Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the adoption of the house as a system approach to residential energy efficiency programs

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Energy Efficiency Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional model of taking single actions when components reach their end of life or provide inadequate service has enabled the residential sector to gradually improve its energy efficiency over time. However, to achieve the large potential reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in residential buildings, a deeper systematic approach is required. The house as a system approach to energy retrofits emphasizes that for the greatest improvements in energy performance, multiple retrofit actions must be taken, and the order is important. This was the core concept in the Canadian residential energy efficiency programs, EnerGuide for Houses (1998–2006) and ecoEnergy (2007–2012). In this study, a systematic analysis of a large dataset that documents 19,552 residential energy evaluations conducted by a single agency in Waterloo, Canada, allows for a more nuanced description of how well the energy retrofit actions taken by participants followed the house as a system approach. The findings are encouraging in that participants did respond to the multiple recommendations given to them by energy advisors. In particular, a higher number of recommendations were associated with households arranging follow-up evaluations and taking more action under the performance-based grant program. However, the results also illustrate that participants frequently did not attend to the retrofits in the combinations associated with the house as a system approach. Insulation to reduce heat losses should have been the first priority in the systemic approach, but was often not upgraded, and the extent or depth of the upgrade was often less than what had been recommended. Furnaces and windows, which should have been upgraded in combination with or after the building envelope, were often upgraded as singular actions, demonstrating the persistence of the traditional model in some households. Time-limited grants do not appear compatible with encouraging the house as a system approach; it appears that staged approaches and careful attention to the building envelope retrofits would allow these programs to promote the house as a system approach to encourage deep retrofits and achieve low-carbon housing.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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. Other appliances, air-conditioning, and behaviors (e.g., set point temperature) are held constant across cases by the model.

  2. Most houses in the Region of Waterloo have basements; hence, the eight options were essentially equally applicable among houses.

  3. A limitation of this study is that it cannot account for homeowners’ actions after the follow-up evaluation or outside the 18-month timeframe, or for those who did not return, but who may have taken action.

  4. The minimum or threshold value used to measure change was 1% in the case of an efficiency change (measured in %) for furnace or hot water heater efficiency and 1 GJ for the change in heat loss values (air sealing, walls, basement, ceiling, windows/doors). The addition or change in the type of system, such as a fuel switch or the addition of a heat recovery ventilator (HRV), was described as a change in category. Otherwise, a recommendation was measured as the difference between the recommended value and the initial value.

References

  • Attari, S. Z., Dekay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(37), 16054–16059.

  • Aydinalp, M., Ferguson, A., Fung, A., & Ugursal, I. V. (2001). EnerGuide for houses database analysis. Canadian Residential Energy End-use Data and Analysis Centre, 3, 7301–7306.

  • Baumgartner, C. (2012). eco Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency, Housing Division, Natural Resources Canada. In CHBA Renovator’s Council. Available at: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/38419107/nrcan-presentation-conrad-baumgartner/4.

  • Bird, T. (2006). Energy efficiency audits : Identifying perceived barriers to implementing recommended actions Thomas bird. Canada: University of Waterloo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Building and Development Branch. (2016). MMA supplementary standard SB-12 energy efficiency for housing July 7, 2016 update. Thunder Bay: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby, S. (2006). Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energy-conscious village. Energy Policy, 34(17), 2929–2940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, T. (2014). Exploring the time dimension of low carbon retrofit: owner-occupied housing. Building Research & Information, 42(4), 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foulds, C., & Powell, J. (2015). Using the homes energy efficiency database as a research resource for residential insulation improvements. Energy Policy, 69(2014), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, M. C., Kunkel, C., Zimring, M., Hoffman, I., Soroye, K. L., & Goldman, C. (2010). Driving demand for home energy improvements. Berkeley: Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

  • Fung, A. S., Tse, H., Aydinalp, M., Ferguson, A., & Ugursal, V. I. (2007). Insights Drawn from the EnerGuide for Houses (EGH) Initiative Database. In G. Kawall, D. Naylor, S. Yu, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics. Toronto: Aardvark Global Publishing.

  • Galvin, R. (2014). Why German homeowners are reluctant to retrofit why German homeowners are reluctant to retrofit. Building Research & Information, 42(4), 398–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvin, R., & Sunikka-blank, M. (2014). The UK homeowner-retro fitter as an innovator in a socio-technical system. Energy Policy, 74, 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamtessa, S. F. (2013). An explanation of residential energy-efficiency retrofit behavior in Canada. Energy and Buildings, 57, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamtessa, S. & Ryan, D. L. (2007). Utilization of residential energy-saving retrofit programs in Canada: Who, what, and why? Canadian Building Energy End- Use Data and Analysis Centre

  • Gates, R. W. (1983). Investing in energy conservation are homeowners passing up high yields? Energy Policy, 11(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilby, D. (2010). A longitudinal study of residential energy Behaviours and attitudes. University of Waterloo..

  • Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. a. (1988). Using social cognition and persuasion to promote energy conservation: a quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(12), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson, A., Kerr, N., Millward-hopkins, J., Freeman, M. C., Topi, C., & Sullivan, R. (2015). Innovative financing models for low carbon transitions: exploring the case for revolving funds for domestic energy efficiency programmes. Energy Policy, 86, 739–748.

  • Gram-hanssen, K. (2014). Existing buildings users, renovations and energy policy. Renewable Energy, 61, 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guler, B., Fung, A. S., Aydinalp, M., & Ugursal, V. I. (2001). Impact of energy efficiency upgrade retrofits on the residential energy consumption in Canada. International Journal of Energy Research, 25, 785–792.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoicka, C. E., & Parker, P. (2011). Residential energy efficiency programs, retrofit choices and greenhouse gas emissions savings: a decade of energy efficiency improvements in Waterloo. International Journal of Energy Research, 35, 1312–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoicka, C. E., Parker, P., & Andrey, J. (2014). Residential energy efficiency retrofits: how program design affects participation and outcomes. Energy Policy, 65, 594–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. (2008). Worldwide trends in energy use and efficiency: Key insights from IEA indicator analysis. In Support of the G8 plan of action, Paris: International Energy Agency.

  • International Energy Agency. (2012a). Energy technology perspectives 2012.

  • International Energy Agency. (2012b). World energy outlook 2012,

  • International Energy Agency. (2016a). Canada: Indicators for 2014. Available at: http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=CANADA=&product=indicators.

  • International Energy Agency. (2016b). Canada - Energy System Overview, (2015), p.2016.

  • International Energy Agency. (2016c). Key world energy statistics.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermyn, D., & Richman, R. (2016). A process for developing deep energy retrofit strategies for single-family housing typologies: three Toronto case studies. Energy & Buildings, 116, 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killip, G., Fawcett, T., Janda, K.B. (2009). Building Expertise : industry responses to the low-energy housing retrofit agenda in the UK and France. In ECEEE SUMMER STUDY PROCEEDINGS 77. pp. 77–86. Retrieved from http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/1-121-13_Killip.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2017.

  • Koopmans, C.C. & Willem, D. (2001). Bridging the energy efficiency gap : using bottom-up information in a top-down energy demand model, pp.57–75.

  • Less, B., & Walker, I. (2015). Deep energy retrofit guidance for the building America solutions center. Berkeley: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovins, A. B. (2004). Energy efficiency, taxonomic overview. Encyclopedia of Energy, 2, 383–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magat, W. A., Payne, J. W., & Brucato, P. (1986). How important is information format? An experimental study of home energy audit programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(1), 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallaband, B., Haines, V., & Mitchell, V. (2012). Barriers to domestic retrofit–learning from past home improvement experiences (p. 10). Loughborough: Loughborough’s Institutional Repository.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.(2012). MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001- Local Improvement Charges–Priority Lien Status.

  • Murphy, L. (2014). The influence of energy audits on the energy efficiency investments of private owner-occupied households in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 65, 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2013.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., & Mahapatra, K. (2010a). Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy, 38, 2956–2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, G., Gustavsson, L., & Mahapatra, K. (2010b). Owners perception on the adoption of building envelope energy efficiency measures in Swedish detached houses. Applied Energy, 87, 2411–2419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Canada. (2013). Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada 1990 to 2013.

  • Office of Energy Efficiency. (2007). In N. R. Canada (Ed.), Consumer’s guide: Keeping the heat. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Energy Efficiency. (2010). Residential GHG Emissions by Energy Source and End-Use – Including and Excluding Electricity-Related Emissions, 1990–2008. Available at: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/res_00_6_e_4.cfm?attr=0.

  • Office of Energy Efficiency. (2012). Consumer’s Guide: Keeping the Heat In, Natural Resources Canada.

  • Ontario Energy Board. (2013). Natural Gas Rates - Historical. Available at: http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Natural Gas/Natural Gas Rates/Natural Gas Rates - Historical.

  • Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2010) A Study of Prescriptive Requirements for EnerGuide 80 in Ontario ’ s Building Code., (March).

  • Palmer, K., Walls, M., Gordon, H. (2013). Assessing the energy-efficiency information gap : results from a survey of home energy auditors 2: pp.271–292.

  • Parker, P. & O’Neil, S. (2012). Energy Blocks: Getting Back to Zero. Final Report to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) External Research Program, Waterloo.

  • Parker, P., Rowlands, I., & Scott, D. (2005). Who changes consumption following residential energy evaluations? Local programs need all income groups to achieve kyoto targets. Local Environment, 10, 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persram, S. (2011). Property assessed payments for energy retrofits: Recommendations for regulatory change and optimal program features. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation and Sustainable Alternatives Consulting Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Region of Waterloo. (2006). Census Bulletin.

  • Ryan, D.L. (2009). Explaining Energy Savings under the EnerGuide for Houses Home Retrofit Program. Canadian Building Energy End- Use Data and Analysis Centre.

  • Scott, D., Parker, P., & Rowlands, I. H. (2001). Determinants of energy efficiency behaviours in the home: A case study of waterloo region. Environments, 28, 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, S., Banfill, P., Haines, V., Mallaband, B., Mitchell, V., Simpson, S. (2016). Energy-led domestic retrofit: impact of the intervention sequence Energy-led domestic retrofit: impact of the intervention sequence. Building Research & Information, 44(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.996360.

  • Statistics Canada (2012). Household energy use, by fuel type and by province, 2007 — Average energy use. Statistics Canada, Households and the Environment Survey: Energy Use, 2007, Catalogue no. 11–526-S.

  • Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and Proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Aronson, E., Darley, J. M., Hill, D. H., Hirst, E., Kempton, W., & Wilbanks, T. J.(1986). The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy conservation. Evaluation Review, 10(2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8601000201.

  • Sunikka-blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2016). Irrational homeowners ? How aesthetics and heritage values influence thermal retrofit decisions in the United Kingdom. Energy Research and Social Science, 11, 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tohinaka, K., Kuhn, N., Faesy, R., & Quinlan, D. (2011). Technical assistance program residential retrofit program design guide contact information. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

  • UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), (2014). First steps to a safer future: Introducing The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/6036.php. Accessed June 2017.

  • Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Danny Harvey, L. D., Mirasgedis, S., & Levine, M. D. (2007). Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the world’s buildings. Building Research & Information, 35(4), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701325883.

  • Vadodaria, K., Loveday, D., Haines, V., Mitchell, V., Mallaband, B., & Bayer, S. (2010). UK solid-wall dwellings - thermal comfort, energy effeciency refurbishment and the user perspective - some preliminary analysis from the CALEBRE project. In Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort, 9-11 April 2010, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, 6th Windsor Comfort Conference on Thermal Comfort (pp. 1–16) Windsor, London: Cumberland Lodge.

  • Vergragt, P. J., & Brown, H. S. (2012). The challenge of energy retrofitting the residential housing stock: Grassroots innovations and socio-technical system change in Worcester, MA. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 407–420 Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09537325.2012.663964%5Cn, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09537325.2012.663964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigington, L. (2010). Staged Approaches for Deep Energy Reductions in Existing Homes How Deep Is Deep Enough ? In ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (pp. 339–354). Retrieved from http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/2299.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2017.

  • Zhao, T., Bell, L., Horner, M. W., Sulik, J., & Zhang, J. (2012). Consumer responses towards home energy financial incentives: A survey-based study. Energy Policy, 47, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.070.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Residential Energy Efficiency Project staff and partners who supported, delivered, and managed the programs at the local level. Valuable work on related topics by graduate students and other members of the Sustainable Energy Policy group at the University of Waterloo also helped to inform thinking in this area. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Ontario Graduate Scholarship provided financial support. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environmental Studies, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Christina E. Hoicka

  2. School of Environment Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave., Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Paul Parker

Authors
  1. Christina E. Hoicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina E. Hoicka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoicka, C.E., Parker, P. Assessing the adoption of the house as a system approach to residential energy efficiency programs. Energy Efficiency 11, 295–313 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9564-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9564-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation