Prof. Dr. Aya Kachi Faculty of Business and Economics Profiles & Affiliations OverviewResearch Publications Projects & Collaborations Projects & Collaborations OverviewResearch Publications Projects & Collaborations Profiles & Affiliations Projects & Collaborations 6 foundShow per page10 10 20 50 FV-119 | From Frames to Choices: A cross-national Study on the public acceptance of urban density Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4708867 FV-111 | Climate Policy Kills Jobs, They Say: Unveiling Economic Fears and Ideological Motives Behind Policy Resistance Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4700775 The Political Economy of Coal Policy: Comparative Analyses of Stakeholder Strategies and Resource Industries' Embeddedness in the International Economy Research Project | 1 Project MembersDiscontinuation policies such as phase-out of coal must be considered for low-carbon transitions. Yet a phase-out policy as a way to destabilize incumbent socio-technical regimes has drawn limited attention, unlike "phase-in" of clean technologies. Coal is still a major energy supply and largest source of CO 2 emissions in many countries. We conduct a comparative case study to investigate why some jurisdictions covered more ground in coal phase-out while others failed to bring it even on the political agenda. Since phase-out policies are especially prone to political contestations, we focus on actors influencing national energy policies, their interests and agency to explain the different trajectories across cases with respect to coal phase-out. This project focuses on in-depth analyses of 4 cases; Alberta (Canada), Australia, Germany and Japan. They are all large CO 2 emitters, but their coal phase-out trajectories are diverse. Their trajectories display counter- evident patterns to theory-driven expectations in political economy and transition research, given their coal production and trade profile. To explain this gap, we adapt an interdisciplinary approach in analyzing the evolution of discourses, actors' resource endowments and their practices. We employ mixed methods consisting of surveys, document analysis and semi-structured interviews, followed both by qualitative and quantitative analyses. A comparative analysis contributes to theory-building in enactment of phase-out policies and the role of agency in destabilization of socio-technical regimes. The project will yield practically relevant insights for transition forerunners and policymakers in developing strategies for disrupting path- dependency of unsustainable technologies hindering low-carbon transitions. In Search of Decoupling: (How) Can We Combine Climate Sustainability with Economic Growth, Good Jobs, and Public Preferences? Research Project | 1 Project MembersWhether economic growth inevitably increases greenhouse gas emissions may be the most contentious issue within the climate research and environmental communities. Some are optimistic about opportunities for "green growth" and new jobs in less polluting industries; others reject that emissions can be sustainably "decoupled" from growth. This open question is one important reason for policymakers' slow decision-making about how to address the challenge of climate change. Given this debate, and the urgent need for politically feasible policies that are both effective and economical, we propose a three-part program to better illuminate the relationship between growth and emissions. First, we will investigate prior changes in countries' emissions, and the political and socioeconomic factors behind them. Using statistical models, we will compare emissions from different sources, and focus in particular on the impacts of public attitudes and the relative sizes of different industries. Second, we will qualitatively examine in-depth the cases of countries that have most decoupled economic growth from various sources of emissions. Under what conditions have these achievements, including key policy decisions, been possible? Third, we will investigate what people believe to be key policies' impacts on growth and employment. How do those beliefs shape preferences with respect to climate policies, and how closely do they match the actual track records of existing policies? FV-79 Swiss Investors' Decision-Making in the Field of Energy Efficient Real Estate Research Project | 4 Project MembersThe building sector accounts for 50% of energy consumption in Switzerland. Therefore, it is vital to analyse drivers for the supply of low-energy-consuming properties; e.g., buildings with Minergie labels. Our 2019 WWZ-FV project has focused on a price-oriented driver; namely rent premiums linked to Minergie labels. Using data of 370,000 properties (12,500 are Minergie labelled), we found a 3-5% rent premium for residential real estate in Switzerland which is attributable to the label itself. Due to the (very) large dataset with a richer set of property features we compiled, our findings are novel and far more reliable than those of existing studies that attempted similar estimation. Yet, from property investors' perspective , identifying opportunities for higher rental income from Minergie buildings is only one aspect of their investment decisions. For them, the real question is if investments in energy efficient buildings (incl. renovations & retrofits) pay off; i.e., profitability of the investment. Thus, we must consider the extra building costs that arise from upgrading energy efficiency. Furthermore, investment decisions depend also on investors' knowledge or perceptions about profitability. Despite the criticality of profitability for property investors, the only type of profitability considered in empirical literatures is a vacancy rate. After all, a building with an eco label that lacks tenants brings no profit. However, the Swiss residential rental market exhibits close to 100% occupancy. Instead, the real costs incurred by green building investments are more salient factors of profitability in our context. Despite the seeming conceptual clarity of integrating costs and assessing profitability, it is anything else than trivial to integrate upfront investments (e.g., isolation, ventilation, solar PV, and non-fossil-fuel heating systems) as well as to calculate the annual (periodic) cost difference between operating a green versus a non-labelled property. Moreover, even if profitability can be measured and is known, there are some more crucial empirical questions to be answered: (1) if investors are aware of these facts ( knowledge/perceived costs ), and (2) if their investment decisions depend only on "economic benefits" or also on factors like "sustainability branding" supported by certificates. Hence, investigating the effect of both actual and investors' perceived profitability on the respective decision-making regarding green buildings is a logical next step following from our previous rent premium analyses. In other words, to understand the supply-side of sustainable real estate, we draw on our latest findings on the market implications of eco labelling and now ask investors' decision-oriented research questions : RQ1: What are best estimates for the upfront and periodic costs of operating green buildings? / RQ2: How do the rent premiums for Minergie labels translate to investors' effective profitability? / RQ3: Do investors' knowledge about rent premiums, costs, and profitability in the Swiss real estate market diverge from the actual measures? Which drives investment decisions? FV-71 Energy Efficiency Labeling of Residential Buildings in Switzerland: An Analysis of Rent Premium and its Determinants Research Project | 5 Project MembersWith an estimated 50% the building sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption in Switzerland (about 40% in the US). As part of sustainability goals, both scientific and policy communities have so far strived (1) to develop energy-efficient building technologies (supply of technologies), and (2) to change the energy consumption behavior of residents and tenants (reduction of demand). But supply of technologies does not come to fruition, unless suppliers employ new technologies. And reduction of demand has limited impact, unless tenants can live in energy-efficient infrastructures. In fact, we currently lack a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to increase the supply of low-energy-consuming properties. Therefore, it is worth investigating the market- and property conditions under which investors are willing to pay for energy efficiency in buildings. Investments in energy efficiency are only interesting for investors if there is a financial incentive such as a rent premium. Existing rent premium analyses are concentrated in the commercial sector and the US market. Though some controlled for more detailed building characteristics than others, Miller et al. (2008), Eichholtz et al. (2010), and Fuerst et al. (2009) all found about 3 to 9% rent premium for certified green buildings. Reichhardt et al. (2012) added over-time trends of rent premiums. The only large-scale residential rent study in the US is Kahn and Kok (2013) with 1.6 million single-family house cases and estimates a 2.1% premium. In the Swiss context, Salvi et al. (2008, 2010) showing a 6% residential rent premium are the only studies coming close to our research interest. Yet, the studies are non-peer-reviewed private market analyses, and the sample size is limited to 150,000 and the ZH area. Beyond these data limitations, we identified two important issues to be tackled in rent premium analyses. First, Salvi et al. (2010) shows decreasing premiums of the traditional Minergie label over time. As building standards (both due to regulations and social norms) increase regardless of green certificates, the result may not be surprising. By controlling for buildings' actual energy performance and by exploiting newer data that include stricter Minergie subcategories, we shall re-assess the over-time trend of rent premiums. Second, the real estate literature has shown that rents are geographically autocorrelated (e.g. McCord et al. 2014). Therefore, we can deduce that, all else equal, the occurrence of a newly Minergie-certified building can have a positive spillover effect on the rents of proximate buildings that are not certified. The existence and degree of this (perhaps unwanted) spillover has never been estimated. With the new comprehensive dataset (ca. N=800,000) on asking rent prices and detailed building characteristics that we construct (see Section 7 & 8 for more details), the following 3 related research questions can be answered in the Swiss residential market context. RQ1: What is the direction and extent of rent premiums associated with Minergie labels? Does the label generate its own premium, on top of the actual energy performance premium? RQ2: What is the intertemporal trend of Minergie-associated rent premiums? Given that buildings' energy performance generally improves over time, do a newer and stricter Minergie sublabels gain more premiums, compared to the older, original Minergie label? RQ3: Given that rents are spatially autocorrelated, does a new Minergie label obtained by a building generate positive spillover effects on rents of proximate buildings that are not certified? 1 1 OverviewResearch Publications Projects & Collaborations
Projects & Collaborations 6 foundShow per page10 10 20 50 FV-119 | From Frames to Choices: A cross-national Study on the public acceptance of urban density Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4708867 FV-111 | Climate Policy Kills Jobs, They Say: Unveiling Economic Fears and Ideological Motives Behind Policy Resistance Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4700775 The Political Economy of Coal Policy: Comparative Analyses of Stakeholder Strategies and Resource Industries' Embeddedness in the International Economy Research Project | 1 Project MembersDiscontinuation policies such as phase-out of coal must be considered for low-carbon transitions. Yet a phase-out policy as a way to destabilize incumbent socio-technical regimes has drawn limited attention, unlike "phase-in" of clean technologies. Coal is still a major energy supply and largest source of CO 2 emissions in many countries. We conduct a comparative case study to investigate why some jurisdictions covered more ground in coal phase-out while others failed to bring it even on the political agenda. Since phase-out policies are especially prone to political contestations, we focus on actors influencing national energy policies, their interests and agency to explain the different trajectories across cases with respect to coal phase-out. This project focuses on in-depth analyses of 4 cases; Alberta (Canada), Australia, Germany and Japan. They are all large CO 2 emitters, but their coal phase-out trajectories are diverse. Their trajectories display counter- evident patterns to theory-driven expectations in political economy and transition research, given their coal production and trade profile. To explain this gap, we adapt an interdisciplinary approach in analyzing the evolution of discourses, actors' resource endowments and their practices. We employ mixed methods consisting of surveys, document analysis and semi-structured interviews, followed both by qualitative and quantitative analyses. A comparative analysis contributes to theory-building in enactment of phase-out policies and the role of agency in destabilization of socio-technical regimes. The project will yield practically relevant insights for transition forerunners and policymakers in developing strategies for disrupting path- dependency of unsustainable technologies hindering low-carbon transitions. In Search of Decoupling: (How) Can We Combine Climate Sustainability with Economic Growth, Good Jobs, and Public Preferences? Research Project | 1 Project MembersWhether economic growth inevitably increases greenhouse gas emissions may be the most contentious issue within the climate research and environmental communities. Some are optimistic about opportunities for "green growth" and new jobs in less polluting industries; others reject that emissions can be sustainably "decoupled" from growth. This open question is one important reason for policymakers' slow decision-making about how to address the challenge of climate change. Given this debate, and the urgent need for politically feasible policies that are both effective and economical, we propose a three-part program to better illuminate the relationship between growth and emissions. First, we will investigate prior changes in countries' emissions, and the political and socioeconomic factors behind them. Using statistical models, we will compare emissions from different sources, and focus in particular on the impacts of public attitudes and the relative sizes of different industries. Second, we will qualitatively examine in-depth the cases of countries that have most decoupled economic growth from various sources of emissions. Under what conditions have these achievements, including key policy decisions, been possible? Third, we will investigate what people believe to be key policies' impacts on growth and employment. How do those beliefs shape preferences with respect to climate policies, and how closely do they match the actual track records of existing policies? FV-79 Swiss Investors' Decision-Making in the Field of Energy Efficient Real Estate Research Project | 4 Project MembersThe building sector accounts for 50% of energy consumption in Switzerland. Therefore, it is vital to analyse drivers for the supply of low-energy-consuming properties; e.g., buildings with Minergie labels. Our 2019 WWZ-FV project has focused on a price-oriented driver; namely rent premiums linked to Minergie labels. Using data of 370,000 properties (12,500 are Minergie labelled), we found a 3-5% rent premium for residential real estate in Switzerland which is attributable to the label itself. Due to the (very) large dataset with a richer set of property features we compiled, our findings are novel and far more reliable than those of existing studies that attempted similar estimation. Yet, from property investors' perspective , identifying opportunities for higher rental income from Minergie buildings is only one aspect of their investment decisions. For them, the real question is if investments in energy efficient buildings (incl. renovations & retrofits) pay off; i.e., profitability of the investment. Thus, we must consider the extra building costs that arise from upgrading energy efficiency. Furthermore, investment decisions depend also on investors' knowledge or perceptions about profitability. Despite the criticality of profitability for property investors, the only type of profitability considered in empirical literatures is a vacancy rate. After all, a building with an eco label that lacks tenants brings no profit. However, the Swiss residential rental market exhibits close to 100% occupancy. Instead, the real costs incurred by green building investments are more salient factors of profitability in our context. Despite the seeming conceptual clarity of integrating costs and assessing profitability, it is anything else than trivial to integrate upfront investments (e.g., isolation, ventilation, solar PV, and non-fossil-fuel heating systems) as well as to calculate the annual (periodic) cost difference between operating a green versus a non-labelled property. Moreover, even if profitability can be measured and is known, there are some more crucial empirical questions to be answered: (1) if investors are aware of these facts ( knowledge/perceived costs ), and (2) if their investment decisions depend only on "economic benefits" or also on factors like "sustainability branding" supported by certificates. Hence, investigating the effect of both actual and investors' perceived profitability on the respective decision-making regarding green buildings is a logical next step following from our previous rent premium analyses. In other words, to understand the supply-side of sustainable real estate, we draw on our latest findings on the market implications of eco labelling and now ask investors' decision-oriented research questions : RQ1: What are best estimates for the upfront and periodic costs of operating green buildings? / RQ2: How do the rent premiums for Minergie labels translate to investors' effective profitability? / RQ3: Do investors' knowledge about rent premiums, costs, and profitability in the Swiss real estate market diverge from the actual measures? Which drives investment decisions? FV-71 Energy Efficiency Labeling of Residential Buildings in Switzerland: An Analysis of Rent Premium and its Determinants Research Project | 5 Project MembersWith an estimated 50% the building sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption in Switzerland (about 40% in the US). As part of sustainability goals, both scientific and policy communities have so far strived (1) to develop energy-efficient building technologies (supply of technologies), and (2) to change the energy consumption behavior of residents and tenants (reduction of demand). But supply of technologies does not come to fruition, unless suppliers employ new technologies. And reduction of demand has limited impact, unless tenants can live in energy-efficient infrastructures. In fact, we currently lack a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to increase the supply of low-energy-consuming properties. Therefore, it is worth investigating the market- and property conditions under which investors are willing to pay for energy efficiency in buildings. Investments in energy efficiency are only interesting for investors if there is a financial incentive such as a rent premium. Existing rent premium analyses are concentrated in the commercial sector and the US market. Though some controlled for more detailed building characteristics than others, Miller et al. (2008), Eichholtz et al. (2010), and Fuerst et al. (2009) all found about 3 to 9% rent premium for certified green buildings. Reichhardt et al. (2012) added over-time trends of rent premiums. The only large-scale residential rent study in the US is Kahn and Kok (2013) with 1.6 million single-family house cases and estimates a 2.1% premium. In the Swiss context, Salvi et al. (2008, 2010) showing a 6% residential rent premium are the only studies coming close to our research interest. Yet, the studies are non-peer-reviewed private market analyses, and the sample size is limited to 150,000 and the ZH area. Beyond these data limitations, we identified two important issues to be tackled in rent premium analyses. First, Salvi et al. (2010) shows decreasing premiums of the traditional Minergie label over time. As building standards (both due to regulations and social norms) increase regardless of green certificates, the result may not be surprising. By controlling for buildings' actual energy performance and by exploiting newer data that include stricter Minergie subcategories, we shall re-assess the over-time trend of rent premiums. Second, the real estate literature has shown that rents are geographically autocorrelated (e.g. McCord et al. 2014). Therefore, we can deduce that, all else equal, the occurrence of a newly Minergie-certified building can have a positive spillover effect on the rents of proximate buildings that are not certified. The existence and degree of this (perhaps unwanted) spillover has never been estimated. With the new comprehensive dataset (ca. N=800,000) on asking rent prices and detailed building characteristics that we construct (see Section 7 & 8 for more details), the following 3 related research questions can be answered in the Swiss residential market context. RQ1: What is the direction and extent of rent premiums associated with Minergie labels? Does the label generate its own premium, on top of the actual energy performance premium? RQ2: What is the intertemporal trend of Minergie-associated rent premiums? Given that buildings' energy performance generally improves over time, do a newer and stricter Minergie sublabels gain more premiums, compared to the older, original Minergie label? RQ3: Given that rents are spatially autocorrelated, does a new Minergie label obtained by a building generate positive spillover effects on rents of proximate buildings that are not certified? 1 1
FV-119 | From Frames to Choices: A cross-national Study on the public acceptance of urban density Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4708867
FV-111 | Climate Policy Kills Jobs, They Say: Unveiling Economic Fears and Ideological Motives Behind Policy Resistance Research Project | 1 Project MembersImported from Grants Tool 4700775
The Political Economy of Coal Policy: Comparative Analyses of Stakeholder Strategies and Resource Industries' Embeddedness in the International Economy Research Project | 1 Project MembersDiscontinuation policies such as phase-out of coal must be considered for low-carbon transitions. Yet a phase-out policy as a way to destabilize incumbent socio-technical regimes has drawn limited attention, unlike "phase-in" of clean technologies. Coal is still a major energy supply and largest source of CO 2 emissions in many countries. We conduct a comparative case study to investigate why some jurisdictions covered more ground in coal phase-out while others failed to bring it even on the political agenda. Since phase-out policies are especially prone to political contestations, we focus on actors influencing national energy policies, their interests and agency to explain the different trajectories across cases with respect to coal phase-out. This project focuses on in-depth analyses of 4 cases; Alberta (Canada), Australia, Germany and Japan. They are all large CO 2 emitters, but their coal phase-out trajectories are diverse. Their trajectories display counter- evident patterns to theory-driven expectations in political economy and transition research, given their coal production and trade profile. To explain this gap, we adapt an interdisciplinary approach in analyzing the evolution of discourses, actors' resource endowments and their practices. We employ mixed methods consisting of surveys, document analysis and semi-structured interviews, followed both by qualitative and quantitative analyses. A comparative analysis contributes to theory-building in enactment of phase-out policies and the role of agency in destabilization of socio-technical regimes. The project will yield practically relevant insights for transition forerunners and policymakers in developing strategies for disrupting path- dependency of unsustainable technologies hindering low-carbon transitions.
In Search of Decoupling: (How) Can We Combine Climate Sustainability with Economic Growth, Good Jobs, and Public Preferences? Research Project | 1 Project MembersWhether economic growth inevitably increases greenhouse gas emissions may be the most contentious issue within the climate research and environmental communities. Some are optimistic about opportunities for "green growth" and new jobs in less polluting industries; others reject that emissions can be sustainably "decoupled" from growth. This open question is one important reason for policymakers' slow decision-making about how to address the challenge of climate change. Given this debate, and the urgent need for politically feasible policies that are both effective and economical, we propose a three-part program to better illuminate the relationship between growth and emissions. First, we will investigate prior changes in countries' emissions, and the political and socioeconomic factors behind them. Using statistical models, we will compare emissions from different sources, and focus in particular on the impacts of public attitudes and the relative sizes of different industries. Second, we will qualitatively examine in-depth the cases of countries that have most decoupled economic growth from various sources of emissions. Under what conditions have these achievements, including key policy decisions, been possible? Third, we will investigate what people believe to be key policies' impacts on growth and employment. How do those beliefs shape preferences with respect to climate policies, and how closely do they match the actual track records of existing policies?
FV-79 Swiss Investors' Decision-Making in the Field of Energy Efficient Real Estate Research Project | 4 Project MembersThe building sector accounts for 50% of energy consumption in Switzerland. Therefore, it is vital to analyse drivers for the supply of low-energy-consuming properties; e.g., buildings with Minergie labels. Our 2019 WWZ-FV project has focused on a price-oriented driver; namely rent premiums linked to Minergie labels. Using data of 370,000 properties (12,500 are Minergie labelled), we found a 3-5% rent premium for residential real estate in Switzerland which is attributable to the label itself. Due to the (very) large dataset with a richer set of property features we compiled, our findings are novel and far more reliable than those of existing studies that attempted similar estimation. Yet, from property investors' perspective , identifying opportunities for higher rental income from Minergie buildings is only one aspect of their investment decisions. For them, the real question is if investments in energy efficient buildings (incl. renovations & retrofits) pay off; i.e., profitability of the investment. Thus, we must consider the extra building costs that arise from upgrading energy efficiency. Furthermore, investment decisions depend also on investors' knowledge or perceptions about profitability. Despite the criticality of profitability for property investors, the only type of profitability considered in empirical literatures is a vacancy rate. After all, a building with an eco label that lacks tenants brings no profit. However, the Swiss residential rental market exhibits close to 100% occupancy. Instead, the real costs incurred by green building investments are more salient factors of profitability in our context. Despite the seeming conceptual clarity of integrating costs and assessing profitability, it is anything else than trivial to integrate upfront investments (e.g., isolation, ventilation, solar PV, and non-fossil-fuel heating systems) as well as to calculate the annual (periodic) cost difference between operating a green versus a non-labelled property. Moreover, even if profitability can be measured and is known, there are some more crucial empirical questions to be answered: (1) if investors are aware of these facts ( knowledge/perceived costs ), and (2) if their investment decisions depend only on "economic benefits" or also on factors like "sustainability branding" supported by certificates. Hence, investigating the effect of both actual and investors' perceived profitability on the respective decision-making regarding green buildings is a logical next step following from our previous rent premium analyses. In other words, to understand the supply-side of sustainable real estate, we draw on our latest findings on the market implications of eco labelling and now ask investors' decision-oriented research questions : RQ1: What are best estimates for the upfront and periodic costs of operating green buildings? / RQ2: How do the rent premiums for Minergie labels translate to investors' effective profitability? / RQ3: Do investors' knowledge about rent premiums, costs, and profitability in the Swiss real estate market diverge from the actual measures? Which drives investment decisions?
FV-71 Energy Efficiency Labeling of Residential Buildings in Switzerland: An Analysis of Rent Premium and its Determinants Research Project | 5 Project MembersWith an estimated 50% the building sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption in Switzerland (about 40% in the US). As part of sustainability goals, both scientific and policy communities have so far strived (1) to develop energy-efficient building technologies (supply of technologies), and (2) to change the energy consumption behavior of residents and tenants (reduction of demand). But supply of technologies does not come to fruition, unless suppliers employ new technologies. And reduction of demand has limited impact, unless tenants can live in energy-efficient infrastructures. In fact, we currently lack a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to increase the supply of low-energy-consuming properties. Therefore, it is worth investigating the market- and property conditions under which investors are willing to pay for energy efficiency in buildings. Investments in energy efficiency are only interesting for investors if there is a financial incentive such as a rent premium. Existing rent premium analyses are concentrated in the commercial sector and the US market. Though some controlled for more detailed building characteristics than others, Miller et al. (2008), Eichholtz et al. (2010), and Fuerst et al. (2009) all found about 3 to 9% rent premium for certified green buildings. Reichhardt et al. (2012) added over-time trends of rent premiums. The only large-scale residential rent study in the US is Kahn and Kok (2013) with 1.6 million single-family house cases and estimates a 2.1% premium. In the Swiss context, Salvi et al. (2008, 2010) showing a 6% residential rent premium are the only studies coming close to our research interest. Yet, the studies are non-peer-reviewed private market analyses, and the sample size is limited to 150,000 and the ZH area. Beyond these data limitations, we identified two important issues to be tackled in rent premium analyses. First, Salvi et al. (2010) shows decreasing premiums of the traditional Minergie label over time. As building standards (both due to regulations and social norms) increase regardless of green certificates, the result may not be surprising. By controlling for buildings' actual energy performance and by exploiting newer data that include stricter Minergie subcategories, we shall re-assess the over-time trend of rent premiums. Second, the real estate literature has shown that rents are geographically autocorrelated (e.g. McCord et al. 2014). Therefore, we can deduce that, all else equal, the occurrence of a newly Minergie-certified building can have a positive spillover effect on the rents of proximate buildings that are not certified. The existence and degree of this (perhaps unwanted) spillover has never been estimated. With the new comprehensive dataset (ca. N=800,000) on asking rent prices and detailed building characteristics that we construct (see Section 7 & 8 for more details), the following 3 related research questions can be answered in the Swiss residential market context. RQ1: What is the direction and extent of rent premiums associated with Minergie labels? Does the label generate its own premium, on top of the actual energy performance premium? RQ2: What is the intertemporal trend of Minergie-associated rent premiums? Given that buildings' energy performance generally improves over time, do a newer and stricter Minergie sublabels gain more premiums, compared to the older, original Minergie label? RQ3: Given that rents are spatially autocorrelated, does a new Minergie label obtained by a building generate positive spillover effects on rents of proximate buildings that are not certified?
