WP2 Deliverable 2.4

Methodology for monitoring

Report created by TUWIEN team

Rudolf Giffinger Gudrun Haindlmaier

Herbert Hemis Hans Kramar

Florian Strohmayer Kurt Weninger

March 2015

contact: rudolf.giffinger@tuwien.ac.at

2

Report abstract – indicators and monitoring system Main aim of report 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% until 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 not only uses an integrative approach to achieve the sustainable, energy-efficient, smart city. It also argues that energy efficiency and sustainable city development should be monitored by a respective set of indicators. Hence, this report provides a set of indicators which should describe energy efficient urban development in a quantitative way based on the definition of key fields and respective domains for energy efficient development (energy smart city profiles). This definition of indicators and their empirical elaboration is result of two surveys with city stakeholders and several workshop discussions with partners in the PLEEC-project. Correspondingly, this report provides

- an overview about the definition of indicators - some general observations/conclusions regarding the elaboration of a list of

indicators as base for a future monitoring

Besides, in the appendix you will find a selective description of energy efficient characteristics of each city based on the disposal information.

Target group Partners in PLEEC cities and corresponding group of stakeholders within these cities as well as PLEEC experts in technology, structure and behaviour.

WP7: Dissemination

WP

2:

Sm

art

cit

y p

rofi

les

WP

6:

Sy

nerg

y o

f

pe

rsp

ec

tiv

es a

nd

ac

tio

n

pla

n

WP3: Technology driven efficiency

potentials

WP4: Structure driven efficiency

potentials

WP5: Behaviour driven efficiency

potentials

3

Activities carried out

Two surveys in the 6 partner cities with a group of stakeholders; aprox. 100 interviewed persons in total

Gathering data (including definitions and sources if possible) in several round with the city representatives from the PLEEC cities

Expert panel and discussions results in a list of 49 energy efficiency indicators Assessing the plausibility of values Visualisation of existing energy efficiency indicators Analysing the indicators for each city and for all key fields

Main findings/conclusions

Due to the heterogeneous background and status of recent information on energy efficiency in the partner cities it was not possible to use one of the existing European approaches regarding indicators.

From a methodological point of view it was necessary to bring forward the understanding (definition, domains) of energy efficiency and to find a consensus regarding the list and definition of most relevant indicators.

In total, 49 indicators were identified for describing different domains in 5 defined key fields of energy efficiency.

Definitions for the indicators were elaborated in accordance with the partner cities and experts.

The majority of data for calculating the indicator values are available in each city. However, the data coverage varies between 47% (Santiago de Compostela) and 88% (Jyväskylä).

Reliability of data is given for most indicator calculation. The majority of indicator values is reliable, only a minority of data is missing or implausible. Only few indicators are defined by the cities in a different way.

There is a remarkable variation in valid, plausible and missing values between the six partner cities.

To sum up, the collection of data was a long lasting and demanding process which was strongly determined by the individual effort of partners. Although the defined indicators were acknowledged as very important, their elaboration for the six cities was not so easy. Hence, a monitoring system based on this list of indicators is recommended. The elaboration of monitoring data systems for a larger set of cities, however, will bring specific problems of validity, reliability or missing information.

4

Indicators required for proposed monitoring method

5

Technical indicator description

Green buildings and land use

6

7

Mobility and transport

8

9

10

Technical infrastructure

11

Production / Consumption

12

13

Energy supply

14

15

16

General information

17

General energy data

18

The empirical data of all partner cities

A total of 49 indicators were requested from the 6 partner cities. Data was not available for all requested indicators, therefore only a subset of the required data could be provided by the PLEEC cities. Figure 1: Overview of the data coverage

Figure 2: Availability of indictors in each city1

1 including modified and alternative indicators

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

reliablevalue

estimatedvalue

implausiblevalue

alternativedefinition

differentspatial level

missingvalue

Nu

mb

er

of

va

lue

s fo

r in

dic

ato

rs

59%

88%

47%

57%

67%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Eskilstuna Jyväskylä Santiago Stoke Tartu Turku

Sh

are

of

av

aia

lbe

in

dic

ato

rs (

10

0%

=5

3

ind

)

19

Figure 3: Quality of reported indictor data in each city

Figure 4: Number of reported indicator data for each city by key field

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40C

ou

nt

of

va

lue

s/in

dic

ato

rs

reliable value

estimated value

implausible value

alternative definition

different spatial level

missing value

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Askedindicators

Eskilstuna Jyväskylä Santiago Stoke Tartu Turku

Energy supply

Production and consumption

Technical infrastructure

Mobility and transport

Green buildings and land-use

20

Outlook on PLEEC monitoring system

Even though the collected data base of 49 energy efficiency indicators is quite

heterogeneous in terms of validity and data coverage for the cities, its use for

establishing and implementing a monitoring system for the EE Action Plans within the

PLEEC partner cities is highly recommended. A monitoring system fosters an

organizational learning process and promotes sustainable knowledge on the energy

efficiency situation in the respective cities. A monitoring system integrated into the

Action Plan or at least accompanying it will help the cities to improve their overall

performance on energy efficiency as well as the quality of any measures and strategies

targeted towards a more energy efficient future.

Within WP2 of PLEEC, the methodological description of each indicator in terms of

definitions, scope and data availability is to be seen as a first step to elaborate a common

European data base on energy efficiency. As the definitions for the indicators were

elaborated in accordance with the partner cities and experts, they are linked to the

respective situation of the PLEEC partner cities. For the further use and elaboration on

these indicators within PLEEC, the following work steps are planned:

The PLEEC cities can chose a specific set of indicators out of the data base of 49

PLEEC indicators to establish their own monitoring system for future energy

efficiency. Thereby, the detailed description of the indicators (definition, way of

measurement, availability, comparability etc.) will help the cities to choose the

most suitable set of indicators for their specific city situation and conditions.

The indicators structured along the different domains in 6 defined key fields of

energy efficiency are being integrated into the Technology Assessment tool

developed within WP3. This tool will include enabling technologies for measures

within the key fields and domains linked to the indicators of D2.4. as well as an

experts’ evaluation of the impact of these various technologies and

recommended adoption strategies for the PLEEC cities. If needed, the set of 49

indicators of D2.4 may be specified and amended to meet the respective data

situation of the PLEEC partner cities.