IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/12042.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits

Author

Listed:
  • Achtnicht, Martin
  • Madlener, Reinhard

Abstract

In this paper, we identify key drivers and barriers for the adoption of building energy retrofits in Germany, which is promoted by public policy as an important measure to address the future challenges of climate change and energy security. We analyze data from a 2009 survey of more than 400 owner-occupiers of single-family detached, semidetached, and row houses in Germany, that was conducted as a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). In the survey, respondents were asked directly for reasons for and against retrofitting their homes, but also faced a choice experiment involving different energy retrofit measures. Overall, both the descriptive and econometric results show that house owners who are able to afford it financially, for whom it is profitable, and for whom there is a favorable opportunity, are more likely to undertake energy retrofit activities. Based on an estimated mixed logit error component model, we also simulate the incentive effects of different policy options, such as public subsidies and energy tax increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Achtnicht, Martin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-042, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:12042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/60104/1/719846102.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nair, Gireesh & Gustavsson, Leif & Mahapatra, Krushna, 2010. "Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2956-2963, June.
    2. Anna Alberini & Silvia Banfi & Celine Ramseier, 2011. "Energy Efficiency Investments in the Home: Swiss Homeowners and Expectations about Future Energy Prices," CEPE Working paper series 11-80, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    3. Anderson, Soren T. & Newell, Richard G., 2004. "Information programs for technology adoption: the case of energy-efficiency audits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 27-50, March.
    4. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    5. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2011. "Homeowners' Preferences for Adopting Residential Heating Systems: A Discrete Choice Analysis for Germany," FCN Working Papers 9/2011, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 661-669.
    7. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "Homeowners' preferences for adopting innovative residential heating systems: A discrete choice analysis for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1271-1283.
    8. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    9. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2013. "Motivational factors influencing the homeowners’ decisions between residential heating systems: An empirical analysis for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 221-233.
    10. Achtnicht, Martin, 2011. "Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2191-2200, September.
    11. Peter Grosche & Colin Vance, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Conservation and Free-Ridership on Subsidization: Evidence from Germany," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 135-154.
    12. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    13. Banfi, Silvia & Farsi, Mehdi & Filippini, Massimo & Jakob, Martin, 2008. "Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 503-516, March.
    14. Torgler Benno & Frey Bruno S. & Wilson Clevo, 2009. "Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence on Littering," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-41, April.
    15. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    16. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    17. Martin Jakob, 2007. "The drivers of and barriers to energy efficiency in renovation decisions of single-family home-owners," CEPE Working paper series 07-56, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, August.
    19. Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2013. "Heterogeneity in the Effect of Home Energy Audits: Theory and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 55(3), pages 407-418, July.
    20. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Helbach, Christoph & Ockenfels, Axel & Weimann, Joachim, 2011. "Still different after all these years: Solidarity behavior in East and West Germany," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1373-1376.
    21. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, Seung-Jun, 2010. "Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 673-677, January.
    22. Jakob, Martin, 2006. "Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments: The case of the Swiss residential sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 172-187, January.
    23. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    24. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    25. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    26. Yazid Dissou and Muhammad Shahid Siddiqui, 2013. "Regional Trade Agreements, Emissions Bubbles, and Carbon Tariff Harmonization," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    27. Howarth, Richard B. & Andersson, Bo, 1993. "Market barriers to energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 262-272, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Building energy retrofit; Choice experiment; Energy effciency; Residential buildings;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:12042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.