Deliverable 5.2 A study of homeowners energy efficiency improvements and the impact of the Energy Performance Certificate

Transcription

1 Deliverable 5.2 A study f hmewners energy efficiency imprvements and the impact f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate Afi Adjei, Lrna Hamiltn and Mike Rys (BRE) Prject: Imprving Dwellings by Enhancing Actins n Labelling fr the EPBD Acrnym: IDEAL EPBD Hme page: Agreement: IEE/07/600/SI C-rdinatr: Energienderzek Centrum Nederland Supprted by Intelligent Energy Eurpe. The sle respnsibility fr the cntent f this reprt lies with the authrs. It des nt necessarily reflect the pinin f the Eurpean Cmmunities. The Eurpean Cmmissin is nt respnsible fr any use that may be made f the infrmatin cntained therein.

2 2 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Acknwledgements The prject relied n cntributins frm members f the IDEAL EPBD prject team. The authrs wuld like t thank them fr the time and resurces that they cmmitted t the develpment f the questinnaire, the administratin f the survey and reviewing the reprt. We wuld particularly like t thank Tke Haunstrup Christensen and Kirsten Gram-Hanssen (SBI), Francise Bartiaux (UCL), Bettina Brhmann and Martin Cames (OEKO), Krzysztf Klbut and Anne Tlman (VTT), Casper Tigchelaar, Marjlein de Best-Waldhber and Julia Backhaus (ECN) and Sara Cward (BRE).

3 3 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Executive Summary A survey f hmewners was carried ut in five member states: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, England and Finland. Hmewners were asked a range f questins abut the hme imprvement that they had cmpleted and planned; the Energy Perfrmance Certificate (EPC); and factrs that may influence their decisin-making arund energy efficiency. The questinnaire was in the field during the spring and summer f 2010, in the frm f an nline survey that was distributed t hmewners by mail, r via a link frm the prject website. The survey cllected respnses frm 3,207 hmewners. Despite the fact that the study sampled husehlds with an EPC, r thse that shuld have ne because they had recently been invlved in purchasing a dwelling, sme respndents were unaware f having an EPC fr their hme. Abut 60% (1,912) f hmewners reprted that they had an EPC. Key findings Over 50% f husehlds had either installed energy efficiency lighting, r planned t; and 48% f husehlds had installed, r planned t install, sme frm f insulatin. Husehlds living in a dwelling in a very pr cnditin were abut 18 times mre likely t carry ut imprvements than smene living in a dwelling rated in a very gd cnditin. Hmewners living in dwellings built between 1919 and 1970 were arund fur times mre likely t have cmpleted an energy efficiency measure cmpared t hmewners living in a dwelling built after Arund 60% f hmewners wh were aware f the recmmendatins available with their EPC had carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures, cmpared with just ver 40% f husehlds wh culd nt recllect r were unaware f the recmmendatins. Cnclusin The EPC n its wn was nt the strngest driver influencing whether hmewners purchased a particular dwelling r carried ut imprvements. Hwever, hmewners with an EPC with recmmendatins were up t twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures, when cmpared t hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. Therefre increasing the availability f this tl, and creating wider use and understanding f it, may enhance the likelihd that mre energy efficiency measures will take place. What drives hmewners t implement energy efficiency measures? The perceived cnditin f the dwelling The age f the dwelling The Energy Perfrmance Certificate What barriers d hmewners face when implementing energy efficiency measures? Lack f awareness f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate Lack f awareness f the recmmendatins received with the Energy Perfrmance Certificate Lack f visibility f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate at the hme-buying stage Reluctance t use the Energy Perfrmance Certificate t infrm a hme purchase decisin Level f trust in the Energy Perfrmance Certificate Energy efficiency is nt a cnsideratin fr hmebuyers The cmpetitin between general and energy efficiency imprvements

4 4 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 A summary f hmewners energy efficiency imprvements and the impact f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate Article 11 f the Energy Perfrmance f Buildings Directive 1 (EPBD) targets dwellings that are sld, newly built r rented. The IDEAL EPBD survey fcused n hmewners, as they are a key grup affected by this aspect f the Directive. Seventy-three percent f husehlds in the EU-27 member states are wnerccupiers. The energy efficiency behaviur f this grup, therefre, has a bearing n the energy saving ptential in each cuntry. Previus wrk carried ut by the IDEAL EPBD prject team suggests that there is the ptential t save 20% f present heating energy cnsumptin f dwellings by Hwever, hmewners behaviur will determine whether all this energy saving will be realised. Determining hw this grup reacts t the EPBD may help t assess the likelihd f cuntries reaching their energy saving targets. Methdlgy A survey f hmewners was carried ut in five member states: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, England and Finland. Hmewners were asked a range f questins abut their hme imprvement behaviur, the Energy Perfrmance Certificate (EPC) and factrs that may influence their decisin-making arund energy efficiency. The questinnaire was infrmed by a literature review, stakehlder interviews and in-depth hmewner interviews in ten member states. The questinnaire was in the field during the spring and summer f 2010, in the frm f an nline survey that was distributed t hmewners by mail, r via a link frm the prject website. The samples in Denmark and the Netherlands were drawn frm husehlds with an EPC. In Germany, England and Finland, the samples were drawn frm hmewners wh had bught a dwelling during the previus tw years while EPCs were required under the EPBD in their cuntry. Objective The IDEAL EPBD prject aims t assess the impact f EPCs as laid ut in the EPBD. In particular, it aims t investigate whether EPCs affect buyers behaviur, r whether they mtivate hmewners t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements. The key bjective f this reprt is t assess the behaviur and attitude f hmewners twards the EPC. The sample The survey cllected respnses frm 3,207 hmewners as shwn in the table belw. Percentage f hmewners by length f time since mving int prperty All five cuntries Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Less than 6 mnths 6% 8% 5% 7% 4% 11% 6-23 mnths 57% 42% 66% 51% 70% 57% 24 mnths r mre 27% 20% 23% 40% 25% 26% Nt declared 10% 30% 6% 1% 1% 6% N 3, , % f ttal sample Directive 2010/31/EU 2 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

5 5 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The majrity f the sample cnsisted f recent hmebuyers that had bught a dwelling within tw years f the survey. The survey als cllected data frm hmewners wh had bught dwellings earlier, generally because it was assumed that they had an EPC fr reasns ther than a recent purchase. The age f the dwellings in the sample varied. A fifth f the sample ccupied dwellings built after Either cuples r families cmprised the majrity (76%) f husehlds in the survey. There were brad similarities in the demgraphic and husing stck prfile f the sample frm each cuntry. Key findings fr all hmewners Hmewners attitudes t hme-buying Hmewners rated the availability f the garden/utdr space, the price and the lcatin f the prperty as the mst imprtant factrs when they were cnsidering purchasing a prperty. The ptential cst f energy and ther utilities was ranked ninth in a list f twelve ptential hme-buying pririties. An assessment f the dwelling The cnditin f the dwelling played an imprtant rle in hmewners decisins t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements. Over half f hmewners reprted that they purchased a prperty that was in a gd cnditin, and just ver a fifth purchased a prperty that they described as being in a pr cnditin. Mre than half f hmewners lived in dwellings where the living rm temperature during the winter mnths was regarded as cmfrtable; this temperature was n average 21 C. Fewer than ne in ten hmewners lived in dwellings that were uncmfrtably ht r cld. Over a third (36%) f hmewners had prblems with draughts, high energy bills, their heating system r the temperature in their hme. Less than a third had identified ther nn-energy related prblems with their dwelling after they had mved in; these ranged frm general repairs t prblems with damp and cndensatin and pest cntrl. Thirty-six percent f hmewners wh had cmpleted energy efficiency measures rated their current dwelling t be in a pr cnditin at the time f purchase; this was nly the case fr 6% f hmewners wh had nt cmpleted imprvements. General hme imprvements Three quarters f the hmewners surveyed had cmpleted sme frm f hme imprvement at the time f the survey. The median number f hme imprvements was 4; this increased t 5 amng hmewners wh had carried ut at least ne imprvement. Cstlier imprvements such as installing r imprving a kitchen r bathrm were carried ut by 52% (fr kitchens) and 46% (fr bathrms) f hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements. Energy efficiency imprvements Over 50% f husehlds had either installed energy efficiency lighting, r planned t; and 48% f husehlds had installed, r planned t install, sme frm f insulatin. Renewable technlgies had been installed by just ver 5% f all husehlds. The mst cmmn renewable technlgy installed was a slar water heating system (110 husehlds) fllwed by a wd-fuelled heating system (50) and slar electricity systems (49 hmewners). The EPC as a surce f infrmatin The study fund that sme respndents were unaware f having an EPC fr their hme. Varius questins were used t determine whether a husehld remembered seeing an EPC. This included images f the energy label available in their cuntry, and questins that linked the label t the hme-buying and selling

6 6 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 prcess. Abut 60% (1,912) f hmewners reprted that they had an EPC. Over 70% f hmewners with an EPC had ne because they had purchased a prperty, and 17% vluntarily acquired ne. EPC status f hmewners Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark All Husehld with an EPC Husehld withut an EPC 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% There were ntable differences in the EPC status f hmewners in the cuntries invlved in the study. Mre than 70% f hmewners in Finland, and mre than 60% in Germany did nt have an EPC fr their dwelling. Of hmewners wh had an EPC because they had purchased a prperty, less than half were shwn the EPC befre they made an ffer n that prperty. Less than a third (30%) saw it after an ffer was accepted but befre the transactin was cmpleted, and a further 14% saw the EPC after the transactin was cmpleted. Only a third f hmewners wh saw the EPC befre making an ffer reprted that it was an imprtant factr in their decisin t make an ffer n their current dwelling. While tw-thirds f the hmewners in the sample were aware that they had an EPC, a smaller grup f these was aware f sme f the details cntained in the dcument, such as the energy efficiency rating and the energy efficiency recmmendatins. Almst 70% f hmewners wh had an EPC fr their hme culd recall its energy efficiency rating, and abut 50% culd recall the energy efficiency recmmendatins included with it. The impact f the EPC n hmewners energy efficiency investments Overall, the EPC was fund t influence hmewners decisin-making, althugh the percentage f hmewners with an EPC, and wh had carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency imprvements, was nly slightly higher than thse wh had carried ut imprvements withut being aware f an EPC. The graph belw shws ntable differences between the percentage f hmewners carrying ut energy efficiency imprvements, depending n whether they had knwledge/awareness f a full EPC (including recmmendatins) r an EPC withut knwledge/awareness f the recmmendatins reprt.

7 7 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 EPC recmmendatins and energy efficiency behaviur Percentage Husehld aware f EPC recmmendatins Husehld unaware f EPC recmmendatins 10 0 N energy efficiency imprvements One r mre energy efficiency imprvements Fifty-seven percent f husehlds, in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England, that had an EPC with recmmendatins had carried ut ne r mre f the recmmendatins likely t feature n an EPC recmmendatins reprt 3. The percentage f husehlds in the ther EPC categries carrying ut these type f measures was much lwer, 40% (EPC withut recmmendatins) and 44% (husehlds withut an EPC). There were als differences between cuntries. Almst 70% f hmewners in the Netherlands with an EPC with recmmendatins had carried ut these types f energy efficiency measures. In Denmark, the figure was 52%, but nly 29% f Danish husehlds that had an EPC but were nt aware f recmmendatins had carried ut ne r mre f these energy efficiency measures. The impact f the EPC and ther factrs n hmewners energy efficiency investments The EPC cntinued t be a factr that infrmed hmewners decisin-making, even when it was cnsidered amng many ther factrs. The graph belw shws a series f factrs that influence hmewners energy efficiency investments. All the factrs are n the right f the dtted line (i.e. 1 and abve), which indicates that they increased the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted. Hmewners with an EPC with recmmendatins were up t twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures when cmpared t hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. Hwever, ther factrs had a mre striking influence n hmewners decisin-making. These were the perceived cnditin f the dwelling and the age f the dwelling. The age and cnditin f the dwelling affected the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted. The prer the cnditin f the hmewners current dwelling, the mre likely they were t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures. A hmewner wh rated their dwelling t be in a 3 There were six energy efficiency measures that featured as ptential recmmendatins in all five member states. These were: insulate rf and r lft, insulate walls, imprve glazing, upgrade and r install biler, imprve central heating system, and use r install slar energy system.

8 8 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 gd cnditin were mre likely t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements than smene living in a dwelling rated in a very gd cnditin. Cmpared with a dwelling rated in a very gd cnditin, thse in a pr cnditin were five times mre likely t be imprved, and dwellings in a very pr cnditin were abut 18 times mre likely t be imprved, and hmewners in lder dwellings were als mre likely t have carried ut an energy efficiency measure. This is ntably the case fr dwellings built between 1919 and 1970, which are abut fur times as likely t be imprved as dwellings built after Factrs influencing the energy efficiency behaviur f all hmewners Ptential supprt mechanisms Mre than half f all hmewners thught that talking t an energy prfessinal wuld help them t decide n the actin necessary t imprve the energy efficiency f their hme. Tw-fifths thught that better infrmatin frm my energy supplier wuld be beneficial. The media and the internet were the least ppular chices. The majrity f hmewners rated mnetary issues t be imprtant. The verall cst f making imprvements was imprtant fr 85% f hmewners, while 51% cnsidered it very imprtant. Mre than half f all hmewners were very interested in a grant t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements and repairs, in paying a lwer level f tax because they had made energy efficiency hme imprvement, r in a reductin in price f energy efficiency prducts. A fifth were nt at all interested in a lw interest lan fr energy efficiency hme imprvements and repairs, and 10% were nt at all interested in paying a lwer level f tax based n their EPC scre. Cnclusin

9 9 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The EPC n its wn was nt the strngest driver influencing whether hmewners wuld purchase a dwelling r carry ut imprvements. Hwever, hmewners with an EPC with recmmendatins were up t twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures, in cmparisn with hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. Therefre increasing the availability f this tl, and creating wider use and understanding f it, may increase the likelihd that mre energy efficiency measures will be taken. The main drivers f energy efficiency investment were: The perceived cnditin f the dwelling The age f the dwelling The EPC The main barriers t energy efficiency investment were: Lack f awareness f the EPC Lack f awareness f the recmmendatins received with the EPC Lack f visibility f the EPC at the hme-buying stage Reluctance t use the EPC t infrm a hme purchase decisin

10 10 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Cntents 1 Intrductin 12 2 Methdlgy Develping the questinnaire Literature review Stakehlder interviews In-depth interviews in 10 member states Summary A pilt f the questinnaire Final questinnaire and translatin The sample, recruitment and fieldwrk in each cuntry Denmark Germany Netherlands UK (England) Finland Limitatins f the survey 22 3 The influence f Energy Perfrmance Certificates The Energy Perfrmance Certificate status f the sample Cmpleted Energy Efficiency measures and EPC status 24 4 The characteristics f the sample General findings Cuntry-specific factrs Other factrs Discussin 34 5 Hmewners attitude t hme-buying General findings Cuntry-specific factrs influencing hmewners attitude t hme-buying Other factrs Discussin 40 6 The current cnditin f hmewners dwellings General findings Cuntry-specific factrs Other factrs related t the cnditin f hmewners current dwellings Discussin 47 7 Hme Imprvements General findings Cuntry-specific factrs Other factrs 55

11 11 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Discussin 57 8 The Energy Perfrmance Certificate as a surce f infrmatin General findings General awareness f EPCs Hmewners with an EPC Cuntry-specific factrs Access t energy efficiency infrmatin and awareness f EPCs Hmewners with EPCs Discussin 68 9 Energy efficiency infrmatin General findings Level f Trust in surces f infrmatin abut energy efficiency in the hme Surces f infrmatin sught by hmewners n energy efficiency Cuntry-specific factrs Level f trust in surces f infrmatin abut energy efficiency Surces f infrmatin sught by hmewners n energy efficiency Discussin Practical issues related t hme imprvements General findings Cuntry-specific Discussin Ptential supprt mechanisms fr hmewners General findings Type f infrmatin Mnetary and fiscal scenaris and incentives Cuntry-specific factrs Type f infrmatin Mnetary and fiscal scenaris and incentives cuntry Other factrs Discussin Envirnmental awareness General findings Cuntry-specific factrs Other factrs Discussin Factrs influencing energy efficiency behaviur in dwellings The findings Cnclusins What drives hmewners t implement energy efficiency measures? What barriers d hmewners face when implementing energy efficiency measures? Are EPCs useful tls fr hmewners in all five member states? Other factrs that may influence decisin-making Value f the survey References 104

12 12 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Intrductin Energy efficiency frms a majr part f the energy strategy f the Eurpean Cmmissin. In 2007, the Eurpean Cuncil agreed t reduce greenhuse gas emissins by 20%, t increase the share f renewable energy t 20% and t make a 20% imprvement in energy efficiency 4. In 2010, the Eurpean Cmmissin reprted cncerns abut meeting these stated bjectives. Hwever the Cmmissin is clear that energy efficiency remains a pririty: Energy efficiency is the mst cst effective way t reduce emissins, imprve energy security and cmpetitiveness, make energy cnsumptin mre affrdable fr cnsumers as well as create emplyment, including in exprt industries. Abve all, it prvides tangible benefits t citizens: average energy savings fr a husehld can amunt t 1,000 per year. One f the main instruments fr reaching the energy efficiency target in the residential sectr is the Energy Perfrmance f Buildings Directive (EPBD), riginally intrduced in 2002 and recently recast in The EPBD intrduced Energy Perfrmance Certificates fr dwellings that are sld, newly built r rented. The certificate prvides details f the energy perfrmance status f the dwelling, ften divided int seven classes such as A t G. In mst member states, the EPC includes advice n energy efficiency measures that wuld reduce energy use. The Imprving Dwellings by Enhancing Actins n Labelling fr the Energy Perfrmance f Buildings Directive (IDEAL EPBD) prject is funded by the Eurpean Cmmissin under the Intelligent Energy Eurpe prgramme. IDEAL EPBD fcuses n understanding husehlds energy efficiency behaviur. The prject started in Octber 2008 and will end in September Ten member states are invlved. Further details are available nline at This reprt prvides findings frm a hmewners survey, as part f wrk package 5 f the prject. The purpse f the IDEAL EPBD survey was t examine the energy efficiency behaviur and attitude f hmewners with an EPC and t investigate the usefulness f the EPC in hmewners decisin-making abut hme imprvements. Five cuntries were invlved in the survey: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdm (England) and Finland. The IDEAL EPBD survey fcused n hmewners. Seventy-three percent f husehlds in the EU-27 member states are wner-ccupied and a gd prprtin f these husehlds is likely t be invlved in the hme-buying prcess each year. The energy efficiency behaviur f this grup, therefre, has a bearing n the energy-saving ptential in each cuntry. Previus wrk carried ut by the IDEAL EPBD prject team suggests that there is the ptential t save 20% f the present heating energy cnsumptin f dwellings by Determining hw this grup reacts t the EPBD may help t assess the likelihd f cuntries reaching their energy saving targets. 4 Eurpean Cmmissin (2010a) 5 Eurpean Cmmissin (2010b) 6 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

13 13 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The bjective f the survey was t reprt n the behaviur and attitude f hmewners twards the Energy Perfrmance Certificate (EPC). The key questins were: T prvide an verview f the energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners Which energy efficiency measures d hmewners invest in? What barriers d hmewners face when implementing energy efficiency measures? What mtivates hmewners t implement energy efficiency measures? T measure the use and effectiveness f the EPC by hmewners What part, if any, des the EPC play n hmewners decisin t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements? What part, if any, d the recmmendatins stated in EPCs play n hmewners decisin t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements? T cmpare hmewners attitude and behaviur t energy efficiency by cuntry The survey cllected respnses frm ver 3,000 hmewners. The findings prvide insight int the energy efficiency measures taken by hmewners, and the impact f the EPC n their decisin-making. These findings and thers will be used t frmulate plicy actin plans at the Eurpean level and fr each cuntry as part f Wrk Package 6.

14 14 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Methdlgy An nline survey f hmewners was carried ut in five Eurpean Unin member states. These were Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdm (England) and Finland. Sme aspects f the methdlgy differed in sme cuntries, and this chapter prvides details f the methdlgy used t develp the questinnaire, t access a sample and cllect the data. Figure 1 prvides a summary f the main features f the research methd. Figure 1 The main features f the research methd

15 15 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Develping the questinnaire The questinnaire was develped in cnsultatin with partner rganisatins frm the five member states invlved in the nline study (ECN, Oek, SBi, VTT & BRE). The questinnaire was infrmed by infrmatin cllated during varius stages f the IDEAL EPBD prject, including a literature review, stakehlder interviews, a natinal plicy review and 50 in-depth pilt interviews Literature review The literature review 7 fcused n individual and husehld energy behaviur and energy efficiency in residential buildings. The literature review included studies based n appraches and schls f thught in ecnmics, psychlgy and scilgy. In ttal, 74 studies were reviewed; mre than half f them were published in the year 2007 r later. Mst f the dcuments were related t behaviural aspects and t recmmendatins fr imprvements fr plicy measures. The literature review pinted t theretical studies that prvided insight int cnsumer behaviur; fr example the cncept f natural timing psited by Gelissen (2008) and the phase-mdel f behaviural change (Prchaska et al. 1997) bth cnfirmed the imprtance f time and situatin and led t the inclusin f questins abut prperty purchase date, mve-in date and the reasn fr having an EPC. The literature review dcuments barriers and factrs that may influence cnsumers behaviur. Sme f these are listed belw: The imprtance f an individual s attitude t green issues (Hering 2007) The impact f sci-ecnmic grup (Hering 2007) and (Gelissen 2008) The impact f dwelling type (Gelissen 2008) The issue f payback time (Sunikka 2005), Gelissen 2008 and Caird 2007) The relatinship between the energy bill and the husehld budget (Gelissen 2008) The disseminatin f infrmatin (cntact between hmewner and energy prfessinal) (Cwi 2001 and Jensen 2004) The influence f negative press/media (Jensen 2004) The impact f ecnmic incentives (EHHP 2008, Uitdenbgerd 2007a, Helsingin 2009, ME Finland 2008, Wilkinsn 2008 and Steg et al. 2006) The influence f energy suppliers (Oxera 2006) Stakehlder interviews Each member state that was invlved in the IDEAL EPBD prject interviewed natinal stakehlders and plicy makers. The purpse f the interview was t gather their views n the barriers that prevented the successful implementatin f energy labelling fr husing 8. The barriers identified by stakehlders and deemed mst relevant fr the survey fell under three main categries: Regulatin Financial Infrmatin, prmtin and educatin As a result f the stakehlder interviews, it was clear that a number f factrs shuld be explred in the questinnaire including incentives, subsidies and the visibility f the label In-depth interviews in 10 member states Five in-depth interviews with hmewners were carried ut in all ten member states invlved in the prject. The findings frm these 50 in-depth interviews infrmed the develpment f the questinnaire. The key 7 Brhmann et al (2009) 8 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

16 16 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 bjective f the interview was t gather infrmatin n hmewners experience f hme renvatins and the EPC. There was a ntable number f barriers t actin reprted in the interviews, including: Financial cnstraints Cst-effectiveness f imprvement measures Timing, missed pprtunity Price Appearance f imprvement Intentin nt t stay in the dwelling Other hme imprvement pririties Pr quality f materials and wrk Lack f cntrl f wrk and prices, bureaucracy, frequent changes f laws and rules Lack f infrmatin and knwledge Negative depictin by media r estate agents Degree f cncern abut envirnmental issues Lack f interest regarding envirnmental issues Price f energy Summary The three main surces f infrmatin (literature review, stakehlder interviews and in-depth interviews) highlighted bth similarities and differences in the hmewners experience f EPCs. Sme f the issues raised were cuntry-specific; they identified the impact f specific plicies in place in a cuntry. If the cuntry was included in the survey, these issues were taken frward and cnsidered. If the cuntry was part f the qualitative part f the study, these issues were explred during further in-depth interviews. The impact f finance was a cmmn theme thrugh all three surces, whereas the impact f the media was highlighted in the literature and during the in-depth interviews. The questinnaire was frmed by listing all the issues and then deciding hw they culd be explred in a questinnaire. The plicy reviews als prvided details f the way in which the EPBD had been implemented in each cuntry. 2.2 A pilt f the questinnaire The questinnaire was develped in partnership with ECN, Oek, SBi, VTT and BRE. Once the questinnaire had been finalised, it was transfrmed int an electrnic versin s that it culd be tested by hmewners. A qualitative pilt f the questinnaire tk place between December 2009 and February 2010 in England. Thirteen hmewners were interviewed. Hmewners were recruited by mail frm a database f recent hme buyers in the area within three miles f BRE s headquarters in Watfrd, UK. Hmewners received 30 fr attending the interview. They were interviewed using cgnitive interviewing techniques. Cgnitive interviewing explicitly fcuses n the cgnitive prcesses that respndents use t answer survey questins; therefre, cvert prcesses that are nrmally hidden, as well as vert, bservable nes, are studied ; an example f a cgnitive interviewing technique used during this study was verbal prbing ; participants were asked t paraphrase questins (ask them in their wn wrds), and they were als asked t explain hw they arrived at certain answers. 9 Half f the hmewners cmpleted the questinnaire nline and were timed. The rest cmpleted sme f the questins by hand, and all were interviewed fr up t an hur and a half t gauge their understanding f a number f questins, and f terms that wuld be used in the questinnaire, such as energy efficiency and hme imprvements. 9 Caspar et al (1999)

17 17 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Seven men and six wmen were interviewed; they lived in a range f dwellings, frm thse built befre 1919 t newer dwellings built up t Six f the participants were under 30 years f age, fur were in their thirties and the rest ver 40. Ten f the participants had attained a university degree. Seven f the 13 interviewees were asked t cmplete an nline questinnaire. The participants were timed, t gather infrmatin n the length f time it might take ptential participants t cmplete the task at hme. Fur f the participants cmpleted the nline questinnaire in 20 minutes r less; the lngest time was 25 minutes and the shrtest time was 10 minutes. Much f the feedback surrunded key questins n the barriers and drivers f energy efficiency hme imprvements. The fllwing is an example f a questin that was asked during the interview and the pen ended respnse frm a participant: E6. Hw imprtant t yu are the fllwing, when yu are thinking abut hme imprvements and repairs? E6c. The time it will take t get payback n the mney invested Because we re quite careful abut making sure we ve always gt a certain amunt f savings fr emergencies, if I feel it wuld take s lng t payback t have smething dne we wuld think twice abut it. (Prmpted and reads questin again) Srry haven t read that very well, I read it as hw lng it wuld take t pay back what I had spent ut, but ther than get back. Get pay back means what it s trying t ask me nw that I m lking at it differently is if I d had the lft insulatin put in when it wuld start t make a difference t my bills, lwer the bills fr heating, the difference financially (Interviewee 1) As a cnsequence f the pilt, a number f suggestins were made t change the questinnaire. Fr example, it was nted that in general, respndents were cnfused by the term payback. Therefre specific reference t payback was remved frm the questinnaire and tw chices were amended: D9. Hw imprtant t yu are the fllwing, when yu are thinking abut energy efficiency hme imprvements and repairs? D9b. The time it will take t get back the mney invested thrugh savings n energy bills D9c. Whether the reductin in the energy bill is wrth my time and mney The pilt identified the length f time it might take t cmplete the questinnaire and prvided data that were cnsidered when revising the questinnaire. The final questinnaire reflects as far as was pssible an attempt t imprve the questins s that they were clear and wuld measure the key factrs that were f interest t the study. 2.3 Final questinnaire and translatin The final questinnaire was translated int Danish, Dutch, German and Finnish. The translatin was an iterative prcess and invlved the prject partners frm ECN, Oek, SBi and VTT translating the questins int their respective language. The translatin was ften a cllabrative prcess with multiple clleagues invlved in ensuring that the translatin was as accurate as pssible. The translated questinnaires were then transfrmed int an nline questinnaire using TELEfrm sftware and psted n the internet; all five questinnaires are shwn in Appendix A. The questinnaires were all accessed via the IDEAL EPBD website.

18 18 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable The sample, recruitment and fieldwrk in each cuntry Owner-ccupiers with an EPC were the key target grup fr the research prject. Hwever, the pilt indepth interviews that frmed part f Wrk Package 4, and the questinnaire pilt, raised questins abut the feasibility f accessing this grup in all cuntries. The sampling frame in Denmark and the Netherlands cmprised dwellings registered with a Gvernment department as having an EPC. In England, Germany and Finland, a natinal register f dwellings with an EPC either did nt exist, r culd nt be accessed fr this study. Therefre, in England and Germany the sampling frame cmprised hmewners wh had purchased dwellings when the EPC had been implemented, and was therefre a requirement f the hmebuying prcess. In Finland the sampling frame cmprised hmewners, as there was little cnfidence that it wuld be pssible t target hmewners with an EPC in the same way as in England and Germany. The general sample framewrk agreed n was: Hmewners (n rental prperties) with an energy label (any frm) Hmewners wh recently bught prperties between six mnths and up t tw years befre the survey, r hmewners wh btained an energy label between six mnths and up t tw years befre the survey Over 3,000 hmewners cmpleted the survey. The number f hmewners frm each cuntry varied (see Table 1). The sample, recruitment and the fieldwrk fr each cuntry is explained belw. Table 1 Number f hmewners by cuntry N % f ttal sample Denmark Germany 1, Netherlands England Finland Ttal 3, Denmark The exact number f EPCs fr sld dwellings in Denmark is nt knwn. Hwever, in 2007 and 2008 a ttal f 137, single family huses were marketed fr sale, and during this time 91, EPCs were issued fr this type f dwelling. Therefre the survey ppulatin was arund 91,000. The sample frame was made up f mailing addresses f dwellings registered as having an EPC by the Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen). A randm sample f 10,000 addresses was selected frm this database. Respnses were received frm 757 individuals (8% respnse rate). Of these, 743 were hmewners and therefre were included in the statistical analysis. The sample was apprached by mail. The letter explained that the survey was abut hmewners cmfrt, and included a link t the questinnaire and an eight-digit unique identifier. The unique identifier was used t ensure that nly hmewners frm the database cmpleted the nline survey, and ffered the ptential fr IDEAL EPBD data t be linked with Energistyrelsen data at a later date. 10 Statistics frm Realkreditrådet (Assciatin f Danish Mrtgage Banks) retrieved Energimærkningsdatabasen (the Danish energy label database)

19 19 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The letter als indicated that an incentive was available fr cmpleting the questinnaire. The incentive was entry int a prize draw fr a thermal imaging survey f the dwelling. The questinnaires were mailed in the early part f June The first respnse was received n the 18 June and the last respnse n 11 August Germany Recent hmebuyers were sught t respnd t the German survey, as a register f dwellings with an EPC was nt available. A natinal database f addresses f recent hmebuyers was als nt available, and therefre a cmmercial rganisatin called Payback hsted the survey n their website and invited their nline panel t respnd. There are arund 110,000 individuals registered n Payback s nline panel, a gd prprtin f whm were wner-ccupiers; althugh it was uncertain hw many were recent hme buyers. Part f the questinnaire was cmpleted by 10,482 individuals f whm 1,165 were hmewners wh had purchased a dwelling within the defined time frame. Tw screening questins were used fr the German survey; the first determined whether respndents were wner-ccupiers, and the secnd established whether they had purchased a dwelling between January 2008 and Octber Frm July 2008 the German EPC was mandatry fr buildings that were built befre 1 January In January 2009, the legislatin came int frce fr buildings built after 31 December Befre these dates, the EPC was available t hmewners wh chse t acquire it. The German questinnaire was launched by Payback n 23 June, and by the 8 July ver 1,000 respnses frm recent hmewners had been received (see Table 2). Table 2 German respnses Date All respndents Recent hmewners N % N % 23/06/ /06/ /06/ /06/ /06/ /06/2010 1, /06/2010 2, /06/2010 1, /07/2010 1, /07/2010 1, /07/ /07/ Ttal 10, , Members f the nline panel receive payment fr accepting an invitatin t respnd t a questinnaire. The level f remuneratin in the frm f reward pints depends n the amunt f the questinnaire that is cmpleted. Respndents wh were screened ut f the IDEAL EPBD survey received a small payment, while thse cmpleting the full questinnaire received a greater sum.

20 20 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Netherlands In the Netherlands there are ver 1.5 millin dwellings with an EPC; hwever, nly arund 20,000 f these were issued t privately-wned huses. As the target sample fr the IDEAL EPBD survey was hmewners living in a single family huse, the survey ppulatin in the Netherlands was 20,000. The sample frame cnsisted f the mailing addresses f dwellings registered as having an EPC by the rganisatin Agentschap NL 12. A randm sample f 10,368 addresses was selected. Respnses were received frm 612 individuals (an 8% respnse rate). Of these, 565 were hmewners and therefre were included in the statistical analysis. The sample was apprached by mail in the same way as the Danish sample. The letter explained that the survey was abut hmewners cmfrt, and included a link t the questinnaire and an eight-digit unique identifier. The unique identifier was used t ensure that nly hmewners frm the database cmpleted the nline survey. The letter als advised that an incentive was available fr cmpleting the questinnaire. The incentive was entry int a prize draw fr a cash payment f 500. The questinnaires were mailed in the early part f June The first respnse was received n 18 June, and the last respnse was received n 28 August UK (England) The survey was carried ut in England. The United Kingdm is made up f fur cuntries, England, Nrthern Ireland, Sctland and Wales. The UK central gvernment has devlved sme pwers t gvernments in these cuntries, and as a result sme gvernment plicies and public services in Nrthern Ireland, Sctland and Wales are different frm thse in England. Bth England and Wales intrduced EPCs ver a perid f time starting in August Nrthern Ireland began a phased intrductin f EPCs at the end f June 2008 and Sctland started t intrduce them in December At the time the survey sampling was discussed, England and Wales were the mst advanced UK natins in term f implementing EPCs. As there are mre dwellings in England, 22 millin cmpared t 1.3 millin in Wales, the sample was based n husehlds in England. In England, arund 800,000 huses (detached, semi detached and terraced) were sld between January 2008 and September These dwellings were sld when EPCs were mandatry. This grup f recent hme buyers cnstituted the sample ppulatin. The sample frame cmprised the mailing addresses f dwellings fficially registered by the Land Registry and sld between January 2008 and September The addresses were prvided cmmercially by Nethuseprices Ltd. A randm sample f 19,900 addresses was selected. Respnses were received frm 647 individuals (a 3% respnse rate). Of these, 625 were hmewners and therefre were included in the statistical analysis. The sample was apprached by mail in the same way as in Denmark and the Netherlands. The letter explained that the survey was abut hmewners cmfrt and included a link t the questinnaire and an eight-digit unique identifier. The unique identifier was used t ensure that nly hmewners frm the database cmpleted the nline survey. The letter als advised that an incentive was available fr cmpleting the questinnaire. The incentive was entry int a prize draw fr a cash payment f

21 21 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The questinnaires were mailed in the early part f June 2010, and the first respnse was received n the 17 June. After tw weeks in the field the questinnaire had received a pr respnse, and therefre a reminder letter was sent t husehlds in July; this resulted in a ntable increase in respnses. The last respnse was received n 25 August Finland In Finland, a register f dwellings with an EPC culd nt be accessed fr this study, and it was nt pssible t acquire a database f wner-ccupied addresses r recent hme buyers. Therefre in Finland the target sample was hmewners. There are 1.6 millin wner-ccupiers in Finland 13 ; hwever the exact number f wner-ccupiers in Finland with an EPC is nt knwn. An nline survey f hmewners was carried ut in Finland during the spring and summer f 2010, and 120 respnses were received; f these 109 were frm hmewners. Hmewners were recruited using three methds. In May an advertisement (see Figure 2) was placed in the Omakti 14 magazine. The magazine is circulated by the Finnish Huse Owners Assciatin and is aimed at single family huse wners. The magazine has a circulatin f ver 70,000 hmes and is delivered five times a year t the members f the assciatin. Figure 2 Advertisement in Omakti magazine 13 Official Statistics f Finland (OSF): Dwellings and husing cnditins [e-publicatin]. ISSN= Overview 2009, Appendix table 2. Husehld-dwelling units and persns by tenure status in , number. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: ]. Access methd:

22 22 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The natinal energy agency Mtiva als advertised the questinnaire between 10 June and the end f September. A link t the questinnaire was placed in three places n their website: Mtiva s frnt page Mtiva s page that fcused n energy certificate Energiatdistus (energy certificate): (frnt page and link in news) Energiatehkas kti - (energy-efficient hme; frnt page news with link): _saastamisesta_ja_energiatehkkuustdistuksesta_sallistu_kyselyyn!.html Finally, an advertisement was als psted via the Intranet at VTT, the Finish partner s rganisatin between 14 and 22 June; this wuld have reached up t 3,000 peple. The first respnse t this survey was received n the 9 June, and the last respnse was received n 30 August. An incentive was nt ffered t hmewners in Finland. 2.5 Limitatins f the survey The key sample fr the study was husehlds with an EPC, wh had recently purchased a dwelling. Ideally, all cuntries wuld have sampled frm natinal lists f husehlds registered as having an EPC; hwever, these databases either did nt exist r were unavailable fr this prject. The fact that the implementatin date f EPCs als varied between cuntries added additinal cmplexity t accessing similar samples in every cuntry. In Denmark, energy labels were intrduced in the 1980s, althugh the EPC that cnfrmed t the requirement f the EPBD was implemented n the 1 January The EPC fr ur target sample was implemented in the Netherlands and England at similar times; it was frm the 14 December 2007 fr prperties marketed fr sale in England and Wales, and frm January 2008 in the Netherlands fr all dwellings rented r sld. The EPC was implemented ver a perid f time in Germany; by January 2009 it was mandatry fr all sld huses. In Finland it was als mandatry t have an EPC fr existing buildings when rented r sld frm 1 January The sample strategy bradly fcused n recent hmebuyers and thse wh had recently acquired an EPC; adpting this apprach shuld have minimised any effect f the impact f different sampling methdlgy in the resulting analysis. In mst cuntries, respnse rates were lwer than anticipated; ne f the reasns fr this may have been the length f the questinnaire. There were ver 160 questins t answer. The nline questinnaire survey des nt mnitr the level f attritin frm respndents; hwever the pilt study indicated that the questinnaire wuld take 20 minutes. There were sme differences in the questins categries that were available in each cuntry, and therefre the questinnaire was nt cmpletely harmnised. Details f the questins asked in each cuntry are available in the language f the member state in Appendix A.

23 23 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable The influence f Energy Perfrmance Certificates Article 11 f the Energy Perfrmance f Buildings Directive (EPBD) (EU 2010) targets dwellings that are sld, newly built r rented. The IDEAL EPBD survey fcused n hmewners, as they frm a key grup affected by this aspect f the Directive. Seventy-three percent f husehlds in the EU-27 member states are wner-ccupiers. Over 3,000 hmewners respnded t the survey, and arund tw-thirds f these hmewners were aware that they had an EPC fr their dwelling. The energy efficiency behaviur f this grup has a bearing n the energy-saving ptential in each cuntry. Previus wrk carried ut by the IDEAL EPBD prject team suggests that there is the ptential t save 20% f the present heating energy cnsumptin f dwellings by Hwever, hmewners behaviur will determine whether this energy saving will materialise. Therefre, determining hw this grup reacts t the EPBD may help t assess the likelihd f cuntries reaching their energy-saving targets. 3.1 The Energy Perfrmance Certificate status f the sample The sample fr the study fcused n husehlds that were either knwn t have an EPC (e.g. the Netherlands and Denmark) r were expected t have ne because f the date that their prperty was purchased (e.g. England and Germany). Hwever, the study fund that sme respndents were unaware f having an EPC fr their hme. Varius questins were used t determine whether a husehld had an EPC. This included images f the energy label available in their cuntry and questins that linked the label t the hme-buying and selling prcess. Figure 3 EPC status f hmewners Finland England Netherlands Germany Husehld with an EPC Husehld withut an EPC Denmark All 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 3 identifies ntable differences in the EPC status f hmewners in the cuntries invlved in the study. Mre than 70% f hmewners in the Finnish sample did nt have an EPC fr their dwelling; ver 60% f hmewners in Germany were als in this psitin. 15 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

24 24 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Cmpleted Energy Efficiency measures and EPC status The IDEAL EPBD prject was develped t mnitr the effectiveness f EPCs. The EPC is a tl that prvides infrmatin n a number f factrs related t energy efficiency in the hme. Its disseminatin f energy efficiency recmmendatins is expected t lead t hmewners making decisins that will benefit their cmfrt levels at hme, and will help t reduce the amunt f energy cnsumed, and hence reduce carbn emissins. The fllwing sectin investigates the influence f EPCs n energy efficiency behaviur; namely, whether having an EPC increased the likelihd that a husehld wuld implement energy efficiency measures. In each cuntry, all hmewners were asked abut the type f hme imprvements that they had carried ut. These included general hme imprvements such as decratin r building an extensin. They were als asked t specify whether they had carried ut hme imprvements that culd be regarded as energyefficient. These included the fllwing imprvements: Insulated the water/heating pipes Insulated the ht water tank Fitted duble glazing r energy-efficient glazing Installed cavity r slid wall insulatin Installed flr insulatin Installed lft insulatin Installed a new biler/heating supply Installed wd burning stve r fireplace Changed the heating cntrls Draught-prfed windws and/r drs Imprved the air tightness f the building Installed a ventilatin system with heat recvery Installed renewable energy technlgies Other energy efficiency hme imprvements Just less than 60% f hmewners had carried ut at least ne f the abve energy efficiency imprvements. This varied by cuntry. In the Netherlands 76% f hmewners had implemented energy efficiency measures, but less than 50% had dne this in Germany. Using infrmatin n whether a husehld had carried ut any f the abve energy efficiency measures, and the husehlds EPC status, it was pssible t test whether the EPC had an influence n energy efficiency behaviur. There was a small statistical significant difference 16 between the prprtin f husehlds with an EPC and husehlds withut an EPC, in relatin t whether an energy efficiency imprvement had been cmpleted (see Table 3). Table 3 Energy efficiency behaviur by EPC status Husehld with an EPC Husehld with n EPC N energy efficiency imprvements 48% 53% One r mre energy efficiency imprvements 52% 47% N 1,912 1, Table H1 in Appendix H prvides the results f the nn-parametric test (Mann-Whitney)

25 25 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 There was als a significant difference depending n whether the husehld culd recllect the recmmendatins available in their EPC. Arund 50% f hmewners with an EPC culd recllect the recmmendatins; the rest culd nt recllect, r were unaware, that recmmendatins were received. Figure 4 shws that 60% f hmewners wh were aware f the recmmendatins available with their EPC had carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures, cmpared with just ver 40% f husehlds wh culd nt recllect r were unaware f the recmmendatins. Figure 4 EPC recmmendatins and energy efficiency behaviur Percentage Husehld aware f EPC recmmendatins Husehld unaware f EPC recmmendatins 10 0 N energy efficiency imprvements One r mre energy efficiency imprvements These results suggest that the energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners was influenced by the EPC, and this was even mre apparent when the hmewner culd recllect the recmmendatins n the EPC. Hwever, the literature review 17 suggests that there are many factrs influencing hmewners decisinmaking. These factrs will be explred thrughut the fllwing reprt t investigate what part the EPC plays in the verall energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners. 17 Brhmann et al 2009

26 26 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable The characteristics f the sample In this study, the term hmewner encmpasses a number f demgraphic and husehld factrs abut the respndents in the sample. This includes the sex and age f the respndents, the husehld size, and the type f dwellings that they ccupied. All these elements infrm the study and are discussed belw. 4.1 General findings Overall, the number f respndents that were male and female was evenly split; the sample was cmpsed f 49% men and 51% wmen. The average age f respndents was 41 (mean with a 95% cnfidence interval ). The majrity (70%) f respndents had lived in their prperty fr less than tw years at the time f the survey. This was due t the sampling methdlgy, which is explained abve. The EPC is part f the hme-buying and selling prcess. Therefre, the behaviur f recent hmebuyers was f particular interest t the study. Arund 60% f respndents had lived in their dwelling fr between six mnths and tw years. The majrity f respndents lived in tw-adult husehlds, r husehlds with tw adults and children. The survey did nt explre the relatinship f husehld members, but it was assumed that the tw-adult husehlds were cuples and the tw adults with children were families. The majrity f respndents were therefre either cuples r families, accunting fr 76% f husehlds in the survey (see Figure 5). Overall, the mean husehld size was 2.78 (95% cnfidence interval ). Figure 5 Husehld cmpsitin 40 Percentage One adult One adult with ne r mre child(ren) Tw adults Tw adults with ne r mre child(ren) Multiple persn husehld Base: All hmewners (N=3,158) The majrity (88%) f hmewners respnding t the survey lived in a detached, semi-detached r terraced huse. The researchers were keen t explre the mtivatins and barriers that face hmewners when they have sle respnsibility fr determining the type f wrks that can take place. Therefre, the sample in sme cuntries specifically targeted hmewners in huses, rather than in ther types f

27 27 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 dwelling. Hmewners lived in dwellings built ver a wide age span; nearly 80% lived in dwellings built befre the year 2000 and mre than 10% ccupied dwellings built befre 1919 (see Figure 6). Figure 6 Date dwelling built 30 Percentage Befre After 2000 Table B7 in Appendix B Hmewners in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland were asked abut the size f their prperty in square metres. Hmewners in England reprted the numbers f bedrms in their prperty. Figure 7 shws the reprted size in square metres fr all fur cuntries. The mean is m 2 (95% cnfidence interval m m 2 ). Figure 7 Flr area in square metres DK, NL, DE, FI Table B8 in Appendix B

28 28 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Cuntry-specific factrs There were ntable differences between the ratis f men and wmen respnding t the survey in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. In the Netherlands and Denmark mre men respnded t the survey, while in Germany, a third mre wmen than men respnded (see Table 4). Therefre, where the sex f the respndent is an influential factr in the analysis f the data, the interactin between the cuntry and the sex f the respndent may need further explratin. Table 4 Percentage f male and female respndents by cuntry Sex f respndents Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Male 60% 34% 65% 49% 45% Female 40% 66% 35% 51% 55% N 727 1, The mean age f respndents differed by cuntry. Hmewners in the German sample were much yunger than hmewners in the ther cuntries. The mean age f the German sample was 35 (mean with a 95% cnfidence interval ). The average age in all ther cuntries was between 44 and 46 years f age (see Table 5). The difference in the mean age f German hmewners may be a result f the sampling methdlgy. The German sample was drawn frm individuals registered n an nline survey panel hsted by PAYBACK, a lyalty prgram. Table 5 Mean age f respndents Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Mean % Cnfidence Interval fr Mean Lwer Bund Upper Bund Std. Deviatin Althugh the majrity f hmewners had purchased their prperty within tw years f the survey, this was nt the case fr the majrity (71%) f hmewners in Finland (see Table 6). Hmewners in Finland were recruited thrugh varius means (see methdlgy sectin). Althugh the Finnish sample f recent hmewners was small, Finnish hmewners were able t prvide insight int their general experience f hme imprvements. Over 40% f hmewners in the Netherlands had ccupied their dwelling fr tw years r mre (see Table 6); this may als relate t the sampling methdlgy.

29 29 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Table 6 Percentage f hmewners by time in prperty in mnths since mve in date (gruped) Time in prperty in mnths since mve (gruped) All five cuntries Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Less than 6 mnths 7% 12% 5% 7% 4% 6% 6-11 mnths 21% 24% 22% 11% 28% 7% mnths 20% 19% 24% 14% 23% 13% mnths 22% 17% 25% 27% 20% 4% 24 mnths r mre 30% 28% 25% 41% 25% 71% N 2, , The percentage f single-persn husehlds in the sample was lw fr all cuntries (see Figure 8). It ranged frm 5% in Germany t 18% in England. This cntrasts with natinal figures fr Germany that reprt that 40% f husehlds are ne-persn husehlds 18. Hwever, the survey fcused n wner-ccupiers that were als recent buyers, and this may be the reasn fr the divergence. Natinal statistics in England als reprt that 42% f wner-ccupier husehlds were cuples with n dependent children 19 ; this is similar t the figures reflected in the IDEAL EPBD survey. In the Netherlands, abut half f the respndents lived in tw-persn husehlds; this was a similar figure t the German hmewners living in husehlds with tw adults and children. Figure 8 Husehld cmpsitin Denmark Percentage One adult One adult with ne r mre child(ren) Tw adults Tw adults with Multiple persn ne r mre husehld child(ren) Germany Netherlands England Finland Table H2 in Appendix H Table 7 shws the mean husehld size in each cuntry. There were ntable differences between the survey means by cuntry and thse reprted in natinal statistics. Hwever, the natinal statistics reflect 18 Destatis (2011) 19 Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010a)

30 30 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 the size f all dwellings in the husing stck and indicate that similar figures wuld be expected in the five specified cuntries. As the prprtin f single-persn husehlds is much smaller in the sample, this is likely t accunt fr differences between the natinal statistics and the data cllected in the survey. Table 7 Husehld size Ttal number f adults and children in husehld Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Mean Lwer 95% Cnfidence Bund Interval fr Mean Upper Bund Std. Deviatin Average number f peple per husehld (Natinal statistics) N/A Each cuntry measured husehld incme using cuntry-specific categries (details f these are available in Appendix G). Hwever, a gruped mean was calculated fr each cuntry (see Table 8). It wuld seem that husehlds in Denmark were the wealthiest, and thse in England the least wealthy. Table 8 Gruped mean frm IDEAL EPBD survey Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Gruped mean 80,936 45,340 55,602 43,796 67,871 N Given that the study evaluates respnses frm all hmewners as well as hmewners in each cuntry, it was imprtant t assess whether there were sufficient similarities within the sample. The abve shws that there were sme differences in the demgraphic data f respndents and husehlds in the five cuntries invlved in the study. Hwever, using the fur variables reprted in Table 9, a Tw-Step Cluster Analysis 22 fund that the sample falls int tw distinct clusters. Generally, cluster 1 includes husehlds withut children and cluster 2 includes husehlds with children. The cuntry f the respndents des nt determine which cluster they fall int fr these demgraphic issues. This prvides sme assurance that the types f husehlds in the sample were similar in all cuntries. 20 Federcasa ( 2006) 21 Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010a) 22 The purpse f cluster analysis is t subdivide a number f cases int hmgeneus grups. A twstep cluster analysis was used as it can use bth cntinuus and categrical variables.

31 31 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Table 9 Results f Tw-Step Cluster Analysis* Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Level f imprtance Sample N (%) 1,111 (53.7%) 956 (46.3%) Children aged six and under (mean) Husehld cmpsitin 62.6% tw adult husehlds 99.4% tw adults with ne r mre child(ren) 1.00 Number f children in husehld (mean) Husehld size (mean) Evaluatin field: Cuntry 32.6% German 50.3% German 0.02 * measure f chesin and separatin is a value f 0.6 Over 90% f hmewners in the Danish sample lived in a huse, and mre than three-quarters lived in a detached huse (see Table 10). This cmpares with the sample frm England where arund a quarter f respndents lived in a detached huse. The type f dwelling reflects the husing stck f the cuntry, but it als may reflect the type f hmewners purchasing prperty in the present financial climate. Table 10 Percentage f hmewners living in types f dwelling by cuntry All Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Detached huse 52% 77% 60% 34% 26% 45% Terraced r semi-detached huse 36% 19% 29% 48% 62% 28% Other dwelling 11% 4% 11% 19% 12% 27% N 3, , Of the 25% f hmewners living in prperties built after the year 2000, many f them lived in Denmark (23% f the Danish dwellings in the sample) and Germany (33% f the German dwellings in the sample). Natinal statistics reprt that 3% f Germany s husing stck was built after , and therefre it wuld seem that there was an ver-representatin f dwellings built in this time perid. Over 20% f hmewners in England lived in prperties built befre 1919; this is very similar t natinal statistics fr England, which state that 21.3% f wner-ccupiers live in dwellings built befre Figure 9 shws that there was a wide range f dwelling ages in the sample, fr the whle sample and each cuntry. Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010b) states that dwelling age is a strng indicatr f energy efficiency, with pre Destatis (2011) 24 Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010b)

32 32 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 dwellings averaging 23 SAP 25 pints fewer than pst-1990 dwellings in 2008, while their mean CO 2 emissins per dwelling were twice thse f pst-1990 stck ; this is fr the husing stck in England. Figure 9 Date hmewners current dwelling built by cuntry 40 Percentage Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland 0 Befre After 2000 Table B7 in Appendix B There were differences in the size f dwellings in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland; natinal statistics als reprt differences in the size f dwellings in these cuntries 26. Figure 10 cmpares the size f dwellings reprted by hmewners in the survey t the useful flr area reprted in natinal statistics fr all husehlds. While the survey respndents lived in larger-than-average sized dwellings, Germany was the nly cuntry where the sample lived in huses ntably larger than reprted in the general husing stck. This is likely t be because natinal figures include apartments as well as huses. In England, 47% f husehlds in the survey lived in three-bedrm dwellings, while the natinal figure is 50% f wner-ccupiers 27. Figure 10 Cmparisn f natinal statistic and survey data n dwelling size Metre squared Denmark Germany Netherlands Finland IDEAL Survey Husing stck Table B8 in Appendix B 25 SAP is the UK s Gvernment s Standard Assessment Prcedure fr assessing the energy perfrmance f dwellings. The SAP rating is based n the energy csts assciated with space heating, water heating, ventilatin and lighting, less cst savings frm energy generatin technlgies. The SAP rating is expressed n a scale f 1 t 100, the higher the number the lwer the running csts. (BRE 2010) 26 Husing statistics in the Eurpean unin 2005/ Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010a)

33 33 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Other factrs This study assessed whether the length f time since the hmewner had purchased a dwelling had an impact n their energy efficiency behaviur. This fllwed the Thrne-Hlst et al (2006) reference t the change f dwelling as a windw f pprtunity that may influence cnsumers behaviur 28. Hwever, length f time in the prperty was nt significant when examined against whether energy efficiency measures been taken. Yet, the length f time in the prperty at the time f the survey was significant in relatin t the EPC status f the hmewner. Mre husehlds with an EPC had lived in their prperties fr less than tw years, cmpared t husehlds withut ne. In sme cuntries, this may relate t the date the plicy was implemented. There was als a ntable difference between husehlds wh recllected the EPC and its recmmendatins, and thse withut an EPC. Seventy-ne percent f husehlds with an EPC with recmmendatins had lived in their dwelling fr less than tw years, cmpared t 62% f thse withut a label. A fifth (21%) f hmewners wh had an EPC but were nt aware f recmmendatins had lived in their dwelling fr tw years r mre, cmpared t twfifths f hmewners withut a label. This may relate t the suggestin by Gram Hanssen et al (2007) that energy expert advice is discarded r frgtten by hmewners in their daily lives. Therefre, the lnger a hmewner has the EPC the less likely they are t recall the details f it. The literature n energy efficiency behaviur des nt fcus n any differences between the sexes; hwever the study fund a ntable difference, in the EPC status between the sexes 29. Almst tw-fifths f men were aware f the recmmendatins, cmpared t just less than a fifth f wmen (see Table 11). Almst half f the wmen wh respnded reprted that they did nt have an EPC fr their dwelling; this was markedly different frm the male respndents. Table 11 EPC status by gender Male Female Husehld aware f EPC and recmmendatins 39% 22% Husehld aware f EPC but nt recmmendatins 31% 31% N EPC 31% 48% N 1,526 1,604 Ecnmic factrs were discussed extensively in the literature 30. This study lked specifically at the impact f husehld incme n energy efficiency behaviur, and fund that there was n significant difference between husehld incme and the cmpletin f energy efficiency measures 31. There was, hwever, a ntable difference between husehld incme and the EPC status f the husehld. This was particularly nticeable fr husehlds that did nt have an EPC (see Table 12). 28 Cited in Brhmann et al (2009) 29 Table H3 in Appendix H prvides the results f the nn-parametric test (Kruskal Wallis) 30 Brhmann et al (2009) 31 Table H4 in Appendix H prvides the results f the nn-parametric test (Mann-Whitney)

34 34 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Table 12 husehld incme by EPC status Husehld with an EPC Husehld with n EPC Husehld incme lwer than gruped mean 49% 60% Husehld incme higher than gruped mean 51% 40% N 1, Discussin The purpse f the study was t seek infrmatin frm hmewners, as they are ne f the target grups f the EPC. The survey cllected data frm 3,207 hmewners. An evaluatin f the hmgeneity f the sample wuld suggest that while n the whle, the sample includes recent hmewners in their early frties with an equal number f male and female respndents living in huses f varius ages, there were sme variances and these shuld be nted. While 60% f hmewners in the sample had lived in their dwelling fr between six mnths and tw years, many ther hmewners had lived in their dwelling fr well ver tw years. Therefre, the implementatin f the EPC fr thse wh did nt receive an EPC related t a huse purchase, r fr thse that received an EPC mnths r years befre the majrity f the sample, shuld be cnsidered. Overall, respndents were in their early frties. Hwever, there were sme nticeable differences in the sample by cuntry. Fr example, respndents frm Germany were n average almst a decade yunger than hmewners in the ther fur cuntries. There was als a high level f variance in the husehld incme within the sample. Many f the differences can be explained by the distinct nature f the sample. The majrity f the sample cnsists f recent hmewners wh bught prperty in a particularly turbulent ecnmic perid. T enable them t d this, their circumstances may well be distinct frm ther hmewners. Generally, mst dwellings in the sample were huses, althugh the age f the dwellings varied. Sme f the variance in the age f dwellings by cuntry, fr example the number f newer dwellings in the German sample, may have been a cnsequence f sampling recent buyers. Where there were differences in the sample that may be due t the sampling methdlgy this will be highlighted. But verall, the sample prvides a variety f hmewners in five member states wh generally live in the type f husing that is relevant t the study. Cmprehensive detail abut the sample is available in Appendix G.

35 35 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Hmewners attitude t hme-buying The EPC is available at varius stages f the hme-buying prcess, depending n the natinal plicy f the member state invlved in the study. During interviews related t this prject, varius stakehlders raised the timing f the prvisin f EPCs t hmewners 32. Therefre, a key questin in this study was t cnsider the impact f the energy efficiency n decisin-making at the hme-buying stage. 5.1 General findings The majrity f hmewners (60%) had mved int their prperty less than 24 mnths befre they cmpleted the survey. The sampling strategy emplyed in individual cuntries (see methdlgy sectin) sampled recent buyers, as they were the mst likely t have an EPC. Respndents were asked t rate the imprtance f the fllwing cnsideratins when seeking t purchase a dwelling: Access t public transprt Availability f garden and utdr space Availability f lcal amenities (e.g. shps, schls, leisure facilities) Cnditin f the prperty Expected cst f water, electricity and heating fr the prperty Layut f rms Parking facilities The lcatin f the prperty The price f the prperty The size f the prperty Type f heating system Feelings abut the neighburhd Almst 90% f hmewners rated the availability f garden and utdr space as very imprtant r imprtant (see Figure 11). Similar results were fund in a study f detached husing in Denmark, where almst 90% indicated that the garden and the privacy f the detached husing were the main reasn t chse this husing type 33. Frm the list f twelve husing pririties, there were three factrs related t energy efficiency cnsideratins. These were the cnditin f the prperty, the expected cst f water, electricity and heating (utility csts) and the type f heating system. The cnditin f the prperty was imprtant t ver 70% f hmewners, utility csts were imprtant t arund 60%, and the type f heating system was a cnsideratin fr less than 50%. While the majrity f hmewners cnsidered all twelve factrs imprtant, it was ntable that utility csts were rated very differently frm the availability f garden and utdr space, fr example. 32 Tuminen and Klbut (2009) 33 Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielsen (2000)

36 36 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 11 Hme-buying pririties rated very imprtant r imprtant by hmewners Availability f garden and utdr space The price f the prperty The lcatin f the prperty Yur feeling abut the neighburhd The size f the prperty Cnditin f the prperty Layut f rms Availability f lcal amenities (e.g. shps, schls, leisure facilities) Expected cst f water, electricity and heating fr the prperty Parking facilities Type f heating system Access t public transprt Tables B13 B24 in Appendix B Percentage 5.2 Cuntry-specific factrs influencing hmewners attitude t hme-buying There were cuntry-specific differences in the respnse by hmewners t all twelve hme-buying factrs. The mst ntable differences between cuntries were fr tw factrs, the cnditin f prperty and utility csts. Althugh nearly half (48%) f hmewners cnsidered the cnditin f the prperty very imprtant during the buying stage, there were clear pints f difference between cuntries (Figure 12). Fr example, 63% f hmewners in Germany priritised the cnditin by rating it very imprtant cmpared t 46% f hmewners in Denmark and 42% f hmewners in Finland. Hmewners in Denmark and Finland als differed frm the Netherlands and England because in bth cuntries nly 34% f hmewners rated cnditin very imprtant. The Netherlands and England respnded differently frm Denmark, Germany and Finland, as less than 40% f these hmewners rated cnditin very imprtant. Mre than 10% f

37 37 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 hmewners in England did nt regard this issue as imprtant; this is very different frm hmewners in the ther cuntries. Figure 12 Imprtance f prperty cnditin Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Table 16 in Appendix B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant The ther factr highlighting differences between cuntries was the imprtance f utility csts at the hmebuying stage. In Figure 13 Germany is distinct frm the ther cuntries, as nearly 80% f hmewners cnsidered expected utility csts imprtant when they were purchasing a prperty. Overall, 61% f hmewners cnsidered expected utility csts t be imprtant, althugh this was less f a factr fr hmewners in the Netherlands (44%) and England (48%). Hmewners in Netherlands and England respnded differently frm hmewners in Denmark, Germany and Finland. In bth Denmark and Finland ver 60% f hmewners cnsidered expected utility csts t be imprtant. Figure 13 Imprtance f utility csts Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Table B17 in Appendix B

38 38 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Other factrs The sex f the respndent, and their energy efficiency behaviur, were influential factrs in hmewners attitude t hme-buying. The energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners had a bearing n their attitude t hme-buying, in relatin t nine f the twelve factrs. It was nt imprtant in relatin t the size, lcatin r feelings abut the neighburhd. The mst ntable difference was fr the imprtance f prperty cnditin; anther imprtant difference was in the attitude t the type f heating system. While cnditin was imprtant verall fr thse wh had cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements, 35% regarded it t be very imprtant cmpared t 66% f hmewners wh had nt cmpleted any imprvements (Figure 14). Figure 14 Imprtance f cnditin by whether husehld cmpleted any energy efficiency imprvements One r mre energy efficiency imprvements N energy efficiency imprvements 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Base: All hmewners (N=3,156) The ther interesting finding was that there was a significant difference between hmewners attitude and energy-efficient behaviur when they cnsidered the type f heating system in a ptential dwelling fr purchase. Mre hmewners wh had nt yet cmpleted any hme imprvements reprted that this issue was imprtant than thse wh had (see Figure 15). Thse hmewners wh had cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements may have different mtivatins when buying a dwelling; they may be mre likely t view their dwelling as a wrk in prgress. This will be explred further in relatin t the factrs that identify husehlds that had cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements and thse that had nt. Figure 15 The imprtance f type f heating system by hmewners energy efficiency behaviur One r mre energy efficiency imprvements N energy efficiency imprvements 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Base: All hmewners (N=3,151) Wmen and men respnded differently t eleven f the twelve factrs; hwever there were n differences in attitude in relatin t the imprtance f lcatin. There were ntable differences fr utility csts and the price f prperty between these tw grups. The wmen in the sample were mre likely than the men t cnsider the ptential csts. The ptential utility csts were cnsidered very imprtant by 34% f wmen, cmpared t 24% f men (see Figure 16).

39 39 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 16 The imprtance f ptential utility csts by the sex f the respndent Female Male 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Base: All hmewners (N=3,155) Overall, the price f the prperty was imprtant t the majrity f men and wmen (Figure 17), althugh it was ntable that it was very imprtant t tw-thirds (66%) f the wmen and just ver half (51%) f the men. Figure 17 The imprtance f the prperty price by the sex f the respndent Female Male 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Base: All hmewners (N=3,166)

40 40 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Discussin Overall, hmewners fcus n nn-energy-related factrs when cnsidering hme-buying. Ptential utility csts were ranked the ninth mst imprtant factr ut f twelve pssibilities by all hmewners, althugh it was ntable that wmen were mre likely than men t rate this particular issue imprtant. Utility csts were als an imprtant factr f differences between cuntries. Hmewners frm Germany were mre likely than any ther cuntry t rate this issue imprtant; this may be related t the fact that there were mre wmen in the sample frm Germany. The differences between cuntries centred n tw issues: the imprtance f prperty cnditin and utility csts. The imprtance f the prperty cnditin was a difference between cuntries. This may relate t the prfile f the husing stck in the cuntry, and the types f huses that were purchased. In Germany, a third f hmewners purchased dwellings that were built after the year Hmewners in the Netherlands and England were living in lder prperties than thse in Germany. In England, 20% f hmewners lived in prperties built befre It is pssible that these factrs influenced hmewners attitudes t the questin abut cnditin, as it suggests that each cuntry had different levels f expectatins in relatin t the cnditin. Thse hmewners in Germany may well have preferred t build their wn, r buy newly built prperties; in Germany 60% 34 f new build prperties were self build. This is distinct frm the situatin in England where it is 16% and in the Netherlands where it is 30%. The cnditin f the prperty was rated mre imprtant by hmewners wh had nt cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements. The reasns fr this may relate t the husing prfile f the sample; 43% f hmewners wh described their dwellings t be in a gd cnditin lived in prperties built after Thse hmewners in recently-built prperties may have less need t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements cmpared t husehlds in lder prperties. The lder prperties are likely t need general imprvements as well as specific energy efficiency imprvements. This finding may als prvide insight int a grup f hme buyers wh are nt interested in buying prperties that are in need f renvatin. The study will examine whether the EPC caters fr this grup. 34 NASBA (2008)

41 41 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable The current cnditin f hmewners dwellings This sectin assesses the cnditin f the dwellings purchased by hmewners in the sample. This infrmatin prvides sme insight int the energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners, as it will analyse the cnditin f the dwelling, the level f cmfrt, and the energy efficiency needs f the hmewners current dwelling. 6.1 General findings Over half f hmewners reprted that they purchased a prperty that was in a gd cnditin, and just ver a fifth purchased prperties that they described as in pr cnditin. The average living rm temperature during the winter was 21 C (mean with a 95% cnfidence interval C C). Hmewners rated their level f cmfrt in their living rm, based n its temperature during the winter. Overall, 51% f hmewners were cmfrtable in their dwellings, with a third reprting that they were cmfrtably warm. Less than 10% f hmewners were either uncmfrtably cld r uncmfrtably ht. The mean temperature fr hmewners was analysed by cmfrt level (see Table 13). The average temperature was 21 C. It was at least tw degrees lwer fr thse reprting that their living rm was cmfrtably cl r uncmfrtably cld. Thse hmewners reprting that the living rm was cmfrtably warm recrded an average temperature f 22 C. Table 13 Average temperature ( C) f the living rm during the winter by rating f cmfrt level Uncmfrtably cld Cmfrtably cl Cmfrtable Cmfrtably warm Uncmfrtably ht Mean % Cnfidence Interval fr Mean Lwer Bund Upper Bund Median Std. Deviatin N , Thirty-six percent f hmewners reprted having ntable prblems with ne r mre f the fllwing energy-related prblems in their current dwelling: Draughts frm windws and/r drs High energy bills Prblems with their heating system The temperature in the hme Hmewners als faced a range f ther prblems that were nt energy-related. Generally, this invlved wrk t the interir r exterir f the building. Where this was specified it has been pssible t review sme

42 42 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 f the issues that new hmewners deal with. Table 14 prvides a breakdwn f the issues raised by hmewners wh reprted ther issues with their prperties. Table 14 Nn-energy-related prblems faced by hmewners An issue N issue Ttal General prblems with exterir and r interir 54% 46% 925 Other issue 18% 82% 925 Water damage 16% 84% 925 Damp and cndensatin 16% 84% 925 Electrical repairs 10% 90% 925 Pr wrkmanship 5% 95% 924 Pest cntrl 3% 97% 925 Base: Hmewners reprting ther prblems (N = 925) 6.2 Cuntry-specific factrs The hmewner s cuntry was a factr that influenced the cnditin, temperature, level f cmfrt and the type f energy-related prblems likely t be reprted. Figure 18 highlights the range f respnse abut the current cnditin f dwellings in the sample by cuntry. It was ntable that hmewners in Denmark, Germany and Finland rated the cnditin f their current dwelling differently frm hmewners in the Netherlands and England. Over 30% f hmewners in Denmark, Germany and Finland bught dwellings that were in a very gd cnditin, less than a fifth f hmewners in either the Netherlands r England rated their dwellings t be in a very gd cnditin and ver a fifth f dwellings in these cuntries were rated in a pr cnditin at the time f purchase. Figure 18 Current cnditin f the dwelling by cuntry Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very gd cnditin Gd cnditin Neither pr nr gd cnditin Pr cnditin Very pr cnditin Table B25 in Appendix B

43 43 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 An estimate f living rm temperature during the winter prvides the pssibility f cmparing tlerable living rm cnditins between cuntries. The percentage f hmewners able t estimate the winter temperature in their living rm varied in each cuntry, frm 90% f hmewners in the Netherlands, t 49% f hmewners in England. Hwever, the data prvides clear differences in the temperature experienced by hmewners in the Netherlands and England cmpared t hmewners in Denmark, Germany and Finland. The median temperature in bth the Netherlands and England was 20 C. In the ther cuntries this was ne r tw degrees higher (see Table 15). Table 15 Average temperature ( C) f the living rm during the winter by cuntry Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Mean % Cnfidence Interval fr Mean Lwer Bund Upper Bund Median Std. Deviatin Minimum Maximum There were als ntable differences between the cuntries in their respnse t the level f cmfrt in their dwelling. Hmewners in Finland and England respnded differently frm hmewners in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. In bth Finland and England almst 30% f hmewners reprted being uncmfrtably cld r cmfrtably cl in their current dwelling. Mre hmewners in Germany than in any ther cuntry reprted t be cmfrtably warm, with 44% rating their dwelling as such, cmpared t 14% in Finland (see Figure 19). Figure 19 Level f cmfrt in the hme Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark All five cuntries 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Uncmfrtably cld Cmfrtably cl Cmfrtable Cmfrtably warm Uncmfrtably ht Table B31 in Appendix B

44 44 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 After the purchase f their current dwelling, 29% f hmewners had t respnd t prblems that were nt energy-related. In ur sample, this ranged frm 16% f hmewners in Germany t 46% f hmewners in England. The types f issues are dcumented in Table 14. While the vast majrity f hmewners did nt reprt ntable energy-related prblems with their current dwelling, there were cuntry-specific differences fr all fur ptential energy-related prblems. Arund 10% f hmewners in Germany faced prblems with draughts frm windws and drs; this was the lwest percentage f all the cuntries. Figure 20 als shws that ver 20% f hmewners in the Netherlands, England and Finland reprted ntable prblems with draughts. Figure 20 Percentage f husehlds with ntable prblems with draughts frm windws r drs 30 Percentage Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Table B26 in Appendix B There were als differences by cuntry fr respnses t prblems related t high energy bills (see Figure 21). Twenty-seven percent f hmewners in England experienced prblems with high energy bills; a similar prprtin (22%) had the same prblem in the Netherlands. This was different frm hmewners in Germany, where 12% had experienced prblems. Figure 21 Percentage f husehlds experiencing ntable prblems with high energy bills 30 Percentage Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Table B27 in Appendix B Natinal statistics shw that, n average, husehlds spend between 3% and 7% f their expenditure n energy (see Table 16). In England this ranged frm 3% fr husehlds in the highest incme decile t 9% fr thse in the lwest incme decile. Therefre, husehld incme may be the reasn fr the differences. It may als be pssible that hmewners in England were unaware f the ptential cst f energy in their

45 45 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 hmes. Hmewners in England and the Netherlands bught the ldest prperties, and were als the least likely t cnsider utility cst during the hme-buying prcess. Higher prprtins f husehlds in Denmark, Germany and Finland cnsidered utility csts at the buying stage; this may explain why fewer reprted prblems with high energy bills in their current hmes. Table 16 Natinal statistics n percentage f energy expenditure fr husehlds by cuntry Denmark 35 Germany 36 Netherlands 37 England 38 Finland 39 Energy expenditure fr husehlds 7.0% 6.2% 6.2% 5.0% 3.4% Figure 22 cnfirms that there were differences between the cuntries related t prblems with their heating systems. Respndents in England were nticeably different frm thse in the ther fur cuntries. Over 30% f hmewners in England had a prblem with their heating system. This was much higher than the 13% and 12% f husehlds in Denmark and Germany. Figure 22 Percentage f husehlds experiencing ntable prblems with their heating system 40 Percentage Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Table B28 in Appendix B The final energy efficiency issue relates t the temperature f the prperty. Less than 20% f all hmewners experienced ntable prblems in keeping their prperty at a cmfrtable temperature, althugh there were again differences by cuntry (Figure 23). There were particular differences between Germany and the ther cuntries. Once again, it was husehlds in England that reprted the mst prblems. Twenty-seven percent f husehlds in the sample frm England experienced issues with the temperature, cmpared with 10% f hmewners in Germany Destatis (2008) Office fr Natinal Statistics (2010) 39 Official Statistics f Finland( 2011)

46 46 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 23 Percentage f husehlds that experienced ntable prblems keeping prperty at a cmfrtable temperature 30 Percentage Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Table B29 in Appendix B 6.3 Other factrs related t the cnditin f hmewners current dwellings There was a small, albeit significant, difference in hmewners rating f the cnditin f their current dwelling, depending n the Energy Perfrmance Status f the husehld. There was als a significant difference between husehlds with recmmendatins and husehlds withut a label r recmmendatins. Figure 24 als cnfirms the results f tests that indicate that there was a significant difference between husehlds, depending n whether they had cmpleted energy efficiency hme imprvements. Thirty percent f hmewners wh had cmpleted energy efficiency measures rated their current prperty in a pr cnditin at the time f purchase; this was the case fr nly 6% f hmewners wh had nt cmpleted hme imprvements. Figure 24 Hmewners rating f the cnditin f current dwelling by energy efficiency behaviur One r mre energy efficiency imprvements Very gd cnditin Gd cnditin N energy efficiency imprvements Neither pr nr gd cnditin Pr cnditin 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very pr cnditin Base: All hmewners (N=2,749)

47 47 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Discussin While the majrity f recent hmewners did nt have immediate r pressing hme imprvements needs when they purchased their prperty, a third reprted an energy-related prblem with their dwelling and arund 30% had general prblems with their prperty. Many f these hmewners may have had little chice but t cnsider taking actin t imprve their dwelling. Fr sme, issues with draughts can be rectified using a number f affrdable measures. Hwever, ther issues such as high energy bills, and prblems with the temperature in the hme, may nt be easily slved. There were als issues related t general prblems that may have needed immediate wrk. Whether this wrk prevents hmewners frm thinking abut ther factrs, r whether it leads t energy efficiency measures being implemented, was uncertain.

48 48 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Hme Imprvements The previus chapters have prvided infrmatin n the type f hmewners in the study, alngside infrmatin abut their husehld and dwelling. This sectin prvides details f hmewners cmpleted hme imprvements and their plans fr imprvements. This sectin examines hmewners efficiency behaviur 40. It cllates infrmatin abut the type f imprvements that were priritised by hmewners; and prvides details f actual investment behaviur, and the place f energy efficiency behaviur, in relatin t ther imprvements. 7.1 General findings Three-quarters f hmewners surveyed had cmpleted sme frm f hme imprvement at the time f the survey. All hmewners chse frm a list f nineteen imprvements that included general imprvements and specific energy efficiency nes. There was als an pprtunity fr them t list ther imprvements. Hwever, the current fcus is n the fllwing nineteen imprvements: Build an extensin/cnservatry Change the garden/utdr space Change the heating cntrls Draught-prf windws and/r drs Fit a new r imprved bathrm Fit a new r imprved kitchen Fit duble glazing r energy-efficient glazing General decratin Imprve the air tightness f the building Install cavity r slid wall insulatin Install flr insulatin Install lft insulatin Install new biler/heating supply Install renewable energy technlgies Install ventilatin system with heat recvery Install wd burning stve r fire place Insulate the ht water tank Insulate the water/heating pipes Replace light bulbs with energy-saving light bulbs The median number f these hme imprvements being carried ut by all hmewners was fur; the median increased t five fr hmewners wh had carried ut at least ne imprvement at the time f the survey. Eighty-six percent f hmewners wh had cmpleted at least ne imprvement had decrated their dwelling; tw-thirds had changed the garden r utdr area, and a similar prprtin had replaced light bulbs with energy-efficient bulbs. 40 Martiskainen (2007) cited in Brhmann et al 2009

49 49 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Cstlier imprvements such as installing r imprving a kitchen r bathrm were carried ut by 52% (fr kitchens) and 46% (fr bathrms) f hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements. Arund a third f these husehlds had installed a new biler r heating supply; the same prprtin had imprved the glazing and a similar number f hmewners had installed lft insulatin. Nine percent had installed sme frm f renewable technlgy. Figure 25 The percentage f all husehlds that had cmpleted energy-efficient imprvements Replace bulbs with energy saving light bulbs Install new biler/heating supply Fit duble glazing r energy efficient glazing Install lft insulatin Change the heating cntrls Insulate the water/heating pipes Draught-prf windws and/r drs Install wdburning stve r fire place Imprve the air tightness f the building Install cavity r slid wall insulatin Install flr insulatin Insulate the ht water tank Install renewable energy technlgies Install ventilatin system with heat recvery Table C2 in Appendix C Percentage Figure 25 highlights that a quarter r fewer hmewners were carrying ut specific energy efficiency imprvements, apart frm changing light bulbs. Renewable technlgies had been installed by just ver 5% f all husehlds. The mst cmmn renewable technlgy installed was a slar water heating system; 110 husehlds had this installed in their dwelling, while 50 had installed a wd-fuelled heating system, and 49 had installed a slar electricity system. Wind turbines had nt been installed in any f the dwellings in the sample at the time f the survey.

50 50 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Hmewners rated the imprtance f nine reasns fr carrying ut all types f hme imprvements. While sme hmewners may have cmpleted mre than ne imprvement, the reasns are still likely t prvide an indicatin f factrs that mtivate hmewners in general. Figure 26 prvides details f the percentage f hmewners wh rated each factr very imprtant. Cmfrt was very imprtant fr the majrity (62%) f hmewners cmpleting an imprvement. Imprving the appearance f the hme was als an imprtant factr fr 42% f hmewners, as were energy efficiency (41%) and reducing energy bills (39%) fr hmewners wh had cmpleted an imprvement. It was ntable that less than a fifth (17%) f hmewners rated increasing the value f the prperty very imprtant. Figure 26 Reasns fr cmpleting imprvements rated very imprtant by hmewners Make hme mre cmfrtable Make hme lk nice Make prperty mre energy efficient Reduce energy bills fr my hme Make family members happy Meet changes in family circumstances Reduce my envirnmental impact Increase the value f prperty Imprve my lcal neighburhd Tables C9 C17 in Appendix C Percentage Over half (55%) f the hmewners surveyed expected t carry ut hme imprvements in the next three years. General decratin was in the three-year plan fr 61% f hmewners, changes t the garden/utdr area fr 45%, fitting a new bathrm fr 32% and a kitchen fr 24%. In terms f energy efficiency imprvements (see Figure 27), lft insulatin was planned by 22% f hmewners and renewable technlgy by 14%. One hundred and frty-fur husehlds planned t install slar water heating systems, and 127 husehlds were planning t install a slar electricity system. A small number f husehlds (19) were planning t install a wind turbine.

51 51 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Ecfys (2005) states that efficient lighting and insulatin are prmising and prfitable measures t reduce the energy use in buildings 41. Fifty-tw percent f husehlds had either imprved their lighting r planned t, and 48% f husehlds had installed sme frm f insulatin. Figure 27 The percentage f all husehlds that planned energy-efficient imprvements Install lft insulatin Fit duble glazing r energy efficient glazing Install cavity r slid wall insulatin Install new biler/heating supply Draught-prf windws and/r drs Install renewable energy technlgies Replace light bulbs with energy saving light bulbs Imprve the air tightness f the building Install wdburning stve r fire place Install flr insulatin Change the heating cntrls Insulate the water/heating pipes Install ventilatin system with heat recvery Insulate the ht water tank Table C19 in Appendix C Half f all hmewners had cmpleted wrks and planned further wrks in the next three years. The sample can be divided int six categries, based n the husehlds hme imprvements status at the time f the survey and their intended behaviur in the next three years: 50% had cmpleted imprvements and planned further imprvement in the next three years 16% had cmpleted imprvements but had n imprvement plans fr the next three years 10% had cmpleted imprvements but were uncertain abut any future investment 13% had nt imprved their hme and did nt plan imprvements in the next three years 6% had nt imprved their hme but planned t d s in the next three years 5% had nt imprved their hme and were uncertain abut any future investment The largest grup (50%) f hmewners had cmpleted imprvements at the time f the survey and were intending t make further imprvements in the fllwing three years. This grup differed frm ther hmewners. Their current dwelling tended t be lder than the ther grups and its cnditin prer. Fifteen percent f hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements and intended t d further wrk lived in prperties that were built in r after 1991, cmpared with 75% f ther husehlds. Fifteen percent f 41 Ecfys 2005 cited in Brhmann et al Percentage

52 52 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements and planned further imprvement in the next three years lived in prperties built befre 1919, cmpared t 5% f thse husehld nt in this categry. There was als a marked difference between these grups related t their EPC status. Thirty-five percent f husehlds that had bth cmpleted and planned imprvements had an EPC and were aware f recmmendatins, cmpared t 19% f hmewners in the ther grup. There were als slightly fewer husehlds in the grup that had bth cmpleted and planned imprvements that did nt have an EPC (see Table 17). Table 17 Percentage f hmewners by EPC status and hme imprvement behaviur Husehld aware f EPC and recmmendatins Husehld aware f EPC but nt recmmendatins All ther imprvement behaviur Bth cmpleted and planned imprvements 19% 35% 37% 27% N EPC 44% 38% Ttal 100% 100% 7.2 Cuntry-specific factrs In the Netherlands 76% f hmewners had implemented energy efficiency measures; in Germany this figure was less than 50% (Figure 28). Figure 28 Whether energy efficiency measures were cmpleted since the purchase f current dwelling Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark All 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N energy efficeincy imprvements One r mre energy efficiency imprvements Seven energy efficiency imprvements featured in the tp fur mst cmmn imprvements fr all five cuntries (see Table 18). Changing light bulbs featured at the tp f the list fr all cuntries. Tw-thirds f hmewners in England had carried ut this measure, whereas nly a third f husehlds in Germany had. Germany had the lwest percentage f hmewners carrying ut energy-efficient imprvements, when cmpared t all the ther cuntries in the study.

53 53 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Installing a new biler r heating system was a cmmn imprvement in the Netherlands, England and Finland. At the time f the survey, this had been dne by 45% f hmewners in the Netherlands, 32% in England and a fifth f hmewners in Finland. Frty-fur percent f husehlds in the Netherlands reprted changing the heating cntrls in their dwelling; this was als the case fr 31% f hmewners in England and 22% f hmewners in Finland. Imprving the glazing was a ppular chice in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Over a third (38%) f hmewners in the Netherlands had cmpleted this imprvement, a quarter (25%) f all husehlds in Denmark and arund a fifth (19%) f husehlds in Germany. Lft insulatin was in the tp fur mst cmmn energy efficiency measures fr England, Denmark and Germany. A third, (33%) f hmewners in England had cmpleted this imprvement. In Denmark and Germany, these figures were 22% and 19%. Draught prfing was cmmn in Finland (32%) and Denmark (20%) and in Germany nearly a quarter f hmewners reprted that they had insulated their water/heating pipes. The mst ppular planned energy efficiency imprvements generally mirrred the tp fur mst cmmn cmpleted imprvements. Hwever, there were sme ntable additins; wall insulatin featured in the tp fur planned imprvements in Germany and Denmark. In Germany 23% f hmewners were planning this imprvement, and in Denmark, 20%. The installatin f renewable energy technlgy was als in the tp fur planned imprvements in Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. In Germany 19% f hmewners planned this type f imprvement, 17% in the Netherlands and 13% in Finland. Imprvement t glazing was in the tp fur planned imprvements in England, where 14% f hmewners expected t d this in the next three years. Table 18 The fur mst cmmn energy efficiency imprvements cmpleted and planned in each cuntry Denmark Cmpleted Planned Mst cmmn EE imprvement 44% Installed energy-efficient lighting 28% Imprve glazing 25% Imprved glazing 27% Install lft insulatin 22% Installed lft insulatin 20% Install wall insulatin 20% Draught prf 20% Draught prf Germany Cmpleted Planned Mst cmmn EE imprvement 38% Installed energy-efficient lighting 25% Install lft insulatin 23% Insulated the water/heating pipes 23% Install wall insulatin 19% Imprved glazing 19% Install renewable energy technlgies 19% Installed lft insulatin 17% Imprve glazing The Netherlands Cmpleted Planned Mst cmmn EE imprvement 55% Installed energy-efficient lighting 25% Install new biler/heating supply 45% Installed new biler/heating supply 22% Imprve glazing 44% Changed the heating cntrls 19% Install lft insulatin

54 54 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable % Imprved glazing 17% Install renewable energy technlgies England Cmpleted Planned Mst cmmn EE imprvement 66% Installed energy-efficient lighting 19% Install new biler/heating supply saving 33% Installed light bulbs lft insulatin 16% Install lft insulatin 32% Installed new biler/heating supply 14% Imprve glazing 31% Changed the heating cntrls 13% Install energy-efficient lighting Finland Cmpleted Planned Mst cmmn EE imprvement 54% Installed energy-efficient lighting 28% Draught-prf 32% Draught-prfed 16% Install energy-efficient lighting 22% Changed the heating cntrls 13% Imprve glazing 20% Installed new biler/heating supply 13% Install renewable energy technlgies The least cmmn cmpleted energy efficiency imprvement varied by cuntry. The three least favured imprvements were installing renewables, installing a ventilatin system with heat recvery, and insulating the ht water tank. Renewables were the least ppular imprvement in Denmark with nly 3% f hmewners reprting that they had cmpleted any f these types f wrks. One r tw percent f husehlds in Germany, the Netherlands and England had installed a ventilatin system with heat recvery and 2% f hmewners in Finland had insulated their ht water tank. The least-favured planned imprvement in all cuntries centred n three types f imprvements. These were insulating the ht water tank (Denmark and Germany) installing ventilatin system with heat recvery (the Netherlands and England) and installing a new biler/heating supply, which was planned by 3% f hmewners in Finland. There were 207 husehlds that had installed renewable energy technlgies at the time f the survey. Over half (54%) f these husehlds were in Germany, a fifth (22%) were in the Netherlands and 10% were in Denmark. Seventy percent f the 112 husehlds in Germany that reprted installing renewable energy technlgy had a slar water heating system, arund 30% had a slar electricity system and anther 30% had a wd-fuelled heating system. The majrity f renewable technlgies installed in German husehlds in the sample were visible frm the utside f the dwelling. This may relate t Jensen s (2004) suggestin that residents are mst likely t realize energy savings if these are bth visible and cntribute psitively t his/her symblical cmmunicatin with thers 42. Hmewners in Germany were als the mst likely t be planning t install renewable energy technlgy in the next three years; 43% f all hmewners planning this type f imprvement were in the German sample, cmpared with 20% frm the Netherland and 17% frm England. Hmewners in Germany als reprted the greatest awareness f friends and neighburs installing renewable energy technlgy. Of the 157 husehlds that were aware that their neighburs had installed renewable energy technlgy, arund 60% were frm the German sample. Just ver 40% f husehlds aware f family r friends installing renewables were frm Germany, with 24% frm Denmark. Bruppacher and Ulli-Beer (2001) prpse that peple s scial surrundings, such as friends, family, clleagues, 42 cited in Brhmann et al 2009

55 55 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 neighburs, r ther peer grups, can strngly influence their perceptins, pinins and behaviur 43. Althugh there were nly a few cases f hmewners being aware f the installatin f renewable technlgies by neighburs, family and friends, these parties may have an influential rle t play in decisin-making. This is mst ntable in the case f German husehlds. 7.3 Other factrs There was a difference in the energy efficiency behaviur f husehlds assciated with their EPC status. Mre husehlds with an EPC and recmmendatins had cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements, cmpared t husehlds with an EPC but wh were unaware f the recmmendatins, r husehlds withut an EPC. There was n difference between husehlds with an EPC but unaware f the recmmendatins and husehlds withut an EPC. Figure 29 shws the differences between the grups. In fur cuntries, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England the prprtin f hmewners wh had carried ut energy efficiency hme imprvements was greater if the hmewner had a full EPC and had knwledge f the recmmendatins n the certificate. It was ntable that 69% f hmewners with a full certificate with recmmendatins had carried ut energy efficiency imprvements, cmpared t 51% f hmewners with an EPC but wh were nt aware f the recmmendatins. In the final grup, 57% f hmewners had carried ut energy efficiency imprvements despite nt having an EPC fr their hme. Figure 29 Percentage f husehlds that had carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency hme imprvements by their EPC status Base: All hmewners (N=3,098) All Denmark Germany Netherlands England Husehld aware f EPC including recmmendatins N EPC Husehld aware f EPC but nt recmmendatins Hwever, there are ther factrs at play in determining whether energy efficiency measures take place, such as the need fr this type f wrk determined by the cnditin and age f the dwelling. Table 19 highlights that 88% f hmewners wh lived in prperty built after the year 2000 had nt cmpleted energy efficiency wrks; it is unlikely that energy efficiency measures were needed fr these prperties. 43 Best-Waldhber et al (2009)

56 56 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Table 19 Percentage f dwellings in each age categry by whether energy efficiency imprvements cmpleted N energy efficiency imprvements One r mre energy efficiency imprvements Befre % 73% % 79% % 77% % 75% % 59% % 46% 276 After % 12% 609 N While each EPC is dwelling dependent, there are six energy efficiency measures that can be cnsidered a prxy fr the influence f the EPC, since these are the measures that are likely t be specified n an EPC in any f the cuntries. These recmmendatins are: Insulate rf and r lft Insulate walls Imprve glazing Upgrade and r install biler Imprve central heating system Use r install slar energy system Figure 30 shws that 57% f husehlds in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England that had an EPC with recmmendatins had carried ut ne r mre f the recmmendatins likely t feature n an EPC recmmendatins reprt. The percentage f husehlds in the ther EPC categries carrying ut these types f measures was much lwer, 40% (EPC withut recmmendatins) and 44% (husehlds withut an EPC). There were als differences between cuntries. Almst 70% hmewners in the Netherlands with an EPC with recmmendatins had carried ut these energy efficiency measures. In Denmark, 52% f husehlds with a full EPC including recmmendatins had cmpleted at least ne measure, cmpared with 29% f husehlds in the grup that had an EPC but were nt aware f recmmendatins.

57 57 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 30 Percentage f husehlds that had carried ut ne r mre EPC related energy efficiency hme imprvements by their EPC status All fur cuntries Denmark Germany Netherlands England Base: All hmewners (3,098) Discussin Hmewners in the sample demnstrate a tendency t invest in their dwelling. The majrity f hmewners had imprved their dwellings. Many f the wrks related t imprving the décr, the kitchen and bathrm. Jensen (2004) suggested that kitchens and bathrms were a pririty fr hmewners. Hwever, energy efficiency measures were cmpleted by arund 60% f hmewners. The mst cmmn efficiency behaviur was the installatin f energy-efficient lighting. Hwever, hmewners in all cuntries were making significant investments; fr example, between 19% and 33% f hmewners in Denmark, Germany and England had installed lft insulatin, and between 19% and 38% f hmewners in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands had imprved the glazing f their dwelling. Hmewners cntinued t plan further wrks, with arund a fifth f hmewners in Denmark and Germany planning t install wall insulatin and between 13% and 19% f hmewners in Finland, the Netherlands and Germany planning t install renewable technlgies. The reasns fr cmpleting imprvements were generally reprted t be t imprve the cmfrt f the hme, fllwed by imprving its appearance. Bth imprving energy efficiency and reducing energy bills were als mtivating factrs fr mre than tw-fifth f hmewners. The EPC als played a rle in determining energy efficiency behaviur, as mre hmewners with an EPC with a recmmendatins reprt had carried ut energy efficiency imprvements than ther hmewners, althugh the differences were nt nticeable in all cuntries. When specific energy efficiency measures were cnsidered (thse that were cmmn t recmmendatins reprts in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England), there was a marked difference in the prprtin f husehlds that had carried ut energy efficiency measures, with mre husehlds with a full EPC cmpleting imprvements. 44 Insufficient data fr Finland Full Energy Perfrmance Certificate with knwledge f the recmmendatins An Energy Perfrmance Certificate withut knwledge f the recmmendatins N awareness f having an Energy Perfrmance Certificate fr their hme

58 58 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Hmewners wh had an EPC and were aware that they had received an energy efficiency rating fr their dwelling but were nt aware f a recmmendatins reprt, were the least likely t have cmpleted at least ne energy efficiency measure. In mst cuntries this grup differed frm thse hmewners wh reprted nt t have, r nt t be aware f having, an EPC fr their dwelling. While the EPC seems t have an influence, there were still a number f hmewners withut a recmmendatins reprt wh had cmpleted energy efficiency measures. Whether this was because these measures are being discussed in the mass media r because there was a need t carry ut a particular repair, r t invest in a measure because f prblems with the cmfrt in the hme, will be cnsidered later in this study.

59 59 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable The Energy Perfrmance Certificate as a surce f infrmatin The literature suggests that infrmatin is an imprtant factr in determining energy efficiency behaviur 45. ICF (2010) prvides five categries f energy advice, ranging frm the lwest, which is all marketing and infrmatin that raises awareness f the need fr actin t the highest, which is detailed advice specific t [the] hme invlving hme visit and supprt t implement actins. The psitin f the EPC depends n the way it is implemented. The level f detail prvided in the EPC and the way it is implemented is different in each member state 46. This sectin explres hmewners general awareness f EPCs, as well as their specific knwledge abut the dcument. 8.1 General findings General awareness f EPCs Less than 10% f hmewners reprted any difficulty in accessing infrmatin n hw t imprve the energy efficiency f their hme, and just ver 60% f hmewners cnsidered access t energy efficiency infrmatin easy r very easy. The vast majrity (88%) f hmewners had heard abut the EPC. Twthirds (67%) f hmewners had seen a label; a fifth had heard f the label but had nt seen it. Figure 31 Hmewners surce f knwledge f Energy Perfrmance Certificate Estate agents Newspapers Televisin Prperty sales material Internet Energy supplier Thrugh a friend r relative Radi Other Leaflets thrugh the pst Lawyer Pster Table D2 in Appendix D Percentage 45 Brhmann et al (2009) 46 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

60 60 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 31 shws that ver 40% f hmewners were made aware f the EPCs thrugh an estate agent, arund a third fund ut thrugh a newspaper, and a similar prprtin were made aware via the televisin. Prperty sales material was als a cmmn surce f infrmatin fr ver 30% f all hmewners Hmewners with an EPC Only 25 hmewners in the sample frm Finland had an EPC, as this is a very small sample. Data frm Finland are nt included in the fllwing findings, althugh infrmatin n hmewners frm Finland with an EPC is available in Appendix E. Abut 60% (1,912) f all hmewners reprted that they had an EPC. Over 70% f hmewners with an EPC had ne because they had purchased a prperty and 17% vluntarily acquired ne. Fewer than half f hmewners wh had an EPC because they had purchased a prperty were shwn the EPC befre they made an ffer n their current prperty. Only a third reprted that it was an imprtant factr in their decisin t make an ffer n their current dwelling. Only 8% f hmewners wh had received an EPC because they purchased a prperty used the infrmatin t negtiate n the price f their hme, which crrbrates previus reprts in the UK 47. Almst half (46%) f hme buyers with an EPC reprted that the dcument was nt an imprtant factr in the decisin t purchase their current dwelling. It was ntable that arund half f recent hmebuyers saw the EPCs fr ther prperties during the prcess f lking fr a hme. While tw-thirds f the sample were aware that they had an EPC, a smaller grup f these was aware f sme f the details cntained in the dcument, such as the energy efficiency rating and the energy efficiency recmmendatins. Almst 70% f hmewners wh had an EPC fr their hme culd recall its energy efficiency rating. Nine hundred and frty six hmewners culd recall the recmmendatins frm their EPC. Hwever, almst a fifth (18%) f these reprted that they did nt receive any recmmendatins. The remaining 82% culd recall ne r mre f the energy efficiency measures stated n the dcument. Over a fifth f hmewners culd recllect tw f the recmmendatins (Figure 32). Figure 32 Number f recmmendatins stated/recalled Nne One Tw Three Fur Five Mre than five Base: Hmewners with an EPC that culd recall that the EPC included recmmendatins (N=946) 47 Ryal Institutin f Chartered Surveyrs (2010)

61 61 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 These findings were based n hmewners recllectin f the recmmendatins and therefre d nt suggest that these are the number f recmmendatins that were received. Equally, when reviewing the type f recmmendatins, it is imprtant t nte that these als reflect thse that were recalled; it is nt a cmprehensive list f recmmendatins received by hmewners. Over half (53%) f the hmewners wh culd recall ne r mre energy efficiency measure recalled the measure t insulate the rf r lft. Insulating the walls was recalled by 43% f these hmewners and imprving glazing by 42%. A third f hmewners wh culd recllect at least ne energy efficiency measure had nt spent any mney t implement these recmmendatins. Of the tw-thirds f hmewners wh had spent mney n recmmendatins, ver a third had spent up t 1,000, 45% had spent between 1,000 and 10,000 and 20% had spent ver 10,000 (see Table 20). Table 20 Amunt f mney spent n energy efficiency recmmendatins Mney spent Future spending Less than % 16% 501-1,000 14% 17% 1,001-5,000 27% 38% 5,001-10,000 18% 17% 10,001-20,000 9% 6% Mre than 20,000 11% 6% N Generally, hmewners with an EPC fund the dcument easy t understand, with 30% reprting that it was very easy t understand. Hwever, there was uncertainty abut the accuracy that the EPC prvided abut the energy efficiency f the hme; 13% f hmewners reprted that they dn t knw. The largest respnse was by hmewners wh marked the middle f the five-pint scale. A similar respnse was given by hmewners wh respnded t the questin abut the level f detail prvided in the EPC, results fr bth f these questins are prvided in Figure 33. Figure 33 Hmewners respnse t the level f detail and accuracy n energy efficiency prvided by the EPC Enugh detail Accuracy Nt at all Very much Dn't knw Tables D40 and D41 in Appendix D 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Arund a fifth f all hmewners with an EPC were uncertain abut the usefulness f the dcument as a surce f advice n where t find additinal infrmatin, r in relatin t the cst f energy efficiency measures, r as a surce f infrmatin n hme imprvements r the energy csts. In additin, between 30% and 40% f hmewners with an EPC reprted that the EPC did nt prvide useful infrmatin n

62 62 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 these fur services. Hwever, 31% thught it was useful as a surce f infrmatin n hme imprvements needed t reduce energy bills and 27% cnsidered it a useful resurce abut the energy csts f their hme (Figure 34). Figure 34 Usefulness f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate as a surce f infrmatin n the fllwing: Where t g fr advice and further infrmatin n energy efficient measures The cst f making energy efficient hme imprvements The hme imprvements needed t reduce yur energy bills The energy (electricity and heating) csts f yur hme Nt at all useful Very useful Dn't knw 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Tables D42 and D45 in Appendix D Figure 35 shws that hmewners wh were unaware f the EPC s recmmendatin reprt were less certain abut the usefulness f the dcument as a surce f infrmatin n imprvements. Thirty-ne percent f hmewners wh were aware f the recmmendatins reprt fund the dcument useful, althugh 33% did nt. Figure 35 Usefulness f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate as a surce f infrmatin n the hme imprvements needed t reduce energy bills, by EPC status Very useful Label, n recmmendatins Useful Neither useful nr useless Nt useful Label, with recmmendatins Nt at all useful Base: All hmewners with an EPC (N=1,894) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dn't knw

63 63 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Cuntry-specific factrs The findings frm hmewners in varius cuntries differed in relatin t a number f issues arund energy efficiency infrmatin. This included access t energy efficiency infrmatin, awareness f the EPC, knwledge and experience f the EPC, and the level f trust in the EPC Access t energy efficiency infrmatin and awareness f EPCs Mre hmewners in the Netherlands than in any ther cuntry fund it easy t access infrmatin n energy efficiency. This cntrasts with infrmatin frm the stakehlder interviews in the Netherlands, which reprted a lack f infrmatin abut energy efficiency as a barrier t the successful implementatin f the EPC 48. In the Netherlands, 39% f hmewners cnsidered accessing specific energy efficiency infrmatin t be very easy. In Germany and Finland, less than a fifth f hmewners cnsidered accessing energy efficiency infrmatin t be very easy. In Finland, a fifth cnsidered this task difficult (Figure 36). Figure 36 Hmewners level f access t energy efficiency infrmatin Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very easy Easy Neither difficult nr easy Difficult Very difficult Table F5 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In the Netherlands, 99% f hmewners had heard f the EPC cmpared t 80% in England. Tw-thirds (67%) f hmewners in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England had seen an EPC. This was as high as 91% in the Netherlands but as lw as 43% in Germany. Knwledge f the EPC had been gained frm varius surces, depending n the cuntry f the hmewner. There was a marked difference between these cuntries in relatin t the energy supplier as a surce f infrmatin; 41% f German hmewners were made aware f the EPC frm their energy supplier, and yet this was the case fr nly 17% f hmewners respnding frm England. In England ver 60% f hmewners were infrmed abut the EPC thrugh their estate agents, cmpared with 24% f hmewners in Germany. Prperty sales material was the surce fr 60% f respndents frm Denmark, 46% frm England, 26% frm Germany and 22% frm the Netherlands Hmewners with EPCs It was ntable that the percentage f hmewners with an EPC varied by cuntry. Eighty-ne percent f hmewners in the Netherlands had an EPC; this figure was 79% in Denmark, 69% in England and 38% in 48 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

64 64 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Germany. There was a marked difference in the percentage f hmewners with an EPC in Germany cmpared t the ther cuntries. The study sampled recent hmebuyers in bth England and Germany, because mst wuld have purchased their current dwellings when an EPC was mandatry. Hwever, the ntable differences in these findings may be due t the fact that the implementatin date f EPCs in Germany was arund a year later than in England. Hwever, Table H6 in Appendix I shws that hmewners in Germany were acquiring the EPC befre they were mandatry. It was als interesting that even when EPCs were mandatry, there were still fewer than 50% f recent hmebuyers that had an EPC fr their current dwelling. This suggests that there may be issues with the implementatin strategy in Germany. Denmark and the Netherlands sampled dwellings that were knwn t have an EPC; therefre, it was expected that they wuld have high prprtins f husehlds with an EPC. Even s, there were still a fifth f hmewners in these cuntries that reprt that they did nt have an EPC. Whether this was because f a lack f awareness r because they had nt seen/received ne is debatable. Hmewners in the Netherlands and Germany had a chice abut the type f EPCs that were available t them. In the Netherlands, hmewners had the chice f a standard energy label standaard energielabel r tailr-made energy advice maatwerkadvies. The standaard energielabel is based n standardised average husehld characteristics. The label cntains an energy rating, an estimatin f energy cnsumptin, and autmatically generated standardised suggestins fr hme imprvements. The maatwerkadvies prvides additinal infrmatin. This includes the estimatin f the energy cnsumptin based n the specific actual husehld characteristics and detailed descriptins f the technical measures pssible, including the cst and benefits. Mre than three-quarters f hmewners wh had an EPC and culd recall the type had the standaard energielabel, the rest (23%) had a maatwerkadvies. In Germany a very small sample culd recall whether they had an Energiebedarf r an Energieverbrauchskennwert, the prprtin with each was evenly distributed (see Table D7 in Appendix D). There were ntable differences in the reasns that hmewners had an EPC, depending n their cuntry. Over 90% f hmewners in England with an EPC had the dcument because they had purchased a prperty; this was the case fr nly 48% f hmewners in Germany. Arund 80% f hmewners in Denmark cited a hme purchase as the reasn fr having an EPC; this was als the case fr 64% f hmewners in the Netherlands. In Germany, 49% f hmewners had an EPC because they had acquired ne vluntarily; this was the case fr 22% f hmewners in the Netherlands. Again, the cntrast between Germany and the ther cuntries in relatin t the reasn fr having an EPC may highlight differences in the implementatin date and the pssibility that it is nt regarded as a mandatry part f the hme-buying prcess. Almst tw-thirds (63%) f hmewners in Denmark that had the EPC because f a huse purchase received the EPC befre making an ffer n their current dwelling; in England this was the case fr 44% f hmewners in this situatin. Such infrmatin at this juncture in the hme-buying prcess was deemed very imprtant by 13% f hmewners in Denmark, but by nly 5% f hmewners in England. Ten percent f hmewners in Denmark regarded this infrmatin as nt at all imprtant in their decisin t make an ffer n their dwelling, cmpared with 26% f hmewners in England. Over 60% f recent hmebuyers in Denmark saw the EPCs fr ther prperties during the prcess f lking fr a hme; this was als the case fr ver half f these hmewners in England While data was cllected fr the Netherlands and Germany a very small sample frm each cuntry falls int this categry therefre the figures are nt reprted here, see Appendix fr details.

65 65 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 37 Hmewners level f understanding f the Energy Perfrmance Certificate England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very easy Easy Neither difficult nr easy Difficult Very difficult Table D39 in Appendix D 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hmewners generally had a gd understanding f the EPC; this was very much the case in Denmark, the Netherlands and England. Less than half f hmewners with an EPC in Germany described it as very easy r easy t understand. This may be because Germany is the nly cuntry in the study that des nt use an A t G rating fr their EPC (Figure 37). The majrity (86%) f hmewners frm the Netherlands with an EPC culd recall the energy efficiency rating. This was the case fr 77% f this grup in Denmark and 57% in England, but fr less than half f respndents with an EPC in Germany. Details f the energy efficiency ratings are available in Appendix D. In Denmark, 400 hmewners (54% f the sample) were aware f the EPC s recmmendatins; this was the case fr 44% f the sample in the Netherlands, 28% f the sample in England and 11% f the sample in Germany. While this cnstitutes 30% f the verall sample, there were ntable differences in the level f awareness by cuntry. There were als differences in the type f recmmendatins that were recalled; 60% f hmewners culd recllect recmmendatins remembered abut imprving glazing, but this was recalled by nly 1% f hmewners in England. Duble r secndary glazing is regarded as a further measure in the EPC in England; the NHER (2009) reprted that duble r secndary glazing was likely t appear n 15% f the recmmendatin reprts. Insulating the rf was a recmmendatin that was recalled by tw-thirds f hmewners wh were aware f their recmmendatins in Denmark. Mre than 40% f hmewners in Denmark, the Netherlands and England culd recall a recmmendatin abut insulating their walls. In England, recmmendatins abut imprving the biler were recalled by mre than 40%; this was mentined by 20% f hmewners in Denmark. While slar energy was an imprvement recalled by 60% f hmewners in Denmark nly 10% f hmewners in England recalled this. Installing renewable energy was an ptin in Germany and England, and 6% and 10% f hmewners in these cuntries recalled reference t this measure in their recmmendatins reprt. Bimass was a measure recmmended in England nly and was recalled by 13% f hmewners. In Denmark, 25% f hmewners recalled a recmmendatin abut air tightness. In England, 78% recalled a recmmendatin abut energy-efficient lighting.

66 66 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 38 Number f recmmendatins stated/recalled England Netherlands Germany Denmark Nne One Tw Three Fur Five Mre than five 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=400 Germany N=123 the Netherlands N=249 & England N=174 Figure 38 shws that in Germany mre than tw-fifths f respndents culd nt recall the recmmendatins. The ttal number f ptential recmmendatins varied in each cuntry. In the Netherlands there were 29 ptential recmmendatins cmpared t 11 in Denmark. There were als differences in the amunt f mney that hmewners in different cuntries spent n recmmendatins (see Table 21). Many hmewners in all cuntries had nt invested any mney in making imprvements, and yet ver a quarter f hmewners in Denmark had spent mre than five thusand eurs. In England the majrity prviding this infrmatin had invested less than five hundred eurs; the numbers that had invested in fitting energy efficiency light bulbs, fr example, might explain this. Table 21 Apprximately hw much mney have yu spent carrying ut these recmmendatins? Denmark Netherlands England Nne 32% 42% 22% Less % 5% 33% 501-1,000 12% 8% 7% 1,001-5,000 16% 18% 19% 5,001-10,000 12% 11% 7% 10,001-20,000 7% 4% 5% Mre than 20,000 7% 7% 4% Dn t knw 4% 5% 3% N When hmewners with an EPC were asked t rate the usefulness f the dcument, it was nticeable that in sme cuntries a number f hmewners were unable t prvide a respnse. There were hwever ntable differences between the cuntries in their evaluatin f hw useful the EPC was as a prvider f infrmatin n energy csts. In Denmark and Germany, almst tw-fifths f hmewners with an EPC cnsidered it a useful dcument fr prviding this service, whereas less than a fifth f hmewners in

67 67 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 England and the Netherlands thught the same. Nearly 30% f hmewners in England rated the EPC nt at all useful in prviding this infrmatin (see Figure 39). Figure 39 Usefulness f the EPC as a surce f infrmatin n the energy (electricity and heating) csts f yur hme England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very useful Useful Neither Nt useful Nt at all useful Dn't knw Table D42 in Appendix D 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 40 shws that arund a fifth f hmewners in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany thught that the EPC prvided useful infrmatin n where t g fr advice and further infrmatin n energy efficiency measures. Hwever, less than 10% f hmewners in England thught this and almst 40% thught that it was nt at all useful. Figure 40 Usefulness f the EPC as a surce f infrmatin n where t g fr advice and further infrmatin n energy-efficient measures England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very useful Useful Neither Nt useful Nt at all useful Dn't knw Table D45 in Appendix D 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Arund 40% f hmewners wh were aware f the recmmendatin reprt n their EPC rated the EPC very useful r useful at prviding infrmatin abut the hme imprvements needed t reduce energy bills. In England and the Netherlands, ver a quarter f hmewners did nt find the dcument useful (see Figure 41).

68 68 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 41 Usefulness f the EPC as a surce f infrmatin n the hme imprvements needed t reduce yur energy bills England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very useful Useful Neither Nt useful Nt at all useful Dn't knw Table D43 in Appendix D 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% There was als sme variatin in hmewners ratings f the usefulness f the EPC in prviding infrmatin n the cst f making energy-efficient hme imprvements. Mre than a third f hmewners in Germany and Denmark fund the dcument useful fr prviding this service, while less than a fifth f hmewners in England thught the same. Mre than half f hmewners in England cnsidered the dcument nt at all useful r nt useful fr prviding this level f infrmatin (see Figure 42). Figure 42 Usefulness f the EPC as a surce f infrmatin n the cst f making energy-efficient hme imprvements England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very useful Useful Neither Nt useful Nt at all useful Dn't knw Table D44 in Appendix D 8.3 Discussin 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Generally, hmewners were able t access infrmatin abut energy efficiency, and mre than 60% thught that accessing this type f infrmatin was easy. The majrity had heard abut EPCs, but whether they were just aware f the label, the energy efficiency rating aspect f the EPC, r mre, was nt established. There were large differences in the prprtin f husehlds that reprted that they had seen

69 69 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 an EPC by cuntry; this ranged frm 91% f hmewners in the Netherlands t 43% in Germany. German hmewners generally were less aware f the EPC than hmewners in all ther cuntries. Hmewners generally fund ut abut the EPC via estate agents, newspapers, televisin and prperty sales infrmatin. Hw this infrmatin is cnveyed t hmewners thrugh these surces is unknwn, and yet these actrs are ptentially key players in the hmewners reactin t the EPC. The Ryal Institutin f Chartered Surveyrs (2010) pinted t the fact that estate agents acting n behalf f sellers were nt willing t draw attentin t [the EPC] because it wuld damage the sale. There was als a cncern that agents were likely t draw attentin frm the EPC r encurage buyers t discunt it 50. Whether this practice is repeated acrss all Eurpean cuntries is uncertain; hwever, it raises cncerns abut the level f influence that the EPC can have, depending n hw it is intrduced t a hmewner. The figure belw highlights the fact that many f the hmewners wh may be cnsidered t be infrmed abut the energy efficiency f their dwelling, and the ptential energy efficiency imprvements, are nt. Many hmewners have nt retained the infrmatin available in the EPC, and therefre their ptential t act t imprve their energy efficiency, and therefre t reduce carbn emissins, is limited. The infrmatin cntained in the EPC, and the ptential effectiveness f the plicy, is being lst. The lack f knwledge abut sme f the EPC details may be a result f the way that the infrmatin is initially distributed, r because f a lack f interest n the part f the hmewner. Hwever, knwing that having an EPC des nt necessarily equate t reading, understanding, trusting r using the dcument is an imprtant finding frm this research. A cncerted effrt needs t be made t publicise the dcument as a surce f infrmatin, t enable hmewners t make infrmed decisins abut the huse that they purchase and the energy efficiency measures that are needed. All hmewners with an EPC Hmewners that knw the energy rating f their hme Hmewners that knw the recmmendatins n the EPC fr their hme Previus chapters f the reprt state that hmewners were undertaking energy efficiency wrks. Hwever, a third f hmewners wh were fully aware f the EPC and its recmmendatin had nt spent any mney n implementing the recmmendatins. Arund a fifth had spent, r planned t spend, between 1,001 and 5,000, with 11% having spent mre than 10,000. Further wrk t examine the amunt f financial 50 Ryal Institutin f Chartered Surveyrs (2010)

70 70 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 investment in energy efficiency that hmewners are willing t make wuld enhance the findings cllected here. There was a mixed picture in terms f hmewners level f satisfactin with the EPC. The EPC prvides sme added value t hmewners. Arund 40% fund a full EPC that includes recmmendatins very useful r useful fr prviding infrmatin abut the hme imprvements needed t reduce energy bills. Hwever, many hmewners were dissatisfied with the level f detail and accuracy prvided by the EPC. Als the lack f signpsting t further surces f infrmatin was nted as an issue by many hmewners.

71 71 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Energy efficiency infrmatin Infrmatin n energy efficiency is available frm a variety f surces, frm advertisements t specialist Gvernment websites. Hwever, sme authrs have suggested that the type, medium and quality f infrmatin may act as a barrier t energy efficiency behaviur 51. This sectin explres the level f trust that hmewners have in varius surces f infrmatin, and prvides sme insight int the surces that they use t gain further infrmatin n energy efficiency. 9.1 General findings Level f Trust in surces f infrmatin abut energy efficiency in the hme A number f surces are prmting energy efficiency acrss Eurpe, frm Gvernment agencies t energy suppliers and hardware shps. It is n the agenda in many public arenas. Hwever, befre determining whether these surces f infrmatin have an impact n hmewners decisin-making, it is imprtant t assess the level f trust that hmewners have in each individual surce. Over 60% f hmewners did nt trust advertisements as a surce f infrmatin n energy efficiency in the hme. Figure 43 shws that DIY shps were nt trusted by 39% f hmewners, and TV and radi prgrammes were nt trusted by 30% f hmewners. Family and friends were the mst trusted surce f infrmatin, as 54% f hmewners trusted this surce. Lcal tradespeple were als trusted, by arund half (48%) f hmewners. While the EPC was trusted by 43% f all hmewners; 21% did nt trust it. Overall, 41% f hmewners reprted trust in lcal and/r natinal authrities as a surce f infrmatin abut energy efficiency in the hme. Twenty-seven percent f hmewners reprted that they neither trust nr distrust energy suppliers as a surce f infrmatin. Hmewners were als uncertain abut magazines and newspaper articles as a surce f infrmatin n energy efficiency in the hme. Almst half (47%) f all hmewners reprted that they neither trust nr distrust this surce, while 27% did nt trust it. A large respnse (45%) was received frm hmewners wh were uncertain abut their neighburs as a surce f infrmatin. Internatinal statistics 52 reprt that between 79% and 89% f the ppulatin in the five cuntries in the sample were internet users. In this study almst 50% f hmewners neither trusted nr distrusted the internet as a surce f energy efficiency infrmatin. 51 Best-Waldhber et al (2009) 52 See Table H5 in Appendix H

72 72 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 43 Hmewners level f trust in varius surces f infrmatin n energy efficiency fr the hme TV and radi prgrammes The Internet The EPC Neighburs Magazine and Newspaper articles Lcal and r Natinal Gverning Lcal tradespeple Family and friends Energy suppliers DIY shps Advertisements Tables F7 F17 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N trust at all N Trust Neither n trust nr trust Trust Cmplete trust Surces f infrmatin sught by hmewners n energy efficiency Having established the level f trust hmewners had in a number f ptential surces f energy efficiency infrmatin, the questinnaire asked which surces they wuld seek fr further infrmatin n this tpic. Overall, the list f available surces f infrmatin is similar in mst cuntries, althugh there are sme differences. Fr example, hmewners in England were nt asked abut nn-gvernmental rganisatins (NGOs). Figure 44 shws the spread f respnses fr these surces f further infrmatin. The tp three surces f infrmatin were: Gvernment-funded bdy prviding infrmatin and advice n energy General web search Friends r family members and suppliers f energy-saving prducts r services Denmark, England and Finland ffered the specific ptin f a gvernment-funded bdy. In Denmark, the rganisatin the Elsparefnden/Centre fr energibesparelser prvides infrmatin and advice n energy. The Elsparefnden (the Energy Saving Trust) was renamed Centre fr energibesparelser (Centre fr Energy savings) in The Centre fr energibesparelser is gvernment-funded. In England, the Energy Savings Trust is a quasi-autnmus nn-gvernmental rganisatin. The Gvernment als funds Mtiva, the Finnish energy advice rganisatin.

73 73 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 44 Surces f further infrmatin n energy efficiency imprvements Gvernment funded bdy prviding infrmatin and advice n energy General web search Friends r family members Suppliers f energy-saving prducts r services Energy supplier Lcal trades peple Gvernment Websites Lcal Authrity NGOs r similar DIY shps Library Table F19 in Appendix F Percentage The scial netwrk, in the frm f family and friends, was viewed as a surce f further infrmatin by 45% f all hmewners; the same percentage f hmewners als reprted that they wuld seek further infrmatin frm suppliers f energy-saving prducts r services. The internet, in the frm f a general web search, was an imprtant surce f further infrmatin fr all hmewners. Hwever, data presented abve suggests that almst half f hmewners neither trust nr distrust the internet, with less than 30% f hmewners cnfident enugh t state that they trust the internet.

74 74 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Cuntry-specific factrs Level f trust in surces f infrmatin abut energy efficiency Respndents in different cuntries reprted varius levels f trust in different surces f infrmatin. Tw-thirds f German hmewners reprted trusting family and friends, while less than a third f hmewners in Finland reprted trusting this grup fr energy efficiency infrmatin. The level f trust in lcal tradespeple was lwest fr hmewners in England; nly 28% f these hmewners trusted this surce f infrmatin. This is a higher percentage than fund in a previus study f British husehlds, which reprted that ne in six wuld trust installers, builders and tradesmen fr this type f advice 53. Figure 45 shws that in the current survey there were nticeable differences in the way in which each cuntry respnded t infrmatin frm this surce. Figure 45 The level f trust in lcal tradespeple as a surce f infrmatin Finland Trust England Netherlands Germany Denmark Neither distrust nr trust Distrust Table F11 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 46 indicates that hmewners in each cuntry seemed t respnd differently. Hmewners in Finland and Denmark trust the EPC the mst, with ver 50% f hmewners reprting that they trust the label. Hmewners in the Netherlands reprt the highest level f distrust in the label (31%), while the same prprtin distrusts the label. 53 EEPH (2010)

75 75 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 46 The Level f trust in the EPC as a surce f infrmatin Finland Trust England Netherlands Germany Denmark Neither distrust nr trust Distrust Table F15 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Over 60% f all hmewners did nt trust advertisements. In Finland this figure was 77%. In bth Denmark and Finland, mre than a quarter f hmewners reprted trust in infrmatin abut energy efficiency frm radi and televisin prgrammes. Overall, 41% f hmewners reprted trust in lcal and/r natinal authrities as a surce f infrmatin abut energy efficiency in the hme. In Germany, 33% f hmewners trusted this surce, while 65% trusted this surce in Finland. Denmark and England respnded significantly differently frm Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. In bth Denmark and England, arund 50% f hmewners trusted this surce f infrmatin. A cncerted effrt is being made by lcal authrities in the UK t prvide husehlds with infrmatin n energy efficiency. ICF (2010) lists the legislative and regulatry instruments in the UK that may have triggered lcal authrities int actin. This includes the Climate Change Act and the Natinal Indicatrs 186 and 187. The ICF study states that lcal authrities prvide a range f services, including general energy infrmatin, ffering grants and directing husehlds t expert advisrs. Hmewners in Finland respnded significantly differently frm hmewners in the ther fur cunties, indicating a great deal f trust in this surce f infrmatin. Almst half f hmewners in Denmark (46%) trusted infrmatin frm energy suppliers (Figure 47). Hmewners in Germany reprted less trust in energy suppliers than thse in Denmark, but mre than thse in the ther three cuntries.

76 76 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 47 Level f trust in energy suppliers as a surce f energy efficiency infrmatin Finland Trust England Netherlands Neither distrust nr trust Germany Denmark Distrust Table F9 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Surces f infrmatin sught by hmewners n energy efficiency Hmewners in each f the five cuntries reprted differences in the tp three surces f infrmatin that they wuld use t gain further energy efficiency infrmatin. A general web search scred highly in all cuntries, with ver 50% f hmewners cnsidering this surce fr further infrmatin. In Finland this figure was 73% (see Table 22). Table 22 Surce fr further infrmatin n energy efficiency imprvements All five cuntries Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Yur energy supplier 43% 48% 42% 32% 50% 30% Friends r family members 45% 35% 57% 30% 50% 30% Suppliers f energy-saving prducts 45% 40% 50% 41% 44% 39% DIY shps 18% 17% 16% 13% 22% 36% Gvernment-funded bdy prviding 55% 56% N/A N/A 56% 40% infrmatin and advice n energy 1 Lcal trades peple 2 40% 33% 52% N/A 25% N/A Gvernment Websites 38% 34% 32% 33% 55% 41% Lcal Authrity 3 29% N/A 25% 19% 48% 25% Library 9% 7% 6% 5% 16% 14% General web search 54% 52% 52% 52% 56% 73% NGOs r similar 4 25% 30% N/A 19% N/A 22% Other 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 4% 1 This questin was nt an ptin in Germany and the Netherlands, 2 This questin was nt an ptin in Netherlands and Finland, 3 This questin was nt an ptin in Denmark, 4 This questin was nt an ptin in Germany and England Denmark s tp tw surces f infrmatin mirrred the respnse frm all hmewners, as 56% f hmewners wuld seek further infrmatin frm the Centre fr energibesparelser (Centre fr Energy savings), and 52% wuld carry ut a general web search. The third ptin in Denmark was the hmewners energy supplier. Hmewners in England gave a similar respnse.

77 77 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 The majrity (57%) f hmewners in Germany wuld seek further infrmatin frm family and friends. Lcal tradespeple als scred highly in this regard; 52% f hmewners wuld access this grup fr mre infrmatin. A third f hmewners in Denmark and a quarter f hmewners in the Netherlands chse this ptin. Hmewners in the Netherlands pted fr further infrmatin thrugh the internet, as tw f their tp three surces f infrmatin were a general web search and Gvernment websites. Just ver 40% f hmewners in the Netherlands wuld seek further infrmatin frm suppliers f energy-saving prducts r services. In England, the internet was ppular as a tl fr further infrmatin, as was the case in the Netherlands. Hwever, it was ntable that mre hmewners in England than in the Netherlands pted fr bth the general web search and gvernment websites. In England 56% f hmewners were als likely t access further infrmatin n energy efficiency imprvements frm the Energy Savings Trust. This rganisatin prvides cnsumers with help and advice via a website and a free phne number 54. In Finland, a general web search wuld be the ptin fr accessing further infrmatin fr 73% f hmewners. Gvernment websites wuld be sught by 41% f the sample and Mtiva 55 (the Gvernmentfunded bdy prviding infrmatin and advice n energy) wuld be cnsidered a surce fr further infrmatin by 40% f this grup. 9.3 Discussin Overall, the EPC was trusted by ver 40% f hmewners, althugh a fifth f hmewners distrusted it. There were ntable differences in the levels f trust in the EPC, depending n the cuntry f the hmewner. Fr example, in the Netherlands nly 30% f hmewners trusted this dcument. The Dutch EPC has changed a number f times since it was intrduced, and it is pssible that the cnsumer des nt trust a dcument when it is frequently amended. The general picture was that the EPC was nt widely trusted by hmewners as a surce f infrmatin. This was true even in Denmark, where sme frm f energy label fr dwellings has been available since the 1980s, and yet less than half f all hmewners trusted the EPC as a surce f infrmatin. Imprving hmewners attitude t the EPC may imprve its usefulness as a surce f infrmatin. There were ntable differences between cuntries in the level f trust fr a range f infrmatin surces. In England just ver a quarter f hmewners trusted installers, cmpared with almst 60% in the Netherlands. Almst half f hmewners in Denmark trusted their energy suppliers, cmpared with arund a quarter f hmewners in England. There clearly is nt a ne size fits all apprach t the prvisin f infrmatin. Therefre, cuntry-specific differences shuld be cnsidered when deciding the best way f prviding infrmatin t hmewners. The internet, in the frm f a general web search, was an imprtant surce f further infrmatin fr hmewners in all cuntries. Hwever, almst half f hmewners neither trust nr distrust the internet, with less than 30% cnfident enugh t state that they trust it. There are many gd-quality surces f infrmatin that are hsted n the internet, such as the Gvernment-funded websites: Centre fr energibesparelser, the Energy Savings Trust and Mtiva. Althugh it was clear that hmewners take different appraches t the internet, it may be that imprving the quality f infrmatin n the internet wuld encurage mre hmewners t seek further infrmatin frm particular fficial internet surces

78 78 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Practical issues related t hme imprvements The literature 56 suggests that nn-technical and nn-ecnmic factrs shuld be cnsidered in any attempt t map hmewners behaviur twards energy efficiency hme imprvements. This sectin explres the extent t which practical issues are part f hmewners decisin-making abut hme imprvements General findings Eight practical issues were rated by hmewners, t assess the extent t which they played a part in their decisin-making abut hme imprvements. Over 40% f hmewners were nt discuraged by any f the practical difficulties that were presented in the survey (see Figure 48). Figure 48 Practical issues invlved in imprving the hme The changes t yur daily rutine while hme imprvements take place The ability f friends and family t help with hme imprvements The time and effrt needed t get the wrk dne The physical mess assciated with hme imprvements Yur ability t make hme imprvements yurself The time needed t find ut abut energy efficiency measures The time and effrt needed t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans Difficulties finding reliable tradespeple Tables F38 F45 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nt put ff Cmpletely put ff The mst cmmn difficulties were finding reliable tradespeple, the time and effrt t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans, and the hmewners ability t make hme imprvement themselves. While 30% f hmewners cnsidered finding a reliable tradespersn smething that wuld put them ff making hme imprvements, 44% said that this wuld nt put them ff. Difficulties with grants and lans 56 Jensen 2004, 2007, Gram-Hansen et al. 2007, Uitdenbgerd 2007 cited in Brhmann et al (2009)

79 79 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 discuraged 28% frm ding wrk, but this was nt an issue fr 48%. Similarly, the ability t d it yurself prevented 22% but was nt seen as an issue fr 57%. Hmewners were als asked t rate hw easy it was t access the mst apprpriate peple t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements. Over 50% f all hmewners cnsidered this easy r very easy Cuntry-specific There were cuntry-specific differences in the respnses t the practical issues surrunding hme imprvements. The greatest differences between cuntries related t tw factrs: The time and effrt needed t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans and Difficulties finding reliable tradespeple. Over 50% f hmewners in Germany and Denmark wuld nt be discuraged by the time and effrt needed t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans; and yet this wuld discurage ver 40% f hmewners in the Netherlands and Finland (Figure 49). Figure 49 Impact n decisin t d wrk: The time and effrt needed t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Table F40 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nt put ff Cmpletely put ff This issue related t tradespeple wuld discurage mre hmewners in England than in the ther cuntries. The difficulty in finding reliable tradespeple wuld discurage 42% f hmewners in England, cmpared with 23% in the Netherlands. There was a significant difference between Germany and Netherlands, as fewer hmewners in Netherlands wuld be discuraged by this cmpared with hmewners in Germany (Figure 50).

80 80 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 50 Impact n decisin t d wrk: Difficulties finding reliable tradespeple Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Table F42 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nt put ff Cmpletely put ff Figure 51 shws that there were ntable differences in pinin n hw easy it was t access t the mst apprpriate peple t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvements acrss the cuntries. Only 20% f hmewners in Finland were able t access installers easily, while 58% f hmewners in the Netherland did nt regard this as a prblem. Figure 51 The level f access t installers f energy efficiency hme imprvements Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Very difficult Difficult Neither difficult nr easy Easy Table F6 in Appendix F Very easy 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

81 81 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Discussin One f the key aims f this study was t examine likely barriers t hmewners implementing energy efficiency imprvements. An investigatin f the practical issues invlved in decisin-making shwed that nearly all the prpsed ptential practical issues were nt critical barriers fr mre than half f all hmewners. Clearly, the type f hme imprvements planned may cause varius levels f disturbance r warrant varius levels f time and cmmitment frm hmewners. Hwever, the general picture shws that the majrity f hmewners were nt discuraged by these issues. This was demnstrated by the fact that ver 60% were nt wrried by the ptential disruptin t their daily rutine that culd be caused by hme imprvements. While verall these issues were incnsequential fr many hmewners, in Finland and the Netherlands ver 40% wuld be discuraged frm carrying ut wrks because f the time and effrt needed t cmplete applicatin frms fr grants and lans. As subsidies are hailed as imprtant drivers t encuraging energy efficiency this finding may be prblematic. Hmewners in these cuntries may need cnvincing that applying fr grants and subsidies is nt resurce-intensive. Equally, the message frm hmewners in England was that it is difficult finding a reliable tradespersn. This issue wuld discurage mre that 40% in this cuntry. As energy efficiency measures are ptinal fr mst hmewners, it is wrth examining any issues that may discurage them, and cnsidering ways and means f changing attitudes. In this aspect, England differs frm all the ther cuntries invlved in the study. Investigating the systems in place fr finding tradespeple in the ther cuntries may prvide a useful mdel, which culd be adpted in England and ther cuntries where this may be a prblem.

82 82 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Ptential supprt mechanisms fr hmewners Infrmatin n energy efficiency is available frm a variety f surces, frm advertisements t specialist Gvernment websites. Hwever, sme authrs have suggested that the type, medium and quality f infrmatin may act as a barrier t energy efficiency behaviur 57. This sectin reprts the findings f hmewners suggestins fr the type f infrmatin that they wuld like t have. This sectin als explres hmewners levels f interest in a number f mnetary and fiscal incentives General findings Type f infrmatin Hmewners identified which measure wuld help them t decide n the actin necessary t imprve the energy efficiency f their hme. Figure 52 shws that talking t an energy prfessinal was preferred by 53% f all hmewners. The next measure deemed ppular by hmewners was better infrmatin frm my energy supplier ; ver 40% f hmewners thught that this wuld be beneficial. The media and the internet were the least ppular chices, with less than 30% pting fr further infrmatin frm these surces. Figure 52 Ptential plicy measures Talking t an energy prfessinal Better infrmatin frm my energy supplier Better infrmatin frm suppliers f energy saving prducts Better infrmatin in the natinal and lcal press Better infrmatin n the Internet Better infrmatin n the radi and televisin Table F18 in Appendix F Percentage 57 Best-Waldhber et al (2009)

83 83 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Mnetary and fiscal scenaris and incentives Sunikka (2005) and Gelissen (2008) state that lng payback times are currently ne f the main barriers t energy-efficient imprvements in the dmestic sectr. Other authrs have recmmended a number f ecnmic incentives, frm tax exemptins fr energy-efficient husing t the increased use f green mrtgages 58. Hmewners were asked t rate the imprtance f six relevant financial issues. Figure 53 shws that the majrity f hmewners rated mnetary issues t be imprtant. The verall cst f making imprvements was imprtant fr 85% f hmewners; 51% cnsidered it very imprtant. Figure 53 The imprtance f mnetary factrs and incentives The verall cst f making imprvements Whether the reductin in the energy bill is wrth my time and mney Whether I have saved enugh mney t make imprvements The time it will take t get back the mney invested thrugh savings n energy bills Whether I can get a grant fr the type f wrk that will imprve my prperty The amunt f grant mney available t me Tables F27 F32 in Appendix F In all five cuntries, there are existing incentives and subsidies available fr energy efficiency imprvements. The survey asked hmewners t rate their interest in five mnetary and fiscal scenaris. They were nt specific t individual cuntries but were based n existing schemes 59 and plicy ideas discussed in the literature 60. Mre than half f all hmewners were very interested in a grant t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements and repairs, paying a lwer level f tax because they had made energy efficiency imprvements, and a reductin in the price f energy efficiency prducts. A fifth were nt at all interested in a lw interest lan fr energy efficiency hme imprvements and repairs, and 10% were nt at all interested in paying a lwer level f tax based n their EPC scre (Figure 54). 58 Brhmann et al Tuminen and Klbut (2009) 60 Brhmann et al % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant

84 84 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 54 Level f interest in mnetary and fiscal incentives Reductin in price f energy efficiency prducts Paying a lwer level f tax because yu have made energy efficiency hme imprvement A grant t carry ut energy efficiency hme imprvement and repairs Very interested Interested Neither interested nr uninterested Nt interested Nt at all interested Paying a lwer level f tax based n yur Energy Perfrmance Certificate scre A lw interest lan fr energy efficiency hme imprvements and repairs Tables F33 F37 in Appendix F 11.2 Cuntry-specific factrs Hmewners in each cuntry reprted varying levels f supprt fr each ptential type f energy efficiency infrmatin. There were als ntable differences in the type f mnetary and fiscal incentives favured by hmewners in each cuntry Type f infrmatin 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Table 23 presents the percentage f hmewners in each cuntry that favured each ptential surce f infrmatin. Hmewners in the Netherlands displayed the lwest level f supprt fr five f the six measures presented. The greatest difference between cuntries was between Denmark and the Netherlands fr the measure talking t an energy prfessinal.

85 85 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Table 23 What wuld help yu t decide hw t imprve the energy efficiency f yur hme % f hmewners wh wuld supprt the fllwing: Denmark Germany Netherlands England Finland Talking t an energy prfessinal 66% 55% 39% 45% 51% Better infrmatin frm my energy supplier 46% 45% 28% 47% 39% Better infrmatin frm suppliers f energysaving prducts Better infrmatin in the natinal and lcal press 34% 38% 31% 46% 37% 20% 33% 19% 28% 39% Better infrmatin n the internet 19% 28% 21% 30% 30% Better infrmatin n the radi and televisin 22% 19% 16% 26% 31% Table F18 in Appendix F Talking t an energy prfessinal scred highly in Denmark, as 66% f hmewners thught that they wuld benefit frm this. Hmewners in the ther fur cuntries were als psitive abut this surce f infrmatin, althugh less than 40% f hmewners in the Netherlands thught that this wuld help them t make decisins abut energy efficiency imprvements in their hme Mnetary and fiscal scenaris and incentives cuntry There were sme differences between hmewners, depending n their cuntry, when they were asked abut the imprtance f mnetary issues. Hwever, n the whle, there were small differences related t the imprtance f the cst f the imprvements and the issues f payback times. There were differences by cuntry in the respnse t the imprtance f bth the amunt f grant mney and the type f grant. Figure 55 shws that hmewners in Denmark did nt rate this issue as highly as hmewners in ther cuntries; 43% cnsidered this imprtant cmpared with 75% in Germany. Figure 55 The imprtance f the amunt f grant mney by cuntry Finland Very imprtant England Imprtant Netherlands Germany Denmark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Table F32 in Appendix F This issue was very imprtant t between 30% and 37% f hmewners in the Netherlands, England and Finland. Denmark was distinct frm all ther cuntries, as the amunt f grant mney was less imprtant

86 86 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 fr hmewners; in fact, 30% reprted that it was nt imprtant. Hmewners in Germany were different frm respndents elsewhere, as less than 10% f hmewners felt that it was unimprtant. The respnse t the imprtance f the type f grant fr the prperty als differed by cuntry. In a similar way t the previus issue abut the amunt f grant mney available, hmewners in Denmark did nt rate this issue as highly as hmewners did in ther cuntries. Less than half (46%) f hmewners in Denmark cnsidered this imprtant, cmpared with 76% f hmewners in Germany. Sme frm f a grant is available in all cuntries, althugh the type and size f grant vary in each cuntry. Incentives and subsidies have been available in Denmark since the 1970s. These are ften small, targeted subsidies; the current subsidy is fr heat pumps t replace individual il burners. In Finland, lcal authrities distribute grants fr energy audits, hme repairs r imprvements, and the implementatin f renewable energy surces grants. Germany s n-site cnsulting prgramme nted a significant drp in cnsultatins when they reduced their fund frm 50% t 25% f the csts f the cnsultatin 61. This cncurs with the survey data, which suggests that in Germany hmewners fcus n bth the amunt f the grant and the type f grant available. There are wide varieties f energy efficiency imprvements that may be applicable t any dwelling; each has its assciated cst. Mre than three-quarters f hmewners in each cuntry rated the verall cst as imprtant. Hwever, there were sme differences between cuntries in the level f imprtance that this issue was given. Fr example, in Germany and England the verall cst was rated very imprtant by arund 60% f hmewners, but in Denmark nly 36% cnsidered the verall cst t be very imprtant. There were small differences in hmewners respnses t the imprtance f payback. Bth the issue f time and mney assciated with the reductin in energy bills, and the traditinal cncept f payback were imprtant t hmewners in all cuntries. Figure 56 shws that there were clear differences in the imprtance f having saved sufficient funds t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements. Finnish hmewners d nt seem cncerned by this issue, with 55% rating it imprtant cmpared t 82% f German hmewners. In England, it was cnsidered very imprtant t almst half f hmewners (48%). 61 Tuminen and Klbut (2009)

87 87 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 56 Hw imprtant: Whether I have saved enugh mney t make imprvements Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very imprtant Imprtant Neither unimprtant nr imprtant Nt imprtant Nt at all imprtant Table F27 in Appendix D A ntable difference between cuntries related t hmewners level f interest in a lw-interest lan (Figure 57). Given that this is ne f many incentives that have been prpsed t initiate behaviur change, it is interesting that there was a lack f cnsensus by hmewners in different cuntries. The majrity f hmewners in the Netherlands and England, 58% and 57% respectively, were nt interested in the idea f a lw-interest lan fr energy efficiency imprvements. Hmewners in Germany were very keen n this idea, with 75% f hmewners reprting interest in this measure. Frty t fifty percent f hmewners were interested in Denmark and Finland. In Denmark, the EPC prvides csts savings that take accunt f the cst f a lan. Hwever, the impact that this has n hmewners decisin-making in this cuntry has nt been explred. Figure 57 Interest in a lw-interest lan fr energy efficiency imprvements Finland Very interested England Interested Netherlands Germany Neither interested nr uninterested Nt interested Denmark Nt at all interested Table F33 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

88 88 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Other factrs Previus analysis had identified that there was a gender divide in relatin t mnetary factrs. Therefre, the respnses f men and wmen t the prpsed mnetary and fiscal incentives were cnsidered. Figure 58 shws that there were differences in the respnse between men and wmen t fur issues. Mre wmen rated each f these f these mnetary factrs mre imprtant when cmpared with men. Figure 58 Imprtance f mnetary issues by sex f the respndent Imprtance f the amunt f grant mney available t me Imprtance f getting a grant fr the type f wrk that will imprve my prperty Imprtance f verall cst f making imprvements Female Male Imprtance f saving enugh mney t make imprvements 0% 50% 100% Percentage 11.4 Discussin Hmewners were clear that they wuld find talking t an energy prfessinal useful when deciding n the actin t imprve the energy efficiency f their hme. Individuals that receive an EPC because they buy a prperty d nt have cntact with the energy prfessinal that prduces the dcument. Therefre, the pprtunity t discuss recmmendatins, fr example, is missed. Imprving the link between these parties may ensure that the EPC is a dcument that is mre visible t hmewners. The verall cst f imprvements is an imprtant factr fr the majrity f husehlds, and clearly has an impact n decisin-making. One f the cheapest energy efficiency measures, installing energy-efficient light bulbs, was carried ut by nearly half f all hmewners wh had cmpleted any imprvements; while installing renewables, a smewhat mre expensive measure, was cmpleted by a mere 5%. The methd that hmewners may chse t pay fr these measures shuld als be cnsidered. A large prprtin thught that their level f savings was imprtant when they were thinking f energy efficiency. Sme husehlds als cnsidered the impact f a grant. The ability t link the apprpriate incentive t specific energy efficiency measures may prve a useful tl in mtivating hmewners. Lw-interest lans as an incentive t energy efficiency may be a useful tl, but the level f interest frm hmewners varied by cuntry. Over half f hmewners were interested in a lw-interest lan fr energy efficiency, althugh a fifth were clear that they were nt at all interested. There were ntable variances between cuntries in their level f interest in lans fr energy efficiency measures. Hmewners in Germany were very keen n this idea, althugh this was nt the case in the Netherlands and England. In these cuntries less than a third f hmewners were interested in this frm f incentive.

89 89 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Envirnmental awareness This sectin examines hmewners levels f knwledge f key envirnmental terms. It als explres the number and type f envirnmental activities carried ut by husehlds, and finally assesses whether being energy cnscius was an imprtant factr fr hmewners. These issues will help t frm sme brad understanding f hw hmewners attitudes t envirnmental issues can be linked t their use f the EPC General findings Hmewners were knwledgeable abut the fllwing fur envirnmental terms: climate change, glbal warming, energy efficiency and the term envirnmentally friendly. Figure 59 shws that 5% r less f hmewners in the survey knew nthing abut these terms. Figure 59 Hmewners knwledge f fur envirnmental terms Envirnmentally friendly Energy efficiency Glbal Warming A lt A fair amunt Just a little Nthing Climate change 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Table F1 F4 in Appendix F Hmewners were asked abut their husehlds envirnmental activities in the last year. This fllwed Hering s (2007) premise that an individual s attitude t green issues will influence whether they adpt an energy-efficient measure r nt 62. The list f envirnmental activities included recycling, cmpsting, and buying gds made ut f recycled material. The majrity f hmewners reprted ding at least ne activity in the last year; the median was fur activities. Figure 60 shws that ver 90% f husehlds had recycled husehld waste in the last year; this was by far the mst frequently carried-ut envirnmental activity. The next mst cmmn activity carried ut by mre than 60% f hmewners was t reduce the amunt f electricity r gas used in the husehld. 62 Brhmann et al 2009

90 90 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 60 Regular envirnmental activities carried ut in the last year by husehlds Recycled paper, glass, plastics r cans etc Cut dwn the amunt f electricity r gas used in yur husehld Dne things t reduce use f water in yur husehld Made cmpst frm kitchen and garden waste Deliberately used public transprt, walked r cycled t avid using a car Bught gds because they use less energy Dne things t encurage wildlife in yur garden Cut dwn n use f a car fr shrt jurneys Bught gds because they are made frm recycled materials N envirnmental activity Table G1 G10 in Appendix G Percentage The survey examined hmewners attitudes t energy use, and the attitude f the hmewners scial netwrk t energy use. Figure 61 shws that less than 20% f hmewners agreed with the statement Family and friends try t persuade me t think mre abut my energy use ; hwever, almst 40% f hmewners in the survey agreed with the statement I try t persuade peple that I knw t think mre abut their energy use.

91 91 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Figure 61 Prmtin f energy cnsciusness Strngly disagree Family and friends try t persuade me t think mre abut my energy use. Disagree I try t persuade peple that I knw t think mre abut their energy use Neither agree nr disagree Agree 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strngly agree Tables F25 & F26 in Appendix F 12.2 Cuntry-specific factrs There were cuntry-specific differences in hmewners knwledge and awareness f sme f the envirnmental terms. Mre hmewners in Germany (42%) than in any ther cuntry reprt that they have just a little knwledge f the term energy efficiency. In the Netherlands and Finland, nly 19% f hmewners reprt having just a little knwledge f this (see Figure 62). Figure 62 Knwledge f the term energy efficiency by cuntry Finland England Netherlands A lt A fair amunt Just a little Nthing Germany Denmark Table F3 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hmewners were asked abut their husehlds envirnmental activities during the previus year. There were sme differences between cuntries, with ver 70% f hmewners in England reprting that they had recycled in the last year, whereas less than 60% f hmewners had dne this in Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark. In Finland, mre hmewners than in ther cuntries agreed with the statement Family and friends try t persuade me t think mre abut my energy use. Figure 63 clearly presents the differences in respnse

92 92 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 between Finland and the ther cuntries. In all the ther cuntries, less than a fifth f hmewners agreed with the statement. Figure 63 Hmewners attitude t energy use in all cuntries Family and friends try t persuade me t think mre abut my energy use. Finland Strngly disagree England Disagree Netherlands Germany Neither agree nr disagree Agree Denmark Table F26 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 64 shws that less than 20% f hmewners in Denmark and Germany agree with the statement I try t persuade peple that I knw t think mre abut their energy use. This is cnsiderably lwer than in Finland, England and the Netherlands. Figure 64 I try t persuade peple that I knw t think mre abut their energy use Strngly agree Finland England Netherlands Germany Denmark Strngly disagree Disagree Neither agree nr disagree Agree Strngly agree Table F25 in Appendix F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

93 93 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Other factrs When the sample was divided int husehlds that had carried ut energy efficiency imprvements and thse that had nt, there were n significant differences between hmewners respnses t the tw questins abut their energy cnsciusness ( I try t persuade peple that I knw t think mre abut their energy use and Family and friends try t persuade me t think mre abut my energy use ). Hwever, mre hmewners with a full EPC agreed with the statements than thse with an EPC withut recmmendatins, and thse withut an EPC at all. Mre than a third (34%) f hmewners with an EPC but withut knwledge f the recmmendatins disagreed with the statements Discussin Generally, hmewners were aware f key envirnmental terms such as climate change and energy efficiency, althugh ver 40% f hmewners in Germany had very little knwledge f the term energy efficiency. The survey did nt investigate the extent t which knwledge f these terms infrms decisin-making, but it was useful t cllect infrmatin n the level f knwledge that hmewners have abut a term like energy efficiency, which is widely used in the mass media. The majrity f husehlds were carrying ut sme frm f envirnmental activity, ranging frm recycling t reducing car jurneys. These factrs may suggest that a husehld is energy-cnscius; hwever the extent t which these envirnmental activities might indicate whether energy efficiency imprvements might be cmpleted are yet t be tested. The energy-cnsciusness f an individual may infrm the decisin t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements. Hwever, the majrity f hmewners did nt reprt a great deal f persnal energy-cnsciusness. Arund 40% f hmewners agreed that they tried t persuade peple t think abut their energy usage, but whether this cntributes t an increase in actin is uncertain.

94 94 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Factrs influencing energy efficiency behaviur in dwellings S far, the study has examined a number f factrs related t the individual hmewner, their husehld and type f dwelling. It has explred the imprtance f varius factrs, including the type f infrmatin available t the hmewner i.e. in the frm f the EPC, hmewners attitudes t energy efficiency, and their level f knwledge and activity arund envirnmental issues. Sme f these issues have been shwn t play a rle in determining hmewners energy efficiency behaviur. This sectin brings sme f these imprtant factrs tgether; t examine which f them drive hmewners energy efficiency behaviur, and t examine whether, and t what extent, the EPC is influential in this behaviur. Hmewners in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and England were included in this final evaluatin f the effectiveness f the EPC. Data frm Finland was nt included in this analysis because the sample was t small. A binary lgistic regressin mdel was used t investigate this issue; details f this statistical test and detailed results are available in Appendix H. The purpse f the test was t determine which factrs have an effect n whether a hmewner: a. cmpleted ne r mre energy efficiency measures at the time f the survey b. had nt cmpleted any energy efficiency measures at the time f the survey In rder t ensure that the test was sufficiently rbust, nly factrs that culd be gathered frm ver 60% f the sample were used. The factrs that were included in the test fall int a number f categries: demgraphics, husehld type, dwelling cnditin, envirnmental awareness, and hmewners attitude. The fllwing factrs were included in the test: EPC status Cuntry f hmewner Husehld type (husehld size, number f children) Envirnmental activity Time since dwelling purchased Age f the respndent Sex f the respndent Age f the dwelling Hmewners attitude t utility cst during the hme-buying stage Hmewners rating f the cnditin f their current dwelling Whether hmewners faced energy-related prblems since they purchased their dwelling Whether husehlds had cmpleted any hme imprvements The reasn fr the inclusin f each factr is discussed belw. EPC status: There were three distinct categries f hmewners in relatin t their awareness f an EPC fr their current dwelling. Sme hmewners were fully infrmed, while thers had sme awareness f the energy efficiency rating f the label, while thers reprted that they did nt have a label fr their dwelling. There were differences in the prprtin f hmewners in each f these grups that had cmpleted energy efficiency imprvements, suggesting that the EPC has an influence n behaviur. This test will explre further the impact f the EPC when it is included within a multitude f factrs.

95 95 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Cuntry Previus findings reveal differences in the energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners by cuntry. Fr example, 76% f hmewners in the Netherlands had cmpleted energy efficiency measures cmpared t 48% f hmewners in Germany. Husehld Husehld size and the number f children in the husehld affect the energy usage f a husehld, and therefre these variables were entered int the mdel. Envirnmental awareness Previus studies suggest that an individual s attitude t green issues will have an impact n whether they adpt energy efficiency measures 63. Therefre, the number f regular envirnmental activities carried ut by the husehld was included. Time Fr the majrity f hmewners in this sample, the EPC was prvided at the time a huse was purchased. In this sample the majrity f hmewners had purchased their dwelling between six mnths and tw years befre the survey was cnducted. Therefre, the inclusin f this factr may determine the rle that the time since purchase plays in energy efficiency behaviur. Age and sex f respndents While the majrity f hmewners cmpleting the survey ccupied their dwelling with at least ne ther persn, the respndent in this sample represents the husehld. There were differences in the mean age f respndents by cuntry. There were als differences in the way that wmen and men respnded t sme issues, and therefre bth these factrs were entered int the mdel. Age f dwellings There was a range f dwelling ages in the sample; lder dwellings are generally in need f mre energy efficiency measures than newer nes. Previus findings in this study identified a number f differences related t the cnditin and age f dwellings. Hmewners attitude t utility cst during the hme-buying stage Hmewners rated the imprtance f utility csts at the hme-buying stage differently, depending n their cuntry. Cnditin f current dwelling This includes hmewners rating f the cnditin f their current dwelling and whether they faced energy-related prblems after they purchased their dwelling. The cnditin rating was different depending n whether energy efficiency imprvements had been made. Whether husehlds had cmpleted any hme imprvements There were a number f husehlds that had nt cmpleted any imprvements. It wuld be interesting t find ut if there were differences between this grup and the rest. While these factrs met the criteria fr the test, there were a number that culd nt be included because f insufficient data. These factrs were husehld incme, energy efficiency rating, hmewners prmtin f energy usage and their level f trust in the EPC. The test was carried ut n tw grups in the sample. Grup ne included all hmewners living in a huse, and grup tw included all hmewners living a huse that was purchased between 6 mnths and 24 mnths f the survey. Only 11% f the sample did nt live in a huse, and therefre it was pssible t exclude this grup withut reducing the sample significantly. Hmewners living in a huse are likely t have an pprtunity t carry ut mre energy efficiency measures, and will have sle respnsibility fr the measures that are implemented. Because f the sampling methdlgy, a large number f hmewners in the sample purchased their current dwelling between 6 mnths and tw years befre the survey. A number 63 Hering (2007)

96 96 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 f cmmentatrs 64 have als discussed the imprtance f life events in energy efficiency behaviur, such as the change f dwelling, and this grup culd be regarded as having a windw f pprtunity 65 t implement sme energy efficiency measures. Therefre it wuld be useful t examine which factrs mtivated this particular grup The findings Grup 1: all hmewners The sample included 2,836 hmewners wh lived in a huse. Since the regressin included cases where there was a respnse t all variables, nly 64% (1,804) f them were included in this binary lgistic regressin. The test wrks by chsing the relevant variables during a series f steps. The frward-wise prcess adds a relevant variable during each step until the mdel is cmplete. The test resulted in the fllwing factrs being accepted int the mdel t determine energy efficiency behaviur: EPC status Envirnmental activity Time since purchase f prperty Age f dwelling Cnditin f dwelling at purchase Only specific elements f each variable were significant in the analysis. Figure 65 highlights the factrs f influence. All the factrs are n the right f the dtted line (i.e. 1 and abve); this indicates that they increased the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted. The age and cnditin f the dwelling affected the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted. The prer the cnditin f the hmewners current dwelling, the mre likely they were t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures; thse husehlds with dwellings in a very pr cnditin were abut 18 times mre likely t carry ut imprvements than smene living in a dwelling rated in a very gd cnditin. This cmpares with hmewners rating their prperties in a pr cnditin wh were five times mre likely t make an imprvement. Hmewners wh rated their dwelling t be in a gd cnditin were still mre likely t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements than smene living in a dwelling rated in a very gd cnditin. The energy efficiency behaviurs cnsidered include a wide range f measures, frm draught prfing t installing renewable energy; and therefre it is likely that a hmewner with a reasnably gd prperty may seek t invest in ne r mre f these measures. Hmewners in lder dwellings were als mre likely t have carried ut an energy efficiency measure. This was ntably the case fr a dwelling built between 1919 and 1970, where there was arund fur times the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted cmpared t hmewners living in a dwelling built after Hmewners with an EPC with recmmendatins were up t twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures when cmpared t hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. There was als an increase in the likelihd that an energy efficiency measure wuld be cmpleted if a hmewner was aware f an energy-related prblem with their dwelling; the study identified these issues 64 Brhmann et al Thrne-Hlst et al (2006)

97 97 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 as high energy bills, difficulties keeping the dwelling at a cmfrtable temperature and prblems with the heating system. Figure 65 Factrs influencing the energy efficiency behaviur f all hmewners The number f regular envirnmental activities carried ut by the husehld, and the length f time since the purchase f the dwelling, had a minimal impact n whether an energy efficiency measure was cmpleted. Caveats The mdel cannt and des nt explain all the reasns fr energy efficiency behaviur; hwever, it des prvide infrmatin n sme f the drivers and barriers t energy efficiency behaviur. Grup 2: all hmewners wh had purchased dwellings between six and twenty fur mnths befre the survey There were 1,908 hmewners wh lived in a huse and purchased their dwelling between six and twentyfur mnths befre the survey; 1,243 f them (65%) were included in this binary lgistic regressin. There were sme small differences between grup 1 and grup 2; fr example the factr existing energy-related prblems was nt included in the mdel fr the latter grup. Figure 66 shws that the cnditin f the hmewners current dwelling was again an imprtant factr; the age f the dwelling was als imprtant. Fr this grup thse husehlds rating their dwelling in a very pr cnditin were 24 times mre likely t make an energy efficiency imprvement than hmewners wh rated their dwelling t be in a gd

98 98 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 cnditin. Husehlds with an EPC and awareness f the recmmendatins were mre than twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures as hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. Figure 66 Factrs influencing the energy efficiency behaviur f hmewners purchasing a huse between six and twenty fur mnths befre the survey

99 99 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable Cnclusins Hmewners in the sample were recruited frm five different member states, with five different EPC implementatin strategies. This reprt cnsiders the shared experiences f recent hmebuyers, either with r withut an EPC. The experience f hmewners in these five member states therefre prvides a useful indicatin f the impact f EPCs n hmewners. This sample suggests that hmewners have implemented a number f energy efficiency imprvements. The mst cmmn imprvements were the installatin f a new biler r heating systems, imprved glazing and lft insulatin. A number f hmewners als planned t install bth lft and wall insulatin. Mre than a third f hmewners wh were actively imprving their dwellings were aware f the EPC fr their dwelling, including the recmmendatins, cmpared with less than a fifth f all ther hmewners What drives hmewners t implement energy efficiency measures? There were three main factrs that appear t be the mst influential in driving hmewners t cmplete at least ne energy efficiency imprvement. These were their perceptin f the cnditin f their dwelling, its age and the EPC. Other factrs were als reprted t drive hmewners decisin-making, but t a lesser extent. Physical cnditin Dwellings perceived by their wners t be in a pr cnditin were mst likely t be imprved. The prer the cnditin f the hmewner s current dwelling, the mre likely they were t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures. Husehlds living in a dwelling which was rated t be in a very pr cnditin were abut 18 times mre likely t carry ut imprvements than smene living in a dwelling rated t be in a very gd cnditin. Similarly, husehlds that rated their prperties t be in a pr cnditin were five times mre likely t make an imprvement. Therefre, the perceived cnditin f the prperty may be regarded as the mst influential mtivatr driving hmewners t make energy efficiency imprvements. The age f the dwelling While the physical age f the dwelling cannt mtivate an individual t act, it is wrth realising that dwellings built at different times were built with differing levels f insulatin and using different methds f cnstructin. Knwledge f these differences is likely t mtivate hmewners t cmplete energy efficiency measures. Hmewners living in dwellings built between 1919 and 1970 were fund t be arund fur times mre likely t have cmpleted an energy efficiency measure than hmewners living in dwelling built after The likelihd decreases fr hmewners living in dwellings built befre This may be because sme f the lder buildings may be harder t imprve, as energy efficiency measures may be mre cstly r the measures may be harder t implement. The Energy Perfrmance Certificate Awareness f this dcument played a rle in determining whether hmewners carried ut energy efficiency measures. The EPC n its wn is nt the strngest driver influencing whether hmewners will purchase a dwelling r carry ut imprvements, but hmewners with an EPC with recmmendatins were up t twice as likely t have carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures as hmewners withut, r unaware f, the EPC fr their hme. It was particularly ntable that 60% f hmewners wh were aware f the recmmendatins given with their EPC had carried ut ne r mre energy efficiency measures, cmpared with just ver 40% f husehlds with an EPC wh culd nt

100 100 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 recllect, r were unaware f, the recmmendatins. Therefre, increasing the availability f this tl and creating wider use and understanding f it may enhance the likelihd that mre energy efficiency measures will take place. The need fr remedial imprvements The results suggest that sme hmewners were faced with immediate energy-related prblems when they purchased their dwelling. Prvided that the imprvements were affrdable, r the cst f these imprvements had been cnsidered in the purchasing prcess, this need may have mtivated sme t imprve their dwelling. Cmfrt The majrity f hmewners appear t be mtivated t imprve their dwelling in rder t imprve the cmfrt in their hme. This was a mtivating desire fr bth general imprvements and energy efficiency nes. Imprving the appearance f the hme, energy efficiency and reducing energy bills were als imprtant factrs fr arund 40% f hmewners What barriers d hmewners face when implementing energy efficiency measures? Awareness f the EPC There were differences in the prprtins f husehlds in each cuntry that were aware f the EPC. This in part may be due t the way that each cuntry may have chsen t infrm hmewners abut EPCs. In the Netherlands, 99% f hmewners had heard f the EPC cmpared t 80% in England. In the Netherlands 91% f hmewners had seen the label, but this was as lw as 43% in Germany. The German sample was made up slely f recent hmebuyers. The lack f awareness f the EPC in this grup suggests that its implementatin is nt yet a prescriptive part f the hme-buying prcess in Germany. Visibility f the EPC at the hme-buying stage The EPC was nt used t infrm decisin-making at the hme-buying stage, because the majrity f hmewners did nt see it until after a decisin t purchase a prperty had been made. Less than half the hmewners wh had an EPC because they had purchased a prperty were shwn the EPC befre they made an ffer n the prperty. Reluctance t use the EPC t infrm a hme purchase decisin The infrmatin prvided in the EPC was nt a majr factr in hmewners decisin-making. Very few hmewners were infrmed abut the energy efficiency f their ptential dwelling when they were in a psitin t act n it, while even thse wh were infrmed did nt utilise the infrmatin. Only a third f hmewners wh saw the EPC befre making an ffer reprted that it played an imprtant rle in their decisin t make an ffer n their current dwelling. Hme-buying pririties Energy efficiency was nt a majr cnsideratin fr hmebuyers. The ptential energy cst f running a prperty was ranked ninth ut f twelve hme-buying pririties, suggesting that it des nt feature highly in the minds f hme buyers. The availability f garden/utdr space, price, lcatin, the neighburhd, size, cnditin, the layut f rms and the availability f lcal amenities were cnsidered mre imprtant. The cmpetitin between general and energy efficiency imprvements With the majrity f hmewners carrying ut sme frm f hme imprvement within a few years f mving int their dwelling, energy efficiency measures must cmpete with ther hme imprvement measures. Arund half f all hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements had installed/imprved a kitchen r bathrm. The installatin f a new biler r heating supply, imprving the glazing, and the installatin f lft insulatin were each carried ut by arund a third f hmewners wh had cmpleted imprvements. Nine percent f these hmewners had installed sme frm f renewable technlgy.

101 101 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Level f trust in the EPC Hmewners may be mre likely t utilise the EPC if they trust the infrmatin prvided in the dcument. Arund 40% f hmewners trusted the EPC; hwever, this varied in each cuntry. Hmewners in Finland and Denmark trust the EPC the mst, with ver 50% f hmewners in these cuntries reprting that they trust the label. In the Netherlands, arund 30% trusted it; this was the lwest level f all cuntries. The rle f estate agents Estate agents play a pivtal rle in infrming hmewners abut the EPC. Over 40% f hmewners were made aware f the EPC thrugh an estate agent. This varied in each cuntry; in England ver 60% f hmewners were infrmed abut the EPC thrugh their estate agents, cmpared with 24% f hmewners in Germany. Prperty sales material was the surce fr 60% f respndents frm Denmark, 46% frm England, 26% frm Germany and 22% frm the Netherlands. Therefre, these actrs are ptentially key players in the hmewners reactin t the EPC. Previus research suggests that estate agents may nt encurage buyers t utilise this surce f infrmatin. This raises cncerns that the level f influence the EPC may vary, depending n hw it is intrduced t a hmewner. Visibility f the recmmendatins reprt Hmewners wh were aware f the details prvided in a full EPC were mre likely t carry ut imprvements. Therefre it is wrrying that a number f hmewners with sme recllectin that they received an energy label did nt link this infrmatin t the cmplete dcument. Whether this was because it was frgtten, r because it was assciated with ther dcuments, may vary between cuntries. Hwever, this grup clearly failed t utilise the infrmatin prvided in the full EPC. Chsing the right media t disseminate energy efficiency infrmatin The use f mass media t cnvey infrmatin abut energy efficiency may nt appeal t hmewners. Hmewners reprted a high level f distrust in advertisements as a surce f infrmatin n energy efficiency fr the hme. The rle f lcal tradespeple Lcal tradespeple may be carrying ut ther wrks in the hme, but if they are nt trusted by hmewners they are nt able t cnvey energy efficiency infrmatin that hmewners will rely n. Less than half f hmewners trusted their lcal tradespeple fr energy efficiency infrmatin. Anther issue was that the inability t find reliable tradespeple wuld discurage up t tw-fifths f hmewners in each cuntry frm carrying ut imprvements. This issue needs t be addressed in all cuntries Are EPCs useful tls fr hmewners in all five member states? Understanding the EPC The majrity f hmewners in Denmark, the Netherlands and England fund the EPC easy t understand; hwever, less than half f hmewners in Germany fund the dcument easy t understand. One f the differences between these cuntries is that Germany des nt use a banded A t G rating t depict the energy efficiency rating. Infrmatin n hme energy csts The way that the EPC prvides infrmatin n the energy csts f the hme is incnsistent. In Denmark and Germany, almst tw-fifths f hmewners with an EPC cnsidered it a useful dcument fr prviding infrmatin n the energy csts f the hme; and yet less than a fifth f hmewners in England and the Netherlands thught the same. Nearly 30% f hmewners in England rated the EPC nt at all useful in prviding this infrmatin. Infrmatin n surces f advice and further infrmatin n energy efficiency The EPC prvides sme infrmatin abut energy efficiency, but hmewners with an appetite fr mre infrmatin may nt be catered fr in this dcument. Again, there may be differences in the apprach in each cuntry, althugh generally hmewners did nt seem well served in this regard. Arund a fifth f hmewners in Denmark,

102 102 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 the Netherlands and Germany thught that the EPC prvided useful infrmatin n where t g fr advice and further infrmatin n energy efficiency measures; hwever, less than 10% f hmewners in England thught this and almst 40% thught that it was nt at all useful. Added value The EPC with recmmendatins can be a valuable resurce fr hmewners. Arund 40% f hmewners with the reprt in all fur cuntries fund it very useful r useful fr prviding infrmatin abut the hme imprvements needed t reduce energy bills. Details f the cst f hme imprvements The level f infrmatin prvided n the EPC in each cuntry varies. This explains sme f the variatin in hmewners rating f the usefulness f the EPC, in prviding infrmatin n the cst f making energy-efficient hme imprvements. Mre than a third f hmewners in Germany and Denmark fund the dcument useful fr prviding this service, while less than a fifth f hmewners in England thught the same. Mre than half f the hmewners in England cnsidered the dcument nt at all useful r nt useful in prviding this level f infrmatin Other factrs that may influence decisin-making Cst The verall cst f imprvements was an imprtant factr fr the majrity f husehlds. Many hmewners als cnsidered whether they had sufficient savings t invest in imprvements. Hmewners were keen t cnsider the payback f their investment in terms f their time as well as financially. Grants were the least imprtant mnetary cnsideratin. Lans Lw-interest lans as an incentive t imprve energy efficiency may be a useful tl, but the level f interest frm hmewners varied by cuntry. Mre than half f the hmewners were interested in a lw-interest lan fr energy efficiency, althugh a fifth f hmewners were clear that they were nt at all interested. There was ntable variatin between cuntries in their level f interest in lans fr energy efficiency measures. Hmewners in Germany were very keen n this idea, althugh this was nt the case in the Netherlands and England. In these cuntries, less than a third f hmewners were interested in this frm f incentive. Fiscal incentives It is nt clear what part existing incentives played in mtivating hmewners t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements. Hwever, hmewners were generally interested in fiscal incentives. Mre hmewners were interested in paying a lwer level f tax because they had cmpleted hme imprvements than in linking the level f tax t the energy perfrmance rating f their hme. Practical issues The majrity f hmewners were nt discuraged frm carrying ut hme imprvements because f practical issues like the ptential physical mess, r disturbance t rutines, that might be caused. Hwever, these practical issues were a cnsideratin fr abut a third f hmewners. Infrmatin as a supprt mechanism Hmewners may be mre likely t carry ut energy efficiency imprvements if they receive gd-quality infrmatin. Mre than half f hmewners wuld wish t talk t an energy-prfessinal t gain clear instructins abut hw t imprve the energy efficiency f their hme. Green bling and slar energy The visibility f sme frms f renewable technlgy t friends and neighburs is likely t be attractive t sme hmewners. While 5% f hmewners had installed renewable technlgies at the time f the survey, many mre were planning this type f wrk in the next three years. Slar was the mst ppular frm f renewable energy. Over 100 husehlds had installed slar water heating systems, and ver 200 husehlds planned t install sme frm f slar pwer in the next three years. The majrity f husehlds installing r planning this type f imprvement were frm the

103 103 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 German sample. Hmewners in Germany als reprted the greatest awareness f friends and neighburs installing renewable energy technlgy. The gender divide Fewer wmen in the sample reprted having an EPC fr their dwelling, cmpared with the men in the sample. Whether this was because wmen were less engaged in the hme-buying prcess was unclear. Cst seems t be an imprtant factr fr wmen. Wmen were mre likely than men t cnsider the ptential cst f utility bills at the hme-buying stage. These differences between the sexes shuld be cnsidered when cmmunicating messages abut energy efficiency Value f the survey The survey prvides a useful insight int the drivers and barriers t the implementatin f hme imprvements, especially in the first year r tw f wnership. Hmes in prer cnditin, and thse built befre energy efficiency was part f the build prcess, are mst likely t require imprvements; and these appear t be where many f the imprvements were being made. The presence f an EPC with recmmendatins als influenced whether energy efficiency imprvements were made. The methd f sampling frm the five natins varied, but the survey has prduced a large database which can be used fr cntinued investigatin n a natin by natin basis.

104 104 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable References Best - Waldhber, M. de, M., Tigchelaar, C., Uyterlinde, M., Brhmann, B and Cames, M. (2009) Identifying influential factrs fr cnsumers behavir related t residential energy perfrmance BRE (2010) The Gvernment s Standard Assessment Prcedure fr Energy Rating f Dwellings Brhmann, B., Cames, M. and Gres, S. (2009) Cnceptual Framewrk n Cnsumer Behaviur - With a fcus n energy savings in buildings - Caspar, R. A., Lessler, J. T and Willis, G.B. (1999), Cgnitive Interviewing A Hw T Guide Develped by: Grdn B. Willis Research Triangle Institute Reducing Survey Errr thrugh Research n the Cgnitive and Decisin Prcesses in Surveys Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010a) English Husing Survey Husehld reprt Cmmunities and Lcal Gvernment (2010b) English Husing Survey Husing stck reprt Destatis (2011) halte/tabellen/cntent100/haushaltstypen,templateid=renderprint.psml Destatis (2008a) Wirtschaftsrechnungen Einkmmens- und Verbrauchsstichprbe Einnahmen und Ausgaben privater Haushalte (2008) Destatis (2008b) Wirtschaftsrechnungen Einkmmens- und Verbrauchsstichprbe Aufwendungen privater Haushalte für den Privaten Knsum (2008) Efficiency Partnership fr Hmes (2010) Review and Strategy Prvisin f Energy-saving Advice t Husehlders and Cmmunities. Energy Efficiency Partnership fr Hmes: Lndn Available at: Eurpean Cmmissin (2010a) Cmmunicatin frm the Cmmissin t the Eurpean Parliament, the cuncil, the Eurpean ecnmic and scial cmmittee and the cmmittee f the regins Energy a strategy fr cmpetitive, sustainable and secure energy Eurpean Cmmissin (2010b) Directive 2010/31/EU f the Eurpean Parliament and f the Cuncil f 19 May 2010 n the energy perfrmance f buildings Federcasa, Italian Husing Federatin, Husing Statistics in the Eurpean Unin 2005/2006, Ministry f Infrastructure f the Italian Republic, Rme, 2006.

105 105 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielsen (2000) Renvering af enfamiliehuset ( Renvating the detached huse. SBI-meddelelse 134, 2000 Herring, H., Caird, S., Ry, R., (2007), Can cnsumers save energy? Results fr surveys f cnsumer adptin and use f lw and zer carbn technlgies. In Cnference prceedings Eurpean Cuncil fr an Energy-efficient Ecnmy (ECEEE). ICF (2010) Energy in Building & Industry Widespread mistrust leads Energy savings Trust t call fr new standards and training. Internatinal and Linden Cnsulting Partnership Ltd Nasba (2008) Selfbuild as a vlume husing slutin NHER (2009) Energy Perfrmance Certificates Seizing the pprtunity NHER: Miltn Keynes, UK Office fr Natinal Statistics (2010) Family Spending: A reprt n the 2009 Living Csts and Fd Survey Official Statistics f Finland (OSF): Husehlds cnsumptin [e-publicatin] Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: ]. Access methd: Official Statistics f Finland (OSF): 2011 FI Official Statistics f Finland (OSF): Husehlds cnsumptin [e-publicatin] Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: ]. Access methd: Ryal Institutin f Chartered Surveyrs (2010) Energy efficiency and value prject. RICS: Lndn Thrne-Hlst, H., Strandbakken, P., Stø, E Barriers, bttlenecks and ptentials fr energy savings in husehlds. In: SCORE Prceedings Nvember 2006, Wuppertal Tuminen and Klbut (2009) IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 3.1 Cuntry-specific Factrs - Reprt f Findings in WP3

106 Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Questinnaires fr Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, England and Finland

107 Pg. A2 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Appendix A.1 Questinnaire used fr sample frm Denmark Undersøgelse af kmfrt i hjemmet Invitatin til deltagelse i undersøgelse af kmfrt i hjemmet. Din husstand er sammen med andre danske husstande blevet udvalgt tilfældigt til at deltage i en spørgeskemaundersøgelse m kmfrt i hjemmet. Undersøgelsens frmål er at give mere viden m, hvilken grad af kmfrt, sm bebere plever i frskellige typer af huse i Danmark. Din besvarelse af spørgeskemaet udgør et vigtigt bidrag til undersøgelsen g vil hjælpe s med at give bl.a. planlæggere g plitikere mere viden m, hvrdan bligfrhldene i Danmark kan frbedres. Det tager mkring 20 minutter at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Sidst i skemaet kan du tilmelde dig ldtrækningen m en infrarød termftgrafering af dit hus. Spørgeskemaet bedes udfyldt senest fredag d. 2. juli Indtast din adgangskde i feltet nedenfr fr at begynde udfyldelsen af skemaet. Hvis du har spørgsmål til undersøgelsen, eller plever tekniske prblemer, er du velkmmen til at kntakte Tke Haunstrup Christensen fra Statens Byggefrskningsinstitut på tlf eller thc@sbi.dk. Adgangskde Indtast venligst din adgangskde, sm fremgår af det brev, vi har sendt til dig. Klik derefter på knappen NÆSTE (nedenfr til højre).

108 Pg. A3 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Sektin A: Om dig A1. Ejer du, eller et andet medlem af husstanden, dit hus? Ja, jeg ejer dette hus Ja, et andet medlem af husstanden ejer huset Ja, jeg ejer huset sammen med en anden Nej Dette er en undersøgelse af husejere; din besvarelse antyder, at det ikke er relevant fr dig at besvare resten af spørgeskemaet. Mange tak frdi du afsatte tid til undersøgelsen Insend

109 Pg. A4 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A2. Hvilket type hus br du i? Fritstående enfamiliehus (parcelhus) Række-, kæde- eller dbbelthus Stuehus til landbrugsejendm A3. Hvilket år blev dit hus bygget? (fx 1962) År Ikke sikker på det præcise årstal Hvrnår blev dit hus bygget? Før Efter 2000 Ved ikke

110 Pg. A5 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A4. Hvr strt er dit hus? (Gulvarealet i kvadratmetre) : kvadratmetre A5. Hvrnår købte du dit hus? Måned: År: A6. Hvrnår flyttede du ind i dit hus? Samme sm venfr Måned: År: A7. Hvr længe ønsker du at blive bende i dit hus? Mindre end 5 år Mellem 5 g 10 år Mellem 11 g 15 år Mellem 16 g 20 år Mere end 20 år Resten af mit liv Ved ikke

111 Pg. A6 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A8. Hvis du tænker tilbage til det tidspunkt, hvr du søgte efter et hus, hvr vigtige var da de følgende egenskaber ved de huse, du vervejede at købe? Adgang til have eller udendørs areal Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Adgang til lkale servicemuligheder (fx butikker, skler, fritidsfaciliteter) Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Adgang til kllektiv transprt Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Husets tilstand Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Frventede udgifter til vand, elektricitet g pvarmning af huset Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Husets ruminddeling Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Parkeringsmuligheder Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Husets beliggenhed Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Husets pris Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Husets størrelse Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Varmesystemets type Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Din plevelse af kvarteret Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke

112 Pg. A7 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A9. Hvrdan var tilstanden af det hus, du købte? Meget dårlig tilstand betyder, at renvering g istandsættelse var nødvendig, før du kunne flytte ind i huset. Meget gd tilstand betyder, at der ikke var brug fr ngen frm fr bligfrbedringer eller reparatiner, før du flyttede ind i huset. Meget dårlig tilstand Meget gd tilstand Ved ikke A10. Sind irgendwelche der flgenden Prbleme aufgetreten, seitdem Sie eingezgen sind? Træk fra vinduer eller døre Intet prblem verhvedet Et meget strt prblem Ved ikke Stre energiregninger Intet prblem verhvedet Et meget strt prblem Ved ikke Prblemer med varmesystemet Intet prblem verhvedet Et meget strt prblem Ved ikke Prblemer med at hlde en kmfrtabel temperatur i huset Intet prblem verhvedet Et meget strt prblem Ved ikke Andre prblemer med huset Intet prblem verhvedet Et meget strt prblem Ved ikke Angiv venligst andet 500

113 Pg. A8 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A11. Hvrdan vil du verrdnet set beskrive temperaturen i din phldsstue m vinteren? Ubehagelig kldt Behagelig køligt Behagelig Behagelig varmt Ubehagelig varmt A12. Kender du den gennemsnitlige temperatur i din phldsstue m vinteren? Ja Nej Hvad er den gennemsnitlige temperatur i din phldsstue m vinteren? C

114 Pg. A9 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Sektin B: Bligfrbedringer B1. Har du gennemført frbedringer af huset siden du flyttede ind? Frbedringerne kan bl.a. mfatte inden- eller udendørs frskønnelse, frbedringer af varmesystemer, vinduer, badeværelser g køkken eller egentlig bygningsrenvering. Ja Nej Er huset blevet frbedret på ngen af følgende måder? (Marker alle relevante svar) Generel frskønnelse (fx male, pudse, behandle gulve) Efterisleret gulvet Lavet nyt eller frbedret badeværelse Efterisleret lftet Lavet nyt eller frbedret køkken Installeret ny kedel eller varmefrsyning Ændret haven/udendørs arealer Installeret brændevn eller kamin Udskiftet elektriske pærer med elsparepærer Udskiftet styringen af varmesystemet (fx nye termstater eller natsænkning) Isleret varmtvandsrør Tætnet vinduer g/eller døre Isleret varmtvandsbehlder Frbedret bygningens tæthed i øvrigt Isat termruder eller energiruder Installeret ventilatinssystem med varmegenvinding Bygget en udvidelse/tilbygning Installeret vedvarende energiteknlgier Efterisleret hulmur eller ydervæg

115 Pg. A10 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Hvilken vedvarende energiteknlgi er blevet installeret? (Marker alle relevante svar) Vindmølle til prduktin af elektricitet Slfanger til pvarmning af vand Slceller til prduktin af elektricitet Jrdvarme Varmepumpe baseret på udeluft Varmesystem baseret på brænde Andet Angiv venligst andet 500

116 Pg. A11 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B2. Har du frbedret dit hus på andre måder end tidligere angivet? Ja Nej Hvrdan har du frbedret dit hus? 500 B3. Hvr vigtige var de følgende årsager til at udføre frbedringerne af dit hus? Fr at frbedre mit lkalmråde Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at øge værdien af mit hus Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at få mit hus til at se pæn ud Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at gøre mit hus mere kmfrtabelt Fr at gøre mit hus mere energieffektivt Fr at gøre andre medlemmer af familien glade Fr at tilpasse huset til ændringer i familiens frhld Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at mindske min miljøpåvirkning Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at mindske udgifterne til husets energifrbrug Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke

117 Pg. A12 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B4. Frventer du at gennemføre frbedringer af dit hus inden fr de næste tre år? Frbedringerne kan bl.a. mfatte inden- eller udendørs frskønnelse, frbedringer af varmesystemer, vinduer, badeværelser g køkken eller egentlig bygningsrenvering. Ja Nej Ved ikke Hvilke frbedringer af huset frventer du at gennemføre inden fr de næste tre år? (Marker alle relevante svar) Generel frskønnelse (fx male, pudse, behandle gulve) Efterislere gulvet Lave nyt eller frbedret badeværelse Efterislere lftet Lave nyt eller frbedret køkken Installere ny kedel eller varmefrsyning Ændre haven/udendørs arealer Installere brændevn eller kamin Udskifte elektriske pærer med elsparepærer Udskifte styringen af varmesystemet (fx nye termstater eller natsænkning) Islere varmtvandsrør Tætne vinduer g/eller døre Islere varmtvandsbehlder Frbedre bygningens tæthed i øvrigt Installere termruder eller energiruder Installere ventilatinssystem med varmegenvinding Bygge en udvidelse/tilbygning Installere vedvarende energiteknlgier Efterislere hulmur eller ydervæg

118 Pg. A13 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Hvilken vedvarende energiteknlgi frventer du at installere? (Marker alle relevante svar) Vindmølle til prduktin af elektricitet Slfanger til pvarmning af vand Slceller til prduktin af elektricitet Jrdvarme Varmepumpe baseret på udeluft Varmesystem baseret på brænde Andet Angiv venligst andet 500

119 Pg. A14 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B5. Frventer du at frbedre dit hus på andre måder inden fr de næste tre år? Ja Nej Ved ikke Hvrdan vil du frbedre huset inden fr de næste tre år? 500

120 Pg. A15 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B6. Wie wichtig sind flgende Aspekte für die geplante Durchführung der Verbesserungen an Ihrem Haus? Fr at frbedre mit lkalmråde Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at øge værdien af mit hus Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at få mit hus til at se pæn ud Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at gøre mit hus mere kmfrtabelt Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at gøre mit hus mere energieffektivt Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at gøre andre medlemmer af familien glade Fr at tilpasse huset til ændringer i familiens frhld Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at mindske min miljøpåvirkning Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Fr at mindske udgifterne til husets energifrbrug Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke

121 Pg. A16 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B7. Wie sehr vertrauen Sie persönlich den flgenden Infrmatinsquellen im Hinblick auf Sanierungen und Reparaturen? Reklamer Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Byggemarkeder g lign Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Energiselskaber Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Familie g venner Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Håndværkere Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Kmmunen g staten Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Artikler i aviser g tidsskrifter Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Naber Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Energimærket Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Internettet Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Udsendelser i tv g radi Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke

122 Pg. A17 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B8. Har ngen i din familie eller venner udført større bligfrbedringer (sm skønsmæssigt har kstet mere end kr ) inden fr de seneste 12 måneder?? Ja Nej Ved ikke Hvad har de lavet? (Marker alle relevante svar) Generel frskønnelse (fx male, pudse, behandle gulve) Lavet nyt eller frbedret badeværelse/køkken Bygget en udvidelse/tilbygning Ændret haven/udendørs arealer Installeret vedvarende energiteknlgier Andet Ved ikke

123 Pg. A18 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B9. Har ngen af dine naber udført større bligfrbedringer (sm skønsmæssigt har kstet mere end kr ) inden fr de seneste 12 måneder? Ja Nej Ved ikke Hvad har de lavet? (Marker alle relevante svar) Generel frskønnelse (fx male, pudse, behandle gulve) Lavet nyt eller frbedret badeværelse/køkken Bygget en udvidelse/tilbygning Ændret haven/udendørs arealer Installeret vedvarende energiteknlgier Andet Ved ikke B10. Hvr vigtigt er det fr dig at frbedre dit hus før et eventuelt salg? Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Planlægger ikke at sælge mit hus

124 Pg. A19 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Sektin C: Energi C1. Har du hørt m energimærkningen af bygninger? Ja Nej Ved ikke Hvr har du hørt m energimærkningen af bygninger? (Marker alle relevante svar) Fjernsyn Radi Aviser Internettet Gennem venner g familie Plakat eller lignende Brchure mdtaget med psten Energiselskab Ejendmsmægler Salgsmateriale fr hus Advkat Andet Ved ikke

125 Pg. A20 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C2. Har du set energimærket fr bygninger? Ja Nej Ved ikke Energimærket nedenfr mdtages fte fra ejendmsmægleren i frbindelse med plysninger m et hus til salg. Energimærket indehlder gså anbefalinger til frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet. Kig venligst nøje på nedenstående billede. Har du set dette mærke tidligere? Ja Nej Ved ikke

126 Pg. A21 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C3. Har dit hus fået energimærket? Ja Nej Ved ikke Energimærket nedenfr mdtages fte fra ejendmsmægleren i frbindelse med plysninger m et hus til salg. Energimærket indehlder gså anbefalinger til frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet. Kig venligst nøje på nedenstående billede. Så du dette mærke blandt papirerne i frbindelse med dit huskøb/hussalg? Ja Nej Ved ikke

127 Pg. A22 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C4. Hvrfr fik du energimærket fr dit nuværende hus? Frdi jeg købte huset Frdi jeg ønskede at sælge mit hus Ønskede blt energimærket Hvrnår blev energimærket fr dit hus udarbejdet? Måned: År: Ved ikke

128 Pg. A23 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C5. Så du energimærket blandt papirerne i frbindelse med dit huskøb? Ja Nej Ved ikke På hvilket tidspunkt så du energimærket fr huset? Før jeg bød på huset Efter at bud var accepteret, men før handlen var afsluttet Efter afslutningen af handlen Ved ikke Hvr vigtig var energimærket fr din beslutning m at afgive et bud på dit nuværende hus? Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Anvendte du energimærket til at frhandle prisen på dit hus? Ja Nej Hvr vigtig var energimærket fr frhandlingen af prisen på huset? Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt

129 Pg. A24 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Så du energimærket fr andre huse? Ja, de fleste havde et energimærke Ja, ngle havde et energimærke Ingen havde et energimærke Ved ikke Så ikke på andre huse Hvr vigtig var energimærket fr din beslutning m at købe dit nuværende hus? Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Hvr vigtig var de frventede, løbende udgifter til vand, elektricitet g varme fr din beslutning m at købe dit nuværende hus? Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt

130 Pg. A25 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C6. Energimærket mfatter en klassificering af energieffektiviteten af dit hus på en skala fra A til G. Kan du huske placeringen af dit hus på skalaen ver energieffektivitet? Ja, er meget sikker på placeringen Ja, men er ikke særlig sikker på placeringen Nej Hvad er energimærket fr dit hus?(marker venligst den klasse sm du mener, er den rigtige. Det er ikke nødvendigt at tjekke efter i de dkumenter, du måtte have liggende fra hushandlen.) Kan du huske placeringen af dit hus på skalaen ver energieffektivitet? A B C D E F G

131 Pg. A26 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C7. Kan du huske anbefalingerne i energimærket fr dit hus? Ja, er meget sikker på anbefalingerne Ja, men er ikke særlig sikker på anbefalingerne Nej, energimærket indehldt ingen anbefalinger Nej, mdtg kun energimærket (klassificeringen), men ingen anbefalinger Nej, jeg kan ikke huske ngen anbefalinger Indehldt energimærket fr dit hus ngen af følgende anbefalinger til frbedringer af huset? (Marker alle relevante svar) Ingen anbefalinger Efterislere lftet Efterislere gulvet Efterislere ydervægge Udskifte til mere energieffektive ruder Tætne vinduesrammer Frbedre bygningens tæthed i øvrigt Installere (nye) termstater på radiatrer Frbedre styringen af varmesystemet Udskifte kedel eller fyr Islere varmtvandstank, fyr eller varmtvandsrør Installere slvarme

132 Pg. A27 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Udgiften knyttet til anbefalingerne Hvr mange penge har du skønsmæssigt brugt på at udføre disse anbefalinger? Ingen kr kr kr kr kr Mere end kr Ved ikke Hvr mange penge frventer du skønsmæssigt at bruge på at udføre disse anbefalinger inden fr de næste tre år? Ingen kr kr kr kr kr Mere end kr Ved ikke

133 Pg. A28 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C8. Overrdnet set, hvr nemt er det at frstå energimærket? Meget svært Meget nemt C9. Mener du, at energimærket giver en præcis beskrivelse af energieffektiviteten af dit hus? Slet ikke I høj grad Ved ikke C10. Mener du verrdnet set, at energimærket giver en tilstrækkeligt detaljeret beskrivelse af energieffektiviteten af dit hus? Slet ikke I høj grad Ved ikke

134 Pg. A29 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C11. Wie hilfreich war der Energieausweis als Quelle für flgende Infrmatinen? Udgifterne til energi (elektricitet g varme) fr dit hus De nødvendige bligfrbedringer fr at nedbringe din energiregning Udgifterne frbundet med frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet Hvr man kan søge råd g yderligere plysninger m tiltag til energifrbedringer Ikke nyttig verhvedet Meget nyttig Ved ikke Ikke nyttig verhvedet Meget nyttig Ved ikke Ikke nyttig verhvedet Meget nyttig Ved ikke Ikke nyttig verhvedet Meget nyttig Ved ikke C12. Hvis du har frslag til frbedringer af energimærket, er du velkmmen til at skrive det i denne bks: 2000

135 Pg. A30 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Sektin D: Generelle spørgsmål D1. Hvr meget vil du sige, at du ved m følgende begreber? Meget En hel del Kun lidt Ingenting - har blt hørt m begrebet Ingenting - har aldrig hørt m det Ved ikke Klimaændringer Glbal pvarmning Energieffektivitet Miljøvenlighed D2. Hvr nemt er det fr dig at finde plysninger m, hvrdan energieffektiviteten af dit hus kan frbedres? Energieffektivitet handler m, hvrdan energi bruges. Høj energieffektivitet beskriver en situatin, hvr der bruges mindre energi til fr eksempel at pvarme g plyse rummene i huset. Meget svært Meget let Ved ikke D3. Hvr nemt er det fr dig at finde de bedst kvalificerede persner til at udføre frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet? Meget svært Meget let Ved ikke

136 Pg. A31 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D4. Wie sehr vertrauen sie persönlich flgenden Infrmatinsquellen zur Energieeffizienz im Haus? Reklamer Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Byggemarkeder g lign Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Energiselskaber Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Familie g venner Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Håndværkere Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Kmmunen g staten Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Artikler i aviser g tidsskrifter Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Naber Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Energimærket Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Internettet Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke Udsendelser i tv g radi Ingen tillid verhvedet Fuldstændig tillid Ved ikke

137 Pg. A32 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D5. Kunne nget af følgende hjælpe dig til at afgøre, hvad der skal gøres fr at frbedre energieffektiviteten af dit hus? (Marker alle relevante svar) Bedre infrmatin i den landsdækkende g lkale presse Bedre infrmatin i radi g tv Bedre infrmatin fra mit energiselskab Bedre infrmatin på internettet Tale med en prfessinel energirådgiver Bedre infrmatin fra leverandører af energibesparende prdukter Ved ikke Andet Angiv venligst andet 300

138 Pg. A33 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D6. Ville du verveje at benytte ngen af følgende til at skaffe yderligere plysninger m at lave frbedringer af energieffektiviteten af dit hus? (Marker alle relevante svar) Dit energiselsskab Venner eller familie Leverandører af energibesparende prdukter g tjenester Elsparefnden / Center fr energibesparelser Byggemarkeder g lign Håndværkere Energitjenesten Offentlige hjemmesider Bibliteket Søgninger på internettet Ved ikke Andet Angiv venligst andet 300

139 Pg. A34 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D7. Hvr vigtige er efter din pfattelse følgende frdele ved at frbedre energieffektiviteten af dit hus? Hjælpe miljøet Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Gøre huset mere kmfrtabelt Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Frbedre ejendmsværdien Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Reducere de løbende udgifter Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Reducere CO 2 udledningen Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke D8. I hvilken grad er du enig eller uenig i de følgende udsagn? Jeg frsøger at vertale flk, sm jeg kender, til at tænke mere ver deres energifrbrug. Meget uenig Meget enig Ved ikke Familie g venner frsøger at vertale mig til at tænke mere ver mit energifrbrug. Meget uenig Meget enig Ved ikke

140 Pg. A35 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D9. Hvr str en betydning har følgende fr dig, når du vervejer at frbedre energieffektiviteten af dit hus? Om jeg har sparet nk penge sammen til at kunne lave frbedringerne Tiden det vil tage at tjene investeringen hjem igen gennem besparelserne på energiregningen Hvrvidt besparelsen på energiregningen er det værd i frhld til den tid g de penge, jeg skal bruge Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Udgifterne knyttet til frbedringerne Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Hvrvidt jeg kan få et tilskud til den type af arbejde, sm vil frbedre mit hus Hvr mange penge jeg kan søge i frm af tilskud Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke Slet ikke vigtigt Meget vigtigt Ved ikke

141 Pg. A36 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D10. Wie interessiert wären Sie an flgenden finanziellen Anreizen, wenn diese für Sie verfügbar wären? Et lån med lav rente til frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet Slet ikke interesseret Meget interesseret Ved ikke Et tilskud til at gennemføre frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet Slet ikke interesseret Meget interesseret Ved ikke Betale mindre i skat, hvis du har gennemført frbedringer af husets energieffektivitet Slet ikke interesseret Meget interesseret Ved ikke Betale mindre i skat afhængigt af husets placering på energimærkets skala (A til G) Slet ikke interesseret Meget interesseret Ved ikke Lavere pris fr energibesparende prdukter (fx elsparepærer, islering, fyr) Slet ikke interesseret Meget interesseret Ved ikke

142 Pg. A37 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Hvis du vervejede at udføre frbedringer g reparatiner af huset, hvilken indflydelse ville følgende frhld så have på din endelige beslutning m at gennemføre disse frbedringer/reparatiner? a). Tiden g anstrengelserne knyttet til at få arbejdet gjrt. Ville afhlde mig fra det Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke b). Det fysiske rd i frbindelse med bligfrbedringerne. Ville afhlde mig fra det Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke c). Tiden g energien knyttet til udfyldelsen af ansøgninger m tilskud eller lån. Ville afhlde mig fra det Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke d). Ændringerne i din daglige rutine i frbindelse med gennemførelsen af frbedringerne. Ville afhlde mig fra det Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke

143 Pg. A38 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Hvis du vervejede at udføre frbedringer g reparatiner af huset, hvilken indflydelse ville følgende frhld så have på din endelige beslutning m at gennemføre disse frbedringer/reparatiner? e). Prblemer med at finde gde håndværkere. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke f). Tiden du skal bruge på at finde plysninger m energieffektive løsninger. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke g). Dine evner til selv at lave frbedringer af huset. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke h). Familie g venners evner til at hjælpe dig med frbedringer af bligen. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Ville ikke afhlde mig fra det Ved ikke

144 Pg. A39 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Sektin E: Om dig g din husstand E1. Hvilke af disse aktiviteter har du g din husstand udført inden fr de seneste 12 måneder? (Marker alle relevante svar) Fravalgt bilen fr i stedet at gå, cykle eller benytte kllektiv transprt Begrænset brugen af bil til krte ture Afleveret papir, glas, plastik eller dåser mv. til genbrug Kmpsteret køkkenaffald Mindsket husstandens frbrug af elektricitet g gas Gjrt tiltag fr at mindske frbruget af vand i din husstand Gjrt tiltag fr at fremme dyrelivet i din have Købt varer frdi de var lavet af genbrugsmateriale Købt varer frdi de brugte mindre energi Ingen af disse E2. Køn Mand Kvinde E3. Hvr gammel er du?

145 Pg. A40 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E4. Hvilken af disse beskrivelser svarer bedst til det du laver? I arbejde Selvstændig Pensineret Uden arbejde Studerende på fuld tid Passer familie/hjem/børn Drager msrg fr en invalid eller ældre persn Midlertidigt syg eller skadet Langtidssyg eller skadet Andet E5. Hvad er den højeste grad af uddannelse du har erhvervet? Ingen skleuddannelse, ingen erhvervsuddannelse skleklasse, ingen erhvervsuddannelse skleklasse, ingen erhvervsuddannelse Gymnasium, HF, HH, HTX, ingen erhvervsuddannelse Erhvervsfaglig/håndværker/scial/sundhedshjælper Krt videregående uddannelse Mellemlang videregående uddannelse Lang videregående uddannelse (fx universitetsuddannelser) Overbygning på universitetseksamen, ph.d., licentiat

146 Pg. A41 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E6. Hvis du medregner dig selv, hvr mange vksne (18 år g derver) br i din husstand? : Vksne E7. Hvr mange børn (yngre end 18 år) br i din husstand? : Børn mellem 0 g 6 år : Børn mellem 7 g 12 år : Børn mellem 13 g 17 år E8. Hvilken af de følgende kategrier svarer til din husstands samlede indkmst før skat? Mindre end kr m året kr m året kr m året kr m året kr m året kr m året kr m året mi. kr m året Mere end 1 mi. kr m året Ved ikke Ønsker ikke at plyse

147 Pg. A42 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Appendix A.2 Questinnaire used fr sample frm Germany Whnkmfrt-Umfrage Willkmmen bei der Whnkmfrt-Umfrage! Ihr Haushalt wurde nach dem Zufallsprinzip ausgewählt, um an dieser Umfrage teilzunehmen. Das Ziel der wissenschaftlich unterstützten Fragen ist es, etwas über den Kmfrt des Whnens in unterschiedlichen Gebäuden zu lernen. Ihre Antwrten hierauf sind für uns sehr wichtig und werden helfen, Plitikerinnen und Plitikern zu erläutern, was nach Ihren persönlichen Angaben und Vrstellungen zur Verbesserung des Whnens in Deutschland getan werden müsste. Die Beantwrtung der Umfrage dauert ungefähr 20 Minuten. Sie wird zusammen mit anderen Frschungsinstituten in mehreren eurpäischen Ländern gleichzeitig durchgeführt. BRE (Building Research Establishment) in Grßbritannien ist dabei zuständig für technische Umsetzung und Auswertung der Online- Umfrage. Falls sie irgendwelche Fragen zur Studie der technische Prbleme haben wenden sie sich bitte an Gerhard Penninger, Ök-Institut, g.penninger@ek.de der +49 (30) Bitte klicken sie auf weiter (unten rechts)

148 Pg. A43 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Abschnitt A: Über ihr Haus A1. Sind Sie der ein Mitglied Ihres Haushaltes Eigentümer/in des Hauses? Ja, ich bin der Eigentümer/die Eigentümerin. Ja, ein Mitglied des Haushaltes ist der Eigentümer/die Eigentümerin. Ja, ich bin der Miteigentümer/die Miteigentümerin Nein A2. Wann haben Sie Ihr Haus gekauft? Mnat: Jahr: Ihre vrherige Antwrt deutet darauf hin, dass Sie nicht zur Zielgruppe der restlichen Befragung gehören. Vielen Dank, dass Sie sich Zeit genmmen haben Abschicken

149 Pg. A44 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A3. In welcher Art Whngebäude leben Sie? Einfamilienhaus Reihenhaus der Dppelhaushälfte Mehrfamilienhaus mit bis zu 4 Obergeschssen Mehrfamilienhaus mit mehr als 4 Obergeschssen A4. In welchem Jahr wurde Ihr Gebäude errichtet? (z.b. 1962) Same as abve Jahr: In welchem Zeitraum wurde das Gebäude errichtet? vr nach 2000 Ich weiß nicht A5. Wie grß ist Ihr Haus ungefähr? (Whnfläche in Quadratmeter) : Quadratmeter

150 Pg. A45 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A6. Wann sind Sie in Ihr Haus eingezgen? Mnat: Jahr: A7. Wie lange wllen Sie nch in Ihrem Haus whnen bleiben? Weniger als 5 Jahre Zwischen 5 und 10 Jahren. Zwischen 11 und 15 Jahren Zwischen 16 und 20 Jahren Mehr als 20 Jahre Für den Rest meines Lebens Das weiß ich nch nicht

151 Pg. A46 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A8. Bitte erinnern Sie sich an die Zeit, als Sie auf der Suche nach Whneigentum waren: Wie wichtig waren die flgenden Eigenschaften der für Sie in Frage kmmenden Immbilien? Verfügbarkeit eines Gartens der anderer Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Außenflächen Ich weiß nicht Nahe gelegene Einrichtungen des täglichen Lebens Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht (z.b. Einkaufsläden, Schulen, Freizeitangebte) Anbindung an das öffentliche Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Verkehrsnetz Ich weiß nicht Zustand der Immbilie Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Zu erwartende Nebenksten der Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Immbilie für Wasser, Strm und Heizung Ich weiß nicht Schnitt des Hauses Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Parkflächen Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Lage der Immbilie Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Preis der Immbilie Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Größe der Immbilie Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Art des Heizungssystems Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Einschätzung über die Whngegend Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht

152 Pg. A47 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A9. In welchem Zustand befand sich die Immbilie, als Sie sie erwrben haben? Sehr schlechter Zustand, d. h. es bestand ein erheblicher Renvierungs- und Sanierungsbedarf. Sehr guter Zustand, d. h. es gab gar keinen Renvierungs- und Sanierungsbedarf. Sehr schlechter Zustand Sehr guter Zustand Ich weiß nicht A10. Sind irgendwelche der flgenden Prbleme aufgetreten, seitdem Sie eingezgen sind? Undichte Fenster der Türen Gar keine Prbleme Sehr grße Prbleme Ich weiß nicht Hhe Energieksten Gar keine Prbleme Sehr grße Prbleme Prbleme mit dem Heizungssystem Prbleme mit dem Erreichen angenehmer Temperaturen Gar keine Prbleme Sehr grße Prbleme Gar keine Prbleme Sehr grße Prbleme Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Andere Prbleme Gar keine Prbleme Sehr grße Prbleme Ich weiß nicht Bitte benennen 500

153 Pg. A48 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A11. Wie würden Sie generell die Temperatur in Ihrem Whnzimmer im Winter beschreiben? Unangenehm kalt Angenehm kühl Angenehm Angenehm warm Unangenehm heiß A12. Ist Ihnen die durchschnittliche Whnzimmertemperatur während des Winters bekannt? Ja Nein Wie viel Grad beträgt die durchschnittliche Whnzimmertemperatur während des Winters? C

154 Pg. A49 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Mdernisierungsmaßnahmen B1. Haben Sie irgendwelche Verbesserungsarbeiten an Ihrem Haus durchgeführt, seitdem Sie drt eingezgen sind? Diese Verbesserungsarbeiten können Schönheitsreparaturen innen der außen, Sanierungen des Heizsystems, der Fenster, des Badezimmers, der Küche der der Gebäudestruktur umfassen. Ja Nein Abgeschlssene Mderinisierungsmaßnahmen: Haben Sie eine der flgenden Maßnahmen an Ihrem Haus durchgeführt? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Grundsätzliche Schönheitsreparaturen (Streichen, Putzarbeiten, Fliesenarbeiten, etc.) Kellerdecke gedämmt Neues Badezimmer eingebaut der alte saniert Dachgeschsses gedämmt Neue Küche eingebaut der altes saniert Neuer Heizkessel/neue Heizung eingebaut Außenbereich neu gestaltet Kamin/Kaminfen eingebaut Glühbirnen durch Energiesparlampen ersetzt Neue Heizungsregelung eingebaut Wasser- und/der Heizungsrhre isliert Winddichte Fenster und/der Türen eingebaut Warmwasserspeicher isliert Luftdichtigkeit des Gebäudes verbessert Dppelglasfenster der energiesparende Fenster eingebaut Innenraumbelüftung mit Wärmetauscher eingebaut Anbau der Wintergarten errichtet Anschluss an das Fernwärmenetz Fassade gedämmt Installatin vn Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien

155 Pg. A50 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Welche Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien haben Sie installiert? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Windkraftanlage Slare Warmwasserbereitung Slare Strmerzeugung Erdwärmepumpe Luftwärmepumpe Hlzbefeuerte Heizungsanlage Anderes Bitte benennen 500

156 Pg. A51 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B2. Haben Sie weitere Verbesserungsmaßnahmen an Ihrem Haus durchgeführt? Ja Nein Welche anderen Maßnahmen haben Sie durchgeführt? 500 B3. Wie wichtig waren flgende Aspekte für die Durchführung der Verbesserungen an Ihrem Haus? Verbesserung der Whngegend Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Steigerung des Immbilienwerts Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Verschönerung des Hauses Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Steigerung des Whnkmfrts Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Andere Familienmitglieder zu erfreuen Anpassung des Hauses an veränderte familiäre Verhältnisse Reduzierung der persönlichen Umweltbelastung Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Senkung der Energieksten Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht

157 Pg. A52 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B4. Wllen Sie innerhalb der nächsten drei Jahre weitere Verbesserungen an Ihrem Haus durchführen? Diese Verbesserungsarbeiten können Schönheitsreparaturen innen der außen, Sanierungen des Heizsystems, der Fenster, des Badezimmers, der Küche der der Gebäudestruktur beinhalten. Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht Geplante Mdernisierungsmaßnahmen: Welche der flgenden Maßnahmen werden Sie an Ihrem Haus durchführen? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Grundsätzliche Schönheitsreparaturen (Streichen, Putzarbeiten, Fliesenarbeiten, usw.) Kellerdecke dämmen Neues Badezimmer einbauen der altes sanieren Dachgeschss dämmen Neue Küche einbauen der alte sanieren Neuer Heizkessel/neue Heizung einbauen Außenbereich neu gestalten Kamin/Kaminfen einbauen Glühbirnen durch Energiesparlampen ersetzen Neue Heizungsregelung einbauen Wasser- und/der Heizungsrhre islieren Winddichte Fenster und/der Türen einbauen Warmwasserspeicher islieren Luftdichtigkeit des Gebäudes verbessern Dppelglasfenster der energiesparende Fenster eingebauen Innenraumbelüftung mit Wärmetauscher einbauen Anbau der Wintergarten errichten Anschluss an das Fernwärmenetz Fassade dämmen Installatin vn Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien

158 Pg. A53 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Welche Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien planen Sie zu installieren? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Windkraftanlage Slare Warmwasserbereitung Slare Strmerzeugung Erdwärmepumpe Luftwärmepumpe Hlzbefeuerte Heizungsanlage Anderes Bitte benennen 500

159 Pg. A54 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B5. Wllen Sie in den nächsten drei Jahren weitere Verbesserungsmaßnahmen an Ihrem Haus durchführen? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht Welche Maßnahmen wllen Sie in den nächsten drei Jahren vrnehmen? 500

160 Pg. A55 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B6. Wie wichtig sind flgende Aspekte für die geplante Durchführung der Verbesserungen an Ihrem Haus? Verbesserung der Whngegend Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Steigerung des Immbilienwerts Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Verschönerung des Hauses Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Steigerung des Whnkmfrts Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Andere Familienmitglieder zu erfreuen Anpassung des Hauses an veränderte familiäre Bedingungen Reduzierung der persönlichen Umweltbelastung Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Senkung der Energieksten Überhaupt nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht

161 Pg. A56 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B7. Wie sehr vertrauen Sie persönlich den flgenden Infrmatinsquellen im Hinblick auf Sanierungen und Reparaturen? Werbung Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Baumärkte Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Energieversrger Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Familie und Freunde Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Lkale Handwerker/innen der Verkäufer/innen Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Behörden Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Magazine und Zeitungsartikel Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Nachbarn Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Energieausweis Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Internet Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Fernsehen und Radiprgramme Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht

162 Pg. A57 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B8. Hat jemand aus Ihrer Familie der vn Ihren Freunden in den letzten 12 Mnaten größere Gebäudesanierungen vrgenmmen (für mehr als Eur)? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht Welche Arbeiten wurden durchgeführt? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Grundsätzliche Schönheitsreparaturen (Streichen, Putzarbeiten, Fliesenarbeiten, etc.) Neues Badezimmer eingebaut der altes saniert Anbau der Wintergarten errichtet Außenbereich neu gestaltet Techniken zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien installiert Anderes Ich weiß nicht

163 Pg. A58 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B9. Hat jemand aus Ihrer Nachbarschaft in den letzten 12 Mnaten größere Gebäudesanierungen vrgenmmen (für mehr als Eur)? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht Welche Arbeiten wurden durchgeführt? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Grundsätzliche Schönheitsreparaturen (Streichen, Putzarbeiten, Fliesenarbeiten, etc.) Neues Badezimmer eingebaut der altes saniert Anbau der Wintergarten errichtet Außenbereich neu gestaltet Techniken zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien installiert Anderes Ich weiß nicht B10. Wie wichtig ist es für Sie Ihre Immbilie vr dem Verkauf zu sanieren? Gar nicht Sehr wichtig wichtig Ich weiß nicht Ich habe nicht vr die Immbilie zu verkaufen

164 Pg. A59 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Abschnitt C: Energie C1. Haben Sie etwas über Energieausweise gehört? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht W haben Sie vn Energieausweisen gehört? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Fernsehen Radi Zeitungen Internet Durch Freunde der Verwandte Plakate Pst-Wurfsendung Energieversrger Immbilienmakler Verkaufsunterlagen vn Immbilien Anwälte Andere Ich weiß nicht

165 Pg. A60 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C2. Haben Sie schn einmal einen Energieausweis gesehen? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht HDas unten abgebildete Label zur Einrdnung der Energieeffizienz wird ft in Verkaufsinfrmatinen über Whneigentum verwendet. Es ist Teil des Energieausweises. Dieses Dkument gehört auch zum Immbilien- Infrmatinsmaterial. Bitte sehen sie sich das unten stehende Bild genau an. Haben Sie eines dieser Labels der beide schn einmal gesehen? Ja, das Label zum Energiebedarf Ja, das Label zum Energieverbrauchskennwert Nein Ich weiß nicht

166 Pg. A61 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C3. Haben Sie einen Energieausweis für Ihr Haus? Ja, Energiebedarfsausweis Ja, Energieverbrauchausweis Nein Ich weiß nicht HDas unten abgebildete Label zur Einrdnung der Energieeffizienz wird ft in Verkaufsinfrmatinen über Whneigentum verwendet. Es ist Teil des Energieausweises. Dieses Dkument gehört auch zum Immbilien- Infrmatinsmaterial. Bitte sehen sie sich das unten stehende Bild genau an. Haben sie eines dieser Labels der beide schn einmal gesehen? Ja, das Label zum Energiebedarf Ja, das Label zum Energieverbrauchskennwert Nein Ich weiß nicht

167 Pg. A62 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C4. Warum haben Sie einen Energieausweis für Ihre Immbilie erwrben? Weil ich die Immbilie gekauft habe Weil ich meine Immbilie verkaufen will Einfach weil ich einen haben wllte Wann wurde Ihr Energieausweis ausgestellt? Mnat: Jahr: Ich weiß nicht

168 Pg. A63 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C5. Haben Sie dieses Label schn einmal in den Unterlagen zum Kauf der Verkauf Ihres Hauses gesehen? Ja Nein Ich weiß nicht Wann haben Sie den Energieausweis für Ihre derzeitige Immbilie gesehen? Bevr ich ein Angebt abgegeben habe Nachdem das Angebt angenmmen wurde, aber vr dem Vertragsabschluss Nach dem Vertragsabschluss Ich weiß nicht Wurde Ihnen der Energieausweis freiwillig zur Verfügung gestellt der mussten Sie danach fragen? Er wurde freiwillig gezeigt Ich musste danach fragen Ich weiß nicht Wie wichtig war der Energieausweis für Ihre Entscheidung, ein Angebt für Ihre derzeitige Immbilie zu machen? Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Haben Sie den Energieausweis dafür verwendet, um über den Preis für Ihre Immbilie zu verhandeln? Ja Nein Wie wichtig war der Energieausweis bei den Preisverhandlungen für Ihre Immbilie? Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig

169 Pg. A64 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Haben Sie den Energieausweis auch für andere Immbilien gesehen? Ja, die meisten hatten Energieausweise Ja, manche hatten Energieausweise Gar keine hatte einen Energieausweis Ich weiß nicht Ich habe mir keine anderen Immbilien angesehen Wie wichtig war der Energieausweis für Ihre Entscheidung, die Immbilie zu kaufen? Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Wie wichtig waren die zu erwartenden Betriebsksten (Wasser, Strm und Heizung) für die Entscheidung, Ihre Immbilie zu kaufen? Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig

170 Pg. A65 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C6. Der Energieausweis für Ihre Immbilie enthält Kennwerte zum Energieverbrauch Ihrer Immbilie. Können Sie sich an den Kennwert Ihrer Immbilie erinnern? Ja, ich bin mir völlig sicher über den Kennwert Ja, aber ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher über den Kennwert Nein Wie hch ist der Kennwert Ihrer Immbilie? (Bitte den Bereich anklicken, den Sie für richtig halten. Es ist nicht nötig in den Dkumenten nachzusehen) 0-67 kwh/(m 2 *a) kwh/(m 2 *a) kwh/(m 2 *a) kwh/(m 2 *a) kwh/(m 2 *a) kwh/(m 2 *a) > 401 kwh/(m 2 *a)

171 Pg. A66 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C7. Können Sie sich an die Empfehlungen im Energieausweis erinnern? Ja, ich kann mich genau an die Empfehlungen erinnern Ich kann mich nicht genau erinnern Nein, weil mein Energieausweis keine Empfehlungen enthielt Nein, der Energieausweis enthielt nur Kennwerte, keine Empfehlungen Nein, ich kann mich an keine Empfehlungen erinnern Enthielt Ihr Energieausweis eine der mehrere der flgenden Empfehlungen? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Keine Empfehlungen Einbau einer Pelletheizung Erneuerung der Fenster mit Wärmeschutzverglasung Optimierung der Zentralheizung (Anpassung Regelung, ggf. Rhrdämmung, ggf. Einbau einer drehzahlgeregelten Pumpe, hydraulischer Abgleich) Verbesserung der Fassadendämmung Einbau einer Erdgas-Heizung (Brennwerttechnik) Dämmung der Kellerwände und/der der Kellerdecke Einbau einer Fernwärme-Heizung Verbesserung der Dämmung vn Dach, Abseitenwänden und/der berster Einbau einer Flüssiggas-Heizung (Brennwerttechnik) Geschssdecke Erneuerung der Heizanlage (Brennwerttechnik) Einbau einer Ölheizung (Brennwerttechnik) Einbau einer Slaranlage für Warmwasser und ggf. Raumheizung Umstellung auf zentrale Warmwasserbereitung Einbau einer Wärmepumpe (Bden) Optimierung der Fernwärmeübergabestatin

172 Pg. A67 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Ksten der Empfehlungen Wie viel haben Sie bereits ungefähr ausgegeben, um die Empfehlungen umzusetzen? Nichts Mehr als Ich weiß nicht Wie viel wllen Sie in den nächsten Jahren ungefähr für die Umsetzung der Empfehlungen ausgeben? Nichts Mehr als Ich weiß nicht

173 Pg. A68 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C8. Wie leicht ist es insgesamt, die Infrmatinen des Energieausweises zu verstehen? Sehr schwierig Sehr leicht C9. Sind Sie der Meinung, dass der Energieausweis eine genaue Übersicht über den energetischen Zustand Ihrer Immbilie bietet? Überhaupt nicht Sehr genau Ich weiß nicht C10. Finden Sie im Allgemeinen, dass der Energieausweis ausreichend detaillierte Infrmatinen über den energetischen Zustand Ihrer Immbilie liefert? Überhaupt nicht Sehr viele Ich weiß nicht

174 Pg. A69 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C11. Wie hilfreich war der Energieausweis als Quelle für flgende Infrmatinen? Die Energieksten der Immbilie (Strm + Heizung) Sanierungsmaßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Energieksten Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Die energierelevanten Sanierungsksten Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Ich weiß nicht An wen ich mich wenden kann, um Ratschläge und weitere Infrmatinen über Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen zu bekmmen Organisatinen und Unternehmen die Energieeffizienzdienstleistungen anbieten Verfügbare Zuschüsse und finanzielle Anreize für Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Gar nicht hilfreich Sehr hilfreich Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht C12. Wenn Sie Vrschläge zur Verbesserung der Energieausweise haben, ntieren Sie diese bitte in dieser Bx: 2000

175 Pg. A70 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Abschnitt D: Allgemeine Fragen D1. Wie viel meinen Sie über flgende Begriffe zu wissen? Nichts - ich Nichts - habe Ich Sehr viel Einiges Etwas habe nur davn nch nie davn weiß gehört gehört nicht Klimawandel Erderwärmung Energieeffizienz Umweltfreundlichkeit D2. Wie leicht fällt es Ihnen an Infrmatinen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Ihrer Immbilie zu kmmen? Energieeffizienz ist eine Größe dafür, wie gut die Energie genutzt wird. Eine höhere Energieeffizientz bedeutet, weniger Energie für dieselbe Aufgabe, wie z.b. Heizen der Beleuchtung eines Raumes, zu benötigen. Sehr schwierig Sehr leicht Ich weiß nicht D3. Wie leicht ist es für Sie, die richtigen Handwerker/innen zu finden, die Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Ihrer Immbilie durchführen können? Sehr schwierig Sehr leicht Ich weiß nicht

176 Pg. A71 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D4. Wie sehr vertrauen sie persönlich flgenden Infrmatinsquellen zur Energieeffizienz im Haus? Werbung Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Baumärkte Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Energieversrger Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Familie und Freunde Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Lkale Handwerker/innen der Verkäufer/innen Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Behörden Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Magazine und Zeitungsartikel Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Nachbarn Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Energieausweis Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Internet Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht Fernsehen und Radiprgramme Vertraue ich gar nicht Vertraue ich vllständig Ich weiß nicht

177 Pg. A72 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D5. Welche der flgenden Infrmatinsquellen könnte Ihnen bei der Entscheidung zu Maßnahmen zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz Ihrer Immbilie helfen? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Bessere Infrmatinen durch die natinale und lkale Presse Bessere Infrmatinen durch das Radi / das Fernsehen Bessere Infrmatinen durch den Energieversrger Bessere Infrmatinen durch das Internet Gespräche mit Energieexperten Bessere Infrmatinen vn Anbietern energieeffizienter Prdukte Ich weiß nicht Andere Bitte benennen 300

178 Pg. A73 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D6. Welche der flgenden Infrmatinsquellen würden Sie zu Rate ziehen, um weitere Infrmatinen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Ihrer Immbilie zu erlangen? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Meinen Energieversrger Freunde der Familienmitglieder Anbieter energieeffizienter Prdukte der Dienstleistungen Baumärkte Lkale Handwerker/innen Staatliche Webseiten Lkale Behörden Biblithek Allgemeine Suche im Internet Ich weiß nicht Andere Bitte benennen 300

179 Pg. A74 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D7. Welche sind Ihrer Meinung nach die wichtigsten Vrteile einer Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz Ihrer Immbilie? Der Umwelt zu helfen Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Das Whnen gemütlicher zu machen Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Steigerung des Immbilienwertes Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Reduzierung der laufenden Ksten Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Reduzierung der CO 2 Emissinen Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht D8. In welchem Ausmaß stimmen Sie den flgenden Aussagen zu der lehnen diese ab? Ich versuche Leute, die ich kenne, anzuregen, über ihren Energieverbrauch nachzudenken. Ich stimme abslut nicht zu Ich stimme abslut zu Ich weiß nicht Familie und Freunde versuchen mich dazu zu überreden, mehr über meinen Energieverbrauch nachzudenken. Ich stimme abslut nicht zu Ich stimme abslut zu Ich weiß nicht

180 Pg. A75 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D9. Wie wichtig sind für Sie flgende Aspekte, wenn Sie an die Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz und Reparaturen Ihrer Immbilie denken? Ob ich genug Geld gespart habe, um Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Sanierungen durchführen zu können Wieviel Zeit ntwendig ist, um das investierte Geld durch die Einsparungen bei den Energieksten zurück zu erhalten Ob die Reduzierung der Energieksten die Zeit und das Geld Wert ist Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Ich weiß nicht Die Gesamtksten für die Sanierung Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Ob ich eine Förderung für die zur Sanierung der Immbilie ntwendigen Arbeiten bekmme Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht Die Höhe des verfügbaren Zuschusses Gar nicht wichtig Sehr wichtig Ich weiß nicht

181 Pg. A76 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D10. Wie interessiert wären Sie an flgenden finanziellen Anreizen, wenn diese für Sie verfügbar wären? Niedrige Zinsen für energieeffiziente Sanierungen und Reparaturen Gar nicht interessiert Sehr interessiert Ich weiß nicht Ein Zuschuss zur Durchführung energieeffizienter Sanierungen und Reparature Gar nicht interessiert Sehr interessiert Ich weiß nicht Eine Steuerermäßigung für energieeffiziente Sanierungen Gar nicht interessiert Sehr interessiert Ich weiß nicht Eine Steuerermäßigung basierend auf dem Energieausweis Gar nicht interessiert Sehr interessiert Ich weiß nicht Preissenkung für energieeffiziente Prdukte (Energiesparlampen, Wärmedämmung, Heizkessel) Gar nicht interessiert Sehr interessiert Ich weiß nicht

182 Pg. A77 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Wenn Sie Sanierungen und Reparaturen an ihrer Immbilie planen würden, welche Auswirkungen hätten flgende Aussagen für Ihre Entscheidung, diese Arbeiten tatsächlich ausführen zu lassen. a). Zeit und ntwendiger Aufwand zur Durchführung der erfrderlichen Arbeiten. Würde mich abhalten Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht b). Die Umstände, die mit den Sanierungsarbeiten einher gehen. Würde mich abhalten Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht c). Die Zeit und der Aufwand, die Anträge für Zuschüsse und Kredite auszufüllen. Würde mich abhalten Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht d). Die Störungen in Ihrem Tagesablauf, während die Sanierungsarbeiten stattfinden. Würde mich abhalten Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht

183 Pg. A78 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Wenn sie Sanierungen und Reparaturen an ihrer Immbilie planen würden, welche Auswirkungen hätten flgende Aussagen für ihre Entscheidung, diese Arbeiten tatsächlich ausführen zu lassen. e). Schwierigkeiten, verlässliche Anbieter zu finden. Würde mich abhalten Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht f). Aufwand zur Infrmatinsbeschaffung über Maßnahmen zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht g). Ihre Fähigkeit, selbst Sanierungen durchführen zu können. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht h). Die Fähigkeit vn Freunden und Familienmitgliedern, bei den Sanierungsmaßnahmen zu helfen. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Würde mich nicht abhalten Ich weiß nicht

184 Pg. A79 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E: Über sie und ihren Haushalt E1. Welche der flgenden Aktivitäten haben Sie und Ihr Haushalt in den letzten 12 Mnaten unternmmen? (Bitte alles Zutreffende anklicken) Regelmäßig die öffentlichen Verkehrsmittel genutzt, zu Fuß gegangen der Fahrrad gefahren, um das Aut möglichst wenig zu nutzen Seltener das Aut für Kurzreisen genutzt Papier, Glas der Plastik gesammelt und zum Recycling gebracht Selbst Küchenabfälle zu Kmpst verwertet bzw. Bimüll gesammelt Strm- und Gasverbrauch des Haushalts reduziert Maßnahmen zur Senkung des Wasserverbrauchs im Haushalt ergriffen Maßnahmen ergriffen, um Lebensraum für Tiere im Garten zu schaffen Güter aus Recyclingmaterial gekauft Güter gekauft, die weniger Energie verbrauchen Keine E2. Geschlecht Männlich Weiblich E3. Wie alt sind Sie?

185 Pg. A80 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E4. Welche der flgenden Beschreibungen passt zu dem, was Sie beruflich tun? Angestellt Selbständig Pensiniert Arbeitssuchend Vllzeit-Student Betreuung der Familie/Haushalt/Kinder Pflege einer behinderten der älteren Persn Zeitweise krank der verletzt Langfristig krank der behindert Anderes E5. Was ist Ihr höchster Bildungsabschluss? Kein Abschluss Hauptschule Realschule FH-Reife Abitur Fachhchschule Uniabschluss; Dktrtitel

186 Pg. A81 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E6. Wie viele Erwachsene (über 18 Jahren) leben einschließlich Ihnen in Haushalt? : Erwachsene E7. Wie viele Kinder (unter 18 Jahren) leben mit Ihnen als Mitglieder des Haushalts? : Kinder zwischen 0 und 6 Jahren : Kinder zwischen 7 und 12 Jahren : Kinder zwischen 13 und 17 Jahren E8. In welchem Rahmen befindet sich Ihr gesamtes Haushaltseinkmmen vr allen Abzügen? Unter 800/Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat /Mnat Mehr als 8.000/Mnat Das möchte ich nicht angeben. Ich weiß nicht

187 Pg. A82 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Appendix A.3 Questinnaire used fr sample frm the Netherlands Vragenlijst ver wnbeleving Welkm bij het wncmfrtnderzek. Uw wning maakt deel uit van een willekeurige selectie van huishudens in Nederland dat uitgendigd is vr deelname. Het del van dit nderzek is meer te weten te kmen ver het wncmfrt zals deze ervaren wrdt dr huishudens in verschillende wningen in Nederland. Uw deelname aan dit nderzek is heel belangrijk, mdat wij p basis van uw antwrden beleidsmakers kunnen infrmeren ver wat naar uw mening verbeterd kan wrden aan de wningbuw in Nederland. Het invullen van deze vragenlijst neemt ngeveer 20 minuten in beslag. Aan het eind van de vragenlijst kunt u aangeven f u wilt meeden aan nze verlting van een prijs van 500. Vult u de vragenlijst s.v.p. uiterlijk vrijdag 2 juli 2010 in. Als u vragen heeft ver het nderzek f als u technische prblemen heeft dan kunt u cntact pnemen met Mia Paukvic van ECN p telefnnummer f een sturen naar paukvic@ecn.nl. Typ hiernder de tegangscde in die wij u per pst hebben tegestuurd en klik p de knp VOLGENDE (rechtsnder). Tegangscde:

188 Pg. A83 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Onderdeel A: Over uzelf A1. Bent u, f een van de leden van uw huishuden, de eigenaar van deze wning? Ja, ik ben de eigenaar van deze wning Ja, een ander lid van ns huishuden is de eigenaar van deze wning. Ja, ik ben de eigenaar van deze wning samen met iemand anders Nee Deze vragenlijst is bedeld vr wningeigenaren; uit uw vrige antwrd blijkt dat u niet tt de juiste delgrep behrt vr de rest van de vragenlijst. Dank u vr uw tijd Verzenden

189 Pg. A84 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A2. In wat vr type wning wnt u? Appartement Rijtjeshuis Hekwning 2 Under 1 kap Vrijstaande wning A3. In welk jaar is uw wning gebuwd? (Bijvrbeeld 1962) : Jaar Ik weet het buwjaar niet precies In welke peride is uw huis gebuwd? Vr Na 2000 Weet ik niet

190 Pg. A85 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A4. He grt is uw huis? (Vlerppervlakte in vierkante meters) : Vierkante meters A5. Wanneer heeft u deze wning gekcht? Maand: Jaar : A6. Wanneer bent u in uw huidige wning gaan wnen? In dezelfde maand als hiervr genemd Maand: Jaar : A7. He lang wilt u in dit huis blijven wnen? Minder dan 5 jaar 5 tt 10 jaar. 11 tt 15 jaar 16 tt 20 jaar Meer dan 20 jaar De rest van mijn leven Weet ik niet

191 Pg. A86 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A8. Ten u p zek was naar een kpwning, he belangrijk waren nderstaande aspecten vr u? Aanwezigheid van een tuin f buitenruimte Aanwezigheid van buurtvrzieningen (bijvrbeeld winkels, schlen) Aanwezigheid van penbaar verver Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Cnditie van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Verwachte ksten van water, elektriciteit en verwarming van het huis Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Indeling van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Parkeergelegenheid Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De lcatie van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De prijs van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De grtte van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Srt verwarmingssysteem Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Uw gevel ver de buurt Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet

192 Pg. A87 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A9. In welke staat verkeerde de wning die u kcht? In zeer slechte staat betekent dat er verbuwd mest wrden vr u in de wning kn trekken. In zeer gede staat betekent dat u niets hefde te verbeteren f te repareren vr u in de wning trk. In zeer slechte staat In zeer gede staat Weet ik niet A10. Heeft u sinds u in uw wning bent ingetrkken te maken gehad met een f meerdere van de vlgende prblemen: Tcht afkmstig van ramen en deuren Geen enkel prbleem Een heel grt prbleem Weet ik niet Hge energierekeningen Geen enkel prbleem Een heel grt prbleem Weet ik niet Prblemen met het verwarmingssysteem Geen enkel prbleem Een heel grt prbleem Weet ik niet Meite m uw wning p een aangename temperatuur te huden Geen enkel prbleem Een heel grt prbleem Weet ik niet Andere prblemen met uw wning (geef aub uitleg) Geen enkel prbleem Een heel grt prbleem Weet ik niet Ligt 'anders' te alstublieft 500

193 Pg. A88 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A A11. In het algemeen, he zu u de temperatuur in uw wnkamer beschrijven tijdens de winter? Onaangenaam kud Aangenaam kel Aangenaam Aangenaam warm Onaangenaam warm A12. Weet u wat de gemiddelde temperatuur in uw wnkamer tijdens de winter is? Ja Nee Wat is de gemiddelde temperatuur in uw wnkamer tijdens de winter? C

194 Pg. A89 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Onderdeel B: Wningverbeteringen B1. Heeft u verbeteringen in uw wning aangebracht sinds u er bent kmen wnen? Het kan hier gaan m verfraaiingen, verbetering van het verwarmingssysteem, vervangen van ramen, badkamer, keukens f meer grtschalige werkzaamheden. Ja Nee Heeft u uw wning verbeterd p een van de vlgende manieren? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Algemene aankleding (schilderwerk, pleisterwerk, betegelen etc) Aanbrengen van vlerislatie Verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe badkamer Isleren van zlder Verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe keuken Installeren van een nieuw verwarmingsinstallatie (Cvketel) Veranderingen aan de tuin/ buitenruimte Installeren van pen haard Vervangen gleilampen dr spaarlampen Nieuwe thermstaat Leidingislatie Anti-tchtvrziening p deuren f ramen Isleren van warmwaterbiler Kierdichting Installeren van dubbel f HR glas Instaleren van een ventilatiesysteem met warmteterugwinning Buwen van een uitbuw/ serre Aanbrengen radiatrflie Aanbrengen van spuwmuur- f buitenmuurislatie Instaleren van duurzame energievrziening(-en)

195 Pg. A90 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Vltide wningverbeteringen: Wat vr duurzame energievrziening heeft u aangebracht? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Windturbine vr elektriciteitspwekking Znnecllectr vr warmwater Znnepaneel vr elektriciteitspwekking Bdemwarmtepmp Luchtwarmtepmp Hutgestkt verwarmingssysteem Anders Ligt anders te alstublieft 500

196 Pg. A91 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B2. Heeft u ng andere verbeteringen aan uw wning aangebracht? Ja Nee He heeft u uw wning verbeterd? 500 B3. He belangrijk waren nderstaande redenen vr het uitveren van wningverbeteringen in uw huidige wning? De buurt verbeteren Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De waarde van mijn wning vergrten Mijn huis er mier uit laten zien Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Mijn huis cmfrtabeler maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Mijn huis energiezuiniger maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Andere gezinsleden wilden dat graag De wning aanpassen aan veranderde gezinssamenstelling Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Minder milieubelastend zijn Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De energierekening lager maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet

197 Pg. A92 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B4. Verwacht u in de kmende drie jaar verbeteringen aan uw wning aan te brengen? Het kan hier gaan m verfraaiingen, verbetering van het verwarmingssysteem, vervangen van ramen, badkamer, keukens f meer grtschalige werkzaamheden. Ja Nee Weet ik niet Wat verwacht u te verbeteren in de kmende drie jaar? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Algemene decratie (schilderwerk, pleisterwerk, betegelen, etc.) Aanbrengen van vlerislatie verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe badkamer Isleren van zlder verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe keuken Installeren van een nieuw verwarmingsinstallatie (Cvketel) Veranderingen aan de tuin/ buitenruimte installeren van pen haard Vervangen gleilampen dr spaarlampen Nieuwe thermstaat Leidingislatie Anti-tchtvrziening p deuren f ramen Isleren van warmwaterbiler Kierdichting Installeren van dubbel f HR glas Installeren van een ventilatiesysteem met warmteterugwinning Buwen van een uitbuw/ serre Aanbrengen radiatrflie Aanbrengen van spuwmuur- f buitenmuurislatie Installeren van duurzame energievrziening(-en)

198 Pg. A93 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Geplande wningverbeteringen: Wat vr duurzame energievrziening verwacht u aan te gaan brengen? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Windturbine vr elektriciteitspwekking Znnecllectr vr warmwater Znnepaneel vr elektriciteitspwekking Bdemwarmtepmp Luchtwarmtepmp Hutgestkt verwarmingssysteem Anders Ligt anders te alstublieft 500

199 Pg. A94 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B5. Verwacht u ng andere verbeteringen aan te brengen in de kmende drie jaar? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Welke verbeteringen verwacht u ng aan te brengen in de kmende drie jaar? 500

200 Pg. A95 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B6. He belangrijk zijn de vlgende redenen m in de tekmst uw huidige wning te verbeteren? De buurt verbeteren Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De waarde van mijn wning vergrten Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Mijn huis er mier uit laten zien Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Mijn huis cmfrtabeler maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Mijn huis energiezuiniger maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Andere gezinsleden wilden dat graag De wning aanpassen aan veranderde gezinssamenstelling Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Minder milieubelastend zijn Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De energierekening lager maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet

201 Pg. A96 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B7. He betruwbaar vindt u de vlgende infrmatiebrnnen als het gaat m wningverbeteringen en reparaties? Advertenties/reclames Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet De-het-zelf winkels Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Energieleveranciers Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Familie en vrienden Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Lkale vakmensen Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Lkale/natinale verheden Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Artikelen in tijdschriften f kranten Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Buren Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Het energielabel Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Het internet Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet TV en radiprgramma's Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet

202 Pg. A97 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B8. Heeft iemand van uw familieleden f vrienden grtschalige verbeteringen (vr waarschijnlijk meer dan 1000 Eur) aan hun wning uitgeverd in de laatste 12 maanden? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Wat hebben zij gedaan? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Algemene decratie (schilderwerk, pleisterwerk, betegelen, etc) verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe badkamer/keuken Buwen van een uitbuw/ serre Veranderingen aan de tuin/ buitenruimte Installeren van duurzame energievrziening(-en) Anders Weet ik niet

203 Pg. A98 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A B9. Heeft iemand van uw buren grtschalige verbeteringen (vr waarschijnlijk meer dan 1000 Eur) aan hun wning uitgeverd in de laatste 12 maanden? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Wat hebben zij gedaan? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Algemene decratie (schilderwerk, pleisterwerk, betegelen, etc.) verbeteren f installeren van een nieuwe badkamer/keuken Buwen van een uitbuw/ serre Veranderingen aan de tuin/ buitenruimte Installeren van duurzame energievrziening(-en) Anders Weet ik niet B10. He belangrijk vindt u het m uw wning te verbeteren vrdat u deze verkpt? Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Ik heb geen plannen m mijn huis te verkpen

204 Pg. A99 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Onderdeel C: Energie C1. Heeft u gehrd van het energielabel vr wningen? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Waar heeft u gehrd van het Energielabel? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Televisie Radi Kranten Internet Van vrienden f kennissen Pster Opgestuurde flder Energieleverancier Makelaar Wninginfrmatiepakket bij verkp wning Ntaris Anders Hyptheekverstrekker Weet ik niet

205 Pg. A100 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C2. Heeft u wel eens een energielabel vr wningen gezien? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Het hiernder weergegeven energielabel kunt u tegenkmen bij de verkp van een wning. Kijkt u ged naar de weergegeven afbeelding. Heeft u dit label wel eens gezien? Ja Nee Weet ik niet

206 Pg. A101 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C3. Heeft u een energielabel vr uw eigen wning? Ja Ja, inclusief een maatwerkadvies Nee Weet ik niet Het hiernder weergegeven energielabel kunt u tegenkmen bij de verkp van een wning. Kijkt u ged naar de weergegeven afbeelding. Zat een dergelijk label bij de papieren die u ntvangen heeft bij de verkp/ aankp van uw wning Ja Nee Weet ik niet

207 Pg. A102 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C4. He bent u aan het energielabel vr wningen gekmen? Ik kcht een wning Omdat ik mijn wning wilde verkpen Ik wilde er zelf een hebben Wanneer is het energielabel afgegeven? Maand: Jaar : Weet ik niet

208 Pg. A103 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C5. Bent u dit label tegengekmen in de dcumenten die betrekking hebben p de aan- f verkp van uw huis? Ja Nee Weet ik niet Wanneer kreeg u het energielabel vr uw huidige wning vr het eerst te zien? Vrdat ik een bd uitbracht Nadat ik een bd uitbracht maar vr het tekenen van de kpvereenkmst Na het tekenen van de kpvereenkmst Weet ik niet He belangrijk was het energielabel vr u bij de beslissing m een bd uit te brengen p uw huidige wning? Helemaal niet belangrijk Heel belangrijk Heeft u het Energielabel gebruikt in de nderhandeling ver de prijs van uw wning? Ja Nee He belangrijk was het energielabel in de prijsnderhandeling vr uw huidige wning? Helemaal niet belangrijk Heel belangrijk

209 Pg. A104 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Ten u zcht naar een andere wning heeft u ten andere wningen gezien met een energielabel? Ja, de meeste wningen hadden een energielabel Ja, smmige wningen hadden een energielabel Geen van de wningen had een energielabel Weet ik niet Ik ben niet naar andere wningen gaan kijken He belangrijk was het energielabel vr de keuze m uw huidige wning te kpen? Helemaal niet belangrijk Heel belangrijk He belangrijk waren de wnlasten (water, elektriciteit en gas) vr de keuze m uw huidige wning te kpen? Helemaal niet belangrijk Heel belangrijk

210 Pg. A105 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C6. Het energielabel vr wningen bevat een scre. Dit is een letter variërend van A tt G. Kunt u de scre van uw wning ng herinneren? Ja, ik ben zeker van de scre Ja, maar ik ben niet heel zeker van de scre Nee Wat is de energielabel scre van uw huis? (Geef aan welke scre vlgens u crrect is. Het is niet ndig dit p te zeken in dcumenten die u mgelijk heeft). A B C D E F G

211 Pg. A106 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C7. Herinnert u zich ng de aanbevelingen vr energiebesparing p uw energielabel? Ja, die herinner ik me ng ged Ja, maar ik weet het niet meer zeker Nee, ik heb alleen een scre gekregen znder aanbevelingen Nee, ik kan geen van de aanbevelingen herinneren Aanbevelingen energielabel Stnden p het energielabel een van de vlgende aanbevelingen? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Geen aanbevelingen Dakislatie Pmpschakeling Binnen- buitengevelislatie Gebalanceerde ventilatie met warmteterugwinning Islatie zldervler Warmtelevering dr derden Aanvertemperatuur lager dan 55 C Gelijkstrmventilatr Mechanische afzuiging Vraaggestuurde ventilatie Gebuwgebnden warmtekrachtinstallatie Kierdichting (vr de gehele wning) Leidingislatie Elektrische warmtepmp vr ruimteverwarming Vrverwarming van ventilatielucht dr middel van serre Gasbiler Beperking van de leidinglengte Warmtepmpbiler Vervangen verwarmingsketel Individuele bemetering PV-cellen Islerende beglazing Znnegascmbi Installeren nieuwe cmbiketel Znnebiler Spuwmuurislatie Thermstaatkranen p radiatren Begane grnd vlerislatie Inregelen van verwarmingsinstallaties

212 Pg. A107 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Ksten van aanbevelingen Heveel heeft u tt nu te ngeveer uitgegeven aan het uitveren van deze aanbevelingen? Niets Meer dan Weet ik niet Heveel geld verwacht u, bij benadering, in de kmende drie jaar uit te geven aan deze aanbevelingen? Niets ,000 1,001-5,000 5,001-10, Meer dan Weet ik niet

213 Pg. A108 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C8. In het algemeen, he eenvudig is het m het energielabel te begrijpen Erg meilijk Erg makkelijk C9. Denkt u dat het energielabel een ged verzicht geeft van de energiezuinigheid van uw wning? Heel slecht Heel ged Weet ik niet C10. In het algemeen, denkt u dat het Energielabel vr wningen geneg details bevat ver de energiezuinigheid van uw wning? Helemaal niet Helemaal wel Weet ik niet

214 Pg. A109 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A C11. He bruikbaar was de infrmatie ver de vlgende nderwerpen p het energielabel vr wningen? De energieksten (elektriciteit en gas) vr uw wning De wningverbeteringen die ndig zijn m de energierekening te verlagen De investeringen die ndig zijn vr wningverbeteringen Waar advies in te winnen ver energiebesparende maatregelen Organisaties en bedrijven die besparingsmaatregelen aanbieden Subsidies en financiële ndersteuning die beschikbaar zijn vr het energiezuiniger maken van uw wning Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Helemaal niet nuttig Heel erg nuttig Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet C12. Wanneer u suggesties heeft vr het verbeteren van het energielabel vr wningen, zu u die dan hier in willen vullen alstublieft? 2000

215 Pg. A110 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Onderdeel D: Algemene vragen D1. Kunt u aangeven heveel u weet ver de vlgende termen? Heel veel Redelijk wat Een klein beetje Niets, ik heb alleen van de term gehrd Niets, nit van gehrd Weet ik niet Klimaatverandering De pwarming van de aarde Energiezuinigheid Milieuvriendelijk D2. He makkelijk is het vr u m infrmatie te verkrijgen ver he u de energiezuinigheid van uw wning kunt verbeteren? Met energiezuinigheid in de wning wrdt bedeld dat vr dezelfde taak minder energie ndig is. Een spaarlamp gebruikt bijvrbeeld minder elektriciteit vr hetzelfde licht dan een gewne lamp. Heel meilijk Heel makkelijk Weet ik niet D3. He makkelijk is het vr u m de meest geschikte mensen te vinden m uw wning energiezuiniger te maken? Heel meilijk Heel makkelijk Weet ik niet

216 Pg. A111 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D4. He betruwbaar vindt u persnlijk de vlgende brnnen van infrmatie ver de energiezuinigheid van uw wning? Advertenties/reclames Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet De-het-zelf winkels Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Energieleveranciers Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Familie en vrienden Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Lkale vakmensen Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Lkale/natinale verheden Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Artikelen in tijdschriften f kranten Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Buren Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Het energielabel Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet Het internet Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet TV en radiprgramma's Helemaal niet belangrijk Vlledig betruwbaar Weet ik niet

217 Pg. A112 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D5. Zu een f meer van de vlgende zaken u helpen m te besluiten he u uw wning energiezuiniger wilt maken? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Betere infrmatie in de natinale en lkale pers Betere infrmatie p de radi en de televisie Betere infrmatie van mijn energieleverancier Betere infrmatie p internet Bespreken met een energiedeskundige Betere infrmatie van leveranciers van energiebesparende prducten Weet ik niet Anders Ligt anders te alstublieft 300

218 Pg. A113 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D6. Welke van nderstaande brnnen zu u verwegen m verdere infrmatie in te winnen ver he de energiezuinigheid van uw huis verbeterd kan wrden? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Uw energieleverancier Vrienden f familieleden Leveranciers van energiebesparende prducten f diensten Buwmarkten Lkale vakmensen Overheidswebsite Gemeente f gemeenteraad Biblitheek Internet Milieurganisaties Weet ik niet Anders Ligt anders te alstublieft 300

219 Pg. A114 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D7. He belangrijk zijn, naar uw mening, de vlgende vrdelen van het energiezuiniger maken van uw wning? Bijdrage aan het milieu Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet De wning cmfrtabeler maken Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Verhgen van de waarde van de wning Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Verlagen van vaste ksten Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Het verminderen van CO 2 uitstt Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet D8. In welke mate bent u het eens f neens met de vlgende stellingen? Ik prbeer de mensen die ik ken meer te laten nadenken ver hun energiegebruik. Helemaal mee neens Helemaal mee eens Weet ik niet Familie en vrienden prberen me meer te laten nadenken ver mijn energiegebruik. Helemaal mee neens Helemaal mee eens Weet ik niet

220 Pg. A115 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D9. He belangrijk zijn de vlgende zaken vr u, wanneer u denkt aan verbeteringen f aanpassingen van de energiezuinigheid van uw wning? Of ik vldende heb gespaard m de verbeteringen te bekstigen De tijd die ndig is m het geinvesteerde geld terug te verdienen dr besparingen p energierekeningen Of de besparing p mijn energierekening mijn tijd en geld waard is De ttale ksten van verbeteringen f aanpassingen Of ik een subsidie kan krijgen vr het type werk dat gedaan met wrden m mijn wning te verbeteren De heveelheid subsidie die beschikbaar vr me is Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Helemaal niet belangrijk Zeer belangrijk Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet Weet ik niet

221 Pg. A116 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D10. He geïnteresseerd zu u zijn in de vlgende financiële prikkels, wanneer deze beschikbaar zuden zijn vr u? Een lening met lage rente vr verbeteringen en aanpassingen m wningen energiezuiniger te maken Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd Zeer geïnteresseerd Weet ik niet Een subsidie vr verbeteringen en aanpassingen m wningen energiezuiniger te maken Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd Zeer geïnteresseerd Weet ik niet Een lager belastingtarief, mdat u uw wning energiezuiniger gemaakt hebt Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd Zeer geïnteresseerd Weet ik niet Een lager belastingtarief gebaseerd p de scre p het energielabel Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd Zeer geïnteresseerd Weet ik niet Verlaging van de prijs van energiezuinige prdukten (gleilampen, islatie, verwarmingsketels) Helemaal niet geïnteresseerd Zeer geïnteresseerd Weet ik niet

222 Pg. A117 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Wanneer u van plan zu zijn uw wning p te knappen en reparaties uit te veren, wat zu dan de invled zijn van de vlgende dingen p uw beslissing het werk uit te veren? a). De tijd en de meite die het kst m het werk gedaan te krijgen Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet b). De rmmel die klussen en renveren met zich meebrengt Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet c). De tijd en meite die ndig zijn m frmulieren vr subsidie en leningen in te vullen Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet d). De veranderingen aan uw dagelijkse rutine tijdens de uitvering van werk aan uw wning Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet

223 Pg. A118 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A D11. Wanneer u van plan zu zijn uw wning p te knappen en reparaties uit te veren, wat zu dan de invled zijn van de vlgende dingen p uw beslissing het werk uit te veren? e). Prblemen met het vinden van betruwbare vakmensen Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet f). De tijd die ndig is m infrmatie te vinden ver energiebesparende maatregelen. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet g). De mate waarin u in staat bent zelf wningverbeteringen aan te brengen. Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet h). De mate waarin vrienden en familie in staat zijn mee te helpen bij de wningverbeteringen Dat ntmedigt me vlledig Dat ntmedigt me geheel niet Weet ik niet

224 Pg. A119 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Onderdeel E: Over uzelf en uw huishuden E1. Welke van nderstaande activiteiten heeft u met uw huishuden ndernmen in de afgelpen 12 maanden? (Vink aan wat van tepassing is) Bewust gebruik gemaakt van penbaar verver, gewandeld f gefietst m autgebruik te vermijden Gebruik van een aut vr krte ritten verminderd Papier, glas, plastic f andere materialen gerecycled. Cmpst gemaakt van (tuin- en) keukenafval Het gas- en elektriciteitsgebruik van uw huishuden teruggedrngen Dingen gedaan m het watergebruik in uw huishuden terug te dringen Dingen gedaan m de natuur in uw tuin te stimuleren Prducten gekcht mdat ze van gerecycled materiaal gemaakt zijn Prducten gekcht mdat ze minder energie gebruiken Geen van bvenstaande E2. Geslacht Man Vruw E3. Wat is uw leeftijd?

225 Pg. A120 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E4. Welke van nderstaande beschrijvingen is p u van tepassing? Lndienst Eigen baas Gepensineerd Werkels Vltijds student Zrg vr de familie/huis/kinderen Zrg vr een gehandicapte f bejaarde persn Langdurig ziek f arbeidsngeschikt Anders E5. Wat is het hgst dr u genten nderwijsniveau? Basisnderwijs f eerste fase basisnderwijs LBO,VMBO mul,mav mb mms, hav hbs, vw hb Universiteit Pst-dctraal Dctraat Anders

226 Pg. A121 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A E6. Heveel vlwassenen (18 jaar en uder), inclusief uzelf, telt uw huishuden? : vlwassenen E7. Heveel kinderen (jnger dan 18 jaar) telt uw huishuden? : Kinderen van 0-6 jaar : Kinderen van 7-12 jaar : Kinderen van jaar E8. Wat is het gezamenlijk brut inkmen van uw huishuden? minder dan 1100 per maand ,375/maand 1, /maand /maand 1, /maand 2,276 2,633/maand 2, /maand 3,026 3,550/maand 3,551 4,425/maand 4,425 8,000/maand meer dan 8,000/maand Wil ik liever niet zeggen Weet ik niet

227 Pg. A122 IDEAL EPBD Deliverable 5.2 Appendix A Appendix A.4 Questinnaire used fr sample frm England Hme Cmfrt Survey Welcme t the Hme Cmfrt Survey. Yur husehld is part f a sample f recent hme buyers in England randmly selected t participate in the study. The purpse f the survey is t discver mre abut the level f cmfrtexperienced by hmewners living in lder huses in England. Yur respnses t this survey are very imprtant and will help us t tell plicy makers what yu think they culd d t imprve husing in England. This survey is likely t take abut 20 minutest cmplete. At the end f the questinnaire yu can enter ur free prize draw t win 500. Please cmplete the questinnaire by Friday, 9th July Enter yur access cde in the bx belw t start the questinnaire. If yu have any questins abut thestudy r experience any technical prblems please cntact Afi Adjei at BRE n r questinnaire@bre.c.uk Please, enter yu Access Cde listed in the letter e wsent t yu, and then click the NEXT buttn (belw right). Access Cde: