Posted on: 11th March 2025
Note: This page provides a shortened summary of the extensive case study, which includes the research, the simulation and Matrix scoring results, as well as recommendations. For the whole document, simply click here and download as a .pdf file.
Introduction
The growing concerns about climate change have led Türkiye to take governmental action, as it is considered one of the countries unfavorably affected by climate change; thus, it is listed among high-risk countries. In Türkiye, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization was renamed the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change on October 29, 2021, to further address the issue of climate change at the governmental level. A ground example is the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2016. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, Türkiye aims to decrease its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 21% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2053.
The “Çamlık District,” is located in Ankara, Türkiye, where a typical continental climate pattern is observed with dry bulb temperatures ranging between -7 and 35oC throughout the year. The chosen district consists of 257 residential buildings which are attached to each other in several rows, along with 1 central building used by the inhabitants for recreational activities. The district has a total area of 50.800 m2, approximately 22.600 m2 of which is conditioned. The buildings mostly utilize two floors, but many buildings have repurposed the attic as a third floor. Even though the residential buildings are alike, there are several differences in their roof geometry and envelope materials due to previous retrofitting and surrounding shading elements. The footprint of the district was created with site plans obtained from the municipal archives. The information regarding building geometry, such as floor height and roof slope, was determined by observations and measurements made on the field.
Building energy models were developed using the Grasshopper Ladybug Interface [26] and EnergyPlus 9.2 simulation engine [27]. The 3D models of the selected districts were obtained from the municipality records. The semantic data assigned to the 3D model provided thermal properties of building structural elements (i.e., U-values of wall, roof, ground, and windows), the efficiency of the used heating/cooling system, infiltration rate as well as zone-based properties which reflect the occupant behavior, including heating and cooling set points, occupant, lighting and electrical equipment densities. While some of this semantic data was available through existing documentation, others were missing.
2. Methodology of Research
The methodology included evaluating the existing building blocks’ thermal and electrical energy consumption, calibrating the models with actual consumption data and increasing energy efficiency through envelope retrofitting applications, integrating renewable energy sources, and ultimately analyzing the potential for a PED transition in the district. Initially, a base model (Vbase) was developed using the existing building documents. This model was then calibrated with utility bills and the Actual Meteorological Year (AMY) weather data to produce an accurate base model Vbase (Calibrated). Following, three consecutive scenarios were developed and evaluated. The first scenario (VER) focused on an envelope retrofit to reduce heating and cooling loads. The second scenario (VER,HP) integrated a heat pump into the previous VER model, converting thermal loads into electrical loads. Finally, the third scenario (VER,HP,PV) incorporated PV panels for renewable energy generation, with outputs that provided potentials of the generated renewable energy. Upon the consecutive application of these steps, an overall evaluation of the potential for becoming a PED was aimed in this study.
To synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data, a Positive Energy District (PED) matrix was developed. The matrix allowed for the systematic evaluation of the current situation and areas for improvement across multiple dimensions, such as energy performance, governance, and community engagement. This structured analysis facilitated the identification of potential synergies and challenges, offering insights into pathways for optimization.
Assessment of the case based on the PED Matrix criteria
The project was assessed across eight key aspects—Social, Process, Technical, Governance, Environmental, Legal, Financial, and Managerial—revealing strengths and identifying areas for improvement to support a well-rounded PED strategy.
Overview of key scoring aspects
Managerial Aspects
The managerial framework of the case reveals both opportunities and gaps.
The energy community has no moderate sustaining managerial capacity. Some systems are in place, but they may not fully support long-term sustainability.
It also exhibits moderate awareness among stakeholders. Some engagement does exist, however it doesn’t seem to be enough to drive effective participation.
The project has moderate clarity on decision-making. The decision-making process and followed values are somewhat clear, but some stakeholders lack access or understanding of how decisions are made.
In terms of capacity building and training, there are minimal efforts from the municipalities for capacity building.
Social Aspects
Stakeholder engagement is minimal, with only a few groups represented. There are significant barriers preventing participation from diverse community members, leading to a lack of varied perspectives in the decision-making process. Communication about the PED process is inadequate. Therefore, Despite efforts to enhance community engagement, they’ve proved ineffective in fostering broader social inclusion.
Some social barriers have been identified within the context of the PED, including issues related to trust, communication, or inclusiveness. However, the assessment may not encompass the full range of barriers affecting diverse community members. While there are efforts to address these barriers, they may be insufficient to facilitate meaningful participation in the PED process, particularly in addressing the socio-cultural dynamics of the district, as the focus remained on technical interventions like retrofitting and renewable energy integration rather than fostering inclusivness or trust within the community.
The pilot developers have implemented some initiatives aimed at fostering social interaction among community members. Events or platforms exist that encourage participation, but involvement may still be limited to a subset of the community. The project emphasizes shared benefits of the PED through energy-saving strategies and renewable energy applications; however, these efforts primarily focus on technical aspects and lack broader engagement initiatives to include the entire community.
The Process
Basic information is mostly clear and available. The project presentation is descriptive, visual representations are included but may lack detail or organization. Categorization is present but could be more structured to enhance understanding. The project provides a clear and descriptive presentation of the case study, including detailed textual information, visual representations such as diagrams, and a structured roadmap for planning and implementation. However, while technical details and retrofit scenarios are well-documented, the accessibility and organization of social engagement processes and broader community impact remain less comprehensive.
The project phase is clearly stated as either planning, implementation, technical implementation completed, or operational. This clarity allows to better understand the project’s progress and what next steps and needs may be required. The project phase is clearly identified as focusing on technical implementation, including the integration of building envelope retrofitting, heat pumps, and PV systems.
Data is difficult to access, with significant barriers preventing stakeholders from obtaining necessary information. This hampers decision-making and project progress, as well as reduces stakeholder support options.
Accessibility is limited. Some key contacts are reachable, but there are significant challenges in obtaining their information or the exchange brings no results. Stakeholders may have difficulty engaging effectively with project representatives.
The case has poor capacity to react flexible in unforeseen situations. Key responsibilities and rights are defined, but the people in charge are not prepared for deviations, worst case scenarios and also don’t know where to get help. There is still substantial risk that the poor capacity of the team, may lead to project failure(s).
Technical Aspects
Energy efficiency implementation is lacking. All of the buildings in the pilot area are very old buildings and have very low efficiency.
No renewable energy solutions are integrated specifically in the area, however, there is a solar PV farm of the municipality that produces renewable energy for the whole neighborhood.
No storage or flexibility solutions implemented for this area.
Likewise, no smart devices have been implemented in the area.
In terms of optimized energy balance, the project displays poor coverage of energy needs. The local production yet covers a rather small part of local energy needs.
Governance Aspects
The pilot has a moderate governance structure. The governance structure is established, informs well the manegement team and has limited functionallity. The parties are not empowered enough to handle the operational tasks fully.
Co-creation opportunities are poor with the project. Stakeholder input is minimal or primarily consultative without meaningful influence. There are no obligations in the governance framework to improve it.
The project demonstrates moderate transparency by providing detailed technical and performance data, such as energy demand reductions and PV outputs, which are accessible to stakeholders. However, governance practices, decision-making processes, and their alignment with fostering trust and engagement among all stakeholders are not comprehensively addressed, limiting full transparency.
Some criterias for good governing are defined in the project, however the evaluation has very low impact on the governance and is not motivating enough to take action.
The energy project addresses only a few strategic areas or lacks coherence with broader sustainability goals.
Environmental Aspects
The project effectively reduces resource consumption through strategies like envelope retrofitting and integration of heat pumps and PV systems, achieving significant reductions in energy demand and emissions. However, broader sustainability concepts such as circular economy, nature-based solutions, and sustainable mobility are not explicitly incorporated into the pilot, limiting its comprehensive approach to resource consumption reduction.
The project implements carbon emission reduction strategies, achieving an 87% reduction in emissions and zero emissions in some scenarios with renewable energy surplus. However, complementary measures such as greening projects or carbon offset initiatives are not addressed, limiting a holistic approach to achieving zero emissions.
The case displays poor adoption of circular practices, with minimal efforts towards a circular economy; practices are largely conventional, stemming from linear economy.
Legal Aspects
The case is considered to have poor alignment with compliance to laws and regulations, with significant legal adjustments. As a result, the Pilot is risking (to some extent) legal and operational feasibility.
The case has moderate alignment regarding compliance with building codes and land-use regulations. Some adjustments are needed due to regulatory restrictions, however the pilot still is able to innovate.
The case has poor access to legally proven solutions, creating high uncertainty and increased risk in implementation. This makes project success uncertain due to a lack of tested approaches. Legal support is lengthy and expensive. According to the Turkish law, numbered 6698 “personal data protection law”, the citizens’ data is secured by law and municipalities are obliged to follow these restrictions.
Financial Aspects
There are some funding possibilities , with certain restrictions or challenges in accessing financial resources.
The pilot case has limited funding with high dependency on unstable incentives, which poses risks to project sustainability. Incentives and funding by local and central governments are still insufficient.
The case offers limited efforts towards financial equity; project benefits are unevenly distributed, and financial barriers limit access for lower-income participants. Whats more, high financial barriers exclude lower-income or underrepresented groups from participation and benefits.
The case exhibits a partially sustainable business model; some risk in ROI, but still viable for mid-term stability.It also offers a limited investment model. Effectiveness relies on to many eventualities. The plan poses a risk to future operationality..
