Energy retrofit and investment decisions: Individuals' preferences valuation through a Choice Experiment;Retrofit energetico e decisioni di investimento: Valutazione delle preferenze degli individui attraverso un esperimento di scelta

Geoingegneria Ambientale e Mineraria

Volumn 158, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 11-25

  Bottero, Marta ^a   Bravi, Marina ^a   Cavana, Giulio ^a   Dell'Anna, Federico ^a   Becchio, Cristina ^a   Corgnati, Stefano ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI TORINO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Co benefit; Energy efficiency; Purchase decisions; Random Utility model; Renewable energy; Stated preferences; Willingness To Pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 85082818960     PISSN: 11219041     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Achtnicht, M., 2011. Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany. Ecological Economics. 70. pp. 2191-2200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.026
2. Achtnicht, M. e Madlener, R., 2014. Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy. 68. pp. 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.006
3. Agenzia delle Entrate (2018). Agenzia delle Entrate - Cittadini - Detrazione riqualificazione energetica - Che cos'è. [online] Agenziaentrate.gov.it. Available at: https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/wps/content/ nsilib/nsi/schede/agevolazioni/ detrazione+riqualificazione+energetica+55+2016/cosa+riqualificazione+55+2016?page = agevolazionicitt [Accesso in data 10 Dicembre 2018].
4. Agenzia delle Entrate, 2017. Gli immobili in Italia. Ricchezza, reddito e fiscalità immobiliare.
5. APAT, 2003. Analisi dei fattori di emissione di CO2 dal settore dei trasporti. Metodo di Riderimento IPCC, modello COPERT ed analisi sperimentali, APAT.
6. Assumma,V., Bottero, M., Datola, G., De Angelis, E., Monaco, R., 2020. Dynamic Models for Exploring the Resilience in Territorial Scenarios. Sustainability. 12. 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12010003
7. Aylett, A., 2013. Networked Urban Climate Governance: Neighborhood-Scale Residential Solar Energy Systems and the Example of Solarize Portland. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31, 858-875. https://doi.org/10.1068/ c11304
8. Baker, R. e Ruting, B., 2014. Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non-Market Valuation Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper. Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra.
9. Ballarini, I., Corgnati, S.P. e Corrado, V., 2014. Use of reference buildings to assess the energy saving potentials of the residential building stock: The experience of TABULA project. Energy Policy. 68. pp. 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.027
10. Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M. e Jakob, M., 2008. Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics. 30. pp. 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.06.001
11. Bartczak, A., Chilton, S., Czajkowski, M. e Meyerhoff, J., 2017. Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment.The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities. Energy Economics. 65. 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.020
12. Barthelmes, V.M., Becchio, C., Bottero, M., Corgnati, S.P., 2016. Cost-optimal analysis for the definition of energy design strategies:The case of a nearly-Zero energy building.Valori e Valutazioni 16. 57-70.
13. Becchio, C., Bottero, M.C., Corgnati, S.P. e Dell'Anna, F., 2018a. Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin. Land Use Policy. 78. pp. 803-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.048
14. Becchio, C., Bottero, M.C., Corgnati, S.P. e Dell'Anna, F., 2018b. Evaluating Health Benefits of Urban Energy Retrofitting:AnApplication for the City of Turin, Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, in: Bisello A., Vettorato D., Laconte P., Costa S. (Eds.), Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. SSPCR 2017. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_20
15. Becchio, C., Corgnati, S.P., Delmastro, C., Fabi, V. e Lombardi, P., 2015. The Role of Nearly-zero Energy Buildings in the Definition of Post- Carbon Cities. Energy Procedia. 78. pp. 687-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.067
16. Bennett, J., Dumsday, R., Ransome, S. e Kragt, M., 2007. Valuing the Protection of Victorian Forests: Murray River Red Gums, and East Gippsland, in: Proceeding of 51st AARES Conference, Queenstown, February, 2007. pp. 1-27.
17. Bisello, A., Grilli, G., Balest, J., Stellin, G. e Ciolli, M., 2017. Co-benefits of Smart and Sustainable Energy District Projects: An Overview of Economic Assessment Methodologies, in: Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Stephens, R., Elisei, P. (Eds.), Smar t and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR 2015, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 127-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44899-2_9
18. Bisello,A. eVettorato, D., 2018. Multiple Benefits of Smart Urban EnergyTransition, in: Urban Energy Transition. Elsevier, pp. 467-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102074-6.00037-1
19. Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W., Louviere, J.J., Morrison, M.D. e Rolfe, J., 2000. A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecological Economics. 32. pp. 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00101-9
20. Boeri, M. e Longo, A., 2017. The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy pro-grammes: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Energy Economics. 63. pp. 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.03.005
21. Borchiellini, R., Corgnati, S., Becchio, C., Delmastro, C., Bottero, M., Dell'Anna, F., Acquaviva, A., Bottaccioli, L., Patti, E., Bompard, E., Pons, E., Estebsari, A., Verda, V., Santarelli, M., Leone, P. e Lanzini, A., 2017. The Energy Center Initiative at Politecnico di Torino: Practical experiences on energy efficiency measures in the municipality ofTorino. International Journal of Heat and Technology. 35. pp. 196-204. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.35Sp0128
22. Bottero, M., Caprioli, C., Cotella, G., Santangelo, M., 2019. Sustainable Cities:A Reflection on Potentialities and Limits based on Existing Eco-Districts in Europe. Sustainability,11(20), pp. 5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11205794
23. Bottero, M., D'Alpaos, C. e Dell'Anna, F., 2019. Boosting Investments in Buildings Energy Retrofit:The Role of Incentives, in: Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., Bevilacqua, C. (Eds.), New Metropolitan Perspectives. Springer, Cham, pp. 593-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92102-0_63
24. Bottero, M.C. e Bravi, M., 2014. Valutazione dei benefici connessi al risparmio energetico degli edifici: un approccio econometrico. Geoingegneria Ambientale e Mineraria. 3. pp. 15-24.
25. Bottero, M., Bravi, M., Dell'Anna, F., Marmolejo-Duarte, C., 2020. Energy Efficiency Choices and Residential Sector: Observable Behaviors and Valuation Models, in Mondini G., Oppio A., Stanghellini S., Bottero M.C., Abastante F. (Eds.),Values and Functions for Future Cities. Springer, Cham, pp. 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23786-8_9
26. Bottero, M.C., Bravi, M., Dell'Anna, F. e Mondini, G., 2018. Valuing building energyefficientthroughHedonicPrices Method: are spatial effects relevant? Valori eValutazioni.21.pp.27-40.
27. Buso,T., Dell'Anna, F., Becchio, C., Bottero, M.C. e Corgnati, S.P., 2017. Of comfort and cost: Examining indoor comfort conditions and guests' valuations in Italian hotel rooms. Energy Research & Social Science. 32. pp. 94-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2017.01.006
28. Capolongo, S., Sdino, L., Dell'Ovo, M., Moioli, R., Della Torre, S., 2019. How to assess urban regeneration proposals by considering conflicting values. Sustainability. 11, 14, pp. 3877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143877
29. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S. e Ruud, P.A., 2003. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics. 25. pp. 257-286. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104
30. Chee, Y. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation.120(4).pp.549-565.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028
31. Cimnaghi, E., Dongiovanni, M.G., 2014. Monitoring of energy consumption in social housing buildings: A European project aimed at energy saving. Geam Geoingegneria Ambientale e Mineraria. 142. pp. 25-31.
32. COM, 2013. Relazione della commissione al Parlamento Europeo e al Consiglio: Progressi realizzati dagli stati membri in materia di edifici a energia quasi zero, Bruxelles, Belgio.
33. COM, 2016-2. Proposta di Direttiva del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio che modifica la direttiva 2010/31/UE sulla prestazione energetica nell'edilizia, Bruxelles, Belgio.
34. Cruz, L., Simões, P. e Barata, E. (2014). Combining observed and contingent travel behaviour: the best of both worlds? Notas Económicas. 40. pp. 8-25. https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-203x_40_1
35. Dell'Anna, F., Bravi, M., Marmolejo-Duarte, C., Bottero, M., Chan, A., 2019. EPC Green Premium inTwo Different European Climate Zones:A Comparative Study between Barcelona andTurin. Sustainability. 11(20). pp. 5605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11205605
36. DM 26 giugno 2015.Adeguamento del decreto del Ministro dello sviluppo economico, 26 giugno 2009 - Linee guida nazionali per la certificazione energetica degli edifici.
37. Economidou, M., Atanasiu, B., Despret, C. e Maio, J., 2011. Europe's buildings under the microscope. A country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings.
38. ENEA (2007). Dossier: Dall'Ecobuilding al Distretto Energetico: la proposta Enea per un modello di sviluppo fondato su edifici a generazione distribuita, ENEA,Roma.
39. ENEA (2013). Verso un'Italia low carbon: Sistema energetico, occupazione e investimenti, ENEA, Roma.
40. ENEA (2017). Rapporto annuale efficienza energetica: Executive summary, ENEA, Roma.
41. European Commission, 2011a. A Road-map for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.572
42. European Commission, 2011b. Energy 2020, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2833/78930
43. European Commission, 2014. Guide to Cost-benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2776/97516
44. European Council, 2014. 2030 Climate and energy policy framework, EUCO 169/14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
45. European Union, 2003. Concerto project brochure, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/ener gy_tr anspor t/ r td/concer to/index_en.htm.
46. European Union, 2010. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, Official Journal of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.153.eng
47. European Union, 2014. Energy Solutions for Smart Cities and Communities. Lessons learnt from the 58 pilot cities of the CONCERTO initiativeEditor.
48. Ferreira, M., Almeida, M. e Rodrigues, A., 2017. Impact of co-benefits on the assessment of energy related building renovation with a nearly-zero energy target. Energy and Buildings. 152. pp. 587-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2017.07.066
49. Giaccaria, S. e Frontuto, V., 2007. GIS and Geographically Weighted Regression in stated preferences analysis of the externalities produced by linear infrastructures.Torino.
50. Giorgi, F., Jacob, J., 1977. Recent findings on oogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Further evidence on the origin of yolk platelets. Journal of embryology and experimental morphology. 38. pp. 125-37.
51. Greene, W.H., 2002. Nlogit version 5. Reference guide. Econometric software, NewYork.
52. Griffiths, N., Despret, C., Economidou, M., Maio, J., Nolte, I. e Rapf, O., 2011. Principles for nearly zero-energy buildings, Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE).
53. Haab, T. e McConnell, K., 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
54. Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. e Crabtree, B., 1998. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 49. pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998. tb01248.x
55. Hauber, A.B., González, J.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M., Prior, T., Marshall, D.A., Cunningham, C., IJzerman, M.J., Bridges, J.F.P., 2016. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health. 19. pp. 300-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
56. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. e Greene, W.H., 2015. Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781316136232
57. Horowitz, J.K. e McConnell, K.E., 2002. A Review of WTA/WTP Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 44. pp. 426-447. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jeem.2001.1215
58. Huber, J. e Zwerina, K., 1996. The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research. 33(3). pp. 307-317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152127
59. Kiel, K.A. e McClain, K.T., 1995. House Prices during Siting Decision Stages: The Case of an Incinerator from Rumor through Operation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28. pp. 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1016
60. Kılkış, Ş., 2014. Energy system analysis of a pilot net-zero exergy district, Energy Conversion and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.014
61. Kruijshaar, M.E., Essink-Bot, M.-L., Donkers, B., Looman, C.W., Siersema, P.D. e Steyerberg, E.W., 2009. A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus, BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-31
62. Kwak, S.-Y.,Yoo, S.-H. e Kwak, S.-J., 2010. Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study. Energy Policy. 38. pp. 673-677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.022
63. Lancaster, K.J., 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy. 74. pp. 132-157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131
64. Louviere, J.J., Flynn,T.N. e Carson, R.T., 2010. Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling. 3. pp. 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9
65. Louviere, J.J. e Woodworth, G., 1983. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research. 20. 350-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151440
66. MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. e Lienhoop, N., 2006. Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics. 60. pp. 299-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2005.11.031
67. Mangham, L.J., Hanson, K. e McPake, B., 2009. How to do (or not to do)… Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning. 24. pp. 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn047
68. Marique, A.-F. e Reiter, S., 2014. A simplified framework to assess the feasibility of zero-energy at the neighbourhood/community scale. Energy and Buildings. 82. pp. 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.006
69. Marmolejo-Duarte, C. e Bravi, M., 2017. Does the Energy Label (EL) Matter in the Residential Market? A Stated Preference Analysis in Barcelona. Buildings. 7. pp. 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7020053
70. Marmolejo-Duarte, C. e Ruiz-Lineros, M., 2013. Using choice-based-experiments to support real estate design decisions. Journal of European Real Estate Research 6,63-89.https://doi. org/10.1108/17539261311312979
71. Nordén, A., Coria, J., Jönsson, A.M., Lagergren, F. e Lehsten, V., 2017. Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden. Ecological Economics. 132. pp. 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.032
72. Ott, W., Baur, M. e Jakob, M., 2003. Direkte und indirekte Zusatznutzen bei energie-effizienten Wohnbauten. Bundesamt für Energie BFE, Bern.
73. Pannell, D.J., 2013. Value for Money in Environmental Policy and Environmental Economics.Working Paper 19.
74. Park, J.Y., 2017. Is there a price premium for energy efficiency labels? Evidence from the Introduction of a Label in Korea. Energy Economics. 62. pp. 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.12.004
75. Poortinga,W., Steg, L.,Vlek, C. e Wiersma, G., 2003. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology. 24. pp. 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00154-X
76. Regione Piemonte, 2016. Prezziario della Regione Piemonte, Prezzi di riferimento per Opere e Lavori Pubblici nella Regione Piemonte.
77. Rolls, S.C., Bulliard, C. e Bennet, J., 2009. Willingness to pay for e-waste recycling.Adelaide.
78. Ruokamo, E., 2016. Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems - A choice experiment application. Energy Policy. 95. pp. 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.017
79. Salm, S., Hille, S.L. e Wüstenhagen, R., 2016. What are retail investors' risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany. Energy Policy. 97. pp. 310-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.042
80. Scarpa, R. e Willis, K., 2010. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics. 32. pp. 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.004
81. Seltzer, E., Smith,T., Cortright, J., Bassett, E.M. e Shandas,V., 2010. Making Eco-Districts Concepts & Methods for Advancing Sustainability in Neighborhoods. Portland.
82. SEN, 2017. Strategia Energetica Nazionale. Ministero dello sviluppo economico, Roma.
83. Sudman, S., Mitchell, R.C. e Carson, R.T., 1991. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Contemporary Sociology. 20(2). pp. 243. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072944
84. Testi, D., Schito, E., Menchetti, E., Conti, P., Della Vista, D., Pellegrini, G.,Tiberi, E., Grassi, W., Signoretti, P. e Fasano, G., 2015. Il software SEAS per le diagnosi energetiche: interventi di assistenza e formazione e sviluppo di un modello semplificato per gli edifici ad uso residenziale. Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico.
85. Upton, V., Dhubháin, Á.N. e Bullock, C., 2012. Preferences and values for afforestation:The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment. Forest Policy and Economics. 23. pp. 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.006
86. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Herrero, S.T., Du-bash, N.K. e Lecocq, F., 2014. Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation.Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 39. pp. 549-582. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-031312-125456
87. Vecchiato, D. e Tempesta,T., 2015. Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy. 88. pp. 168-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.036
88. Yildiz, Ö., 2014. Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation - The case of Germany. Renewable Energy. 68. pp. 677-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.02.038