Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits

Energy Policy

Volumn 68, Issue , 2014, Pages 254-263

  Achtnicht, Martin ^a   Madlener, Reinhard ^b  

^a CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ZEW   (Germany)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Building energy retrofit; Choice experiment; Energy efficiency

Indexed keywords

BUILDING ENERGY; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; COMPUTER ASSISTED; ENERGY RETROFIT; FUTURE CHALLENGES; SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED;

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; EXPERIMENTS; HOUSES; SURVEYS;

RETROFITTING;

DEMAND ANALYSIS; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY MARKET; ENERGY PLANNING; HOUSEHOLD ENERGY; PROFITABILITY;

GERMANY;

EID: 84896726321     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Achtnicht M. Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70(11):2191-2200.
2. Alberini A., Banfi S., Ramseier C. Energy efficiency investments in the home. swiss homeowners and expectations about future energy prices. Energy J. 2013, 34(1):49-86.
3. Anderson S.T., Newell R.G. Information programs for technology adoption. the case of energy-efficiency audits. Resour. Energy Econ. 2004, 26(1):27-50.
4. Banfi S., Farsi M., Filippini M., Jakob M. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Econ. 2008, 30(2):503-516.
5. BMVBS, 2007. CO2 Gebäudereport 2007. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Berlin.
6. Brosig-Koch J., Helbach C., Ockenfels A., Weimann J. Still different after all these years. solidarity behavior in East and West Germany. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95(11-12):1373-1376.
7. Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econom. 1999, 89(1-2):109-129.
8. Cameron T.A. A nested logit model for energy conservation activity by owners of existing single family dwellings. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1985, 67(2):205-211.
9. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 41(3):401-417.
10. Carlsson F., Johansson-Stenman O. Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden. Appl. Econ. 2000, 32(6):661-669.
11. Carson R.T., Louviere J.J., Anderson D.A., Arabie P., Bunch D.S., Hensher D.A., Johnson R.M., Kuhfeld W.F., Steinberg D., Swait J., Timmermans H., Wiley J.B. Experimental analysis of choice. Mark. Lett. 1994, 5(4):351-368.
12. Danielson L., Hoban T.J., Van Houtven G., Whitehead J.C. Measuring the benefits of local public goods. environmental quality in Gaston County, North Carolina. Appl. Econ. 1995, 27(12):1253-1260.
13. Destatis, 2008. Wohnsituation in Deutschland 2006. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Wiesbaden.
14. Frondel M., Vance C. Heterogeneity in the effect of home energy audits. theory and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 55(3):407-418.
15. Grösche P., Vance C. Willingness-to-pay for energy conservation and free-ridership on subsidization - evidence from Germany. Energy J. 2009, 30(2):135-154.
16. Hahn R.W., Stavins R.N. Incentive-based environmental innovation. a new era from an old idea?. Ecol. Law Q. 1991, 18(1):1-42.
17. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches. a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15(3):435-462.
18. Hess S., Rose J.M. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42(3):297-317.
19. Hole A.R. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 2007, 7(3):388-401.
20. Howarth R.B., Andersson B. Market barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Econ. 1993, 15(4):262-272.
21. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(8):1595-1603.
22. IEA, 2011. World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD/International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris.
23. IWU, 2011. Deutschen Gebäudetypologie - Beispielhafte Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz von typischen Wohngebäuden, Institut Wohnen und Umwelt (IWU), Darmstadt.
24. Jakob M. Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments - the case of the Swiss residential sector. Energy Policy 2006, 34(2):172-187.
25. Jakob, M., 2007. The drivers of and barriers to energy efficiency in renovation decisions of single-family home-owners. Working paper series 07-56, Center for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE), ETH Zurich.
26. Kolstad C.D. Environmental Economics 2000, Oxford University Press, New York.
27. Kwak S.-Y., Yoo S.-H., Kwak S.-J. Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings. a choice experiment study. Energy Policy 2010, 38(1):673-677.
28. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
29. Michelsen C.C., Madlener R. Homeowners' preferences for adopting residential heating systems. a discrete choice analysis for Germany. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(5):1271-1283.
30. Michelsen C.C., Madlener R. Motivational factors influencing the homeowners' decisions between residential heating systems. an empirical analysis for Germany. Energy Policy 2013, 57:221-233.
31. Nair G., Gustavsson L., Mahapatra K. Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 2010, 38(6):2956-2963.
32. Poortinga W., Steg L., Vlek C., Wiersma G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures. a conjoint analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 2003, 24(1):49-64.
33. Sadler, M., 2003. Home Energy Preferences and Policy: Applying Stated Choice Modeling to a Hybrid Energy Economic Model. Report to Natural Resources Canada, Simon Fraser University.
34. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K.G. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Springer, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
35. Torgler B., García-Valiñas M.A. The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63(2-3):536-552.
36. Torgler B., Frey B., Wilson C. Environmental and pro-social norms. evidence on littering. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy. Topics 2009, 9(1):1-39.
37. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.