The influence of energy audits on the energy efficiency investments of private owner-occupied households in the Netherlands
Introduction
Climate change policy gives existing dwellings a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 50–80% by 2050 (EC, 2011). In quantity and quality terms there is considerable scope in existing dwellings for energy efficiency improvement. The European Commission (EC) (2006a:5) estimates a cost effective potential to reduce energy use by 27% in the residential sector primarily through measures such as roof and wall insulation. Moreover, it is stated that energy savings can be achieved in existing dwellings more cost effectively than any other sector (Levine et al., 2007, Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2007). Alongside meeting climate change targets there are multiple positive spin-offs, such as, reduced household expenditure on energy bills, improved occupant health, reduced dependence on non-renewable fuels and protection of environmental resources. However, despite broadcast benefits a considerable gap between estimated energy saving potential and reality persists (Blumstein et al., 1980, Jaffe and Stavins, 1994, Weber, 1997, Curtain and Maguire, 2011). There are a number of explanations as to why householders do not invest in energy efficiency measures. One explanation is that they do not have adequate information to assess options and potential savings (Gates, 1983, Schleich, 2004, Löfström and Palm, 2008).
A range of policy tools are considered capable of overcoming this information deficit. Promoted as one of the most effective is face-to-face advice that is tailored to a particular household's energy requirements and dwelling characteristics (Stern, 1992, Benders et al., 2006). Energy audits are endorsed by organisations such as the IEA, the OECD and the EC (OECD, 2003, EC, 2006b, OECD/IEA, 2010). The EC urges Member States to establish programmes for audits: “In order to realise the energy savings potential in certain market segments where energy audits are generally not sold commercially, such as households, Member States should ensure the availability of energy audits” (EC, 2006b:L114/66).
However, despite the endorsement and theoretical assumptions about cause and effect there is a little empirical data that proves if energy audits function as intended. This knowledge gap is not unique to energy audits but is pervasive for policy instruments designed to improve household energy efficiency. For several decades researchers have bemoaned the lack of systematic evaluation of instruments and the consequent lack of understanding about the true nature of barriers, the overall effectiveness of instruments and general principles underlying the formulation of instruments (Blumstein et al., 1980, Jaffe and Stavins, 1994, Fairey and Goldstein, 2006, Lowe and Oreszczyn, 2008, Maio et al., 2012).
In response to this research gap an extensive survey of Dutch households was conducted in 2012. The main aim of the survey was to examine the energy efficiency measures adopted and planned by households and the awareness, use and influence of different policy instruments on their action and plans. The focus of the survey was the uptake of energy efficiency measures requiring considerable monetary investment, for example, insulation and micro-generation technologies. These measures hold the most potential to reduce energy use for space and water heating (accounting for over 70% of residential energy use) (Itard and Meijer, 2008). The survey was limited to homeowners as this represents the single largest share of the housing market in the Netherlands and is therefore considered to represent the largest possible savings.1 Furthermore, the instruments developed for owner-occupiers are distinct from those aimed at social and private landlords for which it is considered separate surveys would be more appropriate.
One objective of the survey was to identify the impact of energy audits. This objective was reached by (a) analysing the influence of audits as reported by respondents and (b) analysing the difference in energy efficiency investment behaviour between audit recipients and non-recipients. In the next section the theoretical background is outlined followed by an overview of previous research. The survey design and statistical tests adopted for analysis are presented in Section 4. Results are presented in Section 5 and in the last section results are discussed and recommendations are proposed.
Section snippets
Barriers and information
The barrier model is typically used as a basis for the development of instruments. Along with financial constraints, lack of time and hassle; lack of information is viewed as a barrier preventing an otherwise assumed natural pursuit of cost effective household energy performance improvement (Jaffe and Stavins, 1994, Vedung and van der Doelen, 1998, Schleich, 2004). According to the OECD/IEA (2010:11) “The theory is simple: barriers can be overcome with the design and implementation of targeted
Effects of audits
Several research projects refute the assumption that tailored advice overcomes the information deficit and stimulates investment in energy efficiency measures. McDougall et al. (1983) “in their evaluation of the Canadian Ener$ave programme” found no difference between households who had received custom made advice compared to households who had not two years after the advice was provided (cited in Abrahamse et al., 2005). Hirst and Goeltz (1985: 26) “in their analysis of participants and
Questionnaire and response
To investigate the role and influence of national policy instruments on the adoption of energy efficiency measures by Dutch private households an extensive online questionnaire was launched in March 2012. The questionnaire consisted of multiple choice and open ended questions divided into several categories; the adoption and planned adoption of energy efficiency measures, energy audits, the EPC, building regulations, the energy tax, financial incentives, information tools and socio-economic and
Results
The final count for recipients of an energy audit was 3737. The final count for non-recipients was 1779. However, audit recipients who were required to get an audit for a subsidy were removed. This is because the energy audit was assumed to play a weaker role in their decision making. This reduced the audit recipient count to 2232. Furthermore, 431 respondents stated that they had received the audit opportunistically-for free from the local authority or energy company. Analysis was re-run with
The role and influence of energy audits
Results presented here agree with other research findings that show the energy audit as a weak variable in the overall decision to invest in household energy efficiency measures. Only 19% (421) of audit recipients who adopted energy efficiency measures stated that the audit rating or recommendations influenced their decision. The weak influence of the audit is further confirmed in the wide disparity between the measures that were recommended in the audit and the number and types of measures
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to a great number of people for their help at various stages of the survey on which this study was based. To the OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment for funding research, Angelo Vedder and Claudia Umlauf at Vereniging Eigen Huis for their support and input, Robert Kroese for language assistance, Sylvia Jansen for programming the survey, colleagues at Duurzame Woningkwaliteit and staff at Vereniging Eigen Huis for their suggestions during a pilot survey, Elianne van
References (47)
A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation
J. Environ. Psychol.
(2005)- et al.
The household energy gap: examining the divide between habitual and purchase related conservation behaviours
Energy Policy
(2005) New approaches for household energy conservation-In search of personal household energy budgets and energy reduction options
Energy Policy
(2006)Overcoming social and institutional barriers to energy conservation
Energy
(1980)- et al.
Lifestyle and home energy conservation in the United States: the poor accept lifestyle cutbacks while the wealthy invest in conservation
J. Economic Psychol.
(1983) Investing in energy conservation: are homeowners passing up high yields?
Energy Policy
(1983)Energy conservation programmes: the analysis and measures of their effects
Energy Policy
(1986)- et al.
Review of utility home energy audit programs
Energy
(1981) - et al.
Estimating energy savings due to conservation programmes: the BPA residential weatherization pilot programme
Energy Econ.
(1985) - et al.
The energy efficiency gap: what does it mean?
Energy Policy
(1994)
Regulatory standards and barriers to improved performance for housing
Energy Policy
Energy saving in Swedish households. The (relative) importance of environmental attitudes
Energy Policy
Viewpoint: some reflections on barriers to the efficient use of energy
Energy Policy
Non-participants in utility energy conservation programmes
Energy Policy
Cited by (56)
Economic and environmental impact of energy audit and efficiency: A report from a Nigeria household
2024, Energy for Sustainable DevelopmentDeterminants of energy efficient retrofits in residential sector: A comprehensive analysis
2023, Energy and Buildings