based M odellingof L ifestyle A spects I nflue

269 Pages·2014·7.03 MB·English

Analysis and Agent-Based Modelling of Lifestyle Aspects
Influencing the Residential Energy Demand in France and
Germany
Von der Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften der
Universität Stuttgart
zur Erlangung der Würde eines Doktors der
Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.)
genehmigte Abhandlung
Vorgelegt von
Wolfgang Hauser
aus Augsburg
Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn
Mitberichter: Prof. Dr. Andreas Ernst
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 19.12.2013
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften der Universität Stuttgart
2013
ii
Contents
List of Tables vii
List of Figures xiii
Acknowledgements xv
Zusammenfassung xvii
Abstract xix
1. Introduction 21
2. A glimpse on residential energy consumption 27
3. Brief overview of lifestyle related energy research 33
3.1. Qualitative Lifestyle Related Energy research . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2. Quantitative Lifestyle Related Energy research . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Research questions 39
5. Methodology 41
5.1. Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1.1. Basic Population: Stuttgart - Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.1.2. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1.3. Lifestyle Typologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2. Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6. Survey Results 51
iii
Contents
6.1. Sampling, response rates and representativness . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.1.1. Missing values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.1.2. Harmonization of educational levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2. (Re-)test of the Otte lifestyle typology in France and Germany . . . 56
6.3. Distribution of lifestyle groups in France and Lyon . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.4. Environmental consciousness and attitudes towards energy saving . 67
6.4.1. New Environmental Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.4.2. Environmental Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.4.3. Importance of energy saving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.5. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.6. Retrofitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.7. Space Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.8. Ownership of electrical appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.8.1. Number of appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.8.2. Cooling devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.8.3. Washing machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.8.4. Tumble Dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.8.5. Dishwashers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.8.6. Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.8.7. Television and computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.8.7.1. Number of television sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.8.7.2. Television size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.8.7.3. Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.9. Energy relevant behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.9.1. Washing machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.9.2. Tumble Dryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.9.3. Dishwashers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.9.4. Television and Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.9.5. Times of inactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.9.5.1. Absence from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.9.5.2. Sleeping duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.9.6. Meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
6.9.7. Showers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
iv
Contents
7. Agent based model of energy consumption in households 185
7.1. Household Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.2. Appliance Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.3. Simulation Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.3.1. Differences in load-curves between Stuttgart and Lyon . . . 200
7.3.2. Differences in load-curves between lifestyle groups in Stuttgart201
7.3.3. Differences in load curves between households with different
numbers of occupants in Stuttgart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.3.4. Differences in load-curves between lifestyle groups in Lyon . 207
7.3.5. Differences in load curves between households with different
numbers of occupants in Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
7.3.6. Scenario with energy efficient appliances . . . . . . . . . . . 213
8. Discussion 219
9. Conclusion 223
Bibliography 225
A. Appendix 235
A.1. Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
A.2. Cover Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
A.3. Instructions for Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
A.4. Letters of Announcment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
A.5. Reminding Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
v
vi
List of Tables
6.1. Distribution of household sizes in Lyon and Stuttgart (in %) . . . . 52
6.2. Missing values in % for questions about energy relevant daily activ-
ities by city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.3. Missing values in % for questions about energy consumption by city 55
6.4. Missing values in % for monthly costs for electricity by lifestyle and
country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.5. Distribution of lifestyle indicators in Germany and France (in %) . . 57
6.6. Principal components analysis of lifestyle items in France . . . . . . 58
6.7. Principal components analysis of lifestyle items for France and Ger-
many . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.8. Otte lifestyle groups in Stuttgart (individual level) . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.9. Otte lifestyle groups in Lyon (individual level) . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.10. Otte lifestyle groups in Stuttgart (household level) . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.11. Otte lifestyle groups in Lyon (without restaurant item) . . . . . . . 65
6.12. Otte lifestyle groups in Lyon (household level) . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.13. Principal Component Analysis of NEP Items With Varimax Rotation 70
6.14. Average NEP-scores by city, lifestyle, number of persons, and house-
hold income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.15. Environmental consciousness by city, lifestyle, number of persons,
and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.16. Principal factor analysis of items regarding attitudes towards energy
saving in Stuttgart (varimax rotation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.17. Principal factor analysis of items regarding attitudes towards energy
saving in Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.18. Building type by city, number of persons and lifetyle . . . . . . . . 79
vii
List of Tables
6.19. Average living space by city, lifestyle, number of persons, and house-
hold income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.20. OLS-regression: Living area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.21. Building age by city, household income and lifestyle . . . . . . . . . 83
6.22. Percentage of home-owners that performed retrofitting measures in
the last 10 years by city, lifestyle, number of persons, and household
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.23. Logistic regression: Retrofitting measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.24. Percentage of home-owners that received financial aid for their retrofitting
measures by lifestyle, city of residence and income group . . . . . . 88
6.25. Percentage of different retrofitting measures among all home-owner
households that did retrofitting in the past 10 years by city of residence 89
6.26. Ventilation habits by city and lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.27. Average number of electric appliances by Lifestyle, Nr. of persons
and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.28. Tests of significance for differences in number of appliances between
lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.29. OLS-regression: Number of appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.30. Average number of cooling devices by lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.31. Tests of significance for differences in number of cooling devices
between lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.32. OLS-regression: Number of cooling devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.33. Distribution of cooling-devices heights (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.34. Percentage of households with A+ or more efficient cooling device . 108
6.35. Tests of significance for differences in percentage of households with
cooling devices with A+ or better energy efficiency . . . . . . . . . 109
6.36. Logistic regression: Owning a refrigerator with A+ or better energy
efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.37. Percentage of households with washing machine by city, lifestyle,
number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.38. Tests of significance for differences in percentage of households own-
ing a washing machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.39. Logistic regression: Ownership of washing machine . . . . . . . . . 112
viii
List of Tables
6.40. Percentage of households with tumble dryer by city, lifestyle, num-
ber of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.41. Tests of significance for differences in percentage of households own-
ing a tumble dryer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.42. Logistic regression: Ownership of tumble dryer . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.43. Percentage of households with dishwasher by city, lifestyle, number
of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.44. Tests of significance for differences in percentage of households own-
ing a dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.45. Logistic regression: Ownership of dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.46. Percentage of energy efficient light bulbs per household by city,
lifestyle, number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . 120
6.47. Tests of significance for differences in percentage of energy efficient
light bulbs per households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.48. Average number of television sets per household by city, lifestyle,
number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.49. Adjusted Wald-test for differences between lifestyle groups in the
average number of television sets per households . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.50. OLS-regression: Number of television sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.51. Tests of significance for differences in the average number of televi-
sion sets per households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.52. Distribution of television diagonals per city, lifestyle, and number
of persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.53. Mean number of computers by city, lifestyle group number of people
and income group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.54. Tests of significance for differences in the average number of personal
computers per households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.55. OLS-regression: Number of computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.56. Share of laptop computers by city, lifestyle group number of people
and income group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.57. Tests of significance for differences in the percentage of notebooks
on all computers in the household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
ix
List of Tables
6.58. Summary of significant differences between lifestyle groups in device
ownership (Stuttgart) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.59. Summary of significant differences between lifestyle groups in device
ownership (Lyon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.60. Distribution of weekly washing-machine cycles by city, number of
persons and lifestyle (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.61. Average number of washing machine cycles per household by city,
lifestyle, number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . 141
6.62. Somers’ D and tests of significance for differences in oven use be-
tween lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.63. Estimation results: Number of washing machine cycles per week . . 142
6.64. Distribution of weekly tumble dryer cycles per household by city,
lifestyle, number of persons, and household income (in %) . . . . . 144
6.65. Average number of tumble dryer cycles per household by city, lifestyle,
number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.66. Somers’ D and tests for significance for differences in weekly tumble
dryer cycles between lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.67. OLS-regression: Number of weekly tumble dryer cycles . . . . . . . 147
6.68. Distribution of weekly dish-washer cycles per household by city,
lifestyle, number of persons, and household income (in %) . . . . . . 148
6.69. Average number of dish washer cycles per household by city, lifestyle,
number of persons, and household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.70. Somers’ D and tests for significance for differences in weekly dish-
washer cycles between lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.71. OLS-regression: Number of weekly dish washer cycles . . . . . . . 151
6.72. Average usage of television sets per day and household by city,
lifestyle, number of persons, and household income (in hours) . . . . 155
6.73. Somers’ D and tests for significance for differences in daily television
time between lifestyle groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.74. OLS-regression: Average daily usage of television . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.75. Average daily usage of computers by city, lifestyle, number of per-
sons, and educational level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
x