Analyzing residential weatherization decisions using hybrid simulation modeling

  • Wanyu Huang
  • Caroline C. KrejciEmail author
  • Michael C. Dorneich
  • Ulrike Passe
  • Linda Shenk
  • Jacklin Stonewall
Research Article Architecture and Human Behavior


Weatherizing residential buildings to make them more energy efficient offers great potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving resources, and improving occupant comfort and well-being in the face of climate change. However, weatherization adoption rates remain low. Previous research suggests that social norms and energy-related interactions within a community have greater influence on households’ weatherization adoption decisions than financial incentives. Therefore, an increased understanding of how social factors can be leveraged to encourage more households to weatherize is needed. This paper describes a hybrid simulation model on households’ weatherization adoption decisions in an urban community. The simulation model integrates a building energy simulation model with an agent-based model that is embedded in a social network to represent the interactions, adaptations, and decision making of individual households over time. The model is demonstrated for several experimental scenarios for a residential block in the City of Des Moines, Iowa. Results indicate that social connectedness, community leaders, and delivery mechanisms for weatherization assistance all have a significant impact on household weatherization adoption. These results provide insight into the potential of policy interventions to increase weatherization adoption.


weatherization building energy simulation agent-based model social network decision analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research has been funded through Iowa State’s Presidential Initiative for Interdisciplinary Research in Data-Driven Science for the project: “Big Data for Sustainable Cities Decision-Making”.


  1. ACEEE (2018). Community-Wide Energy Efficiency Goals. Available at https: // Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allcott H (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95: 1082–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaral LAN, Scala A, Barthelemy M, Stanley HE (2000). Classes of small-world networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(21): 11149–11152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson K, Lee S, Menassa C (2012). Effect of social network type on building occupant energy use. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems for Energy-Efficiency in Buildings.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson K, Lee S, Menassa C (2014). Impact of social network type and structure on modeling normative energy use behavior interventions. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 28: 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson JE, Wulfhorst G, Lang W (2015). Energy analysis of the built environment: A review and outlook. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashby K (2010). Behavior Insights and Tools. Boston, USA: Consortium for Energy Efficiency.Google Scholar
  9. Ashwill M, Flora C, Flora J (2011). Building community resilience to climate change: Testing the adaptation coalition framework in Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439): 509–512.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Barabási A-L (2009). Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond. Science, 325(5939): 412–413.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D-U (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 424: 175–308.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonabeau E (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 3): 7280–7287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Busch J, Roelich K, Bale CSE, Knoeri C (2017). Scaling up local energy infrastructure; An agent-based model of the emergence of district heating networks. Energy Policy, 100: 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camacho J, Guimerà R, Amaral LAN (2002). Robust patterns in food web structure. Physical Review Letters, 88(22): 228102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cao Y, Wang T, Song X (2015). An energy-aware, agent-based maintenance-scheduling framework to improve occupant satisfaction. Automation in Construction, 60: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cerezo C, Sokol J, Reinhart C, Al-Mumin A (2015). Three methods for characterizing building archetypes in urban energy simulation. A case study in Kuwait city. In: Proceedings of the 14th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
  18. Chelst K, Canbolat YB (2011). Value-added Decision Making for Managers. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen D, Lü L, Shang M-S, Zhang Y-C, Zhou T (2012a). Identifying influential nodes in complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 391: 1777–1787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen J, Taylor JE, Wei H-H (2012b). Modeling building occupant network energy consumption decision-making: The interplay between network structure and conservation. Energy and Buildings, 47: 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen Y, Hong T, Luo X (2018). An agent-based stochastic occupancy simulator. Building Simulation, 11: 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 20: 26.Google Scholar
  23. Davila CC, Reinhart CF, Bemis JL (2016). Modeling Boston: A workflow for the efficient generation and maintenance of urban building energy models from existing geospatial datasets. Energy, 117: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Castro R, Grossman JW (1999). Famous trails to Paul Erdos. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 21(3): 51–53.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Dong B, Yan D, Li Z, Jin X, Feng X, Fontenot H (2018). Modeling occupancy and behavior for better building design and operation: A critical review. Building Simulation, 11: 899–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Drehobl A, Ross L (2016). Lifting the high energy burden in Americas largest cities: How energy efficiency can improve low income and underserved communities. ACEEE Report u1602.Google Scholar
  27. Ebel H, Mielsch L-I, Bornholdt S (2002). Scale-free topology of E-mail networks. Physical Review E, 66(3): 035103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farmer JD, Foley D (2009). The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 460(7256): 685–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Faruqui A, Sergici S, Sharif A (2010). The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption: A survey of the experimental evidence. Energy, 35: 1598–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ferrara E, Fiumara G (2012). Topological features of online social networks. arXiv:1202.0331.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer C (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1: 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fowlie M, Greenstone M, Wolfram C (2015). Are the non-monetary costs of energy efficiency investments large? Understanding low take-up of a free energy efficiency program. American Economic Review, 105: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Friege J, Holtz G, Chappin ÉJL (2016). Exploring homeowners’ insulation activity. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(1): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fuller MC (2010). Driving demand for home energy improvements: Motivating residential customers to invest in comprehensive upgrades that eliminate energy waste, avoid high utility bills, and spur the economy. Technical report, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Gaffney K (2006). Assessing the needs of California’s low-income population. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Gilbert N, Troitzsch K (2005). Simulation for the Social Scientist, 2nd edn. Maidenhead UK: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  38. Grossman JW, Ion PD (1995). On a portion of the well-known collaboration graph. Congressus Numerantium, 108: 129–131.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. He BJ, Zempel JM, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME (2010). The temporal structures and functional significance of scale-free brain activity. Neuron, 66: 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hernández D, Phillips D (2015). Benefit or burden? Perceptions of energy efficiency efforts among low-income housing residents in New York City. Energy Research & Social Science, 8: 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hicks AL, Theis TL, Zellner ML (2015). Emergent effects of residential lighting choices: Prospects for energy savings. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19: 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoffman IM (2017). Gauging the impact of various definitions of low-and moderate-income communities on possible electricity savings from weatherization. LBNL Report, LBNL-1007114.Google Scholar
  43. Hong T, Langevin J, Sun K (2018). Building simulation: Ten challenges. Building Simulation, 11: 871–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Houston JB, Spialek ML, Cox J, Greenwood MM, First J (2015). The centrality of communication and media in fostering community resilience: A framework for assessment and intervention. American Behavioral Scientist, 59: 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huang W, Krejci C, Dorneich M, Passe U (2017). Weatherization adoption in a multilayer social network: An agent-based approach.In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Conference on Computational Social Science (IC2S2 2017), Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
  46. Iowa State University (2018). Iowa State University Sustainable Cities website. Available at http: // Scholar
  47. Jagani C, Passe U (2017). Simulation-based sensitivity analysis of future climate scenario impact on residential weatherization initiatives in the US midwest. In: Proceedings of Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design (SimAUD) Conference, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  48. Jain RK, Gulbinas R, Taylor JE, Culligan PJ (2013). Can social influence drive energy savings? Detecting the impact of social influence on the energy consumption behavior of networked users exposed to normative eco-feedback. Energy and Buildings, 66: 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jeong H, Tombor B, Albert R, Oltvai ZN, Barabási A-L (2000). The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature, 407(6804): 651–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jeong H, Mason SP, Barabási A-L, Oltvai ZN (2001). Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature, 411(6833): 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson SL, Faraj S, Kudaravalli S (2014). Emergence of power laws in online communities: The role of social mechanisms and preferential attachment. MIS Quarterly, 38: 795–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kang NN, Cho SH, Kim JT (2012). The energy-saving effects of apartment residents’ awareness and behavior. Energy and Buildings, 46: 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krejci CC, Dorneich MC, Passe U, Peters N (2016). A hybrid simulation model for urban weatherization programs. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1630–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Laham S, Forgas J (2007). Recency effect. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD (eds), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, vol. 1, pp. 729–729.Google Scholar
  55. Langevin J, Wen J, Gurian PL (2015). Simulating the human-building interaction: Development and validation of an agent-based model of office occupant behaviors. Building and Environment, 88: 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee YS, Malkawi AM (2014). Simulating multiple occupant behaviors in buildings: An agent-based modeling approach. Energy and Buildings, 69: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macal CM, North MJ (2005). Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. In: Proceedings of 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Merton RK (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mislove A, Marcon M, Gummadi KP, Druschel P, Bhattacharjee B (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, pp. 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moffitt RA (2001). Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. Social Dynamics, 4: 6–17.Google Scholar
  61. Moonen P, Defraeye T, Dorer V, Blocken B, Carmeliet J (2012). Urban physics: Effect of the micro-climate on comfort, health and energy demand. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1: 197–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nicol JF (2001). Characterising occupant behaviour in buildings: Towards a stochastic model of occupant use of windows, lights, blinds, heaters and fans. In: Proceedings of the 7th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 1073–1078.Google Scholar
  63. Noonan DS, Hsieh L-HC, Matisoff D (2013). Spatial effects in energyefficient residential HVAC technology adoption. Environment and Behavior, 45: 476–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Petri Y, Caldeira K (2015). Impacts of global warming on residential heating and cooling degree-days in the United States. Scientific Reports, 5: 12427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Polk County Assessor (2015). Polk County Assessor. Available at http: // Scholar
  66. Putra HC, Andrews CJ, Senick JA (2017). An agent-based model of building occupant behavior during load shedding. Building Simulation, 10: 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reames TG (2016). A community-based approach to low-income residential energy efficiency participation barriers. Local Environment, 21: 1449–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reinhart C, Dogan T, Jakubiec JA, Rakha T, Sang A (2013). UMI—An urban simulation environment for building energy use, daylighting and walkability. In: Proceedings of the 13th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Chambéry, France.Google Scholar
  69. Reyna JL, Chester MV (2017). Energy efficiency to reduce residential electricity and natural gas use under climate change. Nature Communications, 8: 14916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rijal HB, Tuohy P, Humphreys MA, Nicol JF, Samuel A, Raja IA, Clarke J (2008). Development of adaptive algorithms for the operation of windows, fans, and doors to predict thermal comfort and energy use in Pakistani buildings. ASHRAE Transactions, 114(2): 555–573.Google Scholar
  71. Robert McNeel & Associates (2015). Rhinoceros. NURBS modleing for Windows. Available at Scholar
  72. Sawilowsky SS (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8: 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott J, Carrington PJ (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Silva AS, Ghisi E (2014). Uncertainty analysis of user behaviour and physical parameters in residential building performance simulation. Energy and Buildings, 76: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith JW, Anderson DH, Moore RL (2012). Social capital, place meanings, and perceived resilience to climate change. Rural Sociology, 77: 380–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Southwell BG, Murphy J (2014). Weatherization behavior and social context: The influences of factual knowledge and social interaction. Energy Research & Social Science, 2: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steemers K, Yun GY (2009). Household energy consumption: A study of the role of occupants. Building Research & Information, 37: 625–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stern PC, Aronson E, Darley JM, Hill DH, Hirst E, Kempton W, Wilbanks TJ (1986). The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy conservation. Evaluation Review, 10: 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stonewall J, Huang W, Dorneich M, Krejci C, Shenk L, Passe U (2018). Energy use and weatherization practices: Applications for agent-based modeling to support vulnerable populations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1): 676–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ternes MP, Schweitzer M, Tonn BE, Schmoyer RL, Eisenberg JF (2007). National evaluation of the weatherization assistance program: Preliminary evaluation plan for program year 2006. Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/CON-498.Google Scholar
  81. U.S. Department of Energy (2016). What is Weatherization? Available at http: // Scholar
  82. U.S. Department of Energy (2017). Home Improvement Catalyst Plan. Available at Nav_EN_HomeImprovementCatalystPlan_1217_REV04.pdf.Google Scholar
  83. U.S. EERE (2018a). About the Weatherization Assistance Program. Available at program-0.Google Scholar
  84. U.S. EERE (2018b). Weatherization Assistance Program: National Evaluations. Available at uploads/2018/06/WAPNationalEvaluationWxWorksv14 blue8515.pdfGoogle Scholar
  85. U.S. Energy Information Association (2013). International Energy Outlook 2013. Available at pdf/0484(2013).pdfGoogle Scholar
  86. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  87. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684): 440.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilcox S, Marion W (2008). Users manual for TMY3 data sets (revised). Technical report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-581-43156.Google Scholar
  89. Wilhite H, Ling R (1995). Measured energy savings from a more informative energy bill. Energy and Buildings, 22: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Willinger W, Alderson D, Doyle JC (2009). Mathematics and the internet: A source of enormous confusion and great potential. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56: 586–599.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  91. Wolf J, Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, Abrahamson V, Raine R (2010). Social capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: An empirical study of two UK cities. Global Environmental Change, 20: 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wanyu Huang
    • 1
  • Caroline C. Krejci
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael C. Dorneich
    • 3
  • Ulrike Passe
    • 4
  • Linda Shenk
    • 5
  • Jacklin Stonewall
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Industrial, Manufacturing, & Systems EngineeringThe University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Industrial & Manufacturing Systems EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  4. 4.Department of ArchitectureIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  5. 5.Department of EnglishIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations