A Scalable and Standardized Methodology for the Comparative Cost–Benefit Evaluation of Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) Technologies Across Europe.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Scalable and Standardized Methodology for the Comparative Cost–Benefit Evaluation of Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) Technologies Across Europe. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ersener, Turkay1 (AUTHOR), Koukaras, Paraskevas2,3 (AUTHOR), Ioannidis, Dimosthenis2,3 (AUTHOR), Tjortjis, Christos1,3 (AUTHOR), Ioannou, Byron1,2 (AUTHOR), Fokaides, Paris1,3 (AUTHOR) eng.fp@frederick.ac.cy |
| Source: | Energies (19961073). Nov2025, Vol. 18 Issue 21, p5825. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Cost benefit analysis, Smart devices, Cost effectiveness, Contextual analysis, Sustainable development, Built environment, Energy consumption, Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations) |
| Geographic Terms: | Netherlands, Europe, Italy |
| Abstract: | As the importance of energy efficiency and smart readiness in the building sector has been on the rise, the financial evaluation of smart-ready technologies (SRTs) remains a gap in this field. This study introduces a methodology that comparatively evaluates the cost–benefit relationship between 11 different SRTs across three European countries—Cyprus, Italy and The Netherlands. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for energy-focused aspects such as Country-Specific Energy Savings Potential (CSESP) and Seasonal Smart Efficiency Coefficient (SSEC) and financial aspects such as Smart Readiness Cost Index (SRCI), Labor Cost Impact Factor (LCIF), Return on Smart Investment (RoSI), and Smart Investment Break-Even Period (SIBEP) were used to quantify the performance of the SRTs. The results indicate that regional labor rates, energy pricing, and climatic conditions—as well as relative technology cost–benefit tradeoffs—play a significant role in the economic viability of smart-ready devices. Having low labor costs and energy pricing, Cyprus exhibited the most cost-effective outcomes among the three countries. Italy showed strong returns although the initial investments were higher. The Netherlands was observed to benefit the most from heating-oriented technologies. The study comes to the conclusion that regionally specific methods are necessary for the adoption of SRTs and that techno-economic performance cannot be assessed separately from local market dynamics. The proposed framework supports stakeholders and policymakers in smart building investment and planning by offering a scalable method for device-level benchmarking. These indicators are developed specifically for this study and are not part of the official EU SRI (Smart Readiness Indicator) methodology. Their inclusion supports device-level evaluation and complements ongoing efforts toward SRI standardization. This research directly addresses Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy, as well as SDG 11 on Sustainable Development, by evaluating how smart-ready technologies can contribute to energy efficiency and decarbonization in buildings. Based on the results, further research is needed to expand the indicator framework to additional technologies, include building typology effects, and integrate dynamic factors such as CO2 pricing and real-time tariffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Energies (19961073) is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | As the importance of energy efficiency and smart readiness in the building sector has been on the rise, the financial evaluation of smart-ready technologies (SRTs) remains a gap in this field. This study introduces a methodology that comparatively evaluates the cost–benefit relationship between 11 different SRTs across three European countries—Cyprus, Italy and The Netherlands. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for energy-focused aspects such as Country-Specific Energy Savings Potential (CSESP) and Seasonal Smart Efficiency Coefficient (SSEC) and financial aspects such as Smart Readiness Cost Index (SRCI), Labor Cost Impact Factor (LCIF), Return on Smart Investment (RoSI), and Smart Investment Break-Even Period (SIBEP) were used to quantify the performance of the SRTs. The results indicate that regional labor rates, energy pricing, and climatic conditions—as well as relative technology cost–benefit tradeoffs—play a significant role in the economic viability of smart-ready devices. Having low labor costs and energy pricing, Cyprus exhibited the most cost-effective outcomes among the three countries. Italy showed strong returns although the initial investments were higher. The Netherlands was observed to benefit the most from heating-oriented technologies. The study comes to the conclusion that regionally specific methods are necessary for the adoption of SRTs and that techno-economic performance cannot be assessed separately from local market dynamics. The proposed framework supports stakeholders and policymakers in smart building investment and planning by offering a scalable method for device-level benchmarking. These indicators are developed specifically for this study and are not part of the official EU SRI (Smart Readiness Indicator) methodology. Their inclusion supports device-level evaluation and complements ongoing efforts toward SRI standardization. This research directly addresses Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy, as well as SDG 11 on Sustainable Development, by evaluating how smart-ready technologies can contribute to energy efficiency and decarbonization in buildings. Based on the results, further research is needed to expand the indicator framework to additional technologies, include building typology effects, and integrate dynamic factors such as CO2 pricing and real-time tariffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 19961073 |
| DOI: | 10.3390/en18215825 |
