Organizational Characteristics in Residential Rental Buildings: Exploring the Role of Centralization in Energy Outcomes

Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Organizational literature often points to decentralization as a driving force behind the success of organizations, but centralization can have benefits as well, particularly for energy efficiency initiatives in particular contexts. This paper conceptualizes the multifamily residential building as an organization, and posits that in large, multifamily rental properties a measure of centralization is helpful and even necessary for the effective management of energy conservation. This research relies on qualitative interviews, site visits, and publicly available energy data from a sample of New York City residential properties to examine the organizational characteristics that contribute to the building’s energy consumption. Findings indicate that certain organizational characteristics lend themselves to more centralized building management. These types of residential rental buildings, in turn, performed better than expected in annual energy consumption compared to other properties. This research carries important implications for social science and behavioral researchers, as well as building owner organizations and management firms, who can better craft programs and policies in buildings to capitalize on these organizational characteristics.

Keywords

Energy consumption Residential buildings Organizations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Portions of this abridged work were originally published in thesis form in fulfillment of the requirements of the author’s doctoral degree in 2015. Thanks to Drs. Clinton Andrews, Joseph Seneca, Rachael Shwom, and Richard Wener for their comments and input on earlier versions of this work. Funding provided to the author by the National Science Foundation through the IGERT program from 2011–2015 to undertake interdisciplinary energy-related doctoral research.

References

  1. Andrews, C. (2008). Changing a firm’s environmental performance from within. In M. Ruth & B. Davidsdottir (Eds.), Changing stocks, flows and behaviors in industrial ecosystems (pp. 83–101). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jich, T., & Herr, S. (1995). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.Google Scholar
  3. Ástmarsson, B., Jensen, P. A., & Maslesa, E. (2013). Sustainable renovation of residential buildings and the landlord/tenant dilemma. Energy Policy, 63, 355–362. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axon, C. J., Bright, S. J., Dixon, T. J., Janda, K. B., & Kolokotroni, M. (2012). Building communities: reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property. Building Research & Information, 40(4), 461–472. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.680701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggart, N. W. (2013). Constructing green: The social structures of sustainability. (R. L. Henn & A. J. Hoffman, Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. City of New York. (2014). LL84 Benchmarking Data Disclosure Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/downloads/pdf/nyc_2014_ll84_data_disclosure_overview_definitions.pdf.
  7. City of New York, Office of the Mayor. (2014). New York City Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report September 2014. City of New York, Office of the Mayor. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/2014_nyc_ll84_benchmarking_report.pdf.
  8. George, J. M. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, E. T. (1990). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  10. Hillier, B. (1998). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Janda, K. B. (2014). Building communities and social potential: Between and beyond organizations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy, 67, 48–55. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kleindorfer, P. R., Kunreuther, H. G., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Decision sciences: An integrative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Levinson, A., & Niemann, S. (2004). Energy use by apartment tenants when landlords pay for utilities. Resource and Energy Economics, 26(1), 51–75. doi: 10.1016/S0928-7655(03)00047-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall, J. D., & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(3), 673–682. doi: 10.1021/es040394k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maruejols, L., & Young, D. (2011). Split incentives and energy efficiency in Canadian multi-family dwellings. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3655–3668. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Panayotou, T., & Zinnes, C. (1994). Free-Lunch economics for industrial ecologists. In R. Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhout, & V. Thomas (Eds.), Industrial ecology and global change (pp. 383–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perrow, C. (2014). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Brattleboro, Vermont: Echo Point Books & Media.Google Scholar
  19. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 310–320. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prindle, W., & Finlinson, S. (2011). How organizations can drive behavior-based energy efficiency. In F. P. Sioshansi (Ed.), Energy, sustainability and the environment; technology, incentives and behavior (pp. 305–335). Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rangus, K., & Slavec, A. (2017). The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms’ innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.017.Google Scholar
  22. Schelly, C., Cross, J. E., Franzen, W. S., Hall, P., & Reeve, S. (2011). Reducing energy consumption and creating a conservation culture in organizations: a case study of one public school district. Environment and Behavior, 43(3), 316–343. doi: 10.1177/0013916510371754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott, W. R. (1991). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall College Div.Google Scholar
  24. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Shwom, R. (2009). Strengthening sociological perspectives on organizations and the environment. Organization & Environment, 22(3), 271–292. doi: 10.1177/1086026609345216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sommer, R. (2008). Personal space; updated, the behavioral basis of design (Updated edition). Bristol: Bosko Books.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014). Monthly energy review September 2014. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology & SocietyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations