Advertisement

Energy Efficiency

, Volume 11, Issue 8, pp 2033–2056 | Cite as

Rental tenants’ willingness-to-pay for improved energy efficiency and payback periods for landlords

  • Matthew Collins
  • John CurtisEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Throughout the developed world, residential buildings in the rental sector exhibit lower levels of energy efficiency than the owner-occupied building stock. This study estimates Irish rental tenants’ willingness-to-pay for energy efficiency improvements. A double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation method is used to examine how much renters are willing to pay in their monthly rent for improved energy efficiency, measured via energy performance certificates. Using an administrative dataset from a grant scheme for residential energy efficiency retrofits, we examine the upfront cost to landlords of engaging in energy efficiency retrofits and calculate associated payback periods. Tenants in Ireland are willing to pay an average of €38 for a one-grade improvement along a 15-point energy performance certificate scale. Providing additional information about energy performance certificates and the potential impact on energy costs reduced mean willingness-to-pay, implying that in the absence of information tenants overvalued energy efficiency labels. Based on tenants’ willingness-to-pay, investment payback periods for attic and cavity wall insulation are relatively short but prohibitively long for external wall insulation and solar heating retrofits.

Keywords

Willingness-to-pay Rental markets Double-bounded contingent valuation Energy performance certificates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland for access to the anonymous dataset of Better Energy Homes scheme applications. This research has been financially supported by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and ESRI’s Energy Policy Research Centre.

References

  1. Achtnicht, M. (2011). Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from a choice experiment among house owners in Germany. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2191–2200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberini, A. (1995). Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 169–180.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banfi, S., Farsi, M., Filippini, M., Jakob, M. (2008). Willingness to pay for energy-saving measures in residential buildings. Energy Economics, 30(2), 503–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertsch, V., Hyland, M., Mahony, M. (2017). What drives people’s opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland. Energy Policy, 106, 472–497.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, B., Nobe, M., Nobe, M. (2011). Valuing green home designs: a study of ENERGY STAR\(^{{\circledR }}\). Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 3(1), 109–126.  https://doi.org/10.5555/jsre.3.1.a611518768931237.Google Scholar
  6. Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011). On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 166–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cajias, M., & Piazolo, D. (2013). Green performs better: energy efficiency and financial return on buildings. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(1), 53–72.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2012-0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, T.A. (1985). A nested logit model of energy conservation activity by owners of existing single family dwellings. The review of Economics and Statistics, 205–211.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1924719.
  9. Cameron, T.A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. Journal of environmental economicsand management, 27(3), 218–234.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, T.A., & Quiggin, J. (1998). Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire: reply. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management, 35(2), 195–199.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, J., Aravena, C., Denny, E. (2016). Low energy efficiency in rental properties: asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay? Energy Policy, 96, 617–629.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, M., & Curtis, J. (2016). Value for money in energy efficiency retrofits in ireland: grant provider and grant recipients. ESRI Working Paper Series, 542. http://www.esri.ie/pubs/WP542.pdf.
  13. CSO. (2016). Average earnings, hours worked, employment and labour costs by economic sector NACE Rev 2, type of employee quarter and statistic. Technical report, CentralStatistics Office.Google Scholar
  14. Curtis, J., Devitt, N., Whelan, A. (2015). Using census and administrative records to identify the location and occupancy type of energy inefficient residential properties. Sustainable Cities and Society, 18, 56–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Energy. (2012). Buildings share of U.S. primary energy consumption (percent). Buildings energy data book: Table 1.1.1. Department of Energy, United States of America.Google Scholar
  16. DfCLG. (2013). English housing survey headline report. Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  17. DG Energy. (2013). Energy performance certificates in buildings and their impact on transaction prices and rents in selected EU countries. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20130619-energy_performance_certificates_in_buildings.pdf.
  18. EIA. (2013). 2009 residential energy consumption survey data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: a roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM(2011) 112 final. European Union.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: energy efficiency plan 2011. COM(2011) 109 final. European Union.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2016). Putting energy efficiency first: consuming better, getting cleaner. European Commission MEMO/16/3986.Google Scholar
  22. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2012). Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. European Union.Google Scholar
  23. Farsi, M. (2010). Risk aversion and willingness to pay for energy efficient systems in rental apartments. Energy Policy, 38(6), 3078–3088.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., Nanda, A., Wyatt, P. (2015). Does energy efficiency matter to home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in England. Energy Economics, 48, 145–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., Nanda, A., Wyatt, P. (2016). Energy performance ratings and house prices in Wales: an empirical study. Energy Policy, 92, 20–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galassi, V., & Madlener, R. (2017). The role of environmental concern and comfort expectations in energy retrofit decisions. Ecological Economics, 141, 53–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grösche, P., & Vance, C. (2009). Willingness to pay for energy conservation and free-ridership on subsidization: evidence from Germany. The Energy Journal, 135–153. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41323237.
  28. Haab, T.C. (1998). Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire: a comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35(2), 190–194.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haab, T.C., & McConnell, K.E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, 73(4), 1255–1263. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1242453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heckman, J.J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1912352.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyland, M., Lyons, R.C., Lyons, S. (2013). The value of domestic building energy efficiency-evidence from Ireland. Energy Economics, 40, 943–952.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaccard, M., & Dennis, M. (2006). Estimating home energy decision parameters for a hybrid energy-economy policy model. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 11(2), 91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-005-9036-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kwak, S.-Y., Yoo, S.-H., Kwak, S.-J. (2010). Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: a choice experiment study. Energy Policy, 38(1), 673–677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyons, R. (2016). The Daft.ie Rental Report. Daft.ie. https://www.daft.ie/report/2016-q4-rental-daft-report.pdf [accessed 15 May 2017].
  36. McFadden, D.L. (1984). Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In Arrow, K.J., & Intriligator, M.D. (Eds.) Handbook of econometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4412(84)02001-8, (Vol. 2 pp. 1395–1457). North-Holland.
  37. Oehlert, G.W. (1992). A note on the delta method. The American Statistician, 46(1), 27–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2684406.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips, Y. (2012). Landlords versus tenants: information asymmetry and mismatched preferences for home energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 45, 112–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. RTB. (2016). The RTB rent index. Residential Tenancies Board. http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/default-document-library/rtb-rent-index-2017-29-march.pdf [accessed 15 May 2017].
  41. SEAI. (2014). A guide to building energy ratings for homeowners. Technical report, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.Google Scholar
  42. Sills, S.J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: an application of web-based surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 22–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). 2011-2015 American community survey 5-year estimates. B25033. United States Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Economic and Social Research InstituteDublinIreland
  2. 2.Sustainable Energy Authority of IrelandDublinIreland
  3. 3.Trinity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations