Abstract
This dissertation examines the multifaceted effects of mandatory landlord retrofit obligations on residential rental markets, synthesising empirical evidence from across Europe to evaluate impacts on rents, housing supply, and tenant living standards. Through systematic literature synthesis, the research demonstrates that retrofit obligations frequently increase housing costs when regulatory frameworks permit landlords to pass through expenses, with German studies revealing that over half of tenants experience higher combined housing and energy costs post-retrofit despite substantial energy savings. Market analyses consistently indicate that rental green premiums remain insufficient to recoup retrofit investments, creating conditions where landlords either depend upon legal surcharges and subsidies or systematically underinvest. However, the evidence also demonstrates significant improvements in thermal comfort, reduced fuel poverty, and enhanced health outcomes, particularly among disadvantaged populations. The research concludes that policy design fundamentally determines outcomes: well-structured obligations incorporating robust subsidies, tenant protections, and quality standards can deliver substantial welfare improvements without materially contracting rental supply, whereas poorly designed mandates risk increasing costs whilst reducing housing availability. These findings carry significant implications for policymakers seeking to balance decarbonisation objectives with housing affordability and security concerns.
Introduction
The residential building sector accounts for approximately one-quarter of total energy consumption across European Union member states, with existing housing stock representing a critical challenge for climate policy (European Commission, 2020). Recognising this, governments increasingly mandate that private landlords undertake energy efficiency retrofits, ranging from minimum energy performance standards to comprehensive deep retrofit requirements. These obligations form part of broader strategies to achieve net-zero carbon emissions whilst simultaneously addressing fuel poverty and improving housing quality. However, such mandates operate within complex market dynamics where the costs, benefits, and behavioural responses of landlords and tenants interact in ways that may produce unintended consequences.
The fundamental tension underlying retrofit obligations lies in the well-documented ‘landlord-tenant dilemma’ or ‘split incentive problem’. Landlords bear the capital costs of energy efficiency improvements whilst tenants primarily capture the operational savings through reduced energy bills. This misalignment creates persistent underinvestment in rental property energy efficiency compared to owner-occupied housing (Reutter, 2025). Mandatory retrofit obligations attempt to overcome this market failure by compelling investment regardless of private financial incentives. Yet this compulsion introduces secondary effects: landlords may seek to recover costs through higher rents, exit the rental market entirely, or redirect properties toward less regulated uses such as short-term lettings or owner-occupation.
The academic and policy importance of understanding these dynamics has intensified considerably. The United Kingdom’s Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards require private rental properties to achieve minimum Energy Performance Certificate ratings, with progressive tightening anticipated. Germany’s comprehensive regulatory framework permits landlords to pass specific percentages of retrofit investment through to tenants. Similar policies exist or are emerging across the Netherlands, France, and other European jurisdictions. Yet empirical evidence regarding actual market outcomes remains fragmented, with studies variously emphasising rent impacts, supply effects, or welfare improvements without systematically integrating these dimensions.
This research matters practically because poorly designed obligations could simultaneously increase housing costs for vulnerable tenants, reduce rental housing availability, and fail to achieve intended environmental benefits. Conversely, well-structured policies might deliver genuine improvements in living standards, reduce health inequalities, and contribute meaningfully to climate objectives whilst maintaining housing market stability. Understanding which design features produce which outcomes is therefore essential for evidence-based policymaking.
The social significance extends beyond market efficiency considerations. Tenants in private rental housing are disproportionately represented among lower-income households and experience higher rates of fuel poverty than owner-occupiers. Retrofit obligations that raise rents without adequately sharing energy savings could exacerbate rather than alleviate these inequalities. Conversely, improvements in housing quality, thermal comfort, and indoor air quality carry substantial health benefits that accrue primarily to occupants, potentially reducing healthcare costs and improving quality of life for disadvantaged populations.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate the effects of mandatory landlord retrofit obligations on rental market outcomes, specifically examining impacts on rents, housing supply, and tenant living standards, whilst identifying policy design features that influence these effects.
To achieve this aim, the research pursues the following specific objectives:
1. To synthesise empirical evidence regarding the impact of retrofit obligations and associated cost pass-through mechanisms on rents and total housing costs for tenants.
2. To examine how retrofit mandates affect rental housing supply, including landlord investment decisions, market exit behaviours, and property tenure conversions.
3. To evaluate evidence concerning the effects of residential retrofits on tenant welfare, encompassing thermal comfort, fuel poverty, health outcomes, and indoor environmental quality.
4. To identify policy design features, regulatory structures, and complementary measures that moderate the relationship between retrofit obligations and market outcomes.
5. To develop evidence-based recommendations for policymakers seeking to implement retrofit obligations that balance environmental objectives with housing market stability and tenant welfare.
Methodology
This research adopts a systematic literature synthesis methodology, drawing upon peer-reviewed empirical studies, policy analyses, and institutional reports to evaluate the effects of landlord retrofit obligations on rental markets. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when the research aim requires integrating diverse empirical findings across multiple contexts, outcome measures, and study designs to develop comprehensive understanding of complex policy phenomena.
The literature search strategy prioritised academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, employing search terms combining variations of ‘retrofit’, ‘energy efficiency’, ‘rental housing’, ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’, ‘rent control’, ‘housing supply’, and related terminology. Given the geographic concentration of relevant regulatory frameworks and empirical research, particular attention was paid to studies examining German, British, Dutch, and other European contexts where mandatory retrofit obligations exist or have been extensively analysed.
Inclusion criteria required that studies provide empirical evidence regarding at least one of three primary outcome domains: rental costs and affordability, housing supply effects, or tenant welfare and living standards. Both quantitative studies employing econometric methods, hedonic modelling, or experimental designs, and qualitative research examining stakeholder perspectives and implementation processes, were included where methodologically rigorous. Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on owner-occupied housing without implications for rental markets, examined voluntary retrofit programmes without mandatory elements, or lacked sufficient methodological transparency.
The synthesis approach followed thematic analysis principles, grouping findings according to outcome domain whilst attending to methodological characteristics, geographic context, and policy design features that might explain heterogeneity in findings. Where studies examined multiple outcomes, findings were extracted and categorised accordingly. Critical appraisal of individual studies considered sample characteristics, measurement approaches, potential confounders, and generalisability limitations.
This methodology carries inherent limitations. Literature synthesis cannot generate new primary data and remains constrained by the scope and quality of existing research. Publication bias may skew available evidence toward statistically significant findings. Geographic concentration of relevant research, particularly in Germany, limits generalisability to contexts with different regulatory traditions, housing market structures, and tenure patterns. The relatively recent implementation of many retrofit obligations means that long-term supply effects may not yet be observable in empirical data.
Literature review
The landlord-tenant dilemma and market failure
The theoretical foundation for mandatory retrofit obligations rests upon well-established analysis of split incentives in rental housing markets. Landlords who undertake energy efficiency investments bear immediate capital costs whilst tenants capture ongoing energy savings through reduced utility bills. Unless landlords can increase rents proportionally to their investment, the private return on retrofit expenditure falls below socially optimal levels, resulting in systematic underinvestment. Reutter (2025) provides comprehensive economic modelling demonstrating that prevailing tenancy law creates inefficient incentives for energy saving, with market-based solutions failing to overcome the fundamental misalignment between who pays and who benefits.
This market failure justifies regulatory intervention but does not predetermine the form such intervention should take. Policy options range from information provision and voluntary certification schemes through financial incentives and subsidies to mandatory minimum standards with varying degrees of cost allocation between landlords and tenants. Each approach carries distinct implications for rent levels, investment incentives, and distributional outcomes. Understanding how different regulatory designs affect market outcomes therefore requires empirical investigation rather than theoretical deduction alone.
Effects on rents and tenant housing costs
Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that retrofit obligations raise rents or total housing costs when regulatory frameworks permit landlords to pass through investment expenses. German tenancy law provides a particularly well-documented case, allowing landlords to add eight to eleven percent of retrofit investment costs to annual rent following energy efficiency improvements. Field studies examining actual tenant experiences following retrofits reveal that these cost pass-through provisions significantly affect affordability outcomes.
Weber and Wolff (2018) conducted detailed analysis of tenants in retrofitted German residential buildings, finding that over half of tenants faced higher total housing plus energy costs after retrofit despite achieving approximately seventy percent energy savings. This counterintuitive finding reflects the magnitude of permitted rent increases relative to energy bill reductions, demonstrating that environmental benefits do not automatically translate into financial benefits for tenants. The distributional implications are particularly concerning given that many tenants in lower-quality housing eligible for retrofit are already financially constrained.
Subsequent research has reinforced these findings. Galvin (2023) examined whether rental markets adequately reward deep retrofits in western Germany’s post-war apartment stock, concluding that market mechanisms alone do not incentivise comprehensive energy efficiency investment. Rental green premiums, whilst positive, remain insufficient to recoup investment costs within reasonable payback periods. This finding implies that landlords rationally underinvest in energy efficiency unless either legal surcharges or public subsidies bridge the financial gap.
Kuhlwein and Bienert (2022) analysed German multifamily building data to assess whether retrofitting pays off from an investor perspective, finding that market rental premiums for energy-efficient properties fall substantially short of investment costs. Their analysis suggests that without regulatory provisions permitting above-market rent increases, profit-maximising landlords would rarely undertake deep retrofits. However, when such provisions exist, the financial burden shifts to tenants who may or may not benefit commensurately from energy savings.
Choice experiment research provides additional insight into tenant perspectives and preferences. Ossokina, Kerperien and Arentze (2021) conducted experimental studies with Dutch social housing tenants, finding that tenants typically require energy bill savings approximately thirty percent higher than proposed rent increases before accepting retrofit proposals. Furthermore, framing information in financial terms paradoxically reduced support for retrofits by increasing the salience of rent rises relative to more abstract environmental benefits. These findings carry important implications for stakeholder engagement and communication strategies surrounding retrofit implementation.
Ahlrichs and Rockstuhl (2022) developed fairness-based approaches to estimating appropriate rent increases following building retrofits, recognising that current legal frameworks may not adequately balance landlord cost recovery with tenant affordability. Their max-min fairness approach suggests alternative allocation mechanisms that could maintain investment incentives whilst protecting vulnerable tenants from disproportionate cost burdens.
Effects on rental housing supply
Theoretical predictions suggest that stringent retrofit obligations, particularly when combined with rent regulation limiting cost recovery, could reduce rental housing supply through several mechanisms. Landlords facing unfunded mandates may sell properties to owner-occupiers, convert to less regulated uses, or simply allow properties to deteriorate and exit the market. However, empirical evidence specifically linking retrofit obligations to supply contraction remains limited, partly because many mandatory programmes are recently implemented.
Reutter (2025) developed economic models demonstrating that if retrofit surcharges are generous but rent controls strict, rational landlords may exit rental markets or pursue redevelopment, reducing supply of affordable rental housing. This theoretical prediction aligns with broader empirical evidence regarding rent regulation effects on housing supply, though direct empirical tests for retrofit-specific obligations remain scarce.
Diamond, McQuade and Qian (2019) provide the most rigorous empirical evidence regarding rent control effects on housing supply, though their analysis focused on general rent stabilisation rather than retrofit-specific regulations. Their study of San Francisco’s rent control expansion found that affected buildings experienced a fifteen percent reduction in rental units, as landlords converted properties to condominiums, redeveloped buildings, or otherwise removed units from the rental market. Whilst this evidence does not directly address retrofit obligations, it demonstrates that regulatory burdens on landlords can substantially affect supply decisions, suggesting analogous risks from inadequately subsidised retrofit mandates.
Galvin (2023) examined German evidence suggesting that market conditions alone do not reward deep retrofits, implying that strong obligations without adequate subsidies could deter investment or push sales toward owner-occupiers. The conversion of rental properties to owner-occupation represents a particularly concerning supply effect, as it disproportionately reduces housing availability for households unable to access homeownership.
Effects on living standards and health outcomes
Despite concerns regarding rent and supply effects, substantial evidence demonstrates that residential retrofits improve tenant living standards, particularly for occupants of social and low-income housing. These improvements encompass thermal comfort, fuel poverty reduction, and measurable health benefits that carry both individual welfare and public health significance.
Tozer, MacRae and Smit (2023) examined deep-energy retrofits in households experiencing energy poverty, finding significant improvements in thermal comfort and heating affordability. Their research emphasises that retrofits can break cycles of fuel poverty where households ration heating to unaffordable levels, improving both physical comfort and psychological wellbeing. Similar findings emerged from Shwashreh, Taki and Kagioglou (2024), who analysed retrofit strategies in UK social housing specifically designed to alleviate fuel poverty, documenting substantial improvements in subjective wellbeing among affected tenants.
Avanzini et al. (2022) extended this analysis by quantifying public health cost savings from energy retrofits in Lisbon social housing. Their research demonstrated that reduced fuel poverty and improved indoor temperatures generate healthcare savings through reduced respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and mental health impacts associated with cold, damp housing conditions. This evidence supports broader cost-benefit analyses that incorporate health externalities rather than focusing narrowly on energy savings.
The systematic relationship between housing quality and health outcomes has been comprehensively reviewed by Howden-Chapman et al. (2022), who documented substantial evidence linking improved housing conditions to reduced respiratory and cardiovascular disease, particularly among disadvantaged populations. Their analysis emphasises that housing represents a social determinant of health, with retrofit programmes offering opportunities to address health inequalities through built environment improvements.
Patino and Siegel (2018) reviewed indoor environmental quality specifically in social housing contexts, finding that inadequate heating, excessive dampness, and poor ventilation contribute significantly to health disparities experienced by low-income tenants. Retrofit programmes addressing these deficiencies can substantially improve health outcomes whilst reducing healthcare utilisation among vulnerable populations.
However, evidence also identifies potential risks from poorly executed retrofits. Hashemi and Dungrani (2025) examined indoor environmental quality implications of building retrofit combined with occupant behaviour in social housing, finding that highly airtight retrofits can introduce overheating risks during warm periods and indoor air quality problems if mechanical ventilation systems are inadequate or improperly maintained. These findings underscore the importance of retrofit quality and comprehensive design approaches that address ventilation alongside insulation and airtightness improvements.
Discussion
The synthesised evidence reveals a complex picture in which landlord retrofit obligations produce heterogeneous effects depending critically upon regulatory design, subsidy availability, and implementation quality. This discussion analyses how findings address each research objective whilst identifying implications for policy and practice.
Rent impacts and affordability concerns
The evidence consistently demonstrates that retrofit obligations raise tenant housing costs when landlords can pass through investment expenses through legal surcharges. German field studies documenting that over half of tenants face higher total costs after retrofit, despite substantial energy savings, represent particularly striking findings that challenge assumptions that environmental improvements automatically benefit occupants financially. This pattern reflects the mathematics of cost pass-through: when landlords can add eight to eleven percent of capital investment to annual rent, the resulting increase typically exceeds energy bill savings unless retrofits achieve exceptional performance improvements or energy prices rise substantially.
The choice experiment evidence from Ossokina, Kerperien and Arentze (2021) adds important nuance by demonstrating that tenants intuitively recognise this imbalance, requiring energy savings substantially exceeding rent increases before accepting retrofit proposals. The finding that financial framing reduces support suggests that making cost implications explicit activates loss aversion, whilst more abstract environmental or comfort framing may secure greater acceptance despite identical net financial effects.
These findings carry significant implications for policy design. Policymakers must explicitly consider cost allocation mechanisms rather than assuming that energy savings will adequately compensate tenants for rent increases. Options include capping permissible rent increases below investment costs, requiring that rent increases not exceed documented energy savings, or providing direct subsidies that reduce the investment base from which surcharges are calculated.
Supply effects and market stability
Evidence regarding supply effects remains more limited than for rent impacts, partly reflecting the recent implementation of many mandatory retrofit programmes and partly reflecting methodological challenges in isolating retrofit-specific effects from broader housing market dynamics. However, theoretical analysis and related empirical evidence regarding rent regulation provide grounds for concern that poorly designed obligations could reduce rental housing availability.
The Diamond, McQuade and Qian (2019) findings that rent control caused fifteen percent supply reductions in San Francisco demonstrate that regulatory burdens on landlords can substantially affect supply decisions. Whilst retrofit obligations differ from rent control in important respects, they similarly impose costs that may not be fully recoverable through market rents, creating incentives for market exit, tenure conversion, or disinvestment.
Galvin (2023) and Kuhlwein and Bienert (2022) provide evidence specific to retrofit contexts, documenting that rental markets alone do not adequately reward deep energy efficiency investments. This finding implies that landlords facing unfunded mandates face negative net present value on retrofit investments, creating rational incentives to avoid obligations through property sales, use changes, or strategic disinvestment.
Policy implications centre on ensuring that obligations are accompanied by adequate subsidies, realistic implementation timelines, and proportionate enforcement. Obligations that impose costs substantially exceeding recoverable rents and subsidies risk supply contraction, particularly affecting lower-rent properties where profit margins are already thin. Graduated approaches that begin with minimum standards whilst building subsidy infrastructure and supply-side capacity may prove more sustainable than ambitious immediate mandates.
Welfare improvements and health benefits
The evidence most unambiguously favours retrofit obligations when considering living standards and health outcomes. Improvements in thermal comfort, reductions in fuel poverty, and measurable health benefits appear consistently across studies examining retrofits in social and low-income housing. These findings align with broader public health literature documenting housing as a social determinant of health and inadequate thermal conditions as contributors to respiratory, cardiovascular, and mental health problems.
The strength of welfare evidence provides important context for interpreting rent and supply concerns. Even where retrofits increase total housing costs, tenants may experience net welfare improvements through improved comfort, reduced health problems, and enhanced subjective wellbeing. However, this interpretation requires caution: welfare improvements accrue primarily to occupants, whilst cost increases may force displacement, converting welfare gains into welfare losses for the most financially vulnerable tenants.
Evidence regarding overheating and indoor air quality risks from poorly executed retrofits (Hashemi and Dungrani, 2025) underscores that welfare improvements are not automatic but depend upon retrofit quality and comprehensive design approaches. Policymakers must therefore address not only whether retrofits occur but how they are executed, potentially requiring quality standards, installer certification, and post-completion monitoring to ensure intended benefits materialise.
Policy design implications
Synthesising across outcome domains, the evidence supports several key conclusions regarding policy design. First, cost allocation mechanisms fundamentally determine distributional outcomes. Legal provisions permitting extensive cost pass-through shift burdens to tenants, whilst restrictions on cost recovery shift burdens to landlords. Neither extreme may prove sustainable: excessive tenant burdens exacerbate affordability problems whilst excessive landlord burdens risk supply contraction.
Second, subsidies play a crucial mediating role. Public investment that reduces the net cost of retrofits enables landlords to undertake improvements without full cost recovery from tenants, potentially delivering environmental and welfare benefits without proportionate affordability impacts. The appropriate level and structure of subsidies depends upon retrofit costs, energy price trajectories, and social objectives regarding burden-sharing between landlords, tenants, and taxpayers.
Third, quality standards and implementation support affect whether retrofits deliver intended benefits. Poorly executed works that introduce overheating or air quality problems partially offset welfare gains, whilst quality assurance mechanisms can ensure that mandatory investments produce lasting improvements.
Fourth, tenant protections beyond cost allocation may prove necessary to prevent displacement and ensure that welfare benefits accrue to intended beneficiaries. Measures might include relocation assistance during works, prohibitions on no-fault evictions following retrofit, and requirements that existing tenants retain occupancy rights at regulated rent levels.
Conclusions
This research has systematically examined the effects of mandatory landlord retrofit obligations on rents, housing supply, and tenant living standards, synthesising empirical evidence to address five specific objectives. The analysis demonstrates that retrofit obligations produce heterogeneous effects critically dependent upon policy design, with implications for policymakers seeking to balance decarbonisation objectives with housing market stability and tenant welfare.
Regarding the first objective, evidence consistently demonstrates that retrofit obligations raise rents and total housing costs when regulatory frameworks permit landlords to pass through investment expenses. German field studies document that over half of tenants face higher combined costs post-retrofit despite substantial energy savings, reflecting the magnitude of permitted surcharges relative to bill reductions.
The second objective concerning supply effects reveals more limited but concerning evidence. Theoretical analysis and related empirical evidence regarding rent regulation suggest that poorly subsidised obligations could reduce rental housing availability through market exit, tenure conversion, or disinvestment, though direct empirical tests remain scarce given recent programme implementation.
The third objective addressing tenant welfare finds consistently positive evidence that retrofits improve thermal comfort, reduce fuel poverty, and enhance health outcomes, particularly among disadvantaged populations occupying social and low-income housing. However, poorly executed retrofits can introduce overheating and air quality problems that partially offset benefits.
The fourth and fifth objectives regarding policy design features and recommendations are addressed through synthesis across outcome domains. The evidence supports designing retrofit obligations that incorporate robust subsidies reducing net landlord costs, graduated cost recovery provisions that share benefits between landlords and tenants, quality standards ensuring retrofits deliver intended improvements, and tenant protections preventing displacement of vulnerable occupants.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic contribution to informing policy development across jurisdictions implementing or considering retrofit obligations. As climate policy increasingly addresses existing building stock, understanding how mandatory retrofits affect housing markets becomes essential for designing interventions that achieve environmental objectives without exacerbating housing affordability crises or reducing availability.
Future research should address several limitations of current evidence. Longitudinal studies tracking supply effects as programmes mature would help distinguish short-term adjustment from lasting supply contraction. Comparative analysis across jurisdictions with varying regulatory designs could isolate effects of specific policy features. Research examining interactions between retrofit obligations and broader housing market conditions would inform context-sensitive policy development. Finally, studies incorporating tenant perspectives through qualitative methods could enrich understanding of how occupants experience and respond to retrofit processes.
References
Ahlrichs, J. and Rockstuhl, S. (2022) ‘Estimating fair rent increases after building retrofits: A max-min fairness approach’, *Energy Policy*, 164, 112923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112923
Avanzini, M., Pinheiro, M., Gomes, R. and Rolim, C. (2022) ‘Energy retrofit as an answer to public health costs of fuel poverty in Lisbon social housing’, *Energy Policy*, 160, 112658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112658
Diamond, R., McQuade, T. and Qian, F. (2019) ‘The effects of rent control expansion on tenants, landlords, and inequality: Evidence from San Francisco’, *American Economic Review*, 109(9), pp. 3365-3394. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181289
European Commission (2020) *A Renovation Wave for Europe: Greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives*. Brussels: European Commission.
Galvin, R. (2023) ‘Do housing rental and sales markets incentivise energy-efficient retrofitting of western Germany’s post-war apartments? Challenges for property owners, tenants, and policymakers’, *Energy Efficiency*, 16, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-023-10102-y
Hashemi, A. and Dungrani, M. (2025) ‘Indoor environmental quality and health implications of building retrofit and occupant behaviour in social housing’, *Sustainability*, 17(1), 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010264
Howden-Chapman, P., Bennett, J., Edwards, R., Jacobs, D., Nathan, K. and Ormandy, D. (2022) ‘Review of the impact of housing quality on inequalities in health and well-being’, *Annual Review of Public Health*, 43, pp. 233-254. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-071521-111836
Kuhlwein, H. and Bienert, S. (2022) ‘Does retrofitting pay off? An analysis of German multifamily building data’, *Journal of Sustainable Real Estate*, 14(1), pp. 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19498276.2022.2135188
Ossokina, I., Kerperien, S. and Arentze, T. (2021) ‘Does information encourage or discourage tenants to accept energy retrofitting of homes’, *Energy Economics*, 103, 105534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105534
Patino, E. and Siegel, J. (2018) ‘Indoor environmental quality in social housing: A literature review’, *Building and Environment*, 131, pp. 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.013
Reutter, L. (2025) ‘Inefficient incentives for energy saving in tenancy law and policy options to remedy the landlord-tenant dilemma’, *European Journal of Law and Economics*, 59, pp. 179-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-024-09827-7
Shwashreh, L., Taki, A. and Kagioglou, M. (2024) ‘Retrofit strategies for alleviating fuel poverty and improving subjective well-being in the UK’s social housing’, *Buildings*, 14(2), 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020316
Tozer, L., MacRae, H. and Smit, E. (2023) ‘Achieving deep-energy retrofits for households in energy poverty’, *Buildings and Cities*, 4(1), pp. 682-698. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.304
Weber, I. and Wolff, A. (2018) ‘Energy efficiency retrofits in the residential sector – analysing tenants’ cost burden in a German field study’, *Energy Policy*, 122, pp. 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.007
