Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

In search of optimal consumption: A review of causes and solutions to

the Energy Performance Gap in residential buildings
Stefano Cozza a,⇑, Jonathan Chambers a, Arianna Brambilla b, Martin K. Patel a
a
Energy Efficiency Group, Institute for Environmental Sciences (ISE) – University of Geneva, Switzerland
b
School of Architecture, Design and Planning – The University of Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The assessment of building performance through energy certificates is important for tracking and
Received 1 February 2021 improving the energy efficiency of the building stock. The reliability of these assessments is critical for
Revised 20 April 2021 achieving future energy targets. However, there is evidence of a significant Energy Performance Gap
Accepted 3 July 2021
(EPG) in buildings, defined as the difference between measured and calculated energy consumption.
Available online 7 July 2021
This work performs a systematic review of EPG causes and reduction strategies in the context of heating
of residential buildings. It introduces the concept of ‘‘optimal” consumption, in contrast to ‘‘theoretical”
Keywords:
(i.e. calculated with standards) and ‘‘actual” (i.e. measured) consumption, which enables a more rigorous
Energy certificates
Governance improvement
classification of causes and potential solutions to the EPG. This review found that inaccuracies in mod-
Measured consumption elling of building characteristics and occupant behaviour has been most studied by researchers. It found
Theoretical consumption that many EPG reduction strategies have been proposed, which can be categorized into two groups. The
Environmental target first aims to improve the energy consumption calculation by correcting the standard assumptions and/or
considering new approaches to create energy certificates. The second group focuses on improving the
actual performance of the building’s energy systems, through better monitoring, maintenance, and gen-
eral usage of the building. A range of practical strategies were identified, which are relevant to a range of
stakeholder groups. At the same time, this work also highlights that understanding of the relative impor-
tance of EPG causes and the potential impact of the corresponding solutions is incomplete.
Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Aim and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Systematic review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. The concept of optimal consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Causes of the EPG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Theoretical consumption deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Inaccuracy of inputs and assumptions for building modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Inaccuracy of climate data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Inaccuracy of occupant behaviour modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Actual consumption deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Malfunctioning equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Measurement systems limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Execution of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.4. Non-optimal use of the building by the occupant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Assessing the causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: stefano.cozza@unige.ch (S. Cozza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111253
0378-7788/Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al. Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253

4. Solutions to address the EPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.1. Improvements to theoretical calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Approaches to energy labelling and calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Accuracy of standard values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Additional considerations for retrofitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Improving actual consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Technical factors to improve actual consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Monitoring practices and continuous iteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Collaboration between stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Solutions at different building life stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction 1.2. Aim and scope

1.1. Background
Improving building performance is key to tackling the chal-
lenges of climate change, considering that buildings account for
40% of the global energy consumption [1]. The urgent need for
energy efficiency improvement calls for the implementation of
suitable policy instruments, including performance certificates
[2]. The European Union’s Energy Performance of Buildings Direc-
tive (EPBD) [3] establishes general energy performance certificates
calculation requirements, while implementation details differ
between countries. Performance certificates were introduced to
raise awareness of building performance among owner and tenants
and to motivate performance improvements, as well as to ensure
that the performance of the building stock meets national require-
ments and complies with broader energy policy [4].
Energy and climate policy targets for the building sector are fre-
quently based on the evaluation and improvement of building
energy performance through certification schemes [5–7]. It is
therefore critical to determine to what extent these can be consid-
ered reliable tools for fulfilling this purpose [8]. The Energy Perfor-
mance Gap (EPG), generally defined as the difference between
expected energy consumption calculated by a building perfor-
mance assessment and the actual consumption, is a significant
challenge to the achievement of energy efficiency targets [9–11].
Although the concept of the EPG is broadly accepted, its interpre-
tation and implementation differs considerably between authors
[12]. While there is a range of literature on the EPG in buildings,
there is only limited consistency between different works in terms
of definitions and methodologies [13,14]. The lack of consistency in
definitions reflects the challenge to find suitable solutions to close
the EPG. Some solutions are in fact addressed to different stake-
holders, in different contexts, for different building types, and for
the different design phases of a building. Therefore, not all of them
can be readily implemented in the context of energy performance
certificates in Europe. Indeed, previous extensive review in Europe
addressed only non-residential buildings [15], while a review
which also included residential buildings considered all regions
of the world and did not target the distinctive and specific nature
of the EPG identified by the use of EU energy certificates/standards
[16]. This review addresses this gap in the existing research by
proposing solutions for closing the EPG in the context of energy
certification practice over the buildings’ life. Finally, although the
EPG has been investigated in numerous publications, little work
to date has aimed to combine the findings and to propose a consis-
tent strategy, in spite of the growing interest in the subject [17,18].
Energy performance certificates certify the design more than
the actual building, relying on standards and assumptions to com-
pare buildings in different local contexts [19]. However, energy
performance certificates are frequently used in many applications
in an incorrect manner (e.g. to predict the savings of an energy ret-
rofit [20,21]), under the assumption that they are a reliable indica-
tor of the buildings’ measured energy consumption. This has
resulted in observations of differences between the theoretical
energy consumption according to certificates and standards on
the one hand and the actual energy consumption on the other,
i.e. the EPG. This work reviews research identifying the causes of
the EPG and synthesises research findings that give solutions to
reduce the EPG.
To enable a rigorous classification of causes and potential solu-
tions to the EPG we introduce the concept of ‘‘optimal” consump-
tion, in contrast to ‘‘theoretical” (i.e. calculated with standards) and
‘‘actual” (i.e. measured) consumption. This definition is developed
in Section 2.2 and is essential for identifying which aspect of the
energy performance and certification process should be targeted
by the various solutions.
We apply systematic review methods, considering only the
research on space heating of residential buildings in Europe. We
focus on a) studies that identify causes of the EPG and b) studies
on practical solutions to reduce the EPG. These works are cate-
gorised following the optimal consumption concept definition.
This classification approach allows us to synthesize the common
findings between research coming from different European coun-
tries into a single conceptual framework. From this review, we pre-
sent concrete strategies which may be applied for different
stakeholders and at different stages in building construction, reno-
vation, and use. These are highly relevant to construction practi-
tioners and policy makers.
2. Method
2.1. Systematic review
We apply a systematic review method to investigate causes of
and solutions to the EPG, composed of three steps as follows [22].
(1) Collection of relevant publications: We considered publica-
tions including journal articles, conference papers, reports, build-
ing standards, and national guidelines. An initial list of four
review publications on the EPG was identified [15–17,23] as a basis
to generate keywords for electronic searches. The search has been
directed using the keywords ‘‘energy performance gap”, ‘‘measured
consumption”, ‘‘building actual consumption” that are included in

2
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram of review process indicating the number of publications included in the analysis at each stage following filtering based on the exclusion criteria,
from the initial identification through the screening and eligibility steps.
Fig. 2. Overview of the optimal consumption. The EPG is the sum of the theoretical
and actual deviations relative to the optimal consumption. The first is defined as the
difference between the optimal and the theoretical consumption, the second is the
difference between the optimal and actual consumption.
the article title, abstract, and keywords, by year and country. Fur-
thermore, publications within the reference lists with titles fitting
the search criteria were also reviewed. The keyword search was
conducted using Google Scholar and Scopus databases. All the jour-
nal or conference papers were required to meet the following cri-
teria: peer-reviewed publications; focused on Europe; relevant to
the topic; focus on recent research findings. Publications were fil-
tered according to the inclusion criteria outlined above on the basis
of title and abstract.
(2) Content analysis: The publications selected were reviewed
with regards to nine aspects: building type; number of case stud-
ies; origin of the dataset; method applied to calculate the theoret-
ical consumption; data used for the actual consumption; energy
3
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
use considered (i.e. space heating, domestic hot water, . . .); EPG
size; EPG causes; and approaches for reducing the EPG.
(3) Content synthesis: After analysing relevant publications, the
underlying causes and solutions of the EPG were identified and
grouped. Future research and policy directions were identified to
make the energy performance certificates a more robust and com-
prehensive method in building energy assessment.
To conclude, Fig. 1 describes how the records identified through
the searches were processed for this review. A total of 160 publica-
tions were included in the analysis, divided in: 108 Journal articles;
20 Conference papers; 20 Reports; 9 Standards and directives; and
3 PhD theses.
2.2. The concept of optimal consumption
Building energy performance is influenced by several intercor-
related factors, making it particularly challenging to identify and
quantify each individual contribution to the EPG. In this review
we introduce a new concept to classify the causes and solutions
of the EPG: the optimal consumption (see Fig. 2). The optimal
consumption is the energy consumption when the building is per-
forming in an ideal way with respect to its intended design and
construction quality, while satisfying the reasonable needs of its
occupants. These conditions are usually different from both the
theoretical ones defined by the standards and the actual ones.
We introduce this concept because there is a lack of clarity in the
literature about whether the causes for the EPG should be ascribed
to problems in the certificate calculations or problems with con-
struction or use of the building (often, albeit incorrectly, described
as ‘occupant behaviour’). While it is trivial to note that the reality
can be a mixture of all of those, there is a need to introduce the
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al. Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253

Fig. 3. Classification of the Energy Performance Gap’s principal causes, categorised into theoretical and actual deviation.

optimal consumption concept to allow a clear organisation of find- 3. Causes of the EPG
ings. Following this approach, the EPG can then be broken down
into I) the difference between theoretical consumption and opti- By introducing the concept of optimal consumption, we propose
mal consumption and II) the difference between actual consump- a new, clearer classification of causes of the EPG, as shown in the
tion and optimal consumption. The first difference is associated Fig. 3. In this section we separately discuss the causes found for
with the limitations of using a theoretical model to describe the the deviation between I) the optimal consumption and theoretical
real conditions of use of a building, while the second difference consumption and II) the optimal consumption and actual
is associated with malfunctioning and unrecommended use of consumption.
the building. The sum of the two, as shown in Fig. 2, gives the
EPG - the difference between actual and theoretical consumption. 3.1. Theoretical consumption deviation
A common approach to reduce the EPG is to perform field mea-
surements to obtain values for model parameters based on actual Building performance certificates rely on simplified building
operating conditions, in order to improve the prediction of actual energy models for determining the theoretical energy use [30].
energy use ; thereby reducing the level of uncertainty in the results These models are based on standards assuming uniform conditions
[12]. This kind of reasoning, however, is based on current stan- and allowing the comparison of buildings which differ significantly
dards, both normative (e.g. ventilation rate) and in terms of expec- [31]. However, these models are subject to simplification of reality,
tations of the actual use of a building (e.g. comfort level), which are overlooking the complexity underlying building energy use [32].
very difficult to modify. In order not only to close the EPG, but also This section focuses on reasons why a simplified building energy
to significantly reduce the consumption, it is important to consider model (as used to determine theoretical consumption according
the level of service that buildings should provide [24]. This is the to the building energy certificate) may not describe the energy
role of the optimal parameters: to challenge both theoretical and consumption of a building as accurately as it should.
actual values, in order to define the optimal consumption for each
building whereby efficiency and comfort needs are reached bearing
3.1.1. Inaccuracy of inputs and assumptions for building modelling
in mind realistic building usage.
As basis for certificates, usually simplified ‘‘white-box” models
The below is an example that can further clarify the concept of
on the building’s thermal balance are used [33]. White-box models
optimal consumption. Consider the three types of consumption
require detailed physical input data to predict the energy con-
(i.e. theoretical, optimal, and actual) as a function of indoor tem-
sumption of a building based on standard thermodynamic equa-
perature. The calculation of the theoretical energy consumption
tions, and their accuracy is determined by the correctness of the
assumes an indoor temperature of 20 °C according to Swiss
physical model and the quality of the inputs [34]. There is a general
national standards [25], while Flourentzou et al. [26] report an
consensus in the literature as to which of the building model
observed value of around 23.5 °C, resulting in a correspondingly
parameters are most commonly based on assumptions that have
higher actual energy consumption. Since an indoor temperature
a significant impact on energy consumption [35]. These are: the
of 20 °C is typically considered as uncomfortably cold in central
mean indoor temperature [36,37], the building elements’ assumed
Europe [23,27], Flourentzou et al. [26] propose 21.5 °C as the ‘‘op-
U-values [38,39], and the ventilation rate [40,41]. Indoor tempera-
timal” indoor temperature for which they report no significant
ture has been shown to have a large impact on energy consump-
complaints about cold/discomfort by the occupants, while the
tion estimates and therefore on the EPG [36]. Real indoor
energy consumption is not increased excessively. We refer to the
temperature are typically higher than required by the various stan-
corresponding energy consumption as optimal (Fig. 2). Another
dards [42,43], e.g. with values of 23 °C measured for Germany [44]
example is the efficiency of the heating system, such as the coeffi-
or the 22 °C in Denmark [45]. One study estimated that an increase
cient of performance (COP) of an air source heat pump. In this case
in room temperature by 1 °C resulted in approximately 5% higher
the theoretical energy consumption may assume a COP of 4.5 [28],
energy consumption [46]. A comprehensive review on the relation-
while an ‘‘optimal” value may amount to 3.0, based on empirical
ship between indoor temperature and building energy consump-
evidence of the real-world performance of a well-maintained heat
tion can be found in [47].
pump [26]. In contrast, the actual COP may only reach a value of
In new constructions, U-values are calculated in the design
2.0 due to poor installation or maintenance of the heat pump
phase and therefore variations during the building process will
[29]. The difference in energy consumption under theoretical as
add uncertainty to the actual U-values [48]. In existing buildings
opposed to actual conditions represents the EPG.
on the other hand, typical values for the period of construction
4
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
and the type of building are used. In both cases (also in carefully
performed U-value calculations in which these are corrected for
thermal bridges) the uncertainty of the theoretically calculated
U-value and the corresponding actual U-value is very high [49].
Research in UK statistically analysed (along with a review of ther-
mal imaging data) this difference revealing widespread deviations
from the design intent across the majority of dwellings [50].
Another study showed a 2.5% difference in the heating consump-
tion for each building element (e.g. window) for which the U-
value was poorly assessed [51].
Defining a standard value for the ventilation of the building has
also been found to be very complex [40]. The value for natural ven-
tilation is constantly changing due to the weather, with a large
impact on the heating consumption [51]. In one study it was
shown that an increase rise in ventilation rate by 0.2 m3/(m2h)
leads to an increase of the heating demand by about 5 kWh/
(m2y) [52]. A large part of the prediction error is due to the free-
dom of choice between default and measured values as input for
the calculation, especially for the air tightness of the building
envelope [53].
It has also been shown that current static calculations on the
energy consumption of buildings with high thermal mass lead to
different results than those measured [54], especially during inter-
mittent occupancy [55]. In standard calculations, the importance of
the dynamic thermal properties is neglected or underestimated
[56], leading to up to 26% of the variation in theoretical predictions
[57]. Inaccuracies in the geometrical representation of the building
in the model (i.e. dimensions of its internal and external spaces),
have been indicated as another important cause of the EPG
[36,58]. Research found a discrepancy in the buildings’ surface area
overestimating the theoretical area of 8–10%, which impacts the
resulting energy calculation [59]. To conclude, because there is
not a clear trend found for the errors, the issues with these param-
eters are not easy to resolve. Strong variations are indeed noted
between countries and across different buildings types.
3.1.2. Inaccuracy of climate data
Building energy models have been shown to be especially sen-
sitive to the weather data used [60]. Several studies showed the
substantial performance difference depending on the weather data
(up to 40% in [61]), and the need to use climate adjusted data for an
energy certificate [62–64]. The main challenges in the generation
of weather data include how to deal with uncertainty, urban heat
islands, climate change, and extreme events [65]. An energy label-
ling simulation of a residential building in seven different cities
was performed with the Norwegian certification tool and the stan-
dard weather file, and gave a D-label as result [66], while when
using typical reference years from the local site the energy label
for three cities was upgraded to a C.
Current standard weather files for building models are not sui-
ted to the assessment of the potential impacts of a changing cli-
mate [67,68] which impacts the EPG [61]. Kočí et al. [63]
investigated the effect of warming trends on the calculated energy
demand and found the 2013–2017 warming trend reduced average
heating demand by 4% relative to the Test Reference Year temper-
atures used for Czech Republic. As a consequence, the current Test
Reference Year for Prague, (and likely for other European cities
[69]), no longer reflects the actual weather conditions. In summary,
energy certificates currently have a systematic problem in terms of
not using the best locally adjusted climate data that represents the
local conditions, including the effects of climate change.
3.1.3. Inaccuracy of occupant behaviour modelling
Even when a building is correctly designed and used, occupant
behaviour characterisation is a major challenge in building mod-
elling [70,71]. The actual use by the inhabitants is different from
5
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
what was planned in the design of the building [72], and usually
it varies over time [73]. In this section we refer only to differences
in occupant behaviour between standard conditions, as repre-
sented by the model, and optimal conditions in the sense of accu-
rately modelled conditions [74]. A major challenge is the
representation of thermal comfort with current models (e.g. pre-
dicted mean vote and adaptive models), which still have many lim-
itations and are largely inadequate for predicting individual
responses [75]. Other examples are the number of people per
metre square or the daily presence in the building [76]. Sec-
tion 3.2.4 deals with the non-optimal use of the building by the
occupants (e.g. overheating of rooms). In their review, Zou et al.
[16] listed the numerous factors that can affect the occupant beha-
viour, including occupants’ characteristics (e.g. lifestyle, cultural
background, geographical origin, and gender [77]), the interaction
between occupants, their cost-consciousness, and occupants’ com-
fort. Other authors pointed out the importance of the building
characteristics (e.g. windows orientation) on the use made of it
by its occupants [78], occupants’ knowledge [79], and occupants’
experience with the building technical system [80].
3.2. Actual consumption deviation
The optimal energy performance of a building relies on certain
design assumptions, such as set-point temperature, control sched-
ules, and performance of the technical systems. In reality, many of
these assumptions do not apply due to malfunctioning of the
building systems, non-optimal use by occupants, or other reasons,
contributing to the EPG. In Section 3.1 we discussed why optimal
values are different from theoretical values used in standards,
now we will investigate what generates the deviation of actual val-
ues from optimal ones (Fig. 3).
3.2.1. Malfunctioning equipment
Malfunctioning equipment is a common issue, where the differ-
ence between the theoretical and actual consumption is no longer
caused by problems in modelling or data collection, but by a real
technical problem in the building [16,81]. Heating systems in par-
ticular are frequently identified as the cause of an EPG [44,82]. The
examples of technical problems in literature are numerous and
diverse, highlighting the critical importance of monitoring and
maintenance [83]. Reimann et al. [82] demonstrated that issues
with these systems can have a much larger influence on energy
use than user behaviour. Building HVAC systems, especially for
innovative systems (e.g. smart building controls), often suffer from
control systems malfunctions and lack of fine-tuning of control
strategies [84]. Fine-tuning may be omitted by the project devel-
oper but even if performed, the results may be disappointing
because proper execution is time-intensive and implementation
according to state of the art may conflict with requests made by
occupants [85]. The absence of a facility manager (typically only
present in larger buildings) has also been found to be an important
cause of the EPG [16]. Poor building operation practise has been
found to increase energy use by 50–80% relative to baseline, while
good practice may save 15–30%. However, this is contingent on
managers having access to information and tools to apply optimi-
sation – without these, expectations for optimisation are less likely
to be met [86]. Before concluding, it is important to mention that in
the event of a malfunctioning equipment, the impact on the energy
consumption, and therefore on the EPG, could also be positive (i.e.
a lower actual consumption due to a partial failure of the heating
system) [37].
3.2.2. Measurement systems limitations
Monitoring systems, while critical to identifying performance
problems, can themselves be the source of inaccuracies [87]. Incor-
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al. Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253

the design phase, resulting in a deviations from the design specifi-

Fig. 4. Number of references analysed in this study, categorised by their main topic
(s).
rect installation or malfunction of monitoring systems leads to
errors in the interpretation of the building energy performance
[88]. Metered energy use obtained from measurement systems
needs to be validated to ensure accuracy of the data [15]. The most
common sources of errors identified are mislabelling (i.e. sensors
not measuring what it was thought they were measuring), incor-
rect installation [89], and lack of calibration of sensors [90]. For
certain types of measurement, for example measuring building ele-
ment U-values, the need for a qualified expert using sufficiently
capable measurement devices has been highlighted [91].
3.2.3. Execution of the work
The building energy performance is greatly influenced by the
quality of construction, which is difficult to account for during
cations, especially with regard to insulation and air-tightness [89].
Construction quality depends on several factors [16], such as lack
of expertise on-site that may, for example, cause unexpected ther-
mal bridges [92]. Bell et al. [93] showed that an architect or project
developer with limited experience often fails to specify all the
details of the project, leaving important decisions to the builder
which results in a gap between designed and as-built. Van Dronke-
laar et al. [15] listed the most common issues related to on-site
workmanship for non-residential buildings which can easily be
extended for residential buildings: these include the imperfect
eaves to wall junction insulation, the improper installation of drai-
nage, air ducts and electrical pipe work, and the incorrect position-
ing of windows and doors, that reduce the actual performance of
the thermal envelope.
An important factor is the general lack of attention in the pro-
curement of materials and construction contractors (and sub-
contractors) – to the extent that this is often not even considered
as a distinct phase of the design and building process [94]. This
is important as all the practical implementation of designs and
technical solutions ultimately rests with the construction contrac-
tors. Finally, it is important for the original design to both meet the
energy efficiency targets, and for it to be actually possible to build.
If insufficient attention is paid to the executability of the construc-
tion, it becomes likely that flaws in the final building will arise and
cause performance problems [92].
3.2.4. Non-optimal use of the building by the occupant
The way occupants operate the building in regard to opening
windows, handling controls or shading, lighting, and indoor set
point temperature, significantly affects the EPG [95,96]. Contrary
to Section 3.1.3, this section is not concerned with inaccurate mod-
elling of the occupant behaviour but instead discusses non-optimal
use of the building by the occupants. A clear example is the contra-

Table 1
Causes of the EPG. Cause ID is used to link causes with solutions given in Table 2. *The number reported in each box represents the number of times that cause was indicated as
the cause of the EPG.

Deviation (N*) Macro-causes (N*) Causes description (N*) Cause

ID
Deviation of theoretical consumption (272) Inaccuracy of inputs and (149) Inappropriate initial standard assumptions (61) 1
relative to optimal consumption assumptions for building modelling Inappropriate modelling of building element (42) 2
(façade, roof)
Inaccurate representation of the exact geometry (13) 3
of the building
Incompleteness and inaccuracy of available (21) 4
project information (for retrofit)
Uncertainty in prediction of the actual use of the (12) 5
building
Inaccuracy of climate data (30) Uncertainty in definition of the actual external (24) 6
environmental conditions
Uncertainty in definition of future weather (6) 7
scenarios
Inaccuracy of occupant behaviour (93) Uniform assumptions for occupant behaviour in (47) 8
modelling the standards
Variability in comfort needs of the occupants (46) 9
across the population
Deviation of actual consumption relative (159) Malfunctioning equipment (56) Partial failure or malfunctioning of energy (19) 10
to optimal consumption systems
Lack of fine-tuning during the operation stage (26) 11
Controls strategies/software do not work as (11) 12
predicted
Measurement system limitations (8) Poor quality of the measurement equipment (8) 13
Execution of the work (34) Poor quality of the building envelope (12) 14
Poor workmanship (15) 15
Lack of attention to executability of construction (7) 16
Non-optimal use of the building by (61) Occupants’ experience with the installed (26) 17
the occupants technology
Poor communication between the stakeholders (35) 18
(little information to the occupant)

6
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
Fig. 5. Treemap visualization of the causes of EPG. Each cause is represented using rectangles, the dimensions of which are calculated using the number of times that cause
was indicated as the cause of the EPG.
Fig. 6. Classification of the Energy Performance Gap’s principal solutions identified in the literature. They allow to reduce the deviation between the theoretical or/and actual
consumption on the one hand and the optimal consumption on the other.
dictory use of the thermostatic valves set at their maximum, while
simultaneously keeping the windows open in the tilted position all
day long [78], mainly to counteract the indoor overheating [26],
and causing an increase of actual consumption by up to a factor
of two [97]. However, occupant behaviour and its impact on energy
consumption is notoriously hard to predict [70]. In one study, man-
ual operation of shading systems by users had the effect of reduc-
ing solar gains and increasing heating consumption [98], while in
another, manual shading operations instead increased solar heat
gains and reduced heating consumption [99].
3.3. Assessing the causes
The combination of these causes can significantly influence
building energy performance. Moreover, it was found that the
causes of EPG are not independent, but are often strongly interre-
7
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
lated [100]. The problem identified through this review is that
most reviewed studies focus on one or two causes separately, but
never in combination. Furthermore, studies dealing with theoreti-
cal deviation only focus on calculation problems, and rarely worry
about the actual technical problems of the buildings, and vice
versa. This is even more evident from Fig. 4, in which all the studies
analysed in this review are reported: 60.5% of the studies deal with
theoretical deviation, 25.5% treat only the technical problems of
the buildings, and only 14% deal with both causes of the EPG, those
related to theoretical deviation and those related to actual
deviation.
Finally, making use of the insights of the literature review pre-
sented above, we prepared a full list of all the causes found, which
have been classified in Table 1 according to the macro-causes
defined previously. For each study, we counted the covered causes,
and reported them in Table 1, whereby the number reported rep-
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
resents the times when that cause was indicated as the cause of the
EPG.
As can be observed from Table 1, all these causes have been
identified with a different frequency in the literature and most
importantly, they contribute differently to both energy consump-
tion and EPG. These different contributions can be visualized in
Fig. 5, in which the dimension of each box represents the number
of times that cause was indicated as the cause of the EPG.
In conclusion, this literature review shows that it is challenging
to arrive at a ranking of the causes based on their influence on the
EPG. Indeed, each of these macro-causes may be the main reason
for the EPG. However, while one of these occur, it is also possible
that two or more of these factors are jointly present. Literature
does not offer quantitative evidence whether single-factor or mul-
tifactor causes are more frequent and if so, which ones.
4. Solutions to address the EPG
Several strategies can be adopted to reduce the EPG by optimiz-
ing the actual consumption or increasing the accuracy of the theo-
retical consumption assessment. We grouped those strategies into
suggestions to I) improve the calculation of theoretical energy use
to better represent optimal consumption (Section 4.1), and II)
increase the actual performance of buildings to be closer to their
optimal consumption (Section 4.2). This grouping is illustrated in
Fig. 6. Finally, we determined the phase of building projects where
the different strategies should be applied and linked those with the
causes categorised previously with respect to the optimal con-
sumption (Section 4.3).
4.1. Improvements to theoretical calculations
This section addresses solutions that aim to correct the theoret-
ical energy consumption calculation, as well as considering
approaches to facilitate the application of energy certificates.
4.1.1. Approaches to energy labelling and calculations
Even though the energy performance certificate is regarded as a
key instrument in promoting energy efficiency in the building sec-
tor, so far its impact is quite limited [4]. These schemes need to be
improved not only concerning theoretical calculations, but also
more generally in their implementation modalities. Taranu and
Verbeeck [101] highlight that the framing of the key messages
and of the information about the technical aspects of the certificate
is an important aspect in the certificate implementation. They note
that some certificates provide a confusing mix of information and
recommend that each EU state should define a priori what the pur-
pose of the certificate is. For example, if the purpose of the certifi-
cate is to encourage the owner to seek advice on energy efficiency
improvements, it is important that it clearly reports the current
and optimal potential energy performance of the building [102].
Several studies have been conducted with the aim of enhancing
the quality of energy performance certificates. An algorithm was
developed for Spain’s certificates with the aim of improving the
baseline certificates according to building type and climate zones,
and it proved to reduce the EPG [103]. Another suggestion to
improve the quality of the certificate is ‘‘smart auditing” [104].
To-date, energy certificates have been randomly audited, but a tar-
geted procedure could audit those that meet certain criteria (e.g.
having no gas heating systems declared, but a gas supply present)
or have been identified as having a discrepancy.
An alternative to smart auditing would be to allow the energy
assessors to correct potential errors while the certificate is pre-
pared, based on machine learning approach. For example, if a cer-
tificate that is produced describes a solid wall property, but
8
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
neighbouring properties have cavity walls, then the software could
ask for confirmation that the wall type is correct. A similar
approach has also been applied to detect outliers in energy use pre-
dictions [105]. Finally, the work of Semple and Jenkins [106] high-
lighted that there is still much to be done to integrate actual data
within the assessment methods used to generate performance cer-
tificates. They found that only 21% of the homes in the six largest
European countries can use actual consumption to generate a
certificate.
This review highlights that improving the procedures for
obtaining and validating certificates is necessary. It also highlights
how diverse the actors involved in gathering data reported in the
certificates are, and how different the expectations are for each
of them [107]. Furthermore, it would be useful to add a value for
target (optimal) consumption for the building in operation, sepa-
rate from the value calculation used for labelling and compliance.
It has been suggested [108] to use a two sets of inputs for the cer-
tification, one standardised for labelling and a second focused on
the potential for energy saving measures.
4.1.2. Accuracy of standard values
It has been argued that national building performance certifi-
cates require increased data quality [39]. The variability of user
behaviour and the challenges to define it in building energy mod-
elling is a widely acknowledged issue [53]. To address this prob-
lem, the use of large-scale occupant behaviour datasets, gathered
through different data collection methods (e.g. questionnaires,
wearable devices), has been recommended to bring the theoretical
values closer to the optimal values [71].
Currently, information on the building characteristics is col-
lected from drawings and in-situ observations, and then calculated
according to appropriate standards [109]. However so far only
indirect approaches have been proposed to improve these calcula-
tions, mainly through proposing to update standard values (e.g.
new standard U-value) [110], or by applying adjustment factors
for groups of buildings (e.g. to the indoor temperature profiles)
[31]. It has been demonstrated that through the substitution of
the standard values in the model with values based on in-situ mea-
surements of air tightness and U-value, it was possible to reduce
the EPG to 2.5% [35]. However, to improve the accuracy of the U-
values, a comprehensive fabric test including air permeability, U-
values (heat flux) measurements, and thermal imaging surveys
have been suggested [50]. It has also been proposed to replace
the use of static U-value in certificates with an ‘‘effective U-
value” to quantify the dynamic performance of walls [55].
Various authors have proposed increasing the indoor tempera-
ture heating set-point to 21.0 °C or 21.5 °C [26,52], instead of the
current 20 °C set in the national standard [42,111,112]. Further-
more, while heating setpoint temperatures can vary greatly
between dwellings, research suggested that this variation is not
random [43]. Systematic variations were found according to occu-
pancy profiles, household characteristics, motivation, and beha-
viour; this could be accounted for by modifying standard values
accordingly [113]. Therefore, the optimal values should also be dif-
ferent depending on the building type and the respective occu-
pants. For semi-detached houses a higher set-point value (23 °C),
while for semi-detached bungalows a lower one (20 °C), are sug-
gested compared to other dwelling types [43]. In newer houses,
constructed after 2007, an even lower indoor temperature set-
point (19 °C) should be assumed due to well-insulated building
envelopes [51]. Using the household characteristics instead, in
UK for single parent a setpoint temperature of 18 °C was reported,
while for dwelling occupied by inhabitants rating their general
health as ‘‘very bad”, a setpoint temperature of 20 °C was reported
[43]. In this sense, personal comfort models have also been pro-
posed, which can be crucial for ‘‘generating accurate predictions of
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
individuals’ comfort requirements and closing the loop between occu-
pants and heating systems” [75]. However, these models are not cur-
rently compatible with the approach to thermal comfort foreseen
in energy standards/certificates. Certificates should be further
developed to cater for individual difference in thermal comfort.
Several studies suggested changing the ventilation rate to
reduce the EPG [52,114]. Conservative values were indeed used
in certificates to encourage a better thermal performance of the
envelope (walls, floor, roof) [53]. However, most of the recent
new buildings have become much more air-tight, calling for an
update of these values. Some authors have therefore proposed
revised ventilation rates of 1 m3/(m2h) instead of 0.3 m3/(m2h)
for forced ventilation [98], and 1.1 m3/(m2h) during use and
0.5 m3/(m2h) out of use instead of the default of 0.7 m3/(m2h) for
hybrid ventilation [37] in order to reduce the EPG. These values
are considered optimal because they take into account the air flow
resulting from window opening (by counting the opened windows
several times during the day), which is not sufficiently considered
in the standards [26].
To address the lack of precision in the standard weather data
used in the certificates, new tools that support the quantification
of local and micro-climate conditions have been created [115].
Tools have also been introduced to generate weather files that take
climate change into account [63]. Jentsch et al. [116] developed a
tool to integrate the future UK climate change scenarios into the
widely used Typical Meteorological Year file formats, using the
‘morphing’ methodology [117]. These were all found to reduce
the EPG.
While the various solutions to improving the accuracy of stan-
dard values have been found to reduce the EPG, the synthesis of
these findings indicates that small changes to any of these values
could significantly change the resulting energy consumption esti-
mate. This allows to close the EPG but without necessarily being
a better representation of reality. Great care must be taken to avoid
over-fitting the theoretical model by performing arbitrary changes
to key parameters without significant experimental evidence for
these changes.
4.1.3. Additional considerations for retrofitting
The EPG gives rise to uncertainty also when property owners
take decisions about energy retrofit [42]. European studies using
energy performance certificates found that the ratio of actual to
expected energy savings after retrofit ranged from 40% to 60%
[21,118]. Considering that standard inputs for calculations can be
up to 50% higher than the optimal inputs, unrealistic expectations
of energy savings and profitability can be created if recommenda-
tions are based only on standardised calculations [119]. To reduce
this problem, the study of Cozza et al. [20] indicated that a more
realistic assessment (3.6% difference) of real energy savings can
be achieved by comparing the actual current consumption with
the expected theoretical consumption defined by the energy cer-
tificate after retrofit. Moreover, the energy certificate has to-date
a limited influence on homeowners’ energy retrofit practices. Own-
ers in general regard both comfort and energy saving as important
reasons when renovating [120]. Further developments to the per-
formance certificate concept, such as Building Renovation Pass-
ports outlining a long-term building renovation history and
future roadmap, may also help [121].
Another important aspect with respect to the certificate for ret-
rofit is the mode of verifying retrofits. For existing buildings, an
energy performance certificate is typically only required if a build-
ing or a large building element is subject to major renovation [3].
To-date, these policies do not require proof of performance after
commissioning [122], i.e. existing policy does not currently take
the EPG into account. A part of the challenge is to achieve energy
policy goals without imposing excessive monitoring labour and
9
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
costs [123]. New methods for rapid and less intrusive performance
assessment may help in this respect [124].
Finally, the role of economic subsidies that can be obtained
through an energy certificate is very important. Given the high
capital cost of energy retrofitting it has been argued that, in order
to be more effective, subsidies should be paid before the start of
the work of energy retrofitting, and not after its completion, as is
the case today [125]. This would avoid that the owner has to obtain
an interim loan from the bank which can act as further barrier
[126]. At the same time, compliance with minimum energy perfor-
mance targets could be better guaranteed if part of the subsidy is
only paid once proper execution and functioning has been proven.
To conclude, simplification and acceleration of legal procedures for
energy retrofits may be required [127].
4.2. Improving actual consumption
This section focuses on solutions that aim to improve the actual
performance of the building’s energy systems, enhancing the
design and construction phases, as well as driving better monitor-
ing, maintenance, and general use of the building.
4.2.1. Technical factors to improve actual consumption
Most researchers and practitioners agree that adjusting build-
ing technical systems (e.g. building controls, hydraulic balancing,
etc.) is among the most effective ways to bring consumption closer
to optimum and reduce the EPG [128,129]. Continuous post-
occupancy data collection and performance monitoring of the
building can ensure that optimal conditions are met under actual
operating conditions [130] identifying deviations caused by the
lack of fine-tuning during operation [131]. To solve this problem,
sensors [132], advanced electricity meters [133], building monitor-
ing system [134], Wi-Fi [135], and wireless camera networks [136]
can be used for data collection. It is then essential that facility man-
agers are given access to detailed data on energy consumption in
buildings [135]. At the same time, the cost of monitoring needs
to be kept in mind. It will be necessary to develop and implement
cost-effective solutions which are likely to differ depending on the
type and the size of the building [137].
The optimization of the HVAC systems tailored to the occu-
pants’ needs is essential to reduce the EPG [85,138]. The function-
ing and comfort provision of ventilation systems has been
highlighted as needing more attention during the design phase
as well as improved monitoring [139]. In the context of building
retrofit, field measurements indicated that the ventilation effi-
ciency was significantly lower than assumed in the design phase
and that simple adjustment of the settings improved the overall
performance and reduced the EPG [40]. In general, it has been
observed that actively tuning and maintaining the building’s
energy systems, e.g. by hydraulic balancing of the heating system,
adjusting heating profiles and temperatures, or correctly setting up
heat recovery system, can help to attain the optimal consumption
and can drastically reduce the EPG [133].
4.2.2. Monitoring practices and continuous iteration
The engineering and architectural knowledge exists to allow the
construction of energy-efficient buildings and to conduct effective
deep energy retrofitting. However, the legislative framework is
essential to enforce good practice in construction, commissioning
and operation. The EPBD has improved building energy efficiency
ratings in the EU [140] but it does not mandate monitoring actual
consumption of the building. The 2010 EPBD update added the
possibility of inspection and monitoring of building HVAC systems
[141], but did not make this mandatory [142]. The 2018 EPBD [3]
finally required Member States to ensure that residential buildings
are equipped with electronic monitoring. Nevertheless, there
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
remains significant opportunities to integrate measurement and
verification in the EPBD requirements for building performance
monitoring [143]. A major limitation of the certification schemes
is the absence of performance monitoring once the certificate has
been issued [144]. Many authors indicate that continuous monitor-
ing should lead to optimal consumption and reduce the EPG
[57,92]. Monitoring should therefore be required for certification
of buildings [44,145]. A positive experience has been made in this
respect by the Passive House institute, which requires monitoring
of consumption, as well as occupant satisfaction and thermal com-
fort, even after awarding their energy standard, with the aim of
reducing the EPG [146].
It has been suggested that building designers or construction
contractors should be responsible for verifying energy perfor-
mance of completed buildings to identify over-consumption
resulting from poor construction [147]. This makes it possible to
hold contractors responsible for resolving problems in the project
execution. As simple solutions, requirements for certification could
be the documentation of the progress of construction with pho-
tographs as well as airtightness tests during the construction per-
iod, as recommended by the checklist for planning and
implementation of Passive Houses [148]. However, as pointed
Table 2
Overview of the recommendations to reduce the EPG according to the stage of the
project. Cause ID refers to the cause or set causes listed in Table 1.
Design phase Recommendation to reduce the EPG
Initial Well defined expectations and resources available
assessment in order to set realistic objectives
Better defined the external environmental
conditions (weather data) and initial state of the
building
Take in account the experience learned from
previous similar projects
Plan the maintenance of the building systems
Take in account the feedback and comments of
the future occupants
Design Unambiguous building plan/retrofit plan that can
be realistically implemented
Promote simple and reliable solutions, taking into
account possible future change of use of the
building
Clarify the responsibility and the role of each
stakeholder
Employ only experienced and qualified personnel
Define a strategy for monitoring
Construction Regularly control the quality of execution and
eventually update the theoretical values with the
real ones
Set up a system of sensors for measurements and
alarms to detect malfunctions
Encourage collaboration/communication among
all stakeholders
Commissioning Adjust the systems depending on the real usage of
the building
Convene all stakeholders when the building is
commissioned and implement periodic
inspections to be performed in the first year of
operation
Train building managers on different aspects of
energy management
Ensure that follow-up is organized and
communicated in writing
Operation Monitor the performance and eventually optimize
it
Inform and raise awareness among inhabitants
and assess their level of satisfaction/comfort
Give feedback to the designers and all the other
stakeholders involved, disseminate the good
practice
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
out by Way and Bordass [149], ‘‘most designers and contractors have
traditionally shown little interest in learning from how their buildings
actually perform in use; and most owners have certainly not wanted to
pay them to do so”. It is precisely on this aspect that specific regu-
lations are needed. A solution is the implementation of a role (per-
son) responsible for implementation of the energy project [150], to
ensure that the energy objectives are met [23]. The core part of this
approach is the support to the inhabitants during the operating
phase, accompanied by an optimization phase after renovation,
which further reduces heating consumption and therefore the
EPG [151].
While the measures discussed above concern primarily multi-
family buildings (and especially larger ones), the installation of
innovative technologies such as heat pumps in single-family build-
ings is generally less demanding. Accompanying measures may
nevertheless be necessary in order to ensure optimal performance
and to avoid a bad reputation of innovative technological solutions.
As adequate approach, quality labels for recommendable installers
may be introduced or lists of accredited installers may be pub-
lished, helping homeowners to make a choice [120]. Good experi-
ence has been made with this approach in Switzerland [152].
4.2.3. Collaboration between stakeholders
Several studies highlight the importance of collaboration and
communication between stakeholders to reduce the EPG
[153,154]. However, this is complex due to the different objectives
between stakeholders as well as their different knowledge and
Cause
experience with technologies, and especially due to the different
ID definition of optimal consumption among the stakeholders [16].
It is important to increase the transparency in all the phases of
1-5
design and construction, from the administration to the architect,
2-3-6- from the energy utility to the inhabitant [155]. The objective is
7 to share the knowledge gained in various projects with a larger
audience, informing all building occupants about responsible use
1-8-9
of the building systems [156]. Schröder et al. [112] clearly stated
10-11 that ‘‘the influence of individual user behaviour on the integral energy
8-9- consumption will further rise, because the energy release into the liv-
17 ing environment gets more and more disconnected from the human
1-4
perception”. This means that it becomes increasingly difficult for
5-10- users to understand the energy impact of their own actions (e.g.
16 raise the thermostat by one degree). To address this, some work
has applied Behaviour Change Programs using workshops, coach-
18 ing, and feedback programs to promote energy saving behaviours
14-
and reduce energy consumption [157].
15-16 To facilitate the collaboration, researchers have tested the
11 application of Building Information Modelling and cloud sharing
1-13- platforms [158,159]. However, these technologies are still at an
14
early stage and need all stakeholders to be trained to cope with
10-11 these new tools before they can be implemented in the energy cer-
tification scheme [89]. It is indeed important to improve the skills
15-18 of all the actors involved in the design process [160], especially by
promoting more integrated and cross-disciplinary teamwork, [161]
11-12
in order to move towards a common understanding of the optimal
11-18 consumption.
4.3. Solutions at different building life stages
11-12
The energy certificate represents a snapshot of building perfor-
11- mance at a given time, while the causes of the EPG stem from dif-
15-18 ferent stages of its design, construction and operation. It is
7-11 therefore important that the solutions presented in Sections 4.1
9-17-
and 4.2 also be applied at their most appropriate phase of the pro-
18 ject. The final goal of these solutions is to bring the consumption of
18 a building as closely as possible to optimal consumption. These
solutions have been summarised in the form of a series of recom-
mendations in Table 2. These aim to reduce the EPG by avoiding
10
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
breaks in the chain of responsibility throughout the stages of the
buildings’ life. The recommendations are grouped according to
the different phases of the project following the classification of
Khoury et al. [23] and matched with the specific cause(s) identified
in Table 1 using the Cause ID. Since some causes may be tackled
differently, more than one solution may refer to the same cause.
5. Conclusions
This study reviewed the causes of the Energy Performance Gap
between calculated energy consumption in residential perfor-
mance certificates and actual consumption, as well as strategies
proposed for reducing the gap. We introduce the concept of opti-
mal consumption to classify the causes and mitigation strategies
for EPG. Optimal consumption is the real energy consumption of
a building performing in an ideal way, in which the comfort of
the inhabitants is guaranteed, their use of the building is as
intended, and the technical systems function as planned. The EPG
can then be broken down into i) the difference between theoretical
consumption and optimal consumption and ii) the difference
between actual consumption and optimal consumption. The first
difference is associated with the limitations of using a theoretical
model based using standardised methods and inputs to describe
the real conditions of use of a building, while the second difference
is associated with malfunctioning and unrecommended use of the
building.
Introducing the optimal consumption concept allows to clarify
how the various causes and solutions fit into the building lifecycle
and what stakeholders might be involved. It highlights that a
building’s theoretical consumption provided by a certificate will
systematically be different from the actual consumption. It is
therefore necessary to define an optimal consumption as a target,
towards which improvements to both the building certification
and building operation can strive. Furthermore, optimal values,
as opposed to the theoretical values that are used for today’s per-
formance calculations, offer the basis for a debate around what is
optimal performance of a building and what services it should pro-
vide. As highlighted by Shove [24] ‘‘the conclusion that technologies
and practices are interwoven suggests that there might be ways of
crafting buildings that do not meet present needs, and that do not deli-
ver equivalent levels of service, but that do enable and sustain much
lower-carbon ways of life”, and the concept of optimal consumption
can be seen as a step in this direction.
This work further highlighted that EPG causes are generally
considered in isolation. Most studies focus on one or two causes
separately, but never in combination. Only 14% of the studies deal
with both deviations (theoretical and actual, Fig. 2) of the EPG with
a more holistic approach. We find that the majority of studies tar-
geted inaccuracy of building physical modelling (35%) and occu-
pant behaviour modelling (22%) to explain the EPG.
Malfunctioning equipment (13%) and execution of the work (8%)
have been mentioned less often as causes of the EPG, although they
are directly related to the actual consumption of a building. This
work therefore highlights the need to consider the diversity of pos-
sible causes when developing strategies to reduce the EPG. Those
mentioned most often in literature are not necessarily the ones
with the biggest impact on the EPG. Notably, previous works have
often defined the role of the occupant as the main, if not sole, cause
of the EPG, but our findings indicate that this is not sufficiently
substantiated by evidence, in line with other recent works [162].
This review found that many strategies have been proposed to
reduce the EPG, and that these can be categorized into two groups.
The first group, which appears most often, aims to improve the
energy consumption calculation by correcting the standard values
and/or considering new approaches to create energy certificates.
11
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
The objective is to make theoretical values more precise and accu-
rate, and therefore close the EPG by bringing theoretical consump-
tion closer to the actual one. However, current certification
methods should not be expected to predict actual consumptions
as they are primarily designed to enable comparisons between
buildings. The problem is that certificates are often used to predict
actual energy consumption and energy savings from building ret-
rofits. This is due to a lack of valid alternatives, which highlights
the pressing need for quick and accessible performance informa-
tion. To this end, improved standard values could be used to more
accurately model energy consumption, although - as models are
sensitive to parameter changes - this could lead to problems of
over-fitting. Alternatively, methods using actual energy data could
be adopted.
The second group focuses on improving the actual performance
of the building’s energy systems, through better monitoring, main-
tenance, and general usage of the building. In this case the objec-
tive is to close the EPG by focusing only on actual consumption
to bring it closer to theoretical consumption.
Our work highlights that neither approach should necessarily
aim to eliminate the gap between current performance certificate
calculations and measurements, since the true optimal operation
point of the building may correspond to neither of these values.
A key first step is understanding to what extent observed discrep-
ancies stem from the calculation side compared to the implemen-
tation. This is why we propose the concept of optimal consumption
as something distinct from theoretical and actual consumption
because it brings greater clarity to the study of the EPG. However,
further research is required to develop this concept of optimal val-
ues, in order to properly represent occupant and buildings diversi-
ties. This implies that the attributes of individual occupants and
their buildings, such as the set-point temperature and the effi-
ciency of the systems, should be used to better describe, and
achieve, optimal consumption. This review also identifies the need
for studies on the very definition of optimal consumption for dif-
ferent conditions (e.g. climate zone, urban area, technologies), so
that it can be shared, regulated, and included within the existing
certification process.
An overview of possible solutions has been presented based on
the existing body of knowledge. Significant work remains to refine
these solutions and ensure their effective implementation. It is
notably essential to ensure better alignment between the various
construction phases, in combination with complementary projects
and activities, leading to more specific recommendations.
The EPG remains a complex and incompletely understood topic.
The related research questions are complex and require continuous
efforts across the multiple domains of research. The causes classi-
fied can all influence the building’s energy performance, but
researchers have not been able to reliably quantify each impact
independently due to intercorrelation and case-specific variability.
Large-scale quantitative multi-parameter analyses remain scarce,
and with significant limitations, rendering it difficult to make
definitive judgements about the relative importance of the causes
of the EPG and its solutions. Among the strategies to better under-
stand causes and solutions, we recommend in-depth monitoring
and analysis of sufficiently large samples of buildings that are
prominent in the building stock, thereby allowing to draw conclu-
sions for a significant share of today’s buildings.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al. Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253

Acknowledgement [23] J. Khoury, P. Hollmuller, B. Lachal, S. Schneider, U. Lehmann, COMPARE

RENOVE: du catalogue de solutions à la performance réelle des rénovations
énergétiques, Office fédéral de l’énergie (OFEN) (2018).
This research was financially supported by the Swiss Innovation [24] E. Shove, What is wrong with energy efficiency?, Build. Res. Inf. 46 (2018)
Agency Innosuisse and is part of the Swiss Competence Center for 779–789, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1361746.
[25] SIA, SIA 380 - Basi per il calcolo energetico di edifici, Swiss Society of
Energy Research on Future Energy Efficient Buildings & Districts
Engineers and Architects (SIA), 2015.
(SCCER FEEB&D). It builds on work done in the framework of the [26] F. Flourentzou, A.Y. Ivanov, P. Samuel, Understand, simulate, anticipate and
University of Sydney – University of Geneva Partnership Collabora- correct performance gap in NZEB refurbishment of residential buildings, J.
Phys. Conf. Ser. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1343/1/012177.
tion Award.
[27] T. Frank, Climate change impacts on building heating and cooling energy
demand in Switzerland, Energy Build. 37 (2005) 1175–1185, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.06.019.
[28] SIA, SIA 384/3 - Impianti di riscaldamento negli edifici – Fabbisogno di
References energia, Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA), 2013.
[29] M. Dominguez, O.M.D., C. Fraga, S. Callegari, P. Hollmuller, Air-to-water heat
pumps as a substitution of oil-boiler in a non-retrofitted multi-family
[1] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2018, 2018.
building of the 70’s. In-situ monitoring, actual energy balance and
[2] S.V. Russell-Smith, M.D. Lepech, R. Fruchter, Y.B. Meyer, Sustainable target
performance, in: 13th IEA Heat Pump Conf., 2020.
value design: Integrating life cycle assessment and target value design to
[30] P. de Wilde, Ten questions concerning building performance analysis, Build.
improve building energy and environmental performance, J. Clean. Prod.
Environ. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.019.
(2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.025.
[31] M. Mangold, M. Österbring, H. Wallbaum, Handling data uncertainties when
[3] EU Parliament, Directive 2018/844/EU Energy performance of buildings, in:
using Swedish energy performance certificate data to describe energy usage
Off. J. Eur. Communities, 2018: pp. 75–91.
in the building stock, Energy Build. 102 (2015) 328–336, https://doi.org/
[4] G. Sutherland, P.G. Audi, A. Lacourt, A. Deliyannis, D. Sotiropoulos, K.
10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.045.
Poseidon, P. Mcelmuray, M. Skrivanou, S. Koutsou, M.F. Davis, A. Fytrou, M.
[32] C. Gorse, M. Brooke-Peat, J. Parker, F. Thomas, Building Simulation and
Tsagkla, Implementing the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD),
Models: Closing the Performance Gap, in: Build. Sustain. Futur. Des. Built
Intelligent Energy Europe Programme, 2015. www.epbd-ca.eu (accessed
Environ., 2015: pp. 1–351. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19348-9.
November 14, 2017).
[33] J. Langevin, J.L. Reyna, S. Ebrahimigharehbaghi, N. Sandberg, P. Fennell, C.
[5] R. Galvin, M. Sunikka-Blank, Quantification of (p)rebound effects in retrofit
Nägeli, J. Laverge, M. Delghust, Mata, M. Van Hove, J. Webster, F. Federico, M.
policies – why does it matter?, Energy. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Jakob, C. Camarasa, Developing a common approach for classifying building
energy.2015.12.034.
stock energy models, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 133 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.
[6] M. Brøgger, P. Bacher, H. Madsen, K.B. Wittchen, Estimating the influence of
rser.2020.110276.
rebound effects on the energy-saving potential in building stocks, Energy
[34] Y. Wei, X. Zhang, Y. Shi, L. Xia, S. Pan, J. Wu, M. Han, X. Zhao, A review of data-
Build. 181 (2018) 62–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.10.006.
driven approaches for prediction and classification of building energy
[7] IPCC, IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers, 2018.
consumption, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 1027–1047, https://
[8] O. Pasichnyi, J. Wallin, F. Levihn, H. Shahrokni, O. Kordas, Energy performance
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.108.
certificates — new opportunities for data-enabled urban energy policy
[35] A. Marshall, R. Fitton, W. Swan, D. Farmer, D. Johnston, M. Benjaber, Y. Ji,
instruments?, Energy Policy. 127 (2019) 486–499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Domestic building fabric performance: closing the gap between the in situ
enpol.2018.11.051.
measured and modelled performance, Energy Build. 150 (2017) 307–317,
[9] K. Gram-Hanssen, S. Georg, Energy performance gaps: promises, people,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.028.
practices, Build. Res Inf. (2017).
[36] M. Hughes, J. Palmer, V. Cheng, D. Shipworth, Global sensitivity analysis of
[10] M. Ménard, Building energy Performance Gap-possible causes and the role of
England’s housing energy model, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 8 (2015) 283–294,
users, operators and design standards, (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2014.925505.
[11] M. Sunikka-Blank, R. Galvin, Introducing the prebound effect: the gap
[37] V. Fournier, Comparaison des coûts face à l’impact environnemental entre
between performance and actual energy consumption, Build. Res. Inf. 40
travaux de rénovation sur l’enveloppe et changement de vecteur énergétique
(2012) 260–273, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690952.
de plusieurs projets immobiliers à Genève, EPFL (2018).
[12] M.S. Geraldi, E. Ghisi, Building-level and Stock-level in contrast: a literature
[38] A. Merzkirch, T. Hoos, S. Maas, F. Scholzen, D. Waldmann, Wie genau sind
review of the energy performance of buildings during the operational stage,
unsere Energiepässe?, Bauphysik (2014) 40–43, https://doi.org/10.1002/
Energy Build. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2020.109810.
bapi.201410007.
[13] A.J. Summerfield, T. Oreszczyn, J. Palmer, I.G. Hamilton, F.G.N. Li, J. Crawley, R.
[39] C. Loucari, J. Taylor, R. Raslan, E. Oikonomou, A. Mavrogianni, Retrofit
J. Lowe, What do empirical findings reveal about modelled energy demand
solutions for solid wall dwellings in England: the impact of uncertainty upon
and energy ratings? Comparisons of gas consumption across the English
the energy performance gap, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 37 (2016) 614–
residential sector, Energy Policy 129 (2019) 997–1007, https://doi.org/
634, https://doi.org/10.1177/0143624416647758.
10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.033.
[40] L. La Fleur, B. Moshfegh, P. Rohdin, Measured and predicted energy use and
[14] P. Palma, J.P. Gouveia, S.G. Simoes, Mapping the energy performance gap of
indoor climate before and after a major renovation of an apartment building
dwelling stock at high-resolution scale: implications for thermal comfort in
in Sweden, Energy Build. 146 (2017) 98–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Portuguese households, Energy Build. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.04.042.
enbuild.2019.03.002.
[41] J. Ferreira, M. Pinheiro, In search of better energy performance in the
[15] C. Van Dronkelaar, M. Dowson, C. Spataru, D. Mumovic, A review of the
Portuguese buildings — The case of the Portuguese regulation, Energy Policy.
energy performance gap and its underlying causes in non-domestic buildings,
39 (2011) 7666–7683, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.062.
Front. Mech. Eng. 1 (2016) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2015.00017.
[42] H. Hens, W. Parijs, M. Deurinck, Energy consumption for heating and rebound
[16] P.X.W. Zou, X. Xu, J. Sanjayan, J. Wang, Review of 10 years research on
effects, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 105–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
building energy performance gap: life-cycle and stakeholder perspectives,
enbuild.2009.07.017.
Energy Build. 178 (2018) 165–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[43] R.V. Jones, A. Fuertes, C. Boomsma, S. Pahl, Space heating preferences in UK
enbuild.2018.08.040.
social housing: a socio-technical household survey combined with building
[17] B. Frei, C. Sagerschnig, D. Gyalistras, ParkGap – Performance Gap Gebäude,
audits, Energy Build. 127 (2015) 382–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2018.
enbuild.2016.06.006.
[18] I. Mojic, M. Luzzatto, M. Haller, M. Lehmann, M. Benz, S. van Velsen,
[44] D. Calì, T. Osterhage, R. Streblow, D. Müller, Energy performance gap in
ImmoGap: Einfluss der Kombination aus Nutzerverhalten und
refurbished German dwellings: Lesson learned from a field test, Energy Build.
Gebäudetechnik auf den Performance Gap bei Mehrfamilienhäuser, 2018.
127 (2016) 1146–1158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.020.
[19] S. Petersen, C.A. Hviid, The European energy performance of buildings
[45] K.E. Thomsen, J. Rose, O. Mørck, S.Ø. Jensen, I. Østergaard, H.N. Knudsen, N.C.
directive: Comparison of Calculated and Actual Energy Use in a Danish Office
Bergsøe, Energy consumption and indoor climate in a residential building
Building, in: IBPSA-England; Build. Simul. Optim. Conf., 2012: pp. 43–48.
before and after comprehensive energy retrofitting, Energy Build. 123 (2016)
http://www.ibpsa-england.org/resources/files/bso-2012/1B3.pdf (accessed
8–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.049.
October 31, 2017).
[46] J.W. Moon, S.H. Han, Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in
[20] S. Cozza, J. Chambers, C. Deb, J.L. Scartezzini, A. Schlüter, M.K. Patel, Do energy
residential buildings, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 338–346, https://doi.org/
performance certificates allow reliable predictions of actual energy
10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.024.
consumption and savings?, Learning from the Swiss national database,
[47] H.X. Zhao, F. Magoulès, A review on the prediction of building energy
Energy Build. 224 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110235
consumption, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 3586–3592, https://doi.
110235.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.049.
[21] F. Filippidou, N. Nieboer, H. Visscher, Effectiveness of energy renovations: a
[48] D. Majcen, L. Itard, H. Visscher, Actual and theoretical gas consumption in
reassessment based on actual consumption savings, Energy Effic. 12 (2018)
Dutch dwellings: what causes the differences?, Energy Policy. 61 (2013) 460–
19–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9634-8.
471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.018.
[22] M.J. Grant, A. Booth, A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types
[49] C. Hoffmann, A. Geissler, The prebound-effect in detail: real indoor
and associated methodologies, Health Info. Libr. J. 26 (2009) 91–108, https://
temperatures in basements and measured versus calculated U-values,
doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

12
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
Energy Procedia 122 (2017) 32–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYPRO.2017.07.301.
[50] R. Gupta, A. Kotopouleas, Magnitude and extent of building fabric thermal
performance gap in UK low energy housing, Appl. Energy. 222 (2018) 673–
686, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.096.
[51] J. Kragh, J. Rose, H.N. Knudsen, O.M. Jensen, Possible explanations for the gap
between calculated and measured energy consumption of new houses,
Energy Procedia 132 (2017) 69–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2017.09.638.
[52] J. Khoury, Z. Alameddine, P. Hollmuller, Understanding and bridging the
energy performance gap in building retrofit, Energy Procedia 122 (2017) 217–
222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.348.
[53] M. Delghust, W. Roelens, T. Tanghe, Y. De Weerdt, A. Janssens, Regulatory
energy calculations versus real energy use in high-performance houses, Build.
Res. Inf. 43 (2015) 675–690, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2015.1033874.
[54] E. Rodrigues, M.S. Fernandes, A.R. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, J.J. Costa, Thermal
transmittance effect on energy consumption of Mediterranean buildings with
different thermal mass, Appl. Energy. 252 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2019.113437 113437.
[55] A. Reilly, O. Kinnane, The impact of thermal mass on building energy
consumption, Appl. Energy. 198 (2017) 108–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.04.024.
[56] N. Aste, F. Leonforte, M. Manfren, M. Mazzon, Thermal inertia and energy
efficiency – parametric simulation assessment on a calibrated case study,
Appl. Energy. 145 (2015) 111–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.01.084.
[57] E. Mantesi, C.J. Hopfe, M.J. Cook, J. Glass, P. Strachan, The modelling gap:
quantifying the discrepancy in the representation of thermal mass in building
simulation, Build. Environ. 131 (2017) 74–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2017.12.017.
[58] R. De Lieto Vollaro, C. Guattari, L. Evangelisti, G. Battista, E. Carnielo, P. Gori,
Building energy performance analysis: a case study, Energy Build. 87 (2015)
87–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.080.
[59] T. Schluck, K.N. Streicher, S. Mennel, Statistical modelling of the energy
reference area based on the Swiss building stock, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 86 (2019)
35–42, https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20015.
[60] A. GhaffarianHoseini, T. Zhang, O. Nwadigo, A. GhaffarianHoseini, N.
Naismith, J. Tookey, K. Raahemifar, Application of nD BIM Integrated
Knowledge-based Building Management System (BIM-IKBMS) for
inspecting post-construction energy efficiency, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
72 (2017) 935–949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.061.
[61] S. Erba, F. Causone, R. Armani, The effect of weather datasets on building
energy simulation outputs, Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 545–554, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.561.
[62] G. Branco, B. Lachal, P. Gallinelli, W. Weber, Predicted versus observed heat
consumption of a low energy multifamily complex in Switzerland based on
long-term experimental data, Energy Build. 36 (2004) 543–555, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.01.028.
[63] J. Kočí, V. Kočí, J. Maděra, R. Černý, Effect of applied weather data sets in
simulation of building energy demands: comparison of design years with
recent weather data, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 100 (2019) 22–32, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.022.
[64] L. Thaler, D. Kellenberger, Addressing gaps: user on behavior and sufficiency
in the planning and operation phase of a 2000-Watt Site, Energy Procedia 122
(2017) 961–966, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.440.
[65] M. Herrera, S. Natarajan, D.A. Coley, T. Kershaw, A.P.R. González, M. Eames, D.
Fosas, M. Wood, A review of current and future weather data for building
simulation, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143624417705937.
[66] A. Gonzalez Caceres, D.G. Zenginis, T.A. Vik, The impact of the weather data
file on the energy performance certificate, the case of Norway, Proc. 59th
Conf. Imulation Model. (SIMS 59), 26-28 Sept. 2018, Oslo Metrop. Univ. Norw.
153 (2018) 342–349. doi:10.3384/ecp18153342.
[67] M.F. Jentsch, P.A.B. James, L. Bourikas, A.B.S. Bahaj, Transforming existing
weather data for worldwide locations to enable energy and building
performance simulation under future climates, Renew. Energy. 55 (2013)
514–524, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.049.
[68] L. Kallab, R. Chbeir, P. Bourreau, P. Brassier, M. Mrissa, HIT2GAP: towards a
better building energy management, Energy Procedia 122 (2017) 895–900,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.399.
[69] E. Rodrigues, M.S. Fernandes, Overheating risk in Mediterranean residential
buildings: comparison of current and future climate scenarios, Appl. Energy.
259 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114110 114110.
[70] Y. Zhang, X. Bai, F.P. Mills, J.C.V. Pezzey, Rethinking the role of occupant
behavior in building energy performance: a review, Energy Build. 172 (2018)
279–294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.017.
[71] S. Hu, D. Yan, E. Azar, F. Guo, A systematic review of occupant behavior in
building energy policy, Build. Environ. 175 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.106807 106807.
[72] P. Van den Brom, A. Meijer, H. Visscher, Performance gaps in energy
consumption: household groups and building characteristics, Build. Res. Inf.
46 (2017) 54–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1312897.
[73] S. Niu, W. Pan, Y. Zhao, A virtual reality supported approach to occupancy
engagement in building energy design for closing the energy performance
13
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
gap, Procedia Eng. 118 (2015) 573–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.08.487.
[74] D. Yan, W. O’Brien, T. Hong, X. Feng, H. Burak Gunay, F. Tahmasebi, A.
Mahdavi, Occupant behavior modeling for building performance simulation:
Current state and future challenges, Energy Build. 107 (2015) 264–278.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.08.032.
[75] J. Kim, S. Schiavon, G. Brager, Personal comfort models – a new paradigm in
thermal comfort for occupant-centric environmental control, Build. Environ.
132 (2018) 114–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.023.
[76] F. Flourentzou, Possible strategies and obstacles in the pathway towards
energy transition of residential building stocks in Switzerland, IOP Conf. Ser.
Earth Environ. Sci. 323 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/
012171 012171.
[77] J. Wang, J. Zhu, Z. Ding, P.X.W. Zou, J. Li, Typical energy-related behaviors and
gender difference for cooling energy consumption, J. Clean. Prod. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117846.
[78] D. Calì, R.K. Andersen, D. Müller, B.W. Olesen, Analysis of occupants’ behavior
related to the use of windows in German households, Build. Environ. (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.03.024.
[79] T. Dwyer, Knowledge is Power: Benchmarking and prediction of building
energy consumption, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 34 (2013) 5–7, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0143624412471130.
[80] U.I. Dar, L. Georges, I. Sartori, V. Novakovic, Influence of occupant’s behavior
on heating needs and energy system performance: a case of well-insulated
detached houses in cold climates, Build. Simul. 8 (2015) 499–513, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12273-015-0230-y.
[81] R. Galvin, Making the ‘rebound effect’ more useful for performance evaluation
of thermal retrofits of existing homes: defining the ‘energy savings deficit’
and the ‘energy performance gap’, Energy Build. 69 (2013) 515–524, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.004.
[82] W. Reimann, E. Buhlmann, M. Lehmann, Erfolgskontrolle
Gebäudeenergiestandards 2014-2015, Bundesamt für Energie (BFE), 2016.
[83] O. Guerra-Santin, C.A. Tweed, In-use monitoring of buildings: an overview of
data collection methods, Energy Build. 93 (2015) 189–207, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.02.042.
[84] C. Hopfe, C. Struck, G.U. Harputlugil, J. Hensen, Computational Simulation
Tools For Building Services Design – Professional’s Practice and Wishes, in:
17th Int. Air-Conditioning Vent. Conf., 2006. http://www.bwk.tue.nl/bps/
hensen/publications/06_acv_ccg.pdf.
[85] C. Ahern, B. Norton, Energy savings across EU domestic building stock by
optimizing hydraulic distribution in domestic space heating systems, Energy
Build. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.01.014.
[86] M. Moezzi, C. Hammer, J. Goins, A. Meier, Behavioral strategies to bridge the
gap between potential and actual savings in buildings, Natl. Res. Cent.
Canada. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002503.
[87] M.W. Ahmad, M. Mourshed, D. Mundow, M. Sisinni, Y. Rezgui, Building
energy metering and environmental monitoring – a state-of-the-art review
and directions for future research, Energy Build. 120 (2016) 85–102, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.059.
[88] J. Wingfield, M. Bell, D. Miles-Shenton, J. Seavers, Elm Tree Mews Field Trial –
Evaluation and Monitory of Dwellings Performance, Final Technical Report,
2011. http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/elmtree/
elmtree_finalreport.pdf (accessed October 6, 2017).
[89] D.J. McElroy, J. Rosenow, Policy implications for the performance gap of low-
carbon building technologies, Build. Res. Inf. 47 (2019) 611–623, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1469285.
[90] T. Maile, V. Bazjanac, M. Fischer, A method to compare simulated and
measured data to assess building energy performance, Build. Environ. 56
(2012) 241–251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.03.012.
[91] S. Wyss, W. Hässig, UFELD: Feldmessungen von U-Werten zur Überprüfung
der im Gebäudeenergieausweis (GEAK) hinterlegten U-Werte, Bundesamt für
Energie (BFE), 2016.
[92] P. de Wilde, The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of
buildings: a framework for investigation, Autom. Constr. 41 (2014) 40–49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.02.009.
[93] M. Bell, J. Wingfi, D. Miles-Shenton, J. Seavers, Low carbon housing Lessons
from Elm Tree Mews, (2010) 118. doi:978-1-85935-766-8.
[94] C. Turner, M. Frankel, Energy performance of LEED for new construction
buildings, New Build. Inst. (2008) 1–46.
[95] J. Love, Understanding the Interactions Between Occupants, Heating Systems,
and Building Fabric in the Context of Social Housing, University College
London, 2014.
[96] E. Cayre, B. Allibe, M.-H. Laurent, D. Osso, There are people in the house! How
the results of purely technical analysis of residential energy consumption are
misleading for energy policies, in: ECEEE 2011 Summer Study - Energy Effic.
First Found. a Low-Carbon Soc., 2011.
[97] D. Marchio, A. Rabl, Energy-efficient gas-heated housing in France: predicted
and observed performance, Energy Build. 17 (1991) 131–139, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0378-7788(91)90005-N.
[98] U. Lehmann, J. Khoury, M.K. Patel, Actual energy performance of student
housing: case study, benchmarking and performance gap analysis, Energy
Procedia 122 (2017) 163–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYPRO.2017.07.339.
[99] B. Risholt, T. Berker, Success for energy efficient renovation of dwellings—
Learning from private homeowners, Energy Policy. 61 (2013) 1022–1030,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.011.
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
[100] W. Tian, Y. Heo, P. de Wilde, Z. Li, D. Yan, C.S. Park, X. Feng, G. Augenbroe, A
review of uncertainty analysis in building energy assessment, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 93 (2018) 285–301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.05.029.
[101] V. Taranu, G. Verbeeck, A closer look into the European Energy Performance
Certificates under the lenses of behavioural insights — a comparative
analysis, Energy Effic. (2018) 1745–1761.
[102] J.O. Olaussen, A. Oust, J.T. Solstad, Energy performance certificates –
informing the informed or the indifferent?, Energy Policy. 111 (2017) 246–
254, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.029.
[103] J. Las-Heras-Casas, L.M. López-Ochoa, L.M. López-González, J.P. Paredes-
Sánchez, A tool for verifying energy performance certificates and improving
the knowledge of the residential sector : a case study of the Autonomous
Community of Aragón (Spain), Sustain. Cities Soc. 41 (2018) 62–72, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.016.
[104] A. Hardy, D. Glew, An analysis of errors in the Energy Performance certificate
database, Energy Policy. 129 (2019) 1168–1178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2019.03.022.
[105] H. Do, K.S. Cetin, Evaluation of the causes and impact of outliers on
residential building energy use prediction using inverse modeling, Build.
Environ. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.039.
[106] S. Semple, D. Jenkins, Variation of energy performance certificate
assessments in the European Union, Energy Policy. 137 (2020), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111127 111127.
[107] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, R. González, I.R. Maestre, A review of
benchmarking, rating and labelling concepts within the framework of
building energy certification schemes, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 272–278,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.10.004.
[108] A. Gonzalez-Caceres, T.A. Vik, Improving the Energy Performance Certificate
recommendations accuracy for residential building through simple
measurements of key inputs, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/609/3/032065.
[109] I. Ballarini, V. Corrado, Application of energy rating methods to the existing
building stock: analysis of some residential buildings in Turin, Energy Build.
41 (2009) 790–800, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.02.009.
[110] A. Stone, D. Shipworth, P. Biddulph, T. Oreszczyn, Key factors determining the
energy rating of existing English houses, Build. Res. Inf. 42 (2014) 725–738,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.905383.
[111] SIA, SIA 380/1 - Besoins de chaleur pour le chauffage, Swiss Society of
Engineers and Architects (SIA), 2016.
[112] F.P. Schröder, O. Papert, T. Boegelein, H. Navarro, B. Mundry, Reale Trends des
spezifischen Energieverbrauchs und repräsentativer
Wohnraumtemperierung bei steigendem Modernisierungsgrad im
Wohnungsbestand, in: Bauphysik, 2014: pp. 309–324. doi:10.1002/
bapi.201410045.
[113] H. Elsharkawy, S. Zahiri, The significance of occupancy profiles in
determining post retrofit indoor thermal comfort, overheating risk and
building energy performance, Build. Environ. 172 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106676 106676.
[114] C. Deb, M. Frei, A. Schlueter, Identifying temporal properties of building
components and indoor environment for building performance assessment,
Build. Environ. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106506.
[115] C. Bianchi, A.D. Smith, Localized Actual Meteorological Year File Creator
(LAF): A tool for using locally observed weather data in building energy
simulations, SoftwareX. 10 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.softx.2019.100299 100299.
[116] M.F. Jentsch, A.B.S. Bahaj, P.A.B. James, Climate change future proofing of
buildings-Generation and assessment of building simulation weather files,
Energy Build. 40 (2008) 2148–2168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2008.06.005.
[117] J. Amoako-Attah, A.B. Jahromi, The impact of different weather files on
London detached residential building performance-deterministic,
uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis on CIBSE TM48 and CIBSE TM49 future
weather variables using CIBSE TM52 as overheating criteria, Sustainability. 8
(2016) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111194.
[118] P. van den Brom, A. Meijer, H. Visscher, Actual energy saving effects of
thermal renovations in dwellings—longitudinal data analysis including
building and occupant characteristics, Energy Build. 182 (2019) 251–263,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.10.025.
[119] M. Laurent B. Allibe C. Tigchelaar T. Oreszczyn I. Hamilton R. Galvin Back to
reality : How domestic energy efficiency policies in four European countries
can be improved by using empirical data instead of normative calculation
Eceee Summer Study Proceedings. 2013 2057 2070 http://discovery.ucl.ac.
uk/1403583/.
[120] T.H. Christensen, K. Gram-hanssen, M. De Best-, A. Adjei, Energy retrofits of
Danish homes: is the Energy Performance Certificate useful?, Build. Res. Inf.
3218 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.908265.
[121] M.M. Sesana, G. Salvalai, A review on Building Renovation Passport:
potentialities and barriers on current initiatives, Energy Build. (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.05.027.
[122] L.M. López-González, L.M. López-Ochoa, J. Las-Heras-Casas, C. García-Lozano,
Energy performance certificates as tools for energy planning in the
residential sector. The case of La Rioja (Spain), J. Clean. Prod. (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.007.
14
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
[123] D. Jonlin, Bridging the Energy Performance Gap: Real-World Tools, ACEEE
Summer Study Energy Effic. Build. (2014) 168–179. http://aceee.org/files/
proceedings/2014/data/papers/3-300.pdf.
[124] J.D. Chambers, T. Oreszczyn, Deconstruct: a scalable method of as-built heat
power loss coefficient inference for UK dwellings using smart meter data,
Energy Build. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.016.
[125] H. Hufen, H. De Bruijn, Getting the incentives right. Energy performance
contracts as a tool for property management by local government, J. Clean.
Prod. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.036.
[126] S. Pätäri, K. Sinkkonen, Energy service companies and energy performance
contracting: is there a need to renew the business model? insights from a
Delphi study, J. Clean. Prod. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.10.017.
[127] Conferenza Cantonale dei Direttori dell’Energia CDE, Il Programma Edifici nel
2016 - Rapporto annuale, (2016).
[128] E. Cuerda, O. Guerra-Santin, J.J. Sendra, F.J. Neila, Understanding the
performance gap in energy retrofitting: measured input data for adjusting
building simulation models, Energy Build. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2019.109688.
[129] S. Naylor, M. Gillott, T. Lau, A review of occupant-centric building control
strategies to reduce building energy use, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 96
(2018) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.019.
[130] S. Niu, W. Pan, Y. Zhao, A virtual reality integrated design approach to
improving occupancy information integrity for closing the building energy
performance gap, Sustain. Cities Soc. 27 (2016) 275–286, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2016.03.010.
[131] P. Torcellini, M. Deru, B. Griffith, N. Long, S. Pless, R. Judkoff, D.B. Crawley,
Lessons learned from field evaluation of six high-performance buildings,
ACEEE Summer Study Energy Effic Build. (2004) 325–337.
[132] M. Frei, J. Hofer, A. Schlüter, Z. Nagy, An easily-deployable wireless sensor
network for building energy performance assessment, Energy Procedia 122
(2017) 523–528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.309.
[133] C. Wang, D. Yan, Y. Jiang, A novel approach for building occupancy
simulation, Build. Simul. 4 (2011) 149–167, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12273-011-0044-5.
[134] C. Carpino, E. Loukou, P. Heiselberg, N. Arcuri, Energy performance gap of a
nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB) in Denmark: the influence of occupancy
modelling, Build. Res. Inf. (2020) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2019.1707639.
[135] X. Shi, B. Si, J. Zhao, Z. Tian, C. Wang, X. Jin, X. Zhou, Magnitude, causes, and
solutions of the performance gap of buildings: a review, Sustainability. 11
(2019) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030937.
[136] H.S. Alavi, H. Verma, J. Mlynář, D. Lalanne, The hide and seek of workspace:
towards human-centric sustainable architecture, Conf. Hum. Factors Comput.
Syst. - Proc. (2018-April (2018)) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3173649.
[137] C. Fan, F. Xiao, Z. Li, J. Wang, Unsupervised data analytics in mining big
building operational data for energy efficiency enhancement: a review,
Energy Build. 159 (2018) 296–308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.11.008.
[138] D. Johnston, D. Farmer, M. Brooke-Peat, D. Miles-Shenton, Bridging the
domestic building fabric performance gap, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (2016) 147–159,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.979093.
[139] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, U.Y.A. Tettey, Final energy savings and cost-
effectiveness of deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential
building, Energy 135 (2017) 563–576, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.06.123.
[140] EU Parliament, Directive 2002/91/EC of the European parliament of the
council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, in: Off.
J. Eur. Communities L1/65-71, 2003.
[141] EU Parliament, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European parliament and of the
council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, in: Off. J. Eur.
Communities L153/13-35, 2010.
[142] K.G. Droutsa, S. Kontoyiannidis, E.G. Dascalaki, C.A. Balaras, Mapping the
energy performance of hellenic residential buildings from EPC (energy
performance certificate) data, Energy. 98 (2016) 284–295, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.137.
[143] R. Fazeli, B. Davidsdottir, Energy performance of dwelling stock in Iceland:
system dynamics approach, J. Clean. Prod. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.009.
[144] Y. Li, S. Kubicki, A. Guerriero, Y. Rezgui, Review of building energy
performance certification schemes towards future improvement, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109244.
[145] C. Struck, M. Benz, V. Dorer, B. Frei, M. Hall, M. Ménard, S. Moosberger, K.
Orehouring, C. Sagerschnig, Performance Gap in der Schweiz - Brisanz,
Ursachen und Einflüsse auf die Differenz von geplantem Energiebedarf und
dem gemessenen Verbauch von Gebäuden, Brenet, 18. Status-Seminar,
Zürich. (2014) 1–10.
[146] Passivhaus Institut, Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low
Energy Building Standard, 2016. https://passiv.de/downloads/
03_building_criteria_en.pdf
[147] I. Allard, T. Olofsson, G. Nair, Energy evaluation of residential buildings:
performance gap analysis incorporating uncertainties in the evaluation
methods, Build. Simul. 11 (2018) 725–737, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-
018-0439-7.
S. Cozza, J. Chambers, A. Brambilla et al.
[148] Passivhaus Institut, Passive House checklist, (2021). https://passipedia.org/
basics/passive_house_checklist.
[149] M. Way, B. Bordass, Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine
2: Soft Landings – involving design and building teams in improving
performance, Build. Res. Inf. 33 (2005) 353–360, https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613210500162008.
[150] Geneve – ReC, GEnergie 2050: Des mesures concrètes pour accélérer la
transition énergétique du canton, 2019.
[151] Z. Min, P. Morgenstern, L. Marjanovic-Halburd, Facilities management added
value in closing the energy performance gap, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
(2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.004.
[152] A. Freyre, Energy programs for buildings; analysis in the context of the Swiss
energy transition, PhD Thesis - Univ. Geneva. (2019).
[153] D. Hsu, How much information disclosure of building energy performance is
necessary?, Energy Policy. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.08.094.
[154] M. Brøgger, K.B. Wittchen, Energy performance certificate classifications
across shifting frameworks, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 845–849, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.727.
[155] X. Xu, C.Z. Li, J. Wang, W. Huang, Collaboration between designers and
contractors to improve building energy performance, J. Clean. Prod. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.036.
[156] H. Rau, P. Moran, R. Manton, J. Goggins, Changing energy cultures? household
energy use before and after a building energy efficiency retrofit, Sustain.
Cities Soc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101983.
15
Energy & Buildings 249 (2021) 111253
[157] M. Anda, J. Temmen, Smart metering for residential energy efficiency: the use
of community based social marketing for behavioural change and smart grid
introduction, Renew. Energy. 67 (2014) 119–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.11.020.
[158] S.-A. Kim, Y. Choe, M. Jang, W. Seol, Design process visualization system
intergrating BIM data and performance-oriented design information, in: Proc.
28th Int. Symp. Autom. Robot. Constr., 2011: pp. 728–733.
[159] P.G. Tuohy, G.B. Murphy, Closing the gap in building performance: Learning
from BIM benchmark industries, Archit. Sci. Rev. 58 (2015) 47–56, https://
doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.975780.
[160] Ö. Göçer, Y. Hua, K. Göçer, Completing the missing link in building design
process: enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback
for building performance, Build. Environ. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2015.02.011.
[161] C. Brunsgaard, P. Dvořáková, A. Wyckmans, W. Stutterecker, M. Laskari, M.
Almeida, K. Kabele, Z. Magyar, P. Bartkiewicz, P. Op ’t Veld, Integrated energy
design – education and training in cross-disciplinary teams implementing
energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD), Build. Environ. 72 (2014)
1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.10.011.
[162] A. Mahdavi, C. Berger, H. Amin, E. Ampatzi, R.K. Andersen, E. Azar, V.M.
Barthelmes, M. Favero, J. Hahn, D. Khovalyg, H.N. Knudsen, A.L. Navarro, A.
Roetzel, F.C. Sangogboye, M. Schweiker, M. Taheri, The role of occupants in
buildings’ energy performance gap: myth or reality?, Sustainability. (2021)
1–44.