Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-9 (section)

== 9.8 Links to Sustainable Development ==

<div id="9.8.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="overview-of-contribution-of-mitigation-options-to-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 9.8.1 Overview of Contribution of Mitigation Options to Sustainable Development ===

<div id="h2-24-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

A growing body of research acknowledges that mitigation actions in buildings may have substantial social and economic value beyond their direct impact of reducing energy consumption and/or GHG emissions ( [[#IEA--2014|IEA 2014]] ; [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2016|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2016]] ; [[#Deng--2017|Deng et al. 2017]] ; [[#Reuter--2017|Reuter et al. 2017]] ; [[#US%20EPA--2018|US EPA 2018]] ; [[#Kamal--2019|Kamal et al. 2019]] ; [[#Bleyl--2019|Bleyl et al. 2019]] ) (see also Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 7). In other words, the implementation of these actions in the residential and non-residential sector holds numerous multiple impacts (co-benefits, adverse side-effects, trade-offs, risks, etc.) for the economy, society and end-users, in both developed and developing economies, which can be categorised into the following types ( [[#IEA--2014|IEA 2014]] ; [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2016|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2016]] ; [[#Ferreira--2017|Ferreira et al. 2017]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ; [[#Reuter--2017|Reuter et al. 2017]] ; [[#US%20EPA--2018|US EPA 2018]] ; [[#Nikas--2020|Nikas et al. 2020]] ): (i) health impacts due to better indoor conditions, energy/fuel poverty alleviation, better ambient air quality and reduction of the heat island effect; (ii) environmental benefits such as reduced local air pollution and the associated impact on ecosystems (acidification, eutrophication, etc.) and infrastructures, reduced sewage production, and so on; (iii) improved resource management including water and energy; (iv) impact on social well-being, including changes in disposable income due to decreased energy expenditures and/or distributional costs of new policies, fuel poverty alleviation and improved access to energy sources, rebound effects, increased productive time for women and children, and so on; (v) microeconomic effects (e.g., productivity gains in non-residential buildings, enhanced asset values of green buildings, fostering innovation); (vi) macroeconomic effects, including impact on GDP driven by energy savings and energy availability, creation of new jobs, decreased employment in the fossil energy sector, long-term reductions in energy prices and possible increases in electricity prices in the medium run, possible impacts on public budgets, and so on; and (vii) energy security implications (e.g., access to modern energy resources, reduced import dependency, increase of supplier diversity, smaller reserve requirements, increased sovereignty and resilience).

Well-designed and effectively implemented mitigation actions in the sector of buildings have significant potential for achieving the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, the multiple impacts of mitigation policies and measures go far beyond the goal of climate action (SDG 13) and contribute to further activating a great variety of other SDGs (Figure 9.18 presents some indicative examples). Table 9.5 reviews and updates the analysis carried out in the context of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. 2018]] ) demonstrating that the main categories of GHG emission reduction interventions in buildings, namely the implementation of energy sufficiency and efficiency improvements as well as improved access and fuel switch to modern low carbon energy, contribute to achieving 16 out of a total of 17 SDGs.

<div id="_idContainer057" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:f4294e06a62b13300f6e0d8cb4e8f453 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_9_18.png]]

'''Figure 9.18 | Contribution of mitigation policies of the building sector to meeting sustainable development goals.''' Source: based on information from IEA(2019d); [[#IEA--2020b|IEA (2020b)]] ; [[#Mills--2016|Mills (2016)]] ; [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission (2016)]] ; [[#Rafaj--2018|Rafaj et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Mzavanadze--2018a|Mzavanadze (2018a)]] ; [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization (2016)]] ; and literature review presented in [[#9.8.5.2|Section 9.8.5.2]] .

A review of a relatively limited number of studies made by [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2016|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. (2016)]] and [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. (2015)]] showed that the size of multiple benefits of mitigation actions in the sector of buildings may range from 22% up to 7400% of the corresponding energy cost savings. In 7 out of 11 case studies reviewed, the value of the multiple impacts of mitigation actions was equal or greater than the value of energy savings. Even in these studies, several effects have not been measured and consequently the size of multiple benefits of mitigation actions may be even higher. Quantifying and if possible, monetising, these wider impacts of climate action would facilitate their inclusion in cost-benefit analysis, strengthen the adoption of ambitious emissions reduction targets, and improve coordination across policy areas reducing costs ( [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ).

'''Table 9.5 | Aspects ofmitigation actions in buildings and their contributions to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.''' S: enhancement of energy sufficiency; E: energy efficiency improvements; R: improved access and fuel switch to lower carbon and renewable energy.

[[File:740519b34f4932e6a3ccd0f9e96344f7 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Table_9_5.png]]
Where:

'''Notes''' ''':''' The strength of interaction between mitigation actions and SDGs is described with a seven-point scale (Nilsson et al., 2016). Also, the blue bullet shows the interactions between co-benefits/risk associated with mitigation actions and the SDGs. '''SDG 1''' : Sufficiency and efficiency measures result in reduced energy expenditures and other financial savings that further lead to poverty reduction. Access to modern energy forms will largely help alleviate poverty in developing countries as the productive time of women and children will increase, new activities can be developed, and so on. The distributional costs of some mitigation policies promoting energy efficiency and lower carbon energy may reduce the disposable income of the poor. '''SDG 2''' : Energy sufficiency and efficiency measures result in lower energy bills and avoiding the ‘heat or eat’ dilemma. Improved cook-stoves provide better food security and reduces the danger of fuel shortages in developing countries; under real-world conditions these impacts may be limited as the households use these stoves irregularly and inappropriately. Green roofs can support food production. Improving energy access enhances agricultural productivity and improves food security; on the other hand, increased bioenergy production may restrict the available land for food production. '''SDG 3''' : All categories of mitigation action result in health benefits through better indoor air quality, energy/fuel poverty alleviation, better ambient air quality, and reduction of the heat island effect. Efficiency measures with inadequate ventilation may lead to the “sick building” syndrome symptoms. '''SDG 4''' : Energy efficiency measures result in reduced school absenteeism due to better indoor environmental conditions. Also, fuel poverty alleviation increases the available space at home for reading. Improved access to electricity and clean fuels enables people living in poor developing countries to read, while it is also associated with greater school attendance by children. '''SDG 5''' : Efficient cook-stoves and improved access to electricity and clean fuels in developing countries will result in substantial time savings for women and children, thus increasing the time for rest, communication, education and productive activities. '''SDG 6''' : Reduced energy demand due to sufficiency and efficiency measures as well as an upscaling of renewable energy sources (RES) can lead to reduced water demand for thermal cooling at energy production facilities. Also, water savings result through improved conditions and lower space of dwellings. Improved access to electricity is necessary to treat water at homes. In some situations, the switch to bioenergy could increase water use compared to existing conditions. '''SDG 7''' : All categories of mitigation action result in energy/fuel poverty alleviation in both developed and developing countries as well as in improving the security of energy supply. '''SDG 8''' : Positive and negative direct and indirect macroeconomic effects (GDP, employment, public budgets) associated with lower energy prices due to the reduced energy demand, energy efficiency and RES investments, improved energy access and fostering innovation. Also, energy efficient buildings with adequate ventilation, result in productivity gains and improve the competitiveness of the economy. '''SDG 9''' : Adoption of distributed generation and smart grids helps in infrastructure improvement and expansion. Also, the development of ‘green buildings’ can foster innovation. Reduced energy demand due to sufficiency and efficiency measures as well as an upscaling of RES can lead to early retirement of fossil energy infrastructure. '''SDG 10''' : Efficient cook-stoves as well as improved access to electricity and clean fuels in developing countries will result in substantial time savings for women and children, thus enhancing education and the development of productive activities. Sufficiency and efficiency measures lead to lower energy expenditures, thus reducing income inequalities. The distributional costs of some mitigation policies promoting energy efficiency and lower carbon energy as well as the need for purchasing more expensive equipment and appliances may reduce the disposable income of the poor and increase inequalities. '''SDG 11''' : Sufficiency and efficiency measures as well as fuel switching to RES and improvements in energy access would eliminate major sources (both direct and indirect) of poor air quality (indoor and outdoor). Helpful if in-situ production of RES combined with charging electric two, three and four wheelers at home. Buildings with high energy efficiency and/or green features are sold/rented at higher prices than conventional, low energy efficient houses. '''SDG 12''' : Energy sufficiency and efficiency measures as well as deployment of RES result in reduced consumption of natural resources, namely fossil fuels, metal ores, minerals, water, and so on. Negative impacts on natural resources could be arisen from increased penetration of new efficient appliances and equipment. '''SDG 13''' : See Sections 9.4–9.6. '''SDG 15''' : Efficient cookstoves and improved access to electricity and clean fuels in developing countries will result in halting deforestation. '''SDG 16''' : Building retrofits are associated with lower crime. Improved access to electric lighting can improve safety (particularly for women and children). Institutions that are effective, accountable and transparent are needed at all levels of government for providing energy access and promoting modern renewables as well as boosting sufficiency and efficiency. '''SDG 17''' : The development of zero energy buildings requires among others capacity building, citizen participation as well as monitoring of the achievements.

'''Sources:''' [[#Brounen--2011|Brounen and Kok (2011)]] ; [[#Deng--2012|Deng et al. (2012)]] ; [[#Zheng--2012|Zheng et al. (2012)]] ; [[#Högberg--2013|Högberg (2013)]] ; [[#Hyland--2013|Hyland et al. (2013)]] ; [[#Kahn--2014|Kahn and Kok (2014)]] ; [[#Koirala--2014|Koirala et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Maidment--2014|Maidment et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Mirasgedis--2014|Mirasgedis et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Scott--2014|Scott et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Bailis--2015|Bailis et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Boermans--2015|Boermans et al. (2015)]] ; Fuerst et al. (2015, 2016); [[#Galán-Marín--2015|Galán-Marín et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Hasegawa--2015|Hasegawa et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Hejazi--2015|Hejazi et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Holland--2015|Holland et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Liddell--2015|Liddell and Guiney (2015)]] ; [[#Liu--2015a|Liu et al. (2015a)]] ; [[#Mattioli--2015|Mattioli and Moulinos (2015)]] ; [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Torero--2015|Torero (2015)]] ; Willand et al. (2015a); [[#Winter--2015|Winter et al. (2015)]] ; [[#Baimel--2016|Baimel et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Camarinha-Matos--2016|Camarinha-Matos (2016)]] ; [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. (2016)]] ; [[#De%20Ayala--2016|De Ayala et al. (2016)]] ; [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission (2016)]] ; [[#Fricko--2016|Fricko et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Hanna--2016|Hanna et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Jensen--2016|Jensen et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Levy--2016|Levy et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Markovska--2016|Markovska et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Rao--2016|Rao et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Sola--2016|Sola et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Song--2016|Song et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2016|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. (2016)]] ; [[#Balaban--2017|Balaban and Puppim de Oliveira (2017)]] ; [[#Berrueta--2017|Berrueta et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Burney--2017|Burney et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Mehetre--2017|Mehetre et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Mofidi--2017|Mofidi and Akbari (2017)]] ; [[#Niemelä--2017|Niemelä et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Ortiz--2017|Ortiz et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Rao--2017|Rao and Pachauri (2017)]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Thomson--2017a|Thomson et al. (2017a)]] ; [[#Zhao--2017|Zhao et al. (2017)]] ; [[#Barnes--2018|Barnes and Samad (2018)]] ; [[#Cedeño-Laurent--2018|Cedeño-Laurent et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Goldemberg--2018|Goldemberg et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Jeuland--2018|Jeuland et al. (2018)]] ; [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al. (2018)]] ; [[#McCollum--2018|McCollum et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Mzavanadze--2018a|Mzavanadze (2018a)]] ; [[#Rosenthal--2018|Rosenthal et al. (2018)]] ; Saheb et al. (2018b,a); [[#Steenland--2018|Steenland et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Tajani--2018|Tajani et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Venugopal--2018|Venugopal et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Walters--2018|Walters and Midden (2018)]] ; [[#Wierzbicka--2018|Wierzbicka et al. (2018)]] ; [[#Alawneh--2019|Alawneh et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Batchelor--2019|Batchelor et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Bleyl--2019|Bleyl et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Cajias--2019|Cajias et al. (2019)]] ; [[#Marmolejo-Duarte--2019|Marmolejo-Duarte and Chen (2019)]] ; [[#Mastrucci--2019|Mastrucci et al. (2019)]] ; ESMAP et al. (2020); [[#Teubler--2020|Teubler et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Van%20de%20Ven--2020|Van de Ven et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Nikas--2020|Nikas et al. (2020)]] ; [[#Blair--2021|Blair et al. (2021)]] .

<div id="9.8.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="climate-mitigation-actions-in-buildings-and-health-impacts"></span>
=== 9.8.2 Climate Mitigation Actions in Buildings and Health Impacts ===

<div id="h2-25-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="9.8.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="lack-of-access-to-clean-energy"></span>
==== 9.8.2.1 Lack of Access to Clean Energy ====

<div id="h3-24-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In 2018, approximately 2.8 billion people worldwide, most of whom live in Asia and Africa, still use polluting fuels, such as fuelwood, charcoal, dried crops, cow dung, and so on, in low-efficiency stoves for cooking and heating, generating household air pollution (HAP), which adversely affects the health of the occupants of the dwellings, especially children and women ( [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ; [[#Rahut--2017|Rahut et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mehetre--2017|Mehetre et al. 2017]] ; [[#Das--2018|Das et al. 2018]] ; Liu et al. 2018; [[#Quinn--2018|Quinn et al. 2018]] ; [[#Rosenthal--2018|Rosenthal et al. 2018]] ; [[#Xin--2018|Xin et al. 2018]] ; [[#IEA--2020a|IEA 2020a]] ). Exposure to HAP from burning these fuels is estimated to have caused 3.8 million deaths from heart diseases, strokes, cancers, acute lower respiratory infections in 2016 (World Health Organization 2018). It is acknowledged that integrated policies are needed to address simultaneously universal energy access, limiting climate change and reducing air pollution ( [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ). [[#Rafaj--2018|Rafaj et al. (2018)]] showed that a scenario achieving these SDGs in 2030 will imply in 2040 two million fewer premature deaths from HAP compared to current levels, and 1.5 million fewer premature deaths in relation to a reference scenario, which assumes the continuation of existing and planned policies. The level of incremental investment needed in developing countries to achieve universal access to modern energy was estimated at around USD0.8 trillion cumulatively to 2040 in the scenarios examined ( [[#Rafaj--2018|Rafaj et al. 2018]] ).

At the core of these policies is the promotion of improved cook-stoves and other modern energy-efficient appliances to cook (for the health benefits of improved cook-stoves see for example ( [[#García-Frapolli--2010|García-Frapolli et al. 2010]] ; [[#Malla--2011|Malla et al. 2011]] ; [[#Aunan--2013|Aunan et al. 2013]] ; [[#Jeuland--2018|Jeuland et al. 2018]] ), as well as the use of non-solid fuels by poor households in developing countries (Figure 9.19). Most studies agree that the use of non-solid energy options such as LPG, ethanol, biogas, piped natural gas, and electricity is more effective in reducing the health impacts of HAP compared to improved biomass stoves (see for example [[#Larsen--2016|Larsen 2016]] ; [[#Rosenthal--2018|Rosenthal et al. 2018]] ; [[#Steenland--2018|Steenland et al. 2018]] ; [[#Goldemberg--2018|Goldemberg et al. 2018]] ). On the other hand, climate change mitigation policies (e.g., carbon pricing) may increase the costs of some of these clean fuels (e.g., LPG, electricity), slowing down their penetration in the poor segment of the population and restricting the associated health benefits ( [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. 2016]] ). In this case, appropriate access policies should be designed to efficiently shield poor households from the burden of carbon taxation ( [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. 2016]] ). The evaluation of the improved biomass burning cook-stoves under real-world conditions has shown that they have lower than expected, and in many cases limited, long-run health and environmental impacts, as the households use these stoves irregularly and inappropriately, fail to maintain them, and their usage decline over time ( [[#Patange--2015|Patange et al. 2015]] ; [[#Aung--2016|Aung et al. 2016]] ; [[#Hanna--2016|Hanna et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wathore--2017|Wathore et al. 2017]] ). In this context, the various improved cook-stoves programs should consider the mid- and long-term needs of maintenance, repair, or replacement to support their sustained use ( [[#Shankar--2014|Shankar et al. 2014]] ; [[#Schilmann--2019|Schilmann et al. 2019]] ).

<div id="_idContainer061" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:c44c1109ef2fbb4a3f7327be7d94336b IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_9_19.png]]

'''Figure 9.19 | Trends on energy access: historical based on IEA statistics data and scenarios based on IEA WEO data.'''

Electrification of households in rural or remote areas results also to significant health benefits. For example, in El Salvador, rural electrification of households leads to reduced overnight air pollutants concentration by 63% due to the substitution of kerosene as a lighting source, and 34–44% less acute respiratory infections among children under six ( [[#Torero--2015|Torero 2015]] ). In addition, the connection of the health centres to the grid leads to improvements in the quality of health care provided ( [[#Lenz--2017|Lenz et al. 2017]] ).

<div id="9.8.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="energyfuel-poverty-indoor-environmental-quality-and-health"></span>
==== 9.8.2.2 Energy/fuel Poverty, Indoor Environmental Quality and Health ====

<div id="h3-25-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Living in fuel poverty, and particularly in cold and damp housing is related to excess winter mortality and increased morbidity rates due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, arthritic and rheumatic illnesses, asthma, and so on ( [[#Lacroix--2015|Lacroix and Chaton 2015]] ; [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ; [[#Camprubí--2016|Camprubí et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Ormandy--2016|Ormandy and Ezratty 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ). In addition, lack of affordable warmth can generate stress related to chronic discomfort and high bills, fear of falling into debt, and a sense of lacking control, which are potential drivers of further negative mental health outcomes, such as depression ( [[#Howden-Chapman--2012|Howden-Chapman et al. 2012]] ; [[#Liddell--2015|Liddell and Guiney 2015]] ; [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ; [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ). Health risks from exposure to cold and inadequate indoor environmental quality may be higher for low-income, energy-poor households, and in particular for those with elderly relatives, young children, and members with existing respiratory illness ( [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ; [[#Thomson--2017b|Thomson et al. 2017b]] ; Nunes 2019). High temperatures during summer can also be dangerous for people living in buildings with inadequate thermal insulation and inappropriate ventilation ( [[#Ormandy--2016|Ormandy and Ezratty 2016]] ; [[#Sanchez-Guevara--2019|Sanchez-Guevara et al. 2019]] ; [[#Thomson--2019|Thomson et al. 2019]] ). Summer fuel poverty (or summer overheating risk) may increase significantly in the coming decades under a warming climate ( [[#9.7|Section 9.7]] ), with the poorest, who cannot afford to install air conditioning, and the elderly ( [[#Nunes--2020|Nunes 2020]] ) being the most vulnerable.

Improved energy efficiency in buildings contributes in fuel poverty alleviation and brings health gains through improved indoor temperatures and comfort as well as reduced fuel consumption and associated financial stress ( [[#Curl--2015|Curl et al. 2015]] ; [[#Lacroix--2015|Lacroix and Chaton 2015]] ; [[#Liddell--2015|Liddell and Guiney 2015]] ; [[#Thomson--2015|Thomson and Thomas 2015]] ; [[#Willand--2015|Willand et al. 2015]] ; [[#Poortinga--2018|Poortinga et al. 2018]] ). On the other hand, households suffering most from fuel poverty experience more barriers for undertaking building retrofits ( [[#Braubach--2013|Braubach and Ferrand 2013]] ; [[#Camprubí--2016|Camprubí et al. 2016]] ; [[#Charlier--2018|Charlier et al. 2018]] ), moderating the potential health gains associated with implemented energy efficiency programs. This can be avoided if implemented policies to tackle fuel poverty target the most socially vulnerable households ( [[#Lacroix--2015|Lacroix and Chaton 2015]] ; [[#Camprubí--2016|Camprubí et al. 2016]] ). [[#Mzavanadze--2018a|Mzavanadze (2018a)]] estimated that in EU-28 accelerated energy efficiency policies, reducing the energy demand in residential sector by 333 TWh in 2030 compared to a reference scenario, coupled with strong social policies targeting the most vulnerable households, could deliver additional co-benefits in the year of 2030 of around 24,500 avoided premature deaths due to indoor cold and around 22,300 disability adjusted life years (DALYs) of avoided asthma due to indoor dampness. The health benefits of these policies amount to EUR4.8 billion in 2030. The impacts on inhabitants in developing countries would be much greater than those in EU-28 owing to the much higher prevalence of impoverished household.

Apart from thermal comfort, the internal environment of buildings impacts public health through a variety of pathways including inadequate ventilation, poor indoor air quality, chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, outdoor noise, or poor lighting. The implementation of interventions aiming to improve thermal insulation of buildings combined with inadequate ventilation may increase the risk of mould and moisture problems due to reduced air flow rates, leading to indoor environments that are unhealthy, with the occupants suffering from the sick building syndrome symptoms ( [[#Willand--2015|Willand et al. 2015]] ; [[#Cedeño-Laurent--2018|Cedeño-Laurent et al. 2018]] ; [[#Wierzbicka--2018|Wierzbicka et al. 2018]] ). On the other hand, if the implementation of energy efficiency interventions or the construction of green buildings is accompanied by adequate ventilation, the indoor environmental conditions are improved through less moisture, mould, pollutant concentrations, and allergens, which result in fewer asthma symptoms, respiratory risks, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, heart disease risks, headaches, cancer risks, and so on ( [[#Allen--2015|Allen et al. 2015]] ; [[#Hamilton--2015|Hamilton et al. 2015]] ; [[#Thomson--2015|Thomson and Thomas 2015]] ; [[#Cowell--2016|Cowell 2016]] ; [[#Doll--2016|Doll et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Militello-Hourigan--2018|Militello-Hourigan and Miller 2018]] ; [[#Underhill--2018|Underhill et al. 2018]] ; [[#Cedeño-Laurent--2018|Cedeño-Laurent et al. 2018]] ). [[#Fisk--2018|Fisk (2018)]] showed that increased ventilation rates in residential buildings results in health benefits ranging from 20% to several-fold improvements; however, these benefits do not occur consistently, and ventilation should be combined with other exposure control measures. As adequate ventilation imposes additional costs, the sick building syndrome symptoms are more likely to be seen in low income households ( [[#Shrubsole--2016|Shrubsole et al. 2016]] ).

The health benefits of residents due to mitigation actions in buildings are significant (for a review see [[#Maidment--2014|Maidment et al. 2014]] ; [[#Thomson--2015|Thomson and Thomas 2015]] ; [[#Fisk--2020|Fisk et al. 2020]] ), and are higher among low income households and/or vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly and those with pre-existing illnesses ( [[#Maidment--2014|Maidment et al. 2014]] ; [[#IEA--2014|IEA 2014]] ; [[#Ortiz--2019|Ortiz et al. 2019]] ). [[#Tonn--2018|Tonn et al. (2018)]] estimated that the health-related benefits attributed to the two weatherisation programs implemented in the US in 2008 and 2010 exceeds by a factor of 3 the corresponding energy cost savings yield. [[#IEA--2014|IEA (2014)]] also found that the health benefits attributed to energy efficiency retrofit programs may outweigh their costs by up to a factor of 3. [[#Ortiz--2019|Ortiz et al. (2019)]] estimated that the energy retrofit of vulnerable households in Spain requires an investment of around EUR10.9–12.3 thousands per dwelling and would generate an average saving to the healthcare system of EUR372 per year and dwelling (due to better thermal comfort conditions in winter).

<div id="9.8.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="outdoor-air-pollution"></span>
==== 9.8.2.3 Outdoor Air Pollution ====

<div id="h3-26-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

According to World Health Organization (2018) around 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide (in both cities and rural areas) are attributed to outdoor air pollution. According to the results of the quantitative model ( [[#Gu--2018|Gu et al. 2018]] ), the premature mortalities attributed to PM 2.5 and O 3 emissions may reach 168000–1796000 (95% Cl) in 2010. Mitigation actions in residential and non-residential sectors decrease the amount of fossil fuels burnt either directly in buildings (for heating, cooking, etc.) or indirectly for electricity generation and thereby reduce air pollution (e.g., PM, O 3 , SO 2 , NO x ), improve ambient air quality and generate significant health benefits through avoiding premature deaths, lung cancers, ischemic heart diseases, hospital admissions, asthma exacerbations, respiratory symptoms, and so on ( [[#Levy--2016|Levy et al. 2016]] ; [[#Balaban--2017|Balaban and Puppim de Oliveira 2017]] ; [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al. 2018]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ). Several studies have monetised the health benefits attributed to reduced outdoor air pollution due to the implementation of mitigation actions in buildings, and their magnitude expressed as a ratio to the value of energy savings resulting from the implemented interventions in each case, are in the range of 0.08 in EU, 0.18 in Germany, 0.26–0.40 in US, 0.34 in Brazil, 0.47 in Mexico, 0.74 in Turkey, 8.28 in China and 11.67 in India ( [[#Joyce--2013|Joyce et al. 2013]] ; [[#Levy--2016|Levy et al. 2016]] ; [[#Diaz-Mendez--2018|Diaz-Mendez et al. 2018]] ; [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al. 2018]] ). In developed economies, the estimated co-benefits are relatively low due to the fact that the planned interventions influence a quite clean energy source mix ( [[#Tuomisto--2015|Tuomisto et al. 2015]] ; [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al. 2018]] ). On the other hand, the health co-benefits in question are substantially higher in countries and regions with greater dependency on coal for electricity generation and higher baseline morbidity and mortality rates ( [[#Kheirbek--2014|Kheirbek et al. 2014]] ; [[#MacNaughton--2018|MacNaughton et al. 2018]] ).

<div id="9.8.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="other-environmental-benefits-of-mitigation-actions"></span>
=== 9.8.3 Other Environmental Benefits of Mitigation Actions ===

<div id="h2-26-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Apart from the health benefits mentioned above, mitigation actions in the buildings sector are also associated with environmental benefits to ecosystems and crops, by avoiding acidification and eutrophication, biodiversity through green roofs and walls, building environment through reduced corrosion of materials, and so on ( [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mzavanadze--2018b|Mzavanadze 2018b]] ; [[#Knapp--2019|Knapp et al. 2019]] ; [[#Mayrand--2018|Mayrand and Clergeau 2018]] ), while some negative effects cannot be excluded ( [[#Dylewski--2016|Dylewski and Adamczyk 2016]] ).

Also, very important are the effects of mitigation actions in buildings on the reduction of consumption of natural resources, namely fossil fuels, metal ores, minerals, and so on. These comprise savings from the resulting reduced consumption of fuels, electricity and heat and the lifecycle-wide resource demand for their utilities, as well as potential net savings from the substitution of energy technologies used in buildings – production phase extraction ( [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ). [[#Teubler--2020|Teubler et al. (2020)]] found that the implementation of an energy efficiency scenario in European buildings will result in resource savings (considering only those associated with the generation of final energy products) of 406 kg per MWh lower final energy demand in the residential sector, while the corresponding figure for non-residential buildings was estimated at 706 kg per MWh of reduced energy demand. On the other hand, [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. (2016)]] claim that a switch to more efficient appliances could result in negative impacts from increased resource use, which can be mitigated by avoiding premature replacement and maximising recycling of old appliances.

Mitigation actions aiming to reduce the embodied energy of buildings through using local and sustainable building materials can be used to leverage new supply chains (e.g., for forestry products), which in turn bring further environmental and social benefits to local communities ( [[#Hashemi--2015|Hashemi et al. 2015]] ; [[#Cheong--2019|Cheong and Storey 2019]] ). Furthermore, improved insulation and the installation of double- or triple-glazed windows result in reduced noise levels. It is worth mentioning that for every 1 dB decrease in excess noise, academic performance in schools and productivity of employees in office buildings increases by 0.7% and 0.3% respectively ( [[#Kockat--2018|Kockat et al. 2018]] b). [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. (2016)]] estimated that in the UK the annual noise benefits associated with energy renovations in residential buildings may reach £400 million in 2030 outweighing the benefits of reduced air pollution.

<div id="9.8.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="social-wellbeing"></span>
=== 9.8.4 Social Wellbeing ===

<div id="h2-27-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="9.8.4.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="energyfuel-poverty-alleviation"></span>
==== 9.8.4.1 Energy/Fuel Poverty Alleviation ====

<div id="h3-27-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In 2018 almost 0.79 billion people in developing countries did not have access to electricity, while approximately 2.8 billion people relied on polluting fuels and technologies for cooking ( [[#IEA--2020a|IEA 2020a]] ). Only in sub-Saharan Africa, about 548 million people (i.e., more than 50% of the population) live without electricity. In developed economies, the EU Energy Poverty Observatory estimated that in EU-28 44.5 million people were unable to keep their homes warm in 2016, 41.5 million had arrears on their utility bills the same year, 16.3% of households faced disproportionately high energy expenditure in 2010, and 19.2% of households reported being uncomfortably hot during summer in 2012 ( [[#Thomson--2018|Thomson and Bouzarovski 2018]] ). [[#Okushima--2016|Okushima (2016)]] , using the ‘expenditure approach’, estimated that fuel poverty rates in Japan reached 8.4% in 2013. In the US, in 2015, 17 million households (14.4% of the total) received an energy disconnect/delivery stop notice and 25 million households (21.2% of the total) had to forgo food and medicine to pay energy bills ( [[#Bednar--2020|Bednar and Reames 2020]] ).

The implementation of well-designed climate mitigation measures in buildings can help to reduce energy/fuel poverty and improve living conditions with significant benefits for health ( [[#9.8.2|Section 9.8.2]] ) and well-being ( [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ; [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. 2016]] ; [[#Tonn--2018|Tonn et al. 2018]] ). The social implications of energy poverty alleviation for the people in low- and middle-income developing countries with no access to clean energy fuels are further discussed in [[#9.8.4.2|Section 9.8.4.2]] . In other developing countries and in developed economies as well, the implementation of mitigation measures can improve the ability of households to affordably heat/cool a larger area of the home, thus increasing the space available to a family and providing more private and comfortable spaces for several activities like homework ( [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ). By reducing energy expenditures and making energy bills more affordable for households, a ‘heat or eat’ dilemma can be avoided resulting in better nutrition and reductions in the number of low birthweight babies ( [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ; [[#Tonn--2018|Tonn et al. 2018]] ). Also, renovated buildings and the resulting better indoor conditions, can enable residents to avoid social isolation, improve social cohesion, lower crime, and so on ( [[#Payne--2015|Payne et al. 2015]] ). The [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission (2016)]] found that under an ambitious recast of Energy Performance Buildings Directive (EPBD), the number of households that may be lifted from fuel poverty across the EU lies between 5.17 and 8.26 million. To capture these benefits, mitigation policies and particularly energy renovation programmes should target the most vulnerable among the energy-poor households, which very often are ignored by the policy makers. In this context, it is recognised that fuel poverty should be analysed as a multidimensional social problem ( [[#Thomson--2017b|Thomson et al. 2017b]] ; [[#Baker--2018|Baker et al. 2018]] ; [[#Charlier--2019|Charlier and Legendre 2019]] ; [[#Mashhoodi--2019|Mashhoodi et al. 2019]] ), as it is related to energy efficiency, household composition, age and health status of its members, social conditions (single parent families, existence of unemployed and retired people, etc.), energy prices, disposable income, and so on. In addition, the geographical dimension can have a significant impact on the levels of fuel poverty and should be taken into account when formulating response policies ( [[#Besagni--2019|Besagni and Borgarello 2019]] ; [[#Mashhoodi--2019|Mashhoodi et al. 2019]] ).

<div id="9.8.4.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="improved-access-to-energy-sources-gender-equality-and-time-savings"></span>
==== 9.8.4.2 Improved Access to Energy Sources, Gender Equality and Time Savings ====

<div id="h3-28-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In most low- and middle-income developing countries women and children (particularly girls) spend a significant amount of their time for gathering fuels for cooking and heating ( [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ; [[#Rosenthal--2018|Rosenthal et al. 2018]] ). For example, in Africa more than 70% of the children living in households that primarily cook with polluting fuels spend at least 15 hours and, in some countries, more than 30 hours per week in collecting wood or water, facing significant safety risks and constraints on their available time for education and rest ( [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ; [[#Mehetre--2017|Mehetre et al. 2017]] ). Also, in several developing countries (e.g., in most African countries but also in India, in rural areas in Latin America and elsewhere) women spend several hours to collect fuel wood and cook, thus limiting their potential for productive activities for income generation or rest ( [[#García-Frapolli--2010|García-Frapolli et al. 2010]] ; [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ; [[#Mehetre--2017|Mehetre et al. 2017]] ). Expanding access to clean household energy for cooking, heating and lighting will largely help alleviate these burdens ( [[#Malla--2011|Malla et al. 2011]] ; [[#World%20Health%20Organization--2016|World Health Organization 2016]] ; [[#Lewis--2017|Lewis et al. 2017]] ; [[#Rosenthal--2018|Rosenthal et al. 2018]] ). [[#Jeuland--2018|Jeuland et al. (2018)]] found that the time savings associated with the adoption of cleaner and more fuel-efficient stoves by low-income households in developing countries are amount to USD1.3–1.9 per household per month, constituting the 23–43% of the total social benefits attributed to the promotion of clean stoves.

Electrification of remote rural areas and other regions that do not have access to electricity enables people living in poor developing countries to read, socialise, and be more productive during the evening, while it is also associated with greater school attendance by children ( [[#Torero--2015|Torero 2015]] ; [[#Rao--2016|Rao et al. 2016]] ; [[#Barnes--2018|Barnes and Samad 2018]] ). [[#Chakravorty--2014|Chakravorty et al. (2014)]] found that a grid connection can increase non-agricultural incomes of rural households in India from 9% up to 28.6% (assuming a higher quality of electricity). On the other hand, some studies clearly show that electricity consumption for connected households is extremely low, with limited penetration of electrical appliances ( [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. 2016]] ; [[#Lee--2017|Lee et al. 2017]] ) and low quality of electricity ( [[#Chakravorty--2014|Chakravorty et al. 2014]] ). The implementation of appropriate policies to overcome bureaucratic red tape, low reliability, and credit constraints, is necessary for maximising the social benefits of electrification.

<div id="9.8.5" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="economic-implications-of-mitigation-actions"></span>
=== 9.8.5 Economic Implications of Mitigation Actions ===

<div id="h2-28-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="9.8.5.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="buildings-related-labour-productivity"></span>
==== 9.8.5.1 Buildings-related Labour Productivity ====

<div id="h3-29-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Low-carbon buildings, and particularly well-designed, operated and maintained high-performance buildings with adequate ventilation, may result in productivity gains and improve the competitiveness of the economy through three different pathways ( [[#MacNaughton--2015|MacNaughton et al. 2015]] ; [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission 2016]] ; [[#Niemelä--2017|Niemelä et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mofidi--2017|Mofidi and Akbari 2017]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ; [[#Bleyl--2019|Bleyl et al. 2019]] ): (i) increasing the amount of active time available for productive work by reducing the absenteeism from work due to illness, the presenteeism (i.e., working with illness or working despite being ill), and the inability to work due to chronic diseases caused by the poor indoor environment; (ii) improving the indoor air quality and thermal comfort of non-residential buildings, which can result in better mental well-being of the employees and increased workforce performance; and (iii) reducing the school absenteeism due to better indoor environmental conditions, which may enhance the future earnings ability of the students and restrict the parents absenteeism due to care-taking of sick children.

Productivity gains due to increased amount of active time for work is directly related to acute and chronic health benefits attributed to climate mitigation actions in buildings ( [[#9.8.2.2|Section 9.8.2.2]] ). The bulk of studies quantifying the impact of energy efficiency on productivity focus on acute health effects. Proper ventilation in buildings is of particular importance and can reduce absenteeism due to sick days by 0.6–1.9 days per person per year ( [[#MacNaughton--2015|MacNaughton et al. 2015]] ; [[#Ben-David--2017|Ben-David et al. 2017]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ). In a pan-European study, ( [[#Chatterjee--2018|Chatterjee and Ürge-Vorsatz 2018]] ) showed that deep energy retrofits in residential buildings may increase the number of active days by 1.78–5.27 (with an average of 3.09) per year and person who has actually shifted to a deep retrofitted building. Similarly, the interventions in the non-residential buildings result in increased active days between 0.79 and 2.43 (with an average of 1.4) per year and person shifted to deeply retrofitted non-residential buildings.

As regards improvements in workforce performance due to improved indoor conditions (i.e., air quality, thermal comfort, etc.), ( [[#Kozusznik--2019|Kozusznik et al. 2019]] ) conducted a systematic review on whether the implementation of energy efficient interventions in office buildings influence well-being and job performance of employees. Among the 34 studies included in this review, 31 found neutral to positive effects of green buildings on productivity and only 3 studies indicated detrimental outcomes for office occupants in terms of job performance. Particularly longitudinal studies, which observe and compare the office users’ reactions over time in conventional and green buildings, show that green buildings have neutral to positive effects on occupants well-being and work performance ( [[#Thatcher--2016|Thatcher and Milner 2016]] ; [[#Candido--2019|Candido et al. 2019]] ; [[#Kozusznik--2019|Kozusznik et al. 2019]] ). [[#Bleyl--2019|Bleyl et al. (2019)]] estimated that deep energy retrofits in office buildings in Belgium would generate a workforce performance increase of EUR10.4 to EUR20.8 m –2 renovated. In Europe every 1°C reduction in overheating during the summer period increases students learning performance by 2.3% and workers performance in office buildings by 3.6% ( [[#Kockat--2018|Kockat et al. 2018]] b). Considering the latter indicator, it was estimated that by reducing overheating across Europe, the overall performance of the workers in office buildings can increase by 7–12% ( [[#Kockat--2018|Kockat et al. 2018]] b).

<div id="9.8.5.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="enhanced-asset-values-of-energy-efficient-buildings"></span>
==== 9.8.5.2 Enhanced Asset Values of Energy Efficient Buildings ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

A significant number of studies confirm that homes with high energy efficiency and/or green features are sold at higher prices than conventional, low energy efficient houses. A review of 15 studies from 12 different countries showed that energy efficient dwellings have a price premium ranging between 1.5% and 28%, with a median estimated at 7.8%, for the highest energy efficient category examined in each case study compared to reference houses with the same characteristics but lower energy efficiency (the detailed results of this review are presented in Supplementary Material Table 9.SM.5). In a given real estate market, the higher the energy efficiency of dwellings compared to conventional housing, the higher their selling prices. However, a number of studies show that this premium is largely realised during resale transactions and is smaller or even negative in some cases immediately after the completion of the construction ( [[#Deng--2014|Deng and Wu 2014]] ; [[#Yoshida--2015|Yoshida and Sugiura 2015]] ). A relatively lower number of studies (also included in Supplementary Material Table 9.SM.5) show that energy efficiency and green features have also a positive effect on rental prices of dwellings ( [[#Hyland--2013|Hyland et al. 2013]] ; [[#Cajias--2019|Cajias et al. 2019]] ), but this is weaker compared to sales prices, and in a developing country even negative as green buildings, which incorporate new technologies such as central air conditioning, are associated with higher electricity consumption ( [[#Zheng--2012|Zheng et al. 2012]] ).

Regarding non-residential buildings, ( [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission 2016]] ) reviewed a number of studies showing that buildings with high energy efficiency or certified with green certificates present higher sales prices by 5.2–35%, and higher rents by 2.5–11.8%. More recent studies in relation to those included in the review confirm these results ( [[#Mangialardo--2018|Mangialardo et al. 2018]] ; [[#Ott--2018|Ott and Hahn 2018]] ) or project even higher premiums. [[#Chegut--2014|Chegut et al. (2014)]] found that green certification in the London office market results in a premium of 19.7% for rents. On the other hand, in Australia, a review study showed mixed evidence regarding price differentials emerged as a function of energy performance of office buildings ( [[#Acil%20Allen%20Consulting--2015|Acil Allen Consulting 2015]] ). Other studies have shown that energy efficiency and green certifications have been associated with lower default rates for commercial mortgages ( [[#Wallace--2018|Wallace et al. 2018]] ; [[#An--2020|An and Pivo 2020]] ; [[#Mathew--2021|Mathew et al. 2021]] ).

More generally, ( [[#Giraudet--2020|Giraudet 2020]] ) based on a meta-analysis of several studies, showed that the capitalisation of energy efficiency is observed in building sales and rental (even in the absence of energy performance certificates), but the resulting market equilibrium can be considered inefficient as rented dwellings are less energy efficient than owner-occupied ones.

<div id="9.8.5.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="macroeconomic-effects"></span>
==== 9.8.5.3 Macroeconomic Effects ====

<div id="h3-31-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Investments required for the implementation of mitigation actions, create, mainly in the short-run, increase in the economic output and employment in sectors delivering energy efficiency services and products, which are partially counterbalanced by less investments and lower production in other parts of the economy ( [[#Yushchenko--2016|Yushchenko and Patel 2016]] ; [[#European%20Commission--2016|European Commission 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ; [[#US%20EPA--2018|US EPA 2018]] ) (see also Cross-Working Group Box 1 in Chapter 3). The magnitude of these impacts depends on the structure of the economy, the extent to which energy saving technologies are produced domestically or imported from abroad, but also from the growth cycle of the economy with the benefits being maximised when the related investments are realised in periods of economic recession ( [[#Mirasgedis--2014|Mirasgedis et al. 2014]] ; [[#Yushchenko--2016|Yushchenko and Patel 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ). Particularly in developing countries if the mitigation measures and other interventions to improve energy access (Figure 9.19) are carried out by locals, the impact on economy, employment and social well-being will be substantial ( [[#Mills--2016|Mills 2016]] ; [[#Lehr--2016|Lehr et al. 2016]] ). As many of these programs are carried out with foreign assistance funds, it is essential that the funds be spent in-country to the full extent possible, while some portion of these funds would need to be devoted to institution building and especially training. ( [[#Mills--2016|Mills 2016]] ) estimated that a market transformation from inefficient and polluting fuel-based lighting to solar-LED systems to fully serve the 112 million households that currently lack electricity access will create directly 2 million new jobs in these developing countries, while the indirect effects could be even greater. [[#IEA--2020a|IEA (2020a)]] estimated that 9–30 jobs would be generated for every million dollars invested in building retrofits or in construction of new energy efficient buildings (gross direct and indirect employment), with the highest employment intensity rates occurring in developing countries. Correspondingly, 7–16 jobs would be created for every million dollars spent in purchasing highly efficient and connected appliances, while expanding clean cooking through LPG could create 16–75 direct local jobs per million dollars invested. Increases in product and employment attributed to energy efficiency investments also affect public budgets by increasing income and business taxation, reducing unemployment benefits, and so on. [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. (2017)]] , thus mitigating the impact on public deficit of subsidising energy saving measures ( [[#Mikulić--2016|Mikulić et al. 2016]] ).

Furthermore, energy savings due to the implementation of mitigation actions will result, mainly in the long-run, in increased disposable income for households, which in turn may be spent to buy other goods and services, resulting in economic development, creation of new permanent employment and positive public budget implications ( [[#IEA--2014|IEA 2014]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ; [[#US%20EPA--2018|US EPA 2018]] ). According to [[#Anderson--2014|Anderson et al. (2014)]] , the production of these other goods and services is usually more labour-intensive compared to energy production, resulting in net employment benefits of about 8 jobs per million dollars of consumer bill savings in the US. These effects may again have a positive impact on public budgets. Furthermore, reduced energy consumption on a large scale is likely to have an impact on lower energy prices and hence on reducing the cost of production of various products, improving the productivity of the economy and enhancing security of energy supply ( [[#IEA--2014|IEA 2014]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ).

<div id="9.8.5.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="energy-security"></span>
==== 9.8.5.4 Energy Security ====

<div id="h3-32-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

GHG emission reduction actions in the sector of buildings affect energy systems by: (i) reducing the overall consumption of energy resources, especially fossil fuels; (ii) promoting the electrification of thermal energy uses; and (iii) enhancing distributed generation through the incorporation of RES and other clean and smart technologies in buildings. Increasing sufficiency, energy efficiency and penetration of RES result in improving the primary energy intensity of the economy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels, which for many countries are imported energy resources ( [[#Boermans--2015|Boermans et al. 2015]] ; [[#Markovska--2016|Markovska et al. 2016]] ; [[#Thema--2017|Thema et al. 2017]] ). The electrification of thermal energy uses is expected to increase the demand for electricity in buildings, which in most cases can be reversed (at national or regional level) by promoting nearly zero energy new buildings and a deep renovation of the existing building stock ( [[#Boermans--2015|Boermans et al. 2015]] ; [[#Couder--2017|Couder and Verbruggen 2017]] ). In addition, highly efficient buildings can keep the desired room temperature stable over a longer period and consequently they have the capability to shift heating and cooling operation in time ( [[#Boermans--2015|Boermans et al. 2015]] ). These result in reduced peak demand, lower system losses and avoided generation and grid infrastructure investments. As a significant proportion of the global population, particularly in rural and remote locations, still lack access to modern energy sources, renewables can be used to power distributed generation or micro-grid systems that enable peer-to-peer energy exchange, constituting a crucial component to improve energy security for rural populations ( [[#Leibrand--2019|Leibrand et al. 2019]] ; [[#Kirchhoff--2019|Kirchhoff and Strunz 2019]] ). For successful development of peer-to-peer micro-grids, financial incentives to asset owners are critical for ensuring their willingness to share their energy resources, while support measures should be adopted to ensure that also non-asset holders can contribute to investments in energy generation and storage equipment and have the ability to sell electricity to others ( [[#Kirchhoff--2019|Kirchhoff and Strunz 2019]] ).

<div id="9.9" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="sectoral-barriers-and-policies"></span>