Skip to main content

For building operators, what difference does a target make?

Abstract

There is increasing recognition, both in the literature and from policy-makers, of the influence that operations personnel have over the energy efficiency of large complex buildings and the potential to save energy by providing them with clear and timely feedback. An implicit but poorly founded assumption built into most studies of energy efficiency feedback is that participants have a goal to save energy. Often this is not true and even among those who seek to achieve savings, there is much variability in how competing goals are prioritized. In this study, operators of 110 large office buildings received daily feedback informing them about their buildings’ energy efficiency compared with an “expected” (baseline) level determined by reference to a statistical model that normalized for weather and other factors outside of their control. Variances between expected and actual performance gave them signals about the impact of their actions on energy use. After a period, the focus of the daily messages was switched for 60 of the operators from a baseline profile to the “best” normalized performance observed previously. The introduction of this daily “target” profile was directly associated with additional savings. It was noted that engagement with the daily feedback increased, even though participants had no role in target setting. This study has implications for the design of information feedback methods for building operators and suggests that by giving them an awareness of the divergence between their building’s performance and its efficiency improvement potential, a positive spiral of increasing energy efficiency, expertise, and engagement can emerge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    NB only a subset of the 110 buildings participated for the full 1360-day lead-up and approximately half (n = 60) were involved in the “target” intervention.

  2. 2.

    REF stands for Rapid Efficiency Feedback, the name Buildings Alive’s daily feedback service is known by.

  3. 3.

    A total of 140 buildings were initially earmarked for the study, but 30 of these were excluded from consideration and not considered suitable for a quasi-control group because of changes in occupancy, management, etc.

References

  1. Adalberth, K., Almgren, A., & Petersen, E. H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings. International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 2, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: a field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 428–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, L. J., Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Darley, J. M. (1981). Relating attitudes to residential energy use. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 590–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Darby, S. (2010). Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Building Research & Information, 38(5), 442–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change). (2009). Towards a smarter future: government response to the consultation on electricity and gas smart metering. London: DECC/The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1(1), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gärling, T., Eek, D., Loukopoulos, P., Fujii, S., Johansson-Stenman, O., Kitamura, R., et al. (2002). A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use. Transport Policy, 9(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 615–635.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Junnila, S., Horvath, A., & Guggemos, A. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12(1), 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laitner, J. A., Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., and McKinney, V.. (2009). Examining the scale of the behaviour energy efficiency continuum. Paper presented at the ECEEE 2009 Summer Study, La Colle sur Loup (France).

  13. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lucon, O., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Zain Ahmed, A., Akbari, H., Bertoldi, P., Cabeza, L. F., . . . Vilariño, M. V.. (2014). Buildings. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (671–738). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.

  15. Mailjet. (2018). What is a normal open rate? www.mailjet.com/support/what-is-a-normal-open-rate,83.htm.

  16. McCalley, L. T., & Midden, C. J. H. (2002). Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: The roles of goal-setting and social orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roussac, A. C. (2017). A framework for presenting energy efficiency feedback to operators of buildings (PhD Thesis). Faculty of Architecture, Design, and Planning, University of Sydney, Australia. ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/16791/2/roussac_ac_thesis.pdf.

  18. Suzuki, M., & Oka, T. (1998). Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office buildings in Japan. Energy and Buildings, 28(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2009). Buildings and climate change: summary for decision-makers. Paris: UNEP Sustainable Building & Climate Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  20. WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). (2010). Energy efficiency in buildings: transforming the market. Geneva: www.wbcsd.org/web/eeb/.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Craig Roussac.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roussac, A.C., Huang, H. For building operators, what difference does a target make?. Energy Efficiency 13, 459–471 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-019-09788-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Feedback
  • Commercial buildings
  • Targets
  • Building operators
  • Behavior
  • Motivation