Back to Vocabulary

Area: Design, planning and building

Traditionally the viability of renovation has been assessed through a Discounted Cash-Flow (DCF) analysis of saved energy, which is highly contingent on the discount rate (Copiello & Donati, 2021). However, these authors propose an alternative method that capitalises energy savings into housing value, thereby circumventing the limitations of discounted predicted energy savings, which are already reflected in the property value. They employ an asset-based approach to analyse renovation viability by evaluating costs and benefits in terms of value increases.The value increase of energy-efficient improvements in real estate markets usually takes the form of a green premium identified through different econometric techniques, see for example  Aydin et al. (2020)  for a recent study of property premiums in the Netherlands.

To increase the financial viability of renovation, the EU proposes three approaches that have been incorporated differently by Member States (Bertoldi, 2022). First, on the one hand, grants and loans rely on the reduction or complete elimination of upfront costs –“carrot” approach– to encourage renovations (see Eryzhenskiy et al., 2022, for example). Second, the “stick” side of housing renovation incentives draws on mandatory Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPSs), which preclude the renting or selling of properties that fall below a certain Energy performance Certificate (EPC) level (Economidou et al., 2020). Third, the European Commission also plans to expand the Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) to encompass buildings before the end of the decade (2003/87/EC). This will likely impact energy costs and increase the viability of energy-efficient renovations (Backe et al., 2023).

Fernández, A., Haffner, M. & Elsinga, M. Subsidies or green taxes? Evaluating the distributional effects of housing renovation policies among Dutch households. J Hous and the Built Environ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-024-10118-5

References

Aydin, E., Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2020). The capitalization of energy efficiency: Evidence from the housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 117, 103243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2020.103243

Backe, S., Pinel, D., Askeland, M., Lindberg, K. B., Korpås, M., & Tomasgard, A. (2023). Exploring the link between the EU emissions trading system and net-zero emission neighbourhoods. Energy and Buildings, 281, 112731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112731

Bertoldi, P. (2022). Policies for energy conservation and sufficiency: Review of existing policies and recommendations for new and effective policies in OECD countries. Energy and Buildings, 264, 112075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112075

Copiello, S., & Donati, E. (2021). Is investing in energy efficiency worth it? Evidence for substantial price premiums but limited profitability in the housing sector. Energy and Buildings, 251, 111371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111371

Economidou, M., Todeschi, V., Bertoldi, P., D’Agostino, D., Zangheri, P., & Castellazzi, L. (2020). Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency policies for buildings. Energy and Buildings, 225, 110322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110322

Eryzhenskiy, I., Giraudet, L.-G., Segú, M., & Dastgerdi, M. (2022). Zero-Interest Green Loans and Home Energy Retrofits: Evidence from France. https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03585110/

Created on 14-10-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024

Related definitions

Area: Policy and financing

Housing is usually deemed unaffordable when it consumes more than a set percentage of a household's monthly income. The Eurostat (2022) and the OECD (Chung et al., 2018) follow this threshold approach and define households overburdened with housing costs as those that spend more than 40% of their disposable income on housing. However, this indicator fails to capture financial hardship, particularly among lower-income households. In fact, lower-income households may be spending less than 40% of their income on housing and yet failing to meet adequate consumption levels for other goods. As a response, the residual income approach ascertains housing (un)affordability by defining a minimum level of consumption for a set of goods according to particular household types. The residual income approach builds on consumption data to define the minimum level of income necessary for a household to survive after housing costs. The main shortcoming of this approach is that relies on subjective measures of what constitutes the necessary minimal expenses for a household. These two definitions of affordability navigate two tensions 1) between housing and other types of consumption and 2) between the individual conceptions of what is affordable and what the government considers to be affordable (Haffner & Hulse, 2021). More recently, scholars have emphasized the multi-faceted nature of affordability to include commuting and transport costs together with energy costs (Haffner & Boumeester, 2010). Other approaches focus on supply-side measures, for instance on the share of the housing stock that a household can afford (Chung et al., 2018). Evolutions in the measurement of affordability bear witness to the complexity of housing systems. Affordability is not only dependent on housing consumption but also on housing supply, particularly in inelastic markets where providers have considerable power, see for example Kunovac & Zilic (2021). At the same time, displacement pressures and rising energy costs in an older and inefficient stock add pressure on households to access affordable housing.

Created on 21-04-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Related cases

Related publications

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts