# Enhancing Knowledge on Energy Refurbishment of Buildings and Green Procurement through Living Labs
## 2 Evaluate Knowledge Enhancement of Living Labs: A Methodological Approach
### Evaluation and Survey Methodology
These KPIs were directly linked to the actions taken within each LL. The connection between LLs' scope, actions, strategies, outcomes, and KPIs can be seen in Table 1. For further evaluation of LLs specialized in a specific topic, we have considered 6 LLs as detailed in Table 1, while the LL established in Spain was not part of further analysis due to small sample size. The survey, provided in the Supplementary Materials, was conducted through an online questionnaire, completed in one session, that gathered information on participants' perceived knowledge both before and after participating in the LLs. Simultaneous assessment of before- and after-training knowledge/skills is recommended to provide immediate insight into learning effectiveness while reducing response-shift bias, especially when participants may not fully recognize their initial knowledge gaps. Additionally, it is more feasible than a pre-post design, reducing participant burden and ensuring higher response rates and reliable data [47; 48]. The survey consists of 20 questions that ranged from fundamental demographic information, including the country of operation, the scope of the Living Lab, and the type of participating organization, to more focused areas such as participants' satisfaction with their Living Lab experience, the benefits they perceived from their involvement, and any enhancements in their knowledge. This research aims to examine the development of participants' knowledge because of their engagement in Living Labs (LLs). The focus was on evaluating the enhancement of knowledge across all LLs and differences among LLs that focused on specific topics such as **green policy**, _funding_, _mentoring_, _and green public procurement_. Responses to these inquiries on knowledge levels were gauged using a five-point Likert scale, with ratings as follows: 1--Poor', 2--Fair', 3--Good', 4--Very Good', and 5--Excellent'. This facilitated understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from their engagement in Living Labs. The survey was divided into two parts. The initial set of questions was directed at all Living Lab stakeholders, irrespective of the specialization in specific areas mentioned before (in Section 2.1). Altogether eight KPIs were established to measure improvement comparing the level of knowledge before and after participating in an LL, covering areas such as green policies, funding, green public procurement, mentoring, best practices pilot actions, and the LL concept as presented in Appendix A: Table A1. The results of this part are presented in Section 3.1. The first set of questions allows us to compare the improvement in perceived general knowledge, regardless of LL specialization, since all LLs received basic training on these topics through various workshops and educational sessions. The second part of the survey questions was tailored to reflect the specific focus area of each Living Lab. This means that, for example, in the case of LLs focusing on green public procurement, the set of questions aims to measure more in-depth knowledge on the topic, rather than just general understanding of what green public procurement is. Accordingly, the evaluation of knowledge enhancement varied depending on the Living Lab's area of specialization. For Living Labs concentrated on _green policy_, knowledge improvement was measured using six Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) detailed in Appendix A, Table A2. Living Labs with a focus on _funding_ were assessed using a set of nine distinct KPIs, outlined in Appendix A, Table A3. Living Labs dedicated to _mentoring_ topics underwent evaluation based on four KPIs (Tabel A3), and those specializing in the field of _green public procurement_ were assessed using six KPIs, as detailed in Appendix A, Table A4. This customized approach ensured that the assessment was relevant and accurately reflected the specific objectives and outcomes of each Living Lab's area of expertise. The results of this part are presented in Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Section 3.5.