Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings
Abstract
:1. Introduction
nZEB Definitions
2. Literature Review
2.1. Stakeholders Attitudes toward nZEB
Building Life Cycle and Key Stakeholders
2.2. Role of the Stakeholders in the Construction Industry
2.3. Retrofit Industry and Construction Professionals
2.4. Aims and Objectives
3. Research Design and Methods
3.1. Aims and Objectives
3.2. Aims and Objectives
3.3. Data Analysis
- (1)
- Independent variables in questions: Q1–Q8
- (2)
- Dependent variables in questions: Q5–Q10
3.4. Background Data
4. Results
4.1. Survey Results: Assessing the Stakeholder Perspective
4.1.1. Importance of Energy Efficiency and the Focus on Embodied Energy CO2 in the Materials
4.1.2. Usage of UN Sustainable Goals
4.1.3. The Most Important Actions in Reaching the Carbon Neutrality Target in Building Sector
5. Interview Results: Investigating the Key Personnel
5.1. Usage of UN Goals in the Work as a Guiding Tool
“Yes, they are using UN development sustainable goals. However, they don’t think about it daily, weekly or monthly basis, it is just there. Their strategy is linked to [the] UN (climate goal) to their sustainable implementation towards [becoming] carbon neutral”.(sustainable development manager)
“Yes, we have chosen specific targets”
“Yes, we do use [the SDGs] as a guiding tool but not [in] a strategic way. We have done a quick mapping which of these SDGs are relevant to work. We have used as a very broad guideline. We use it because it’s a good picture which gives a broad way. However, it’s a bit difficult to pick one SDGs as it is very broad, it is good for big business.”
“It is an established frame, no we don’t use SDGs in our work”.(sustainable manager)
5.2. Assessment CO2 Emissions in Construction Phase
“We as a program, we don’t building anything, we don’t build buildings. We are making a roadmap for buildings to become carbon neutral. We need to reduce the carbon emissions during both [the] running and construction phase. We do recognize that running time gives more carbon emissions and we have to tackle both. However, when we build something new, we have to focus on [the] construction phase”.(development manager)
“We prioritize operation time, because that’s we know and it’s easier to calculate and easy to affect us directly. In the construction phase, we have not constructed yet. It might come with a huge price tag so it’s a little bit tough for us. Maybe if some construction provider comes to us saying that they will give us some help, then we may can think about it. In the longer run the emissions [come] from the construction [rather] than in the operation phase.”
“Both are important, ours has promised to be CO2 free by 2045.”
“I would talk about embodied, running time is a big part of the life cycle. Of course the materials’ impact is increased. Structural energy is also important. It is very difficult to prioritize.”
5.3. Tools or Targets to Support Resiliency and Sustainability in Their Work
“The calculator, the national target on how you calculate and what. We can’t think of one specific tool. In terms of target, we already have, as it’s already in the city strategy to support the resiliency and sustainability in the work.”
“We follow all different kinds of energy consumptions we have. We would be interested in understanding better the visitor and logistics carbon emissions.”
“We are using modeling and target values/criteria for design. We have our own CO2 calculation models and we are using them to set the targets for our projects.”
“We use many kinds of tools, like EPDs. We can see the impacts from one-click LCA software and the carbon designer tool, we can utilize when we have EPDs.”
5.4. Attitudes toward nZEB
“We think nZEB buildings are [one] more step to going toward negative building. Looking at the city perspective, it’s a good attitude; however, in a bigger picture, it requires [the] collaboration of all the stakeholders. Communication and collaboration are vital parts in accomplishing these targets toward the city NZEB. Financing part also comes [into the] picture, it has to be viable to make the buildings nZEBs, those are businesses and they have to make money”.(development manager)
“nZEB is possible, [the] EU definition is different than any other countries. For example, each climate has different criteria. We are constructing right now. Buildings [that] produce their own energy is tough though”. Producing all the energy on site is not feasible. Everything comes with a price tag but not all is possible.”
“It is really happening. We are promoting a lot, it’s our business to promote.”
“We focus on zero carbon buildings, zero energy is good but not enough”.
6. Summary of the Results and Discussion
6.1. Stakeholders Attitudes toward Importance of Energy Efficiency and Embodied CO2
6.2. Usage of the UN Sustainable Goals in Your Work
6.3. Importance of Carbon Neutrality Reaching the nZEB
7. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhao, X.; Pan, W.; Lu, W. Business model innovation for delivering zero carbon buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, J.; Read, B.; Pullen, S.; Shi, Q. Achieving carbon neutrality in commercial building developments-Perceptions of the construction industry. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition: Investing in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2020, 53, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar]
- Warf, B. Energy Technologies. 2017. Available online: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785361159/9781785361159.xml (accessed on 14 May 2021).
- Hamdy, M.; Mohamed, A.; Hasan, A. Net- and Nearly- Zero Energy Buildings: A Review of the Definitions and Case Studies. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning, RIPI Conventions Center, Tehran, Iran, 26–28 May 2015. ICHVAC6-8112. [Google Scholar]
- Paatero, J.V.; Moula, M.E.; Alanne, K. Occupants’ acceptability of zero energy housing in Finland. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38, 542–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, M.J.; Navarro, J.G. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. Finland’s Integrated Energy and Climate Plan; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment: Helsinki, Finland, 2019.
- Marszal, A.J.; Bourrelle, J.; Musall, E.; Heiselberg, P.; Gustavsen, A.; Voss, K. Net Zero Energy Buildings-Calculation Methodologies Versus National Building Codes. EuroSun 2016, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A.; Voss, K. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy Build. 2012, 48, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Programmes, N.R. Directive 2012/27/Eu Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32. Off. J. L. 2012, 315, 1–56. [Google Scholar]
- Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; pp. 18–36. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Crawley, D.; Torcellini, P.; Tournaki, S. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2006; Volume 126, p. 368. [Google Scholar]
- Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C.; D’Agostino, D.; Zacà, I. Cost-optimal design for nearly zero energy office buildings located in warm climates. Energy 2015, 91, 967–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacà, I.; D’Agostino, D.; Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C. Assessment of cost-optimality and technical solutions in high performance multi-residential buildings in the Mediterranean area. Energy Build. 2015, 102, 250–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacà, I.; D’Agostino, D.; Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C. Data of cost-optimality and technical solutions for high energy performance buildings in warm climate. Data Br. 2015, 4, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zacà, I.; D’Agostino, D.; Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C. Cost-optimal analysis and technical comparison between standard and high efficient mono-residential buildings in a warm climate. Energy 2015, 83, 560–575. [Google Scholar]
- Zacà, I.; D’Agostino, D.; Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C. Efficient solutions and cost-optimal analysis for existing school buildings. Energies 2016, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Annunziata, E.; Frey, M.; Rizzi, F. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy 2013, 57, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roelens, W.; Loncour, X. Enforcing Energy Performance Requirements in New and Refurbished Buildings Requirements in New and Refurbished Buildings. 2014. Available online: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CA-EPBD-enforcement-of-requirements.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2021).
- European Commission. Directive 2010/31/EU; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
- Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. European smart cities: The role of zero energy buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 15, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staniaszek, D.; Kockat, J.; Vitali Roscini, A. A Review of EU Member States 2020 Long-Therm Renovation Strategies; BPIE: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. National Plans for nearly Zero-Energy Buildings; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Heiskanen, E.; Matschoss, K.; Kuusi, H. Intelligent Energy Europe: Report on specific features of public and social acceptance and perception of nearly zero-energy buildings and renewable heating and cooling in Europe with a specific focus on the target countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 75, 580–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Risholt, B.; Time, B.; Grete, A. Sustainability assessment of nearly zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy Build. 2013, 60, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, X.; Yu, T.; Guo, L. Understanding Stakeholders’ Influence on Project Success with a New SNA Method: A Case Study of the Green Retrofit in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lund, A.J.; Eskerod, P. Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real-world Stakeholder Analysis. Department of Environmental and Business Economics. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 335–343. [Google Scholar]
- McElroy, A.M.B. Gower Handbook of Project Management; Gower Publishing Limited Hampshire: Hampshire, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Wallbaum, H. Harnessing stakeholder motivation: Towards a Swiss sustainable building sector. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 504–517. [Google Scholar]
- Dooley, K.; Sormunen, P. Capturing the Stakeholder Values of a Construction Project. In Proceedings of the SB10 Finland Sustainable Community–BuildingSMART Conference, Espoo, Finland, 22–24 September 2014; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Bertoldi, P.; Boza-Kiss, B. Analysis of barriers and drivers for the development of the {ESCO} markets in Europe. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haavik, E.; Aabrekk, T.; Prendergast, S.E. Business Opportunities in Sustainable Housing. A Marketing Guide Based on Experiences from 10 Countries. 2007. Available online: https://www.ntnu.no/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=315ba3e8-839e-4b37-904b-5b5d64181faf&groupId=10361 (accessed on 14 April 2021).
- John, M.; Niall, D.; Rosemarie, M. Energy efficiency in commercial buildings: Capturing added-value of retrofit. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2014, 32, 396–414. [Google Scholar]
- Vandevyvere, H.; Van De Vyver, I.; Van Den Broeck, P. Integrated Decision Support Tool for Retrofit and Renewal towards Sustainable Districts-Final Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Palonen, J. SQUARE-A System for Quality Assurance when Retrofitting Existing Buildings to Energy Efficient Buildings; SQUARE: Borås, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Britnell, J.; Dixon, T. Retrofitting in the private residential and commercial property sectors–survey findings. Work Package 2011, 2, 2020–2050. [Google Scholar]
- Häkkinen, T.; Lützkendorf, T.; Balouktsi, M.; Immendörfer, A.; Nibel, S.; Bosdevigie, B.; Mäkeläinen, T. Sustainability and Performance Assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings-SuPerBuildings Final Report; Vtt: Espoo, Finland, 2012; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Bointner, R.; Kranzl, L.; Toleikyte, A. Zebra 2020-Nearly Zero-Energy Building Strategy 2020 Deliverable D2 1: Definition of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings as Used for Market Tracking, 2016, pp.1–18. Available online: https://bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ZEBRA2020_Strategies-for-nZEB_07_LQ-double-pages.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2021).
- Koerber, A.; McMichael, L. Qualitative Sampling Methods: A Primer for Technical Communicators. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 2008, 22, 454–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simsek, Y.; Santika, W.G.; Anisuzzaman, M.; Urmee, T.; Bahri, P.A.; Escobar, R. An analysis of additional energy requirement to meet the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahal, K.; Niemelä, J. Initiatives towards carbon neutrality in the Helsinki metropolitan area. Climate 2016, 4, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahal, K.; Niemelä, J. Cities’ Greenhouse Gas Accounting Methods: A Study of Helsinki, Stockholm, and Copenhagen. Climate 2017, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Bikas, D.; Kontoleon, K. Embodied Energy and Nearly Zero Energy Buildings: A Review in Residential Buildings. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A.G. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahal, K.; Juhola, S.; Niemelä, J. The role of renewable energy policies for carbon neutrality in Helsinki Metropolitan area. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robati, M.; Oldfield, P.; Nezhad, A.A.; Carmichael, D.G.; Kuru, A. Carbon value engineering: A framework for integrating embodied carbon and cost reduction strategies in building design. Build. Environ. 2021, 192, 107620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takano, A.; Hughes, M.; Winter, S. A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable building material selection: A case study in a Finnish context. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omer, M.A.B.; Noguchi, T. A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of building materials in the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, S.; Moula, M.E.; Lahdelma, R. Social acceptability of using low carbon building: A survey exploration. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vares, S.; Häkkinen, T.; Ketomäki, J.; Shemeikka, J.; Jung, N. Impact of renewable energy technologies on the embodied and operational GHG emissions of a nearly zero energy building. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karhunmaa, K. Attaining carbon neutrality in Finnish parliamentary and city council debates. Futures 2019, 109, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalil, N.; Husin, H.N.; Mahat, N.; Nasir, N. Sustainable environment: Issues and solutions from the perspective of facility managers. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sonia, G.; Michael, P. Determining the role of innovation management in facilities management. Facilities 2007, 25, 48–60. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, S.; Wang, R.Z.; Dai, Y.J. How to evaluate performance of net zero energy building-A literature research. Energy 2014, 71, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
S.no. | Dominant Terms | Definition |
---|---|---|
1 | Net-zero site energy use | It produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year when accounted for at the site. |
2 | Net-zero source energy * use | It produces at least as much energy as it uses in a year when accounted for at the source. |
3 | Net-zero energy emissions | It produces at least as much emissions-free renewable energy as it uses it from emissions producing energy sources. |
4 | Net-zero cost | It balances the cost that the utility pays the building owner for the energy exports of the building to the grid with the cost that the owner pays the utility for the energy consumed and the energy services per year. |
5 | Energy Plus | It produces more energy from onsite renewable energy sources than the energy it consumes from the grid. It also incorporates a combination of small-scale power generators and low-energy building solutions such as passive solar building design and super insulation design. |
Key Stakeholder | Investors | Manufacturer/Supplier | Banks/Financial Institutions | Contractors | Planners/Designers | End User/Owner | Public Authorities |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lifecycle Phases | Project development phase/concept/design phase | Construction phase/revitalization phase/modernization phase/deconstruction phase | Project development phase/idea/capital | Construction phase/revitalization phase/modernization phase/ deconstruction phase | Project development phase/ concept/design phase/ construction phase | Operation phase/maintenance phase | All phases |
Main Concerns | Return of investment; economic feasibility; corporate social responsibility; regulation; personal beliefs; company image | Energy supply; availability of natural resources; economic feasibility; cost-efficiency; workforce; corporate social responsibility; regulation; personal beliefs; company image | Return of investment; company image | Materials and energy supply; economic feasibility; cost-efficiency; workforce; corporate social responsibility; regulation; personal beliefs; company image | Knowledge; creative and efficient application of technologies; cost-efficiency; corporate social responsibility; regulation; personal beliefs; company image | Well-being; economic feasibility; lifestyle; personal beliefs; company image | Regulations and control; well-being |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alam, S.; Airaksinen, M.; Lahdelma, R. Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137359
Alam S, Airaksinen M, Lahdelma R. Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137359
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlam, Sadaf, Miimu Airaksinen, and Risto Lahdelma. 2021. "Attitudes and Approaches of Finnish Retrofit Industry Stakeholders toward Achieving Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137359