Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: [email protected]
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.