LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Webber, Phil; Gouldson, Andy; Kerr, Niall (2015)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Energy Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: evaluation, efficiency, retrofit, Energy(all), Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, households, impacts, energy
There is widespread interest in the ability of retrofit schemes to shape domestic energy use in order to tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions. Although much has been written on the topic, there have been few large-scale ex post evaluations of the actual impacts of such schemes. We address this by assessing domestic energy use before and after the Kirklees Warm Zone (KWZ) scheme, which by fitting insulation in 51,000 homes in the 2007–2010 period is one of the largest retrofit schemes completed in the UK to date. To do this, we develop and apply a new methodology that isolates the impacts of retrofit activity from broader background trends in energy use. The results suggest that the actual impacts of the KWZ scheme have been higher than predicted, and that the scale of any performance gaps or rebound effects have been lower than has often been assumed. They also suggest that impacts on energy use in lower income areas are consistent with predictions, but that impacts in middle and higher income areas are higher than predicted. These findings support the case for the wider and/or accelerated adoption of domestic retrofit schemes in other contexts.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Achtnicht, M., Madlener, R., 2014. Factors influencing german house owners' preferences on energy retrofits. Energy Policy 73, 254-263.
    • Barr, S., Gilg, A., Shaw, G., 2011. Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (re)framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environ. Change 21 (4), 1224-1233.
    • Bartiaux, F., Gram-Hanssen, K., Foseca, P., Ozalina, L., Christensen, T., 2014. A practice-theory approach to homeowners' energy retrofits in four European areas. Build. Res. Inform. 42 (4), 525-538.
    • BRE., 2008. MAC Curves for the Domestic and Non-Domestic Building Sectors: Technical Documentation, Committee on Climate Change. Accessed via http://products.ihs.com/Ohsis-SEO/989079.html.
    • Butterworth, N., Southernwood, J. and Dunham, C., 2011. Kirklees Warm Zone Economic Impact Assessment-Final Report, Carbon Descent, 〈http://www.car bondescent.org.uk/index.php〉 (last viewed 4.12.14).
    • Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., Viggers, H., O'Dea, D., Kennedy, M., 2008. Retrofitting Houses with Insulation: a cost-benefit analysis of a randomized community trial. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 63, 271-277.
    • Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S., Jackson, T., 2013. Turning lights into flights: estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Policy 55, 234-250.
    • Clinch, J.P., Healy, J., 2001. Cost-benefit analysis of domestic energy efficiency. Energy Policy 29, 113-124.
    • Collinson, P., 2014 The energy efficiency 'savings' that are just hot air. The Guardian (last accessed 19.12.14).
    • CCC Meeting Carbon Budgets, 2014. Progress Report to Parliament 2014. UK Committee on Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • DECC, 2011. Electricity Emissions Factors to 2100. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change.
    • DECC, 2012. How the Green Deal will Reflect the In-situ Performance of Energy Efficiency Measures. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • DECC, 2013a. Energy Consumption in the UK. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • DECC, 2013b. MLSOA and LLSOA Electricity and Gas Estimates 2013a UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • DECC, 2013c. Quarterly Energy Prices UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • DECC, 2014. Overview of Weather Correction of Gas Industry Consumption Data. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • Dowson, M., Poole, A., Harrison, D., Susman, G., 2012. Domestic UK retrofit challenge: barriers, incentives and current performance leading into the Green Deal. Energy Policy 50, 294-305.
    • Galvin, R., Sunikka-Blank, M., 2013. Economic viability in thermal retrofit policies: learning from ten years of experience in Germany. Energy Policy 3, 43-351.
    • Gouldson, A., Kerr, N., Topi, C., Dawkins, E., Kuylenstierna, J., Pearce, R., 2012. The economics of low carbon cities: a mini-stern review for the leeds city region Centre for Low Carbon Futures. 〈http://media.climatesmartcities.org.ccc.cdn. faelix.net/sites/default/files/Mini-Stern%20Review.pdf〉 (last accessed: 19.07.13).
    • Grimes, A., Young, C., Arnold, R., Denne, T., Howden-Chapman, P., Preval, N., TelfarBarnard, L., 2011. Warming Up New Zealand: Impacts of the New Zealand Insulation Fund on Metered Household Energy Use, paper prepared for the Ministry of Economic Development. Accessed at http://www.med.govt.nz/sec tors-industries/energy/pdf-docs-library/energy-and-the-environment/energyefficiency/nzif-energy-report.docx.pdf.
    • Harvey, F., 2013. Green deal 'unlikely to deliver promises', say experts. The Guardian (last accessed: 19.12. 2014).
    • Hoicka, C., Parker, P., Andrey, J., 2014. Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofits: How program design affects participation and outcomes. Energy Policy 65, 594-607.
    • IEA, 2008. Promoting Energy Efficiency Investments: Case Studies in the Residential Sector. International Energy Agency, Paris.
    • IEA, 2013a. Transition to Sustainable Buildings: Strategies and Opportunities to 2050. International Energy Agency, Paris.
    • IEA, 2013b. World Energy Outlook 2012 - Executive Summary. International Energy Agency, Paris.
    • IPCC, 2014. 5th Assessment Report on Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    • Jaffe, A., Stavins, R., 1994. The energy efficiency gap: what does it mean? Energy Policy 22 (10), 804-810.
    • Judson, E., Maller, C., 2014. Housing renovations and energy efficiency: insights from homeowners practices. Build. Res. Inform. 42 (4), 501-511.
    • Liddell, C., Morris, C., Lagdon, S., 2011. Kirklees Warmzone: The Project and Its Health Impacts - a Cost Benefit Analysis. University of Ulster (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • Long, T., Young, W., Webber, P., Gouldson, A., Harwatt, H., 2014. The impact of domestic retrofits on householder attitudes and behaviours. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 1-24.
    • Milne, G., Boardman, B., 2000. Making cold homes warmer: the effect of energy efficiency improvements in low-income homes. a report to the energy action grants agency charitable trust. Energy Policy 28, 411-424.
    • OFGEM, 2015. Energy Companies Obligation (ECO): Measures Table, Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, 〈https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/ 83100/energycompaniesobligation-measures.pdf〉.
    • Owen, A., Mitchell, D., Gouldson, A., 2014. Unseen influence: the role of low carbon retrofit advisers and installers in the adoption and use of domestic energy technology. Energy Policy 73, 169-179.
    • Ozaki, R., Shaw, I., 2014. Entangled practices: governance, sustainable technologies and energy consumption. Sociology 48 (3), 590-605.
    • Palmer, J., Cooper, I., 2012. United Kingdom Housing Energy Fact File, Department of Energy and Climate Change. Accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/up loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/201167/uk_housing_fact_file_2012. pdf.
    • Rosenow, J., Galvin, J., 2013. Evaluating the evaluations: evidence from energy efficiency programmes in Germany and the UK. Energy Build. 62, pp450-458.
    • Sanders, C., Phillipson, M., 2006. Review of Differences between Measured and Theoretical Energy Savings for Insulation Measures, Centre for Research on Indoor Climate and Health. Glasgow Caledonian University (last viewed 04.12.14).
    • Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A 42, 1273-1285.
    • Sorrell, S., 2007. The Rebound Effect: An Assessment of the Evidence for Economywide Energy Savings from Improved Energy Efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre London (last accessed 04.12.14).
    • Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., Sommerville, M., 2009. Empirical estimates of the rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy 37, 1356-1371.
    • Spaargaren, G., 2011. Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world order. Global Environ. Change 21 (3), 813-822.
    • Sweatman, P., Managan, K., 2010. Financing Energy Efficiency Building Retrofits: International policy and business model review and Regulatory Alternatives for Spain, Climate Strategy and Partners. Accessed at http://www.climatestrategy. es/index.php?id=19.
    • Tovar, M., 2012. The structure of energy efficiency investment in UK households and its average monetary and environmental savings. Energy Policy 50, 723-735.
    • Viasova, L., Gram-Hanssen, K., 2014. Incorporating inhabitants everyday practices into domestic retrofits. Build. Res. Inform. 42 (4), 512-524.
    • Wingfield, J., Bell, M., Miles-Shenton, D., South, T., Lowe, R.J., 2008. Evaluating the Impact of an Enhanced Energy Performance Standard on Load-bearing Masonry Domestic Construction-final Report of the Partners in Innovation Project CI 39/ 3/663-Lessons from Stamford Brook: Understanding the gap between designed and real performance. Leeds Metropolitan University (last viewed 09.02.14).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article