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

=== 9.9.1 Barriers, Feasibility and Acceptance ===

<div id="h2-29-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Understanding the reasons why cost-effective investment in building energy efficiency are not taking place as expected by rational economic behaviour is critical to design effective policies for decarbonise the buildings ( [[#Cattano--2013|Cattano et al. 2013]] ; [[#Cattaneo--2019|Cattaneo 2019]] ). Barriers depend from the actors (owner, tenant, utility, regulators, manufacturers, etc.), their role in energy efficiency project and the market, technology, financial economic, social, legal, institutional, regulatory and policy structures ( [[#Reddy--1991|Reddy 1991]] ; [[#Weber--1997|Weber 1997]] ; [[#Sorrell--2000|Sorrell et al. 2000]] ; [[#Reddy--2002|Reddy 2002]] ; [[#Sorrell--2011|Sorrell et al. 2011]] ; Cagno et al. 2012; Bardhan et al., 2014; Bagaini et al. 2020; Vogel et al. 2015; Khosla et al. 2017; Gupta et al. 2017). Barriers identified for the refurbishment of exiting building or construction of new efficient buildings includes: lack of high-performance products, construction methods, monitoring capacity, investment risks, policies intermittency, information gaps, principal agent problems (both tenant and landlord face disincentives to invest in energy efficiency), skills of the installers, lack of a trained and ready workforce, governance arrangements in collectively owned properties and behavioural anomalies (Gillingham and Palmer 2014; Buessler et al. 2017; [[#Yang--2019|Yang et al. 2019]] ; [[#Do--2020|Do et al. 2020]] ; [[#Dutt--2020|Dutt 2020]] ; [[#Song--2020|Song et al. 2020]] ). A better understanding of behavioural barriers ( [[#Frederiks--2015|Frederiks et al. 2015]] ) is essential to design effective policies to decarbonise the building sector. Energy efficiency in buildings faces one additional problem: the sector is highly heterogeneous, with many different building types, sizes and operational uses. Energy efficiency investments do not take place in isolation but in competition with other priorities and as part of a complex, protracted investment process ( [[#Cooremans--2011|Cooremans 2011]] ). Therefore, a focus on overcoming barriers is not enough for effective policy. Organisational context is important because the same barrier might have very different organisational effects and require very different policy responses ( [[#Mallaburn--2018|Mallaburn 2018]] ). Cross-Chapter Box 2 in [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] presents a summary of methodologies for estimating the macro-level impact of policies on indices of GHG mitigation.

Reaching deep decarbonisation levels throughout the lifecycle of buildings depends on multidimensional criteria for assessing the feasibility of mitigation measures, including criteria related to geophysical, environmental-ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. An assessment of 16 feasibility criteria for mitigation measures in the buildings sector indicates whether a specific factor, within broader dimensions, acts as a barrier or helps enabling such mitigation measures (Figure 9.20, Supplementary Material Table 9.SM.6, and Annex II.11). Although mitigation measures are aggregated in the assessment of Figure 9.20 and feasibility results can differ for more specific measures, generally speaking, the barriers to mitigation measures in buildings are few, sometimes including technological and socio-cultural challenges. However, many co-benefits could help enable mitigation in the buildings sector. For instance, many measures can have positive effects on the environment, health and well-being, and distributional potential, all of which can boost their feasibility. The feasibility of mitigation measures varies significantly according to socio-economic differences across and within countries.

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

[[File:85db4fc6feaedd415c729350e8c69370 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_9_20.png]]

'''Figure 9.20 | Summary of the extent to which different factors would enable or inhibit the deployment of mitigation options in buildings.''' Blue bars indicate the extent to which the indicator enables the implementation of the option (E) and orange bars indicate the extent to which an indicator is a barrier (B) to the deployment of the option, relative to the maximum possible barriers and enablers assessed. A ‘X’ signifies the indicator is not applicable or does not affect the feasibility of the option, while a forward slash/indicates that there is no or limited evidence whether the indicator affects the feasibility of the option. The shading indicates the level of confidence, with darker shading signifying higher levels of confidence. Table 9.SM.6 provides an overview of the extent to which the feasibility of options may differ across context (e.g., region), time (e.g., 2030 versus 2050), and scale (e.g., small versus large), and includes a line of sight on which the assessment is based. The assessment method is explained in Annex II.11.

<div id="9.9.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="rebound-effects"></span>