In this part of the meeting, a set of 11 questions were opened to trigger discussion among participants.
On Question 1 about awareness raising, 54% of participants voted that awareness raising is probably effective and another 19% that it is very effective, against 23% who voted for not effective, although there was some discussion about the definition of ‘effective’ which could further influence the results. It is clear that it is very difficult to come to options 2-6 if there is no awareness, however awareness on itself is not effective in terms of directly influencing energy use and indoor air quality.
Question 2 was about the level of awareness considered existing in EU countries. 44% of participants voted for an overall lack of knowledge about performances in EU countries.
Training, considered in Question 3, received 21% votes for being considered very effective and 63% for probably effective. Question 4 was about the extent to which training can affect performances. Here, 60% of stakeholders answered that training needs to be supplemented by other measures, and 36% that training of both designers and installers can lead to improved performances. Discussion highlighted that other factors, e.g., cost and time, may affect the performance even in cases where training is available. It was also noted that system effectiveness decreases over time despite of training. It was questioned whether training is beneficial on its own, but its value as supportive measure is clear.
Visual inspection, Question 5, is considered by 12,5% to be very effective and by 29,2% probably effective, under the condition that the inspector is qualified. It was noted that visual inspection cannot detect all problems, therefore its’ effectiveness depends on the type of ventilation system. There seemed to be consensus that visual inspections could be included in the EPC. On the question whether stakeholders would support visual inspection, Question 6, 33% said “yes, but by a limited share of stakeholders” and 21% “yes, by most stakeholders”. There was a note that the content of visual inspections is already part of the initial handover and the need to make sure that the system also functions properly.
On Question 7, on whether stakeholders would support requirements on inspection with measurements, 4% of participants voted for “yes, full support” and 48% for “yes, supported by most stakeholders”. Concurrently, on stakeholder support for inspection with requirements and obligation to make the system compliant, Question 8, 9,5% of participants answered “yes, full stakeholder support” and 38% “yes, supported by most stakeholders”.
Comparing the results of the previous questions, in Question 9, there was discussion about the need or not to have inspection at hand over and the role of the customer in this.
Stakeholders consider requirements on indoor air quality, Question 10, to be either very effective (16,7%) or probably effective (63%). There was some discussion around how to check compliance with such requirements (e.g. continuous monitoring).
Finally, in Question 11, stakeholders were asked which policy option they would prefer in their national context for new residential ventilation systems. The options chosen, presented by number of votes, were:
- Inspection with measurement and compliance
- Inspection with measurement / requirements for indoor air quality (same votes)
- Awareness raising
- Training
Download document