The experts' interviews present insights from AchieVE‑ZEB on skills and training needs for zero‑emission buildings. It highlights gaps in practical and interdisciplinary expertise and shows that pilot courses successfully build competencies through interactive, practice‑oriented learning formats.
Poorly planned retrofits, or a lack of coordination and cross-craft understanding between individual retrofit measures, can lead to performance gaps, structural damage and uneconomic lock-in effects, making it more difficult to achieve Class A buildings by 2050. To enable the large-scale integration of renewable energy in buildings, energy consumption must first be drastically reduced. It is therefore crucial that renovation steps are carried out in the right order and with the appropriate quality standards, while also considering aspects such as material life cycles, summer comfort and ventilation.
In this context, construction professionals need integrated skills and a strong cross-disciplinary understanding of the renovation process. The following interviews explore these challenges, as well as the growing need for professionals to keep pace with evolving technologies, practices and knowledge in the building sector.
Rainer Pfluger, Christina Ipser and Gregor Radinger.
Rainer Pfluger is a key researcher in energy‑efficient buildings, specialising in building physics and HVAC simulation. His work combines research, teaching, and professional training, including education for certified Passive House planners. He teaches Sustainable Construction in Innsbruck, Graz, and Vienna, and has extensive experience in developing bachelor’s and master’s level curricula as well as teaching materials for in‑person and online learning.
Where do you currently see the greatest need for training and expertise in implementing zero-emission buildings—particularly in the area of building retrofits?
Rainer Pfluger (RP): To date, renovations have focused mainly on standard measures such as window replacement and external insulation. More effective results could be achieved by directly targeting high‑efficiency renovations, such as the EnerPHit standard. However, there is a clear lack of expertise in both planning and execution, particularly regarding airtightness and the retrofit of ventilation systems with heat recovery. These measures are technically and economically feasible in both deep and phased renovations, highlighting the need for targeted training—especially on developing renovation roadmaps and coordinating individual renovation steps.
What skills are most commonly lacking today at the intersection of planning, execution, and operations?
RP: Planners require practical expertise to ensure projects are implemented efficiently, cost‑effectively, and without errors. At the same time, construction processes must incorporate facility management knowledge to deliver buildings and systems that are easy to maintain and support energy‑efficient, sustainable operation. Overall, there is a clear gap in interdisciplinary expertise across these key fields.
Why do you think traditional training and continuing education formats are no longer sufficient for ZEB?
RP: In addition to gaps in up‑to‑date knowledge, there is insufficient emphasis on high energy efficiency, which is essential for achieving zero‑emission buildings. This gap can be addressed most effectively through engaging, practice‑oriented learning formats with a high level of interactivity, supported by clear examples, videos, mockups, and visual aids.
Which new training methods or learning formats (e.g., mockups, instructional videos, real-world examples, blended learning) do you consider particularly effective and why?
RP: These methods place a stronger emphasis on practical application than traditional lectures or textbook‑based teaching and engage learners more interactively and effectively.
How should training programs be designed to actually lead to higher quality and fewer errors in practice?
RP: Learning from mistakes is essential and is best supported through concrete case studies, practical exercises, and quality‑assurance tools such as checklists. Site visits and field trips further enhance this learning experience; where these are difficult to organise, well‑designed videos can serve as an effective alternative.
What role can projects like AchieVE-ZEB play in delivering ZEB competencies in a structured and scalable manner across Europe?
RP: The piloting of courses within AchieVE‑ZEB provides early testing and initial quality assurance, while the review process further strengthens content quality. Selected courses and modules can then be translated — particularly as Open Educational Resources (OER) — and disseminated across Europe, with continuous updates ensuring long-term relevance.
Christina Ipser studied Architecture at the Vienna University of Technology (MSc) and has been a member of the scientific staff and a project manager at the Department for Building and Environment since 2012. Since 2023, she has headed the Centre for Real Estate and Facility Management. Her teaching and research focus on sustainable building design and operation, climate change adaptation, life‑cycle costing and assessment, and human–environment interactions.
Dr Gregor Radinger, MSc, studied architecture and completed his doctorate at the Vienna University of Technology. He is Head of the Centre for Environmental Sensitivity and the Light Laboratory at the Department for Building and Environment. His work focuses on climate‑sensitive building design, light and daylight planning, vernacular architecture, and the integration of human and natural science insights into the building sector through interdisciplinary collaboration.
To what extent have the pilot AchieVE-ZEB courses achieved the defined learning and qualification goals?
Gregor Radinger (GR) and Christina Ipser (CI): The pilot phase of the newly developed courses is now underway. Based on the results available so far—particularly from the Zero Emission Assets program, a micro‑credential focused on strategies for a climate‑neutral and sustainable building stock, and the Teaching Sustainability program, a Train‑the‑Trainer course on learning design and didactic concepts for adult education — the intended learning and qualification goals have been successfully achieved. Participant feedback and reflections indicate that learners are able to clearly identify and assess the key transformation areas within the building sector and to define suitable measures for the climate‑neutral renovation of existing buildings. At the same time, the evaluations show a markedly improved understanding of learner-centred and competency‑oriented course design, the integration of sustainability content within education for sustainable development, and the reflective role of trainers in effectively communicating sustainability topics.
What do the evaluations indicate about the effectiveness of the didactic concepts?
GR & CI: Designing courses that respond to participants’ needs and real‑life constraints is essential. Blended learning approaches — combining asynchronous online formats with targeted in‑person sessions — have proven effective in allowing participants to manage their time more flexibly while still engaging deeply with the content and benefiting from meaningful exchange and networking.
Which course formats and content did participants consider most useful for their day ‑ to ‑ day professional work?
GR & CI: Participants showed strong interest in practice‑oriented learning methods, including real‑world examples, field trips, and hands-on demonstrations. Topics related to project communication — such as collaboration between building owners and users or between planners and contractors — were particularly well received. Equally important was providing sufficient space for discussion and enabling participants to share their own experiences and perspectives, as dialogue‑oriented elements are a key component of high‑quality continuing education.
Which target groups were effectively reached—and where is there still room for improvement?
GR & CI: The courses have primarily reached participants who are either at an early stage of their careers or who plan to increasingly focus their professional activities or organisational strategies on building renovation. Notably, the courses have attracted a high proportion of women, which is particularly encouraging given their strong underrepresentation in the building sector. In addition, the programs have successfully engaged participants from the real estate and facility management fields. However, so far, more traditional planning professionals—such as established architects and master builders—as well as representatives of municipalities, have not yet been reached to a sufficient extent.
What key lessons has Danube University drawn from the course evaluation for future ZEB continuing education programs?
GR & CI: The careful selection of course content, clearly defined learning objectives, and the use of flexible teaching and learning formats that can be combined with professional work strongly motivate participants to enrol in subsidised courses. However, tuition fees remain a significant barrier; despite high interest and motivation, costs are still a decisive factor for many potential participants.
What role can projects like AchieVE-ZEB play in delivering ZEB competencies in a structured and scalable manner across Europe?
GR & CI: Projects such as AchieVE‑ZEB make up‑to‑date knowledge on the building stock accessible to diverse learners while expanding competencies in areas such as communication, systems thinking, and interdisciplinary collaboration. By combining technical expertise with broader skill development, they position building renovation and climate neutrality as an attractive and forward‑looking field.
