … 2) HDD per
year:
Portugal =
1364; Greece
= 1644
Romania Bulgaria
1) GDP per
capita 2018:
Romania =
… 1918 … 1918 … 1918 .. 1918
5844;
1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929 1919 - 1929
Bulgaria =
1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959 1930 - 1959
- - 7079
1960 - 1998 1960 - 1998 1960 - 1998 1960 - 1998
2) HDD per
1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008 1999 - 2008
year:
2009 … 2009 … 2009 … 2009 …
Romania =
3320;
Bulgaria =
2953
Slovakia Czech
Republic
1) GDP per
capita 2018:
Slovakia =
… 1920 … 1920 … 1920 17630; Czech
… 1920
1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945 1921 - 1945 Republic =
1921 - 1945
1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 1946 - 1960 16650
1946 - 1960
1961 - 1980 - 1961 - 1980 - 1961 - 1980 2) Used to be
1961 - 1980
1981 - 1994 1981 - 1994 1981 - 1994 one country
1981 - 1994
1995 - 2010 1995 - 2010 1995 - 2010 until 1992
1995 - 2010
2011 … 2011 … 2011 … 3) HDD per
year:
Slovakia =
3864; Czech
Republic =
3794
Slovenia … 1945 … 1945 … 1945 … 1945
1946 - 1970 1946 - 1970 1946 - 1970 1946 - 1970
1971 - 1980 1971 - 1980 1971 - 1980 1971 - 1980
- -
1981 - 2001 1981 - 2001 1981 - 2001 1981 - 2001
2002 - 2008 2002 - 2008 2002 - 2008 2002 - 2008
2009 … 2009 … 2009 … 2009 …
Spain … 1900 … 1900 … 1900 … 1900
1901 - 1936 1901 - 1936 1901 - 1936 1901 - 1936
1937 - 1959 1937 - 1959 1937 - 1959 1937 - 1959
1960 - 1979 1960 - 1979 1960 - 1979 1960 - 1979
1980 - 2006 1980 - 2006 1980 - 2006 1980 - 2006
2007 … 2007 … 2007 … 2007 …
Sweden … 1960 … 1960
1961 - 1975 1961 - 1975
1976 - 1985 - - - 1976 - 1985 -
1986 - 1995 1986 - 1995
1996 - 2005 1996 - 2005
United … 1918 … 1918 … 1918 … 1918
1919 - 1944 1919 - 1944 1919 - 1944 1919 - 1944
Kingdom 1945 - 1964 1945 - 1964 1945 - 1964 1945 - 1964
1965 - 1980 1965 - 1980 1965 - 1980 1965 - 1980
- -
1981-1990 1981-1990 1981-1990 1981-1990
1991 - 2003 1991 - 2003 1991 - 2003 1991 - 2003
2004 - 2009 2004 - 2009 2004 - 2009 2004 - 2009
2010 … 2010 … 2010 … 2010 …
209
Non-residential building types and information on reference buildings used
Based on EPBD Annex I, the following non-residential building types are used in this
study:
 Offices;
 Educational buildings;
 Hospitals;
 Hotels and restaurants;
 Sports facilities;
 Wholesale and retail trade services buildings;
 Other types of energy-consuming buildings.
Building type Abbreviation Examples of model buildings for the different types2
used in
indicator list
Offices; Office
Educational Education
buildings;
2 Source of pictures: Klauß & Maas (2010). It should be considered that the here presented picture for hospitals is
used for the illustration of a specific type of office building in the original source
210
Hospitals; Hospital
Hotels and Hotel

restaurants;
Sports Sport
facilities;
Wholesale Trade
and retail
trade services
buildings;
211
Other types Other
of energy-
consuming
buildings.
For each of these building types, different reference building information exists on
Member State level. Good guidance to deal with the complexity of this task is provided
by Tsitsanis et al. (2017)3. Accordingly, there are two main horizontal sources of
appropriate non-residential reference buildings; commercial reference building models
as defined by the U.S. Department of Energy 4 and the reference buildings as used in
the national cost-optimality calculations according to EPBD Article 4. For the purpose
of this study, we focused on the European reference buildings as used in the national
cost-optimality calculations.
Tsitsanis et al. (2017) analysed available non-residential reference building

specifications from the 2013 round of cost-optimality reports.5 Through an analysis of
all published cost-optimality reports (country reports only available in national
language have not been considered), useful reference building information has been
collected but it became obvious that no consistency is provided from one MS to the
other and in most cases, relevant details of the geometries were missing. Therefore, it
was decided to use average building floor spaces per MS and building type from the
H2020 project “Hotmaps Toolbox”6 and combine them with average ratios of floor area
to component area per building type from the cost-optimality reports to obtain the
required level of detail.
1.3. Nearly zero-energy building definitions as used in the surveys
The following sources have been used for the compilation of NZEB definitions:
 BPIE (2015): Nearly zero-energy buildings definitions across Europe. Factsheet. S.

4-5
 EPBD (2016): Overview of national applications of the Nearly Zero-Energy Building
(NZEB) definition. Detailed report. S. 6-9
 JRC (2017): Towards Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings in Europe: A Focus on Retrofit
in Non-Residential Buildings. S. 7
 JRC (2016): Synthesis Report on the National Plans for Nearly Zero-Energy
Buildings (NZEBs). S. 12-15
 CA EPBD (2015): Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
(EPBD). Featuring Country Reports.
 EPISCOPE (2014): Inclusion of New Buildings in Residential Building Typologies.
3 Tsitsanis Anastasios, Tsatsakis Konstantinos, Oxizidis Simeon, Bucur Mircea, Ring Daniel, Milne Caroline (2017).
Report on typology of buildings suitable for dual energy services. Deliverable from Horizon 2020 project “New
Buildings Energy Renovation Business Models incorporating dual energy services (Task 5.1)
4 https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercial-reference-buildings
5 However, also first reports from the 2018 round became available at
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings
6 https://gitlab.com/hotmaps/building-stock/tree/master
212
 Attia et al. (2017): Overview and future challenges of nearly zero-energy buildings
(NZEB) design in Southern Europe.
 JRC (2017), Country sheets for EU28 reflecting progress in implementing the EPBD
and improving energy performance of buildings,
 D'Agostino et al., Synthesis Report on the National Plans for NZEBs; EUR 27804 EN
 Building Stock Observatory (for the year 2015 as historical data only. Maximum
primary energy performance of nZEB)
 ZEBRA (2020): indicators for a sample of nZEB buildings and high efficient
buildings estimated to be at NZEB level, built recently in selected European
countries [Existing buildings only]
 Tzortzaki, A., Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings: Comparison of the targets set by the
European countries and analysis of their diffusion
NZEB Definitions for new constructions
The following list summarises all information on national NZEB definitions for new
constructions, status April 2018. Although the objective of the study was not to define
national NZEBs in detail, for completeness reasons the last column in the table also
contains indicative information about the range of primary energy requirements for
new buildings based on a literature review. However, it should be noted that different
calculation approaches might exist on national level, therefore values cannot easily be
compared to each other.
213
Member state Official NZEB Applicability Overall Year of enforcement Explanations Official Primary energy
definition of NZEB regulation indicators requirements
declared by definition on (If no official according to
MS? new NZEB literature
construction definition in review in
s? place) kW∙h/(m²•a)
(Source
indication 1-5)
Public Non-public
buildings buildings
Austria Yes Yes 1) OIB Guidelines 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 EPBD text of NZEB is - 160 – 170
6; 2) National implemented in OIB
Plan Guidelines 6 of 2015- 1/2/3/5
03. NZEBs have been
defined in the National
Plan of 2014-03 and
the negotiations with
the Austrian Provinces
are completed (OIB
Guidelines 6).
Belgium-Brussels Yes Yes The Brussels Air, 01.01.2019 01.01.2015 The NZEB definition is - 45 - 85
Climate and included in "The
Energy Code Brussels Air, Climate 2/3/5
(COBRACE) and Energy Code
(COBRACE)". The 2015
in Brussels
implemented "EPB-
Passive Requirements
2015" is the
transposition of the
NZEB definition, which
is based on the Passive
House Standard and
adapted to the Brussels
context.
214
Belgium-Flanders Yes Yes Regulation of the 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The NZEB definition is - 32 – 45
Flemish included in the
Government of “Regulation of the 2/3
2013-11-29 Flemish Government of
regarding the 2013-11-29 regarding
energy the energy
performance of performance of
buildings buildings". On
November 29, 2013,
the Flemish
Government gave its
final approval to the
definition on NZEB
level for residential
buildings and offices
and schools, called BEN
(Bijna Energie
Neutraal) which
determined an E-Level
at lower or equal to 30.
Belgium-Wallonia Under Under National Plan 01.01.2019 01.01.2019 Interpretation of EPBD NZEB 95
development development text in definition acc.
national plan, study National Plan (1)
contracted, (p.21):
definition will evolve. "Energy
According the National performances
Plan the energy that are close
performances will be or equivalent
close or equivalent to to those of the
those of the passive passive
standard in terms of standard in
the building envelope terms of the
and by the renewable building
energy coverage as envelope and
part of the by the
consumption. renewable
energy
coverage of
part of the
consumption"
Bulgaria Yes Yes National Plan 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Draft definition in - 30 – 50
National Plan for Nearly
zero-energy buildings 2/3/5
(BPIE study); national
215
requirements defined
by "Ordinance for heat
retention and energy
efficiency in buildings"
(updated in 2009)
Croatia Yes Yes 1) Technical 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Definition for SFH in - 30 – 80
regulation on National Plan.
energy and Definition for various 1/2/3/5
energy building categories in
performance of Technical Regulation
buildings. (OG on Energy Economy
No. 97/14, and Heat Retention in
130/14); 2) Buildings
National NZEB
Plan
Cyprus Yes Yes Decree 366/2014 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 100
(Law for the included in Decree
Regulation of the 366/2014 (issued on 1 1/2/3/5
Energy August 2014). NZEBs
Performance of must have an Energy
the Buildings of Performance Certificate
2012, N.210 class A according to
(I)/2012) the preliminary
national methodology
for energy performance
of buildings.
Czech Republic Yes Yes Regulation 2016-2018 2018-2020 A provisory definition - 43 – 51
78/2013 Coll. (depending (depending of NZEB is included in
(Energy on size) on size) the new legislation (5)
Performance of (Regulation No.
Buildings decree) 78/2013
Coll.).
The Czech Housing
development fund
(SFRB) is currently
synchronizing the
subsidy scheme with
the new legislation and
energy performance
requirements.
Denmark Yes Yes Building 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The Danish NZEB - 20
Regulations 2010 definition is
(BR10) implemented in the 1/2/3/5
current Danish Building
216
Regulations 2010
BR10.
Estonia Yes Yes Regulation 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 50 – 100
68:2012 included in regulation
VV No 68:2012 1/3/5
“Energiatõhususe
miinimumnõuded”.
Finland Under Under National Building 01.01.2018 01.01.2021 The detailed definition n/a 78 – 150
development development Code of Finland was planned to be
finalised in the course 1/5
of 2015 and
the aim was to present
the legislative
proposal to the
parliament in autumn
2016. It could not be
finally clarified whether
an official NZEB
definition was adopted.
France Yes Yes 1) Méthode de 28.10.2011 01.01.2013 The calculation - 40 – 105
calcul Th-BCE methodology for NZEB
2012; 2) is provided in the Th- 1/2/3/5
Réglementation BCE 2012. All new
Thermique 2012 buildings will be energy
(RT 2012) positive in 2020.
Renovated buildings
are considered NZEB if
they reach a higher
energy performance
than the mandatory
level defined in the
Thermal Regulation for
existing buildings (RT
2012).
Germany Under Under Energy 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 EPBD text implemented KfW Efficiency 36 – 43,75
development development Conservation in energy saving act, House 40, 55
Regulation (EnEV detailed definition is and 70 1/3
2009) being developed.
Nearly zero-energy
buildings (NZEBs) have
not yet been officially
defined, but there are
rea-sons to assume
that the best standard
217
currently supported by
the KfW banking group
may be an appropriate
benchmark.
Greece Under Under Law 4122/2013 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The NZEB definition n/a -
development development was introduced to
national legislation by
amendment of the Law
3661 in June 2010 and
is identical to the EPBD
definition. This
definition is also
included in Law
4122/2013, which
specifies that, after 1
January 2019, every
new building of the
public sector should be
a NZEB. This obligation
applies also to all new
buildings constructed
after 1 January 2021.
However, the national
NZEB definition has not
yet been applied.
Hungary Yes Under Amended decree 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Draft definition - 50 – 72
(Still to be development 7/2006 (V. 24.) included in Decree
approved) about Determination of 1/2/5
Energy Efficiency of
Buildings of 7/2006
(V.24), detailed
definition is being
developed.
Nearly Zero‐Energy
Building (NZEB)
requirements will come
into force in 2019 and
2021 for public
buildings and all new
and majorly renovated
buildings respectively.
218
Ireland Yes Yes Technical 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The Irish Department - 45
Guidance of Environment,
Document (TGD) Community and Local 2/3/5
Part L Government set out
(Conservation of the Irish NZEB
Fuel and Energy definition for
- Dwellings) residential buildings in
its policy document
“Towards Nearly Zero
Energy Buildings in
Ireland – Planning for
2020 and beyond”. A
draft definition is
included in the national
NZEB plan. NZEB
standard will achieve
70% re-duction in
energy demand
compared to reference
dwelling set out in
2005 Building
Regulations (TGD Part
L).
Italy Yes Yes 1) Decree Law EPBD text in Decree - 15 – 20
(Still to be no. 63/90 of Law no. 63/90 of 2013, & Class A1
approved) 2013; 2) Decree new energy decree of
26/06/2015 June 26th includes 2/3/5
detailed definition
concerning new
minimum requirements
and methodology for
calculating energy
performance of
buildings. Same
requirements for new
constructions and
renovations.
Latvia Yes Yes Regulation 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 95
383/2013 included in Cabinet
(“Regulations Regulation No. 1/2/3/5
regarding Energy 383/2013.
certifications of
Buildings”)
Lithuania Yes Yes Regulation STR 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - Energy Class
219
2.01.09 :2012 included in A++
Construction Technical
Regulation STR 1/2/5
2.01.09:2012.
Luxembourg Yes Yes 1) RGD 2007, 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Interpretation of EPBD - 45
2010, 2014; 2) text included in
National Plan national plan and in & Class A /
national legislation Class AAA
(RGD 2014), detailed
definition not yet fixed. 1/2/5
From 2017, all new
residential buildings
will have to fulfil in
principle the A‐A
standard which is
aimed to represent the
NZEB standard once
the proposed
regulation enters into
force. The fine‐tuning
of the exact calculation
methodology and the
NZEB definition for
non‐residential
buildings is still in
progress.
Malta Yes Yes LN 376/2012 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 55 – 115
(transposing included in LN
Directive 376/2012 (transposing 2/5
2010/31) Directive 2010/31).
Netherlands Yes Yes NEN 7120: 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 A specific building - 0 – 25
Energy performance
performance of assessment method 2/3/5
buildings - according the NEN
Determination 7120 (2012) standard
method is used in the
Netherlands. The
resulting energy
demand is shown in an
energy performance
coefficient (EPC) which
must be nearly zero in
2018/2020.
220
Poland Yes Yes Resolution No. 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Translation of the EPBD - 65 – 75
91/2015 of the text in
Council of national plan. Detailed 1/2/5
Ministers of 22 definition
June 2015 included in "Regulation
of the Minister
of Infrastructure on the
technical
conditions to be met by
buildings and
their location" (Journal
of Laws No 75,
pos. 690), amendment
in 2013. The proposed
definition of NZEB is
based on an EP index
and U values for
building envelope
elements.
Portugal Under Under Decree-Law Translation of the EPBD n/a 33
development development 118/2013, text in Decree law
August 20th 118/2013, Article 16. (5)
Detailed definition not
yet available.
Romania Yes Yes National NZEB 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 93 – 117
Plan included in updated
National Plan for NZEB 1/2/3/5
(included in the 3rd
National Energy
Efficiency Action Plan
(NEEAP)), approved by
Governmental Decision
no.122/2015. Content
based on BPIE study
"Implementing Nearly
Zero-Energy Buildings
(NZEB) in Romania"
Slovakia Yes Yes MDVRR SR 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Translation of EPBD - 32 – 54
364/2012 Coll. text in Act No.
555/2012, NZEB 1/2/5
requirements in
MDVRR SR 364/2012
Coll.
221
Slovenia Yes Yes 1) Energetski Translation of EPBD - 50 – 80
zakon, Uradni list text in Energy Act of
RS, št. 17/14; 2) March 2014 1/2/3/5
National Action (Energetski zakon,
Plan for Nearly Uradni list RS, št.
Zero-Energy 17/14). National plan
Buildings Up to includes a detailed
2020 (AN sNES) NZEB definition
(approved by the
Government on 22
April 2015).
Spain Under Under Decree 235/2013 Translation of EPBD It is foreseen 40 – 70
development development text in RD that buildings
235/2013 (pending will need to & Class A
final approval). comply with
Nearly zero-energy class A. 2/5
buildings (NZEBs) have
not yet been officially
defined, but there are
rea-sons to assume
that NZEB buildings
would be equivalent to
A class.
Sweden Yes n/a Building Current energy - 30 – 75
regulations BBR performance
2012 (BFS requirements are 2/3/5
2015:3, 1 March based on BBR 22 (BFS
2015) 2015:3, 1 March
2015). Nearly-zero
energy rules are
introduced in the
Building Agency's
Building Regulations,
BBR Section 9 Energy
Conservation since July
1, 2017. Sharp
requirements come
into force in 2020.
United Kingdom Yes Yes Building 01.01.2018 01.01.2019 The United Kingdom - 39 – 46
(England) Regulations (from 2016 (from 2016 Government consider
Energy Efficiency for for that the approach they 2/5
Requirements: residential residential are adopting for Zero
England (Part L); buildings) buildings) Carbon Homes from
Wales (Part L); 2016 will meet the
222
Scotland (Section definition of NZEB.
6); Northern
Ireland (Technical
Booklet F)
223
NZEB Definitions for existing buildings
The following list summarises all information on national NZEB definitions for existing buildings, status April 2018. Although the
objective of the study was not to define national NZEBs in detail, for completeness reasons the last column in the table also contains
indicative information about the range of primary energy requirements for existing buildings based on a literature review. However,
it should be noted that different calculation approaches might exist on national level, therefore values cannot easily be compared to
each other.
Member state Official NZEB Applicability Overall Year of enforcement Explanations Official Primary
definition of NZEB regulation indicators energy
declared by definition on (If no official requirements
MS? renovations? NZEB according to
definition in literature
place) review in
kW∙h/(m²•a)
(Source
indication 1-
5)
Public Non-public
buildings buildings
Austria Yes Yes 1) OIB 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 EPBD text of NZEB is - 85 – 260
Guidelines 6 implemented in OIB
2) National Guidelines 6 of 2015- 1/2/4/5
Plan 03. NZEBs have been
defined in the
National Plan of 2014-
03 and the
negotiations with the
Austrian Provinces are
completed (OIB
Guidelines 6).
Belgium- Yes Yes The Brussels 01.01.2019 01.01.2015 The NZEB definition is - 54 – 75
Brussels Air, Climate included in "The
and Energy Brussels Air, Climate 2/4
Code and Energy Code
(COBRACE) (COBRACE)". The
2015 in Brussels
implemented "EPB-
Passive Requirements
224
2015" is the
transposition of the
NZEB definition, which
is based on the
Passive House
Standard and adapted
to the Brussels
context.
Belgium- Yes Yes Regulation of 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The NZEB definition is - No distinction
Flanders the Flemish included in the
Government “Regulation of the
of 2013-11-29 Flemish Government
regarding the of 2013-11-29
energy regarding the energy
performance performance of
of buildings buildings". On
November 29, 2013,
the Flemish
Government gave its
final approval to the
definition on NZEB
level for residential
buildings and offices
and schools, called
BEN (Bijna Energie
Neutraal) which
determined an E-Level
at lower or equal to
30.
Belgium- Under Under National Plan 01.01.2019 01.01.2019 Interpretation of EPBD Unofficial No distinction
Wallonia development development text in NZEB
national plan, study definition acc.
contracted, National Plan
definition will evolve. (p.21):
According the National "Energy
Plan the energy performances
performances will be that are close
close or equivalent to or equivalent
those of the passive to those of the
225
standard in terms of passive
the building envelope standard in
and by the renewable terms of the
energy coverage as building
part of the envelope and
consumption. by the
renewable
energy
coverage of
part of the
consumption"
Bulgaria Yes Yes National Plan 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Nearly zero-energy - 40 – 60
buildings (BPIE
study); national 2/5
requirements defined
by "Ordinance for
heat retention and
energy efficiency in
buildings" (updated in
2009)
Croatia Yes Yes 1) Technical 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Definition for SFH in - -
regulation on National Plan.
energy and Definition for various
energy building categories in
performance Technical Regulation
of buildings. on Energy Economy
(OG No. and Heat Retention in
97/14, Buildings
130/14)
2) National
NZEB Plan
Cyprus Yes Yes Decree 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 100 -125
366/2014, included in Decree
Law 366/2014 (issued on 1/2/5
210(I)/2012 1 August 2014).
(Nearly Zero- NZEBs must have an
Energy Energy Performance
Buildings Certificate class A
Action Plan) according to the
226
preliminary national
methodology for
energy performance
of buildings.
Czech Republic Yes Yes Regulation 2016-2018 2018-2020 A provisory definition - 47 – 106
78/2013 Coll. (depending (depending of NZEB is included in
(Energy on size) on size) the new legislation 4/5
Performance (Regulation No.
of Buildings 78/2013
decree) Coll.).
The Czech Housing
development fund
(SFRB) is currently
synchronizing the
subsidy scheme with
the new legislation
and energy
performance
requirements.
Denmark Yes Yes Building 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The Danish NZEB - 20 – 115
Regulations definition is
2010 (BR10) implemented in the 2/4
current Danish
Building Regulations
2010 BR10.
Estonia Yes No Regulation 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 90 – 270
68:2012 included in regulation
VV No 68:2012 (5)
“Energiatõhususe
miinimumnõuded”.
Finland Under Under National 01.01.2018 01.01.2021 The detailed definition n/a 136 – 335
development development Building Code will be
of Finland finalised in the course 1/5
of 2015 and
the aim is to present
the legislative
proposal to the
227
parliament in autumn
2016. It could not be
finally clarified
whether an official
NZEB definition was
adopted.
France Yes Yes 1) Méthode de 28.10.2011 01.01.2013 The calculation - 67 – 120
calcul Th-BCE methodology for NZEB
2012 is provided in the Th- 1/2/4/5
2) BCE 2012. All new
Réglementatio buildings will be
n Thermique energy positive in
2012 (RT 2020. Renovated
2012) buildings are
considered NZEB if
they reach a higher
energy performance
than the mandatory
level defined in the
Thermal Regulation
for existing buildings
(RT 2012).
Germany Under Under 1) EnEG 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 EPBD text KfW Efficiency 27
development development 2) EnEV implemented in House
3) EEWärmeG energy saving act, (4)
detailed definition is
being developed.
Nearly zero-energy
buildings (NZEBs)
have not yet been
officially defined, but
there are rea-sons to
assume that the best
standard currently
supported by the KfW
banking group may be
an appropriate
benchmark.
Greece Under Under Law 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The NZEB definition n/a
228
development development 4122/2013 was introduced to
national legislation by
amendment of the
Law 3661 in June
2010 and is identical
to the EPBD definition.
This definition is also
included in Law
4122/2013, which
specifies that, after 1
January 2019, every
new building of the
public sector should
be a NZEB. This
obligation applies also
to all new buildings
constructed after 1
January 2021.
However, the national
NZEB definition has
not yet been applied.
Hungary Yes Under Amended 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Draft definition - 72
(Still to be development decree 7/2006 included in Decree
approved) (V. 24.) about Determination (1)
of Energy Efficiency of
Buildings of 7/2006
(V.24), detailed
definition is being
developed.
Nearly Zero‐Energy
Building (NZEB)
requirements will
come into force in
2019 and 2021 for
public buildings and
all new and majorly
renovated buildings
respectively.
229
Ireland Yes Under Technical 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 The Irish Department - 75 – 150
development Guidance of Environment,
Document Community and Local (2)
(TGD) Part L Government set out
(Conservation the Irish NZEB
of Fuel and definition for
Energy - residential buildings in
Dwellings) its policy document
“Towards Nearly Zero-
Energy Buildings in
Ireland – Planning for
2020 and beyond”. A
draft definition is
included in the
national NZEB plan.
NZEB standard will
achieve 70% re-
duction in energy
demand compared to
reference dwelling set
out in 2005 Building
Regulations (TGD Part
L).
Italy Yes Yes 1) Decree Law EPBD text in Decree - 16
no. 63/90 of Law no. 63/90 of
2013 2013, new energy & Class A1
2) Decree decree of June 26th
26/06/2015 includes detailed 2/4
definition concerning
new minimum
requirements and
methodology for
calculating energy
performance of
buildings. Same
requirements for new
constructions and
renovations.
Latvia Yes Yes Regulation 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 95
230
383/2013 included in Cabinet
(“Regulations Regulation No. 1/2/5
regarding 383/2013.
Energy
certifications
of Buildings”)
Lithuania Yes Yes Regulation 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 89
STR 2.01.09 included in & Class A1
:2012 Construction Technical 2/4
Regulation STR
2.01.09:2012.
Luxembourg Yes No 1) RGD 2007, 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Interpretation of EPBD - 60 – 93
2010, 2014 text included in
2) National national plan and in 4/5
Plan national legislation
(RGD 2014), detailed
definition not yet
fixed.
From 2017, all new
residential buildings
will have to fulfil in
principle the A‐A
standard which is
aimed to represent
the NZEB standard
once the proposed
regulation enters into
force. The fine‐tuning
of the exact
calculation
methodology and the
NZEB definition for
non‐residential
buildings is still in
progress.
Malta Yes n/a LN 376/2012 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - < 220
(transposing included in LN
Directive 376/2012 (2)
2010/31) (transposing Directive
231
2010/31).
Netherlands Yes Under NEN 7120: 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 A specific building - 76
development Energy performance
performance assessment method (4)
of buildings - according the NEN
Determination 7120 (2012) standard
method is used in the
Netherlands. The
resulting energy
demand is shown in
an energy
performance
coefficient (EPC)
which must be nearly
zero in 2018/2020.
Poland Yes n/a Resolution No. 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Translation of the - 65 – 95
91/2015 of EPBD text in
the Council of national plan. Detailed 1/4
Ministers of 22 definition
June 2015 included in
"Regulation of the
Minister
of Infrastructure on
the technical
conditions to be met
by buildings and
their location"
(Journal of Laws No
75,
pos. 690),
amendment in 2013.
The proposed
definition of NZEB is
based on an EP index
and U values for
building envelope
elements.
Portugal Under Under Decree-Law Translation of the n/a 140
development development 118/2013, EPBD text in Decree
232
August 20th law 118/2013, Article (5)
16. Detailed definition
not yet available.
Romania Yes n/a National NZEB 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 NZEB definition - 98 – 230
Plan included in updated
National Plan for 1/2/4
NZEB (included in the
3rd National Energy
Efficiency Action Plan
(NEEAP)), approved
by Governmental
Decision
no.122/2015. Content
based on BPIE study
"Implementing Nearly
Zero-Energy Buildings
(NZEB) in Romania"
Slovakia Yes n/a MDVRR SR 01.01.2019 01.01.2021 Translation of EPBD - 82
364/2012 text in Act No.
Coll. 555/2012, NZEB (4)
requirements in
MDVRR SR 364/2012
Coll.
Slovenia Yes Yes 1) Energetski Translation of EPBD - 65 – 95
zakon, Uradni text in Energy Act of
list RS, št. March 2014 1/2/5
17/14 (Energetski zakon,
2) National Uradni list RS, št.
Action Plan for 17/14). National plan
Nearly Zero- includes a detailed
Energy NZEB definition
Buildings Up (approved by the
to 2020 (AN Government on 22
sNES) April 2015).
Spain Under Under Decree Translation of EPBD It is foreseen 87
development development 235/2013 text in RD that buildings
235/2013 (pending will need to (4)
final approval). comply with
Nearly zero-energy class A.
233
buildings (NZEBs)
have not yet been
officially defined, but
there are rea-sons to
assume that NZEB
buildings would be
equivalent to A class.
Sweden Yes n/a Building Current energy - 64
regulations performance
BBR 2012 requirements are (4)
(BFS 2015:3, based on BBR 22 (BFS
1 March 2015) 2015:3, 1 March
2015). Nearly-zero
energy rules are
introduced in the
Building Agency's
Building Regulations,
BBR Section 9 Energy
Conservation since
July 1, 2017. Sharp
requirements come
into force in 2020.
United Kingdom Yes Under Building 01.01.2018 01.01.2019 The United Kingdom In the United 99
(England) development Regulations (from 2016 (from 2016 Government consider Kingdom,
Energy for for that the approach building (4)
Efficiency residential residential they are adopting for regulations,
Requirements: buildings) buildings) Zero Carbon Homes first
England (Part from 2016 will meet introduced in
L); Wales the definition of the 1960's,
(Part L); NZEB. are being
Scotland progressively
(Section 6); tightened as it
Northern moves
Ireland towards the
(Technical introduction of
Booklet F) the Zero
Carbon Homes
Standard.
234
2. Indicators
2.1. Approach of the quantitative indicator development
Although the different variables for creating the final grid of quantitative indicators was
quite clear from the beginning, some details still needed to be elaborated and discussed
in more detail. Such details especially comprise the exact definition of energy and non-
energy renovations but also the different renovation depths to be considered and how
to deal with the different definitions of nearly zero-energy buildings in the EU28
Member States or in MS where no definition has been implemented yet. For these
aspects, the project team conducted an extensive analysis of existing definitions and
their suitability to be adapted for this project. Part of this analysis was an evaluation of
existing variables used in the “Building Stock Observatory” (BSO) project. The
characteristics of covered quantitative indicators can be found in the data annex.
After having achieved clarity on the needed indicators and their definitions, the next
task was to identify potential sources to be able to fill the indicators with content. For
this purpose, the following approach was used:
1) Development of a methodology to create the information needed for filling the

indicators with content (a detailed description of this methodology is presented in
section 3).
2) Identification of relevant information that is available from publicly accessible

literature, other projects (such as the BSO) and other potential sources.
3) Identification of relevant information that is available from sources that are not free
of charge.
4) As a result, identification of data gaps that remain and therefore need to be filled
with data from the surveys (new primary data).
This approach allowed to identify all relevant sources to be used later in the project to
fill the indicators with content.
The full list of covered quantitative indicators can be found in the data Annex provided
as separate Excel file.
2.2. Approach of the qualitative indicator development
The general approach of the qualitative indicator development is as follows.
In a first step, an extensive desk research has been conducted to get an up-to-date
status of the discussion and theory about relevant drivers and barriers and to create a
first inventory of relevant drivers and barriers and other determinants. For this study,
the decision model based on Stieß et al. [Stieß et al., 2010] and the behavioural model
based on Hermelink [Hermelink, 1996] have been used. Further studies have been
consulted to enlarge the theoretical background and to identify a broad range of
possible qualitative indicators which are suited for the analysis. These inputs have been
synthesised and categorised to feed into the further development of the qualitative
indicators.
In a second step, the scope of the current study (for the assessment of current drivers
and barriers for energy renovation) has been identified. The current study covers
various building types, clients and owners, landlords and tenants. This step is key to
235
facilitate filtering and the adaptation of drivers and barriers to finally arrive at a tailor-
made (if needed) set of qualitative indicators for different stakeholders and building
types.
In a third step, the qualitative indicators have been elaborated.
In a fourth step, the different survey questions and the logic of each of the different
questionnaires have been elaborated. The third and fourth steps have been an interactive process
in which Ipsos and Navigant worked closely together.
The process is visu alised in the following graphic (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Illustration of the qualitative indicator development approach
A further explanation of the illustrated steps is given in the subsequent sections.
236
2.3. Theoretical background for the development of the qualitative
indicators
This section summarises the theoretical background which has been set up to evaluate
the drivers and barriers for energy renovation.
Several studies show that investment decisions regarding renovations is a complex

strategic situation which is not only taken based on economic considerations. For this
study the following literature has been used to investigate the determinants for
energetic renovations:
JRC Science and policy reports (2014): Financing building energy renovations.
Current experiences & ways forward. [JRC, 2014]
D'Agostino, Delia; Cuniberti, Barbara; Bertoldi, Paolo (2017): Data on European
non-residential buildings. [D’Agostino et al., 2017]
Pillen, Nicole; Bertoldi, Paolo; Grether, Stefanie (2007): GreenBuilding - Europe
wide renovations of non-residential buildings. DENA; JRC (ECEEE SUMMER
STUDY). [Pillen et al., 2007]
GBPN (2014): Reducing energy demand in existing buildings: learning from the best
practice renovation policies. Technical report. [GBPN, 2014]
Interreg Europe (2017): Improving energy efficiency in buildings. A policy brief from
the Policy Learning Platform on low-carbon economy. [Interreg Europe, 2017]
Artola, Irati; Rademaekers, Koen; Williams, Rob; Yearwood, Jessica (2016):
Boosting Building Renovation: What Potential and Value for Europe? [Artola et
al., 2016]
Hermelink, Andreas (1996): Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen von DSM-Programmen im
Sektor der privaten Haushalte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des
Anwenderverhaltens. Ergebnisse aus der Evaluierung des EU-PHARE-
Fernwärmepilotprojektes in Eger (Ungarn). [Hermelink, 1996]
Krémer, Zsolt; Liebernickel, Thomas; Ebert, Volkmar; Moosreiner, Stefan (2005):
Abbau von Hemmnissen bei der energetischen Sanierung des
Gebäudebestandes. [Krémer et al., 2005]
Stieß, Immanuel; van der Land, Victoria; Birzle-Harder; Babara; Deffner, Jutta
(2010): Handlungsmotive, -hemmnisse und Zielgruppen für eine energetische
Gebäudesanierung. Ergebnisse einer standardisierten Befragung von
Eigenheimsanierern. [Stieß et al., 2010]
Maby, Catrin; Owen, Alice (2015): Installer Power - The key to unlocking low carbon
retrofit in private housing. [Maby and Owen, 2015]
The studies focus on different topics, for example financial barriers and incentives,
specific building types (e.g. residential building, non- residential buildings), building
owners or landlords. Some studies analyse the whole range of policy instruments
available.
The core of our theoretical framework for this analysis is based on two studies; the
decision model from Stieß et al. [Stieß et al., 2010] and the “behavioural” model from
Hermelink [Hermelink, 1996]. Stieß developed a decision model for energetic
renovation and he focuses on residential buildings and building owners. Hermelink
elaborated on the whole set of behavioural determinants for individual decisions about
energy efficiency investments and (subsequent) energy efficient use of technology.
According to Stieß, the self-perception of the own situation and the resulting attitudes
towards the process and the result of an energetic renovation are central for
understanding these decisions. Stieß et a.l elaborate on the significance of the social
situation as well as individual motivations for the renovation decision which is not solely
based on objective economic criteria. Factors such as the socio-demographic situation
and the respective phase of life as well as the attitudes toward building and living,
237
which are closely linked with lifestyles, form the framework of the renovation decision.
Limits are given by technical and structural constraints and the legal and regulatory
framework. Triggers for (energy) renovation origin from an external impulse such as
e.g. contact with an installer during maintenance, but also from circumstances such as
the purchase of a building. Not only economic resources have an impact on the decision
about (energy) renovation but also (access to) knowledge and sufficient information
about energy recovery options and own capabilities [Stieß et al., 2010]. The described
decision model is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Decision model for energetic renovation (Source: Navigant adaptation from [Stieß et al., 2010])
Hermelink [Hermelink, 1996] explicitly builds his theory on the well-known Fishbein &
Ajzen psychological theory of planned behaviour. According to this theory, behaviour is
a function of “personal” variables (e.g. demographic variables (age, sex), psychological
variables (attitudes, norms), skills …) and “ambient” variables (e.g. social environment
(peer groups, regulations, prices …) and physical environment (the building, building
systems, climate …). While Stieß provides a rather practical approach – yet focusing
only on owners of single-family homes – Hermelink provides a broader theoretical
framework that helped to transfer Stieß’ insights to different combinations of
stakeholders (architects, installers, owners, tenants) and building types as needed in
this project.
The decision model based on Stieß et al. [Stieß et al., 2010] and Hermelink [Hermelink,
1996] was adapted considering the different studies mentioned above and was
synthesised into a more flexible universal model. This model distinguishes drivers by
incentives (financial, regulatory and informative), triggers and motivations.
Furthermore, it distinguishes barriers by technical, economic, regulatory and
informative barriers and also by attitude (own & peers) and personal efforts (which in
the literature is also called transaction costs [JRC, 2014]). The approach is illustrated in
Figure 3.
238
Figure 3: Applied categorisation of qualitative indicators (“drivers and barriers”)
In addition to the above-mentioned drivers and barriers, the study analysed more
aspects related to the process of energy renovation investments that do not directly
belong to drivers and barriers but provide additional information about the context of
the investment decision or the implementation of the measure: the involvement of
stakeholders, the quality assurance and the funding of renovation projects. Apart from
that, at a later stage some of these indicators were specifically dedicated to “very high
energy performance” buildings (NZEB).
A major outcome of the models of Stieß et al. [Stieß et al., 2010] and Hermelink
[Hermelink, 1996] is that questions about drivers and barriers should be asked as
specifically as possible about energy renovation measures the respondent was involved
in, rather than e.g. about general believes about environmental protection without
concrete relation to energy renovation measures.
2.4. Needs of the current study related to qualitative indicators
While having the general assessment framework for barriers and drivers, it is important
to understand that it had to be applied to various configurations of stakeholders and
building types.
This project covers the energy renovation
 of the whole building stock (i.e. all building types covered within EPBD Annex I)
 including different stakeholders who take decisions or influence decisions (owners,
tenants, architects, installers, public investors, corporate investors)
 collecting information according to the contract from surveys with consumers
(household panel: owners and tenants), architects, installers and main contractors.
It can be assumed that depending on the building type – investor type combination,
different divers and barriers will be relevant. Based on the desk research, an adequate
selection of indicators from the inventory of drivers and barriers was performed that a)
reflected the variety of building-investor combinations as good as possible, while b)
keeping the differences between the different surveys and building-investor
combinations as small as possible to be able to compare results also between different
groups.
239
2.5. Development of qualitative indicators
Drivers
Drivers refer to incentives, triggers and motivations. From a more classical social
science perspective, we identified indicators that allow us to map potentially relevant
qualitative aspects. This basically follows the theory of planned behaviour
(Fishbein/Ajzen) in its elements. This theory derives the intention to do something (e.g.
to invest in new windows) from a person’s attitude versus this specific action and the
person’s perceived social norm and the readiness to act according to that norm.
Motivations
Regarding the analysis of motivations, several aspects were included such as

environmental or economic motivations, e.g. the increase of profit and reputation or the
contribution to the protection from global warming and of the local environmental by
energy renovation measures. Also, the long list of potential aspects for each target
group were adapted or filtered. For instance, the set of an architects’ major motivations
to recommend energy renovation will most probably differ from a landlord’s major
motivations to invest in energy renovation. Motivations were split into major categories
which were based on the literature (economic, personal (attitudes) and environmental
and these key motivations were split up into various sub-aspects along the lines of
Maslow’s well-known hierarchy of motivations (economic, self-realisation & prestige,
social/security/psychological desires), environmental, comfort & health benefits,
knowledge about renovation works, and ability to do things (do it yourself).
Triggers
Triggers for (energy) renovation may origin from various events, e.g. the urgent repair
of a defective component (boiler in winter), but also the change of a tenant or a recent
purchase of a building. Different kinds of potential trigger moments for energy
renovation were investigated such as repair, purchase of a building, but also the effect
of different policies on renovation rate and depth. The study set up indicators for
evaluating the role of European policies articles of the EPBD, the EED, the Eco-Design
and the Energy Labelling Directives.
Incentives
Incentives are kind of a counterpart to the motivations and barriers as incentives

mainly have two objectives: Foster favourable motivations or weaken unfavourable
motivations, respectively, to enable overcoming barriers. The study distinguishes
incentives by financial, regulatory and informational respective awareness incentives,
i.e. the categories policy instruments are usually split into. As a follow-up to the
questions on barriers, incentives to overcome these barriers were selected in a way
that logically corresponded to the previous selection of barriers that were presented to
the respondent.
Within the set of triggers and incentives to overcome barriers, a few very specific items
were included which directly result from selecting the most prominent energy
renovation related requirements from those EU Directives potentially having an impact
on energy renovation:
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive:

o Did a national legal requirement for energy efficiency improvements (e.g.
in case of major renovation) trigger energy renovation?
240
o Did (bad) rating on building energy performance certificate / desire to
achieve better rating trigger energy renovation?
o Did recommendations on building energy performance certificate help

overcome uncertainty about which energy renovation measures to take?
Energy Labelling Directive:

o Did (bad) rating on energy label of a component trigger energy
renovation?
Energy Efficiency Directive:

o Did information (about high energy cost) on energy bill trigger energy
renovation?
Barriers
In contrast to aspects that motivate or drive people to perform energy renovation,

barriers address the various aspects that may hinder implementation of energy
renovation. Like drivers, barriers may have their origin in “personal” (negative)
determinants or “ambient” (negative) determinants. Consequently, technical, economic
and regulatory barriers were investigated as well as (lack of) awareness or knowledge,
(critical) attitudes or perceived norms (own & peers) and personal effort related to
energy renovation, such as e.g. noise or dirt during renovation, administrative
difficulties, etc.
Process related aspects and involved stakeholders
To complete the picture on drivers and barriers, several facts related to the concrete
energy renovation measure that results from the individual context of the respondent
were included in the set of indicators (where appropriate). Relative to installers, more
specific questions on their drivers and relevance of energy renovation were included.
They were identified as major influences for investors’ decisions during desk research
[Maby and Owen, 2015].
Sources of funding: Own capital, Loan (market condition), Loan with a below-
market interest rate (soft loan), Loan from friends & family, Grant
Main involved stakeholders
o for implementation: Professional installers, “do it yourself” - with family
and/or friends
o for quality assurance: respondent, architect, main contractor (offers all

installer services incl. planning services from architects and civil
engineers, family member or friend, installer, other
Prominence of energy renovation: Main activities architects/installers spend most

time on, including consultancy on energy renovation, frequency of requests from
clients for energy innovation
Reasons for recommendations (of certain products/measures by installers such as
e.g. reliability of product, easiness of installation, familiarity with product).
The full list of covered qualitative indicators can be found in the data Annex provided as
separate Excel file.
241
3. Methodology
3.1. Renovation rates
The following table presents a summary of the approach for calculating the energy and
non-energy related renovation rates per EU MS for the residential and non-residential
building sector (for the residential sector, steps are numbered as Rx and for the non-
residential sector NRx to allow clear references). More detailed descriptions of the more
complex steps are provided in separate sub-sections following the table.
Table 2: Summary of the approach for calculating renovation rates
Residential sector Non-residential sector

R1) Calculation of component-specific NR1) Calculate component-specific
renovation rates based on sold market renovation rates using total sales
volume in existing residential buildings. volume in existing non-residential
buildings.
Overall energy related renovation rate
R2) Calculation of component-specific

renovation rates based on household NR2) Due to very small samples in the
panel surveys and socio-demographic architect surveys, application of ratio to
scaling factors. sum of component-specific renovation
rates based on sold market volume in
R3) Calculation of the ratio of the sum of existing residential buildings (step R3)
component-specific renovation rates to the result of NR1.
according to household panel survey to
overall energy-related renovation rate
considering overlaps of measures in the
surveys.
R4) Due to non-representativeness of

household panel surveys, application of
ratio to sum of component-specific
renovation rates based on sold market
volume in existing buildings (step R3).
242
R5) Use floor area shares per renovation NR3) Calculation of total investments in the
depth from surveys. non-residential renovation market
using total sales volume per
Split of overall energy related renovation rate into renovation depths
technology/measure and investigated

costs per unit (see chapter 3.3).
NR4) Combining results from steps NR5 and

NR2 allows the calculation of average
specific energy related renovation casts
per m² [€/m²].
NR5) For countries with a minimum sample

size (non-residential renovation cases)
of 30, calculate the average specific
renovation costs per renovation depth
and calculate the ratios to the costs of
the same depth in the residential
sector. Calculate the average of the
country specific ratios and apply to all
EU28 MS using the specific renovation
depth costs as basis.
NR6) Using a developed solver model

provides realistic indications about how
the different depths need to be
weighted to result in the before
calculated overall average specific
renovation costs (R5).
NR7) These weighting shares are used to

split the before calculated overall
renovation rate (NR2) into different
depths.
243
R6) Calculation of the ratio of non-energy NR8) The before calculated total renovation
related renovation rates according to costs for energy related renovations
household panel survey to overall (NR3) have been compared with non-
energy-related renovation rate residential renovation runover from
considering overlaps of measures in the Euroconstruct & EECFA to calculate the
surveys. average share of energy related
renovation costs on all renovation costs
R7) Application of ratio to overall energy for those countries covered by
Non-energy related renovation rate
related renovation rate calculated Euroconstruct & EECFA. This average

according to R4. share has been applied to all EU MS
with the aim to calculate the total
investments for non-energy related
renovations.
NR9) From the architect surveys, it was

possible to calculate the average ratio
of non-energy related specific
renovation costs to energy related
specific renovation costs (from
countries with sample size >30). This
average ratio has been applied to the
specific energy related renovation costs
as calculated under NR4 to calculate
the specific non-energy related
renovation costs for each EU MS.
NR10) Dividing the results of NR8 by the

results of NR9 allow the calculation of
non-energy related renovation rates.
R1) Calculation of component-specific renovation rates based on sold market

volume in existing residential buildings
The component-specific renovation rates (CSRR) have been calculated by combining a

bottom-up with a top-down analysis. The basic idea of combining the two analysis
methods is to link two independent data sources with each other in order to minimize
biases that arise when only one data source is used. On the one hand, representative
survey data is needed to calculate component specific indicators within a bottom-up
analysis (e.g. average floor area renovated by one m³ wall insulation). These indicators
then need to be extrapolated to national level using market data on renovation
activities (e.g. sold wall insulation volume). Depending on the level of detail of the
linkage of both data sources, market data may need to be split by a top-down analysis.
For example, if the resulting indicators of the survey are split into renovations in
different building types, market data should be available for renovations in different
building types as well. In order to do so, representative survey data on installed
components in different building types can be used to split market data within a top-
down analysis. As there is no literature on this approach, it was developed in the
framework of this project.
The used model has been developed during the Master Thesis work of Johannes Becker
and is based on a combination of multiple data sources and therefore multiple analysis
methods. On the one hand, the representative survey conducted by Ipsos has been
used to collect information on renovation activities. In combination with reference
building specifications, a bottom-up analysis enabled the calculation of values that
represent renovation activities in residential buildings, such as the average floor area
renovated by one component unit of each component. On the other hand, these values
are extrapolated to whole market level using national market data on sold component
244
units. Since this data does not provide any information on the installation of
components in households of different residential building types, the representativeness
of the survey allows to split up market data using a top-down approach. Finally, the
floor area renovated by the total number of sold component units is put into relation to
residential building stock data in order to calculate the CSRRs.
A visualisation of the approach is presented in the figure below.
Figure 4: Main Calculation Processes and Overview of the Calculation Approach
Data Sources
The model is based on four main data sources, which need to be linked to each other
for generating CSRRs:
 Representative survey on renovation activities in the residential building stock

(conducted by Ipsos within the course of the project)
 Reference building data for the usage of specific building characteristics
[TABULA / EPISCOPE see section 1.2]
 Market data on sales for the extrapolation of survey data to country level
o Windows: Interconnection Consulting, Windows in Europe
o Façade: Interconnection Consulting, Thermal insulation market study
o Roof: Interconnection Consulting, Thermal insulation market study
o Ground Plate : Interconnection Consulting, Thermal insulation market
study
245
o Basement & Attics : Interconnection Consulting, Thermal
insulation market study
o Space heaters: BRG Building Solutions, European HVAC market study
o Water heaters: BRG Building Solutions, European HVAC market study
o Radiators : BRG Building Solutions, European HVAC market study
o Mechanical ventilation systems: BRG Building Solutions, European HVAC
market study
o Space cooling systems: „Review of Regulation 206/2012 and 626/2011
Air conditioners and comfort fans“, task 2 report prepared by Viegand
Maagøe and ARMINES
o Photovoltaics: Solar Power Europe`s annual “Global Market Outlooks for
Solar Power”
o Lighting: Preparatory Study on Light Sources for Ecodesign and/or
Energy Labelling Requirements (‘Lot 8/9/19’), task 2 report prepared by
VITO in cooperation with VHK
 Building stock data for the comparison with the total floor area (see 4)
R2, R3 and R6 – Extracting information from household panel surveys
General observations
 Altogether there are 30,118 data records (or HH = households)
 Energy/non-energy renovation:
o 1,426 energy renovations only
o 16,876 energy and non-energy renovations => i.e. altogether 18,302 HH

did some energy renovation between 2012-2016
o 5,962 non-energy renovations only => i.e. altogether 22,838 HH did some
non-energy renovation
o 5,854 did not do anything => i.e. altogether 11,816 HH were screened out
Calculation of energy renovation rate
The sub-sample that did energy renovation is divided into two main groups based on
the variable “Tenure_status”
A. People who occupy the building/apartment they report about: (3,164 + 13,536) /
18,302 = 91.25% of households in the sub-sample
B. People who rent out the building they report about. (1,602 / 18,302) = 8.75% of
households in the sub-sample.
Based on a conducted analysis, only group A has been used for the calculations of
energy renovation rates, as this group deemed to be representative for the renovation
activities in the total population of households.
Upscaling of results from group “A” to total population
The standard approach to upscale the number of households (HH) in the sample to the
total number of households in a country was as follows:
246
a. the shares of different household types in the sample deviate from the known
distribution of household types in the total population
b. For each type of household it had to be assessed which number of households in the
total population can be assigned to 1 household in the sample. Below an example
for Germany:
c. For 2017, EU statistics provide a number of 40,722,600 households in Germany.
d. The total sample size for Germany was 2141 households.
e. Example for type SD = 2 (single adult without children). In the sample, this type is
under-represented. The formula for calculating the “weighting factor” is: target % /
reached % * total number of HH in Germany / number of German HH in sample, i.e.
41.2% / 28.0 % * 40,722,600 HH / 2,141 HH = 28,009.53 HH in total population
per HH in sample.
Using this approach individual weighting factors have been calculated for all 6 different
household groups in all 28 EU countries in the sample.
As only group A has been taken for doing this exercise another set of weighting factors
had to be calculated after procedure that was just explained. For this purpose, factors
from previous step need to be multiplied with a
 New variable A_B_factor = (A+B) / A
 Example for Germany (continuing above example):
o 1,058 energy renovators in total, of which 113 landlords.
o A_B_factor = 1,058 / (1,058 – 113) = 1.120;
=> all weighting factors as explained above have to be multiplied with this
factor due to the virtually smaller size of the sample (2,141 * (1,058 – 113)
/ 1,058 = 1,912 (i.e. A_B_factor could also be calculated as 2,141 / 1,912).
It should be noted that respondents clearly struggled to properly remember when

exactly between 2012-2016 individual measures had been implemented when being
confronted with the complex matter of building energy renovations. Therefore validity
of results would increase by applying a similar approach (panel survey) on an annual or
bi-annual basis.
3.2. Energy savings
In recent years, Navigant developed and refined an in-house Building Energy

Performance (BEP) Model based on ISO EN 13790, the relevant standard used in
Europe for the calculation of heating and cooling energy demands of buildings. In
several projects, the Navigant BEP Model provided realistic results based on a solid
internationally applicable methodology. For the present project, the calculation core of
the model has been updated to the new international standard ISO EN 52016:2017
“Energy performance of buildings — Energy needs for heating and cooling, internal
temperatures and sensible and latent heat loads”. ISO 52016 has superseded ISO
13790:2008 in 2017 and also incorporates aspects from other standards related to the
energy performance of buildings.
The whole model is developed with MS Excel and contains several modules (illustrated
in Figure 5) to serve all required aspects of this assignment. The model calculates the
247
energy demand for heating and cooling on an hourly basis, leading to 8760 single
calculations using hourly climate data extracted from METEONORM, considering the
precise building specifications such as geometry and orientation of surfaces and local
climate following the complex algorithms provided in the standard.
The calculation of energy needs according to ISO EN 52016 is complemented by a

calculation module for technical building systems (HVAC-Model) to allow for the
calculation of final energy demands for space heating, space cooling, hot water
generation and air ventilation. Using national primary energy factors, the model
converts the final energy demand per energy carrier into primary energy. The used
primary energy factors have been extracted from ISO 52000-17 and for the sake of
comparability of results applied to all Member States. The factors are presented in the
following table.
Table 3: Used primary energy and CO2e emission factors
Electricity Gas Oil Biomass DH Coal
Primary 2.3 1.1 1.1 0.2 1.3 1.1

energy
CO2e 420 220 290 40 260 360
The entire overall approach of this task is illustrated in Figure 5 below, followed by a
detailed description, including the specification of assumptions made.
7 Final Draft ISO/prFDIS 52000-1 - Energy performance of buildings — Overarching EPB assessment – Part 1:
General framework and procedures - as forwarded for Formal Vote. Date of document: 2016-09-15
248
Figure 5: Approach for calculating energy savings
Survey data:
Survey data:
Location of
Information of
renovation case (e.g.
building type and
country, region, city,
construction period
postal code etc.)
Residential:
TABULA
Non-Residential: Meteonorm
National cost-
optimality reports
Reference
Hourly climate
buildings
data
(geometries)
Market data:
• Shares of different Ecofys Building Energy Performance (BEP) Model
technical building Energy demand
systems in stock (e.g. Technical
database (useful- Primary energy
net energy) for hot
from TABULA, BRG demand before
specifications water using regional Calculation of the
data etc.) before and building type Energy demand
primary energy renovation
calculation (final
• Information on typical renovation
proxies
energy) for space
demand from
space heating,
reference buildings with Energy demand heating, space
space cooling and
calculation (useful- cooling and hot
technical specifications water generation
hot water
net energy) for generation
(e.g. national cost- space heating and
optimality reports, 2013 cooling according Primary energy
to ISO EN 52016 savings
and 2018 round)
Data base with

detailed
Survey data: specifications of
Technical National primary
Technical specification of User profiles relevant technical Primary energy
specifications building systems
energy factors
renovation case (package of demand after
after renovation (HVAC & water
measures realised) heaters) renovation
First, an additional Excel tool was used to extract the energy related data from the
survey results. The relevant data for the energy savings calculation is which measures
have been conducted and, if known, what types of new systems, insulations, windows,
etc. were installed in the years 2012 to 2016. To consider the energy savings per year,
each case of the consumer survey was evaluated in every year, hence five data sets
per case were created. Additionally, a reference base is used to represent the building’s
condition before 2012, which leads to a total of six data sets per household.
This method not only allows to display the energy savings before and after the period
under consideration but also the detailed development during these years. Therefore,
the data set for each year is calculated individually, starting with the reference base.
Subsequent years are calculated applying the renovation measures which have been
conducted in the respective year. The impact of once implemented measures is
continued in the following years. Since survey data is limited to systems and
geometries renovated, the remaining components must be derived from the given
information, hence default systems and reference geometries are used.
Data preparation
The survey delivers a classification of the building types and the construction time. This
information is matched with the TABULA/EPISCOPE database which provides
representative building geometries and U-values for each country. Therefore, the
geometry of the reference buildings (before 2012) and U-values are taken from the
TABULA/EPISCOPE database. If renovations were conducted, this part of the geometry
is updated with the specific survey information, while the unrenovated components stay
with the TABULA/EPISCOPE values. This allows the tool to consider only the measures
249
recorded in the survey and calculate their energy savings impact. For residential
buildings, the survey did not ask for specific U-values, but the types of windows or
thickness of insulation installed. These qualitative answers were converted into typical
specific numbers, whereas the non-residential survey directly provides the U-values for
each renovated component.
Building geometries are used to calculate the useful energy demand. For this purpose,
the team has used the reported climate locations that were used for the cost-optimality
calculations of EU member states. In consequence, for the calculations of each country,
the model used a country specific climate with different parameters for each of the
8760 hours per year. The data has been extracted from Meteonorm. Consequently, the
heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems (HVAC) are implemented as well to
calculate the final energy demand. The Navigant Building Energy Performance (BEP)
Model takes the energy needs following ISO 52016 standard and calculates the hourly
energy use of all relevant heating, cooling and ventilation systems. The result is the
final energy demand per energy carrier that is converted into primary energy demand
using the primary energy factors as reported above. Depending on the calculated
primary energy savings per renovation case and considering the definitions of
renovation depths, each renovation case can directly be declared as “below threshold”,
“light”, “medium” or “deep renovation”.
3.3. Investment costs
The approach for calculating the investment costs for each renovation case and later for
calculating average investment costs for each combination of country, building type and
renovation depth is based on two main sources:
1) Investment cost database for building construction products, and
2) Direct cost information obtained from the questionnaires.
For calculating the investments per renovation case, clear information on the
renovation measures undertaken is required as well as information to determine the
most appropriate reference building to be used for the calculations. For each installed
technology, considering the building unit, number of components (e.g. 5 windows per
building unit), etc the average investment costs are calculated.
The whole approach is illustrated in Figure 6.
250
Figure 6: Total approach for calculating investment costs
Energy measures Non-energy measures

Survey data: Ecofys Building
Location of Energy
Hourly climate Performance
renovation case (e.g. Meteonorm
data (BEP) Model
country, region, city, Survey data:
postal code etc.) Information of building type and
System construction period
dimensioning
Residential:
Survey data:  Capacity of
TABULA Reference
Information of TBS system as
Non-Residential: buildings
building type and input for cost
National cost- (geometries) Residential: TABULA
construction period curves
optimality reports Non-Residential:
National cost-optimality reports
Cost database on building construction

products
Survey data: Reference buildings (geometries)

Technical Number of systems
specifications of
renovation case
(package of measures Fix unit prices
realised) Survey data:
Cost curves for different TBS depending on Information on costs for non-energy
the capacity of the system measures
Survey data: Investment costs of Investment costs of

Information on costs Validation each individual each individual
for energy measures renovation case renovation case
Survey data: Average specific energy component related Average specific non-energy related
Weighting of building types and investment costs for each country-building investment costs for each country-building
renovation depths type-renovation depth combination [€/m²] type combination [€/m²]
Results on total amount of

Total energy related investment costs for Total non-energy related investment costs
renovated floor area per country-
each country-building type-renovation for each country-building type combination
building type-renovation depth
depth combination [M€] [M€]
combination [m²]
The following average product costs have been used for the analysis.
251
Table 4: Envelope measures
Ground Solar
Windows Doors Facade Roof Attic Basement
plate shading
Double Triple
Single Double glazing Triple glazing Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Average
Average
glazing glazing with solar glazing with solar costs costs costs costs costs costs costs costs costs costs
protection protection
EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/ EUR/
EUR/m² EUR/m² EUR/m² EUR/m²
m² m² m² m² m²cm m² m²cm m² m²cm m² m²cm m²
Austria 183 270 294 337 452 1,068 70 1.61 139 1.45 21 1.53 33 1.21 32.98 752
Belgium 212 305 332 376 503 966 63 1.46 126 1.31 19 1.38 30 1.09 29.83 680
Bulgaria 60 117 130 171 241 379 25 0.57 49 0.51 7 0.54 12 0.43 11.70 267
Croatia 88 154 171 214 297 445 29 0.67 58 0.60 9 0.64 14 0.50 13.75 313
Cyprus 117 155 202 243 295 616 40 0.93 80 0.83 12 0.88 19 0.70 19.01 433
Czech Republic 93 158 174 174 301 585 38 0.88 76 0.79 11 0.84 18 0.66 18.06 412
Denmark 217 313 341 385 515 1,380 90 2.08 180 1.87 27 1.98 43 1.56 42.63 972
Estonia 89 153 169 213 294 679 45 1.02 89 0.92 13 0.97 21 0.77 20.98 478
Finland 185 273 298 341 460 1,383 91 2.08 180 1.87 27 1.98 43 1.56 42.70 973
France 195 283 308 350 469 1,087 71 1.64 142 1.47 21 1.56 34 1.23 33.56 765
Germany 181 266 296 332 447 1,333 87 2.01 174 1.81 26 1.91 41 1.51 41.16 938
Greece 107 177 194 238 328 559 37 0.84 73 0.76 11 0.80 17 0.63 17.26 393
Hungary 78 143 158 202 282 488 32 0.73 64 0.66 10 0.70 15 0.55 15.06 343
Ireland 174 257 280 324 436 930 61 1.40 121 1.26 18 1.33 29 1.05 28.73 655
Italy 164 246 268 311 420 696 46 1.05 91 0.94 14 1.00 21 0.79 21.50 490
Latvia 72 133 148 191 268 608 40 0.92 79 0.82 12 0.87 19 0.69 18.79 428
Lithuania 71 133 148 191 267 585 38 0.88 76 0.79 11 0.84 18 0.66 18.06 412
Luxembourg 193 278 303 344 460 1,070 70 1.61 139 1.45 21 1.53 33 1.21 33.05 753
Malta 100 166 184 226 311 658 43 0.99 86 0.89 13 0.94 20 0.74 20.33 463
Netherlands 189 275 300 342 460 1,089 71 1.64 142 1.48 21 1.56 34 1.23 33.63 767
Poland 81 145 160 204 283 521 34 0.78 68 0.71 10 0.75 16 0.59 16.09 367
Portugal 99 167 184 228 315 507 33 0.76 66 0.69 10 0.73 16 0.57 15.65 357
Romania 68 130 144 188 264 357 23 0.54 47 0.48 7 0.51 11 0.40 11.04 252
Slovak Republic 83 146 161 204 284 580 38 0.87 76 0.79 11 0.83 18 0.66 17.91 408
Slovenia 109 178 196 239 327 530 35 0.80 69 0.72 10 0.76 16 0.60 16.38 373
Spain 137 211 231 273 370 675 44 1.02 88 0.91 13 0.97 21 0.76 20.84 475
Sweden 229 327 356 401 536 1,612 106 2.43 210 2.19 32 2.31 50 1.82 49.79 1,135
United Kingdom 140 217 237 280 380 919 60 1.38 120 1.25 18 1.31 28 1.04 28.37 647
252
Table 5: Technical building systems (1)
Cooling systems Photovoltaics
Centralised Centralised Centralised Centralised Mounted

chiller (whole chillers (whole multi-split multi-split single- Movable AC
0-10 kWp 10-15 kWp 15-20 kWp >20 kWp
building, building, new system (whole system (for split/window systems
replacement) installation) building) appartment) AC
EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR
Austria 72,215 541,612 28,591 9,198 1,793 379 2,344 2,374 2,405 2,435
Belgium 73,244 716,299 29,892 9,529 1,754 398 2,362 2,408 2,454 2,501
Bulgaria 60,755 537,560 28,019 8,626 1,221 379 1,904 1,997 2,091 2,184
Croatia 75,472 590,056 35,000 10,759 1,502 474 2,362 2,481 2,601 2,720
Cyprus 61,971 535,040 26,831 8,407 1,372 360 1,972 2,037 2,103 2,168
Czech Republic 66,904 588,641 29,575 9,213 1,437 398 2,119 2,200 2,281 2,362
Denmark 91,027 902,989 35,777 11,536 2,279 474 2,959 2,993 3,027 3,061
Estonia 65,757 513,991 28,269 8,876 1,470 379 2,096 2,162 2,228 2,294
Finland 88,343 839,401 34,394 11,122 2,236 455 2,877 2,904 2,932 2,959
France 72,530 574,329 28,607 9,214 1,809 379 2,356 2,385 2,413 2,442
Germany 73,903 554,270 27,426 9,003 1,968 360 2,430 2,430 2,430 2,430
Greece 74,639 559,794 33,709 10,438 1,551 455 2,351 2,454 2,556 2,659
Hungary 92,866 696,497 37,806 11,625 1,628 512 2,555 2,684 2,812 2,940
Ireland 104,920 786,896 32,633 10,331 1,815 436 2,505 2,568 2,630 2,692
Italy 76,486 573,644 31,053 9,721 1,575 417 2,273 2,350 2,427 2,504
Latvia 76,558 574,185 29,595 9,232 1,457 398 2,134 2,213 2,291 2,370
Lithuania 78,485 588,641 29,575 9,213 1,437 398 2,119 2,200 2,281 2,362
Luxembourg 86,858 651,436 24,438 7,953 1,659 322 2,096 2,107 2,118 2,129
Malta 62,645 469,839 25,481 8,027 1,362 341 1,916 1,971 2,026 2,081
Netherlands 93,863 703,971 29,994 9,631 1,856 398 2,440 2,475 2,510 2,545
Poland 73,226 549,197 32,293 9,991 1,474 436 2,244 2,344 2,443 2,543
Portugal 84,189 631,417 32,281 9,979 1,463 436 2,235 2,336 2,437 2,538
Romania 67,376 505,318 26,616 8,193 1,158 360 1,807 1,896 1,985 2,074
Slovak Republic 90,427 678,203 28,186 8,793 1,388 379 2,032 2,108 2,183 2,258
Slovenia 80,171 601,279 30,915 9,583 1,437 417 2,167 2,259 2,352 2,444
Spain 85,386 640,393 29,650 9,287 1,512 398 2,176 2,249 2,322 2,394
Sweden 121,045 907,836 35,970 11,728 2,472 474 3,107 3,120 3,132 3,145
United Kingdom 67,086 503,148 28,467 9,074 1,669 379 2,248 2,293 2,337 2,381
253
Table 6: Technical building systems (2)
Other heat
Ventilation
Space heaters emitters than Radiators Domestic hot water systems Lighting
radiators
Average Average Average Central Local Central Decentral Average
EUR EUR/m² EUR EUR/m² EUR EUR EUR EUR/m²

Austria 15,547 33 497 36 2,058 5,087 857 16
Belgium 9,424 30 349 33 1,191 2,692 12,045 14
Bulgaria 4,232 12 154 13 557 2,206 821 6
Croatia 3,839 14 125 15 1,350 1,537 192 7
Cyprus 4,393 19 202 21 254 1,206 146 9
Czech Republic 5,407 18 134 20 1,774 1,676 404 9
Denmark 13,547 43 749 46 5,083 6,927 1,777 21
Estonia 5,431 21 172 23 2,062 1,428 327 10
Finland 13,172 43 674 47 2,305 6,709 2,110 21
France 9,074 34 392 37 1,989 3,332 1,084 16
Germany 15,024 41 585 45 1,340 3,632 991 20
Greece 4,035 17 200 19 1,695 1,052 267 8
Hungary 5,687 15 101 16 1,480 1,356 12,071 7
Ireland 9,027 29 240 31 203 3,945 558 14
Italy 4,968 22 229 23 288 1,364 165 10
Latvia 4,802 19 171 20 1,846 1,317 297 9
Lithuania 4,460 18 161 20 1,774 1,300 303 9
Luxembourg 8,935 33 386 36 1,958 3,281 1,068 16
Malta 8,935 20 216 22 272 1,290 156 10
Netherlands 9,270 34 352 37 2,770 3,683 1,325 16
Poland 4,709 16 146 18 767 1,290 133 8
Portugal 4,836 16 233 17 1,537 1,393 356 8
Romania 3,688 11 89 12 1,085 913 205 5
Slovak Republic 4,607 18 120 20 1,760 1,482 292 9
Slovenia 4,308 16 217 18 1,609 985 180 8
Spain 5,289 21 137 23 291 1,525 287 10
Sweden 1,7582 50 765 54 3,401 6,425 4,435 24
United Kingdom 8,195 28 142 31 201 2,885 906 14
254
The investment cost calculation of renovation measures is based on following literature sources:
Renovation measure Source
Windows  VHK (2015): Final report, consolidated version of 22 June 2015. LOT 32 / Ecodesign of Window
Products. TASK 7 – Policy Options & Scenarios
Doors  IWU (2015): Kosten energierelevanter Bau- und Anlagenteile bei der energetischen Modernisierung
von Altbauten
Insulation  ifeu (2014): 100 % Wärme aus erneuerbaren Energien? Auf dem Weg zum Niedrigstenergiehaus im
Gebäudebestand.
Solar shading  ift (2015): LOT 32 / Ecodesign of Window Products Task 2 – Market Analysis.
Cooling  ARMINES (2018): Review of Regulation 206/2012 and 626/2011. Air conditioners and comfort fans
Task 2 report.
 BMVBS (2012): BMVBS-Online-Publikation, Nr. 08/2012: Ermittlung von spezifischen Kosten

energiesparender Bauteil-, Beleuchtungs-, Heizungs- und Klimatechnikausführungen bei
Nichtwohngebäuden für die Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchungen zur EnEV 2012.
Heating and Domestic Hot Water  VHK (2019): Space and combination heaters. Review Study. Task 2 Market Analysis.
Ventilation
Lighting  Navigant (2015): Energieaudit nach DIN EN 16274-2
Photovoltaics  Schlitzberger (2018): Kurzgutachten zur Aktualisierung und Fortschreibung der vorliegenden
Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung sowie zu Flexibilisierungsoptionen.
In the case of insufficient data on country-specific investment costs, existing data sources were used to close data gaps with the help of Eurostat
country specific price level indices. The respective price levels and VAT differences in the EU28 member states were considered. The investment cost
calculations are also inflation-adjusted and show end-user costs including VAT and installation costs.
255
3.4. Uptake of nearly-zero energy buildings
The uptake of nearly-zero energy buildings (NZEB) has been calculated by using mainly
three sources:
a) “The architectural professions in Europe 2018. A Sector Study” by the

Architect’s Council of Europe (ACE) (in the following we are referring to the
dataset as “ACE dataset”): The study gives a comprehensive overview of
the architecture sector and its practitioners, as well as activities referring to
the overall construction sector. It collects and presents statistical data on
the market by surveying architects in in various European Countries;
overall in 2016 more than 27.000 architects from 27 countries participated
and completed the questionnaires. The study has been conducted in two-
years intervals.
For our analysis, ACE studies from 2012, 2014 and 2016 has been used to
examine the role of nearly-zero energy buildings in the EU and its member
states. Among others, the study reveals on country level
 how often architects are being asked to build to nearly-zero energy standards,
 the proportion of work undertaken by building type, i.e. for new and
refurbishment projects, and
 the proportion of work undertaken by building sector, i.e. differentiated by
residential and non-residential building types.
The results offer valuable input for the analysis and hence the outcomes have
been incorporated into the approach to quantify the uptake of nearly-zero
energy buildings in the EU and its member states.
b) The architect survey which has been conducted in this assignment (in the
following we are referring to the dataset as “survey dataset”): The survey
conducted within this assignment represents another source of valuable
input to identify the role of nearly-zero energy buildings. Among others, the
data shows the share of nearly-zero energy buildings within each of the
following groups for the years 2012 and 2016:
 new residential buildings

 new non-residential buildings
 renovated residential buildings
 renovated non-residential buildings
Another important source for the analysis was the statistics on new construction
activities in the EU28 and its member states (in the following we are referring to the
dataset as “survey dataset”).
Based on the above-mentioned sources, following approach as has been developed and
implemented; the approach has been illustrated in a flow chart (see Figure 7):
 The ACE dataset on “proportion of work undertaken by building type, i.e. for
new and refurbishment projects” and the survey dataset “total number of new
buildings differentiated by residential and non-residential” has been used to
calculate the “total number of renovated and new buildings”.
 The “total number of renovated and new buildings” and the survey dataset “total
number of new buildings differentiated by residential and non-residential” has
256
been used to derive the “share of new residential and non-residential buildings
of the total construction market”.
 Based on the ACE dataset ”proportion of work undertaken by building sector, i.e.
differentiated by residential and non-residential building types” and the
previously revealed “share of new residential and non-residential buildings of the
total construction market” the difference has been calculated leaving the “share
of renovated residential and non-residential of the total construction market” as
result
 The calculated “share of renovated residential and non-residential of the total
construction market” has then been multiplied with the calculated “total number
of renovated and new buildings” resulting in the “total number of renovated
buildings differentiated by residential and non-residential”.
 In the next step, the ACE dataset on the “share of nearly-zero energy buildings
on the total construction market” and the survey dataset on “share of nearly-
zero energy buildings within each of the following groups: new residential
buildings, new non-residential buildings, renovated residential buildings and
renovated non-residential buildings” has been used to calculate the (i) “share of
nearly-zero energy buildings for new residential and non-residential buildings”
and the (ii) “share of nearly-zero energy buildings for renovated residential and
non-residential building”
 Finally, the “share of nearly-zero energy buildings for new residential and non-
residential buildings” respectively the “share of nearly-zero energy buildings for
renovated residential and non-residential building” has been multiplied with the
“total number of new buildings differentiated by residential and non-residential”
respectively “total number of renovated buildings differentiated by residential
and non-residential” resulting in the “total number of new buildings in NZEB
standard” and “total number of renovated buildings in NZEB standard”
257
Figure 7 : Flowchart of the approach to calculate number of new and renovated buildings in nearly zero energy standard
% new buildling &

Total # new building
renovation Residential & non-residential
of construction market
# nZEB new building

residential & non-residential
Total # new and renovation

% nZEB new building
% of nZEB Standard
total construction market
Total % building sector % new building

Residential & Non-residential residential & non-residential
% of nZEB Standard
Within each group:
New Res, New Non-Res,
Ren Res & Ren Non-Res
% nZEB renovation
% renovation residential & non-residential
# nZEB renovation
# renovation residential & non-residential
Residential & non-residential
Input based on results

Input ACE Study Results Final results
of this assignment
258
The following assumptions have been made:
 Since ACE input data are only available for 2012, 2014 and 2016, interpolations
have been conducted to identify an appropriate starting point for the analysis for
2013 and 2015.
 The ACE study 2012 does not provide information in same granularity as in the
following years for the dataset “how often architects are being asked to build to
nearly-zero energy building”. Therefore, deviations between the available data for
2012 and 2014 has been calculated and applied to estimate the “share of nearly-
zero energy buildings on the total construction market”.
 The ACE study 2012 does not provide information on “proportion of work
undertaken by building type, i.e. for new and refurbishment projects”. After
comparing the share of new and refurbished buildings of the year 2014, 2016 and
2018, it can be stated that the numbers are in a comparable range. Based on this
finding we estimated the “proportion of work undertaken by building type, i.e. for
new and refurbishment projects” by calculating averages based on the years
2014, 2016 and 2018.
 Since the 2016 ACE dataset on “how often architects are being asked to build to
nearly-zero energy building” does not contain information for the Germany,
interpolations based on available number for 2014 and 2018 has been conducted.
 The survey dataset “share of nearly-zero energy buildings within each of the
following groups: new residential buildings, new non-residential buildings,
renovated residential buildings and renovated non-residential buildings” showed
gaps in few categories and countries. These gaps have been filled by using EU
averages for further calculations. The following countries per category are
affected:
o New Residential: Estonia, Slovakia and Finland
o New Non-Residential: Luxembourg, Slovakia and Malta
o Renovation Residential: Denmark, Slovakia and Finland
o Renovation Non-Residential: Cyprus, Slovakia and Ireland
o In the ACE publications 2012 to 2016, few countries were not included, which
resulted in missing data regarding the dataset “how often architects are being
asked to build to nearly-zero energy building”. For these countries averages
have been built based on geographical proximity and considering economical
comparability. The following table provides an overview of missing countries in
each publication.
Table 7: Overview of countries which are not covered in the ACE publication
Country ACE publication 2012 ACE publication 2014 ACE publication 2016
Cyprus x x
Estonia x
Greece x
Hungary x x
Lithuania x x
Latvia x x
Netherlands x
259
Poland x x
Slovakia x
3.5. Survey methodology
Three different surveys were conducted to generate primary data on energy renovation
activities and NZEB, covering both residential and non-residential buildings both on EU28
and on country level:
 Consumer survey
 Architect survey
 Construction companies survey: main contractors and installers
This section describes the key aspects in the design and the fieldwork of the three survey
questionnaires. The table below illustrates the coverage, sample size and complementary
objectives of the three surveys. The large-scale online consumer survey covering each
Member State of the EU28 gathered project-relevant data related to residential buildings.
The two B2B surveys among relevant stakeholders also cover the EU28 but are more
limited in terms of scale. The architect survey focuses on the demand side both for
residential and non-residential buildings (e.g. offices, schools, hospitals, etc.), while a
second B2B survey is tailored towards the supply side targeting both construction
companies (main contractors) and suppliers (installers) of construction materials.
Table 8: Overview of the surveys

Survey of construction
companies (main
Consumer survey Architects survey contractors) and suppliers
(installers) of construction
materials
Coverage EU28
Method CAWI CAWI CATI
Target N = 5,000 (best effort, N = 1,990

N =1 6,800
sample size relying on cooperation of
ACE’s member
organizations)
Achieved N = 30,118 (all)

sample size
N = 1,581 N = 2,009
N = 18,302 (energy
renovations)
Sampling A representative sample of Convenience sample Sample based on Dun &

national population 18+ Bradstreet (D&B) company
database
Target Consumers with The European Architects Construction companies

respondents renovation experience Council’s (ACE) member involved in renovation
organizations activities + suppliers of
Objective Collect data on renovation Collect data on the Collect data on the supply
demand side both for chain and quality of the
260
of residential buildings residential and non- works both for residential
residential buildings and non-residential
covering renovation and buildings covering
NZEB renovation and NZEB
Timing 16 August – 28 September 27 August 2018 – 15 13 August – 6 November

fieldwork 2018 March 2019 2018
Development of the surveys
Ipsos and Navigant worked closely together in designing the questionnaires to translate
the development of indicators into three different yet complementary survey
questionnaires. Ipsos has extensive experience in developing the methodology for
conducting large-scale multi-country surveys that target consumers, companies and/or
other relevant stakeholders in a variety of sectors. Navigant provided the expertise in the
project subject-matter as well as in the development of the methodology outlined in the
previous sections. As a result, each of the three surveys was conducted based on a
questionnaire that has been very specifically tailored to the target group and the data
that needs to be obtained with only minimal overlap with the other questionnaires. Figure
8 below illustrates the close interaction.
Figure 8: Approach for survey development
Each questionnaire was developed starting with a discussion of the final methodology and
creation of a general outline of the key topics to be covered. The relevant indicators
described in the previous sections served as an initial basis for the questionnaire design
approach. For each of the selected indicators, the concrete data points identified as those
feasible to be gathered via a consumer and/or B2B survey were discussed and defined in
detail. In doing so, Ipsos and Navigant carefully considered previous projects and
conducted desk research to estimate which data points would fit each target group. At
this stage, any potential data collection issues that emerged, e.g. data points which were
likely to be difficult for target respondents to recall without aid, data points which target
261
respondents would not feel at ease sharing, etc., was flagged and tackled a priori when
designing the survey questions by adjusting the approach as needed.
The final list of data points served as the basic input for the questions’ design and as the
general structure of the three draft questionnaires. The questionnaires are intended to
provide the main methodological instrument for data collection from both the consumer
and business stakeholder perspectives within the project.
Consumer survey
The objective of the consumer survey was to collect data that feeds into indicators
describing the state of play for residential renovations. The consumer survey was
conducted using a computer assisted web interview (CAWI) methodology in all 28 EU
Member States. As internet penetration has progressed in all EU Member States, online
surveys are seen as a robust way to conduct surveys among the general public. The main
fieldwork launched on 16 August 2018 and continued without interruption until 28
September 2018.
Target group, sampling and weighting approach
The target group of the consumer survey is consumers with knowledge/experience with
renovation, or energy renovators. Because of the specific nature of this target group, a
slightly different approach to questionnaire design and data collection compared to a
standard multi-country survey was needed. Concretely, a two-tier approach was used to
identify the relevant target group.
The first tier (Part 1) of the survey served as a respondent “recruitment” or

“screening” tool, identifying relevant consumers who have experience with energy
renovations. As such, it measured the incidence of renovations in each EU Member State.
The screener also covered household composition, region, type of renovation done and
the overall costs of the renovations, which will allow clustering the results into market
segments, based on these indicators.
Using a random sampling approach, a representative sample per country was invited to
participate in the survey. All respondents had to fill in the first part of the questionnaire
(screener) and were screened based on energy renovations.
The second tier (Part 2) of the survey focused only on consumers who have engaged
in energy-related renovation during 2012-2016. This was the main instrument used to
gather the relevant data needed for analysis which will segment renovation based on a
pre-defined set of criteria (e.g. the depth of renovation, materials used, costs and
benefits, drivers and motivation etc.). Only respondents who qualified to take part in this
survey based on their answers to questions in Part 1 were allowed to answer Part 2.
Table 9 below summarises the number of interviews achieved per country and compares
them with the number of completes including and excluding the screen-outs, as well as
the resulting incidence rates. The table shows that a total of 18,302 respondents
completed the questionnaire and that the targets have been achieved in all countries.
Table 9: Overview of the achieved sample of the Consumer Survey

# total interviews # completed Incidence rate Target sample
Country
(incl. screen-outs) interviews
Austria 974 560 57.5% 500
Belgium 969 560 57.8% 500
Bulgaria 743 621 83.6% 500
262
Croatia 521 360 69.1% 300
Cyprus 1267 211 16.7% 200
Czech
721 540 74.9% 500
Republic
Denmark 1023 546 53.4% 500
Estonia 514 329 64.0% 300
Finland 1153 559 48.5% 500
France 1802 1051 58.3% 1000
Germany 2141 1058 49.4% 1000
Greece 762 564 74.0% 500
Hungary 677 509 75.2% 500
Ireland 562 351 62.5% 300
Italy 1598 1148 71.8% 1000
Latvia 491 348 70.9% 300
Lithuania 535 344 64.3% 300
Luxembourg 269 150 55.8% 100
Malta 268 212 79.1% 200
Netherlands 1899 1022 53.8% 1000
Poland 1319 1008 76.4% 1000
Portugal 1766 1020 57.8% 1000
Romania 1337 1161 86.8% 1000
Slovakia 686 540 78.7% 500
Slovenia 474 379 80.0% 300
Spain 1757 1100 62.6% 1000
Sweden 2236 1015 45.4% 1000
United
1654 1036 62.6% 1000
Kingdom
Total 30,118 18,302 60.8% 16,800
The overall sample (Tier 1) was weighted to be representative on household composition.

Due to the nature of the survey, household composition is a more relevant indicator
compared to gender and age of the overall sample. As such, all Tier 1 respondents were
weighted representative on household composition (see Table 10 below) and not age and
gender as suggested in the tender. Concretely this means that in Tier 1 of the survey,
263
the household composition of all Tier 1 respondents was measured rather than age and
gender. The household composition of the survey respondents was then compared with
the target based on Eurostat and a weighting factor was calculated to adjust the reached
sample to be equal to this target. For example, in Austria, 3% of the population consists
of single adults with children (the ‘target’), while this was the case for 4.8% of the
Austrian Tier 1 respondents (the ‘unweighted sample’). A weighting factor is then applied
to correct this imbalance and to ‘downweight’ this proportion from 4.8% of the sample to
3% of the sample (the ‘weighted sample’).
By adopting this weighting approach, the results illustrate the ratio of household
compositions that have conducted energy renovations, which is more relevant compared
to the renovation rate divided over age and gender (of course, general information on
the age and gender of the respondents is available for the Tier 2 sample).
264
Table 10: Household composition: target sample vs. reached sample (unweighted) vs. reached sample (weighted)
Single adult with children Single adult without Couple with children Couple without children Other type of household Other type of household
children with children without children
TARGET REACHE REACHE TARGET REACHE REACHE TARGET REACHE REACHE TARGET REACHE REACHE TARGET REACHE REACHE TARGET REACHE REACHE
D D D D D D D D D D D D
(unweig (weight (unweig (weight (unweig (weight (unweig (weight (unweig (weight (unweig (weight
hted) ed) hted) ed) hted) ed) hted) ed) hted) ed) hted) ed)
Austria 3.0% 4.8% 3.0% 37.0% 22.5% 37.0% 17.6% 27.2% 17.6% 23.9% 32.0% 23.9% 5.3% 3.7% 5.3% 13.2% 9.8% 13.2%
Belgium 3.9% 10.7% 3.9% 32.0% 23.5% 32.0% 22.1% 34.8% 22.1% 25.6% 25.2% 25.6% 4.7% 1.8% 4.7% 11.7% 4.0% 11.7%
Bulgaria 2.6% 6.1% 2.6% 37.4% 11.4% 37.4% 14.5% 42.3% 14.5% 20.7% 18.2% 20.7% 7.6% 8.6% 7.6% 17.2% 13.5% 17.2%
Croatia 1.9% 7.1% 1.9% 23.3% 12.3% 23.3% 19.1% 43.6% 19.1% 17.8% 16.1% 17.8% 13.0% 10.4% 13.0% 24.9% 10.6% 24.9%
Cyprus 4.3% 3.6% 4.3% 23.5% 19.4% 23.5% 24.9% 53.7% 24.9% 21.9% 16.0% 21.9% 7.6% 4.5% 7.6% 17.9% 2.8% 17.9%
Czech 4.6% 5.8% 4.6% 30.8% 14.6% 30.8% 22.3% 38.0% 22.3% 27.6% 27.3% 27.6% 4.1% 6.2% 4.1% 10.6% 8.0% 10.6%
Republic
Denmark 8.6% 9.7% 8.6% 44.4% 25.1% 44.4% 18.7% 30.1% 18.7% 24.1% 28.9% 24.1% 1.7% 2.2% 1.7% 2.4% 4.0% 2.4%
Estonia 6.6% 8.6% 6.6% 39.9% 19.6% 39.9% 20.3% 38.7% 20.3% 20.2% 23.9% 20.2% 3.9% 2.7% 3.9% 9.0% 6.4% 9.0%
Finland 1.8% 7.6% 1.8% 41.3% 29.8% 41.3% 18.2% 26.8% 18.2% 31.8% 28.9% 31.8% 1.9% 1.1% 1.9% 5.0% 5.7% 5.0%
France 6.0% 7.5% 6.0% 35.1% 26.4% 35.1% 21.2% 34.6% 21.2% 26.2% 27.5% 26.2% 3.8% 1.3% 3.8% 7.7% 2.6% 7.7%
Germany 3.6% 4.4% 3.6% 41.2% 28.0% 41.2% 15.7% 25.0% 15.7% 28.4% 33.9% 28.4% 2.9% 2.1% 2.9% 8.1% 6.7% 8.1%
Greece 2.3% 3.5% 2.3% 31.0% 25.2% 31.0% 21.9% 44.4% 21.9% 25.2% 16.0% 25.2% 4.0% 5.8% 4.0% 15.7% 5.1% 15.7%
Hungary 3.8% 8.9% 3.8% 32.5% 18.8% 32.5% 18.4% 28.7% 18.4% 23.0% 16.0% 23.0% 6.7% 10.9% 6.7% 15.6% 16.8% 15.6%
Ireland 6.3% 7.5% 6.3% 24.4% 18.0% 24.4% 27.3% 42.5% 27.3% 20.7% 23.0% 20.7% 6.7% 2.8% 6.7% 14.7% 6.2% 14.7%
Italy 2.8% 6.9% 2.8% 33.1% 19.7% 33.1% 20.9% 46.5% 20.9% 20.7% 19.0% 20.7% 5.9% 4.3% 5.9% 16.5% 3.6% 16.5%
265
Latvia 6.0% 9.0% 6.0% 35.4% 17.3% 35.4% 15.7% 42.0% 15.7% 18.4% 17.1% 18.4% 8.0% 6.7% 8.0% 16.5% 7.9% 16.5%
Lithuania 7.2% 4.3% 7.2% 42.5% 16.8% 42.5% 14.3% 37.9% 14.3% 16.6% 28.2% 16.6% 6.3% 3.6% 6.3% 13.1% 9.2% 13.1%
Luxembourg 3.7% 5.9% 3.7% 35.3% 14.1% 35.3% 23.7% 49.8% 23.7% 22.6% 22.3% 22.6% 5.6% 2.2% 5.6% 9.1% 5.6% 9.1%
Malta 3.1% 5.6% 3.1% 19.7% 10.4% 19.7% 21.6% 51.1% 21.6% 21.9% 22.8% 31.1% 9.7% 0.4% 0.5% 24.0% 9.7% 24.0%
Netherlands 4.2% 7.1% 4.2% 37.5% 14.6% 37.5% 20.9% 31.1% 20.9% 29.0% 29.3% 29.0% 2.8% 3.4% 2.8% 5.6% 14.5% 5.6%
Poland 3.6% 7.4% 3.6% 23.5% 12.7% 23.5% 24.3% 44.0% 24.3% 23.8% 23.7% 23.8% 9.5% 4.3% 9.5% 15.3% 7.9% 15.3%
Portugal 4.5% 9.6% 4.5% 22.1% 20.6% 22.1% 23.0% 43.4% 23.0% 23.9% 12.2% 23.9% 7.4% 7.6% 7.4% 19.1% 6.6% 19.1%
Romania 2.5% 6.3% 2.5% 27.9% 12.7% 27.9% 20.3% 46.1% 20.3% 20.5% 23.3% 20.5% 12.1% 5.2% 12.1% 16.8% 6.4% 16.8%
Slovakia 2.9% 5.5% 2.9% 22.5% 7.7% 22.5% 21.5% 43.3% 21.5% 22.0% 18.5% 22.0% 12.0% 10.8% 12.0% 19.1% 14.1% 19.1%
Slovenia 3.4% 11.6% 3.4% 32.8% 8.9% 32.8% 22.2% 33.5% 22.2% 21.5% 19.8% 21.5% 5.3% 8.0% 5.3% 14.8% 18.1% 14.8%
Spain 3.4% 5.5% 3.4% 25.6% 17.3% 25.6% 23.1% 47.9% 23.1% 21.8% 20.3% 21.8% 7.2% 4.7% 7.2% 19.0% 4.3% 19.0%
Sweden 6.4% 7.5% 6.4% 51.4% 28.5% 51.3% 18.9% 26.3% 18.9% 19.4% 29.1% 19.4% 1.6% 2.9% 1.6% 2.4% 5.6% 2.4%
United 6.6% 11.7% 6.6% 31.1% 23.6% 31.1% 19.6% 30.7% 19.6% 27.0% 27.4% 27.0% 4.4% 2.1% 4.4% 11.3% 4.5% 11.3%
Kingdom
266
Using the two-tier approach, a screener identified the energy-renovators. The screener
collects the most important information needed to select energy renovators and the
ratio of energy renovation within a country.
To define consumers as energy renovators and non-(energy) renovators the correct

way, question A58 was developed. From this question, we were able to identify energy
renovators, the type of renovations done and the year the renovation was completed
(2012-2016).
Respondents that have done any of the following energy renovations (option 1 – 16)
between 2012 and 2016 are considered energy renovators. It needs to be noted,
however, that new lighting installations (lamps) (option 16) were only counted as
energy-related renovations when combined with other energy-renovations.
Table 11: Types of energy and non-energy renovations included in question A5

Energy renovations Non-energy renovations
1. Replacement of windows 17. Facade renovation without applying

insulation (e.g. just new plaster and/or painting)
2. Replacement of the/a building entrance
door 18. Roof renovation without applying
insulation (e.g. new wood construction, roof tiles
3. Installation of thermal insulation on the or other roof sealing as e.g. bitumen)
facade (incl. cavity wall insulation)
19. Building extensions without applying
4. Installation of thermal insulation of the insulation (e.g. extension of the living room or
roof adding a new bedroom or transforming attic into
living space)
5. Installation of thermal insulation on the
ground plate (floors) 20. Electric installations (incl. replacement of
switches and sockets)
6. Installation of thermal insulation inside
basements 21. Interior wall painting and plastering
7. Installation of thermal insulation on the 22. Interior flooring (incl. baseboards)

attic’s floor
23. Renovation of the bathroom or toilet
8. Replacement or first-time installation
of a space heat generator 24. Renovation of the kitchen
9. Replacement or first-time installation 25. Wallpapering

of a water heater (incl. solar thermal collector
on the roof) 26. Grinding & painting doors or window
8 In the timeframe 2012-2016, were one of the following renovations/installations completed for the residential
building you rent out or your residence? Please consider all renovations done, including renovations/installations
done by yourself, professionals, your landlord, etc. (You can tick multiple renovations).
Always tick the year, in which the renovation/installation was completed (2012 – 2016). Example; you started
replacing your windows end of December 2013 and the renovation was completed in January 2014, please only tick
2014.
(The answer options are presented in the table above)
267
10. Replacement or first-time installation frames
of a radiator
27. Renovation of stairs
of a floor heating system 28. Dry-wall or ceiling constructions
12. Replacement or first-time installation 29. Renovation or replacement of elevator

of a mechanical ventilation system

of a space cooling system (air-conditioner)
14. Installation of a photovoltaic system

(solar modules for electricity generation on the
roof)
15. (Automatic) shading system for

windows to avoid overheating in summer
16. New lighting installations (lamps)
30. I built my house recently and don’t need to do energy renovations
The following table shows the proportion of the respondents in Tier 1 (weighted on
household composition) that have performed energy renovations, non-energy
renovations and no renovations in the period between 2012 and 2016.
The results in Table 12 show that that the incidence rate of energy renovations is
relatively high (above 40%) in all countries, with the exception of Cyprus, where only
13.1% of the respondents performed energy renovations. Particularly high incidence
rates are noticed in Romania (85.1%) and in Bulgaria (82.3%).
Table 12: Overview of the incidence for energy renovations, only non-energy
renovations and no renovations
ALL YEARS (2012 – 2016)
Country Energy Only non-energy No renovations

Renovations Renovations (2012 - 2016)
(2012 - 2016) (2012 - 2016)
Total 59.8% 19.1% 21.1%
Austria 55.2% 25.1% 19.7%
Belgium 55.3% 20.7% 24.0%
Bulgaria 82.3% 9.8% 7.9%
Croatia 65.4% 20.9% 13.7%
Cyprus 13.1% 36.8% 50.1%
Czech Republic 73.4% 13.4% 13.2%
268
Denmark 49.7% 24.1% 26.2%
Estonia 64.6% 19.8% 15.6%
Finland 46.6% 23.6% 29.8%
France 55.6% 18.6% 25.8%
Germany 47.1% 23.9% 29.0%
Greece 70.8% 17.3% 11.9%
Hungary 74.2% 14.5% 11.3%
Ireland 60.7% 26.4% 12.9%
Italy 68.1% 16.3% 15.6%
Latvia 67.7% 18.8% 13.5%
Lithuania 61.5% 19.0% 19.5%
Luxembourg 52.9% 24.5% 22.6%
Malta 76.4% 17.4% 6.2%
Netherlands 51.3% 21.5% 27.2%
Poland 74.4% 13.9% 11.7%
Portugal 55.7% 28.9% 15.4%
Romania 85.1% 7.4% 7.5%
Slovakia 75.3% 12.5% 12.2%
Slovenia 77.0% 13.0% 10.0%
Spain 58.4% 18.8% 22.8%
Sweden 42.4% 26.7% 30.9%
United Kingdom 60.7% 18.8% 20.5%
Sample description
As explained above, the target respondent of the consumer survey is those who are
energy renovator. The following three large groups of energy renovators are defined:
Owners
Tier 2 respondents who own the residence they live in, with no other residential
property that is rented out to individuals. Owners will have done the
renovations themselves or will have commissioned the renovations.
269
Tenants
Tier 2 respondents who rent the residence they live in, with no other residential
property that is rented out to individuals. We identify two types of energy
renovations for tenants:
1. Energy renovations done by or commissioned by the tenants

themselves;
2. Energy renovations done by or commissioned by the landlord.
Landlords
Tier 2 respondents who rent out residential dwellings.
The figure below (Figure 9) shows the (weighted) distribution of respondents across
owners, tenants and landlords. Most respondents currently own the residence (house,
apartment, etc.) they live in, a trend that is consistent across all countries. This is
followed by respondents that currently rent their residence. Landlords of a residential
building (or units) or dwelling that they rent out to others represent only a relatively
small share of the respondents of the consumer survey.
270
Figure 9: Distribution of sample across owners, tenants and landlords
Apart from the distribution of energy renovators in owners, tenants and landlords,
additional questions were included in the questionnaire in order to further break down
the Tier 2 data. A description of the sample across these breakdowns is presented for
each question in the tables below.
a) Gender
271
Table 13: Overview of Tier 2 sample by gender
Male Female
Total 50% 50%
Austria 54% 46%
Belgium 57% 43%
Bulgaria 50% 50%
Croatia 33% 67%
Cyprus 52% 48%
Czech Republic 52% 48%
Denmark 51% 49%
Estonia 45% 55%
Finland 53% 47%
France 48% 52%
Germany 51% 49%
Greece 52% 48%
Hungary 52% 48%
Ireland 44% 56%
Italy 46% 54%
Latvia 49% 51%
Lithuania 45% 55%
Luxembourg 57% 43%
Malta 55% 45%
Netherlands 56% 44%
Poland 53% 47%
Portugal 47% 53%
Romania 52% 48%
Slovakia 56% 44%
Slovenia 53% 47%
272
Spain 49% 51%
Sweden 52% 48%
United Kingdom 52% 48%
b) Age
Table 14: Overview of Tier 2 sample by age categories

18-34 years 35-54 years 55 or older
Total 31.6% 35.6% 32.8%
Austria 32.4% 36.6% 31.0%
Belgium 28.2% 33.5% 38.3%
Bulgaria 30.5% 35.2% 34.3%
Croatia 53.3% 32.7% 13.9%
Cyprus 33.0% 37.0% 30.0%
Czech Republic 23.5% 38.4% 38.1%
Denmark 24.8% 38.5% 36.7%
Estonia 30.2% 31.6% 38.2%
Finland 28.2% 37.4% 34.5%
France 28.0% 33.5% 38.5%
Germany 25.4% 34.7% 39.9%
Greece 35.1% 46.7% 18.2%
Hungary 24.9% 36.9% 38.3%
Ireland 29.2% 42.4% 28.4%
Italy 36.4% 37.7% 25.9%
Latvia 38.2% 30.6% 31.3%
Lithuania 42.6% 27.2% 30.2%
Luxembourg 29.2% 41.7% 29.1%
Malta 39.2% 35.0% 25.8%
Netherlands 24.8% 35.0% 40.1%
273
Poland 33.9% 35.3% 30.7%
Portugal 38.1% 39.3% 22.6%
Romania 44.7% 37.8% 17.5%
Slovakia 37.3% 41.4% 21.3%
Slovenia 29.8% 44.2% 26.0%
Spain 31.3% 40.0% 28.7%
Sweden 27.6% 34.7% 37.7%
United Kingdom 33.1% 29.7% 37.2%
c) Household composition
Table 15: Overview of Tier 2 sample by household composition

Single adult Single adult Couple with Couple Other type Other type
with children without children without of household of household
children children with children without
children
Total 4.2% 29.7% 23.9% 24.9% 5.7% 11.7%
Austria 2.3% 30.6% 21.4% 25.4% 6.7% 13.6%
Belgium 3.7% 26.1% 26.8% 28.1% 5.0% 10.3%
Bulgaria 2.3% 36.9% 15.3% 20.9% 7.9% 16.7%
Croatia 2.1% 22.3% 22.3% 16.2% 12.9% 24.2%
Cyprus 5.1% 24.8% 39.6% 14.8% 8.1% 7.6%
Czech 4.2% 29.2% 23.7% 29.2% 4.2% 9.5%

Republic
Denmark 10.5% 36.6% 24.8% 23.3% 2.2% 2.6%
Estonia 5.3% 39.8% 19.7% 21.1% 5.2% 8.9%
Finland 1.8% 35.8% 23.7% 31.6% 2.2% 4.9%
France 5.0% 30.4% 27.8% 25.2% 4.8% 6.8%
Germany 4.1% 34.5% 19.2% 31.3% 2.5% 8.3%
Greece 2.6% 28.2% 24.9% 27.7% 3.5% 13.1%
Hungary 3.4% 30.7% 19.8% 23.0% 7.1% 16.0%
274
Ireland 6.4% 26.2% 29.9% 19.5% 5.5% 12.4%
Italy 2.8% 33.8% 23.5% 21.0% 5.4% 13.4%
Latvia 6.4% 33.2% 17.3% 19.4% 8.6% 15.0%
Lithuania 8.6% 38.4% 16.0% 16.8% 7.5% 12.6%
Luxembourg 5.2% 28.1% 25.4% 22.8% 7.1% 11.5%
Malta 3.2% 18.4% 23.5% 30.0% 0.7% 24.2%
Netherlands 4.1% 30.1% 26.5% 31.6% 3.6% 4.1%
Poland 3.7% 20.8% 26.7% 23.0% 10.1% 15.8%
Portugal 4.1% 22.8% 25.9% 20.9% 7.6% 18.8%
Romania 2.5% 26.6% 21.0% 21.2% 12.4% 16.3%
Slovakia 2.9% 18.0% 23.3% 22.8% 14.2% 18.8%
Slovenia 3.9% 30.4% 23.0% 20.5% 5.3% 17.0%
Spain 3.6% 25.9% 27.4% 20.7% 6.1% 16.3%
Sweden 6.0% 43.7% 25.8% 19.4% 2.6% 2.6%
United 6.7% 27.4% 23.7% 26.4% 4.7% 11.2%

Kingdom
d) Household income
Table 16: Overview of Tier 2 sample by household income

Lowest Lower Upper Highest
income middle middle income
group income income group
group group
Total 23.3% 26.8% 28.7% 21.1%
Austria 16.1% 29.0% 29.4% 25.5%
Belgium 15.2% 31.0% 30.1% 23.7%
Bulgaria 48.0% 31.7% 15.1% 5.3%
Croatia 34.0% 33.2% 25.4% 7.5%
Cyprus 12.0% 35.8% 25.4% 26.8%
Czech 30.2% 30.5% 30.8% 8.5%

Republic
275
Denmark 28.9% 20.0% 20.4% 30.7%
Estonia 27.4% 37.4% 26.6% 8.6%
Finland 22.6% 24.4% 24.7% 28.3%
France 14.9% 23.6% 31.4% 30.1%
Germany 15.2% 23.1% 32.8% 29.0%
Greece 38.1% 33.4% 21.5% 7.0%
Hungary 49.3% 31.4% 15.8% 3.5%
Ireland 24.1% 24.3% 24.7% 27.0%
Italy 20.3% 29.3% 31.5% 19.0%
Latvia 45.3% 30.9% 18.2% 5.6%
Lithuania 50.4% 30.4% 13.0% 6.2%
Luxembourg 2.8% 7.2% 22.8% 67.1%
Malta 10.2% 24.5% 29.6% 35.7%
Netherlands 18.1% 24.8% 34.4% 22.6%
Poland 23.7% 30.9% 32.4% 13.0%
Portugal 24.5% 35.2% 27.9% 12.5%
Romania 37.6% 32.0% 19.5% 10.9%
Slovakia 21.1% 41.9% 26.7% 10.3%
Slovenia 39.0% 36.2% 16.1% 8.7%
Spain 19.8% 27.3% 30.9% 22.1%
Sweden 30.9% 20.6% 23.7% 24.8%
United 27.2% 21.7% 26.3% 24.9%

Kingdom
e) Tenure status
276
Table 17: Overview of Tier 2 sample by tenure status
Outright owner Owner paying Tenant or Accommodation Accommodation
mortgage subtenant is rented at a is provided free
paying rent at reduced rate
prevailing or (lower price
market rate that the market
price)
Total 52.9% 25.7% 14.3% 5.5% 1.5%
Austria 38.5% 22.2% 25.8% 11.9% 1.6%
Belgium 43.1% 37.9% 12.0% 6.3% 0.8%
Bulgaria 78.3% 8.8% 6.0% 3.8% 3.0%
Croatia 64.8% 19.5% 5.5% 3.7% 6.5%
Cyprus 64.5% 29.4% 0.3% 5.8% 0.0%
Czech 52.4% 28.1% 12.0% 6.3% 1.2%

Republic
Denmark 23.6% 44.2% 22.6% 8.1% 1.4%
Estonia 69.7% 21.3% 4.6% 3.4% 1.0%
Finland 42.5% 40.8% 11.8% 3.5% 1.3%
France 46.0% 31.3% 16.4% 4.6% 1.6%
Germany 40.2% 19.1% 28.1% 11.7% 0.9%
Greece 63.5% 18.9% 11.9% 4.2% 1.5%
Hungary 68.7% 18.0% 5.4% 4.5% 3.4%
Ireland 43.6% 28.3% 14.4% 12.6% 1.0%
Italy 68.4% 20.0% 8.3% 2.0% 1.4%
Latvia 68.2% 11.7% 8.5% 6.7% 4.9%
Lithuania 69.2% 17.4% 6.6% 4.0% 2.8%
Luxembourg 44.2% 41.8% 6.0% 3.7% 4.4%
Malta 63.1% 33.0% 1.8% 1.1% 0.9%
Netherlands 19.5% 54.4% 20.0% 5.4% 0.7%
Poland 69.4% 18.4% 6.5% 3.6% 2.2%
Portugal 43.7% 40.8% 10.4% 4.7% 0.4%
Romania 80.4% 13.9% 2.8% 1.2% 1.8%
277
Slovakia 56.9% 27.7% 8.4% 3.7% 3.2%
Slovenia 71.0% 9.7% 9.7% 6.9% 2.7%
Spain 55.6% 31.9% 8.1% 3.8% 0.5%
Sweden 28.5% 46.4% 19.8% 4.7% 0.6%
United 42.9% 29.8% 19.0% 6.6% 1.7%

Kingdom
f) Type of residence
Table 18: Overview of Tier 2 sample by type of residence

Detached Semi - Attached Apartment Apartment Apartment
building with detached building building with building with building with
1 or 2 building with (row house) 3-6 dwelling 7 – 12 13 or more
dwellings 1 or 2 with 1 or 2 units dwelling dwelling
dwellings dwellings units units
Total 34.8% 11.8% 9.6% 11.8% 11.6% 20.4%
Austria 38.0% 5.2% 6.4% 12.3% 17.3% 20.8%
Belgium 35.7% 22.9% 23.8% 9.0% 3.4% 5.1%
Bulgaria 24.7% 1.7% 0.5% 6.1% 12.4% 54.5%
Croatia 48.1% 6.6% 5.4% 9.4% 10.5% 20.0%
Cyprus 56.5% 15.9% 8.5% 8.3% 6.9% 3.9%
Czech 29.3% 5.9% 6.2% 8.6% 13.7% 36.1%

Republic
Denmark 49.9% 9.2% 14.2% 7.6% 6.3% 12.8%
Estonia 31.6% 2.7% 2.5% 6.7% 9.8% 46.7%
Finland 42.3% 5.4% 12.8% 5.4% 6.7% 27.4%
France 50.0% 6.3% 9.4% 8.3% 10.2% 16.0%
Germany 37.1% 11.6% 7.8% 20.8% 13.4% 9.3%
Greece 28.8% 6.1% 4.0% 22.8% 21.0% 17.3%
Hungary 53.6% 3.0% 1.6% 4.8% 9.1% 27.8%
Ireland 43.4% 31.9% 13.6% 5.1% 2.1% 3.8%
Italy 33.1% 8.8% 7.0% 17.0% 16.7% 17.4%
278
Latvia 29.9% 0.9% 1.5% 7.1% 4.7% 55.9%
Lithuania 27.2% 1.3% 1.0% 3.4% 6.3% 60.8%
Luxembourg 49.5% 15.9% 15.6% 5.9% 7.8% 5.3%
Malta 8.6% 16.9% 42.2% 21.5% 8.7% 2.1%
Netherlands 20.6% 24.3% 33.1% 8.4% 2.8% 10.8%
Poland 36.7% 4.5% 3.4% 6.6% 12.5% 36.2%
Portugal 33.0% 6.4% 5.7% 15.2% 20.7% 19.0%
Romania 35.6% 5.2% 3.3% 4.1% 10.2% 41.6%
Slovakia 38.9% 4.6% 2.7% 7.6% 10.8% 35.3%
Slovenia 60.9% 2.9% 3.1% 3.6% 9.8% 19.7%
Spain 17.1% 5.0% 7.5% 14.3% 19.8% 36.2%
Sweden 46.8% 4.9% 7.6% 8.8% 8.9% 22.9%
United 27.9% 35.7% 20.7% 8.7% 2.4% 4.6%

Kingdom
g) Legal status landlord
Table 19: Overview of Tier 2 sample by legal status of the landlord

Housing Housing Local Private
association association authority or landlord
providing low- providing government (including
cost (social) housing at department family
housing market price members)
Total 17.0% 17.5% 11.3% 54.3%
Austria 20.4% 25.0% 9.2% 45.4%
Belgium 21.8% 14.1% 7.1% 57.0%
Bulgaria 2.8% 15.0% 3.4% 78.9%
Croatia 6.1% 8.2% 10.2% 75.5%
Cyprus 12.0% 0.0% 4.6% 83.4%
Czech 10.1% 25.4% 13.7% 50.8%

Republic
Denmark 31.2% 42.1% 2.2% 24.4%
279
Estonia 4.9% 31.6% 15.3% 48.3%
Finland 29.6% 20.7% 4.5% 45.2%
France 20.8% 15.7% 11.7% 51.8%
Germany 12.1% 23.3% 5.3% 59.3%
Greece 0.6% 0.9% 3.5% 95.0%
Hungary 8.8% 6.3% 14.4% 70.5%
Ireland 11.9% 9.3% 11.6% 67.2%
Italy 9.6% 2.4% 12.4% 75.6%
Latvia 14.0% 6.8% 30.5% 48.7%
Lithuania 25.7% 5.4% 0.0% 68.9%
Luxembourg 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 97.6%
Malta 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 94.7%
Netherlands 56.4% 21.8% 6.3% 15.5%
Poland 11.8% 23.6% 22.6% 42.0%
Portugal 3.7% 15.9% 3.5% 76.9%
Romania 8.7% 7.9% 7.1% 76.2%
Slovakia 8.0% 27.7% 7.1% 57.2%
Slovenia 17.5% 4.3% 15.9% 62.3%
Spain 5.0% 15.8% 6.9% 72.2%
Sweden 3.1% 18.6% 27.8% 50.5%
United 26.3% 12.6% 21.3% 39.8%

Kingdom
Architects survey
The architect survey was also conducted online (CAWI) and focused both on
residential and non-residential renovation projects and NZEB, thus complementing the
results of the consumer survey.
As an EU-wide panel of architects is not available surveying this target group within
other available sources (e.g. consumer panels) would not have been efficient. The
survey was therefore carried out via the European Architects Council (ACE) who
distributed the questionnaire to its national member organisations.
280
The ACE was contacted at an early stage by Ipsos and expressed its willingness to
fully collaborate in the survey execution. Besides, the ACE shared with Ipsos their last
published Sector Study, a biennial survey that collects and analyses statistical,
sociological and economic data on the European Architects, the architectural market
and the architectural practices. Based on responses from 27.000 Architects in 27
European countries, the 2016 Study is reportedly the most comprehensive on the
architectural profession in Europe. The Study allows to draw comparisons between the
European countries and helps to better understand the national situations. The ACE
also contributed questions to the draft questionnaire.
Based on the number of members in each country and the sample size of past ACE
surveys, a sample size of n = 5,000 architects was estimated. The original strategy
relied on the participation of the ACE’s member organisations as well as the personal
willingness of the architects to participate. Therefore, while all reasonable efforts are
made to achieve this sample size, the data collection was performed on best effort.
Taking the above into account, as agreed with the European Commission, the
following response enhancement measures have been undertaken to maximise the
response:
 An official letter of intent was provided to respondents, which clearly

outlines the objectives of the study and serves to motivate participation in
order to achieve a higher response rate;
 A dedicated email address and mailbox were set up to which respondents
could send enquiries or request (technical) support if necessary;
 Reminders were sent out throughout the fieldwork period
The survey was launched on 28 August 2018. On that date, the e-mail invitations and
background information were shared with the ACE, which in turn shared it with its
member organisations. Throughout the fieldwork period, several additional initiatives
were undertaken to further boost the response:
 Based on a discussion with Ipsos, the ACE sent reminder e-mails to its
network;
 Ipsos took the initiative to directly contact the ACE (national) network
members;
 The survey invitation was further disseminated via social media (LinkedIn and
Twitter);
 Through web-scraping and manual desk research, an additional 12,411 unique
e-mail addresses were collected based on publicly available information. Ipsos
sent out the invitation e-mails to these addresses as well as reminder e-mails
at a later stage.
 Ipsos contacted multiple architect associations and related organisations, to aid
in promoting the survey.
 Additional data was collected through an external panel and additional contact
details were purchased. E-mail invitations were sent out to all these contacts.
 Target group, sampling and weighting approach
The respondents who were reached through the ACE member organisations consist of
independent architects (e.g., those who are self-employed) as well as architects
working in an architect firm.
When an independent architect is reached, this person was asked to fill in the
questionnaire. In case the survey reached an architect firm, the aim was to survey the
individual who has the best overview of the types of projects that the company works
281
on, as well as the specific technical measures taken in recent projects. The following
types of positions are targeted within architect firms:
 Managing director or top-level manager

 Team manager or top-level project manager
 Project manager of several projects
In addition, the survey aimed to reach architects and architect firms that have
performed renovations during the period 2012-2016. These renovations may be
performed on residential and/or non-residential buildings. Architects who did not
perform any renovations between 2012 and 2016 were screened out. Table 20 below
provides an overview of the number of interviews achieved per country.
Table 20: Overview of the achieved sample for the Architects survey
# completed
Country
interviews
Austria 8
Belgium 61
Bulgaria 28
Croatia 53
Cyprus 34
Czech
35
Republic
Denmark 5
Estonia 13
Finland 2
France 147
Germany 378
Greece 53
Hungary 5
Ireland 17
Italy 210
Latvia 23
Lithuania 16
Luxembourg 2
282
Malta 12
Netherlands 41
Poland 3
Portugal 19
Romania 82
Slovakia 15
Slovenia 13
Spain 155
Sweden 12
United
139
Kingdom
Total 1,581
A large section of the survey consisted of technical questions on a reference project.

The reference project is intended as the architect’s last project of a particular type in
the reference period.
Architects who worked on non-residential buildings provided information on a non-

residential reference project (Section A in the questionnaire), whereas architects who
worked only on residential buildings, received questions on a residential reference
project (Section B). This approach allowed maximizing the information collected on
non-residential projects, which is not collected through the consumer survey.
The specific type of building for which the respondent provided information (e.g.,
office or educational building) was assigned based on a least-filled basis. It implies
that the respondents answer questions on their most recent renovation of specific
buildings for which the number of responses is the lowest. An overview of the
categorisation is provided in Table 21 below.
Table 21: Categorisation of reference project

Non-residential reference project Residential reference project
If any of the following options were selected, If either of the following residential options
the architect received questions on a non- were selected (and neither of the non-
residential project: residential), the architect received questions
on a residential project:
Office
Educational building Single family house
Hospital Multi-family house (apartment block)
Hotel or restaurant
Sports facilities
Wholesale or retail buildings
Other non-residential buildings
283
Further filtering was applied in Section F of the questionnaire. In this section, the
drivers, barriers and incentives were measured both from the perspective of the
respondent (architect’s perspective) as well as from the perspective of the
respondent’s client (client’s perspective). The latter implies that the architects
estimated which drivers, barriers and incentives played a role in their client’s decisions
on energy-related renovation. The respondents were randomly assigned to either
block of questions, ensuring that 25 percent of the architects received the questions
from the architect perspective and 75 percent received questions from the client’s
perspective.
The overall sample was weighted to be representative of the total building stock on
EU28-level. As such, each country was given a weight which represents the proportion
of that country in the total EU28 building stock (which includes both residential & non-
residential buildings).
As part of the analysis of the architect survey focusses solely on non-residential

buildings, a second weighting scheme was constructed which weights the responses to
be representative of the total non-residential building stock.
Description of the sample
Table 22 below provides an overview of the sample broken down across three key
variables: type of renovation project, type of architect and type of client. Due to the
low sample size in several countries, only an overall breakdown is provided.
284
Table 22: Description of Architects survey sample across three key variables
Type of renovation projects (all Type of architect (all Type of clients (non-residential
respondents) respondents)9 renovation only)
Non- Independent Part of an Mainly private Mainly public

Residential
residential architect architect firm clients clients
24% 76% 69.4% 36.4% 75.7% 24.3%
Construction companies survey
The goal of this third survey was to understand the demand and supply chain as well
as the quality of the works related to energy-efficiency and NZEB. The survey was
carried out via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) in all 28 EU Member
States. Similar to the architect survey, this survey also focused on both residential
and non-residential renovation projects and NZEB.
Since the survey with construction companies used CATI methodology, it was of
particular importance to be able to obtain contact details of companies within the
scope of the study. Therefore, the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) company database was
used. The D&B company database provides the highest coverage of companies within
the European Union and allowed to obtain information on country, sector and size
level. The information on country and sector was used during the fieldwork to pre-
target potential respondents.
Before the start of the fieldwork, a live pre-testing of the questionnaire took place to
assess the understanding, item response, potential drop-out and length of the
telephone interview. This pre-testing took place during the beginning of July 2018 and
consisted of 10 interviews with actual respondents. The questionnaire was finalized
based on the feedback from this pre-test and focused on revisions to improve the
overall user-friendliness of the questionnaire. This included:
 Rephrasing questions and/or answer options to make the questions/answer

options better understandable and less complex
 Removing similar and/or overlapping answer options
 Rephrasing instructions interviewers and/or respondents, for questions where

the pre-testing showed that respondents were unsure how to answer
Besides these changes, no structural adaptations to the questionnaire were made.
Following the finalization of the survey material, the main fieldwork ran from 13
August 2018 until 6 November 2018. Overall, the fieldwork took longer than originally
planned due to a low efficiency of the sample, as it turned out to be much more
difficult than initially anticipated to pre-target the subgroups of Installers and Main
Contractors. Concretely, this means that a substantial amount of companies that were
contacted during the study were not eligible to take part in the survey. As such,
9 Respondents could indicate both answer options
285
considerably more companies than foreseen had to be contacted to reach the target
sample size.
Target group, sampling and weighting approach
As already mentioned above, the survey targeted two main groups of construction
companies: installers and main contractors. These subgroups were defined as follows:
1. Installers
Companies that offer installer services for new construction and renovations products,
usually focusing on one (or sometimes several) specific trades, such as installing
windows or installing heating systems.
2. Main contractors
Companies that offer (either themselves or through subcontractors) or coordinate all

required installer services for new construction or renovation projects.
Several screening questions, in addition to the identification of the target group

described above, were included in the questionnaire. The purpose of the screening
questions was two-fold:
1. Ensuring that the companies that are being contacted are indeed included in
the target group of the survey;
2. Identifying the areas in which the enterprise was significantly active between
2012 and 2016, to be able to ask targeted questions to subgroups of
respondents (see also the section on the description of the sample below).
To ensure a sound distribution of the subgroups within every country sample, quota
targets for the distribution of interviews were defined. This entails that the interviews
on country level would aim to be distributed as follows:
Installers – 75% of the country sample

Main contractors – 25% of the country sample
Table 23 below provides a complete overview of the number of completed interviews
in each subgroup, as well as the distribution of interviews between the subgroups on
country level. The total sample shows a distribution of 74% Installers and 26% Main
contractors, which is indeed extremely close to the aimed distribution. On country
level, the proportion of Installers in the sample ranges from 77.6% to 65.2% for
Installers, and 22.4% and 34.8% for Main contractors (in Bulgaria and Ireland,
respectively). In 20 out of the 28 Member States included in the scope of the survey,
the deviation from the targeted distribution does not exceed 5%. The sole exception is
Cyprus, where the distribution is almost equal between the two target groups (53.8%
for Installers and 46.2% for Main contractors). This is mostly due to the extremely low
amount of sample available for this country. As such, to maximise the overall
response for this country, it was decided to obtain interviews from both target groups
on a best-effort approach.
286
Table 23: Overview of the achieved sample for the Construction companies survey
Installers Main contractors
Number of Number of
Proportion Proportion
interviews interviews
Number of
Total 1491 74% 523 26%
interviews
Austria 66 47 71.2% 19 28.8%
Belgium 75 56 74.7% 19 25.3%
Bulgaria 98 76 77.6% 22 22.4%
Croatia 32 22 68.8% 10 31.3%
Cyprus 13 7 53.8% 6 46.2%
Czech
64 43 67.2% 21 32.8%
Republic
Denmark 76 57 75.0% 19 25.0%
Estonia 56 43 76.8% 13 23.2%
Finland 81 59 72.8% 22 27.2%
France 148 113 76.4% 35 23.6%
Germany 118 90 76.3% 28 23.7%
Greece 88 64 72.7% 24 27.3%
Hungary 101 77 76.2% 24 23.8%
Ireland 23 15 65.2% 8 34.8%
Italy 151 116 76.8% 35 23.2%
Latvia 32 22 68.8% 10 31.3%
Lithuania 34 24 70.6% 10 29.4%
Luxembourg 25 19 76.0% 6 24.0%
Malta 16 11 68.8% 5 31.3%
Netherlands 59 40 67.8% 19 32.2%
Poland 95 73 76.8% 22 23.2%
Portugal 74 56 75.7% 18 24.3%
Romania 77 57 74.0% 20 26.0%
287
Slovakia 68 46 67.6% 22 32.4%
Slovenia 49 37 75.5% 12 24.5%
Spain 151 116 76.8% 35 23.2%
Sweden 68 49 72.1% 19 27.9%
United
76 56 73.7% 20 26.3%
Kingdom
For the Construction companies survey a similar weighting approach as the one
adopted in the Architects survey was developed, where the sample is weighted to be
representative of the total building stock.
Description of the sample
a) Type of building project
One of the survey questions identified the different areas of projects in which the
company was active between 2012 and 2016. As such, the target groups were further
broken up into installers or main contractors active in:
 Residential new construction projects;

 Residential renovation projects;
 Non-residential new construction projects;
 Non-residential renovation projects.
The table below (Table 24) provides an overview of respondents per category, spread
across the two subgroups, and indicates the proportion of respondents that are active
in each category (based on the total sample).
Table 24: Overview of respondents active per type of building project

Residential new Residential Non-residential Non-residential
construction renovation new construction renovation
Total 42.2% 76.3% 36.4% 55.3%
Installers 41.3% 73.1% 34.0% 49.2%
Main 48.6% 100.0% 7.1% 100.0%

contractors
b) Type of services offered (installers only)
In order to have a comprehensive overview of the market, several subgroups of

construction companies were defined within the two main target groups. Whereas the
main contractors include those at least active in non-residential construction project,
288
the subgroup of installers focused on installers offering services for one or more of the
following core sectors:
 Performing works on the façade (including insulation works);
 Installing windows;
 Installing heating systems (including solar thermal);
 Installing photovoltaic systems, air-conditioning or electric heating;
 Performing works for the roof;
 Installing mechanical ventilation.
The table below (Table 25) provides an overview of the proportion of respondents
active in each of the core sectors included in the scope of the study.
Table 25: Proportion of installers in the sample offering each type of service
Proportion of the sample offering this type
Type of service
of service
Performing works on the façade (including

29.9%
insulation works)
Installing windows 28.3%
Installing heating systems (including solar

55.9%
thermal)
Installing photovoltaic systems, air-conditioning

34.6%
or electric heating;
Performing works for the roof; 34.2%
Installing mechanical ventilation. 39.8%
c) Company size
A final breakdown looks at the size of the company of the respondents, which is based
on the amount employees.
289
Table 26: Overview of respondents per company size
Company size
1 (one-man 2–9 10 – 49 50 – 249 >249

business) employees employees employees employees
Total 21.9% 48.7% 22.8% 4.7% 1.8%
Installers 22.5% 49.9% 22.1% 3.8% 1.6%
Main 17.7% 39.5% 28.4% 11.2% 3.2%

contractors
3.6. Limitations
An enormous effort in activating architects to participate in the survey still resulted in

a small sample size of architects (1,581), which does not enable a reliable split of the
renovation of non-residential buildings into different building types such as educational
buildings and wholesale/retail buildings. During the detailed analysis of the survey
results, a significant deviation of the SFH/MFH shares in the samples from the real
distribution in the stock has been identified. Because of this uncertainty, the
renovation of residential buildings was not split into different building types such as
single-family homes and multi-family homes. Note that consumers were asked to
report investments between 2012 and 2016 in a survey that took place in summer
2018. It must be expected that not all respondents may have been able to accurately
reproduce activities during that period. Therefore, sometimes the average for the
whole period from 2012-2016 may be closer to reality than findings for individual
years. Many findings are derived from purchased market data, which have been
checked thoroughly by data providers and aligned to the needs of this project but
could not be further verified within this project. Finally, altogether considerably less
data for non-residential buildings was available than for residential buildings. For some
sources the level of uncertainty is unclear. Therefore, all results should be understood
as best estimates, in the case of non-residential buildings rather as an indication.
290
4. EU28 building stock inventory
For calculating the renovation rates, it is necessary to first develop a EU28 building
stock inventory in a level of detail that is needed to allow results for each considered
building type to be presented separately. According to the developed methodology and
scope of the project, the following building types according to EPBD Annex I had to be
covered:
 Single family houses;

 Multi-family houses;
 Offices;
 Educational buildings;
 Hospitals;
 Hotels and restaurants;
 Sports facilities;
 Wholesale and retail trade services buildings;
 Other types of energy-consuming buildings.
As the renovation rates should be calculated based on building floor area and
buildings, the inventory needs to contain both types of information for the years 2012-
2016. The initial idea was to directly use the data that is collected in the new EU BSO
project (ENER/C3/2014-543), however this information was not available early enough
to be usable for this task. In consequence, an own approach had to be developed,
which is presented below.
4.1. Approach residential buildings
Basis for the residential building stock inventory is the EU-SILC 2012 Module on
Housing Conditions. It contains detailed information on the number of households per
dwelling type (detached house, semi-detached and terraced house, apartment or flat
in a building w/ less than 10 dwellings, apartment or flat in a building w/ more than 10
dwellings) and for each type the average floor area per country. This information has
been used to calculate the 2012 baseline.
Using the Navigant’s GLObal BUilding Stock Model GLOBUS and considering the
analysed new constructions as described above, the building stock development until
2016 has been projected ex-post.
To convert these floor area numbers into number of buildings, two main sources have
been used:
 For single family houses: The 2011 Census database

 For multi-family houses: Entrance average number of dwellings per building
(http://www.entranze.enerdata.eu/#/average-number-of-dwellings-per-
building.html) combined with EU-SILC, own modelling plausibility checks and
assumptions to close gaps
291
4.2. Approach non-residential buildings
The development of a non-residential building stock inventory builds upon the

conducted work within the impact assessment (IA) of the EPBD. The following sources
have been used during the IA to compile an overview of the 2012 EU non-residential
building stock in terms of gross floor area (m²) per country:
Table 27: Sources – approach to non-residential building stock
Country Source building stock base year

Austria Statistik Austria - Mikrozensus
Belgium BPIE 2011
Bulgaria BPIE 2011
Croatia ENTRANZE
Cyprus (Schimschar, 2015)
Czech Republic ENTRANZE
Denmark Statistics Denmark
Estonia ENTRANZE
Finland Statistics Finland
France Objectifs Bâtiments 2012 - 2020, Hubert Despretz – Ademe/DBU
Germany Statistisches Bundesamt / Fraunhofer [BMWi, 2015]
Greece BPIE 2011
Hungary Panorama of the European non-residential construction sector
Ireland (Schimschar, 2015)
Italy Statistics Italy (CENSUS)
Latvia BPIE 2011
Lithuania BPIE 2011
Luxembourg BPIE 2011
Malta BPIE 2011
Netherlands ENTRANZE
Poland BPIE 2011
Portugal BPIE 2011
Romania BPIE 2011
Slovakia ENTRANZE
Slovenia BPIE 2011
Spain Panorama of the European non-residential construction sector
Sweden Statistics Sweden (SCB) / Energimyndigheten
United Kingdom ENTRANZE
292
These sources have been updated considering the published Long-Term Renovation
Strategies of the EU MS and other updated national sources. Missing data and also to
calculate the development of the building stock over time, the Navigant Globus model
has been used.
To convert these floor area numbers into number of buildings, building stock numbers
of the H2020 project “Hotmaps Toolbox” has been used 10. Accordingly, it was possible
to calculate average building sizes per non-residential sub-category, see the following
table.
10 https://gitlab.com/hotmaps/building-stock/tree/master
293
5. New construction activities in the EU28
Similar to the information needed on the total amount of buildings and floor area in
the stock for being able to calculate the renovation rate, also the total amount of
newly constructed buildings and floor area is needed to calculate the share of NZEB
buildings on all new constructions. EUROCONSTRUCT and EECFA provide the number
of completed dwellings for many EU countries divided by 1+2 family dwellings as well
as flats. For the non-residential sector, the new built surface (in m²) is provided,
however not for all countries. The following table provides an overview of the provided
information from EUROCONSTRUCT and EECFA.
Infomation on newly
constructed non-
Information residential floor area
on new partly in line with
Country dwellings required data
Austria x
Belgium x
Bulgaria x
Croatia x x
Cyprus
Czech Republic x x
Denmark x x
Estonia
Finland x x
France x x
Germany x x
Greece
Hungary x
Ireland x
Italy x x
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands x x
Poland x x
Portugal x x
Romania x
Slovak Republic x x
Slovenia x x
Spain x x
Sweden x x
United Kingdom x
EU28 21/28 14/28
5.1. Approach for calculating the newly constructed floor area and
buildings in the residential sector
For those countries EUROCONSTRUCT and EECFA do not provide the number of new
dwellings (Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta), a set of
three other sources has been used to calculate these numbers:
1) The State of Housing in the EU 2017, Housing Europe (European Federation of

Public, Cooperative and Social Housing),
2) Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010, Ministry of the Interior and
Kingdom Relations,
3) EUROSTAT Building permits - annual data [sts_cobp_a].
In the next step, the number of dwellings has been combined with the average size of
new dwellings in square metres. Where possible, this information was collected from
294
the ZEBRA2020 data tool 11, EECFA and Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010.
Missing data for some years was linearly interpolated. At this stage, the EU BSO
(ENER/C3/2014-543) could not provide other useful data.
In the next step, the resulting floor area has been converted into number of newly
constructed buildings by using average building sizes of single and multi-family
houses. For this purpose, data has been extracted from TABULA/EPISCOPE
considering the newest construction period covered per country. The resulting average
building sizes per EU MS are presented in Table 28.
5.2. Approach for calculating the newly constructed floor area and
buildings in the non-residential sector
As already described above, the main source for new non-residential construction data
is EUROCONSTRUCT and EECFA. However, as data is not available for all EU member
states, some other sources and assumptions had to be applied.
The ZEBRA2020 data tool and BSO for instance provide some non-residential
construction numbers. Other potential sources are EUROSTAT’s “Building permits -
annual data” (sts_cobp_a), “Annual detailed enterprise statistics for construction”
(sbs_na_con_r2) or “Purchasing power parities (PPPs), price level indices and real
expenditures for ESA 2010 aggregates” (prc_ppp_ind). Gaps can also be filled with a
research on national level. For countries where no information was available, the
amount of new non-residential constructions has been calculated with the Navigant
Global Building Stock (GLOBUS) model.
For the conversion of the floor area into number of newly constructed buildings, the
reference buildings from the national cost-optimality reports according to article 4
EPBD have been used. The cost-optimality reports provide information for more than
50% of the MS in a sufficient level of detail to calculate the size of an average non-
residential reference building to be used for converting floor area into number of
buildings. For countries, where this information was not available, an average building
size of the other countries has been applied. The resulting average building sizes per
EU MS are presented in Table 28.
5.3. Used reference building sizes of new constructions
Table 28: Reference building sizes of new constructions
2012 Newly Newly Average new residential Newly constructed

constructed constructed building (2012-2016) non-residential
SFH MFH building
m²/building m²/building m²/building m²/building
Austria 174 448 237 3,602

Belgium 224 2,556 344 3,602
Bulgaria 229 1,091 448 3,602
Cyprus 193 1,350 246 5,792
Czech 196 2,396 251 2,250
Republic
Germany 236 1,977 345 1,773
11 http://www.zebra-monitoring.enerdata.eu/overall-building-activities/share-of-new-dwellings-in-residential-
stock.html#average-size-of-new-dwellings.html
295
Denmark 162 6,988 307 3,283
Estonia 235 5,853 867 5,820
Greece 308 808 406 3,602
Spain 140 3,449 357 5,544
Finland 120 1,207 241 4,880
France 109 1,096 169 5,023
Croatia 235 1,091 438 2,100
Hungary 136 816 178 1,777
Ireland 198 3,804 214 1,887
Italy 171 1,261 325 3,602
Lithuania 236 5,853 582 804
Luxembourg 187 3,100 332 3,766
Latvia 233 5,853 478 2,677
Malta 208 638 252 3,432
Netherlands 180 3,100 244 3,602
Poland 249 5,853 338 3,602
Portugal 136 3,449 183 3,602
Romania 215 1,091 261 3,602
Sweden 108 1,207 264 3,602
Slovenia 278 3,256 320 1,290
Slovakia 152 2,396 201 3,602
United 191 2,011 230 4,500
Kingdom
The calculated floor areas in square metres [m²] have been divided by the respective
building size (e.g. 1000m²/per building) to get the number of new buildings.
296
6. References
 Amélie Cuq et al (2011). Amélie Cuq, Dara Jouanneaux, Anouk Jourdan,
Christian Duchesne, Johann Audrain, Marie-Françoise. Impact on employment
and trainings of development in rational use of energy and renewable energy
sources in SEMCs. Plan Bleu, 2011
 Guyonnaud
 Artola, Irati; Rademaekers, Koen; Williams, Rob; Yearwood, Jessica (2016):
Boosting Building Renovation: What Potential and Value for Europe? Study for
the ITRE Committee. Edited by Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific
Policy Artola, Irati; Rademaekers, Koen; Williams, Rob; Yearwood, Jessica.
 Attia et al. (2017): Overview and future challenges of nearly zero-energy
buildings(NZEB) design in Southern Europe.
 BPIE (2015): Nearly zero-energy buildings definitions across Europe. Factsheet.
S. 4-5
 D’Agostino, Delia; Zangheri, Paolo; Castellazzi, Luca (2017): Towards Nearly
Zero-Energy Buildings in Europe. A Focus on Retrofit in Non-Residential
Buildings. In: Energies, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 117.
 CA EPBD (2015): Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
(EPBD). Featuring Country Reports.
 EPBD (2016): Overview of national applications of the Nearly Zero-Energy
Building (NZEB) definition. Detailed report. S. 6-9
 EPISCOPE (2014): Inclusion of New Buildings in Residential Building
Typologies.
 GBPN (2014): Reducing energy demand in existing buildings: learning from the
best practise renovation policies. Technical report.
 Hermelink, Andreas (1996): Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen von DSM-Programmen im
Sektor der privaten Haushalte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des
Anwenderverhaltens. Ergebnisse aus der Evaluierung des EU-PHARE-
Fernwärmepilotprojektes in Eger (Ungarn). Diplomarbeit. Institut für
Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Stuttgart. Abteilung
Energiewirtschaft und systemtechnische Analysen (ESA).
 Interreg Europe (2017): Improving energy efficiency in buildings. A policy brief
from the Policy Learning Platform on low-carbon economy.
 Janssen & Staniaszek (2012). Rod Janssen and Dan Staniaszek. How Many
Jobs? A Survey of the Employment Effects of Investment in Energy Efficiency of
Buildings. The Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum, 2012
 JRC Science and policy reports (2014): Financing building energy renovations.
Current experiences & ways forward.
 JRC (2016): Synthesis Report on the National Plans for Nearly Zero-Energy
Buildings (NZEBs). S. 12-15
 JRC (2017): Towards Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings in Europe: A Focus on
Retrofit in Non-Residential Buildings. S. 7
 Krémer, Zsolt; Liebernickel, Thomas; Ebert, Volkmar; Moosreiner, Stefan
(2005): Abbau von Hemmnissen bei der energetischen Sanierung des
Gebäudebestandes. Kurzbericht. Technomar GmbH. München Krémer, Zsolt;
Liebernickel, Thomas; Ebert, Volkmar; Moosreiner, Stefan.
297
 Maby, Catrin; Owen, Alice (2015): Installer Power - The key to unlocking low
carbon retrofit in private housing. Maby, Catrin; Owen, Alice.
 Pillen, Nicole; Bertoldi, Paolo; Grether, Stefanie (2007): GreenBuilding - Europe
wide renovations of non-residential buildings. DENA; JRC (ECEEE SUMMER
STUDY) Pillen, Nicole; Bertoldi, Paolo; Grether, Stefanie.
 Stieß, Immanuel; van der Land, Victoria; Birzle-Harder; Babara; Deffner, Jutta
(2010): Handlungsmotive, -hemmnisse und Zielgruppen für eine energetische
Gebäudesanierung. Ergebnisse einer standardisierten Befragung von
Eigenheimsanierern. Edited by ENEF-Haus. Frankfurt am Main Stieß,
Immanuel; van der Land, Victoria; Birzle-Harder; Babara; Deffner, Jutta.
298
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may
charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may
charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

November – 2019
Free publications:
MJ-03-19-963-EN-N
MJ-03-19-963-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-76-14632-2
MJ-03-19-963-EN-N
doi: 10.2833/14675
MJ-03-19-963-EN-N

Comprehensive Study of Building Energy renovation-MJ0319963ENN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Study of Building Energy renovation-MJ0319963ENN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Study of Building Energy renovation-MJ0319963ENN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive study of

building energy renovation

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

© European Union, November 2019

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-14632-2 doi: 10.2833/14675 MJ-03-19-963-EN-N

© European Union, 2019

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Executive Summary – Key messages

The objective of this study is to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the renovation

 Precise definitions in the context of energy renovation of buildings

 EU28 building stock inventory and new construction data

 Related primary energy savings; split into residential and non-residential

 Avoided greenhouse gas emissions through energy renovation; split into

 Impact on employment rate of overall building renovation

 Information on triggers, drivers, barriers and incentives.

Results and conclusions

 Below threshold (x < 3% savings)

 Light renovations (3% ≤ x ≤ 30% savings)

 Medium renovations (30% < x ≤ 60% savings)

 Deep renovations (x > 60% savings)

“One-off” deep renovation gets significant attention in discussions about a decarbonised

In the EU28, residential sector current investments in energy renovations 2 are

Uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings

Determinants of energy renovation

This asks for more promotion of EPCs especially amongst intermediaries.

Intermediaries - architects, main contractors and installers – appear to be a group

Only if intermediaries fully support energy efficiency measures, they will

The objective of this study is to deliver a comprehensive analysis of the renovation

Method Computer-Assisted Web Computer-Assisted Web Computer-Assisted Telephone

Achieved N = 30,118 of which 18,302

Target Consumers with (energy) The European Architects Construction companies

Timing 16 August – 28 September 27 August 2018 – 15 March 13 August – 6 November 2018

 Facade renovation without applying insulation

Accordingly, the following works are considered as energy renovations:

Different complex approaches were designed to quantify different renovation rates,

Based on an extensive literature research, most common triggers, drivers, barriers

Quantitative indicators provide all relevant information to quantify the renovation

 countries (the EU28 Member States),

In addition to what is usually understood as “drivers and barriers”, the qualitative

 the role of stakeholders during the renovation process,

Figure 1: Illustration of main indicators covered in the study

 renovation (section 4.1)

 uptake of nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEB) (section 4.2)

 determinants for performing energy renovations (section 4.3).

As mentioned in section 2, results are presented collectively for residential buildings

4.1. Renovation rates, achieved energy savings and investment costs

4.1.1 Achieved renovation rates

8 More details can be found in Data Annex_Renovation Results EU28

Results show significant differences between countries. Notably, Eastern European

Table 2: Energy renovation in residential buildings (average 2012-2016)

Energy Energy Energy

EU28 12.3% 7.1% 3.9% 1.1% 0.2%

As for renovation rates based on number of buildings13 as well as for absolute

Energy renovation in non-residential buildings

Renovation rates significantly decrease when moving from “below threshold”, to

The average total annual energy renovation rate of non-residential buildings -

Table 3: Energy renovation in non-residential buildings (average 2012 – 2016)

EU28 9.5% 4.1% 3.0% 2.1% 0.3%