Shall I open the window? Policy implications of thermal-comfort adjustment practices in residential buildings

In Germany, policy-makers are not achieving the results expected from the implementation of energy-saving policies in buildings. In fact, energy retrofit of residential dwellings, ceteris paribus, results in a new socio-technical system characterized by higher room temperatures. In the new environment, individuals might change their type of interaction with the building and exert a certain level of effort to adapt to the new comfort situation depending on their previous practices. Some of the new practices, such as opening the window when it is too warm, might explain why energy-saving policies in buildings are not leading to the desired results. In this paper, by means of a Discrete Choice Experiment conducted among 3161 tenants and owner-occupiers in Germany, we investigate preferences for practices implemented to adjust thermal comfort in retrofitted buildings. Our results reveal a mix of behaviors in response to energy retrofits, some of which may offset energy savings (e.g. tilting the window) while others have more benign effects (e.g. wearing lighter clothes).

[1]  Kirsten Gram-Hanssen,et al.  Incorporating inhabitants’ everyday practices into domestic retrofits , 2014 .

[2]  Adrian Leaman.  User Needs and Expectations , 2008 .

[3]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[4]  Luciano Gamberini,et al.  Oops, I forgot the light on! The cognitive mechanisms supporting the execution of energy saving behaviors , 2013 .

[5]  B. Boardman,et al.  Making cold homes warmer: the effect of energy efficiency improvements in low-income homes A report to the Energy Action Grants Agency Charitable Trust , 2000 .

[6]  I. Røpke.  Theories of practice -- New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption , 2009 .

[7]  R. Madlener,et al.  The Role of Environmental Concern and Comfort Expectations in Energy Retrofit Decisions , 2017 .

[8]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[9]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[10]  Seung-Jun Kwak,et al.  Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study , 2010 .

[11]  Ray Galvin,et al.  Impediments to energy-efficient ventilation of German dwellings: A case study in Aachen , 2013 .

[12]  W. Poortinga,et al.  Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis , 2003 .

[13]  Theodore R. Schatzki,et al.  Materiality and Social Life , 2010 .

[14]  Yolande Strengers,et al.  Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Reframing the role of change agents in the energy sector , 2012 .

[15]  Kirsten Gram-Hanssen,et al.  New needs for better understanding of household's energy consumption – behaviour, lifestyle or practices? , 2014 .

[16]  A. Hole.  Fitting Mixed Logit Models by Using Maximum Simulated Likelihood , 2007 .

[17]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Energy Efficiency Investments in the Home: Swiss Homeowners and Expectations about Future Energy Prices , 2013 .

[18]  Kevin Maréchal,et al.  Getting a (sustainable) grip on energy consumption: The importance of household dynamics and ‘habitual practices’ , 2015 .

[19]  R. Galvin,et al.  Schatzkian practice theory and energy consumption research: Time for some philosophical spring cleaning? , 2016 .

[20]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Buildings, Culture and Environment , 2003 .

[21]  William Swan,et al.  Retrofitting social housing: reflections by tenants on adopting and living with retrofit technology , 2014 .

[22]  Martin Achtnicht,et al.  Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany , 2011 .

[23]  Kevin Maréchal.  Not irrational but habitual: The importance of "behavioural lock-in" in energy consumption , 2010 .

[24]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Estimating home energy decision parameters for a hybrid energy—economy policy model , 2006 .

[25]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[26]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models , 2010 .

[27]  S. Sorrell,et al.  The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions , 2008 .

[28]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[29]  R. Dunlap,et al.  The “New Environmental Paradigm” , 1978 .

[30]  Per Heiselberg,et al.  Overheating risk barriers to energy renovations of single family houses: Multicriteria analysis and assessment , 2016 .

[31]  Theodore R. Schatzki,et al.  Practices and Actions A Wittgensteinian Critique of Bourdieu and Giddens , 1997 .

[32]  Sara Walker,et al.  Low-carbon retrofits in social housing: interaction with occupant behaviour , 2014 .

[33]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  Fitting the Generalized Multinomial Logit Model in Stata , 2013 .