Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Barriers, Benefits, and Drivers for Digital Building Logbook Adoption in Building Renovation Projects in Europe

Abstract

The construction sector is responsible for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, making the decarbonisation of the existing building stock a critical priority. In this context, Digital Building Logbooks (DBLs) are increasingly promoted as digital tools to support renovation planning, data continuity, and circular economy practices across the building lifecycle. Despite growing policy attention, the adoption of DBLs in renovation projects remains limited in practice. This study provides one of the first empirical rankings of perceived barriers, benefits, and drivers influencing DBL adoption in renovation projects across Europe. An exploratory quantitative survey was conducted with a purposively selected sample of stakeholders involved in renovation-related activities. Likert-scale responses were analysed using descriptive ranking statistics and reliability testing, while qualitative data from open-ended responses were analysed using directed content analysis. The results indicate that stakeholders strongly recognise the benefits of DBLs, particularly in terms of improved access to reliable building information, informed decision-making, and support for circular renovation practices. However, adoption is constrained by regulatory uncertainty, limited awareness, and unclear governance and operational frameworks. The most influential drivers identified relate to interoperability with existing digital tools, rising awareness of DBLs among stakeholders, regulatory support, and the availability of standardised and operationally clear frameworks for DBL implementation.

1. Introduction

The building sector is a key contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU, representing 36% of energy-related carbon emissions (operational carbon emissions resulting from energy consumption in buildings’ use phases) in 2026 [1].

Decarbonising the existing building stock is therefore essential for achieving the EU’s climate neutrality objectives by 2050. A key challenge in achieving carbon reduction in buildings lies not only in reducing operational emissions but also in addressing embodied carbon, those emissions associated with the production, transportation, and disposal of construction materials. Embodied emissions contribute to around 10–20% of buildings’ total CO₂ emission footprint in the EU [2].

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), a key component of the European Green Deal, serves as a cornerstone of the European Union’s legislative framework for improving the energy efficiency of buildings. The EPBD mandates that member states establish minimum energy performance requirements for both new and existing buildings, and it supports the deployment of tools and strategies to reduce energy demand across the built environment. The most recent revision of the EPBD, adopted in April 2024, marks a significant step forward in the EU’s climate agenda. It introduces stricter requirements aimed at ensuring that all new buildings become zero-emission by 2030 and mandates the accelerated renovation of the existing building stock, particularly the worst-performing, to align with the EU’s decarbonisation goals [3]. The updated directive also reinforces the role of digitalisation in achieving these goals, including a stronger emphasis on the implementation of DBLs as tools for data-driven renovation planning and performance tracking. Digital Building Logbooks are defined as structured digital repositories of building-related data, including information on energy performance, renovations, maintenance, and material composition [4,5].

The Renovation Wave strategy, a European Commission initiative aiming to improve the energy performance of buildings and foster digitalization, highlights the potential of digital solutions, such as DBLs, to support this transformation. Specifically, Renovation Wave highlights the potential of DBLs to integrate Building Renovation Passports and facilitate favourable conditions for staged retrofits, particularly in cases where deep renovation cannot be implemented all at once [6].

The Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), another flagship EU policy, recognises the built environment as a high-impact sector with significant potential for circularity, particularly due to the large volumes of materials used and waste generated in construction and renovation activities. To support a shift from linear to circular practices in the construction industry, the CEAP promotes strategies that enable material efficiency, reuse, and high-quality recycling. In this context, it identifies DBLs as critical enablers of circularity by facilitating access to reliable information about materials, enabling traceability, and supporting reuse, recycling, and refurbishment processes [7].

The political enthusiasm around DBLs has led to development of various DBL initiatives across Europe from both private and public sectors, including numerous European research projects [8,9]. Despite the apparent favourable political context, the adoption of DBLs in renovation projects is seldom [10]. This lag is not solely due to technological immaturity, but reflects a broader issue of institutional readiness [11,12]. Current evidence highlights the absence of regulatory mandates, fragmented governance approaches, insufficient awareness, and a lack of operational frameworks as critical constraints that prevent DBLs from being integrated into renovation workflows [11,12,13]. Addressing these institutional barriers requires a clearer understanding of which adoption factors stakeholders themselves consider most important in practice.

Additionally, the existing literature on DBLs remains limited, with few peer-reviewed studies dedicated to the topic. As DBLs are still an emerging concept, both their practical uptake and academic investigation are in the early phases [10]. In response to these gaps, this study is guided by the following research question:

Which barriers, benefits, and drivers do stakeholders involved in building renovation across Europe perceive as most important for the adoption of Digital Building Logbooks (DBLs)?

The primary contribution of this research lies in offering one of the first empirical rankings of perceived adoption factors related to DBLs in the renovation sector. By combining quantitative prioritisation with supporting qualitative insights from stakeholders, the study provides practical guidance for policymakers, platform developers, and public authorities seeking to advance the operationalisation of DBLs across Europe.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Concept of Digital Building Logbook

The concept of DBL was first introduced by the European Commission in its 2020 Renovation Wave strategy, and its importance was further emphasised in the subsequent revision of the EPBD [14]. However, it is important to note that other concepts such as Building Passport, Building Renovation Passport, Material Passport, Circular Material Passport, and Digital Product Passport are often used inconsistently and can be confusing due to overlaps and blurred distinctions. The intersections between these concepts are not always clearly defined, which can create uncertainty among stakeholders and hinder effective implementation, as is argued later in this paper. These different concepts are defined in

Table 1. Definitions of Digital Product Passport, Material passports, Circular Material passport, Digital Building Logbook, Building passport and Building Renovation Passport.

Digital Tool	Area of Applicability	Level of Applicability	Description	Source
Digital Product Passport	Cross-sector	Product	A Digital Product Passport (DPP) is a digital record containing detailed information about a product, including its composition, origin, environmental impact, and lifecycle data. DPPs aim to improve product circularity by making this information readily available to various stakeholders throughout the product’s lifecycle, from manufacturing to recycling.	[16]
Material passports	Building sector	Product	Material Passports are sets of data describing defined characteristics of materials in products that give them value for recovery and reuse.	[17]
Circular Material passport	Building sector	Product	Circular Material passport is a digital set of data that provides information on the technical characteristics of a construction product and identifies its environmental impacts and its potential for recovery, reuse and recycling.	[18]
Digital Building Logbook	Building sector	Building	Digital Building Logbook is a common repository for all relevant building data, including data related to energy performance such as energy performance certificates, renovation passports and smart readiness indicators, as well as data related to the life-cycle GWP, which facilitates informed decision-making and information sharing within the construction sector, and among building owners and occupants, financial institutions and public bodies.	[3]
Building passport	Building sector	Building	The term building passport is often used as a synonym for DBLs.	[19]
Building Renovation Passport	Building sector	Building	Building Renovation Passport is “a document –in electronic or paper format—outlining a long-term (up to 15 or 20 years) step- by-step renovation roadmap for a specific building, resulting from an on-site energy audit fulfilling specific quality criteria and indicators established during the design phase and in dialogue with building owners”	[20]

and organised according to their area and level of applicability, as indicated in Giorgi [15].

This study specifically investigates the adoption of DBLs in the context of renovation projects. As such, the literature review focuses on tools and frameworks operating at the building level, rather than the product level. Accordingly, any studies examining DBLs, Building Passports, or Building Renovation Passports have been considered directly relevant to the objectives of this research.

According to the Residential Logbook Association (RLBA) [21], DBLs can be used for a variety of reasons, including storing service information, property sales, rentals, new construction, retrofitting, maintenance, and legal or regulatory checks. While the application of DBLs spans a broad range of building-related activities, this paper focuses specifically on their use within renovation contexts. The renovation phase presents a critical opportunity for integrating DBLs, as they can enable better tracking of upgrades, ensure continuity of data, and support circular practices by linking design and material data with future interventions.

2.2. DBL Adoption in the Construction Sector

A significant body of existing literature has examined the barriers, benefits, and drivers associated with the adoption of DBLs in the construction sector, while fewer studies focused especially on their application for building renovations. Although this paper focuses specifically on the renovation phase, the barriers, benefits, and drivers associated with the application of DBLs in the construction sector more broadly remain highly relevant. Many of these factors, such as data availability, stakeholder engagement, legal frameworks, and digital interoperability, are not exclusive to renovation but overlap significantly across the building lifecycle, including design, construction, operation, and end-of-life stages. As such, insights from the wider literature on DBL implementation in the broader construction context are considered both applicable and valuable to this study. The following section synthesises and discusses barriers, benefits, and drivers associated with the adoption of DBLs in the construction sector. The categorisation of barriers into legal, economic, technical, and user-related domains was adopted from established frameworks used in the literature [11,12,13]. These four domains represent recurring and interdependent themes in the implementation of DBLs and other digital tools in the built environment. Grouping the barriers in this way allows for a structured understanding of the systemic (legal and economic), technical, and behavioural constraints that hinder adoption, aligning with widely used digitalisation and renovation readiness models. This benefit classification synthesises themes repeatedly highlighted in the literature, notably information reliability [22], cost-effectiveness [22] and innovation potential [12], and lifecycle performance management [23], offering a conceptually grounded lens for evaluating the perceived benefits of DBLs.

2.2.1. Barriers to the Adoption of Digital Building Logbooks

Although DBLs offer substantial promise, several interconnected barriers continue to hinder their widespread implementation. These challenges span legal, economic, user-related, and technical domains (see

Table 2. Barriers to Digital Building Logbook adoption reported in previous studies.

Category	Code	Barriers	Literature Sources
Legal and Regulatory Barriers	B1	Uncertainty over who owns the data and who has the right to access or modify information in DBLs	[11,12,13,22]
	B2	Lack of an operational framework for using DBLs in renovation projects	[11]
	B3	Fragmented regional or institutional approaches. Different regional authorities might work on separate DBL initiatives	[11,12,13,24]
	B4	Lack of clear regulations or policies requiring the use of DBLs in renovation projects	[11,12]
	B5	Administrative burden due to unclear added value or return on investment for renovation stakeholders	[12,13,22]
Economic Barriers	B6	Lack of viable business models for long-term DBL use in the renovation sector	[11,12]
	B7	Lack of government support, incentives, or subsidies for using DBLs in renovation projects	[11]
	B8	High implementation or operating costs due to additional software, admin time, or third-party service needs	[7,22]
User-Related Drivers	B9	Limited understanding of how DBLs work and their benefits in renovation projects	[7]
	B10	General lack of awareness of DBLs among renovation stakeholders	[12]
	B11	Unwillingness or lack of motivation among stakeholders to keep DBLs updated with accurate renovation-related data	[22]
	B12	Low confidence in the security, privacy, or reliability of DBL systems and data protocols	[12]
Technical barriers	B13	Data challenges such as low accuracy, poor availability, lack of standardisation, or limited system interoperability	[11,12,22]
	B14	DBL information must be entered and updated manually, and many systems do not yet support dynamic or real-time renovation data	[7]
	B15	Lack of digital skills among renovation stakeholders to effectively use or engage with Digital Building Logbooks	[12]
	B16	Existing Digital Building Logbook platforms are not user-friendly or intuitive for renovation stakeholders to navigate and use effectively	[13]

).

Legal and Regulatory Barriers

Legal uncertainty is one of the most critical obstacles to DBL adoption. A recurring issue in the literature is the ambiguity surrounding data ownership and access rights, particularly in shared or multi-stakeholder environments. For instance, Buchholz & Lützkendorf [12] emphasise the lack of clear governance models for DBL implementation, especially in multi-stakeholder renovation environments, where it is often unclear who owns the data or who is responsible for updates. Carbonari et al. [13] further highlight the absence of binding legal frameworks that define roles, responsibilities, and rights across DBL platforms. Without clearly defined responsibilities and legal protection, stakeholders may hesitate to share sensitive building data. Furthermore, there is a fragmented regional approach to DBLs across Europe [24].

Beyond legal ambiguity, DBL Study Team [11] emphasise the lack of an operational framework for using DBLs in renovation practice. Their report outlines that while DBLs are referenced in policy, there is limited guidance on how to apply them concretely—e.g., when they should be used during the renovation lifecycle, who is responsible for data entry and maintenance, and what processes should govern their use. This operational gap limits mainstreaming DBLs beyond pilot contexts.

The literature also underscores the fragmented landscape of digital initiatives across Europe, where regional and institutional actors often develop parallel DBL platforms without alignment. Buchholz & Lützkendorf [12] and Carbonari et al. [13] both note that this fragmentation undermines standardisation and creates integration challenges. The DBL Study Team [11] supports this view, citing the lack of common technical standards and the absence of a pan-European implementation roadmap. Finally, some authors stress that the absence of mandatory DBL regulation exacerbates these challenges. For instance, DBL Study Team [11] reports that, without legal mandates, DBLs are frequently viewed as optional, resulting in low prioritisation in planning and budgeting. Meanwhile, Carbonari et al. [13], Grow [11], and Hartenberger et al. [22] highlight that even when DBLs are mentioned in policy, their benefits are not well communicated, creating perceptions of administrative burden and unclear added value. These findings collectively suggest that for DBLs to move beyond conceptual support, there must be coherent regulatory, governance, and operational structures in place.

Economic Barriers

From an economic perspective, DBLs face challenges related to business viability and cost. One key issue is the absence of robust, scalable business models that clarify how DBLs generate value for stakeholders over the long term [12]. Without clear cost–benefit justifications, many actors, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises are reluctant to invest in DBL development and maintenance.

In addition, the literature highlights the lack of government incentives and financial support as a further factor reducing the attractiveness of DBLs for private actors [11]. The costs associated with DBL implementation, including software acquisition, system integration, and ongoing data management, can be significant, particularly in the absence of a clear and demonstrable return on investment [7,22]. As a result, DBLs are often perceived as an additional financial burden rather than as value-generating tools, especially in cost-sensitive renovation contexts.

User-Related Barriers

Several studies identify a lack of awareness and limited understanding of DBLs among key stakeholder groups as a persistent barrier to their adoption. Many professionals involved in construction and renovation activities remain unfamiliar with DBLs or struggle to grasp their practical purpose and added value in everyday project contexts [7,12]. This knowledge gap contributes to low levels of engagement and reduces stakeholders’ willingness to integrate DBLs into routine renovation workflows.

Another frequently cited barrier in the literature relates to stakeholders’ reluctance to regularly manage and update building data, which can undermine the long-term relevance and usefulness of DBLs [22]. Maintaining up-to-date information requires sustained effort and clear responsibility, and in the absence of appropriate incentives or governance arrangements, data upkeep is often deprioritised. This challenge is further compounded by limited trust in data quality, privacy, and ownership protocols, particularly among stakeholders concerned about cybersecurity risks and the potential misuse of sensitive or proprietary information [12]. Together, these factors reduce confidence in DBLs and hinder their integration into routine renovation practices.

Technical Barriers

Technical challenges are also widely reported in the literature as significant barriers to the adoption of Digital Building Logbooks. DBLs rely on the availability of high-quality, structured, and interoperable datasets, requiring information to be accurate, complete, and consistently formatted across different systems. However, studies frequently highlight persistent issues related to data consistency, storage, standardisation, and interoperability, particularly when DBLs must integrate information from multiple sources and legacy systems [11,12].

In addition, some authors note that many existing DBL approaches rely heavily on manual data entry and updating, limiting their ability to reflect real-time building use or renovation status [7]. Together, these technical challenges constrain the practical usability of DBLs and reduce their perceived value in renovation workflows.

2.2.2. Benefits of Digital Building Logbooks Adoption

Despite these barriers, the literature identifies a wide range of benefits associated with DBL implementation, which highlight their transformative potential in the construction sector (see

Table 3. Barriers of Digital Building Logbooks reported in previous studies.

Category	Code	Benefits	Literature Sources
Transparency, Trust, and Informed Decision-Making	B1	Easy and fair access to clear, complete building information throughout its lifetime	[11,23]
	B2	Centralised, verified information improves efficiency, trust, and informed decision-making	[22]
	B3	Better risk assessment and consumer protection through accurate, data-driven insights	[11,23]
Economic Value Creation	B4	Improved real estate value	[23]
	B5	Increased productivity and support for new business models	[22]
	B6	Improved services for building owners due to better information availability	[11]
	B7	Centralised access to maintenance records supports planning and reduces costly emergency repairs	[22,25]
Building Use and Performance Optimisation	B8	Better energy performance leading to lower utility bills	[23]
	B9	Greater awareness of building performance aspects such as energy use, carbon emissions, and indoor air quality	[26]
	B10	Smarter building energy use through real-time adjustment based on demand or grid conditions	[23]
	B11	Data-supported and tailored renovation plans that guide long-term building performance	[22]
	B12	More efficient use of materials and resources throughout the building lifecycle	[27,28]

).

Transparency, Trust, and Informed Decision-Making

The literature consistently identifies enhanced transparency and access to reliable information as one of the core benefits of DBLs. By centralising, structuring, and, in some cases, verifying critical building data across the building lifecycle, DBLs help reduce information asymmetry among stakeholders and foster greater trust in shared datasets [23]. Improved data transparency enables stakeholders to make more informed and evidence-based decisions, particularly in contexts where incomplete or fragmented information has traditionally constrained renovation planning and asset management.

Several studies further highlight the role of DBLs in strengthening consumer protection by improving access to accurate information on building condition, safety, and sustainability performance [22]. This increased transparency is especially valuable during property transactions, renovation decision-making, and regulatory inspections, where reliable building information can support risk assessment, compliance verification, and long-term investment decisions. As such, DBLs are increasingly positioned in the literature as instruments that not only support technical and environmental objectives but also enhance governance and accountability across the built environment.

Economic Value Creation

The literature also highlights a range of economic advantages associated with the adoption of DBLs. Several studies suggest that DBLs can contribute to long-term value preservation and, in some cases, increased real estate value, particularly for buildings that demonstrate strong energy and sustainability performance [23]. By improving transparency around building condition, performance, and renovation history, DBLs reduce uncertainty for investors and owners, thereby supporting more informed asset valuation and investment decisions [11,22].

In addition, DBLs are frequently associated with more cost-effective maintenance and asset management practices. Access to structured and up-to-date building information enables stakeholders to anticipate maintenance needs, plan interventions proactively, and reduce reliance on costly emergency repairs [11,22]. These efficiencies are particularly relevant in renovation contexts, where incomplete information often leads to conservative assumptions and inefficiencies [29].

Beyond direct cost and value impacts, the literature also points to DBLs as enablers of new business models and enhanced service delivery. Comprehensive and accessible building data can improve productivity, streamline operational processes, and support the development of more tailored services for building owners and occupants, including performance monitoring, advisory services, and lifecycle-based renovation planning [11]. As such, DBLs are increasingly framed as infrastructures that support innovation and value creation across the building sector.

Building Use and Performance Optimisation

The literature highlights the potential of DBLs to support improved building performance and energy efficiency through enhanced visibility of energy use and system behaviour. By consolidating performance-related information and, in some cases, enabling real-time or near-real-time monitoring, DBLs can increase energy awareness among stakeholders and support more informed operational decisions, contributing to smarter and more efficient energy use [23].

Beyond operational performance, several studies emphasise the role of DBLs in enabling evidence-based renovation planning. Access to reliable historical, technical, and performance data allows stakeholders to design and prioritise renovation interventions that are better aligned with actual building conditions, thereby improving the effectiveness and sustainability of renovation outcomes [22]. Importantly, DBLs are also increasingly positioned in the literature as enablers of circular economy strategies in the built environment. By improving access to information on building components, materials, and renovation history, DBLs can support a more efficient use of materials and resources throughout the building lifecycle, facilitating reuse, refurbishment, and more informed end-of-life decisions [30]. When combined with digital tools such as material passports or lifecycle assessment data, DBLs can help operationalise circular principles by making material flows and environmental impacts more visible and actionable [30].

In addition, DBLs contribute to building resilience and adaptability, particularly when integrated with smart building systems and digital infrastructures. Such integration enables buildings to respond dynamically to user behaviour, climate conditions, and grid demands, reinforcing the role of DBLs not only as static repositories of information but as dynamic tools supporting long-term performance optimisation and sustainable asset management [11].

2.2.3. Drivers of Digital Building Logbook Adoption

Alongside barriers and benefits, the literature also identifies a range of drivers (see

Table 4. Drivers of Digital Building Logbook adoption reported in previous studies.

Drivers’ Category	Code	Drivers	Literature Sources
Legal drivers	D1	The existence and effectiveness of regulations, policies that promote or require the use of Digital Building Logbooks in renovation projects.	[7]
	D2	Stakeholders access shared data standards and legal frameworks that clearly define data rights, responsibilities, and interoperability across DBL platforms.	[31]
	D3	Compatibility with existing building standards, certification tools, and digital initiatives commonly used in the construction sectors.	[32,33]
Economic drivers	D4	Viable and sustainable business model supporting the implementation and long-term use of DBLs.	[12]
	D5	The costs associated with implementing and maintaining DBLs are reasonable and justified by the value they provide.	[13]
	D6	Availability and utilization of government incentives and subsidies for the adoption of Digital Building Logbook.	[11]
Users’ Drivers	D7	Users’ awareness of what DBLs are and how they function	[31]
	D8	Users’ understanding of the core benefits of DBLs.	[13]
	D9	Users’ confidence in navigating DBL platforms and understanding their main functionalities.	[12]
	D10	Users’ willingness to regularly update DBL content and maintain accuracy.	[13]
	D11	Users’ confidence in data security, privacy, quality and ownership protocols.	[12]
	D12	Users’ knowledge of what data they are expected to provide or request.	[13]
	D13	Adequate training, concise resources, and funding are available for DBL engagement.	[31]
Technical drivers	D14	DBLs that automate eligibility for green finance or renovation subsidies incentivise adoption.	[34]
	D15	Pre-populated DBLs with retrofit history, EPC data, and materials info lower the barrier for stakeholders to adopt them.	[31]
	D16	DBLs that allow for visualising and quantifying reuse %, lifecycle emissions, or avoided waste make circularity more tangible and actionable.	[7]
	D17	User-Specific Interfaces for building owners, contractors, and public bodies. Adoption increases when DBLs are tailored to each stakeholder’s role and retrofit responsibilities.	[31]
	D18	Digital Building Logbooks that empower residents by providing visibility into cost, carbon savings, material reuse opportunities, and detailed retrofit plans, thereby fostering greater buy-in.	[34]
	D19	DBLs that include or link to material passports to help track product composition, origin, and reuse potential are key to enabling circularity in renovation projects.	[11]
	D20	DBLs that include or link to building renovation plans are key to adopting them in retrofit schemes.	[31]
	D21	Interoperability with Digital Systems (e.g., BIM, EPCs, smart meters) DBLs that connect to existing datasets reduce data duplication and streamline data update and entry process.	[13,32,33]
	D22	A clear way of sharing logbooks.	[31]
	D23	A standardised data schema (fields, formats, metadata, retrofit plans) and clear scope of Digital Building Logbook.	[31]
	D24	Easy to use and user friendly.	[13,26]
	D25	Applicable for different building tenure types (privately owned, social housing, privately rented).	[26,31]

) that can help accelerate the adoption of DBLs in the construction sector, including building renovations. These drivers span legal, economic, user-related, and technical domains.

Legal Drivers

The literature consistently identifies regulatory support as one of the most influential drivers of DBL adoption in renovation contexts. In particular, the existence of regulations or policy instruments that mandate or actively promote DBL use is frequently cited as a key enabler, as regulatory clarity helps establish DBLs as legitimate and necessary components of renovation processes [7]. By reducing uncertainty around expectations and compliance, such frameworks create a more stable environment in which stakeholders are more willing to invest time and resources in DBL implementation.

Beyond formal mandates, several studies emphasise the importance of standardised data models and legal frameworks that clearly define data ownership, access rights, interoperability requirements, and stakeholder responsibilities [31]. The literature further highlights that DBLs are more likely to be adopted when they are compatible with existing industry tools and certification schemes, such as Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), Building Information Modelling (BIM), and renovation passports, as this alignment reduces duplication of effort and facilitates integration into established workflows [31]. Collectively, these legal and regulatory drivers underscore the role of coherent governance and standardisation in enabling the wider uptake of DBLs in renovation projects.

Economic Drivers

Economic feasibility is widely recognised in the literature as a central driver of DBL adoption. Several studies indicate that DBLs are more likely to be adopted when supported by viable and sustainable business models and when the costs associated with implementation, integration, and long-term maintenance are perceived as proportionate to the benefits delivered [12,13]. In the absence of clear value propositions or cost–benefit justifications, DBLs are often viewed as an additional financial burden, particularly in cost-sensitive renovation contexts [31].

The literature further highlights the role of economic incentives in accelerating DBL uptake. Public subsidies, fiscal incentives, and explicit links between DBLs and green financing or renovation funding schemes are frequently cited as effective mechanisms for reducing financial risk and encouraging investment [31].

User-Related Drivers

The literature consistently emphasises the role of user-related factors in shaping the adoption of DBLs. Stakeholder engagement is shown to depend strongly on awareness, training, and trust, with DBLs more likely to be adopted when users clearly understand their purpose, feel confident navigating the platform, and trust the underlying data governance and security protocols [12,13]. In the absence of such conditions, DBLs risk being perceived as complex or burdensome digital tools, limiting meaningful engagement.

Digital literacy, access to training, and clarity regarding user roles and data expectations are further identified as key drivers supporting DBL uptake [31]. Platforms that are intuitive, user-friendly, and supported by clear guidance materials are more likely to be embraced by a diverse range of stakeholders, including both technical and non-technical users. Collectively, these user-related drivers highlight the importance of capacity-building and trust-building measures in ensuring that DBLs are not only implemented but actively and effectively used in renovation contexts.

Technical Drivers

From a technical perspective, the literature highlights several design and functionality-related features that can significantly enhance the adoption of DBLs. A frequently cited driver is the ability of DBLs to automate eligibility for green finance, renovation grants, or subsidy schemes, thereby directly linking digital data management to tangible financial benefits and incentivising stakeholder engagement [34]. Such automation reduces administrative effort while strengthening the perceived value of DBLs within renovation processes.

Another widely recognised technical driver is the availability of pre-populated DBLs, drawing on existing datasets such as Energy Performance Certificates, retrofit histories, or material information. Pre-filling DBLs with verified data reduces entry barriers, minimises manual data entry, and improves overall usability, particularly for stakeholders with limited digital capacity [31].

The literature further emphasises the importance of visualisation and decision-support functionalities. Tools that allow users to visualise and quantify lifecycle emissions, material reuse potential, avoided waste, or circularity indicators make sustainability impacts more tangible and actionable, thereby increasing stakeholder buy-in and supporting circular renovation strategies [7]. Similarly, customisable user interfaces tailored to the needs of different actors—such as contractors, public authorities, and building owners—are shown to facilitate engagement by aligning DBL functionalities with specific roles and responsibilities [31].

Finally, several studies underline the importance of system interoperability and standardisation as foundational technical drivers. DBLs that can integrate seamlessly with Building Information Modelling (BIM), smart meters, EPC databases, and other digital systems are more likely to be adopted, as interoperability reduces duplication and streamlines data flows [13]. The availability of a standardised data schema and the applicability of DBLs across different tenure types, private ownership, social housing, and rental sectors are also repeatedly highlighted as prerequisites for scalable and inclusive DBL implementation [11].

2.3. Stakeholder Roles and Engagement in Digital Building Logbooks

A critical, yet often underexplored, aspect of DBL adoption lies in the complex network of stakeholders involved in the building lifecycle. The construction and built environment sectors are traditionally fragmented, comprising a wide range of actors with diverse responsibilities, data needs, and decision-making roles. As highlighted by Hwang [35], this fragmentation creates barriers to effective data exchange and weakens the potential impact of DBLs. Consequently, advancing DBL adoption requires a deeper understanding of who the stakeholders are, how they interact with DBLs, and what their roles are as both data users and data providers.

Early EU-level studies [7] identified 17 core stakeholder groups engaged in DBL-related processes, ranging from architects, contractors, and building owners to certifiers, investors, insurers, and public authorities. More recently, this categorisation has been refined by DBL Study Team [11], who grouped these actors into five overarching user categories: government agencies, construction sector professionals, building owners and users, financial institutions, and utility companies. Each of these categories has specific motivations and technical requirements for interacting with DBLs.

Importantly, the research by Hwang [35] emphasises that stakeholders are not static in their roles. Many act simultaneously as data providers and data users, depending on the phase of the building lifecycle and the context of use. For example, homeowners and contractors update data during renovation works but also rely on DBLs to assess energy performance and regulatory compliance. This dual role implies that continuous engagement is essential to maintain the accuracy and usefulness of DBL content. The study also provides empirical evidence through stakeholder surveys and focus group sessions across four European regions (UK, France, Belgium, and Germany). These sessions revealed that the relevance, visibility, and function of DBLs vary by regional context, influenced by legal frameworks, local practices, public awareness, and existing digital infrastructure. For instance, Belgium’s Woningpas is a mandatory, government-led DBL initiative with high integration, while the UK’s approach relies more on voluntary, commercially developed solutions.

Through this stakeholder mapping process, 38 stakeholder groups were ultimately identified, including not only conventional actors in the AECO sector but also service designers, IT providers, climate agencies, and legal professionals. Hwang [35] argues that successful DBL deployment depends on cross-sectoral collaboration, where both technical and non-technical stakeholders participate in shaping, maintaining, and using DBL systems.

The research by Hwang [35] stresses that stakeholder engagement is not merely a supporting factor but a central condition for the success of DBLs. Understanding stakeholder expectations, perceptions, and interdependencies is essential for unlocking the full potential of DBLs in renovation efforts.

2.4. Gap in the Literature

While a growing body of literature has explored the barriers and benefits associated with the adoption of DBLs in the construction sector, empirical research examining how these factors are perceived specifically within renovation contexts remains limited. In particular, there is a lack of empirical research that systematically ranks perceived barriers, benefits, and drivers based on input from stakeholders involved in renovation activities across Europe.

This research addresses this gap by adopting a structured and empirical approach to examining the conditions that influence DBL adoption in renovation projects. First, potential barriers, benefits, and drivers are identified through a comprehensive review of the literature. These factors are then ranked according to their perceived importance using data collected from a purposively selected sample of stakeholders. Finally, quantitative findings are complemented with qualitative insights, offering a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of DBL implementation in renovation contexts.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Questionnaire Development and Distribution

This study employed an exploratory quantitative survey approach to systematically prioritise stakeholder perceptions of barriers, benefits, and drivers, something less feasible with purely qualitative methods like interviews or case studies. While qualitative approaches offer depth, they are less suited for ranking and comparing multiple predefined factors. In this study, an extensive literature review had already identified core issues, making a purely qualitative design less appropriate for answering the research question. Similarly, quantitative correlation-based analyses are better suited for testing relationships, whereas this study aimed to surface and rank perceived importance [36]. The use of Likert-scale items and descriptive statistics provided a structured yet flexible method aligned with the study’s objective to rank stakeholder perceptions of barriers, benefits, and drivers. Importantly, the inclusion of open-ended qualitative questions enriched the findings by allowing respondents to elaborate on their views, helping to contextualise and triangulate the quantitative results.

The research focused on capturing informed perspectives from a purposively selected group of stakeholders involved in renovation-related activities across the construction and built environment sectors in Europe. These stakeholders included, but were not limited to, public authorities, designers, contractors, building owners, financial institutions, certifiers, utility providers, and researchers with expertise in building performance, digitalisation, or renovation practices.

The questionnaire was developed following an extensive review of the existing literature on DBL adoption in the construction sector and renovation contexts. Informed by previous studies, the survey instrument included items capturing perceived barriers, benefits, and drivers of DBL adoption. Specifically, the questionnaire comprised 16 barrier items, 12 benefit items, and 23 driver items, all of which were identified through the literature review and derived from the elements presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.

The survey was structured into six main sections. The first section introduced the purpose of the study and collected basic demographic and professional information about the respondents, including stakeholder type, country of operation, and experience with renovation projects. The second section assessed respondents’ digital literacy and confidence in using digital tools relevant to renovation and building information management.

The third section examined respondents’ awareness and familiarity with the concept of DBLs. The fourth section asked respondents to rate the importance of a set of barriers to DBL adoption in renovation projects using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The fifth and sixth sections focused, respectively, on the perceived benefits and drivers of Digital Building Logbook adoption in renovation contexts, using the same Likert-scale format.

The questionnaire also included open-ended questions, allowing participants to provide additional comments, highlight factors not listed in the survey, and elaborate on perceived barriers, benefits, or drivers influencing DBL adoption. To validate the clarity and relevance of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted with 15 professionals from different stakeholder categories. Based on feedback from this pilot, minor modifications were made to the wording and layout to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity. The full questionnaire administered to participants is included as Supplementary Materials for reference (Questionnaire S1).

The questionnaire was distributed online through direct email invitations and messages disseminated via professional networks. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to target respondents with involvement in building renovation activities. The reasons for adopting a purposive strategy are based on the assumption that, given the aims and objectives of the study, specific kinds of people may hold different and important views about the ideas and issues in question and therefore need to be included in the sample [37]. In addition, a snowball sampling approach was used [38], whereby initial respondents were invited to share the survey with other relevant stakeholders within their professional networks. Specifically, after participants were identified through purposive sampling based on their involvement in renovation activities, they were asked to recommend other stakeholders within their networks and, in some instances, directly forward the questionnaire to professionals who were also engaged in renovation projects and could provide informed responses. This approach facilitated the recruitment of additional participants with relevant expertise, thereby enhancing the diversity, relevance, and robustness of the sample. This combined approach aimed to ensure the inclusion of diverse and knowledgeable stakeholder perspectives rather than statistical representativeness. In total, 50 valid responses were collected from stakeholder across seven European countries.

3.2. Data Analysis

The data collected were analysed using the following statistical procedures:

• Kruskal–Wallis: To assess whether stakeholder perceptions of barriers, benefits, and drivers differed significantly across respondent groups (e.g., by stakeholder type or country/region), the Kruskal–Wallis H test was employed. This non-parametric method is well-suited for comparing three or more independent groups on ordinal Likert-scale data, and does not require assumptions of normality or equal variances, which is the case in the study sample. As described by McKight and Najab [39], the Kruskal–Wallis test assesses whether there are statistically significant differences in the distributions of ranks among three or more independent groups. A p-value threshold of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance: results below this threshold indicate that at least one group differs significantly from the others in their response distribution.
• Reliability analysis: To ensure internal consistency of the Likert-scale items (drivers), Cronbach’s alpha was computed. A threshold range of 0.70 to 0.95 was used to indicate acceptable reliability of the scale [40].
• Ranking analysis: Ranking analysis has often been used to assess the relative importance of drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of technologies and processes [41,42]. To determine the perceived importance of each driver, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated as indicated in [41]. Drivers were then ranked based on their mean scores, with the standard deviation used as a secondary measure to interpret the level of consensus among respondents. In cases where multiple drivers shared similar mean values, the one with the lower standard deviation was ranked higher.
• The data from the open-ended question was treated as qualitative data and directed content analysis was used to assess this type of data, guided by the existing categories presented in the survey [43]. Directed content analysis is a deductive approach that allows themes to be interpreted in relation to predefined survey categories. Comments were reviewed, grouped according to the barrier, benefit, or driver they referenced, and used to contextualise or expand upon the quantitative results. This approach allowed for a more context-rich understanding of stakeholder priorities and reinforced or challenged patterns observed in the quantitative data.

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents and discusses the findings of the exploratory quantitative survey examining stakeholders’ perceptions of the barriers, benefits, and drivers influencing the adoption of DBLs in renovation projects. Results are based on descriptive ranking of Likert-scale responses and are interpreted alongside qualitative insights from open-ended responses to provide contextual depth and triangulation (see

Table 5. Summary of respondent characteristics (n = 50).

Characteristic	Category	Number of Respondents
Stakeholder profile	Researcher/academic	30
	Designers	4
	Public authorities & policymakers	3
	Consultants	3
	Renovation experts (e.g., coordinators, specialists)	2
	Construction contractors	2
	Landlords	1
	Housing association	1
	Digital Building Logbook provider	1
	Demolition contractors	1
	Other/mixed profiles	2
Country of operation	Netherlands	13
	United Kingdom	10
	Germany	8
	Belgium	6
	Sweden	5
	France	4
	Denmark	4

,

Table 6. Illustrative qualitative quotes supporting the quantitative findings.

Theme	Code	Quote	Respondent ID	Relation to Quantitative Results
Barrier	Lack of legal mandate	“Without a legal requirement, DBLs are often seen as optional in renovation projects.”	R12	Confirms top ranked barrier (mean = 4.16)
Barrier	Lack of awareness	“People don’t know how or when to use DBLs.”	R2	Aligns with second most important barrier (mean = 4.12)
Barrier	Lack of awareness	“People wrongly call them ‘passports’.”	R13	Aligns with second most important barrier (mean = 4.12)
Benefit	Centralised information	“Having one trusted place for all building information would avoid repeating surveys.”	R5	Supports top benefit (mean = 4.30)
Benefit	Efficient use of materials	“Without reliable material data, circular renovation remains theoretical rather than practical.”	R26	Confirms third most important benefit (mean = 4.18)
Driver	Regulatory alignment	“The use of Digital Building Logbooks should be mandated within retrofit and EPC legislation.”	R4	Confirms regulatory driver (mean = 4.16)
Driver	Integration with compliance tools	“DBLs should be linked to funding requirements or statutory compliance.”	R6	Reinforces compatibility and regulatory linkage (4.26)
Driver	Lack of operational guidance	“Lack of a standardised framework for what should be included in a DBL to support retrofit.”	R8	Aligns with operational framework driver (mean = 4.11)
Driver	User awareness gap	“There needs to be a clear understanding of what DBLs actually are.”	R12	Supports user awareness driver (mean = 4.18)

,

Table 7. Ranked barriers to Digital Building Logbook adoption in renovation projects.

Rank	Barrier	Stakeholder Profile (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Country of Operation (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Mean
1	Lack of clear regulations or policies requiring the use of DBLs in renovation projects	0.070	0.517	4.16
2	General lack of awareness of DBLs among renovation stakeholders	0.752	0.174	4.12
3	Limited understanding of how DBLs work and their benefits in renovation projects	0.250	0.432	4.00
4	Administrative burden due to unclear added value or return on investment for renovation stakeholders.	0.197	0.351	3.98
5	Lack of digital skills among renovation stakeholders to effectively use or engage with Digital Building Logbooks	0.782	0.365	3.92
6	Unwillingness or lack of motivation among stakeholders to keep DBLs updated with accurate renovation-related data	0.539	0.678	3.88
7	Lack of an operational framework for using DBLs in renovation projects	0.626	0.113	3.80
8	DBL information must be entered and updated manually, and many systems do not yet support dynamic or real-time renovation data	0.379	0.951	3.76
9	High implementation or operating costs due to additional software, admin time, or third-party service needs	0.220	0.525	3.74
10	Uncertainty over who owns the data and who has the right to access or modify information in DBLs	0.457	0.625	3.72
11	Fragmented regional or institutional approaches. Different regional authorities might work on separate DBL initiatives.	0.747	0.201	3.72
12	Lack of government support, incentives, or subsidies for using DBLs in renovation projects	0.167	0.580	3.72
13	Data challenges such as low accuracy, poor availability, lack of standardisation, or limited system interoperability	0.367	0.930	3.72
14	Lack of viable business models for long-term DBL use in the renovation sector	0.231	0.406	3.60
15	Low confidence in the security, privacy, or reliability of DBL systems and data protocols	0.719	0.253	3.48
16	Existing Digital Building Logbook platforms are not user-friendly or intuitive for renovation stakeholders to navigate and use effectively	0.382	0.969	3.34

,

Table 8. Ranked benefits of Digital Building Logbooks from stakeholder perspectives.

Rank	Benefit	Stake-holder Profile (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Country of Operation (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Mean
1	Centralised, verified information improves efficiency, trust, and informed decision-making	0.314	0.616	4.30
2	Easy and fair access to clear, complete building information throughout its lifetime	0.245	0.525	4.20
3	More efficient use of materials and resources throughout the building lifecycle	0.277	0.381	4.18
4	Centralised access to maintenance records supports planning and reduces costly emergency repairs	0.525	0.984	4.06
5	Improved services for building owners due to better information availability	0.326	0.604	4.04
6	Data-supported and tailored renovation plans that guide long-term building performance	0.407	0.861	3.98
7	Better risk assessment and consumer protection through accurate, data-driven insights	0.599	0.712	3.92
8	Greater awareness of building performance aspects such as energy use, carbon emissions, and indoor air quality	0.527	0.514	3.88
9	Smarter building energy use through real-time adjustment based on demand or grid conditions	0.507	0.255	3.80
10	Better energy performance leading to lower utility bills	0.288	0.244	3.78
11	Improved real estate value	0.600	0.128	3.66
12	Increased productivity and support for new business models	0.318	0.835	3.62

and

Table 9. Ranked drivers enabling Digital Building Logbook adoption in renovation contexts.

Rank	Driver	Stake-Holder Profile (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Country of Operation (Kruskal–Wallis p-Value)	Mean
1	Compatibility with existing building standards and digital tools (e.g., EPCs, BIM, smart meters, renovation passports)	0.113	0.945	4.26
2	Users’ (professionals, installers, or consumers) awareness of what Digital Building Logbooks (DBLs) are, how they work, and their core benefits.	0.106	0.560	4.18
3	Existence and effectiveness of regulations or policies promoting or requiring DBLs in renovation projects	0.129	0.599	4.16
4	Development of an operational framework for DBL use in renovation projects	0.103	0.098	4.11
5	Use of standardised data formats, fields, and metadata improves usability	0.090	0.603	4.10
6	DBLs pre-filled with data (e.g., EPC, renovation history, materials) reduce barriers to adoption	0.131	0.450	4.02
7	DBLs are applicable across various tenure types (e.g., private, social, rented)	0.369	0.123	4
8	Viable and sustainable business model supporting DBL implementation and maintenance	0.213	0.825	3.94
9	Users trust in data security, privacy, and ownership protocols	0.117	0.656	3.94
10	Availability of training, guidance, and funding to support DBL use	0.195	0.727	3.94
11	Clear and secure methods for sharing DBLs	0.089	0.573	3.92
12	Costs of implementing DBLs are reasonable and justified by the value provided	0.121	0.158	3.90
13	Linking DBLs to material passports helps track reuse and supports circular renovation	0.526	0.923	3.90
14	DBLs that connect to existing datasets reduce duplication and streamline updates	0.086	0.652	3.90
15	DBLs that include or link to building renovation plans aid in retrofit planning	0.264	0.962	3.88
16	DBLs that show reuse %, lifecycle emissions, or avoided waste help make circularity actionable	0.397	0.129	3.88
17	DBLs are easy to use and user-friendly	0.301	0.147	3.88
18	DBLs that automate access to green finance or renovation subsidies	0.400	0.475	3.84
19	DBLs that give residents visibility on costs, carbon savings, and retrofit plans foster engagement	0.133	0.640	3.84
20	Access to shared data standards and legal frameworks defining data rights and responsibilities	0.310	0.267	3.82
21	Availability and use of government incentives or subsidies for DBL adoption	0.257	0.171	3.78
22	Users’ willingness to regularly update DBL content	0.510	0.495	3.74
23	Customised interfaces (e.g., for owners, contractors, public bodies) increase ease of use	0.455	0.637	3.70

).

4.1. Respondent Characteristics

Table 5 summarises the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents. The final sample consisted of 50 participants representing a range of stakeholder profiles involved in building renovation. Respondents were drawn from seven European countries, with the highest representation from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany. While researchers and academics constituted the largest stakeholder group, the sample also included practitioners and decision-makers involved in design, construction, policy, and renovation activities. The relatively high proportion of academic respondents reflects the exploratory nature of the study and the current stage of DBL development, where researchers frequently play a central role in conceptualisation, pilot projects, and policy support. This distribution also mirrors the reality that much of the DBL discourse and implementation to date has occurred within EU-funded research consortia and academic studies. Although the sample size is modest (n = 50), it is appropriate for the exploratory aim of this study, which seeks to prioritise informed stakeholder perceptions rather than to produce statistically generalisable estimates. Accordingly, the analysis is descriptive in nature, focusing on the ranking and relative salience of perceived barriers, benefits, and drivers, and does not aim to draw inferential conclusions about broader stakeholder populations. The inclusion of qualitative directed content analysis further strengthened the study by enabling triangulation with the quantitative results and offering deeper insights into stakeholder interpretations.

To examine potential differences in perceptions across multiple stakeholder categories, the Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to compare responses across the barrier, benefit, and driver scales. This non-parametric test was selected due to its suitability for analysing ordinal Likert-scale data and its ability to handle non-normal distributions and unequal group sizes, which were present in our sample. As indicated in Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9, the results showed no statistically significant (all p-values are above of 0.05) differences across stakeholder types or countries of operation on any of the three scales, indicating that perceptions of DBL-related barriers, benefits, and drivers were broadly consistent across groups. This supports the validity of the findings and suggests that group background did not introduce notable response bias.

4.2. Reliability Analysis

The internal consistency of the survey constructs was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. While the barrier scale showed acceptable reliability (α = 0.77), the benefit (α = 0.87) and driver (α = 0.95) scales showed strong internal consistency. While these values are still within the range recommended (0.7–0.95), very high alpha values (above 0.90) can indicate potential item redundancy, where several items may be measuring very similar aspects of the same construct [40]. This may be the case in the driver scale, which included 23 items and covered closely related themes such as usability, interoperability, and user training. On the other hand, the lower alpha for the barrier scale may reflect the multidimensionality of that construct, combining legal, technical, and behavioural barriers, which can reduce inter-item correlation.

4.3. Qualitative Data

To complement the quantitative rankings, the open-ended responses provided by participants were analysed using directed content analysis. This deductive method was guided by the predefined categories in the questionnaire barriers, benefits, and drivers, allowing qualitative inputs to reinforce, complement, or contrast the Likert-based findings.

Responses were first sorted by theme (barriers, benefits, and drivers) and then coded according to the specific issue addressed. Table 6 presents illustrative quotes mapped to their relevant codes and shows how these qualitative insights aligned with the quantitative rankings. The analysis revealed that many of the most frequently cited issues in the open comments corresponded closely to the highest-rated items in the survey, indicating strong convergence between stakeholder rankings and narrative explanations. These qualitative insights are discussed in more detail alongside the quantitative results in the subsequent subsections on barriers, benefits, and drivers.

4.4. Barriers to Digital Building Logbook Adoption

Table 7 presents the ranked mean scores of perceived barriers to DBL adoption in renovation projects. Overall, the results indicate that institutional, regulatory, and awareness-related factors represent the most significant constraints.

The lack of clear regulations or policies requiring the use of DBLs was identified as the most critical barrier (mean = 4.16). This finding reinforces previous studies highlighting the absence of binding mandates and fragmented governance as key impediments to DBL implementation [12,13]. Several respondents echoed this concern, noting that without a legal obligation, DBLs are often perceived as optional tools that can be deprioritised under time and budget pressures in renovation projects. As one respondent explained, “Without a legal requirement, DBLs are often seen as optional in renovation projects.” (R12).

Closely following regulatory barriers, respondents highlighted the general lack of awareness of DBLs (mean = 4.12) and limited understanding of how DBLs function and the benefits they offer (mean = 4.00). This finding aligns with earlier research identifying knowledge gaps and unclear value propositions as persistent barriers to the adoption of digital tools in the construction and renovation sectors [7]. Qualitative responses further illustrate this challenge, with several respondents referring to confusion regarding when and how DBLs should be used in practice. For example, one respondent stated that “people don’t know how or when to use DBLs.” (R2). Another respondent emphasised the importance of clear and consistent terminology, noting that DBLs are often confused with related instruments such as building renovation passports or material passports, stating that “people wrongly call them ‘passports’” (R13).

Barriers related to administrative burden and capacity were also prominent. The perceived unclear return on investment (mean = 3.98) and lack of digital skills among renovation stakeholders (mean = 3.92) suggest that even when DBLs are recognised as potentially valuable, stakeholders may lack the resources, training, or incentives required to engage with them effectively. This observation supports findings by Sesana & Salvalai [26], who argue that insufficient skills and organisational capacity undermine the practical usability of digital renovation tools.

In contrast, purely technical barriers, such as data security concerns (mean = 3.48) and the limited user-friendliness of existing DBL platforms (mean = 3.34), were ranked lower. While these issues remain relevant, their comparatively lower salience suggests that technological maturity alone is not the primary bottleneck. Rather, DBL adoption appears constrained by the broader institutional readiness of the renovation ecosystem, a conclusion consistent with prior EU-level assessments [13]. Institutional and operational barriers are seen as more important than technical ones because they determine whether DBLs are adopted in the first place. Without regulatory mandates, clear governance, and defined operational processes, even well-designed digital tools fail to be integrated into practice.

4.5. Benefits of Digital Building Logbooks in Renovation Projects

In contrast to the barriers identified, respondents expressed strong and consistent agreement regarding the benefits of DBLs, particularly those related to information quality, transparency, and lifecycle decision-making (Table 8).

The highest-ranked benefit was centralised, verified information improving efficiency, trust, and informed decision-making (mean = 4.30). This result confirms the role of DBLs as trusted information repositories, as emphasised in earlier studies positioning DBLs as instruments for reducing information asymmetry across the building lifecycle [23]. Respondents frequently highlighted that having a single, reliable source of building data could significantly reduce duplication of surveys and assumptions during renovation planning. Respondents referred to DBLs as a single source of truth that could reduce duplication and uncertainty during renovation planning, as one respondent noted: “Having one trusted place for all building information would avoid repeating surveys.” (R5). The prominence of centralised, verified information as the highest-ranked benefit reflects a persistent structural challenge within the building sector: fragmented, inconsistent, and often inaccessible data across lifecycle phases [24]. Renovation processes typically involve multiple actors, owners, designers, contractors, and facility managers, who often operate in silos with limited coordination and information exchange [44]. This fragmentation generates information asymmetry, increases costs, and leads to redundant surveys, conservative assumptions, and risk contingencies.

Closely related benefits include easy and fair access to complete building information throughout the lifecycle (mean = 4.20) and more efficient use of materials and resources (mean = 4.18). These findings support recent literature linking DBLs to circular economy objectives, particularly through improved traceability of materials and enhanced lifecycle visibility [45]. Respondents echoed this perspective, noting that access to material and performance data is essential for making circularity actionable: “Without reliable material data, circular renovation remains theoretical rather than practical.” (R26). DBLs are seen as pivotal enablers of circularity because they allow materials and components to be tracked over time. By documenting what is installed, its condition, and its reuse potential, DBLs support circular renovation and minimise waste. For this reason, the strong emphasis on material efficiency is not surprising: stakeholders recognise that without reliable lifecycle data, circular renovation strategies cannot move from concept to practice.

Benefits associated with maintenance planning and long-term performance monitoring, such as centralised access to maintenance records (mean = 4.06) and data-supported renovation plans (mean = 3.98), further highlight the perceived value of DBLs beyond one-off renovation interventions. In contrast, direct economic benefits, including improved real estate value (mean = 3.66) and support for new business models (mean = 3.62), were rated lower. This suggests that stakeholders primarily view DBLs as enabling infrastructures rather than immediate profit-generating tools. The financial gains associated with DBLs remain difficult to quantify, largely because innovative business models and operational frameworks around them are still underdeveloped [12]. It is not yet clearly defined who captures financial value, through which mechanisms, and over what time horizon. Moreover, this challenge is not unique to DBLs. Even within renovation more broadly, making a purely financial argument is often difficult due to high upfront costs and long payback periods of energy efficiency measures [46]. As a result, discussions increasingly shift toward co-benefits such as improved indoor comfort, reduced health risks, enhanced asset resilience, and environmental performance rather than relying solely on short-term financial metrics.

4.6. Drivers Enabling Digital Building Logbook Adoption

Table 9 presents stakeholders’ perceptions of the drivers most likely to enable DBL adoption in renovation projects. The results indicate that interoperability, user awareness, regulatory support, and operational clarity are perceived as the most influential enablers.

The highest-ranked driver was compatibility with existing building standards and digital tools, such as EPCs and BIM (mean = 4.26). This finding directly mirrors the barrier analysis and supports the argument that DBLs are more likely to be adopted when they integrate seamlessly into existing workflows, rather than introducing additional administrative layers. This observation is consistent with prior research highlighting interoperability as a prerequisite for scaling DBLs beyond pilot initiatives [11]. This perspective was reflected in respondents’ qualitative comments. Stakeholders stressed that DBLs must align with existing instruments such as EPCs and funding mechanisms to avoid becoming an additional administrative burden. For instance, one student mentioned, “DBLs should be linked to funding requirements or statutory compliance.” (R6). The emphasis on compatibility is particularly understandable in the European context, where extensive systems for collecting and managing building performance data are already in place. Instruments such as EPCs and smart meters have created established data ecosystems and are constantly being improved [47]. Professionals have been trained to operate within these administrative frameworks. Introducing a DBL as a parallel or disconnected system would risk duplication, increased administrative burden, and resistance from stakeholders accustomed to existing compliance structures [32].

The strong ranking of user awareness as a driver (mean = 4.18) underscores the foundational role of basic familiarity and understanding in enabling DBL adoption. Participants indicated that awareness remains limited outside expert or policy circles, particularly among practitioners expected to engage with DBLs during renovation processes. As one respondent noted, “There needs to be a clear understanding of what DBLs actually are” (R12). This reflects a broader issue observed in the literature: the low visibility of DBLs among industry stakeholders has been repeatedly cited as a barrier to uptake, particularly when their role is not clearly differentiated from parallel instruments like Material Passports [12]. These findings reinforce the need for targeted awareness-raising efforts and user-facing communication strategies to clarify DBL functions and demonstrate tangible value to practitioners across the building lifecycle.

Regulatory drivers also ranked highly, including the existence of policies promoting or requiring DBLs (mean = 4.16) and the development of an operational framework for DBL use (mean = 4.11). Respondents frequently noted that linking DBLs to mandatory processes, such as compliance checks or access to funding, could significantly accelerate uptake. This supports earlier studies emphasising the role of regulatory alignment and standardisation in fostering DBL diffusion [31]. Respondents suggested that voluntary uptake is unlikely to be sufficient in the absence of mandates or policy incentives: “the use of Digital Building Logbooks should be mandated within retrofit and EPC legislation (as they are in Europe in the EPBD).” (R4). This perspective is closely connected to the barrier analysis, which indicated that the lack of regulation is perceived as the main barrier hindering adoption. In highly regulated sectors such as construction, digital tools rarely scale through voluntary mechanisms alone. Instead, widespread adoption typically follows regulatory integration. The experience with EPCs illustrates this dynamic: once EPCs became mandatory for property transactions, data collection, professional training, and administrative systems rapidly aligned around them [48]. Over time, EPCs became embedded within funding schemes, compliance checks, and valuation processes, not necessarily because of immediate market enthusiasm, but because legislation created a common framework.

The availability of an operational framework ranked among the most influential drivers (mean = 4.11), indicating strong agreement that guidance on roles, processes, and responsibilities is essential for adoption. This need for clarity was explicitly articulated in the qualitative responses. One respondent noted that “Lack of a standardised framework for what should be included in a DBL to support retrofit.” (R8). This observation reinforces findings in the literature highlighting that the absence of operational guidance can limit the practical applicability of DBLs, even when the underlying digital infrastructure exists [7,13]. Regulation alone would not be sufficient without a well-defined operational framework. Effective implementation requires a comprehensive structure that clearly delineates which actors are involved at each stage of DBL use within renovation projects, who is responsible for data input and verification, what competencies and training are required, and how quality assurance mechanisms are maintained. It must also establish clear rules regarding the type of data to be included, the required format and level of detail, access rights and permissions, and data retention periods.

Drivers aimed at reducing effort and uncertainty, such as standardised data formats (mean = 4.10) and pre-filled DBLs (mean = 4.02), further highlight stakeholders’ preference for solutions that minimise manual data entry and duplication. In contrast, incentive-based drivers and interface customisation were perceived as less influential, suggesting that financial incentives alone are insufficient without broader systemic support. This finding aligns closely with the earlier ranking of barriers, where structural, knowledge-related, and governance challenges, such as the lack of regulation, limited awareness, and the absence of an operational framework, were perceived as more critical than purely financial or technical constraints. Indeed, without regulatory drivers to enforce the adoption of DBLs, without sufficient stakeholder understanding of their purpose and applications, and without a clear framework to guide their implementation, financial and technical considerations become secondary. Furthermore, this alignment between the identified drivers and barriers demonstrates the internal consistency of the results and strengthens the validity of the data.

5. Policy and Practice Implications

The findings of this study have clear implications for the implementation and scaling of DBLs in European and UK renovation contexts. While stakeholder perceptions broadly align with policy ambitions, significant gaps remain in regulation, practical support, and digital infrastructure. Below, we outline core implications for four key groups.

5.1. Policymakers

The EU’s Renovation Wave Strategy and the 2024 recast of the EPBD envision DBLs as integrated repositories for building-related data, supporting renovation, energy efficiency, and circularity. In the UK, policy documents such as the National Retrofit Strategy [49] recognise the need for better data in building performance and asset management, but an equivalent DBL framework is not yet formalised.

Our findings confirm strong stakeholder support for the concept of DBLs. Participants ranked interoperability with existing tools as the top driver. However, the lack of clear regulations and the lack of awareness were identified as a barriers to uptake.

To bridge this gap, policymakers should:

• Establish regulatory clarity by making DBLs mandatory in renovation workflows or linking them to subsidy eligibility;
• Invest in awareness campaigns and training, ensuring professionals across the sector understand DBL benefits and use;
• Develop an operational framework for DBL use in renovation projects;
• Adopt harmonised data standards to ensure interoperability with EPCs, BIM, and renovation passports;
• Provide financial incentives, such as grants or tax credits, to support DBL setup and maintenance;
• Clarify data governance, particularly ownership and access rights, to improve trust among stakeholders.

These measures would move DBLs from conceptual policy tools to operational components of national renovation strategies.

5.2. DBL Platform Developers

Platform developers have a pivotal role in addressing many of the technical and usability barriers identified by stakeholders. Respondents emphasised that DBLs must integrate with existing systems and be simple to use. Manual data entry and poor user experience would be key deterrents.

Key implications for developers include the following:

• Ensure interoperability with national databases, EPC registers, BIM models, and material passports;
• Adopt and promote open data standards, aligned with technical guidelines;
• Prioritise user-friendly design, with customised interfaces for different user groups (e.g., owners vs. professionals);
• Automate data entry where possible, by pre-filling logbooks with public data or outputs from energy audits;
• Embed privacy and access controls to address concerns about data security.
• Integrate lifecycle emissions, circularity indicators, or material reuse data to support policy goals and stakeholder demand for sustainability metrics.

By focusing on ease of use and system integration, DBL platforms can lower adoption barriers and provide tangible value to users.

5.3. Public Authorities (National and Local)

Public authorities are instrumental in deploying DBL systems and embedding them in administrative processes. Fragmented regional approaches were identified as a barrier in this study, alongside the perceived administrative burden.

Recommendations include the following:

• Develop or adopt national logbook platforms to ensure coherence across regions;
• Integrate DBLs into permitting and grant processes, requiring or incentivising logbook updates at key renovation stages;
• Enable data exchange between DBLs and public databases (e.g., EPCs, planning approvals);
• Use DBL data to monitor progress, such as renovation rates and energy savings at district or national level;
• Train municipal staff and advisors on how to support DBL usage and interpretation.

5.4. Building Renovation Stakeholders

Adoption of DBLs ultimately depends on how willing and able professionals and building owners are to engage with them. While benefits such as improved planning and risk management were recognised, stakeholders flagged time constraints, unclear responsibilities, and lack of perceived return on investment.

To address these concerns:

• Include DBLs in project workflows as a standard deliverable during handovers;
• Share responsibility for data input among project teams (e.g., designers, contractors, certifiers);
• Use DBLs as client engagement tools, showing building owners performance improvements and tailored plans;
• Leverage logbooks for long-term asset management, particularly in housing portfolios;
• Seek out training or pilot participation to build fluency in DBL platforms and standards.

By embedding DBLs into everyday renovation practices, stakeholders can help normalise their use and unlock long-term value for both owners and the broader renovation ecosystem.

6. Conclusions

This study sets out to explore European stakeholders’ perceptions of the barriers, benefits, and drivers influencing the adoption of DBLs in building renovation projects. This research offers a structured empirical reference that can support future studies, policy development, and comparative analyses on DBL adoption. Using an exploratory quantitative survey complemented by qualitative insights from open-ended responses, the research provides empirical evidence on how stakeholders prioritise the factors shaping DBL uptake in renovation contexts.

The findings indicate a clear contrast between highly recognised benefits and persistent adoption barriers. Stakeholders strongly acknowledge the value of DBLs in improving access to reliable building information, supporting informed decision-making, and enabling lifecycle- and circularity-oriented renovation practices. However, adoption remains constrained by regulatory uncertainty, limited awareness, unclear governance arrangements, and capacity-related challenges, including digital skills gaps and perceived administrative burden. These results suggest that the slow uptake of DBLs is not driven by a lack of perceived value but rather by the absence of enabling institutional and organisational conditions.

The analysis further highlights that the most influential drivers of DBL adoption directly address these constraints. Interoperability with existing digital tools and standards, users’ awareness, the presence of regulatory support or mandates, and the availability of clear operational frameworks emerged as critical enablers. Together, these findings underscore that DBL adoption is fundamentally a systemic challenge, requiring alignment between policy, governance, technical infrastructure, and everyday renovation workflows, rather than further technological development alone.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. First, the sample size (n = 50) is relatively modest and was obtained using purposive and snowball sampling strategies. As such, the results are not intended to be statistically representative or generalisable to all stakeholders involved in building renovation across Europe. Instead, the study adopts an exploratory approach, aiming to capture informed and practice-based perspectives from stakeholders with experience in renovation activities. In addition to the structured survey data, the inclusion of open-ended qualitative inputs allowed for deeper insight into the reasoning behind participants’ ratings. Moreover, recruiting a larger number of non-academic practitioners proved challenging, as DBLs remain a niche and emerging topic, with discussions and expertise still predominantly concentrated within research, pilot projects, and policy-oriented contexts. However, this particular limitation was mitigated by the Kruskal–Wallis H test, which indicated no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of DBL-related barriers, benefits, and drivers across stakeholder group.

Given the limited empirical evidence currently available, future research could build on these findings by employing larger and more diverse samples, longitudinal designs, or mixed-method approaches that combine surveys with in-depth interviews or case studies. Such studies could further examine how DBL adoption evolves over time, and how identified barriers and drivers interact across different regulatory, market, and organisational contexts.