Figure 1
The analytical process followed in this study.
Table 1
Role of renovation one-stop shops (OSS) in structuring renovation scope, energy demand and system design.
| OSS DECISION STAGE | TYPICAL PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED FRAMING | IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY DEMAND AND SYSTEM DESIGN | SUFFICIENCY-ORIENTED REFRAMING |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial assessment | Focus on energy losses and upgrade potential | High baseline demand assumptions | Assessment of actual use, occupancy and necessity of intervention |
| Renovation scope | Comprehensive or deep renovation as default | Extensive component replacement; increased material use | Targeted interventions based on necessity and proportionality; staged approaches where sequencing is informed by demand adequacy rather than by performance maximisation alone |
| Scenario development | Comparison based on maximum energy savings | Preference for high-performance packages | Inclusion of low-intervention and ‘do-less’ scenarios |
| Energy modelling | Overestimated demand assumptions | Oversized heating, cooling and ventilation systems | Demand assumptions adjusted through space and use sufficiency |
| System sizing | Emphasis on modelled energy performance and system capacity (the rated power output of heating, cooling and ventilation systems) | Increased technical complexity | Right-sized systems prioritising simplicity and robustness |
| Financial framing | Maximisation of subsidies and investment | Bias toward larger renovation scopes | Life-cycle cost and avoided-impact framing |
Figure 2
Contrasting performance- and sufficiency-oriented framings across renovation decision stages.
Table 2
Integrating sufficiency into one-stop-shop (OSS) processes.
| RENOVATION STAGE | RELEVANT SUFFICIENCY DIMENSIONS | SUFFICIENCY-ORIENTED OSS PRINCIPLES |
|---|---|---|
| Initial assessment | Spatial sufficiency, performance | Assessment of actual use and comfort needs |
| Objective setting | Performance | Definition of acceptable performance ranges |
| Scenario development | Spatial sufficiency, material | Inclusion of partial and staged options |
| Component-level intervention | Spatial sufficiency, material | Identification of sufficiency opportunities embedded in efficiency measures, such as spatial reorganisation or subdivision potential unlocked by component-level renovation |
| Technical design | Technical, material | Demand-driven system sizing |
| Financing | Material, technical | Life-cycle-based evaluation |
| Post-renovation | Performance | Stabilisation of comfort expectations and monitoring of actual occupancy and usage relative to renovation assumptions |
Figure 3
Relative salience of sufficiency dimensions across renovation decision stages in one-stop-shop (OSS) processes.
Table 3
Analytical positioning of performance- and sufficiency-oriented one-stop-shop (OSS) models within an integrated renovation logic.
| ASPECT | PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED OSS | SUFFICIENCY-ORIENTED OSS |
|---|---|---|
| Primary objective | Maximise energy performance | Achieve adequate performance with limited demand |
| Renovation scope | Comprehensive or deep renovation | Context-specific renovation scope determined by necessity and proportionality, which may include comprehensive renovation where warranted by actual need and life-cycle assessment |
| System design | High modelled energy performance and system capacity (rated output) | Right-sized, simple and robust systems |
| Evaluation criteria | Energy savings, investment volume | Life-cycle impacts and avoided interventions |
| Advisory role | Encourage higher ambition | Support proportional decision-making |
Figure 4
Decision logics in performance- and sufficiency-oriented renovation one-stop shops (OSS): an analytical comparison.