SUNSHINE: D5.3, Socio-economic impact assessment of pilots

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

D5.3

Socio-economic impact assessment

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment Task 5.10 – Socio-economic assessment of the pilots

Revision: Final

Authors: Sabina Dimitriu, urban planner, URBA

1

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Dissemination level

PU

Contributor(s)

Manuela Negrila, urban planner, URBA Mila Gascó, senior researcher at ESADE Charlotte Fernandez, researcher at ESADE Barbara Mušič, researcher-urban planner, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia Boštjan Cotič, researcher-urban planner, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia

Reviewer(s)

Pietro Elisei, URBA Federico Prandi, GRAPHITECH

Editor(s)

Raffaele De Amicis, GRAPHITECH

Partner in charge(s)

URBASOFIA

Due date

2016-01-31

Submission Date

2016-02-10

REVISION HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

Revision Date

Author

Organisation

v1.0

20/01/2016

Manuela Negrila

URBA

V2.0

26/01/2016

Barbara Music

UIRS

V3.0

26/01/2016

Charlotte Fernandez

ESADE

V4.0

27/01/2016

Barbara Music

UIRS

V5.0 V6.0 V7.0

27/01/2016 28/01/2016 31/01/2016

Charlotte Fernandez Manuela Negrila Manuela Negrila

ESADE URBA URBA

V8.0

10/02/2016

Sabina Dimitriu

URBA

V9.0 Final

10/02/2016 14/02/2016

Manuela Negrila Sabina Dimitriu

URBA URBA

Description First draft of the document.

Introduction. Methodology.

Development of the draft Additional comments to the draft Reorganizing the draft with additional guidelines for chapters Content specifications Content specifications Draft edit Check-up and additions chapters 3, 5, 6. Chapter 7 Final version Conclusions of the report.

2

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.

Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

Moreover, this deliverable reflects only the author’s views. The European Community is not liable for any use that might be made of the information contained herein.

3

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Table of content REVISION HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................. 2 List of figures .............................................................................................................................................. 6 List of tables ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 9 About SUNSHINE .................................................................................................................................... 9 About WP5. Test beds pilot deployment and assessment ..................................................................... 9 About T5.10 Socio-economic assessment of the pilots ....................................................................... 10 Aim of the report ................................................................................................................................. 11 Methodology and the process ................................................................................................................. 12 Main challenges for the SEIA and potential consequences ................................................................. 12 Desk study ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Statistical data collection ..................................................................................................................... 14 Questionnaires ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Skype Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 18 Best cases ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Best cases of the socio-economic impact assessment of the ICT tools for improving the energy savings ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 20 1.1.1 STEP UP - Strategies Towards Energy Performance and Urban Planning ........................... 20 Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 22 1.1.2 BECA - Balanced European Conservation Approach - ICT services for resource saving in social housing .................................................................................................................... 22 Scenario 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 24 1.1.3 PLUS - Public Lighting Strategies for Sustainable Urban Spaces ......................................... 24 Profiling local areas .................................................................................................................................. 28 FERRARA (IT) ........................................................................................................................................ 29 LAMIA (GR) ........................................................................................................................................... 31 ZAGREB (HR) ........................................................................................................................................ 33 NAXXAR (MT) ....................................................................................................................................... 35 VAL DI NON (IT) .................................................................................................................................... 37 TRENTO (IT) .......................................................................................................................................... 39 BASSANO DEL GRAPPA (IT) .................................................................................................................. 41 ROVERETO (IT) ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Results: assessment per scenarios ........................................................................................................... 44 Initial social outputs of SUNSHINE: ...................................................................................................... 44 Scenario 1 - Energy Maps ..................................................................................................................... 46 1.1.4 The scope ............................................................................................................................ 46 1.1.5 Pilot areas involved ............................................................................................................. 46 1.1.6 Social assessment ............................................................................................................... 46 1.1.7 Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders ................................................................. 49 1.1.8 Economic assessment ......................................................................................................... 49 Scenario 2: Building Energy Awareness ............................................................................................... 51 1.1.9 The scope ............................................................................................................................ 51 4

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

1.1.10 Pilot areas involved ............................................................................................................. 51 1.1.11 Social assessment ............................................................................................................... 51 1.1.12 Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders ................................................................. 53 1.1.13 Economic assessment ......................................................................................................... 53 Scenario 3: Remote Control of Lighting Networks ............................................................................... 55 1.1.14 The scope ............................................................................................................................ 55 1.1.15 Pilot areas involved ............................................................................................................. 56 1.1.16 Social assessment ............................................................................................................... 56 1.1.17 Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders ................................................................. 57 1.1.18 Economic assessment ......................................................................................................... 58 Additional economic outputs of Sunshine: .......................................................................................... 59 1.1.19 Perceived economic impact of Sunshine in cities ............................................................... 59 Pilots Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 60 Ferrara, IT ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Zagreb, HR ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Bassano del Grappa, IT ......................................................................................................................... 63 Val di Non, IT ........................................................................................................................................ 66 Impact scenarios ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Lessons learned ........................................................................................................................................ 69 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 71 References ............................................................................................................................................... 74 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................... 75

5

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

List of figures Figure 1: Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE users 17 Figure 2 Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE stakeholders in English 18 Figure 3 Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE stakeholders in Italian 18 Figure 4 SUNSHINE partners 28 Figure 5 Localization of Ferrara – by country(Italy) and region (Emilia-Romagna) 29 Figure 6 Area of Scenario 1 in Ferrara. Historical 30 Figure 7 Localization of Lamia – by country(Grece) and region (Sterea Ellada) 31 Figure 8 Localisation of buildings in Scenario2, Lamia 32 Figure 9 Localisation of Zagreb – by country(Croatia) and region (Kontinentalna Hrvatska) 33 Figure 10 Localisation of 6 of the buildings in Scenario2 in Zagreb – (1=Izidora Kršnjavoga 3, Zagreb -Dispatch center; 2=Gundulićeva 32, Zagreb -administration building; 3 =Ulica grada Vukovara 37 -administration building and a restaurant, Kupska ulica bb, Zagreb Administration building; 4= Miševečka 15a, Zagreb -administration building.

34 Figure 11 Location of 2 buildings participating in Scenario 2, near Zagreb 34 Figure 12 HEP thermal power plant, Zagreb, Scenario 3 35 Figure 13 Localisation of Naxxar – by country(Malta) and province (Malta) 35 Figure 14 Site of Scenario 1 in Naxxar, as viewed from the SUNSHINE web portal 36 Figure 15 Scenario 2 in Naxxar – the two buildings of MCAST 37 Figure 16 Localisation of Val di Non – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol) 37 Figure 17 Scenario 1,Cles, Val di Non 38 Figure 18 Scenario 2, Val di Non 39 Figure 19 Scenario 3, Cles, Val di Non 39 Figure 20 Localisation of Trento – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol)

40 Figure 21 Area of Scenario 1 in Trento 41 Figure 22 Localisation of Bassano del Grappa – by country(Italy) and province (Veneto) 42 Figure 23 The three sites of Scenario 3 in Bassano del Grappa: W.S Bassano, Via Boschetto, Piazza Guadanin, LPs reprezented by yellow dots 42 Figure 24 Localisation of Rovereto – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol) 43 Figure 25 The two sites of Scenario 3 in Rovereto, San Giorgio and Marco.

44 Figure 26 Energy efficiency measures implemented by users graphic 45 Figure 27 Awareness of ICT in their city 47 Figure 28 Ease of use –Scenario 1 47 Figure 29 Usefulness –Scenario 1 (from not useful at all to very usefull) 47 Figure 30 Ease of use –Scenario 2 52 Figure 31 Usefulness Scenario 2 (from not useful at all to very useful) 52 Figure 32 Changing customer behavior 52 Figure 33 Ease of use –Scenario 3 (from not easy at all to very easy) 56 Figure 34 Usefulness –Scenario 3 (from not useful at all to very useful) 56 Figure 35 What was Scenario 3 useful for?

57 Figure 36 – Ferrara overview of Scenario 1 62 Figure 37 Cles (TN) energy maps on the left the energy needs for heating on the right the energy needs for cooling.

66

6

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

List of tables Table 1 The data collection table excel file sent to pilot partners ............................................. 16

Acronyms AMR BPIE CAD CHPA CityGML CO2 EE EEP EPBD ESCO E-SDOB EU GIS GML INSPIRE JRC LOD NZEB OSM R&D RTU SEAP SEIA TWG ZNE

Automatic Meter Reading Buildings Performance Institute Europe Computer Aided Design Combined Heat and Power Association City Geographic Markup Language Carbon Dioxide Energy Efficiency Energy and Environmental Prediction Energy Performance of Buildings Directive Energy Service Company Energy performance of large scale building stocks European Union Geographical Information System Geography Markup Language Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Joint Research Centre Level Of Details Nearly Zero Energy Building OpenStreetMap Research and development Remote Terminal Unit Sustainable Energy Action Plan Socio-economic impact assessment Thematic Working Group Zero Net Energy

7

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Executive summary The report is structured into six sections: Introduction, Methodology and Process, Best Cases, Profiling the Local Areas, Results: Assessment per Scenario and Conclusions.

In the first section, Introduction, a short description of SUNSHINE is presented followed by the description of Work Package 5 and the task T5.10 as stated by the DOW. The aim of the report is presented at the end of this section.

Next, the methodology and process of developing the Socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) are presented. The process takes into account the information at the elaborators’ disposal as well as barriers met during the process of conception for this deliverable, such as lack of relevant data and delays.

In the third section, best cases will be presented of actions taken through projects or initiatives, similar to SUNSHINE, that maximize the social and economic impact of their implemented ICT tools. The best cases were selected in line with the SUNSHINE scenarios and the best cases database developed within T3.3 Standardisation of guidelines on processes and methodologies for evaluation of energy saving policies. The selection is based on three SUNSHINE scenarios each one focused on three different territorial levels: the level of the city, buildings and public lightning.

In the fourth section, a profiling of the 8 local pilots sites is exposed based on statistical data collected during the desk analysis, which pertains to location, geography, history, climate, demographics, economy and involvement in SUNSHINE. The fifth section will present the results per scenario. Here the outputs and outcomes will be listed from both the social and economic point of view. Because most of the pilots are involved in more than one scenario, the assessment will be made for each scenario, first by making a short presentation of the scenario followed by the presentation of social outputs and economical outputs.

Finally, the conclusions and lessons learned are exposed. Findings show that, while it is too early to formulate a clear, evidence-sustained local impact of the project concomitant with the final stages of piloting, there are relevant positive results and outputs in place in all pilots which can, on the longer term, leave a positive social and economic mark on the communities in which SUNSHINE was applied.

8

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Introduction The present report represents the Socio-Economic Assessment of three scenarios developed and piloted within eight sites managed by pilot partners Sinergis, GraficaLight, HEP ESCO, SET Distribuzione, Trentino Network, Informatica Trentina, Epsilon Greece and GeoSYS involved in the SUNSHINE project. The report was prepared by the leader of the task URBASOFIA with the support of two other SUNSHINE project partners involved, Fundacion ESADE and the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (UIRS).

About SUNSHINE SUNSHINE – “Smart UrbaN ServIces for Higher eNergy Efficiency” – delivers innovative digital services, interoperable with existing geographic web-service infrastructures, thus supporting improved energy efficiency at the urban and building level. Specifically, SUNSHINE delivers a smart service platform accessible from both a web-based client and an App for smartphones and tablets.

In particular, the SUNSHINE platform is structured into three main scenarios: 1. Energy Maps: Automatic large-scale assessment of building energy behaviour based on data available from public services (e.g. cadastre, planning data etc.). The information on energy performances will be used to automatically create urban-scale “energy maps” (or “EcoMaps”) to be used for planning activities and large-scale energy pre-certification purposes.

2. Pilot Buildings Energy Performance Management: Localised weather forecasts available through interoperable web-services will be used to ensure optimisation of energy consumption of heating/cooling systems at “pilot buildings” level, through automatic alerts that will be sent to both the SUNSHINE App installed on the smartphone of the final users and centralised systems adopted by firms in order to manage adequate energy efficiency policies.

3. Remote Public Lighting Management: Lastly, SUNSHINE will ensure interoperable control of public illumination systems based on Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) facilities remotely accessible, via interoperable standards, from a web-based client as well as from an App for smartphones or tablets.

*software components developed by other EC-funded projects focusing on smart-city technologies, including BRISEIDE1, i-SCOPE2, and i-Tour3.

About WP5. Test beds pilot deployment and assessment This task, T5.10 Socio-Economic Assessment is part of the work package 5 (WP5), which is focused on the piloting of the three solutions. As the DOW states: “The goal of this work package, coordinated by GRAPHITECH, is to perform the pilot stage of the project. The final SUNSHINE toolkit will be deployed in real operational conditions for each

1 http://www.briseide.eu 2 http://www.iscopeproject.net 3 http://www.itourproject.com/web/ 9

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

pilot and used by the final users for a 12 months duration. During the operational testing activity of the use case tests, information on system use will be collected both automatically (e.g. through system log) and manually (by the final users), through a dedicated web-based questionnaires. These will be used by users of the system to provide feedback and through a dedicated forum that will ensure direct contact with members of the technical team. One of the objectives of the task is collect, on a monthly basis, consumption data from the various buildings focus of the different pilots through the online system setup by the European Commission.”

About T5.10 Socio-economic assessment of the pilots Specifications about the objectives of the task focused on the SEIA in the DOW are as following: “This task, which will be led by partner URBA, will identify both social and economic impact of the project during the pilot stage. On one hand the report will identify the expected economic impacts of the use of smart city technologies while on the other it will assess social factors, involved in the deployment of SUNSHINE, including social constrains or poor social acceptance of the technologies. The socio-economic assessment will include the definition of guidelines and best practices in both social and economic impact in order to provide a valuable assessment of possible city investment in the field. The analysis will allow the consortium to better understand the negative macroeconomic consequences of unsustainable planning or policies at urban level as well as to assess the potential economic impact of the use of smart city technologies across Europe. The socio economic assessment will be strictly close to the reception and use of proposed new smart tool/technology by the final pilot users. Socioeconomic impact assessment is going to appraise the effects of SUNSHINE developments on pilot projects community’s social and economic welfare, hence the process will rely greatly on linking the various users who may be affected by the proposed innovative technology (generic users, target groups, citizens/buildings inhabitants, local services energy providers, special buildings providing urban facilities)4.

The results of this action will help to delineate a common strategy towards exploitation of the SUNSHINE tangible and intangible results as well as to identify economic scenarios within the smart city initiatives. The scope will be to analyse and discuss with EU stakeholders the project opportunities and business scenarios that eventually may fit the needs in each territory.

Deliverable: D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessments: The success of the project will be determined by its socio-economic fit as much as for its technological fit. This report will provide an initial assessment on this socio-economic fit, aimed at directing the future evolution of the project towards ensuring its sustainability. ”

4

To clarify the role of each partner involved in T5.10, the task is coordinated by URBA and the social assessment will be done by URBA, the best cases by UIRS and the economic assessment by ESADE.

10

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Aim of the report The aim of this report is to show the results of the work done during the task. This report presents the perceptions of users, stakeholders and society in general towards SUNSHINE assimilation, usefulness and potential consequences in the pilot context.

In particular for this report, the main objectives are: To present the economic and social outputs and outcomes of all three SUNSHINE scenarios as accurately and objectively as possible, To prepare a socio-economic assessment based on the outcomes and outputs that can provide a general view of the SUNSHINE results economically and socially in the nine pilot partners.

11

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Methodology and the process This section is focused on explaining the methodology used and the process of the development of the SEIA. The methodology was applied to 8 pilot partners: Ferrara (Italy), Lamia (Greece), Zagreb (Croatia), Naxxar (Malta), Val di Non (Italy), Trento and the Trentino area (Italy), Rovereto (Italy) and Bassano del Grappa (Italy) and the scenarios they are involved in.

Based on a classic research method model and the needs of the partners involved in the SUNSHINE project, the following tools have been used to gather information in order to develop the SEIA: Desk study Statistical data collection Questionnaires (Surveys) Skype Interviews

The tools and the process of collecting data are explained in the following sections. However, before proceeding with explaining them it is important to highlight the limitations found during the process of data collection and then describe what can be found in this report in terms of findings.

Main challenges for the SEIA and potential consequences Delivering an insightful Socio Economic Impact Assessment study takes access to data, information on sustained activities and a relevant pool of insights into how the end beneficiaries perceive the solutions implemented; more importantly, in order to truly address impact, it needs to monitor the effects of the project consistently for a longer period of time (3-5 years) after the actions within SUNSHINE have ended. This conundrum of having to formulate the analysis concomitantly with the piloting period and to produce a relevant assessment of the social and economic mark which the scenarios have left at local level had consequently had to be addressed with the data at hand. Scenarios have been formulated in order to address potential impact on longer term, based on the general roadmap followed by each pilot as well as their plans or actions already set in place for after the project lifetime.

The task has been initially foreseen to start in Month 22, and to last until Month 36, leaving three months of work after the pilots concluded in order to incorporate their final results. Due to technical constraints of WP4, the start of the minimum 12 months of piloting and subsequently the start of task 5.10 have been moved to M25, shortening the duration of the assessment and basically constraining the evaluation to be parallelized with the actual application of the SUNSHINE scenarios at local level. This was a constraint of the work carried out within the deliverable, as conceptually speaking, “impact” usually refers to long term perspective and mostly takes place ex-post. In our case, the assessment of the pilots took place simultaneously avoiding enough of perspective.

During the process of data collection several unexpected events and issues arose that contributed to the methodology adaptation but also to limit the outputs obtained.

Secondly, due to this same late deployment reason, data collection also presented constraints since pilots deployment was a step behind (especially Scenario 2 and 3) and assessment efforts seemed to be too soon.

12

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Thirdly, the sought outreach of the methods such as the questionnaires was limited due to the difficulties to go beyond pilot implementers. For this reason, when the surveys were sent to pilot implementer, periodic reminders have been provided and recommendations to use surveys during training sessions have been suggested. However, in some cases training took place between months 35 and 36 (up until 27 January 2016) and this represented a barrier in collecting sufficient data and processing it in the requested timeframe.

Language appeared as a barrier to reach stakeholders in the pilots’ locations. Since many pilots took place in Italy, an Italian version of the stakeholder questionnaire was provided with the support of Italian pilot implementers. This was not the case for stakeholders in Greece, Croatia and Malta were English questionnaires were sent.

The baseline information about each pilot location was difficult to collect beyond cities’ websites. For this reason, an Excel template was created and shared with pilot leaders who had direct contact with municipalities to support the elaborators in collecting data. However, in some cases the excel file received had very few information.

The last limitation was the quantity of answers to the user questionnaires. A first version of the questionnaire was sent in September 2015 but had to be modified and adapted according to partners’ feedback. A second and final version of the user questionnaire was then sent on October 2015 while the stakeholder questionnaire was launched in November 2015 (in English and Italian). Due to the lack of answers received, the period to answer it was extended first until the 20th of December 2015 and a minimum of answer by pilot location was asked (5 per pilot organization). However, at the due date, there were missing contributions from partners, in part due to the delay of validating the final Scenario 2 and 3 platform up until late December. For this reason, the questionnaire was kept open until the very last minute (29/01/2016). At this period there were 34 answers for the user questionnaire, 96 for the stakeholders (English and Italian version).

As a consequence, the current report is not a traditional impact assessment but an analysis of the outputs obtained at the end of the project and the expected outcomes from a social and economic perspective. This report highlights what the contribution of SUNSHINE to the local welfare is from a social and economic perspective. It takes into account users and stakeholders’ feedback on their perception of usefulness and satisfaction with the pilots, the potential influence of the project on energy policies at the local level, the expected savings and improvement of energy settings in the city and, finally, the possible adoption by the society.

The report distinguishes among different outputs: Information collected from pilot users (by means of the survey, interviews, and technical meeting presentations) regarding their direct experience with SUNSHINE tools.

Information collected from stakeholders and the society in general regarding the eventual reception/adoption of Sunshine tools beyond pilots.

Therefore, the analysis and the findings are manifold: Assessment of the pilots: satisfaction, usefulness and easiness of solutions, savings obtained, expectations on future developments and impact.

13

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Description of the environment: increase of awareness among users, citizens and stakeholders’ involvement, and social perception of Sunshine.

Potential outcomes/impact: local policy changes, user behaviour changes, SUNSHINE adoption in pilot environments, urban outcomes, SUNSHINE as a referent project in the EU.

Desk study The desk studies were carried out by all the partners involved in the development of the SEIA (that is, URBA, UIRS and ESADE).

Using public accessible data, as well as the pilot descriptions from the DoW and the Deliverable 1.1 Use cases, each partner involved in the SEIA has gathered information about the pilots, use cases and general input.

In making the profile of the pilot partners, the desk study carried out focused on gathering general information for each pilot concerning: geographic and historical context, demographics, socio-political context, economy, livelihoods and labour force, health situation, education situation, utilities, infrastructure and services, natural resource, safety and nuisance factors, security.

To gather the general information about each pilot, the official webpage of each municipality of the nine pilot partners involved was studied. To summarise, the websites consulted are: http://www.comune.fe.it/ http://www.zagreb.hr/ http://www.comune.rovereto.tn.it/ http://www.lamia-city.gr/en/ http://www.naxxar.com/ http://www.comune.cles.tn.it http://www.comune.trento.it/ http://www.bassanodelgrappa.gov.it/ http://www.comune.rovereto.tn.it/

Finally, several reports on economic impact in the field of energy efficiency were reviewed (see Bibliography section).

Statistical data collection In order to collect more specific information about each pilot and to better understand the state of the art of the territories (administrative levels of the municipalities), a data collection table has been assembled and distributed to all the pilot partners. The aim of the table was to gather statistical data from each of the nine pilots about specific issues like: temperature, local economy and business climate (the main interest here were the local ESCOs), and data about scenario 1 or 3 when applicable. In other words, the structure of the table is as follows: contact information from the municipality location of the municipality general information about the municipality economy, workforce and local business climate 14

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

pilot area details.

PILOT DATA COLLECTION FOR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SUNSHINE This data collection table is addressed to the local administrations of the pilot cities involved in Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 (for public lighting) of the SUNSHINE project. The aim of this initiative is to assist in performing a baseline assessment of local conditions and development indicators for the impact assessment of the smart services which the project is currently developing: large scale energy assessment of building energy behavior and remote controlling of municipal lighing networks.

Requested information Contact and Municipal website

information Contact e-mail address of municipal offices from the municipality Local statistics websites

Country

Localization of Pilot Region / NUTS 2*

Municipality Province / NUTS 3*

Population

Surface Area (km²)

Density

Average elevation (m)

Climate

Information Average temperature in about the winter Avg. High °C

territory

Avg. Low °C

Average temperature in summer Avg. High °C

Avg. Low °C

Value of municipality's GDP per capita (Euro)

Minimum wage (Euro, yearly)

Labor force participation rate (% employed out of active population)

Registered municipal unemployment rate

Minimum wage

Economy,

workforce and Ease of doing business index (2014) local business Number of active enterprises (total)

climate Enterprises active in construction (%)

Enterprises active in the energy production chain (%)

Local ESCOs (Energy Saving Companies)*

Per capita yearly public investment in Research and Development (Euro)

Local employment in the high-tech sector 15

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

(%)

Pilot area data (Scenario 1)

Size of pilot area for Scenario 1 (km²) Inhabitants of pilot area (% of total municipal population) Percentage of residential buildings out of total Building ownership (%, private)

Table 1 The data collection table excel file sent to pilot partners

Questionnaires One of the most useful and important instruments of the data collection and assessment of real-time outputs, were the questionnaires. The results of the questionnaires derive directly from those operating with the SUNSHINE software.

There have been two main questionnaires developed in the SUNSHINE project: 1. The General Stakeholder Questionnaire, intended for citizens, municipalities, different companies and other stakeholders, not limited to the pilot sites and deployable regardless of the technical barriers with the testing of the actual scenarios.

The GSQ aimed at providing the team with an idea of: a. How citizens are reacting to SUNSHINE in pilot sites – all three scenarios b. What the pilot municipalities’ position is towards S1, S2, S3 c. If there is an interest for developing SUNSHINE in other cities as well d. What the perceived barriers for each scenario are

Given that most pilots are Italian, and the small and middle-sized towns of Bassano del Grappa, Cles, the Val di Non region, the Trentino region, Rovereto etc. are not proficient in English, URBA developed an English Questionnaire addressed to the public (the General Stakeholder Questionnaire) with an Italian translation.

2. The User Questionnaire, a longer, more in-depth direct collection of input for the stakeholders actually involved at local level in piloting (users from the pilot manager side, local administration, energy managing companies which test SUNSHINE, etc).

The UQ represented the main feedback gathering tool from people who are actually testing the solutions locally and can give informed input over how SUNSHINE changes or improves certain services / their work / business and social climate in general at the local level

16

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

SUNSHINE Questionnaire for the users represents the most important tool for collecting information about the results of the SUNSHINE project and the performance of the solutions, directly from those operating with them.

Specifically, the questionnaire is addressed to the actual users of SUNSHINE technology: users of the Energy Map platform and app, of the Building Energy Awareness and calibration scenario technology and of the application and platform for the remote control of public lighting. The aim of the questionnaire is to gather responds from the developers, building managers, energy managers, private companies, research institutes and staff/students on their experience in using SUNSHINE platform and on the results which the project has yielded to this date. This questionnaire comprises 116 questions.

The questionnaire for the users is an annex to this report(see Annex 1) where all the questions can be viewed, also, this is the link to the questionnaire: http://goo.gl/forms/IH8lTX87oK

Figure 1: Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE users

17

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

SUNSHINE Questionnaire for citizens / general stakeholders is addressed to the citizens, local administrations, NGOs, companies, any interested parties and responses are not limited to the pilot sites. The scope of the questionnaire is to support in assessing the needs and effects of implementing energy saving and management systems in European cities, as well as in determining the future use of the SUNSHINE solutions.

The questionnaires for stakeholders, are annexes to this report(see Annex 2 –version in English and Annex3 –version in Italian) where all the questions can be viewed, there is also a link to the questionnaire in English: http://goo.gl/forms/eljipU1syG and one for the questionnaire in Italian: http://goo.gl/forms/J7ozqP106u

Figure 2 Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE stakeholders in English

Figure 3 Image of the questionnaire for the SUNSHINE stakeholders in Italian

Skype Interviews Complementary to the three questionnaires that circulated and that included not only economic questions but also the social perspective, ESADE organized face-to-face interviews with pilot partners. Two rounds of Skype interviews were arranged.

The scope of those skype meetings was to determine the relationship between the use of SUNSHINE tools and the implementation of measures by pilots aimed at saving more energy.

The first round of interviews focused on knowing if SUNSHINE had had influence on the pilots in terms of a change of strategy among pilots’ users. Our goal was to collect information about the implementation of actions related to the energy consumption that could have taken place during the pilot phase and identify changes on behaviours and decisions making process about energy efficiency among pilots.

The first interview included the following questions: Q1. As a partner, you are in charge of assessing and monitoring your pilot. Do you know if, due to the implementation of the Sunshine tools, pilot users have deployed specific actions/measures related to their energy consumption?

Q2. Could you explain what actions have been performed?

18

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Q3. Sunshine tools provide more knowledge about building or lighting system consumption. Since pilots started, to what extent do they have deployed actions/measures related with energy savings due to this raise of awareness?

Q4. Do you think that the expected results of savings stated in the DoW-Part B (Section B2-Impact) will be met? If you believe so, explain why? If you do not believe so, explain why.

Q5. As a pilot partner, have you assessed the performance of the pilot? Can you provide some measures of saving provision?

After the experience of first round of interviews, ESADE distributed a template to pilot partners with 8 additional questions that had to be answered by pilot users. The following were such additional questions: Q1. To what extent do you use the information provided by Sunshine tools?

Q2. Have those tools (the eco-map, real time measurement of consumption, remote control of lighting system) raised awareness in your organization about energy consumption or savings? If so, explain how? If not, tell us why.

Q3. In general, have you changed or do you plan to change your energy strategy due to the information provided by Sunshine? How? In which manner?

Q4. When Sunshine tools show that you are inefficient or that you are not saving money, what does this mean to you? What measures do you plan to implement?

Explain your strategy. If you don’t plan to do anything, explain why.

Q5. What benefits do you believe these energy saving measures will generate?

Q6. Have you analysed your pilot consumption and defined optimizations patterns? How? In which manner?

Q7. What is your estimation of savings?

Q8. Regarding the local impact of the project, to what extent do you think Sunshine will improve the economy of the city?

All pilot partners reported the difficulty of collecting information directly from the users (mainly, the public administration). As a consequence, there was a change in the methodology to accommodate the spontaneity of the conversation with the pilot partners.

The information gathered during the two rounds of interviews was mostly qualitative and it was based on the opinion and evaluation from the pilot leader, who shared the insights collected (during meetings, follow-up conversations) from pilot users as well as his own perception about the pilot.

19

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Best cases Best cases of the socio-economic impact assessment of the ICT tools for improving the energy savings The purpose of the chapter is to present best cases / examples of actions taken through projects and initiatives, similar to SUNSHINE, to maximize the social and economic impact of implemented ICT tools with the main aim to improve energy efficiency, especially energy savings. The best cases were selected in line with the SUNSHINE scenarios and the best cases database developed within T3.3 Standardisation of guidelines on processes and methodologies for evaluation of energy saving policies. The selection is based on three SUNSHINE scenarios each one focused on three different territorial levels: the level of the city, buildings and public lightning.

Scenario 1 1.1.1

STEP UP - Strategies Towards Energy Performance and Urban Planning

http://www.stepupsmartcities.eu/ The main aim Strategies Towards Energy Performance and Urban Planning (STEP UP) aims to bring together excellence on energy planning from four ambitious European cities together with their industrial and research partners, running from Autumn 2012 to Summer 2015. In each city, linking with local partnerships and stakeholder groups, STEP UP is facilitating the delivery of real projects in participating cities by using a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach. The focus of the project development is on holistic solutions that deliver real economic, environmental and technological advances in each city with regard to smart city planning.

Results Two major guidebooks have been developed supporting cities to develop and share the knowledge related to SEAP: Developing enhanced Sustainable Energy Action Plans: A STEP UP guide for cities Developing Sustainable Energy Projects: A STEP UP guide for cities There are two best cases of the use of energy maps presented bellow as part of this project: Ghent - Energy Mapping as Awareness Raising Tool Within the project, the City of Ghent decided to take actions to become a climate neutral city in 2050. To reduce emissions they decided to challenge persuading residents to retrofit their houses. For the pilot area the district Dampoort Sint-Amandsberg was selected because of many different houses and different types of residents. On the interactive workshop with 60 participating residents, the energy mapping tool, developed within the project, was used for two purposes: as a visual instrument to inform citizens about what means if the district is climate neutral and to encourage participation. Many issues were discussed among which are relationships among landlords and tenants, how to engage all layers of population, financial and legal thresholds, there were also creative ideas formulated, etc. This platform was used with the purpose to exchange the knowledge and experiences amongst neighbors. For the needs of stimulating similar bottom-up initiatives, the City of Ghent will launched a subsidy for group of neighbors collaborating in projects reducing energy or CO2 emissions. This initiative 20

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

will strengthen Ghent´s Climate Alliance under which the city will mobilize citizens, companies, local organisations, schools and policy makers to work together to achieve the target of the city, to become climate neutral by 2050.

Riga – Multi-Apartment Buildings The detailed energy mapping of Riga´s multi-apartment buildings was used to support city´s energy planning. The main aim of the integrated urban development concept of Jugla neighborhood in Riga, developed within previous project, is to reach high and long lasting residential and economic quality focused on the energy-efficient solutions ensuring sustainability of the planned developments in neighborhood. Majority of multi-apartment buildings are connected to the district heat supply system with the average heat consumption for space heating and domestic hot water. Based on the energy mapping in the district and if the buildings are to be renovated according to the requirements of the existing codes, the total potential energy consumption reduction could be estimated from 20.400 MWh to around 34.000 MWh. The total heat load of Jugla district heat consumers of 88,5 MW. Bigger reductions can be achieved with deep renovations of the multi-apartment buildings. Outputs of those analysis of energy demand are used to set up new targets in SEAP for smart cities in Riga and at the same time they serve also as a tool to inform engaged stakeholders with the Riga Energy Agency Energy Efficiency Centre on regular events like round tables on energy efficiency, seminars and information days.

Lessons learned STEP UP has identified four winning elements for implementation of successful initiatives: Strong leadership is important due to the local authority´s position to influence on actors in the city. Because the sustainable energy projects last for decades, a longlasting leadership beyond short term political cycles is crucial.

Continuous open communication and collaboration with different stakeholders, among multiple sectors and technologies involved is a winning element of many projects.

Policies should be aligned with other city strategies contributing to achieve multiple objectives if the city would like to become sustainable with low carbon emissions in the future. Such project are easier gaining wider support across the city and improve overall quality of life of citizens.

A key challenge is to create business models to attract investments and at the same time reducing risk with increasing the scale of impact of their core activity.

Within the STEP UP, recommendations for cities looking to develop their own lighthouse initiatives are provided. Recommendations are as following:

21

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

understand lighthouse criteria

build in key criteria from an early stage

start from small

build on exis{ng ini{a{ves

understand replicability

explore dierent funding sources

think cross sectoral

secure poli{cal support

think long term

collaborate and engage with stakeholders

maintain up to date project informa{on

learn from mistakes

Scenario 2 1.1.2

BECA - Balanced European Conservation Approach - ICT services for resource saving in social housing5

http://www.beca-project.eu/home/ The main aim The BECA project started in January 2011 and aims to help Europe meet emission targets by achieving a significant reduction of energy consumption in European social housing. To substantially reduce peak and overall demand for energy and water across EU social housing, BECA developed a full set of innovative services for resource use awareness and resource management. Balance is achieved by addressing not only energy but water, by including all key energy forms - electricity, gas and heating - and by including strong activities in Eastern Europe as well as in the North, South and West of the EU. Social housing organisations in 7 European countries (Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Serbia) and their partners are cooperating in the project to provide ICT-based energy management and energy awareness services directly to social housing tenants and service operators. Services were piloted by approx. 5,000 social housing tenants across 7 sites in 7 European countries.

Sustained reductions in resource use are to be achieved through usable ICT-based services directly to tenants, as well as by effective monitoring and control of local power generation and, for district heating, the full heat delivery chain. Intensive work will be addressed to optimising services for tenants and maximising impact on resource use behavior.

Results Within the project, pilot advanced ICT-based Resource Use Awareness Services (RUAS) and Resource Management Services (RMS) were developed.

The term Resource Use Awareness Services (RUAS) designates different ways the tenants can be made aware of their energy and water consumption in near real time. By monitoring their own consumption, tenants see the impact of their everyday actions on their energy consumption (and bills) and adopt a more energy efficient behavior. The Resource Management Services (RMS) includes different services for housing managers by providers to

5

http://beca-project.eu/fileadmin/beca/documents/beca_final_report_final.pdf

22

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

improve the energy management in a set of dwellings. In more practical terms, the provider of RMS can monitor precisely the energy consumptions and performances of the equipped flats and houses. This allows further improvement on the energy consumption of a building Impact For resources covered by the majority of sites savings of 15% for heat energy, 11% for cold water and 17% for hot water have been achieved. Only for electricity the target was not met (2%) due to the fact that the most effective way to achieve meaningful electricity savings is to replace old electric appliances by new and less energy consuming ones. The tenants of social housing often do not have the means for doing so and assess it as not useful to replace appliances when the old ones still work well.

Economically, all sites proof to pay-off within a few years and almost all stakeholders achieve net benefits compared to the ‘do nothing’ scenario. The average implementation cost for the BECA solution is 300€, the average yearly operational cost is 17€. Modelling a full deployment of BECA for 7,000 dwellings –1,000 dwellings per pilot over a period of 10 years – would result in a net benefit of €5.91 million.

Socially, the risk of energy poverty can be reduced by given tenants the information necessary to control their own consumption. This is of particular importance in Eastern Europe where individualised billing is just being introduced and those with above average consumption will pay higher bills in the future. Deployment of the BECA solution can be easily combined with increasing IT-literacy among elderly and poor. Moreover, communication among tenants was improved to the extent that ‘champions’ became known experts acting as energy managers helping others and potentially learning skills required on the labor market.

A key result of the project is the provision of a ‘Guide for replication’ collecting the most successful measures to be taken and provides stakeholders with checklists for key steps.

Beside organisational and process guidance, the Guide also provides technical documentation.

The ‘BECA solution’ use cases, process models and architecture enable the reader to select the elements most suited in any given environment and approach stakeholders with the elements to be part of the solution.

Lessons learned The BECA solution can be applied in all circumstances. The RMS element should be deployed first to collect “low-hanging fruits” such as energy wastage. The RUAS element has to be deployed as part of a long-term strategy and is ideally integrated with other web-based services. Both services help to detect faults and reducing costs of infrastructure maintenance along with reducing resource consumption.

In Eastern Europe, consumption is currently being billed by surface and individualised billing based on own consumption is just being deployed. Hence, smart metering should be the tool of choice to implement the new billing regulations resembling a great opportunity for ICT services. However, adverse effects have to be considered as the BECA service was sometimes blamed for the increased cost of (individual) consumption as it was falsely linked to the billing rather than being seen as an additional tool.

Transparency and early advocacy of the changes to come and the ICT service is crucial. Characters such as the depiction of BECO can help to explain the service and motivate champions as well as children and elderly.

23

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Tenants must be made aware that living in a well-insulated building does not automatically lead to low energy cost. In fact, their behavior is of even greater importance. Smarter energy behavior is also relevant in economic terms as the cost for insulation have already been paid for. Not fully “utilising” the insulation implies delaying the return on invest. BECA services are a cheap way of detecting wastage, giving advice and pointing at the tenants who might require additional energy coaching.

Barriers for BECA-like services remain with the restrictions upon exploiting the full potential of smart-metering based services. This becomes even more relevant when existing (local) actors create restrictions regarding access to hardware or data hereby increasing cost and risk for service providers. Barriers on the demand site include a lack of trust in smart-metering. Generalised exploitation scenarios are outlined for exploitation driven by public institutions, newcomers and market players. Stakeholders considering a scenario should validate their own situation with the lessons learnt provided in the ‘Guide for Replication’.

These and other lessons learnt are collected in the ‘Guide for replication’ strongly recommended to any reader planning to deploy the ‘BECA solution’. The Guide contains technical and organisational documentation combined with checklists allowing stakeholders to efficiently plan steps and monitor their process.

Scenario 3 1.1.3

PLUS - Public Lighting Strategies for Sustainable Urban Spaces

http://www2.luciassociation.org/Home.html Lighting technologies have undergone major evolutions in the last decade, offering cities new perspectives and possibilities for the development of their urban lighting strategies.

The main aim PLUS (Public Lighting Strategies for Sustainable Urban Spaces), launched in October 2010 and financed by the EU’s INTERREG IVC programme, capitalizes on existing urban lighting best practices in European cities. The project aims to help cities to develop their lighting policies and strategies in order to implement energy efficient lighting solutions. Within the project, best cases of the actions taken by the cities in order to optimize energy consumption of the public lightning. The Mainstream Guide was developed sharing lessons learned by individual cities and by the PLUS Network. The results are illustrating different possible actions and initiatives for improving public lighting systems.

Some examples of the actions taken in involved cities: LED Lightning of the Place Bellecour in Lyon (France) with the focus on optimization of the energy consumption Based on the fact that the energy efficiency represent one of the top priority of the Public lighting Department of the City of Lyon, the city took the opportunity to equip the renewed Place Bellecour in Lyon, the largest public square in Europe, with LED technology. Twelve masts are equipped with six lanterns of forty eight 120 W LEDs and provide the lighting at an average to 50% between midnight and 5 a.m. The initiative was implemented in November 2011 by the Public lighting Department of the City of Lyon and will led to the savings of 133 000 kWh per year.

24

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Lessons learned: Since the LEDs are still not adapted, it have a bright future in public lightning.

Investments of this technology should focus on installations where the specificities of LEDs make a real difference in terms of energy efficiency and maintenance costs. It is a case of architectural lightning, lightning of fountains and in general each time a good control of the lightning flux essential.

Cradle-to-cradle lighting mast for Tilburg with the focus on minimizing environmental footprint (Netherlands) The City of Tilburg decided to ensure the lighting system of the “City Ring” with the minimal environmental footprint. The new lighting includes masts with specially developed discshaped luminaries made out of recyclable aluminium directing the light where it is needed and at the same time limit the light pollution. One of the most unique points of this project was to use neutral carbon aluminium lighting masts from Sapa which are cradle-to-cradle certified meaning that all components made of different materials can be easily separated at the end of the life.

Solar power for urban lighting in Sant Fost de Campsentelles with the minimum impact on the environment (Spain) A Spanish northern town, Sant Fost de Campsentelles, with the population of less than 10 000 inhabitants and 80% occupied with protected forests has a street lighting system entirely running on the renewable energy. As part of a wider sustainable urban development project funded through public-private partnership, the town build a solar power plant with 8.000 m2 of panels 765 kWp of output and the capacity to generate 900.000 kWh/year of power that will be sold to the local electric utility to power its renewed lighting system. This way the town saves 63 tons of CO2 per year as a result of its use of green energy for public lighting.

Centralized control for efficient lighting in Leipzig (Germany) The City of Leipzig has put in place a highly automated centralizied system on existing urban lighting to manage and control the technical parameters of public lighting system which is easily comprehensible. The whole operation of the city lights can be displayed almost in a real time in the office enabling the city to improve lighting management and at the save time saving energy. General street lighting and special facade lighting can be monitored and influenced any time through eight signal channels available. Specific modes of operation are possible for events like New Year, etc. peripheral districts without control channel are connected to the central control station via SMS. Through the system it is also possible to apply different switching and dimming scenarios and make considerable savings and energy consumption.

Bringing stakeholders together to test LEDs in Tallinn The City of Tallinn implemented a LED test street project helping to develop a common understanding on new technology´s potentials and limitations amongst engineers, designers and municipalities. With this initiative, they gave a chance to 24 LED manufacturers to show their lamps in the city streets and to improve their suitability on the technical and economic level. The project brought together city´s key lighting stakeholders. Based on the stakeholder´s discussion the City of Tallinn came to the conclusion that LED lamps are in rapid development and that the technology has a lot of risks and threats which have to be eliminated before switchover. The city plans needed to compose detailed technical

25

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

procurement and warranty rules in cooperation with the University of Technology and initiate a city lighting plan to determine suitable color temperatures and LED design principles.

Results Beside the collection of the beats cases action for improving the public lighting the project PLUS developed the Mainstream Guidelines with methodology for developing lighting strategies.

Some of the lessons learned from the project: Before improving energy efficiency in the cities, the targets have to be set, the current state of the art in the city has to be understood, finance must be secured and appropriate activities must be planned. But before that, the data collection systems need to be established to get the necessary information allowing targets to be monitored.

Public lighting strategies should be integrated in the climate change or climate adaptation plans.

To make improvements in energy efficiency and optimization the change in public attitudes to street and decorative light is needed.

Local design codes for reducing expectations from street lighting can be adapted.

Energy efficiency is not a simple matter of using LED lights and high-tech sensors but it is a matter of well organising and changing system.

In public lighting strategies, a clear distinction should be made between energy savings and financially savings.

Prevention - with not lighting where there is no need, where there are no people.

Establish a baseline of the current environmental impact of all lighting in the city.

Involve environmental criteria into the tendering for service regarding public lighting.

Set the energy efficiency target in outsourcing contracts and support this with financial incentives and / or penalties.

Promote the use of energy efficient luminaries that can reduce the potential risk associated with pollution of air, land and water from hazardous materials.

Encourage the use of dimmable ballasts where circumstances allow.

Report each year to politicians and civil society on the environmental impact.

A database of existing lighting stock is needed.

Introduce night scouting. There are many cities that have no systematic control on the functioning of the lighting during the night hours. They depend only on complaints of citizens.

26

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

All cities should as part of their contracts due the diligence investigate the costs paid by other cities for similar contracts.

Maintenance contracts should be output orientated and contractors should be payed according to verified performance and results.

Contracts should be framework based allowing new maintenance regimes to be adopted, new lighting schemes to be included and maintained and include penalty clauses for poor performance.

Contract monitoring should be carried out by lighting engineers.

More effective monitoring and customer feedback systems need to be put in place to better understand the effect of improved lighting on modal patterns – and increased opportunities for stakeholders to get involved in helping cities to identify priority lighting schemes for urban mobility.

External stakeholder engagement should be planned and managed to involve both individuals and associations.

To be recognized as national best practice, the projects needs to be promoted.

Creating support from all political parties.

Keeping up to date with the latest trends and sharing and promoting initiatives through worldwide networks.

27

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Profiling local areas This chapter will provide a general look at the 8 pilot partners and their involvement in SUNSHINE. The aim of this chapter is to provide the context in which the scenarios of SUNSHINE have been developed, in order to gather a more insightful view on the social and economic preconditions under which each pilot was deployed as well as the general local climate in which the solutions will have to prove themselves competitive.

While each pilot has specific baseline conditions in what concerns the social and economic aspects (as well as the legislative, administrative and environmental ones), the interpretation of these is of a rather diverse as the 8 pilots implement the three scenarios in different combinations, with only the Val di Non / Cles site piloting all three solutions. The particularities of each pilot further reflect strongly on the local results, outputs, target users and presumably long-term impact.

Below is a graphic showing, for the pilot partners (in orange) each scenario configuration:

Figure 4 SUNSHINE partners

28

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

FERRARA (IT) Ferrara is a middle-sized city in northern Italy. It is located in the NUTS 2 ITD5 Emilia-Romagna region, NUTS 3 ITD56 Ferrara province, close to the Adriatic Sea.

Figure 5 Localization of Ferrara – by country(Italy) and region (Emilia-Romagna)

As a geographical reference, the city of Ferrara is situated 50 kilometers north-northeast from Bologna (the region capital) and has an average elevation is of 9m. The city of Ferrarra is located on the Po di Volano, a branch channel of the main stream of the Po River.

The town has been qualified by UNESCO6 as World Heritage Site since 1995 for its great renaissance value and its River Po Delta. Ferrara was the place where the humanist idea of the “ideal city” came to life and was built by Biagio Rossetti. Furthermore, as a pilot city in the SUNSHINE project, it is relevant from the point of view of diversity and high architectural and historical value of the constructions. The city first developed within the Byzantine times, with a nucleus as old as the 7th century BC and has further grown between the 15th and the 16th century, until the saturation of the building fabric in the years after the First and the Second World War (See Deliverable 1.1 Use Cases).

In terms of climate, Ferrara is located in a continental climate with a warm humid temperate climate with hot summers and no dry season7. The average temperature in winter is 7oC (highest) and 0oC –(lowest). In summer, the average temperature is 31oC (highest) and 20oC (lowest). In summer (May to September), Ferrara can become very hot, and in December temperatures drop often over short periods of time. The HVAC optimization solutions henceforth find a receptive market both for heating as well as for cooling.

The town of Ferrara has a population of 133.682 inhabitants and a surface of 404.36 km2. This leads to a density of 331people/km2.

6 7

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/733/ https://weatherspark.com/averages/32276/Ferrara-Emilia-Romagna-Italy

29

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Looking at Ferrara from a socio-economic point of view, the value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 24.400 Euro. The labor force participation rate is of 66,10%, while the registered municipal unemployment rate is quite high, of 12,80%.

In term of business, the number of active enterprises (total) in the city of Ferrarra is 14.275 out of which active in construction (as a potential side market for SUNSHINE), a total number of 1.851. As of 2014, the ease of doing business index is 68.48, as Italy ranks 45th in the 189 country list over the globe studied for the Ease of Doing Business index8. In the region of Emilia-Romagna alone, there are 50 local ESCOs, out of which notably HERA Group and ENI. There is a high potential market for further upscaling the SUNSHINE solutions.

As part of SUNSHINE, Ferrara is involved in both scenario 1 and 2. Scenario 1, Energy Maps, has as a main user involved the Municipality of Ferrara, and for it the area of the pilot is of 6,5 km2 within the historical centre of the city. It involves over 5.000 buildings and 35.000 inhabitants (which amounts for 26% of total municipal population). Out of all the buildings comprised in the Scenario 1 area, the percentage of residential buildings is of 71% and 72% of these are privately owned. The Energy Map scenario will be used by the municipality for energy planning purposes within activities related to the monitoring phase of the SEAP, supporting analysis aimed at reducing the energy consumption of buildings and reducing the ecological footprint of the city.

Figure 6 Area of Scenario 1 in Ferrara. Historical

Scenario 2, is comprised of consumption and weather monitor and is addressed to building managers, this means personnel of Olicar, an ESCO company that is the target pilot user for this scenario. This scenario involves 21 public buildings of the Municipality of Ferrara. The pilot building stock is composed by 10 buildings equipped with gas meters and 11 with district heating. Heating consumption of pilot buildings is measured with smart sensors, stored locally and made available to SUNSHINE. The scope of this scenario is to increase knowledge about the energy behavior of managed buildings to reduce unnecessary consumption while maintaining comfort.

The persons involved in piloting are: Eng. Ivano Graldi, head of the Environment Service; Marco Perinasso – Energy and Environment Office, Municipality of Ferrara; Roberto Mauro – Energy and Environment Office, Municipality of Ferrara; Fabio De Luigi – Geographical

8

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

30

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Information Systems Office, Municipality of Ferrara; Dott. Marco Zuppiroli – Department of Architecture, University of Ferrara; Elisa Gamberoni – Building Manager for the public buildings in Ferrara, Olicar Spa; Valentina Ballotta – EIT Climate-KiC Pioneers, involved in Scenario 1; Vittorio Trivigno – EIT Climate-KiC Pioneers, involved in Scenario 2.

LAMIA (GR) Lamia is a city in central Greece, it is the capital of the region of Phthiotis and it is located in the NUTS2 region GR24 Sterea Ellada and NUTS3 province GR244 Phthiotis Prefecture.

Figure 7 Localization of Lamia – by country(Grece) and region (Sterea Ellada)

It is located at less than 20 km from the park Ekvoles Sperchiou and the Malian Gulf.

Regarding altitude, the average elevation of the city is of 93m.

The town has been inhabited since the Bronze Age and had played an important role in the Antiquity due to its strategic location, connecting the southern Greece with the rest of the Balkans.

Lamia has a hot Mediterranean/ dry-summer subtropical climate (Köppen-Geiger classification: Csa) that is mild with moderate seasonality9. The average temperature in winter is 13oC –the highest and 7oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 31oC –the highest and 23oC –the lowest, leading to the use of SUNSHINE Scenario 2 more for cooling rather than heating control and optimization purposes.

Lamia Municipality has a population of 75.315 and a surface of 942.9 km2 which puts the city at a density of 80 people/km2. The local government reform in 2011 (the Kallikratis law) has merged 5 former municipalities into the new Lamia Municipality, which became municipal units afterwards.

9

http://www.lamia.climatemps.com/

31

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

From a socio-economic point of view, the value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 15.218, considerably lower than Ferrara, and the labor force participation rate is of 53,50% employed out of the total active population. The minimum wage is of 6.132 Euros/year.

In terms of business, the number of active enterprises in the city of Lamia is 4.125 out of which active in construction are 13.70% and enterprises active in the energy production sector are 1.70% (which means 70 enterprises in energy production). The ease of doing business index is 66.7 as of 2014 (place 60).

As part of SUNSHINE, Lamia is involved in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The size of pilot area for Scenario 1 is of 6 km2, but the inhabitants of the pilot area are a total of 75% of the total municipality residents. Amongst the buildings that are part of the Scenario 1, the percentage of residential buildings is 60%, out of which 95% are privately owned. The aim of this scenario is to assess how the city of Lamia performs from an energy perspective and with regard to the conditions in the area.

Five buildings of School of Technological Applications10 of Lamia took take part in Scenario 2, with the support from the DEDDHE11 (local ESCO branch of Lamia). The pilot buildings are located at the 3rd km of the Old National Road Lamia / Athens, with an approximate total area of 10,750 m2. New metering equipment has been installed in order to be able to measure energy consumption for each building.

In detail the 5 pilot buildings are: two interconnected buildings of the School of Technological Applications (tot. est. 4,494 m2); building of the School of Healthcare (est. 3,273 m2); Library building (est. 2,076 m2) and the administration building (est. 900 m2). The users involved are building/energy managers of School of Technological Applications and a selected number of engineers at DEDDHE.

Figure 8 Localisation of buildings in Scenario2, Lamia

10

Associate Partner to the project

11

The administrative organization for power supply in Greece

32

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

ZAGREB (HR) Zagreb the capital city of Croatia and it is located in the NUTS2 region HR04 Kontinentalna Hrvatska and NUTS3 province HR041 Grad Zagreb. The capital city is located by the river Sava, in the north-west of the country. The average elevation is of 122m.

Figure 9 Localisation of Zagreb – by country(Croatia) and region (Kontinentalna Hrvatska)

Historical data attests that Zagreb has been around since the Roman period, but it was first attested in documents in 1094. In 1242 Zagreb was declared a free royal city, paying its fees directly to the king and not to a royal family. Another important milestone for the city as in 1845 when it became the capital of Croatia.

The population of Zagreb is of 795.505 people and its area is of 641 km2, making the density of 1.200 people/km2.

The climate of Zagreb is subtropical, continental climate. The average temperature in winter is 4oC –the highest and -3oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 27oC –the highest and 15oC –the lowest.

From a socio-economical point of view, there is to note a high labor force participation rate of 80,70% (employed out of active population), with the registered municipal unemployment rate of 17,3%. The minimum wage last registered is of 4702,77 Euros/year (around 396 EUR/month) and the value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 10.129 Euros, significantly lower than both the GDPs in Italy as well as the Greek pilot.

Zagreb is an important international trade and business center, and transports crossroad of Central and East Europe. It also has a lot of industrial branches like: production of electric machines and devices, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, food and drink processing. Amongst these business opportunities, there are 3 major companies active in the energy production sector: HEP ESCO d.o.o. (the pilot managing partner), Planetaris d.o.o., RUDAN d.o.o. The ease of doing business index is 66.7 as of 2014.

33

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

In SUNSHINE, Zagreb is involved in Scenarios 2 and 3. In Scenario 2, 8 buildings owned by HEP ESCO are involved and the users of the system are technical staff, usually janitors who are in charge of operation and maintenance of heating and cooling system.

1

2 3

4

Figure 10 Localisation of 6 of the buildings in Scenario2 in Zagreb – (1=Izidora Kršnjavoga 3, Zagreb Dispatch center; 2=Gundulićeva 32, Zagreb -administration building; 3 =Ulica grada Vukovara 37 administration building and a restaurant, Kupska ulica bb, Zagreb -Administration building; 4= Miševečka 15a, Zagreb -administration building.

Varaždin

Zagreb

Križ

Figure 11 Location of 2 buildings participating in Scenario 2, near Zagreb

For Scenario 3 the automatic lightning system of one building will be implemented. The surrounding lighting system of HEP thermal power plant (HEP Toplinarstvo) administration building will comprise of 11 lighting points with luminaires equipped with high pressure sodium lamps and the user will be the building manager.

34

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 12 HEP thermal power plant, Zagreb, Scenario 3

NAXXAR (MT) Naxxar is located in the northern region of Malta, in the NUTS3 province MT001 Malta.

Figure 13 Localisation of Naxxar – by country(Malta) and province (Malta)

Naxxar is an old city with evidence of dwellings dating thousands of years ago in the caves at Tal-Qattara and at Ta’ San Brinkaw. Also, there are some megalith remains of the Bronze Age period at Tal-Qadi and at Qaliet Marku. From the earliest documented periods, it is evident that the village was always primarily an agricultural area. Amongst the notable historic 35

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

buildings in Naxxar, there are a lot of churches and chapels belonging to the Christian and Jesuit community, but there are also traces of fortifications. Towards the end of the 18th century, this industry was thriving and the village was flourishing reason that no as important edifices to be mentioned are Palazzo Parisio and Palazzo Nasciaro, both 18th century buildings.

Unfortunately, the 19th came with the end of industry in Naxxar and poverty started spreading. Things changed for the better in th 20th century when the city started developing starting with the construction of two important roads, Labour Avenue and 21 September Avenue in the 1960s. These opened up the road to thriving business and large residential areas, wich attracted more inhabitants, growing the population from 4.000 to more than 13.000.

The climate of Naxxar is Mediterranean, with mild, rainy winters and hot dry summers. The average temperature in winter is 15oC –the highest and 9oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 30oC –the highest and 21oC –the lowest. Similar to the Lamia case, the marketability of Scenario 2 will rely on its capacity to optimize cooling costs for buildings, rather than heating ones.

The population of Naxxar is small, of 13.319 people. The surface area is of 11,6 km2 , hence the density of 1.100 people/km2.

The ease of doing business index is 62,11 as of 2014.

Naxxar is involved in scenarios 1 and 2 in SUNSHINE. Scenario 1 for Naxxar is comprised of over 1000 buildings.

Figure 14 Site of Scenario 1 in Naxxar, as viewed from the SUNSHINE web portal

The monitored pilot buildings for Scenario 2 in Malta are two buildings that form part of the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST).

36

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 15 Scenario 2 in Naxxar – the two buildings of MCAST

VAL DI NON (IT) Cles, located in Val di Non, is a city in northern Italy. It is located in the NUTS2 region ITD2 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and NUTS3 province ITD20 Trentino. The city is located near Lago di Santa Giustiniana and has an average elevation is of 656m.

Figure 16 Localisation of Val di Non – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol)

In the Roman Era, Cles was an important commercial center for the two valleys – Val di Non and Val di Sole. It was also known as a religious center in the pagan era. Later on, after the conversion to Christianity, in Cles was built the first Christian church on the two valleys.

37

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

The climate of Cles is mountainous, continental climate. The average temperature in winter is 6oC –the highest and -2oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 30oC –the highest and 18oC –the lowest.

The population of Cles is of 6.769 people and the area is of 39 km2, hence, the density is of 174 people/km2 Looking at Ferrara from a socio-economic point of view, the labor force participation rate is of 54% and the registered municipal unemployment rate is 6,9%. The value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 15.600.

From a business point of view, the number of active enterprises in the city of Cles is 40.260 out of which active in construction are 6.602 and enterprises active in the energy production sector are mostly known several companies: ADIGE ENERGY COMPANY S.R.L, CONDINO ENERGIA S.R.L., CRISTOFORETTI SERVIZI ENERGIA S.R.L., DECA S.R.L., DOLOMITI ENERGIE RINNOVABILI S.R.L., ENERGY SERVICE S.R.L., NESCO - NORTH ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY S.R.L., POLO TECNOLOGICO PER L'ENERGIA S.R.L., PVB Solutions SpA, S.I.CO.S. S.R.L., TRENTINO EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA S.N.C. The ease of doing business index is 68,48 as of 2014 and the per capita yearly public investment in Research and Development is 1,93 Euro. The local employment in the high-tech sector if of 6,7%.

In SUNSHINE, Cles/Val di Non is involved in all three scenarios and INFOTN partner is the responsible the pilot. The pilot area for Scenario 1 has a surface of 596 km2 in the entire Val di Non, and 39.134 people reside in this area. Out of the total buildings on the site, 20% are residential buildings and 69% are privately owned.

Figure 17 Scenario 1,Cles, Val di Non

Scenario 2 is applied on a sport and leisure center in the Paludi Area (Cles, Val di Non).

38

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 18 Scenario 2, Val di Non

Scenario 3 deals with dimming and monitoring of a classroom lighting system at a high school campus in Cles.

Figure 19 Scenario 3, Cles, Val di Non

TRENTO (IT) Trento is a city in Italy and the capital of Trentino region. It is located in the NUTS2 region ITD2 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtiroland NUTS3 province ITD20 Trentino. It is located in the glacial valley river Adige The valley is surrounded by mountains, including Vigolana (2,150 m), Monte Bondone (2,181 m), Paganella (2,124 m), Marzola (1,747 m) and Monte Calisio (1,096 m).

39

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 20 Localisation of Trento – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol)

Trento has always had a good position, being along the main communication route that links Italy and Northern Europe. First founded by the Celts in the fourth century BC and than conquered by the Romans in the first century BC, Trento remained an important stop on the route from Verona to Innsbruck. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire it became independent and later on in the 14th century came to be under the Austrian rule.

The climate of Trento is mountainous, continental climate. The average temperature in winter is 7oC –the highest and -4oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 29oC –the highest and 17oC –the lowest.

The population of Trento is of 117.307people and the surface is of 157,9km2 which makes for a density of 743people/km2 .

From a socio-economic point of view, the labour force participation rate is of 52,40% employed out of active population, and the registered municipal unemployment rate is 3,6%.

The local employment in the high-tech sector is of 6,7% and the value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 27.500.

The ease of doing business index in Trento is 68,48 as of 2014, the per capita yearly public investment in Research and Development is of 1,93 Eur. In his context, the number of active enterprises in the city is 40.260 out of which active in construction are 6602 and enterprises active in the energy production sector are mostly known major companies: ADIGE ENERGY COMPANY S.R.L, CONDINO ENERGIA S.R.L., CRISTOFORETTI SERVIZI ENERGIA S.R.L., DECA S.R.L., DOLOMITI ENERGIE RINNOVABILI S.R.L., ENERGY SERVICE S.R.L., NESCO - NORTH ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY S.R.L., POLO TECNOLOGICO PER L'ENERGIA S.R.L., PVB Solutions SpA, S.I.CO.S. S.R.L., TRENTINO EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA S.N.C. In the SUNSHINE project, Trento is involved in Scenario 1 and 2. Scenario 1 has a surface of 5 km2 and 40% of the population lives in this area. In the context of the SUNSHINE project, the location for the generation of EcoMaps is identified in the southern district of Trento and it is bounded by: Via Marsala, Via Rovereto, Via Vicenza, Via Asiago, Via Conci, Via Menguzzato 40

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

and Via De Gasperi. This test area occupies an area of approximately 5 Km2 including about 1000 Buildings. Out of the total buildings on the site, 50% are residential buildings and 65% are privately owned. The architectural landscape of the area is characterized by both single or multiple family houses as well as large apartment blocks.

Figure 21 Area of Scenario 1 in Trento

Scenario 2 will be focus on the energy consumption monitoring and optimization of 64 technical buildings distributed across the Province of Trento located at critical points of the optic fibre network managed by TNET, a private company.

BASSANO DEL GRAPPA (IT) Bassano del Grappa is a city in the north-west of Italy. It is located in the NUTS2 region I ITD3 Veneto and NUTS3 province ITD32 Vicenza. The average elevation is of 129.

41

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 22 Localisation of Bassano del Grappa – by country(Italy) and province (Veneto)

The city was founded in the second century BC by the Romans, in the middle ages was conquered by Vicenza but maintained semi-autonomous and had a flourishing comercial relation with Venezia. During the French Revolutionary Wars the city was the site of the Battle of Bassano. In 1815 it was included in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, and became part of the unified Kingdom of Italy in 1866. During World War I Bassano was in the front area, and all industrial activities were halted. In World War II, after the Armistice with Italy, the city was invaded by German troops. The symbol of the town is the covered wooden pontoon bridge, which was designed by the architect Andrea Palladio in 1569. The bridge was destroyed many times, the last time during WWII. The climate of Bassano del Grappa is continental climate. The average temperature in winter is 8oC –the highest and -1oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 30oC –the highest and 19oC –the lowest.

Bassano del Grappa has a population of 42,947people and a surface of 46 km2 , that makes the density of 930 people/km2 . The Public energy consumption accounts for 54,9% of total energy consumption (3,17MWh/yr out of 5,78 MWh/yr)12.

In the SUNSHINE project, Bassano del Grappa is involved with Scenario 3. The pilot will select a part of the lighting network and the light points (LPs) connected to them. The aim is to survey the population regarding their opinion on the lighting of the streets predominantly dedicated to pedestrian traffic. More specifically about: levels of lighting / luminance; colour temperature of the source; degree of comfort and aesthetics of the device. The streets of the town centre can have different lighting requirements based on the presence of users and the purpose to be achieved (security, building aesthetics, aggregation, etc.). The lighting setups may therefore vary at night and during the year.

Figure 23 The three sites of Scenario 3 in Bassano del Grappa: W.S Bassano, Via Boschetto, Piazza Guadanin, LPs reprezented by yellow dots

12

Data from 2013.

42

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

ROVERETO (IT) Rovereto is a city in Italy. It is located in the NUTS2 region ITD2 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtiroland NUTS3 province ITD20 Trentino. The average elevation is of 204.

Figure 24 Localisation of Rovereto – by country(Italy) and province (Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol)

Rovereto was an important cultural centre, with its 15th centuries castles and Renaisance architecture and a thriving land. Besano Castle is a suggestive venue for important cultural and artistic events. It is a complex built in the Renaissance style, mainly for defense purposes, in a location where it is possible to view the whole surrounding valley.

The climate of Rovereto is, continental climate, transitional. The average temperature in winter is 7oC –the highest and -1,2oC –the lowest. In summer the average temperature is 28,5oC –the highest and 16,3oC –the lowest.

Rovereto has a population of 39.233people and the surface area of 50,99 km2 ,hence, the density is of 769 people/km2 .

In socio-economic terms, the labor force participation rate in Rovereto is of 70,30% employed out of active population and the registered municipal unemployment rate is 6,60%. The value of municipality’s GDP per capita is 33.600. The ease of doing business index is 68,48 as of 2014 and the number of active enterprises is 602 out of which active in construction are 27% and enterprises active in the energy production sector are 4,50%, out of which, the major energy companies: Dolomiti Energia Rinnovabili S.R.L., ADIGE ENERGY COMPANY S.R.L., CONDINO ENERGIA S.R.L., CRISTOFORETTI SERVIZI ENERGIA S.R.L. ,DECA S.R.L., ENERGY SERVICE S.R.L., NORTH ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY S.R.L., POLO TECNOLOGICO PER L'ENERGIA S.R.L., PVB Solutions SpA, S.I.CO.S. S.R.L., TRENTINO EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA S.N.C. In the SUNSHINE project, Rovereto is involved with Scenario 3 and SET Distribuzione which manages 6000 streetlights in the city, is responsible for this pilot. The pilot involves a subset of these streetlights composed by two illumination systems in two different areas, having a total amount of 96 lights: in San Giorgio –a residential area and on Marco – a roundabout on a 43

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

main road. The size of San Giorgio is of 0,06km2. In the vicinity of the area live approximately 98% of the inhabitants of the city, and the majority of the buildings (98%) are residential, out of which 96% are privately owned.

Figure 25 The two sites of Scenario 3 in Rovereto, San Giorgio and Marco.

Results: assessment per scenarios This section is the result of all the data gathering, surveys and interviews and here the social and economic outputs and outcomes will be presented. The results will be delivered by scenario as most of the pilots are involved in more than one scenario.

Before starting the section about results, it is important to clarify two important terms that will be used very often in the fowling sections: stakeholders and users: 1. We refer to stakeholders as the people that have the potential to use and/or distribute the SUNSHINE tools such as pubic administrators, building owners, developers, etc.

2. Users is a term used to define the people that actually interacted with the SUSNHINE tools, for example, building managers, energy company employees and public administrators.

Initial social outputs of SUNSHINE: Before reporting the scenario results, several overall social outputs about awareness and some first impressions about ICT tools are presented. These outputs have been gathered from the questionnaires.

Firstly, we took a look at the awareness of the stakeholders. 80,5% would define energy as rational consumption - using less energy to provide the same service and 94,3% are interested and very interested in energy saving as an individual. The most energy efficiency measures implemented by the respondents are: energy saving light bulbs (82,1%), installation of windows with low energy emission (47,1%), devices of energy type A and above (49,6%), house or apartment insulation (43,5%). Stakeholders answering to our survey think that the biggest barriers for energy efficiency are the lack of financial resources (68,5%)and the lack of information about relevant products and contractors (44,2%).

44

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Energy efficiency measures implemented by users Other

3,5

None of the above

4,5

Air condi{on with inverter

19,2

Condensate boiler

20,0 18,0

Thermostat valve Hea{ng pump Photovoltaic panels and solar collectors Devices of energy type A and above Installa{on of windows with low energy emission House/apartment insula{on

1,2 22,5 49,6 47,1 43,5

Energy saving lightbulbs

82,1

Figure 26 Energy efficiency measures implemented by users graphic

When asked what are, in their opinion, the five most important barriers hindering the penetration of energy efficient technologies or practices in the buildings sector, most of the user concerns were related to the fact that new and innovative technologies which promote efficiency encounter financial and administrative obstacles. New technologies are usually more expensive, reason for a generally low tendency for citizens and administration to acquire or consider acquiring them. But, the more aware citizens know that, on the long term these technologies return their investment and are also environmental friendly. The reason why the more popular answerers related to the administration’s inability to commit to new or innovative technologies may have to do with the fact that citizens see the administration resistant to change and are reluctant to ground changing technology.

Moreover, the respondents think that for achieving energy efficiency, the most important actions to deploy would be policy packages to promote energy efficiency in buildings, financial aid for upgrading thermal insulation or heating/cooling systems, measures for increased investment in energy efficiency, integrated local or regional energy planning and implementation of intelligent metering systems of heat or power.

Amongst the users, there is a fair amount of people that are aware about some energy saving measures taken in their cities, like: policy packages to promote energy efficiency in buildings, measures for increased investment in energy efficiency, integrated local or regional energy planning, implementation of action plans for public lighting. These are the measures most mentioned by respondents in the questionnaire, yet only referred to by 13-16% of the respondents, a very low percentage. From these answers, some coincide with the SUNSHINE scenarios and it can be concluded that SUNSNHIE has helped raise awareness about energy efficiency at a city level trough it’s users. The people that have used one or more of the scenarios available have developed a habit of being more environmental responsible, as the results from the questionnaires, mentioned above show.

45

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Scenario 1 - Energy Maps 1.1.4

The scope

The aim of the "energy map" scenario is to estimate as accurately as possible the energy performances of buildings, based on data available from public services such as cadastre, planning, imagery, buildings destinations and uses, heating/cooling system types. The scenario will provide methods to implement automatic large-scale assessment of building energy behaviour based on available geodata and building properties derived from other sources (other archives available in other local or national organisation, or information collected through crowdsourcing technologies).

Energy maps13 ("energy density maps") are an innovative and particularly useful tool for a large array of specialists, public workers, researchers and industry, who can use them for example in: Analysing the possibilities for large scale urban renewal, especially in what concerns the development or extension of district heating networks and the creation of energy strategies for hard-to-tackle or deprived urban areas; Prioritizing city-wide investments and assisting decisions on development area locations based on provided information on the state of the art energy-wise as well as nearby energy opportunities for developers.

Some other user stories of the SUNSHINE energy maps are presented also in the report 3.3 Standardisation of guidelines on processes and methodologies for evaluation of energy saving policies.

1.1.5

Pilot areas involved

The Energy Map scenario involved the following cities: Ferrara (IT), Lamia (GR), Paola (MT), Trentino (IT), Val di Non (IT), Zagreb and Split (HR).

1.1.6

Social assessment

The social analysis of Scenario 1 is based on the questionnaire that has been distributed by all the partners and on the user feedback received by each partner.

Firstly, concerning awareness about other technology tools used by the city in the same area as the Scenario 1 for encouraging energy-efficiency, from all the respondents, only 4,3% know of or have heard about these kind of initiatives. This leads to conclude that either there are very few other technology tools for energy-efficiency or they are not properly advertised.

13

Energy maps (or “energy density maps”) are normally GIS-based and often prepared at the neighborhood, local authority or sub-regional scale –according to Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA), 2014, “What are Energy maps?” http://www.chpa.co.uk/what-are-energymaps_245.html

46

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 27 Awareness of ICT in their city

Secondly, in terms of usefulness and ease of use, the respondents to the SUNSHINE users questionnaires find the Energy-Map platform easy and very easy to use in proportion of 76,2% (out of 21 responses). In the matter of usefulness of the tool in communicating with stakeholders and showing them the state of the art of building stock energy efficiency, 75% find it useful and very useful. Concerning its usefulness, 66,7% of the respondents find it useful and very useful, but there’s a strong 19% that find the app not useful at all.

Figure 28 Ease of use –Scenario 1

Figure 29 Usefulness –Scenario 1 (from not useful at all to very usefull)

This discontent might be in part due to the fact that for some buildings there couldn’t be provided all the data necessary for the software to send input. In spite of this, the personal usefulness of the building details view is quite positive, with 80% considering it useful and very useful and only one respondent considering it not useful at al. The single-building energy 47

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

performance estimator is considered useful in calculating energy needs by 71,4% of respondents and the city-status view is considered useful in calculating energy needs by 70%.

Here, the most of the users’ satisfaction is linked to the energy and money savings, issue that has already been exposed in earlier in this section.

Thirdly, from the open answers, the general contempt about Scenario 1 is linked to the cost savings, this will be further explained in the economic outputs section of the report. But another recurrent answer about the most useful feature is a reference to the 3D render and the simulation tool. Occasionally, the app is used to check which region has the highest energy saving potential, that resulting in a competitive environment between neighboring or similar regions and in turn changing customer behavior towards more energy efficient as human nature is often competitive. This way, the SUNSHINE tool becomes a medium for energy efficiency and environmental awareness and helps change the user’s behavior. One problem found by users with the app is the data quality and availability. This calls for a more openness to data sharing at a European level.

The results from the questionnaires are conclusive that Map4Data is very useful and easy to use. To begin with, 78,6% of the users that responded to the questionnaires found Map4Data easy and very easy to use and the interface is very user-friendly.For example, in Lamia, more than 2500 buildings have been inserted into the Map4Data database in the first 2 months of running and the number is expected to grow. Additionally, from the results it has been gathered that a high amount of users think that the assessment of energy performance and electronic energy pre-certification has allowed to a high and very high extent to: Make informed decision-making regarding future investment in building upgrade conducted by the public sector (80% think); Set up a local or regional strategy plan for the improvement of energy systems (75% of the respondents); Change consumer behaviour towards higher awareness and openness for energy efficiency actions (75% think); Set up a local or regional strategy for urban renewal (65% of the respondents); Facilitate the investment in energy system efficiency (65% think); Make informed decision-making regarding future investment in building upgrade conducted by the private sector (64,7 % think) Streamline the building energy certification process for large urban areas (47% of the respondents) ; In the questionnaires, in the open answers, there were people that wanted the app to be on Google play and to also be implemented for IOS. This implies a demand to be streamed and disseminated at a broader level which in turn speaks about the popularity of SUNSHINE. For example, In Ferrara, for scenario 1, the involvement of the Department of Architecture of the University of Ferrara and its students, as well as the local Board of Architects, has added to the spread in popularity of the tool. Three Ph.D students form the Department of Architecture of the University of Ferrara were involved in on the on-site data quality check. In addition, training seminaries were held at the University and with representatives of the municipality –the designated pilot users: Eng. Ivano Graldi, head of the Environment Service of the Municipality of Ferrara and his staff, during which the general view was that SUNSHINE is easy to use but the one inconvenient signaled by the new trainees was that there is a problem with accessing sufficient data for all the buildings.

48

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

In the case of Val di Non, the testing area has been extended to about 40 municipalities in Val di Non the public administrators –this means the Covenant of Mayors- have recognized the Eco-Maps as a strategic tool to manage and program the territory. Therefore, according to the general agreement among municipalities, (represented by the Covenant of Mayors), a finer grain energy consumption scenario has been provided by means of eco-maps following the Sunshine approach.

As feedback to the testing of SUNSHINE, TNNET, the company that is the pilot for scenario 1 in Trento, is considering extending the SUNSHINE tools to all the TNNET’s network nodes. Even though the SUNSHINE model still needs some improvements in order to be adopted as industrial tool, but it can be already extended over the entire population of network nodes.

This is a consequence of the fact that the innovation department of TNNET has been involved in the SUNSHINE project. It is also considering to manage directly the energy management operations in the future and to issue consumption report regularly to both the operation department and financial department.

1.1.7

Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders

As our main tool for investigation shows, 92% of the stakeholders would be interested in the SUNSHINE tool of Scenario 1 after watching the presentation clip and 73,6% could see an opportunity in using Energy Maps in their daily work and would mostly use it to retrieve analytical indicators which can be used further in substantiation studies, cost-benefit analyses and more, for updating planning documentations, drafting urban regeneration strategies and programmes. Moreover, the respondents think that, as a citizen, the most important benefits they could have are keeping informed on the energy efficiency of their home or the neighbor's and keeping informed on the overall energy efficiency state of art in their city. In addition, 86,6% would be willing to provide information about their building through this free app.

Finally, the stakeholders mentioned that they would expect form SUNSHINE Scenario 1 to help set up a local/regional strategy for the improvement of energy systems(61,4%), define specific local energy saving policies (54,4%), rapidly estimate energy performances of buildings at urban scale and produce relative thematic maps (51,4%) and to retrieve analytical indicators which can be used further in substantiation studies cost-benefit analyses etc. for updating planning documentations, drafting urban regeneration strategies and programmes (49,2%). Also, 89,9% would support the development or extension of the Energy Maps scenario in their city.

1.1.8

Economic assessment

As stated in the methodology section, limitations with data collection have led to a change in the approach. For this reason, it is difficult to provide results based on precise and quantitative data. However, the qualitative work provides a full description of the insights among pilot users regarding their expectations towards Sunshine.

For this reason, in order to assess the potential economic outputs and outcomes we also included other aspects related to the will to change or deploy an energy efficiency strategy within the organizations involved in the pilots (i.e. municipalities, energy providers or managers, public companies).

The economic output of the Energy Map is not directly observed after the pilots’ deployment.

However, the main conclusion that can be drawn for scenario 1 is that the Energy Map is the tool that has generated a greater interest among pilots. The Energy Map appears as a potential decision-making tool that municipalities are willing to use for policy and strategy 49

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

definition. Among its benefits, users identified the use of accurate information about buildings as a strategic asset for decision-making. For instance, when municipalities are signatories of the Covenant of Mayor, the Energy Map appears as the tool for monitoring energy plans or meet other EU and national requirements.

However, the single use of the Energy Map doesn’t lead to direct savings. The strategic use of it is what has to be taken into account to assess its potential outcomes in a city. During the elaboration of this report (until M36), the main output obtained by users was the raise of awareness regarding the degree of efficiency of the building stock of a city. This will have to be analyzed later on from a strategic perspective. This means that decisions regarding efficiency will have to be taken and those decisions will be the starting point to develop plans that will lead to results in terms of savings.

In this respect, most of the pilot users highlighted the difficulty to extrapolate direct savings as a consequence of the use of Energy Maps. They have reported the difficulty to assess how much money can be saved due to this indirect connection between its use and the achievement of savings. Individual assessment of the pilots leads to some interesting results.

For instance, Ferrara’s Energy Map has allowed for a comparison between the energy certificates and the creation of the Energy Map. Although Energy Maps can’t substitute energy certificates (due to legal barriers) the estimation of savings for a municipality is relevant (see savings exposed below).

Regarding savings, we can only talk about estimation of savings in a disaggregated way. Pilots’ locations are very different and show different degrees of complexity (size of building stock, data availability). Therefore, it is not possible to provide an average estimation of savings, generally speaking.

In addition, due to the indirect relation between the use of the Energy Map and savings, many pilot implementers were not able to exactly quantify their savings. This said, we want to refer to the case of Ferrara. They made an effort to provide some numbers: Ferrara: Savings can be estimated considering the cost of preparing Energy Performance Certifications (EPC) for all the residential buildings in comparison to the cost of creating the Energy Map. It is worth mentioning while the cost of the EPCs would be sustained by the citizens, the Energy Map cost will have to be sustained by the municipality.

The average cost is about 150 euros and the calculation for all residential buildings would be 19,500,000 euros. The estimated cost of creating the Energy Map for the same building stock would be about 32.000 euros.

On the other hand, users’ perception collected through the user survey (17 responses in total for this section) supports the above-mentioned conclusions. First, the results show that Energy Maps give rise to three main expected benefits. They lead to: Quick estimations of energy performances of buildings at urban scale and produce relative thematic maps: 76.5% (13 respondents).

Decisions on urban renewal areas and future investments: 76.5% (13 respondents).

Contributions to a local/regional strategy for the improvement of energy systems: 70,6% (12 respondents).

50

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

The same survey shows that 65% of the respondents consider, to high and very high extent (on a scale from 1-very-5 very high extent) that the tools related to energy performances and electronic energy pre-certification have the potential to facilitate the investment in energy systems. Moreover, 80% (40% to a very high extent and 40% to a high extent) of the respondents consider that those same tools will also contribute to a greater investment in building upgrade by the public sector.

Finally, in terms of the Energy Map adoption and its strategic use, some pilot implementers have reported that some local governments were already using the Energy Map as a tool for monitoring their Sustainable Energy Action Pan (Ferrara, Val di Non, and Trento) and also for planning to create a specific energy unit with the local government (Ferrara). In Malta, for instance, there is also the will to expand the use of the Energy Map as a government tool within the national building authority (Building Regulation Office). In other cases, the Energy Map will be integrated into a more general smart city strategy (Trento). Moreover, other municipalities have expressed their intention to deploy an incentive plan to motivate the upgrade of low energy efficiency areas (Lamia).

Scenario 2: Building Energy Awareness 1.1.9

The scope

The aim of this scenario is to monitor and control the energy consumption of the heating/cooling systems of pilot buildings by connecting the SUNSHINE application to the energy meters and controllers. The application will have an access to the local weather data and will thus be able to suggest for specific weather conditions, how to set the heating/cooling systems to better optimize the consumption of the energy. In doing so, the SUNSHINE App will be able to identify the contributions of the dweller behaviour and local weather conditions, measure performance and try to stimulate the improvement of the energy savings by leveraging on this knowledge.

Application targets of the building and energy managers, as main users are interested in: monitoring consumption and costs and their relation to both, local weather and related internal operations, when important events occur, receive alerts and suggestions how to adjust controllers accordingly controlling the heating/cooling systems and programming them based on the application proposals 1.1.10 Pilot areas involved The Building Energy Awareness scenario involved in the following cities: Ferrara (IT), Lamia (GR), Paola (MT), Trentino (IT), Val di Non (IT), Zagreb and Split (HR).

1.1.11 Social assessment Most respondents are most fond of the following features: sustained consumption monitoring and saving and the integration with 3-day forecast weather service. Also, 72,2% find the tool easy and very easy to use, and 50% find it very useful. These are some of the main reasons why 78,6% would support the scaling up of the technology to feature services for private residential buildings as well. The once that would not support it are concerned with difficulties in smart meter installation.

51

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 30 Ease of use –Scenario 2

Figure 31 Usefulness Scenario 2 (from not useful at all to very useful)

Regarding the suggestion service, 47,1% have used it and have found it very useful because it provides guidance to users, help integrate internal data with the external database and mostly because it help reduce the consumption of the building. In addition, 89,5% have used the data view service and found it moderately useful and the general satisfaction is related to the savings, which will be detailed in the economic section, and about the graphic display of data that helps for a better visualisation. As a general comment for improvement, there have been many suggestions regarding allowing comparison between buildings. In regard to changing customer behaviour, 52,9% agree that this tool has changed their behaviour toward a more environmental-friendly one and 64,7% think that the tool has allowed them to take informed decisions on future investments while renovating or modernising their building. Again, as for scenario 1, there is dissatisfaction with the access to data and the export of raw data and realtime implementation.

Figure 32 Changing customer behavior

52

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

For example, TNNET already has an internal thermos system but SUNSHINE gives more compiling data. After SUNSHINE, there is an awareness at management level to implement energy savings policies.

1.1.12 Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders After seeing the video about the Building Energy Awareness tool, 90,9% of the respondents think it will be best fitting to public buildings (schools, hospitals), 72,8% think it would be fitting for commercial and production spaces and 66,9% see it as a tool for residential buildings. Over all it could be fitting for any of the listed options, it only depends on the stakeholders’ interest. Regarding awareness about technology for monitoring and adjusting energy consumption in their residential area or work space, most of the respondents (58,1%) don’t know of any but 96,6% think that such a tool would help change their behavior toward low energy consumption. In addition, the principle of receiving alerts of incoming extraordinary weather conditions (extremely low temperatures, rainstorms, snowstorms) for the following days so that they can plan in advance heating system schedules and other countermeasures is very sought after, with 88,8% of the respondents being interested.

Moreover, the stakeholders responding to the questionnaires, 86,1% would be motivated to use the SUNSHINE app at no further cost considering that there already exists a Smart Electricity Metering roll-out strategy for Europe. Also, they think the biggest advantages of using the Building Energy Awareness tool would be the sustained consumption monitoring – where they can see how much energy has been used –say 76%, the cost monitoring and planning based on in-detail historical data according to 67,9% and the ease of use of the smartphone/tablet app –they can receive alerts wherever they are – 38,6% say. In contrast, the biggest turn-off is that the initial installment of hardware is costly according to 65,9%.

Finally,82,9% would support SUNSHINE Building Energy Awareness for both public and residential buildings in their city 1.1.13

Economic assessment

Scenario 2 economic outputs and outcomes are probably the most complex to analyze due to the different context of pilots implementers but also with the data collection and comparison difficulties that partners found during the pilot phase.

For example, HEPESCO and Trentino Network have deployed the building assessment within their own facilities (8 buildings for HEP and 60 shelters for Trentino Network) and the indirect outcome of those two pilots is the post project adoption of the tools by those two organizations. On the other hand, Naxxar (2 buildings), Clés (one building, sport facility), Lamia (5 buildings) are smaller pilots, and the achievement of savings could be useful for building managers and the municipality. However, in the case of Ferrara, 21 public buildings are involved but the user involved is not the municipality directly but the company in charge of energy management (Olicar). In this case, the benefits of achieving savings would benefit the finance of the company that might adopt Sunshine as an internal tool.

Despite those differences, all partners agree that the main benefit identified during the pilots was the access to real time data as a key asset for the identification of consumption models and behavior analysis by pilot users.

In contrast to the first scenario, this scenario is understood by partners as a more tactical one since it allows for the direct management of early turn-offs and early turn-ons of heating/cooling system of different buildings (for example in Clés). Partners also reported 53

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

that, due to the pilot, they were able to define their own model of consumption (reported by Trentino Network) and to identify where they had to introduce changes: modification of the temperature settings, the time schedule, and the heating curve (in the case of HEP).

In addition, partners reported other indirect benefits such as the usefulness of the tool to meet European requirements and, in particular, to apply to incentives such as white certification for Italy (Trentino Network).

This tactical aspect should theoretically be directly related to savings. However, some partners reported that due to some technical constraints observed during the pilot (lack of data, connection issues with the platform, etc.) they were not always able to analyse their energy performance and link it to savings. The data time frame is also one element that partners referred to: in order to assess savings, they needed to compare similar periods of time. Due to the short period of time available during the pilot phase, this was not always possible.

Although not all pilot partners provided savings estimations, the information collected timidly shows a general reduction of energy consumption. However, again, due to differences among pilots’ settings (geography, weather, size of buildings, use of the facility, etc.) it is difficult to assess the performance of this scenario from a general point of view.

As a result of the difficulties experienced with the information, savings are provided in a disaggregated way:

Trentino Network: Saving expectation to be achieved between 7 and 10% of savings/per year for the electricity.

HEP: Savings range from 10 to 15%, at the maximum (50.000€/year). 526.000€ (estimation for 100 buildings x 3 years). Calculation of savings according to IPMVP option C (baseline-current consumption= savings) EU Directive 2006/32/EU.

Naxxar: Savings not assessed at the moment of data collection for this report.

Cles: Pilot partners identified several factors that affect the building performance (night consumption, unusual winter conditions, the extent to which the sport facility is used). The provision of estimated savings is established between 10% and 20% of energy provided that they can use weather alerts and forecast.

Lamia: No savings provided at the moment of data collection for this report but a constraints was highlighted. The 5 buildings involved in scenario 2 use two different energy consumption and fuel consumption (smart meters only for electricity while for fuels monitoring based on data collection of billing).

Ferrara: Total estimated saving = 0.19 – 0.57 € / m2 year Example: i.e. for Poledrelli School that would mean, on a yearly basis:

Consumed energy €uros Equivalent CO2 (kWh) (kg) Saving

4’500 – 13’500

900 – 2’700

1’827 – 5’481

54

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Annual average

270’000

54’000

21’924

*Corresponding to an annual relative saving of about 2-6%. Where 0.406 Kg/kWh (electricity and heat 14 cogeneration) was used (ref: International Energy Agency )

Partners have also identified several barriers to energy savings that are related to costs and, in particular, to the cost/benefit relationship of renewal or refurbishment of buildings. In this respect, HEP is a clear example of facilities with important isolation issues that hinder a greater efficiency. However, the cost of upgrading to more efficient facilities can be colossal for an organization with an important amount of buildings (HEP Group).

The survey to users provides additional information regarding the expected outputs and outcomes of this scenario. Fourteen (14) responses were collected regarding this section of the survey.

On the potential cost reduction, respondents could not agree on one option. On one hand, 29,4% of respondents considered that Sunshine tools for scenario 2 haven’t given rise to a cost reduction while 35,3% (11,8% to a very high extent and 23.5% to a high extent) considered that Sunshine did support pilots in achieving a cost reduction.

However, regarding the capacity of scenario 2’s tools to improve the investment in energy efficiency systems of buildings, 47% of respondents considered that Sunshine achieved this goal to a high and to a very high extent.

Regarding the tactical capacity of the tool, 64,7% of respondents reported that, to a high or to a very high extent, Sunshine scenario 2’s tools led to better informed decisions on future investment in modernization or renovation of the buildings Finally, pilot users were also asked about their perception on the potential long term benefits.

Respondents identified two main improvements that might take place in the next 2-3 years due to the usage of scenario 2 tools: Running costs of buildings will be significantly improved (78,6%,).

A better Decision-making regarding investments in modernization or renovation will be achieved (50%,).

Scenario 3: Remote Control of Lighting Networks 1.1.14 The scope The aim of scenario 3 is to set up a platform that interacts with the lighting system in terms of the management and control, and simultaneously collects information from the infrastructure to optimize the lighting service and/or provide other ancillary services. Subsequently, the SUNSHINE solutions will have an effect on the reduction of the energy consumption by means of an optimization of the managing networks method.

14

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/

55

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

The scenario will implement a smart managing system for the lighting plants, with a considerable reduction of energy consumption without the need to replace the light bulbs but with an integration of more evolved control devices. The system, equipped with the hardware provided will allow to control each individual lighting plant, both from the personal workstation of technical operators or municipal engineers as well as tablet PC in the case of nomadic accesses.

1.1.15 Pilot areas involved The scenario Remote Control of Lighting Networks involve the following cities: Rovereto (IT), Val di Non (IT), Zagreb and Split (HR), Bassano del Grappa (IT).

1.1.16 Social assessment From the users of the automatic lightning systems, 77,8% find it easy and very easy to use and 83,3% find it very useful for their purpose. For example, in Zagreb, where the automatic lightning system is used to illuminate a public building, the main contempt is that the system basically runs itself and the users don’t have to put much effort in managing it. There is a consensus of 100% that the Scenario 3 is most useful for monitoring real-time energy consumption of public/private light lines and 80% for remote controlling the real-time energy consumption.

Figure 33 Ease of use –Scenario 3 (from not easy at all to very easy)

Figure 34 Usefulness –Scenario 3 (from not useful at all to very useful)

The main reason for recommending the tool is the optimization of running and maintenance costs at city level for the public illumination network 86,7% say and for generally improving the urban environment and feeling of safety by ensuring it is well-lit, 40% say. In addition, the data service is viewed as useful and very useful by 77,8% of users mainly because it allows to see the data in a graphic way and to see the spike of usage and the dimming in action.

Furthermore, 26,3 % found the automatic lightning systems to have an important role in the 56

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

increase of safety of citizens and 57,9% think that it had a moderate impact in the increase of safety. Also, there is a moderate reduction in crime rates, 66,7% think and also in accident rates, 80% think. Concerning the environment and the reduction of city light pollution, 53,4% agree that it was reduced to a high and very high extent.

Figure 35 What was Scenario 3 useful for?

Moreover, 57,9% have used the grouping/scheduling service and found it useful and very useful in proportion of 64,3%. The lamp/ light line control service was used by 68,4% of the respondents, and 83,3% found it useful and very useful and have mentioned that it has been most useful in the testing part.

For example, the pilot partners in Val di Non and Rovereto, have organized a lot of training activities and meetings with the official administration that had an important impact over the users and potential users. They have explained about the automatization of lightning systems, smart city technologies and about what SET has done in Rovereto to members of city council in charge of environment innovation and energy department to try to convince them to implement the same smart city technologies provided by SUNSHINE. Another example is Bassano del Grappa where the involvement of the citizens was abundant as the whole Bassano pilot revolves around co-design of the solutions with citizens. In total, a number of 1026 citizens was reached through surveys done by young volunteers with the public during three main events organised for SUNSHINE: Opening of “Bassano sotto le stelle” (June 17), Bassano “Summer White Night” historical downtown (July 22) and Bassano “Winter White Night” (December 5-7).

Last but not least, the pilot in Zagreb, the HEP thermal power plant administration building with 11 lighting points, had great review from the users. Everybody was contempt with the efficiency of the system with a minimum to none involvement of the user in the turning on or off the lightning system. Lightly put, the users were pleased that the system works “”by itself”.

1.1.17 Analysis of the questionnaires for stakeholders To start off, 46,8% of the people responding to the questionnaires are not aware of any technology for monitoring and remote controlling the energy consumption of streetlights used by their city and 29,4% know the city doesn’t use any. But, 92% believe that such a tool would be useful for optimizing running and maintenance costs at city level for the public illumination network according to real requirements. Also, 89,8% agree with selective 57

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

dimming of public lighting (based on hour, weather conditions) if it means to save more energy, money and CO2.

Finally, 96,6% would support SUNSHINE Public Lighting Scenario in their city (for development or extension, if the city already pilots the solution).

1.1.18 Economic assessment The results obtained in the pilots of scenario 3 include the assessment of the introduction of new technology (new led lamps) and a change of settings (dimming or structure of the lighting point) and its impact to the saving capacity of this scenario.

It is important to highlight the differences among pilots location since Bassano pilot includes lighting lines that are in the city centre while, in Rovereto, location was far from the centre.

Also, the pilot in HEP included one light system that was located outside the main building while the pilot in Clés took place in a high school campus. Therefore, again, these differences do not allow a global analysis in terms of savings.

The most important results of this scenario identified by partners is the easy direct definition of saving provisions due to the fact that the lighting performance is measured and a ex ante/ex post analysis can be performed immediately.

Therefore, the main benefit identified by partners is access to tangible results that can guide the decision of changing the settings of the lighting systems. In this respect, during scenario 3, for both Bassano and Rovereto, it was possible to measure the exact luminance and to adjust the dimming to a most efficient behaviour of the lamps. Therefore, in this context, scenario 3 is less complex (for instance, elements related to isolation and other facility settings found as a barrier in scenario 2 are not found here) and a reduction in the energy bill is easier.

However, this scenario also presents one important challenge related to costs: the change technology. This is the case, for instance, of Cles. In Cles, the school director was interested in expanding the pilot to other classrooms and having a better perception of the energy performance of the lights. However, the high cost related to the change of lamps appears as a barrier to do so. Schools have a very limited budget and lamp renovation might not be affordable or be a priority.

Regarding savings, these are the estimations provided by partners: Bassano: Estimation of 74 euro/year per light point. If this estimate was confirmed, only for the old town with this type of equipment (252 pieces) energy expenses would be decreased from 23,000 euro /year to about 4,500 euro/ year (costs include VAT as for public administrations VAT is a cost). Decrease of more than 50% of consumption.

Rovereto: Energy reduction of 21% (Rotatoria Marco, -894€) and of 19% in StGiorgio (-703€).

HEP: Savings estimated around 30%.

Cles High school campus: Energy savings can be estimated as follows: About 80% (when switching from fluorescent lamps to LED) About 10% (if only changes on the dimming system are performed) About 10% (if the system only implements occasional turn-offs, such as when the classrooms are empty) 58

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Finally, the user survey (11 responses in total) adds further details about the perception of the outputs obtained through this pilot.

The results obtained show that 53,3% of respondents considered that the remote control of lighting network (scenario 3) supported, to a very high and to a high extent, cost reductions for municipalities or public owners. This result is aligned with the fact that 53,4% of respondents reported that, to a high and very high extent, this scenario supported the reduction of energy consumption of public lighting. Finally, 46,7% of respondents declared that, to a high and very high extent, Sunshine’s scenario 3 contributed to the increase of investment in energy efficiency systems in the city.

Additional economic outputs of Sunshine: 1.1.19 Perceived economic impact of Sunshine in cities The economic assessment also aimed at analysing the perception of users and stakeholders regarding the impact of Sunshine in the cities in which pilots had taken place but also in a urban environment in general.

Results from the user survey shows that the main expected/perceived impact of Sunshine will be the reduction of energy/electricity consumption in cities (22 respondents out of 34, that is 64,7%). Moreover, 47,1% of respondents (16 users) also believe that Sunshine will contribute to the reduction of CO2 emission, making cities more friendly environments. However, very few users consider that Sunshine will have a direct impact on the economy: only 6 respondents believe that Sunshine will increase employment and 9 out of 22 that Sunshine will create new businesses.

In effect, based on the interviews with pilot implementers, the main expected impact in the long term in cities will be the reduction of energy consumption for municipalities but, also, the improvement of energy management (not only in the public sector but, also, in all kind of organization that might use Sunshine tools).

Partners also foresee that Sunshine has significant potential as a tool for energy efficiency strategy (scenario 1), as a tactical tool for building energy performance (scenario 2), and as a tool to reach significant savings in lighting systems (scenario 3). As a result, they believe that there is an opportunity to grow around pilots area (more Energy Maps, more smarter buildings, and more lighting systems remotely controlled) and to create more efficient and smarter regions.

The stakeholders’ questionnaire also provides interesting insight on the perception of the potential impact of Sunshine in at the local level. Stakeholders were asked about their view on SUNSHINE’s potential to increase employment, create new business, improve local energy efficiency and improve municipal decision making. The results show a general positive vision of those potential impacts. In particular, respondents rated SUNSHINE’S potential to improve the local energy efficiency as positive and very positive in 88,1%. Stakeholders also evaluated positively the capacity of SUNSHINE to create new business (52,4% rated it as medium positive). On the other hand, 45,2% of respondents had a more neutral vision of SUNSHINE’s capacity to improve the municipal decision making. Finally, the option less rated was SUNSHINE’s potential to increase employment since 40,5% of respondent rated it as low positive and 28,6% view it more neutrally.

59

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Pilots Outreach While developing an in-depth analysis of local impact of the SUNSHINE project at this moment is, as otherwise stated in the Methodology, unlikely, the outputs and results so far are a relevant focus point for the present report. In each pilot, several awareness, openness, training and liaising activities have been deployed in order to build the foundation for the 12month pilot testing as well as, in some cases, for the future continuation or expansion of the project. In this section, we analyse these results from a social point of view, determining whether SUNSHINE has left a significant mark on the pilot cities and regions and if it has contributed to the general wellbeing of the local inhabitants.

We also considered an important social outcome, or result (with the potential of becoming an impact on longer term) the activity of training and numbers of users trained within the local workshops deployed by pilot partners. Training is an essential component of inserting new and innovative technologies within the socio-economic local climates, as it does not only bridge the knowledge gap between the product providers and the actual users (municipal workers, energy managers, planners, citizens, etc.) but it also adds important skills to the share of the population trained. As the SUNSHINE products (or similar) will become adopted or begin roll-out on the market, the trained users will have the chance of finding new and better jobs or moving upwards from their current position. Subsequently, it can be argued that on the longer term, training should to a certain degree improve the employability of the persons involved and open up new job markets. The SUNSHINE project offers niche services, but they are still relevant in the global context with respect to the growing importance of energy efficiency, not only at European level.

Below are presented the most prominent cases of SUNSHINE where a socio-economic positive result could be determined. Other cases, especially the pilots which deployed SUNSHINE strictly internally to the company, presented a more challenging perspective of determining potential impacts on longer term.

60

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Ferrara, IT The case of Ferrara is of particular importance for the definition of social implications of the SUNSHINE piloting for Scenario 1 and 2. From the beginning, the pilot manager SGIS has focused on establishing the right administrative and business connections in order to facilitate the testing of the platforms: the Ferrara Municipality with its ICT and Energy Department (Scenario 1) and the Olicar Company, which manages the heating and cooling system of several public buildings involved in Scenario 2. Three main achievements in terms of enhancing awareness and collaboration have been established, as per the partner’s interim piloting report: 1. SUNSHINE has been inserted as an action oriented to public building energy saving within the local SEAP of Ferrara (Sustainable Energy Action Plan)15 in the context of the Covenant of Mayors. This official endorsement has guaranteed sustainability of the action on the medium term and the maximisation of future impact through synergy with other selected priority projects in the SEAP. 2. SUNSHINE has started a collaboration with the dept. of Architecture of Ferrara University, who has supported the project on refining the methodology (right approach and algorithms for calculating the energy need at building level) as well as with data collection and quality check. Using university volunteers to validate the data on the field via the Map4Data app has increased significantly the reach of the SUNSHINE scenarios and has potentially opened up a future market for the application. During the first stage of piloting, three PhD students have been involved in the on-site data quality check.

3. In the context of the EIT Climate-KIC16, Sinergis together with the University of Ferrara Architecture Dept. have joined the Pioneers into Practice professional mobility programme involving pioneers in Sunshine’s piloting activities for Ferrara. While the results of this initiative concern more the contribution to the academia in this early phase, in what concerns the creation of new products and services in the field of climate change, eventual application of these products will yield a consistent local (and European) socio-economic impact.

The Energy Map component of the Ferrara Pilot analysed in the interim evaluation a total a number of 5,000 buildings, most of them residential; the final energy map of Ferrara shows a number of 16877 buildings validated out of a total 46127 number of buildings encompassed in the scenario, with a spread of the initial energy map towards the satellite settlements of the city.

15

http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/signatories_en.html?city_id=4977&seap

16

http://www.climate-kic.org/

61

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Figure 36 – Ferrara overview of Scenario 1

Direct impact on the welfare of the inhabitants of these areas (est. more than 50% of the total inhabitants in the Ferrara Municipality) is not evident for the duration of the piloting phase but is of future consequence of the Comune di Ferrara’s use of the Energy Map for the energy planning purposes within the monitoring phase of the SEAP, supporting the analysis aimed at reducing the energy consumption of buildings and the ecological footprint of the city.

For the Scenario 2, the 21 public buildings involved in the pilot provide social services and education, for the most: there are 8 schools and kindergartens, libraries, public offices, museums and leisure centers located in the pilot buildings. The outcome of the piloting can be appraised as a general success in managing to lower costs but to keep the same comfort profile in the buildings and, while it did not have a visible direct effect on the welfare of the users of these buildings, savings of the local budget for energy expenditure will indirectly generate positive effects as the Municipality can redirect them towards tackling other issues at the city level.

Training in Ferrara has been conducted within workshops on both Scenario 1 and 2, leading to a number of 60 persons with enhanced capacity to use the products, enhanced skills and a better understanding of instruments for climate change mitigation and improvement of energy efficiency.

62

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Zagreb, HR The Zagreb, Varadzin and Kriz pilot has been managed by HEP ESCO, an Energy Service Company preparing, financing and implementing energy efficiency projects on a commercial basis. Founded by the HEP INC Croatian electricity company, which has more than 12,000 employees in Croatia and Slovenia, it is backed by the state-owned company in its pursuance to improve and diversify its energy saving services. The reach of the SUNSHINE Scenario 2 and 3 outputs is thus wide enough to guarantee, on a longer term, an impact in the energy market at national level.

The scenarios have been deployed in sites owned by the HEP Company (administration buildings, restaurant and dispatch center) and have thus had a limited reach on the social welfare of the general population. However, the reach of their awareness, openness and training events has been considerable: Overall, the partner has managed to involve a total number of 1252 stakeholders, of which 1081 nationally, in 28 awareness, communication, training and publicity events.

HEP ESCO has held, during the lifetime of the project, trainings for 72 stakeholders, which were also asked to fill in feedback questionnaires, with very positive results on the quality of the programme and usefulness of the solutions in the professional life of the respondents.

Plans for training have been more ambitious, with a liaison set in place with the Viktor Lenac Shipyard for a programme called „Green Shipyard Training”. Due to delays in rolling out the final tested platform for Scenario 2 and 3, these trainings will be conducted after the end of SUNSHINE, together with a second phase of HEP INC employee training, which will reach 500 additional employees between 2016-2017. The total number of trainees foreseen for the Green Shipyard Training is of 500, raising the number of trained specialists at 1072 for HEP ESCO, most concentrated in the Zagreb area.

Given the niche characteristic of the skillset which the project provides, as well as the fact that only a small percentage of the population at national level is involved in energy efficiency and energy management, this number is very relevant.

Bassano del Grappa, IT The baseline situation witnessed the old historical part of the city center being lit by lanterns attached to historical arms in cast iron. To meet the new standards, the bulbs of the lanterns were required to be installed in a way called „cut-off”, which causes the light to flow downwards only, thus mitigating light pollution. Unfortunately, this action could not be implemented with the original light fixtures, as the glass diffused the light upwards and therefore needed to be removed.

Yet research has shown that the fixtures were not really historical. The type of lantern was first used in the 19th century with other light sources: first the flame in oil and then the gas flame. When they started using Edison bulbs and the hydroelectric power station of Bassano was built, the lanterns disappeared to give way to the plate type, more effective. The „historical” lanterns reappeared in style during the 70s, and by the beginning of the project they functioned in the city center producing a poor quality light. Furthermore, they did not have a technology which allowed to dim the light at night. The lights were always on with the same intensity, even during late nights, which was basically similar to leaving the light bulbs in one’s home on all night long.

63

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Hence, the Bassano del Grappa pilot project was a test to experiment the innovative lighting devices managed by the SUNSHINE platform (web & app) and to optimize the effectiveness (to provide light only where, how and when needed). Alongside, to have a feedback on the study done, Grafica Light wanted to involve the citizens in an extensive survey, concerning not only energy aspects, but also: equipment aesthetic, quality of light emitted, visual comfort; to ensure that the public lighting service will meet the citizen’s likings. Thanks to the project and the funds made available from Europe, the Municipality of Bassano del Grappa was able to install new prototypes of luminaries.

The new lighting devices respect the regulations and do not scatter light into the sky. Several key points were made available to citizens and stakeholders in flyers, meetings, workshops and in press: •

• •

•

• •

• • •

•

The LED bulb contained in new equipment is already cut-off, then address the light only downward.

They have a form tailored for Bassano and its history Historical research has shown that the device in the form of plate, that this new device is based, is typical of our historical town, since when at the early twentieth century they began to use the Edison bulb.

This type of device disappeared in the '70s to make way for today's style lanterns.

The light of the new equipment is very similar to the one we have at home.

The light of the new equipment allows us to see clearly all colors and all materials: concrete, marble, plaster, etc. With less orange light we can see better (try to see the colors of your clothes under the light!)

The new LED technology allows to decide whether to have light warmer or cooler, but always as white as the sun light The new LED technology consumes 72% less energy with a saving of € 80 of our money per year per unit Thanks to LED technology and wireless we can adjust the intensity of the various units in the city, for example in the late night hours, while still providing security ... nevertheless more money-saving.

With wireless you can also have the control of all the lighting fixtures in the city and identify failures and consumption.

A preliminary workshop and survey called “ri-illuminiamo Bassano” has been held in Bassano on 16 October 2013. The workshop aimed at discussing the several versions of possible efficient lighting in the city center, after a series of presentations of the overall SUNSHINE concept in Bassano and application of LED technology for public lighting. An exhibition with panels on the lighting concept has been set up and a first survey has been conducted.

As a result of the preliminary survey, studies and projections from Grafica Light, in a stretch of Via Vittorelli, in the alley of the Tower and square Guadagnin were installed 11 new lamps.

From modern technology, combined with the lines of the past, they have been designed and 64

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

built specifically for the old center of Bassano. In order to best calibrate the new type of lighting and to verify the satisfaction of the population, over the 12 months of piloting, the Administration asked residents, visitors and tourists to make a judgment on new lamps and light radiation type. The questionnaire could be filled in by photographing the "QR code" of the light with smartphones or by consulting the website of the City. Moreover, in collaboration with the scouts, real interviews with passers-by were made.

As a result, at the end of the project, over 1000 live audits were performed within the historical part of the city, with citizens. This very high degree of involvement, reaching over 2% of the population, has produced a significant result in what concerns the heightened awareness towards energy saving, climate change challenges, the SUNSHINE project and its solutions and the sense of local empowerment. Over 200 youth have been trained on the project during its lifetime.

Near final outcomes of the survey processing reveal that engineering and perception have slightly different views: from the first impression citizens seem to like softer, warmer light tones. White LED light might meet deeper and best color vision; but it does not meet 100% people liking. As, only 1 out of 3 Bassano citizen (especially the over 50) like the 3000 LED light tone. Due maybe to cultural background (long term yellow light exposure), or due to eye light sensitivity taste. Consequently, as soon as GraficaLight were through with more data collection and analysis they aim at starting to adjust LED light source closer to people sympathy.

65

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Perception of safety was highly positive, people responding that light can be dimmed down to 60% without lowering citizen safety perception. In this case scenario, the municipality can really adjust light emission to encounter European energy standards and meeting citizen safety requirements.

The Audit Poll adjusted by residents versus non-residents shows a real difference between the previous general outcomes compared by dweller choices. The latter have a clear increased appreciation for the work done on the device development, and a slight increase of appreciation of the overall SUNSHINE project activity. The social welfare output of the Bassano del Grappa pilot has been hence evident.

Val di Non, IT The Informatica Trentina-managed Val di Non pilot is particularly important for the future social and economic impact it will yield for the inhabitants of the valley pertaining to the implementation of Scenario 1 – Energy Maps.

Initially envisaged to be deployed in the Cles and Trento municipalities, the scenario has been extended to more than 30 other municipalities. The Comunità della Val di Non numbers about 40,000 inhabitants, and the extension of the Energy Maps to cover almost of its settlements represents not only an effective approach to fulfil the agreements taken by the municipalities by signing the Covenant of Mayors but also an instrument to manage and program the development of the territory by the authorities, with a long-term impact in improving the

livelihoods of the citizens.

Figure 37 Cles (TN) energy maps on the left the energy needs for heating on the right the energy needs for cooling.

Moreover, INFOTN has conducted an extensive training of professionals (practitioner engineers and architects for most) which also provided training credits to the participants after passing the evaluation conducted at the end of the training. In total, the number of users trained has been of 96.

66

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Impact scenarios As mentioned before, we cannot talk about impact per-se, because impact conceptually speaking, refers to long term perspective, to leaving a marked effect or influence and mostly takes place ex-post. There for, an accurate impact assessment is very unlikely but closest thing to an impact assessment in our case can be a prediction based on two scenarios. Having this said, and coordinating with other tasks, namely D7.1 -Short and long term exploitation, two scenarios can be imagined in terms of future impact SUNSHINE will have: Business –as –usual Ideal situation (scenario where all the mid and long term predicaments go for the better) Business-as-usual implies that SUNSHINE will continue to be utilised, at least a while, just as it was managed by the pilot partners so far. For TNNET, for instance, it will mean saving up to 710% and the company just might invest the savings in changing the energy climate in the Trento area. For SGIS, the pilot partner in Ferrara, it will mean that the result of energy efficiency will become evident for at a city level only in the next 5-10 years. For Bassano del Grappa (Grafica Light) the success of the piloting period and the extensive efforts to involve the population (approximately 2% was involved) in the positive evaluation of the automatic lightning systems will definitely mean an increase in popularity for Scenario 3 and the continuation on this Scenario in the historical centre which in turn will have a powerful socioeconomic impact on the city. Also, it could lead to an increased possibility that the LED smart lighting will be adopted in the whole city, with an even bigger socio-economic impact. On another note, in the case of Zagreb, where the municipality did not offer support for SUNSHINE and Scenario 1 was dropped after the first year (see also D6.3) and where HEP ESCO isn’t sure that they will continue with SUNSHINE, the positive impact will be the increased management capability of 1072 professionals of which 500 external to HEP that have participated in the trainings organised during and after SUNSHINE. For Lamia and particularly Naxxar, where the project was generally contained within the management of the pilot manager and concrete future expansions have not been specifically addressed, SUNSHINE will in this scenario not make a significant difference at local level. Their energy maps scenario would need more traction at local level as well as support for upscaling (which is feasible, but improbable in this scenario) and the building energy awareness is, due to the particularities of the rather warm mediterranean climate, an issue to be pursued more as an optimization of cooling expenses.

The ideal situation is that in which the partners actually apply the business plans they have made for the D7.1 (we are talking there about the ones that have expressed the will to continue with SUNSHINE and have defined the business scenarios in D7.1). The idea of constituting an EEIG (European Economic Interest Group) of the consortium to exploit the post-SUNSHINE results will make the service package more robust at a European level and will facilitate the deployment on a larger scale of an already tested product, which would have been improved after the 12 months of testing. The EEIG would use their knowledge to support the implementation of SUNSHINE in a broad range of cities, smaller and bigger. The capacity to be a better consultant on the matter of energy efficiency and its transversal competencies will enable the EEIG to support the municipalities with the initial implementation of Scenarios 2 and 3 (we are talking there about installing smart meters, software architecture, and the installation of the LED LPs). At a local level, the pilots would have the support of the EEIG to 67

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

keep the Scenarios going and to possibly extend them. This can open up new opportunities for municipal cooperation and public-private partnerships. Overall, the socio-economic impact at a local level will be significant: improved security in the public space, improved wellbeing, mitigation of energy poverty especially in pilots with low GDP per capita, improvement of city investments in neighbourhood regeneration – also based on supplementary funds at their disposal due to recalibration of HVAC systems in public buildings and of the public lighting networks, improvement of public service conditions i.e. in schools, hospitals, public buildings in general due to monitored and effective inside climates.

But the impact does not concern only internal factors, there are also the external ones to be considered. For the first scenario, business-as-usual, implies that the current socio-economic conditions do not change, people are mildly aware of ICT solutions to reduce energy, the administration is still reluctant to new and expensive technologies and the market is still an emergent one. The Ideal situation however implies that at some point in the near future there is a change towards more individual awareness about energy efficiency, a general openness from the administration and private stakeholders towards investing in ICT technologies and an emergent flourishing market. How would, in these conditions, SUNSHINE have an impact towards the community and economy? For this hypothetical question we will rely on the business plans and strategies for the future that the partners have discussed in D7.1 -Short and long term exploitation (see chapter 3: Individual business plans and strategies).

For example, the main stakeholders that the partners have in mind are: municipalities (cities), the building sector (be it private or public) and the ESCOs. In the business-as-usual scenario, more likely to have an actual impact considering the conditions, are the pilots that struggled to make SUNSHINE more popular, like for example Val di Non where they had discussions with the adjacent municipalities in the hopes to implement ICTs in a larger area. This would have a positive impact on the environment and the economy as well as rising awareness to the people.

68

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Lessons learned Several lessons learned can also be drawn from the assessment of the pilots: Energy is and will remain a key focus for an intelligent and sustainable city. European Commission increased focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency and smart grids at the distribution level, with a doubling of last MFF’s provisioned investment amounts, which means SUNSHINE will have a good policy basis for future development.

City authorities are under big pressure, also political, as implementing actors for national energy efficiency policies, energy saving policies regulations and recommendations.

Data is still a very strong issue in Europe – lack of data, unavailability / inaccessibility, fragmentation, lack of interoperability – these are important barriers which can considerably delay implementation; Key barriers point to a cross-cutting issue in Europe: policies and planning are static (traditional). New services allow for real-time mapping and management of changes, imprinting a different way of making urban policy: flexible, adaptable and dynamic – a shift in paradigm which has yet to occur in the public domain.

European trends are in development: convergences towards smart solutions are enabling local administrations and service providers to efficiently manage urban processes.

Energy efficiency is still met with general lack of awareness and public capacity (despite the tools and funding available). To brake this vicious circle, dissemination and training for social capital development are essential; At the same time, user demand grows for solutions that allow effective energy management at several levels, in an interoperable, standardized, easy-access way.

Local administrations, as the key beneficiary, are crucial players to be involved, therefore understanding, support and integration within the strategic framework from local administrations can champion projects such as SUNSHINE. The diversity in SUNSHINE’s approaches and development offered a wide palette of inputs – and also barriers to overcome. The development process of SUNSHINE was linear, with constant feedback loops for the betterment of the solutions, however the final feedback loop will occur after the project’s lifetime in preparation for the market.

One of the main challenges of this type of projects: robustness and readiness of tools at the end of the implementation period; Some of the economic and energy efficiency outputs of SUNSHINE give optimistic immediate results: consistent reduction of energy use, CO2 emissions and relevant savings across the board for all three scenarios. A few examples: ●

Energy efficiency: Stakeholders are becoming more aware of the necessity, but are still not knowledgeable of the actions (an EU-wide problem). Joint capitalization for market rollout is one of the keys for success;

●

Overall feedback on support of SUNSHINE continuation / expansion / replication: o S1 – 87% positive (near-100% interest for the Map4Data App) 69

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

●

o S2 – 84% for both public and private buildings o S3 – 95% positive Among the biggest societal changes perceived: o Improving municipal decision making o Creating new businesses o Improving the general quality of life of citizens o Stimulating further investment in energy efficiency (urban regeneration)

Final idea of SUNSHINE: to have a Pret-a-Porter solution for cities, industry, providers and energy managers.

It is important to keep in mind that SUNSHINE is one within a pool of EU-funded projects developing ICT Tools for energy efficiency – key selling points speak volumes, but they have to do so for the right audience.

In terms of impact, there is always a period of accommodation for new technology: results and impact will be visible in 3-5 years at continued pace. In order to have a real informed SEIA, data collection should continue over this period and a re-evaluation should be conducted again in 3 years.

70

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Conclusions The context of SUNSHINE and the moment in which it was piloted is essential. SUNSHINE’s environment is framed by the European context, systematically converging towards increased support for smart solutions which enable local administrations and service providers to efficiently manage urban processes. Between these processes, energy is and will remain a key investment focus even in the new 2014-2020 (2023) Multiannual Financial Framework.

Through its smart, sustainable and inclusive growth priorities and the flagship initiatives „Resource Efficient Europe”, „A Digital Agenda for Europe” and „An agenda for new skills and jobs”, the EC has increased its focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency and smart grids at the distribution level, as well as on the delivery of innovative ICT instruments and support programmes to foster the reach of its 2020 targets. At European level, the project is embedded in a solid medium-term framework which can support its future deployment; at local national level, in member countries of the consortium, the implementation of the EPBD and similar Energy Directives, but also the convalescence after the global economic crisis have undoubtedly raised awareness and openness for energy efficiency investment with the local authorities. There is hence a great opportunity for large-scale deployment of EE solutions, and SUNSHINE has demonstrated to be able to provide answers in this regards.

Within this report, we have aimed at providing an evidence-based answer to the following questions: • • • •

What is the difference that SUNSHINE will potentially make, on longer term?

Why are the three solutions relevant, for whom or what?

To what extent did the EU investment in the project produce benefits for social and economic actors?

Lastly, looking towards the future, where can the project have the greatest impact?

And what are the areas in which SUNSHINE can increase its impact?

First, there is a point to make on the relevance of a socio-economic assessment performed concomitantly with the actual project piloting, a small-scale deployment of the three scenarios in 8 real-life settings. Such a research and development project as SUNSHINE has already from the beginning the challenge of having to demonstrate its achievements without having to rely on a critical mass of testing, both in terms of time and in terms of scale.

Secondly, the present evaluation results have been needed during the project and before its actual, full socio-economic effect could be measured. Thirdly, as the area of energy efficiency is, especially in the Italian partners, an already-tapped market, it is difficult to uniquely attribute to SUNSHINE eventual changes in perception and local socio-economic welfare, since they can potentially arise from a combination of inputs and like-minded initiatives conducted during the same three-year period as the project.

However, even though we are aware of initiatives past or running in some of the pilot cities, the market on which SUNSHINE aims at entering can still be qualified as a niche market and its solutions evaluation (energy maps, building energy awareness, remote control of public lighting networks) consequently did not benefit from a proper baseline (or ex-ante) evaluation in the early stages due to lack of quantitative information regarding the existing situation in pilots. Quantitative information has been collected only in the areas in which it was possible to monitor the indicators defined in the DoW, namely energy consumption, CO2 emissions, expenditure for Scenario 2 and 3.

71

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Providing an informed economic assessment of the SUNSHINE scenarios was not an easy task, and at the moment of the present report’s submission several data are lacking (eg. For Naxxar, Malta, Scenario 2). Given also the late start of the actual piloting, time was also a factor of constraint, thus the assessment could objectively only provide measured outputs and outcomes. Ideally, and with municipal support and effective insertion into the local legislation, the Scenario 1 – Energy Maps can potentially incur savings of about 150 EUR per building in the areas it is deployed and can significantly shorten the time necessary for energy certification, deployment of renewal schemes and rehabilitation projects. The Scenario 2 led to savings in the 10-15% range for the public pilot buildings in which it was implemented, and given the proper large-scale deployment can considerably lower municipal heating and cooling bills as well as the CO2 emissions (t/y). Scenario 3 savings averaged, with the data available, a 30% cost reduction (maximum 50% in the Bassano pilot, minimum 19% on the San Giorgio, Rovereto power line), which proved beyond a doubt the usefulness of the Remote Control of Public Lighting pilots.

However, there is still insufficient data to date to compile a scenario of initial cost amortization over time, which can provide potential client cities with the incentive needed to invest in SUNSHINE. Looking at the social impact, an essential part of this task was to identify the target stakeholders and the areas in which SUNSHINE can improve their welfare or can respond to pre-existing needs, namely for: local administrations, municipal workers, energy managers and experts, urban planners, companies and ESCOs, research and development local ecosystems, universities and, last but not least, the citizens. The complex nature of the project and the wide array of stakeholders meant that different targets have been formulated for the project’s social outcomes. The social impact of the project is closely related to the evaluations performed in this task and T.6.2 – Large scale openness and dissemination activities. After over 6800 stakeholders have been directly involved in the project (through 1-on-1 meetings, workshops, training activities, in conferences and international events), we can affirm the following: 1. An improvement in quality of the performed activities in the public buildings of Sunshine Scenario 2 has been observed, with the project allowing a constant comfort level temperature for schools, libraries, institutions, offices of public energy companies.

2. Furthermore, an improvement in quality of life has indirectly been performed through Scenario 3, especially in Bassano del Grappa, where over 1000 citizens have been directly involved in choosing the light for the historical center of their city, which has subsequently led to more awareness, more satisfaction and a higher feeling of citizen empowerment.

3. An improvement in the quantity (number) of users, albeit punctual in the pilot buildings and lighting networks, of energy efficiency smart technologies has been achieved.

4. Through the training of 575 energy managers, teachers, university students, building managers, local administration workers and planners, an improvement of their professional capacities and subsequently opportunities on the job market (on longer term) has been achieved. The degree of satisfaction with the learning programme of the trainings has been evaluated in several trainings (INFOTN Trento training, HEP ESCO Croatian cross-city training) and has yielded positive to strong positive results.

5. Perhaps the most prominent result, an improvement in efficiency in terms of cost reduction has been observed through scenarios 2 and 3 as described above and potentially also for scenario 1. For the latter, an improvement in time savings has 72

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

been described by the users with respect to time taken for city energy mapping and subsequent operations for which it is needed (urban analysis, development of local plans, renewal strategies, city investments, etc.).

The SUNSHINE tools per se have been evaluated as very user-friendly and easy to use. One of the most useful features are the 3D render and the simulation tools, which have also been considered a very innovative product by the users, with a high marketing potential. The feature which allows comparison of energy saving potential makes the SUNSHINE tool a suitable medium for energy efficiency and environmental awareness and helps change the user’s behavior by appealing to the competitive nature. By being able to compare the amount of energy saved by other regions to one’s current region, the individual becomes more aware of his/her region’s environmental issues and tries to save more than others. Most of the features are found extremely useful, but there is a general agreement that there is a lack of data availability. This is a general problem at European level and sometimes interferes with the ICT and research projects.

In addition, in the questionnaires, in the open answers, there were users which asked for the app made available on Google play and iOS. This implies a demand to be streamed and disseminated at a broader level which in turn speaks about the popularity of SUNSHINE. As a general conclusion for usability and future potential, 71.9% of the users which have provided feedback within the SUNSHINE Questionnaires would continue to use Scenario 1 every day, 78.3% would continue using the public lighting control devices every day, and 60.7% would continue using every day the energy maps.

Lastly, there is also something to be said about the areas in which the project can increase its impact. It is clear that the scenarios can offer pret-a-porter solutions to cities, ESCOs and generally the target users addressed in the project, but the solutions have to be supported by the openness of the customers. One relevant point on which to capitalize is the ease of replication and real-time updating of the databases, which can significantly reduce the time and resources allotted for energy efficiency programmes and investments. Scenario 1 needs to be rooted locally in the administrative agenda as well as the legislation in order to provide a significant impact on longer term, otherwise it remains a useful tool for study and analysis, but will only allow for indirect expenditure improvements for the cities. Scenario two can benefit from the large-scale market of private users and companies, which for the purpose of the piloting have not been considered (SUNSHINE was piloted in public buildings) but which represent the bulk of the European potential customers. Lastly, while Scenario 3 yields the best results in terms of savings, initial installation costs are a turn-off and in lack of a cost amortization simulation it can prove difficult to upscale. However, we find that the Scenario can find very ample support if it is deployed in a participatory manner; citizen awareness and support can represent a fantastic leverage for municipal investment especially in public spaces, and SUNSHINE should capitalize on that.

For an informed and relevant socio-economic impact assessment, we believe that data collection and interpretation should continue after the lifetime of the project, for a minimum of three years. This cannot prove an easy task but, as the three scenarios aim on the long term to be transformed into a commercially exploitable product after the finalization of SUNSHINE, this ex-post evaluation can be of great relevance, especially in determining the community of early adopters and demonstrating the commercial viability. Plans for exploitation, either individually or through a form of association such as the EEIG should consider continuing the process of data gathering as a component of the post-project deployment stage.

73

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

References

http://www.briseide.eu http://www.iscopeproject.net http://www.itourproject.com/web/

Municipality websites for all the eight pilot partner cities: http://www.comune.fe.it/ http://www.zagreb.hr/ http://www.comune.rovereto.tn.it/ http://www.lamia-city.gr/en/ http://www.naxxar.com/ http://www.comune.cles.tn.it http://www.comune.trento.it/ http://www.bassanodelgrappa.gov.it/ http://www.comune.rovereto.tn.it/

STEP UP - Strategies Towards Energy Performance and Urban Planning : http://www.stepupsmartcities.eu/ BECA - Balanced European Conservation Approach - ICT services for resource saving in social housing17: http://www.beca-project.eu/home/ http://beca-project.eu/fileadmin/beca/documents/beca_final_report_final.pdf PLUS - Public Lighting Strategies for Sustainable Urban Spaces http://www2.luciassociation.org/Home.html UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/733/ Combined Heat and Power Association (CHPA), 2014, “What are Energy maps?” http://www.chpa.co.uk/what-are-energy-maps_245.html Weather websites: https://weatherspark.com/averages/32276/Ferrara-Emilia-Romagna-Italy http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings http://www.lamia.climatemps.com/

17

http://beca-project.eu/fileadmin/beca/documents/beca_final_report_final.pdf

74

WP 5 – Test bed pilots deployment and assessment D5.3 Socio-economic impact assessment

CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 – 325161

Annexes ANNEX 01

Users Questionnaires

ANNEX 02

Stakeholder Questionnaires EN

ANNEX 03

Stakeholder Questionnaires IT

ANNEX 04

Users Questionnaires results

ANNEX 05

Stakeholder Questionnaires EN results

ANNEX 06

Stakeholder Questionnaires IT results

ANNEX 07

First round of data gathered via Skype

ANNEX 08

INFOTN Val di Non Interview with pilot

ANNEX 09

SGIS Interview with pilot Ferrara

ANNEX 10

Questions for Interviews with pilots

ANNEX 11

Interview with pilot - EPSILON draft version

ANNEX 12

Interview with pilot -SET System Manager

ANNEX 13

Interviews with pilot - TRENTINO Network

ANNEX 14

Interviews with pilots

ANNEX 15

Interview with pilot - HEP

75