Modus vocationis: Capacity-building for assessing the multiple impacts of energy efficiency in energy planning practices

Capacity-building initiatives for EE planning across the EU

Several EU initiatives have promoted capacity-building activities of the EED transposition. The Concerted Action (CA EED, 2022) fosters capacity-building for EU stakeholders engaged in energy planning through thematic workshops, peer-learning events, and webinars. It focuses on EE obligations, metering, monitoring, and sharing best practices among national experts. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) designed the initiative “Work with Evidence” to improve policymakers’ competence in evidence-informed policymaking (European Commission, 2025). Capacity-building on financing and cost-efficiency is promoted through the European Energy Efficiency Financing Coalition (DG ENER, 2026), which targets and bridges financial institutions and companies to enable EE investments.

ManagEnergy Masterclass (2026) focuses on sustainable energy investments, project scaling, and advancing energy communities through energy management seminars. EU-Peers (2026) builds a Community of Practice across nine priority EU MSs, promoting integrated home renovation services and One-Stop Shops (OSS) to speed EE integration in building renovation.

EUKI Academy (2026) builds capacity for public authorities, energy agencies, and NGOs across EU MSs, supporting climate action plans, energy and climate roadmaps, and renovation strategies within EE frameworks. The European City Facility (EUCF, 2026) helps local public bodies develop investment concepts, implement EE measures and climate plans, access funding, and receive technical support. EU vocational training initiatives for EE and RES expertise in the workforce have also been launched (COVE (2026), BUILD UP (2026a)) to boost EE integration at the implementation stage.

Capacity-building for planners is promoted through EU-funded projects. SPARKLE (2026) offers in-person sessions for EU stakeholders, focusing on fossil-free districts, community energy, sustainable food systems, and resource-efficient economies, while mentoring for the preparation of Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAPs). In Austria, IncorporatEE (SanierungsPLUS, 2026) supports municipal staff and planners with training on energy performance quality assurance in renovations.

The BUSHROSS project (Sofia Energy Centre, 2025) supports Bulgarian authorities and energy agencies in establishing OSS for residential energy refurbishment. LIFE PLAN4COLD (2026) helps Croatia, Greece, and Portugal design and implement Sustainable Heating and Cooling Plans through targeted training. IN-PLAN (FEDARENE, 2026) advances EE planning via train-the-trainer approaches. Enefirst+ (IEECP, 2026) delivers training in Croatia, Poland, and Greece for EE integration in SECAPs, cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and investment strategies.

Easy Energy (Interreg Baltic Sea Region, 2025) helps Polish municipalities and businesses cut energy use in existing buildings and trains practitioners in low-cost EE-oriented solutions. In Spain, LOGREENER (Nicolau, 2025) promotes cross-sectoral EE planning for local strategies, including SME-focused training.

Despite the plethora of EU capacity-building initiatives for energy planners, several challenges persist. Programs are often disrupted, ending once funding or the initiative concludes. Pre-designed training formats may not adapt to national planners’ needs or planning gaps. Top-down structures may also lack iteration and feedback, limit adaptation and contributing to fragmented skills and competencies.

While understanding MI requires cross-sectoral approaches, many programs are siloed and often unknown to local governments (Salvia et al., 2021). Professional EE capacity-building lacks uniformity, while utilisation is limited, with specialised curricula reaching only certain sector actors (Alhamami et al., 2020). Consequently, planning obstacles persist, including a dearth of data, skills, and effective administration (Herrando et al., 2022).

Considering the detected gaps in the established EU-initiated capacity-building activities on EE and MI, we formulate the following research question: In what ways can capacity-building initiatives aimed at capturing and quantifying the MI of EE contribute to bridging EE planning gaps across the EU? This study examines how capacity-building activities can support EU planners in integrating EE and its MI into policy and investment planning, thereby helping to overcome persistent planning barriers. To achieve responding to the research question, two preliminary questions were formulated: i) What are the EE planning goals of EU countries?, and ii) What are the EE planning barriers of EU countries? The responses to these initial questions lay the groundwork for understanding the context, goals, barriers, and needs of EU planners, which, in practice, capacity-building activities should address. The analysis draws on insights generated through training activities organised within the SEED MICAT project (2023) on the use of the Multiple Impacts Assessment Tool (MICATool).

The SEED MICAT Project and the MICATool

The EU-funded SEED MICAT (2023) project supports stakeholders engaged with policymaking in integrating the MI of EE into investment and policy assessments, advancing the EE1^st principle in energy planning. Its core tool, the MICATool, enables policy scenarios comparisons, analysis of EE measures energy savings, quantification and monetisation of MI across planning sectors, and comprehensive CBAs.

The tool’s use requires users to first input their estimates on energy savings expected from measures (Figure 1), serving as the basis for assessing the social, environmental, and economic impacts across sectors, including industry, residential, transportation, and agriculture (Figure 2). In parallel, the tool’s connection to readily available datasets on EU policy measures and energy savings enables assessments to be complemented and validated using online databases, such as ODYSSEE-MURE (ODYSSEE, 2026).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Conceptual framework

To establish the methodological approach for assessing the value and relevance of capacity-building in EE planning, we conceptualise the planning practice as a system of activities. Accordingly, we draw on the Driving Force–State–Response (DSR) framework for sustainable planning, developed by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). This framework provides a consistent set of indicators for assessing progress toward a sustainable energy future (Meyar-Naimi & Vaez-Zadeh, 2012).

The DSR framework, employed initially in the domains of agriculture (Parris, 1996) and land use management (Yu et al., 2003), entails three tenets: the “Driving Force”, referring to human activities affecting the sustainability of a system; the “State” describing the planning system’s conditions (e.g., economy, natural resources); and the “Responses”, encompassing policy actions, and behavioral reactions. As Meyar-Naimi & Vaez-Zadeh (2012) argue, the DSR framework was further reinforced through the development of a set of Indicators for Sustainable Energy Development (ISED), by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2005) (Figure 3). These indicators – spanning social, economic, and environmental dimensions – provide a holistic framework for sustainable development, by capturing the multiple domains affected by planning activities.

Figure 3

The DSR framework, combined with the ISED indicators, allows us to comprehensively “map” contextual status-quo or “State” across the economic, environmental, and social domains, the “Driving Forces”, or the urgencies and factors that drive environmental and socio-economic conditions changes, and the “Responses”, or the actions and reactions by stakeholders engaged in planning, including civil society.

Within the sustainable planning circuit illustrated by the DSR framework, capacity-building activities can be positioned as an incremental and integrative element (Figure 4) acting as a vehicle for detecting planning gaps and enabling informed planning practices through targeted knowledge dissemination. Capacity-building is defined as the means of delivering deep learning to planners, enabling the development of skills and expertise within multilevel systems (Domorenok & Prontera, 2021), and boosting knowledge infrastructure towards solutions’ leadership, ownership (Cannone et al., 2023), and legitimacy (Edmunds et al., 2018).

Figure 4

Following this framework, the SEED MICAT capacity-building activities act as a deliberate response mechanism within the planning system. Within the project, a comprehensive strategy was employed, delivering capacity-building activities for national stakeholders engaged in energy planning across the EU. These activities aimed to disseminate information about the MICATool through workshops, events, and dedicated training sessions. At the same time, they allowed participants to reflect on the needs, barriers, status quo, means, and goals (or “State”, “Driving Forces”, and “Responses”) within their energy planning systems.

Data collection

Data collection was performed through audio recordings and systematic minute-taking during dedicated training sessions involving organisation representatives from 7 MSs. Following the training completion, an online survey was distributed via email to gather further reflections on the MI tool applicability (Appendix A). Both the training’s Q&A session and the survey followed the same set of questions, enabling a homogeneous – primarily qualitative – material collection, including participant quotes and testimonies (Appendix A.). Therefore, the unit of analysis in this qualitative study is “chunks” of text, derived from minute reports, surveys, and recordings. The agenda of the dedicated training sessions delivered is presented in Table 1.

Data analysis methodology

From November 2023 until February 2026, over 250 stakeholders were introduced to the MICATool, via targeted workshops, events, and trainings. In this study, we present the analysis of qualitative inputs collected during dedicated trainings with 21 stakeholders (Table 2), representing 11 different organisations from 7 EU countries, delivered between July 2025 and February 2026.

Participants represented National and Regional Energy Agencies, Ministries, Research Institutes, and Foundations. The organisations were invited directly, to secure their participation in the sessions. Key selection criteria included versatile activities across domains and geographies, policy-making impact at various governance levels, and EU-funded project experience.

The material collected during the trainings was analysed following a three-step procedure (Figure 5). First, a thematic clustering was developed for “Planning Goals” related to EE, based on recurring themes identified across the participants. These common themes were defined through iterative comparison of the reported planning goals. Then, a thematic clustering of the “Planning Barriers” captured recurring constraints identified by stakeholders.

Figure 5

With this three-step analysis, the research team aspired to undertake an interpretative assessment and discussion of the EE planning goals and barriers, to consider the added value of the trainings within the national and cross-national regulatory and policy contexts, and to examine their role within the planning systems under study.

Content analysis

Tables 3 and 4 present the thematic analysis results of the qualitative material collected during the training sessions, and the follow-up survey. As mentioned, the results are structured under the main themes of EE Planning Goals (PG) and Planning Barriers (PB). For each PG and PB, we indicate the country to which the detected goal or barrier is relevant, and present the corresponding quote or testimony captured during the sessions or in the survey.

The capacity-building activities’ value and relevance at the national level

Based on the tripartite discussion approach, we first consider how capacity-building on the MICATool supports planners in aligning with national planning trajectories, while understanding the gaps and barriers that prevent them from effectively incorporating them in EE-oriented planning.

The capacity-building activities’ value and cross-national relevance

The MICATool trainings address the needs for expertise and knowledge development across a range of common themes in the EU. Organisational representatives highlighted the tool’s value in supporting funding schemes evaluation and subsidy schemes design (PG1; PL, PT), under the NECP frameworks, owing to its monetised output. These outputs can further support EE-oriented investment decisions and business model assessments (PG2). The tool’s assessment and quantification capabilities were also considered particularly relevant for the domains of buildings and EP, especially in relation to household energy-upgrade schemes (PG3; AU, PL) and national plan improvements (PG3; HR, ES). Similarly, participants highlighted its applicability in supporting energy system transitions in industry (PG4; AU) and renewable energy (PG4; PT), as well as in enabling modal shifts (PG5; BG, ES).

Despite the tool’s recognised potential, persistent planning barriers were identified across the countries. The recurrent issue of data (un)availability (PB1) points to systemic issues in data collection and continuous monitoring across domains and sectors, highlighting the need for cross-level collaboration and silo-breaking to enable effective cross-sectoral data integration. Issues related to “Indicators interpretation misalignment & Inefficient indicators” (PB2) reflect difficulties in adapting assessment frameworks to local planning levels, particularly in sectors closely tied to local specificities (e.g., EP). The lack of targeted expertise (PB3) in assessing energy savings – an essential input for the tool – further underscores the fragmented skills across sectors and governance levels. Finally, although participants acknowledged the strong value of the tools’ visualisation capabilities in supporting public debates, communication-related challenges (PB4) persist.

Capacity-building as a vehicle towards EE within the planning system

The facilitated discussions, hands-on experimentation with the tool during the training sessions, and the completion of the follow-up survey enabled a dialectical feedback process that supported bidirectional knowledge exchange between the trainers and the organisational representatives. In practice, the capacity-building activities operated in two complementary ways: on the one hand, they served to deliver knowledge on the quantification and monetisation of EE MI. On the other hand, they provided a structured setting for participants to reflect on and report the different parameters that affect EE-oriented planning across the different stages and domains of their planning system – namely “Driving force”, “Response”, and “State”.

Participants, for instance, identified key “driving forces”, understood as underlying urgencies and needs that motivate action, such as addressing EP, improving housing conditions, and enabling viable business models. They also reflected on the decisions and plans they aim to implement based on these drivers across sectors, including industrial energy transitions, EE-oriented investment incentives, building renovations, and modal shifts. In this sense, the thematic PGs can be interpreted as “responses” within each planning system, which the tool and associated learning processes are intended to support. Finally, a series of recurring issues, clustered as PBs, relates closely to the challenges in quantification and monetisation of EE MI across countries. These include data availability, methodological misalignments, and communication barriers, all of which reflect the current “state” of participants’ planning contexts.

Overall, the study showcased that capacity-building in understanding and capturing EE MI can be conceptualised as an incremental and multifaceted component of planning systems. It not only facilitates skills development and knowledge exchange but also enables holistic, multi-level situational analyses, thereby helping bridge gaps in EE-oriented planning.

Limitations

This study is subject to several limitations. The qualitative design and relatively small participant pool limit generalisability, while testimonies may be subject to misinterpretation, as potential biases among organisational representatives are hard to trace. Additionally, the interpretation of qualitative data is inherently influenced by researchers’ perspectives, which may introduce interpretive bias despite efforts to ensure analytical rigour. The Q&A session following the training may not capture all perspectives, and analytical depth is limited by the few testimonies per country. Findings are exploratory, offering early insights into capacity-building for integrating EE impacts in planning practices.

The study’s results also highlight the constraints in the tool’s ability to fully address planners’ needs and overcome barriers. For example, outdated data in certain sectors, as well as difficulties accessing regional-level information, limit the widespread use of the MICATool. Language barriers and variation in methodological approaches across planning contexts further limit the tool’s effectiveness.