Over the past few years, a considerable—and ever-increasing—amount of research has been dedicated to the factors that affect the decision to renovate a dwelling and invest in residential energy efficiency measures. In this context, Kastner and Stern [20] reviewed empirical studies to detect the determinants of residential energy-relevant investment decisions. Their work classifies the determinants into six categories, namely (a) demographic, residence, and spatial characteristics, (b) decision-maker dispositions, (c) views concerning household consequences, (d) views concerning consequences outside the household, (e) social effects, and (f) policy actions. We can cluster previous works into three groups; the first group of research assesses the impact of both socioeconomic/residence characteristics (see category “a” above) and contextual determinants (see categories “b” to “f” above); the second group focuses specifically on the effect of socioeconomic and residence characteristics; and the third group emphasizes the contextual determinants.

In the sense of works focusing on both socioeconomic/residence and contextual determinants, Jakob [21] worked on the identification of the determinants of Swiss single-family homeowners’ renovation choices; he concludes that technical criteria and housing activities like building extensions and incentives influence the renovation of buildings’ envelopes, as opposed to socioeconomic factors, including age, education, and income. Nair et al. [22] investigated the determinants of energy efficiency investment implementation in Swedish detached houses; the findings indicate that socioeconomic/residence (income, education, age, house age) and contextual (thermal comfort, previous investments, perceived energy costs) aspects affect homeowners’ preferences for specific energy efficiency measures. Hrovatin and Zorić [23] worked on the factors influencing household energy-efficient retrofit decisions in Slovenia; they detected that an estimated potential for energy savings, household income, and obtaining expert guidance are all substantially correlated with a holistic retrofit approach. Wilson et al. [24] worked on the understanding of British owner-occupied households’ renovation decisions; their analysis indicates that particular “home-life” settings (i.e., harmonizing competing space uses, creation of identification based on household functions, handling physical disadvantages of the people in the household) influence decisions, which also explain the effect of residence and household attributes.

As previously noted, a second group of studies focused on the socioeconomic and dwelling characteristics’ impact on the decision to renovate the dwelling and invest in residential energy efficiency measures. Plaut and Plaut [25] studied the financial, household, and geographic factors that affect American (U.S.A.) households’ decisions to renovate; their analysis indicates that income, education level, age, race, household size, residence size, property value, location, and proximity to green or commercial areas are factors significantly associated with the performance of renovations. Mortensen et al. [26] worked on the socioeconomic parameters that affect the motivational factors related to private energy renovations of Danish homeowners, including age, income, family structure, years of ownership, and occupation; they conclude that younger individuals are more likely to perform a renovation, while the use of the right policy tools could assist older people. Das et al. [27] examined the demographic factors that affect taking on residential energy efficiency measures in Canada, concluding that not all demographic groups participate equally in the adoption process; age has a negative impact, education and income have a positive effect, while available financial incentives—namely government grants—are even more impactful than income when referring to the adoption of efficiency measures. Trotta [28] studied the demographic and residence characteristics affecting energy-efficient retrofit investments in English households; he concludes that (a) the number of residents, (b) the existence of children, (c) dwelling type, ownership status (i.e., the landlord–tenant problem), year of construction and location, and (d) length of residing in the specific household are factors determining such investments.

The third group of research focuses on the influence of motivational factors. Nair et al. [29] focused on the perceptions of Swedish homeowners relative to the adoption of measures for energy efficiency for building envelopes; the results indicate that contextual factors such as physical state, thermal performance, aesthetics, and economic factors affect their decision in regard to taking on such energy efficiency measures. Gamtessa [30] investigated the factors underlying retrofit decisions in Canadian households, finding that cost savings, economic incentives, and retrofit cost significantly affect this type of decision. Stieß and Dunkelberg [31] investigated the effect of German homeowners’ expectations and attitudes towards energy-efficient refurbishments; their results indicate that a mixture of individual and contextual elements, comprising comfort, convenience, social position and sense of belonging, concern for the environment, and economic aspects influence decisions on these issues. Achtnicht and Madlener [32] focus on building energy retrofits’ adoption drivers and barriers in German detached and semidetached dwellings; their findings suggest that homeowners who can financially afford it, find it profitable, and find a favorable opportunity are more likely to carry out energy retrofit activities. Alberini and Bigano [33] investigated the incentives that affect household energy upgrades, namely heating system replacements, in Italian households, finding that monetary incentives (energy bills savings and provided rebates) have a significant effect, unlike non-monetary incentives (CO₂ emissions reductions in particular). Aravena et al. [34] investigated the determinants of investments and implementation of energy efficiency measures in Irish residences; their results offer evidence that monetary or economic elements (e.g., energy-saving gains and cost of the measures) primarily lead the decision to adopt such measures, followed by comfort gains, with environmental benefits not being essential.

Likewise, Klöckner and Nayum [35] worked on the structural psychological factors influencing energy efficiency improvements in Norwegian homes with a private ownership status; they concluded that the most critical drivers include improved living arrangements, increased anticipated comfort levels, anticipated energy cost reductions, easily accessible information, and a reasonable payback period. Conversely, they identified believing that the right moment had not yet arrived, being unable to decide, not owning the property, and time demands for supervising contractors as the most significant barriers. Further work by the abovementioned researchers [36] examined the mental and structural factors affecting the choice to perform an energy-related upgrade of Norwegian privately owned domestic buildings. They indicated that willingness to incorporate energy efficiency improvements in a restoration project is affected by ethical responsibility, perspectives, and confidence in one’s abilities, linked to mental factors such as creativeness, identified consumer efficiency, societal patterns, recognition of problems, and leading values. Moreover, based on their results, relevant barriers consist of the uncertainty regarding the potential for financial savings and the belief that the right time to begin the rehabilitation has not yet arrived. Conversely, motivators include improved living settings and increased anticipated comfort, lower energy costs, a rise in the house’s market value, and the perception that the present building standard wastes energy.

Baumhof et al. [37] worked on identifying the determinants of the behavior of Germans older than 50 years, that are owner-occupants of single- or two-family residences, concerning energy-saving renovation solutions; by comparing house owners (a) intending to refurbish, (b) not intending to refurbish, and (c) that have already refurbished, the study concludes that the motivational trigger for refurbishment is indoor comfort, while barriers include financial aspects, time limitations and the ability of the homeowners to complete the renovations. Another study from the same team [38], based on the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability framework, investigated factors affecting the scale of energy renovation initiatives carried out by owners of single- and two-family homes; their results indicate that ambition to improve the dwelling, building maintenance requirements, pre-existing relevant experience, a supportive social setting and readiness to get a loan support the completion of more extensive energy-related renovation projects. März [39] studied the decision processes of German small property owners on energy renovations; the results indicate that the decision-making process is significantly influenced by (a) economic elements, (b) values, beliefs, norms, and routines, (c) personal skills and abilities, and (d) contextual elements. Ebrahimigharehbaghi et al. [40] studied Dutch house owners’ barriers and drivers toward renovations that use less energy; their analysis reveals that the main driver is quality-of-life improvement rather than financial benefits, while the main barriers include renovation costs, process complexities, information barriers, and difficulty of finding reliable experts and information. Gamtessa and Guliani [41] researched the association between energy efficiency auditing procedures and family engagement in environmentally friendly initiatives in Canada; they concluded that environmentally friendly behaviors—led by environmental awareness—are positively related to engagement in energy efficiency audit programs. De Wilde [42] examined the importance of trust during the decision process concerning implementing a retrofit in the context of Dutch householders that adopted a low-carbon renovation scheme; the analysis indicates three types of trust: interpersonal, impersonal, and professional.