A systemic decision-making model for energy retrofits

Schünemann, C; Dshemuchadse, M and Scherbaum, S (2025) A systemic decision-making model for energy retrofits. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 511-526. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

In most European countries, the energy retrofit dynamics remain too low to meet the climate mitigation goals, despite all existing policies. While the literature is rich in articles about barriers to energy retrofit, little is known about the systemic reasons why homeowners decide against it. The complex decision-making process of homeowners involving energy retrofits is analysed by combining psychology and complexity science modelling. The psychological Rubicon model serves as the conceptual basis for developing a qualitative complex system model (Causal Loop Diagram—CLD) that describes the interdependencies between individual decision-making (including bounded rationality) and societal influences. The systemic decision-making model reveals that especially media and word-of-mouth effects in the social environment have a remarkable impact on the perceived social norm about energy retrofit of homeowners and thus their decision. While all reinforcing feedback loops are located within the motivation phase of homeowners, the balancing ones are identified in the detailed planning, realisation and evaluation phase. Based on the model findings, three levers are derived, which policy mixes need to address to foster energy retrofit. The applied approach of combining psychology and complexity science seems promising for future policy advice in complex transformational processes. POLICY RELEVANCE This systemic decision-making model provides complexity-informed policy advice for improving the engagement and motivation of homeowners in their energy retrofit decisions. Three general leverages are derived that policy mixes need to consider to enhance the decision of homeowners for energy retrofit: (1) raising enthusiasm and trust for energy retrofit within the society; (2) shifting the perception of ‘own benefits’ relative to ‘own efforts’ for homeowners to be more advantageous; and (3) reducing the bottleneck of insufficient capacity of specialist workers/contractors, planners, energy consultants and energy retrofit material. Currently, point (1) is seen as the largest leverage for motivating more homeowners by a positive societal debate, reducing uncertainty and perceived overload. For each leverage innovative policy, suggestions derived from the model and literature review are proposed for each aim.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: behavioural modelling; complex systems modelling; decision-making; Germany; homeowners; motivation; policy advice; retrofit
Index terms: psychology, policy advice, complexity, word-of-mouth, decision-making, feedback loop, mitigation, Germany, literature review, science, motivation, homeowner, society, modelling, dynamics, policy mix, planner, bounded rationality, media, decision-making process, complex system
Subjects: systems engineering, decision analysis, sociology, management, data analysis and analytics, control systems, profession, behavioral psychology, communities and social development, financial risk, Geography, decision-making and reasoning, analytical methods, psychology, specialized education, policy studies
Topics: Governance, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Education
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here