Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive biases in energy decisions during the planning, design, and construction of commercial buildings in the United States: an analytical framework and research needs

  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite a national goal for every building to achieve net-zero energy by 2050 and despite exemplary projects proving the technical and economic feasibility of much better energy performance, commercial buildings in the USA today use more energy per square foot than they ever have. Decisions made during planning, design, and construction (delivery) of commercial buildings appear systematically irrational, not maximizing utility for designers, occupants, or society. In other fields, notably economics, improved understanding of cognitive biases like “loss aversion” and “anchoring” has helped to explain seemingly irrational decision making. Related work has examined these cognitive biases for energy decisions made in an occupied building. Less clear is the role these cognitive biases play in the high-impact, long-term energy decisions made during commercial building delivery. As an initial step towards addressing this gap in understanding, this paper outlines key energy decisions in commercial building delivery and shows how cognitive biases may impact these decisions. A suggested approach to study these biases, and to design policies that address them, is provided. By highlighting these potential cognitive biases, based on an understanding of the building delivery process, this paper aims to engage those with relevant expertise in the behavioral and social sciences to help address the decision making that is preventing progress towards improved energy performance in commercial buildings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On average, computers account for 1.5% of this energy intensity and electronics another 5% (U.S. Department of Energy 2008), so increased use of these technologies does not fully explain the increase.

  2. The green buildings studied generally outperform comparable new buildings (Turner & Frankel 2008). However, taken as a whole, the existing building stock outperforms these green buildings. This is not a perfect comparison, as the green buildings studied represent a limited sample that is not necessarily a perfect cross-section of the entire commercial building sector. Still, the fact remains that much more needs to be done to reduce the energy intensity of US commercial buildings.

  3. LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the green building certification system of the US Green Building Council.

  4. A recent study found that, for homes in the United Kingdom, greatly increased energy performance can actually be more cost-effective, per ton of carbon dioxide saved, than smaller improvements (Shorrock and Henderson, 2009).

References

  • American Physical Society, 2008. Energy = future: Think efficiency, American Physical Society. Available at: http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm.

  • Ariely, D., 2008. Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions, HarperCollins.

  • Austin, S., et al. (1999). Analytical design planning technique: A model of the detailed building design process. Design Studies, 20(3), 279–296.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bordass, B., et al. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 3: Energy performance of the Probe buildings. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borden, R. J. (1977). One more look at social and environmental psychology: Away from the looking glass and into the future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(3), 407–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. & Rabin, M., 2003. Advances in behavioral economics, Princeton University Press.

  • Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (2000). Cognitive processes and biases in medical decision making. In Decision making in health care: Theory, psychology, and applications. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress, 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,

  • Curtis, B., Kellner, M. I., & Over, J. (1992). Process modeling. Commun. ACM, 35(9), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, S., 2006. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption: A review for DEFRA of the Literature on Metering, Billing and Direct Displays, University of Oxford: Environmental Change Institute. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/energy/research/pdf/energyconsump-feedback.pdf [Accessed December 20, 2008].

  • DeCanio, S. J. (1993). Barriers within firms to energy-efficient investments. Energy Policy, 21(9), 906–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCanio, S. J. (1998). The efficiency paradox: Bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments. Energy Policy, 26(5), 441–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, M. L. (1990). Effective dissemination of energy-related information: Applying social psychology and evaluation research. The American Psychologist, 45(10), 1109–1117.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dieperink, C., Brand, I., & Vermeulen, W. (2004). Diffusion of energy-saving innovations in industry and the built environment: Dutch studies as inputs for a more integrated analytical framework. Energy Policy, 32(6), 773–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Energy Star, 2009. Building design guidance. Energy Star. Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.new_bldg_design_guidance [Accessed January 5, 2009].

  • Ferreira, A., 2008. Ferreira construction building maintains ‘first net zero electric’ status. PR Newswire. Available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-14-2008/0004867538&EDATE=.

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Bounded and rational. Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science (pp. 115–133). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Palmer, K. (2009). Energy efficiency economics and policy. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994). A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5(1), 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, B.T., 2007. Assessment of the technical potential for achieving net zero-energy buildings in the commercial sector, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

  • Harvey, L. (2009). Reducing energy use in the buildings sector: Measures, costs, and examples. Energy Efficiency, 2(2), 139–163.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, M. D. (1999). Anchoring and acquiescence bias in measuring assets in household surveys. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 111–136.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, S., & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28(9), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy–efficiency gap. Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L., 1973. Victims of groupthink, Houghton Mifflin Co.

  • Jin, G. Z., & Leslie, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 409–451.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. C., et al. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, W., Darley, J. M., & Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological research for the new energy problems. The American Psychologist, 47(10), 1213–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, W., & Montgomery, L. (1982). Folk quantification of energy. Energy, 7(10), 817–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, L., Horman, M., & Bodenschatz, M. (2007). A lean modeling protocol for evaluating green project delivery. Lean Construction Journal, 3(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, L., Mack, D., Klapthor, B., Tunstall, C., and Harrison, J., 2010. Unintended anchors: Building rating systems and energy performance goals for U.S. buildings. Energy Policy (In Press)

  • Koomey, J. (1990). Energy efficiency choices in new office buildings: An investigation of market failures and corrective policies. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koomey, J., Sanstad, A., & Shown, L. (1996). Energy-efficient lighting: Market data, market imperfections, and policy success. Contemporary Economic Policy, 14(3), 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulakowski, S. L. (1999). Large organizations' investments in energy-efficient building retrofits. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., & Riley, D. R. (2006). Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 132, 1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewers, C., 2008. From zero to net-zero squared. Archi-Tech Magazine.

  • Linder, S. H. (1987). On cogency, professional bias, and public policy: An assessment of four views of the injury problem. The Milbank Quarterly, 65(2), 276–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, P. (2006). Market penetration rates of new energy technologies. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3317–3326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutzenhiser, L. (1993). Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annual Reviews in Energy and the Environment, 18(1), 247–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magent, C., et al. (2009). A design process evaluation method forsustainable buildings. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(1), 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthiessen, L. & Morris, P., 2007. Cost of green revisited: Reexamining the feasibility and cost impact of sustainable design in the light of increased market adoption, Davis Langdon .

  • Mazria, E. (1979). Passive solar energy book. PA: Emmaus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., & Whittier, J. (1983). Consumer discount rates implied by purchases of energy-efficient refrigerators. Energy(Oxford), 8(12), 957–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes, E. (2004). Estimating customer utility of energy efficiency standards for refrigerators. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(6), 707–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. National Science Board, 2009. Building a sustainable energy future (Draft for Public Comment), Washington, DC: National Science Board. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2009/comments_se_report.pdf [Accessed May 1, 2009].

  • Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Promoting Environmentalism, 56(3), 373–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell, R., & Larsen, O. P. (2005). Informing the development of domestic energy efficiency initiatives: An everyday householder-centered framework. Environment and Behavior, 37(6), 787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, B. C. J. (1976). Designing to reduce construction costs. Journal of the Construction Division, 102(4), 587–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, W. G., & Gordon, E. B. (2000). Integrated design and building process: What research and methodologies are needed? Building Research & Information, 28(5), 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J.H. et al., 2004. Who plays and who decides: The structure and operation of the commercial building market, Innovologie.

  • Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of innovations, Free Press.

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. W., et al. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer-Ries, P. (2008). Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4126–4135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shama, A. (1983). Energy conservation in US buildings: Solving the high potential/low adoption paradox from a behavioural perspective. Energy Policy, 11(2), 148–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, L. (1995). Cognitive heuristics and law—An interdisciplinary approach to better judicial decision-making. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 20, 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorrock, L., & Henderson, J. (2009). Do zero carbon homes make sense? In Act! Innovate! Deliver! La Colle sur Loup, France: Reducing energy demand sustainably.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E. (1998). Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: Theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy, 26(15), 1105–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Effecting durable change: A team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P., 1985. Energy efficiency in buildings: Behavioral issues, National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10463 [Accessed October 12, 2008].

  • Strack, F., Martin, L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European journal of social psychology, 18(5), 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 1166–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C., 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Yale University Press.

  • Turner, C., & Frankel, M. (2008). Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turrentine, T. S., & Kurani, K. S. (2007). Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy, 35(2), 1213–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tzortzopoulos, P., Sexton, M., & Cooper, R. (2005). Process models implementation in the construction industry: A literature synthesis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(5), 470–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy, 2008. Delivered energy. Energy intensity indicators. Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/intensityindicators/delivered_energy.html [Accessed September 16, 2008].

  • Urge-Vorsatz, D., et al. (2009). Bottom–up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: Insights into the missing elements. Online First: Energy Efficiency.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Energy, 2007. 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book, US Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.btscoredatabook.net/ [Accessed September 16, 2008].

  • Vaidya, P. et al., 2007. Integrated cost estimation methodology to support high-performance building design. In Saving energy—Just do it. Côte d’Azur, France.

  • Vermeulen, W., & Hovens, J. (2006). Competing explanations for adopting energy innovations for new office buildings. Energy Policy, 34(17), 2719–2735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vine, E. L. (1993). The Human Dimension of Program Evaluation, LBL–33601. CA (United States): Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., 1996. Environmental Design Charrette Workbook, AIA Committee on the Environment.

  • Wilhite, H., & Lutzenhiser, L. (1999). Social loading and sustainable consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 281–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, N., 2007. An introduction to behavioral economics: A guide for students, Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Wilson, C. (2008). Understanding and influencing energy efficient renovation decisions. PhD: The University of British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2007). Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 169–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winett, R. A., & Neale, M. S. (1979). Psychological framework for energy conservation in buildings: Strategies, outcomes, directions. Energy and Buildings, 2(2), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, S. M., & Aronson, E. (1983). A social psychological perspective on energy conservation in residential buildings. The American Psychologist, 38(4), 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zsambok, C.E. & Klein, G.A., 2007. Naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clemson University, 208 Lowry Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

    Leidy Klotz

Authors
  1. Leidy Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leidy Klotz.

Appendices

Appendices

Table 2 Example cognitive biases and their potential relevance to this project
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klotz, L. Cognitive biases in energy decisions during the planning, design, and construction of commercial buildings in the United States: an analytical framework and research needs. Energy Efficiency 4, 271–284 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9089-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9089-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation