Energy Smart City Profiles

(1)

WP2

Deliverable 2.3

Report created by TUWIEN team

Rudolf Giffinger

Gudrun Haindlmaier

Hans Kramar

Hui Lu

Florian Strohmayer

March 2015

contact: [email protected]

(2)

2

Report abstract

–

Energy Smart City stakeholders

’

part of D2.3

Main aim of report

This report depicts the results of the survey among stakeholders in PLEEC cities. The

importance of the various energy efficiency domains as well as potentials expressing

challenges and restrictions for further improvement of energy efficiency are discussed.

Based on a survey, this report gives a first but not representative overview about the

perceptions and assessment of a small group of stakeholders. Hence, in a network

perspective this group and respective discussion on what development should be

enlarged through relevant stakeholders on further workshops in the respective cities.

Target group

Partners in PLEEC cities and corresponding group of stakeholders within these cities

Main findings/conclusions



Broad agreement and acceptance of PLEEC energy efficiency concept



Renovation and refurbishment, renewable energy and (public) transport are the most

relevant domains for energy efficiency in general



Heating and cooling grids, private households as well as land-use are named as the

domains currently contributing most to Energy efficiency in PLEEC cities



Innovation potential for energy efficiency outranges current situation in PLEEC cities in

most domains

Activities carried out including methodology used



Analysis of 2

nd

survey among stakeholders in PLEEC cities, focusing on:

o

Definition of energy efficiency

o

Key fields and domains of energy efficiency

o

Energy efficiency city profiles: current status and potentials as expression of

challenges and restrictions

WP7: Dissemination

W

P

2

:

S

m

a

rt

c

it

y

p

ro

fi

le

s

W

P

6

:

S

y

n

e

rg

y

o

f

p

e

rs

p

e

c

ti

v

e

s

a

n

d

a

c

ti

o

n

p

la

n

WP3: Technology driven efficiency

potentials

WP4: Structure driven efficiency

potentials

WP5: Behaviour driven efficiency

potentials

(3)

Introduction PLEEC project

Energy efficiency is high on the European agenda. One of the goals of the European

Union's 20-20-20 plan is to improve energy efficiency by 20% in 2020.

However, holistic knowledge about energy efficiency potentials in cities is far from

complete. Currently, a variety of individual strategies and approaches by different

stakeholders tackling separate key aspects hinders strategic energy efficiency planning.

For this reason, the PLEEC project

–

"Planning for Energy Efficient Cities"

–

funded by

the EU Seventh Framework Programme uses an integrative approach to achieve the

sustainable, energy

–

efficient, smart city. By coordinating strategies and combining best

practices, PLEEC will develop a general model for energy efficiency and sustainable city

planning.

By connecting scientific excellence and innovative enterprises in the energy sector with

ambitious and well-organized cities, the project aims to reduce energy use in Europe in

the near future and will therefore be an important tool contributing to the EU's

20-20-20 targets.

(4)

Evidence based and social learning approach: Involvement of local stakeholders

In order to enable effective work in the PLEEC project WP 2 follows the idea of an

evidence and social learning based approach. This implies following activities

-

to realize the European Smart City model in

WP . providing the city’s profile

and describing the most relevant assets and deficits in the city’s performance and

a corresponding benchmarking across the respective key fields, and

-

to identify types of cities based on their profiles in WP 2.2 as a base for detecting

good practice in other cities.

Hence, this profile of a city is providing impulses for further discussion and research. In

particular, the identified deficits and assets are discussed from the perceptive and

assessing point of view of local stakeholders. Those stakeholders had been involved by

PLEEC partner cities through a two-wave survey realized through specific web-based

questionnaires in national languages. The general objectives were (1) the detection of

most important key fields of energy relevant urban development with corresponding

domains as well as (2) the identification of innovation potentials across all domains of

the respective city.

As energy efficient urban development is a complex environmental, economic and social

issue, the involvement of stakeholders into this social learning process and evidence

based discussion of the city’s profile is argued as follows:

Environmental conflicts that

arise from attitudinal differences between the actors Awakul and Ogulana,

are

sometimes unavoidable (Shepherd and Bowler, 1997), and are not necessarily a bad thing,

as they expose the different values and perceptions. In other words, major causes of

environmental conflicts are value differences among the actors (Harashima, 1995), and the

best way to avoid or address such conflicts is to enable open dialogue which includes a

wide range of interest groups in early stages of the project (Glasson et al., 1999). Through

engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, it may even be able to highlight the

trade-offs clearly to those opposed to a project and reach more acceptable decisions (Shepherd

and Bowler, 1997).

Mathur, et al.,

, p.

According to this argument stakeholders can be distinguished easily into those who

affect the project, those who are affected or others who may be interested. However,

there are other concepts identifying the meaning of stakeholders. Bryson (2004) for

instance, describes them in 4 technical categories: 1) organizing participation; 2)

creating ideas for strategic interventions; including problem formulation and solution

search; 3) building a winning coalition around proposal development, review and

adoption; and 4) implementing, monitoring and evaluating strategic interventions.

Based on this general understanding one session of the workshop in Eskilstuna (May

2013) was dedicated to this discussion and project members from partner cities,

enterprises and universities elaborated a more precise understanding in a first brain

storming which is summarized as follows:

(5)

Outcome of Workshop 1 moderated session with cities and PLEEC experts

Eskilstuna

Power

Urgency

Legitimacy

Politicians boards Energy entrepreneurs National energy agency

Energy producers SME organisation EEM (Energy, Water, Waste, Energy services, Environment) Housing companies NGO (environmental background) Eskilstuna Energy & Environment

Region stromland Energy advisor Mälardalen University

Water company Länstrafiken

Big companies

Business (finance org, risk finance)

(6)

Jyväskylä

Inside City Administration

Outside

Urban Planning Universities

City politicians - all parties Research

Housing company Shops / Mall operators

Civil servants (between inside and outside) Serving companies

Energy companies

Mass media (reporters)

Industry (producers)

Citizens (parents, children, retired people)

(7)

Santiago de Compostela

Behaviour

Structure

Technology

Educational Resp. Civil servants Public/Private transport companies

Advertising campaigns in

environmental matters Non-Profit-Organisations Civil engineering Volunteers Supplying companies

(8)

Stoke-on-Trent

Providers

Governance

Knowledge

Interested

Parties

Others

Industrial

partners (waste,

energy)

Regional

government

staff

Systems

scientists

(holistic focus)

Public

Voluntary sector

Energy

companies

Local authority

Scientists with a

social focus

Education sector

Interested

NGO's

Industrial

representatives

National

regulators

Scientists with a

technical focus

Residents

organisations

Green

entrepreneurs

Eco-builders

European

Commission

Logistic experts

Chamber of

commerce

City technical

staff

City council

Universities

Business

community

Municipalities

Planners

Motorist lobby

groups

Utility providers

City council

members

Customers

associations

Energy supply

(infrastructure)

Elected

politicians

W 6.0

Planners of local

transport

Financiers

Munic. services

Enabler

Public transport

operators

Urban planning

company

Engineering

service company

Housing assoc.

Citizen

represent.

Builders (using

eco-methods)

(9)

(10)

Tartu

Power Power – Legitimacy Power – Legitimacy – Urban

Politicians (members of

parliament) PR specialists (local authority)

Local transportation representatives Municipal energy agency City planners

Legitimacy Tartu Science Park Specialist from planning department

Manager of technology Fortum (heating)

Social media experts

(behaviour) Transport planner

Universities Representative/expert on waste

management

Psychology Local expert on renewable

energy

University researchers on urban

development Tartu Water Company

City property department

NGO-s (energy + environment) Power – Urban

Property developers

Enterprises (Lõunakeskus,

Salvest, Playtech)

Urban Large employers

Students School authorities

Senior representatives

Some parents Legitimacy – Urban

Union of handicraft people Nature protection NGO-s

District representatives Lighting specialist (municipality)

Public transport operator Green activists

Housing association Farmers

(11)

Turku

City planning, national technical research centre

Housing

Mobility

People

Economy

Energy

Behaviour

Main political groups Business, Agency, Organisations

Structure

Waste management company, Housing companies, Infrastructure companies, Real estate corporation Traffic planning, Public transport Tenants association, regional council (regional planning), regional state authorities Associations, entrepreneurs, Regional business development centre

Technical

knowledge

Construction companies R&D partner (Siemens) Urban research (universities), Future research centre Municipal energy company

(12)

Based on this introduction stakeholders in the partner cities had been involved in

first and second wave of the survey showing following structure:

Remark: Due to improvements the categories differ between survey 1 and survey 2.

Very obvious, partners of our project partner cities could involve a certain number of

stakeholders with different background reflecting specific experiences and assessing the

city’s

specific innovation potentials across all domains. Perceptive and assessing

answers show clear differences across cities with rather plausible results in terms of the

innovation potentials. Of course, this structure of stakeholders could be improved and

enhanced in the run of the project in the next Local Dialog Forums (LDFs). According to

the PLEEC-project plan each city has to organize two LDFs until March 2016. The LDFs

serve - according to the specific city requirements and status of work on action plans - as

platform for the cities to seek input from the stakeholders, to disseminate project results

or to get the relevant actors "on board" ensuring the implementation and success of the

EE Action Plans.

(13)

Further involvement of stakeholders

Following the discussions in literature on urban sustainable development the local

stakeholders should be involved in the run of the project’s next phase WP in order to

bring forward respective action plans. Two arguments underpin this idea of social

learning processes: First, on the base of local dialogue forums organised by city

representatives an enhanced round of important stakeholders should participate

acknowledging the increasingly heterogeneous interests in a fragmented society.

(Healey, 1997) Second, the involvement of stakeholders is associated with the

expectation of an evolving and increasingly specified network within the city. Involved

stakeholders will act as important nodes in an increasingly network driven urban

development context. (Castells, 2000)

Literature

Mathur V.N., Price A:D.F., Austin S. and Moobela C. 82007) Defining, identifying and

mapping stakeholders in the assessment of urban sustainability. In M. Horner, C.

Hardcastle, A. Price and J. Bebbington (Eds.) Proceedings: SUE-MoT Conference 2007:

International Conference on Whole Life Sustainability and its Assessment, Glasgow,

Scotland, 27th-29th June 2007.

Bryson, J.M. 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and

analysis techniques, Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53.

Healey, P. (1997) CallaborativeP lannina: ShapinaP lacesin FraamenudS odetiesL, ondon:

MacMillan Press.

Castells, Manuel (2000): The information age 1. The rise of the network society.

Cambridge: Blackwell. 2nd edition.

(14)

Conduction of survey 2



Online survey among city representatives and experts

o

November 2013

–

January 2014 (partly Mid of March 2014)



Overall response rate: 49%

o

220 invitations

–

108 answered



mainly respondents of city administration and private sector as well as research

and education

4 ₃ 0 1 5 1 4 2 1 1 3 2 12 9 14 12 16 11 0 5 10 15 20 25

Eskilstuna Jyväskylä Santiago Stoke Tartu Turku

Completed 100% Partly completed 75% Partly completed 50%

(15)

Definition of energy efficiency



Broad acceptance (92% of respondents fully agree) on definition:

“Energy efficiency means the use of less energy to provide the same

service considering aspects of economic, social and ecologic sustainability

and the life-

cycle of materials.”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No

Yes

(16)

Overall relevance of domains and key fields

Question: »Please select 5 domains in the taxonomy which

you consider to be most relevant for energy efficiency«

(17)

Top 3 domains per city

Esklistuna

1. Renovation and refurbishment (40,0%)

1. Renewable energy (40,0%)

3. Pedestrian traffic and cycling (35,0%)

Jyväskylä

3. Heating and cooling grids (23,8%)

3. Private households (23,8%)

Santiago

1. Public transport (57,1%)

1. Heating and cooling grids (57,1%)

1. Public lightning (57,1%)

1. Industry and commerce (57,1%)

Stoke

2. Private households (50,0%)

Tartu

3. Heating and cooling grids (37,5%)

Turku

1. Spatial structures and land-use (64,3%)

(18)

Energy efficiency potentials

–

current city situation



Contribution of domains for energy efficiency in PLEEC cities

Question 2: »How would you judge the current contribution of

the domain “…” for energy efficiency in your city today?

(1…very low, 2… low, 3… fair, 4… high, 5… very high)«

3,44 _3,35 _3,32 3,12 3,12 2,95 2,92 2,88 2,67 2,45 _2,38 _2,32 _2,30 2,20 1,92 1,39 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

(19)

Understanding of energy efficiency potential



A potential for innovation in the respective domains is defined through

the assessment of the group of stakeholders in each city.



The innovation potential is described across all domains and related to

the current status of achieved energy efficiency in the respective

domain. This difference between expected and actually perceived level

of energy efficiency performance expresses implicitly the challenges

and restrictions in each domain.



In this report, the innovation potential is analysed and discussed in the

perspective of technology, structure and behaviour.



Besides in each “City Report xxx –

Summary WP2 results”, the most

important issues (innovation potentials, challenges and restrictions) are

elaborated in perspective of technology, structure and behaviour.

(20)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Eskilstuna

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

a. Renovation and refurbishment

b. Innovative building technologies

c. Spatial structures and land-use

d. Public transport

e. Motorised private transport

f. Pedestrian traffic and cycling

g. Transport of goods h. Waste, water and sewage

management i. Electric power grids

j. (District) heating and cooling grids

k. Public lighting m. Industry and commerce n. Private and public services

p. Private households r. Fossil and nuclear energy

t. Renewable energy

innovation potential current contribution

»How would you judge the current contribution of the domain “…” for energy efficiency in

your city today?«

»How would you judge the innovation potential for energy efficiency in the domain “…” in your city in the near future?

(21)

City results Eskilstuna: Which innovation potentials

through technology, structure and behaviour?



Evaluation of current situation:

o

w

aste water sewage management, public transport as well as spatial structures and

land-use are performing best

o

but the three most important EE domains (renovation and refurbishment, renewable

energy, pedestrian traffic and cycling) are only in the midfield



Why is the innovation potential for energy efficiency not (yet) used to its

full extent?

o

Why is motorized private transport not an influential domain for the future?

o

What is the good practice of waste water sewage management, public transport as well

as spatial structures and land-use?

o

What are the obstacles of performance for renovation and refurbishment, renewable

energy, pedestrian traffic and cycling? They are only in the midfield?

o

Why is education and information campaigning only important for EE in private

households and renewable energies but not in other domains?

Remark: These questions are dedicated to be answered within the following work packages of PLEEC project together with

(22)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Jyväskylä

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

d. Public transport

t. Renewable energy

(23)

City results Jyväskylä: Which innovation potentials



Evaluation of current situation:

o

Spatial structures and land-use, public lightning, and private and public services are

currently the 3 best performing domains regarding energy efficiency.

o

The current contributions of the domains motorised private transport and electrical power

grids for energy efficiency in Jyväskylä are only rated fairly. Why? What are the reasons?



Why is the innovation potential for energy efficiency not (yet) used to its full

extent?

o

The gaps between the ratings of the current contributions and of the innovation potentials

within the domains motorised private transport and electrical power grid are very high;

those within the domains innovative building technologies, public transport, industry and

commerce, fossil and nuclear energy are still quite fair. What are the efforts to improve

energy efficiency within these domains? Are there any strategies to realise the potentials?

o

Within the domains renovation and refurbishment, spatial structures and land-use,

(district) heating and cooling grids, public lightning, private and public services, private

households and renewable energy the estimated innovation potentials meet the current

situations at relative high level. What are the reasons that led to that good current

performance in past years? Do there exist any obstacles? Can Jyväskylä be used as role

model in those domains?

(24)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Santiago

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

d. Public transport

t. Renewable energy

(25)

City results Santiago: Which innovation potentials



Evaluation of current situation

o

Innovation potential differs very much from the current EE situation

o

Private households are only domain where current situation meets the potential



Why does the innovation potential for energy efficiency show such strong

discrepancies between status and potential?

o

Why do especially these domains focusing on innovative technologies (such as

renovation and refurbishment, renewable energy, innovative building

technologies) not meet the estimated potentials?

o

Why does a remarkably big gap exist within the domain of pedestrians and

cycling? What‘s the specific situation (obstacles) in this domain in Santiago?

o

In general Santiago experts evaluate the innovation potential to be very high

–

why is there such a great optimism in Santiago compared to other cities?

(26)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Stoke-on-Trent

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

d. Public transport

t. Renewable energy

(27)

City results Stoke-on-Trent: Which innovation potentials



o

Except for electrical power grids the potential for EE is much higher than the current situation shows

o

Both public transport as well as renovation and refurbishment are named as most important

domains for EE

o

Co-operation and PPPs are regarded as very important in Stoke



Renovation and refurbishment: by city administration in cooperation with interest and lobby groups



innovative building technologies: to be implemented by public institutions, companies and PPPs



in public transport is named to need all areas and actors to be improved



district cooling and heating grids: to be influenced by administration authorities on all levels as well as PPP and

interestingly the media



industry and commerce: works with actors from companies as well as regional and (inter)national authorities



Why is the innovation potential for energy efficiency not (yet) used to a higher extent

then recent performance show?

o

In comparison to other cities, why is the current situation in Stoke evaluated so critically?

o

Is the re-use of industrial brownfield areas (kilns) a good practice for EE? What are the most

important obstacles regarding domains like public transport as well as renovation and

refurbishment?

o

Why is cooperation and PPPs especially important in Stoke?

o

Do media have a more important role in Stoke than in other cities?

(28)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Tartu

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

d. Public transport

t. Renewable energy

(29)

City results Tartu: Which innovation potentials



o

Only heating and cooling grids are at their full estimated potential for EE

o

Public transport as well as waste, water and sewage management show relative good

performance



Why is the innovation potential for energy efficiency not (yet) used to a higher

extent then recent performance show?

o

why do other domains not (yet) meet their innovation potential? What are the obstacles?

o

Are there good practices for Public transport as well as waste, water and sewage management?

Which further obstacles have to be eliminated for realizing the expected potentials?

o

Are “private contracts” and “cooperation” in terms of spatial structures and land

-use a

quite innovative way of planning in Tartu?

(30)

Energy efficiency potential: City profile Turku

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

d. Public transport

t. Renewable energy

(31)

City results Turku: Which innovation potentials



o

Biggest gaps:



Innovative building technologies, industry and commerce, renewable energy, water, waste

and sewage management, motorized private transport

o

Highest accordance:



Private households, public transport , (district) heating and cooling grids



Why is the innovation potential for energy efficiency so strongly inhomogeneous

across most domains?

o

Why does Turku show up with a very inhomogeneous performance regarding the potential and the

current situation on EE domains?

o

Are there good practices in well performing domains?

o

What are the obstacles in domains with higher discrepancies between performance and potential?

(32)

Eskilstuna key findings

According to the stakeholders, the energy efficient development in Eskilstuna on

renovation and refurbishment needs mainly public-private partnerships supported by

subsidiaries and investments. Thermal insulation, ventilation and light are named most

often as important issues in this respect.

Figure 1: Overall number of selected actors to strongly influence1_{EE development in Eskilstuna}

The public transport in Eskilstuna can be most effectively influenced by city, regional

and EU authorities as well as by public-private-partnerships. Thereby it is noticed that,

effective spatial structures and transport structures are going hand in hand .

Stakeholders point out Eskilstuna’s good network for transportation and its bicycle

infrastructure. Industry and commerce is mainly dependent on local and international

companies if it shall become more energy efficiency in future. On the other hand, private

households are seen to be influenced by a mix of local and international companies and

city administration. Renewable energy (solar energy is named as the one to focus on

most of all) in Eskilstuna will need all actors on board to move towards energy

efficiency.

Activities to increase EE according to stakeholders focus mainly on subsidiaries and

financial incentives, legal regulations, fees and penalties as well as with public or private

investments.

Energy efficiency measures in buildings offices

, housing owned by the

municipality), renovation for energy efficiency, the municipality can inspire the private

services to do more! The consciousness is very important to make a more sustainable

city

, but remarkably, education and information campaigning is only important for EE

in private households and renewable energies but not in other domains.

Figure 2: Overall number of selected activities to strongly influence EE development in Eskilstuna

1_{Strongly influence refers to a mean of 3,75 or higher in the selected domain(s), similarly hereinafter}

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

a. city administration b. Regional, national or European authorities c. Local companies d. International companies e. Interest / lobbying groups f. NGOs g. Public-Private-Partnerships h. Media

Eskilstuna

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

a. Subsidies and financial incentives b. User fees and penalties c. Public or private investment d. Public or private procurement e. General legal regulations

f. Private-law contracts g. Information and lobbying campaigns h. Education of citizens j. Cooperations of different actors

(33)

Who (actors) is able to influence EE development in Eskilstuna and by which

means (activities)?

To what extent can developments in your city be influenced by the following actors? To what degree can developments in

your city be influenced by the following activities? …not at all, … marginally, … fairly, … strongly, … very strongly

Actors Mean Activities Mean

Renovation and refurbishment (5 answers)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,60 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,80

Regional, national or European authorities 4,20 User fees and penalties 4,60

Local companies 4,20 Public or private investment 4,40

City administration 4,00 General legal regulations 4,40

Public or private procurement 4,00

Education of citizens 4,00

Cooperations of different actors 4,00

Innovative building technologies (2 answers)

Media 4,50 General legal regulations 5,00

City administration 4,00 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,50

Local companies 4,00 Public or private investment 4,50

International companies 4,00 Cooperations of different actors 4,00

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,00

Spatial structures and land-use (2 answers)

City administration 5,00 Public or private investment 5,00

Regional, national or European authorities 4,00 General legal regulations 4,50

Subsidies and financial incentives 4,50

User fees and penalties 4,00

Public transport (4 answers)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,25 Education of citizens 4,50

Information and lobbying campaigns 4,00

Public or private investment 4,00

Pedestrian traffic and cycling (3 answers)

City administration 4,33 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,67

Regional, national or European authorities 4,33 Education of citizens 4,67

Media 4,33 Cooperations of different actors 4,33

Interest / lobbying groups 4,00 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,00

NGOs 4,00 Public or private investment 4,00

Private-law contracts 4,00

Transport of goods (3 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,67 Cooperations of different actors 4,67

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,67 Public or private investment 4,33

International companies 4,00 General legal regulations 4,33

Waste, water and sewage management (2 answers)

all actor groups except regional, national or European authorities as well as international companies

4-5

General legal regulations 4,50

Industry and commerce (4 answers)

(34)

Private households (4 answers)

Media 4,75 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,50

Local companies 4,75 User fees and penalties 4,50

NGOs 4,25 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,25

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,25 Education of citizens 4,25

Renewable energy (5 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,20 Public or private investment 4,60

Local companies 4,00 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,40

International companies 4,00 User fees and penalties 4,40

0-1 (not influential): Motorised private transport, Electrical power grids, district cooling and heating grids, public lightning, private and public services, fossil and nuclear energy

(35)

Jyväskylä key findings

Due to a partial database error at TUWIEN during the survey period the results for the

chapter actors and activities to potentially influence energy efficiency –

Jyväskylä key

(36)

Santiago de Compostela key findings

Stakeholders in Santiago picture outstandingly clear that both city administration and

other authorities are the ones being able to influence energy efficiency in the future.

With respect to industry and commerce also (local) companies are named to be

influential actors on EE, Furthermore, regarding renewable energies as well as

motorized private transport lobby and interest groups can play an important role

besides the administrative agencies. In this context, stakeholders in Santiago state that

mainly the optimization of existing transport structures is important to achieve more energy

efficiency.

Furthermore, heating and cooling grids are very important in Santiago with focus on

to

substitute old heating and air conditioning systems for more modern ones, over all for

more efficient systems

. The most important domain for energy efficiency according to

respondents is renovation and refurbishment:

because of its poor conditions in

construc

tion and the historical city centre, it s the perfect city for refurbishment

.

Figure 1: Overall number of selected actors to strongly influence EE development in Santiago

Consequently, the administrative actors are expected to implement measures to

improve energy efficiency mainly by means of subsidies and financial incentives,

investments and regulations. Furthermore, stakeholders in Santiago think that the

education of citizens is a powerful instrument to raise energy efficiency, especially with

respect to transport and renewable energies.

Figure 2: Overall number of selected activities to strongly influence EE development in Santiago

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Santiago

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

a. Subsidies and financial incentives b. User fees and penalties c. Public or private investment

d. Public or private procurement… e. General legal regulations e.g. laws,… f. Private-law contracts e.g. individual…

g. Information and lobbying campaigns h. Education of citizens j. Cooperations of different actors

(37)

Who (actors) is able to influence EE development in Santiago and by which means

(activities)?

Actors mean Activities mean

Regional, national or European authorities 4,33 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,67

Motorized private transport (5 answers)

City administration 4,60 Education of citizens 4,40

Interest / lobbying groups 3,80 User fees and penalties 4,00

Pedestrian traffic and cycling (2 answers)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,00 Cooperations of different actors 4,50

Media 4,00 Public or private investment 4,50

Waste, water and sewage management (3 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,33 Public or private procurement 4,33

Electric power grids (2 answers)

City administration 4,00 Public or private procurement 4,50

(District) heating and cooling grids (8 answers2₎

Public lighting (8 answers)

Industry and commerce (8 answers)

Private and public services (4 answers)

(38)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,00 General legal regulations 4,50

Private households (3 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,33 Cooperations of different actors 4,33

Renewable energy (7 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 4,29 General legal regulations 4,29

0-1 (not influential): Innovative building technologies, Spatial structures and land-use, Transport of goods, fossil and nuclear energy

(39)

Stoke-on-Trent key findings

In Stoke the city administration as well as other authorities play an outstanding role

when it comes to influence energy efficient development. However, cooperation and

public-private-partnerships (PPPs) are especially important in Stoke compared to other

PLEEC cities. Stakeholders state that measures are mostly energy efficient in the

important area of renovation and refurbishment (

The housing stock. Biggest gain to be

made in energy efficiency

can be mainly done by city administration in cooperation

with interest and lobby groups. Innovative building technologies have to be

implemented by public institutions, companies and PPPs. Energy efficiency in public

transport is named to need all areas and actors. District cooling and heating grids are

seen to be influenced by administration authorities on all levels as well as through PPP.

Furthermore, industry and commerce works with actors from companies as well as

regional and (inter)national authorities

)ndustry: Costs are important

).

Figure 1: Overall number of selected actors to strongly influence EE development in Stoke-on-Trent

In terms of private households and public services

increased awareness and behaviour

change

is seen as important in Stoke

Start small think big and educating people to

make efficient use of their available energy supply

). Consequently, education, subsidies

as well as public and private investments are the most often named ways how to push

energy efficient development for

Stokes’ future

.

Figure 2: Overall number of selected activities to strongly influence EE development in Stoke-on-Trent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Stoke

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(40)

Who (actors) is able to influence EE development in Stoke and by which means

(activities)?

To what extent can developments in your city be influenced by the following actors? To what degree can developments in your city be influenced by the following activities? …not at all, … marginally, … fairly, … strongly, … very strongly

Actors mean Activities mean

Innovative building technologies (4 answers)

International companies 4,25 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,75

Spatial structures and land-use (2 answers)

City administration 5.00 General legal regulations (e.g. laws, directives) 5,00

Regional, national or European authorities 4.50 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,00

Cooperation’s of different actors 3,80

Motorized private transport (2 answers)

Pedestrian traffic and cycling (2 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,00 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,00

Transport of goods (2 answers)

Regional, national or European authorities 4,00 Public or private procurement 4,00

(District) heating and cooling grids (5 answers)

Public-Private-Partnerships 3,80 Public or private procurement 4,00

Local companies 4,00 Local companies 4,00

International companies 3,80 International companies 3,80

Private households (6 answers)

City administration 3,33 City administration 3,33

Regional, national or European authorities 3,33 Regional, national or European authorities 3,33

Interest / lobbying groups 3,33 Interest / lobbying groups 3,33

0 (not influential): Waster, water and sewage management, electrical power grids, public lighting, public and private services, fossil and nuclear energy, renewable energy

(41)

Tartu key findings

Renewable energy (as the most important domain for EE according to Tartu stakeholders) can

be influenced by regional, national or European authorities as well as city administration and

interest/lobbying groups by setting up Subsidies and financial incentives, General legal

regulations and Public or private investment to

„match consumption to production and to

foster biomass, solar and wind energy (named most often by stakeholders). The efficiency of

networks is also important in this context (example district cooling and heating grids).

Innovative building technologies in Tartu are mainly dependent on lobby and interest groups.

Figure 1: Overall number of selected actors to strongly influence EE development in Tartu

Measures in renovation and refurbishment have to be implemented by all actors (both those

from authorities and private actors). Subsidies and financial incentives, investments and public

education are seen as most powerful for influencing EE measures such as thermal insulation,

smart monitoring and management systems as well as individual heat consumption.

Tartu stakeholders rate the main instruments and activities for steering future EE development

in the areas of subsidies and financial incentives, public or private investment in general as well

as private contracts and cooperation in terms of spatial structures and land-use (quite

innovative way of planning in Tartu?). The traffic system is also rated as important field of action

for EE, whereas the frequency of public transport service, priority systems and smart planning

of location and routes/connections are named as suggestions for actions. Tartu is so small, t

hat

cycling is ideal , consequently education and information campaigns are seen as important.

Figure 2: Overall number of selected activities to strongly influence EE development in Tartu

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tartu

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

(42)

Who (actors) is able to influence EE development in Tartu and by which means

(activities)?

Actors mean Activities mean

regional, national or European authorities 4,18 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,64

Media 3,82 Education of citizens 4,45

regional, national or European authorities 3,67 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,17

Spatial structures and land-use (5 answers)

City administration 4,40 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,00

Media 4,40 Private-law contracts 4,00

interest / lobbying groups 3,60 Subsidies and financial incentives 3,80

local companies 3,78 Public or private procurement 4,22

NGOs 3,75 Public or private investment 3,89

Pedestrian traffic and cycling (7 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 4,14 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,00

Waste, water and sewage management (2 answers)

all actor groups except PPP 4-5 Public or private investment 5,00

Electric power grids (2 answers)

(District) heating and cooling grids (8 answers)

Local companies 4,13 Public or private procurement 4,00

(43)

Public lighting (4 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 4,00 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,50

Industry and commerce (4 answers)

Media 4,00

Private and public services (5 answers)

Local companies 4,00 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,40

Private households (4 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 4,25 Education of citizens 4,75

NGOs 4,25 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,50

Public-Private-Partnerships 3,75 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,25

Fossil and nuclear energy (2 answers)

all actor groups except city administration 4-5 all activities except user fees and free market 4-5

Renewable energy (14 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 3,79 General legal regulations 4,21

(44)

Turku key findings

Regarding the influence of future developments, important actors in Turku are

wide-spread (from city administration and companies to public-private partnerships and

media). NGOs as well as regional or European authorities only play a minor role

according to stakeholders in Turku.

„The exi

sting buildings should be properly, but cost-effectively renovated. Monitoring the

consumption and consumption s data analysis are important in these areas

.

Thereby, this

energy efficiency in renovation and refurbishment is to be done by local companies and

public-private-partnerships. The city administration is rather seen as capable to push

energy efficient development by means of spatial structures and land use as

„the

construction of new areas should have the courage to try new methods and techniques.

Progress does not happen if we keep using the same methods. Old practices may not have

any flaw; nevertheless, the development of these practices is indispensable.

Figure 1: Overall number of selected actors to strongly influence EE development in Turku

Effective activities are public or private investments, public or private procurement

(preference of energy efficient goods and services) as well as the cooperation of

different actors. Especially the domain of renewable energy shows up with a wide

variety as stakeholders in Turku are favouring a diversified energy production in order

to

make use of all local potential energy sources

.

Figure 2: Overall number of selected activities to strongly influence EE development in Turku

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Turku

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

a. Subsidies and financial incentives b. User fees and penalties c. Public or private investment

d. Public or private procurement preference…

e. General legal regulations (e.g. laws, directives)

f. Private-law contracts e.g. individual…

g. Information and lobbying campaigns h. Education of citizens j. Cooperations of different actors

(45)

Who (actors) is able to influence EE development in Turku and by which means

(activities)?

Actors mean Activities mean

Local companies 4,67 Education of citizens 4,67

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,67 Public or private procurement 4,33

Interest / lobbying groups 4,33 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,33

Media 4,33 Subsidies and financial incentives 4,00

International companies 4,00 Public or private procurement 4,00

Spatial structures and land-use (6 answers3)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,40 Cooperation’s of different actors 4,00

Media 4,00 Public or private procurement 3,80

Interest / lobbying groups 3,83

Interest / lobbying groups 4,00 User fees and penalties 4,67

Pedestrian traffic and cycling (2 answers)

International companies 4,33 Public or private procurement 4,67

Private and public services (3 answers)

all actors except NGOs and lobbying groups 4-5 Public or private investment 5,00

Private households (2 answers)

Interest / lobbying groups 4,50

Media 4,50

Local companies 4,00

International companies 4,00

Renewable energy (4 answers)

Public-Private-Partnerships 4,25 Information and lobbying campaigns 4,50

Local companies 4,00 Education of citizens 4,50

0 (not influential): Motorised private transport, Transport of goods, water, waste and sewage management system, electrical power grids, district heating and cooling grids, public lighting, fossil and nuclear energy