Advertisement

Results of the SECO@Home Household Survey and Discrete Choice Analysis (Conjoint Studies)

  • Stefanie Heinzle
  • Rolf Wüstenhagen
Chapter
Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 44)

Abstract

The 92/75/EEC “Energy Labelling Directive for Household Appliances”, adopted in 1992, requires retailers to display a compulsory label for fridges, freezers, washing machines and several other product categories. The labels show the level of energy consumption at the point of sale (COM 778, 2008).

Keywords

Choice Experiment Residential Building Choice Task Scale Format Conjoint Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achtnicht, M. (2010), Do Environmental Benefits Matter? A Choice Experiment among House Owners in Germany, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 10-094, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  2. Allenby G, Rossi P. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Marketing Science. 2003;22:304–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANEC (2008), Consumers strongly in favour of keeping the A-G Energy Label, Press release by ANNEC-PR-2008-PRL-009, available at: http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-PR-2008-PRL-009.pdf
  4. Anonymous. Beyond A: The Future of the Energy Label. Consumer Policy Review. 2008;18(4):100–103.Google Scholar
  5. Banfi S, Farsi M, Filippini M, Jakob M. Willingness to Pay for Energy-Saving Measures in Residential Buildings. Energy Economics. 2008;30:503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BMVBS (Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development). CO 2 Gebäudereport 2007. Building and Urban Development, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. BMWi (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology). Energiestatistiken – Entwicklung von Energiepreisen und Preisindizes. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Brownstone D, Bunch D, Golob T, Ren W. Transactions Choice Model for Forecasting Demand for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles. Research in Transportation Economics. 1996;4:87–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. How Much is too Much? An Investigation of the Effect of the Number of Choice Sets, Context Dependence and the Choice of Bid Vectors in Choice Experiments, Environmental and Resource Economics. 2008;40:165–176.Google Scholar
  10. CECED. Energy-Efficiency. The Vision of European Home Appliance Manufactures: A Shortcut to Kyoto Targets; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. COM 778 (2008), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, Brussels, 13.11.2008.Google Scholar
  12. Darby MR, Karni E. Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. Journal of Law and Economics. 1973;16(1):67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ECEEE (2009), The Energy Labelling Directive, available at: http://www.eceee.org/Energy_labelling/
  14. EEWärmeG (RenewableEnergiesHeatAct) (2009), Gesetz zur Förderung Erneuerbarer Energien im Wärmebereich (Erneuerbare-Energien-Wärmegesetz – EEWärmeG), Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2008 I No. 36, Bonn, 1658.Google Scholar
  15. Energieinstitut (2009), Eine deskriptive Betrachtung des neuen (EU)-Energielabels und der EcoDesign-Richtlinie im Vergleich zum japanischen Top-Runner Programm, available at: http://www.energieinstitut-linz.at
  16. EnEV (Energy Savings Ordinance) (2007), Verordnung über energiesparenden Wärmeschutz und energiesparende Anlagentechnik bei Gebäuden (Energieeinsparverordnung – EnEV), Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2007 I, No. 34, Bonn, 1519.Google Scholar
  17. EnEV (Energy Savings Ordinance) (2009), Verordnung zur Änderung der Energieeinsparverordnung, Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2009 I, No. 23, Bonn, 954.Google Scholar
  18. EU (European Union) (2002), Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, Official Journal of the European Communities L1/65, Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/200910/20091001ATT61602/20091001ATT61602EN.pdf, January 28.
  19. European Parliament (2009), European Parliament resolution of 6 May 2009 on the draft Commission directive implementing and amending Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of televisions. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0357+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
  20. German Federal Statistics Office (2009a), Statistisches Jahrbuch. Kapitel Bevölkerung. Retrieved on 10 July 2010. http://www.destatis.de.
  21. German Federal Statistics Office (2009b), excerpt from the 2008 Data Report, chapter 2: Familie, Lebensformen und Kinder, retrieved on 10 July 2010. http://www.destatis.de.
  22. GfK (2008), How to Combine Consumer Electronics and Environment?, available at: http://www.gfk.com/group/press_information/press_releases/002598/index.en.html
  23. Goett AA, Hudson K, Train KE. Customer’s Choice among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes. The Energy Journal. 2000;21(4):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green PE, Rao VR. Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data. Journal of Marketing Research. 1971;8(3):355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Marketing. 1990;54(4):3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gustafsson, A., A. Hermann and F. Huber (2003), Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Chapter 10: Conjoint Analysis. In: Hair JF et al., editors. Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th ed. N.J.: Englewood Cliffs; 1995. p. 556–615.Google Scholar
  28. Heinzle S, Wüstenhagen R. Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes & consumer choice – The revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2012;21(1):60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hensher DA, Stopher PR, Louviere JJ. An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Numbers of Choice Sets in Designed Choice Experiments: An Airline Choice Application. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2001;7(6):373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose and W.H. Greene (2005), Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Huber J, Train K. On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths. Marketing Lett. 2001;12:259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huber J. Conjoint Analysis: How We Got There and Where We Are. Research Paper series: Sawtooth Software; 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Hüser A, Mühlenkamp C. Werbung für ökologische Güter: Gestaltungsaspekte aus informationsökonomischer Sicht. Marketing ZFP. 1992;3:149–156.Google Scholar
  34. IEA (International Energy Agency). World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris: OECD/IEA; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. IWU (Institut Wohnen und Umwelt) (2007), Basisdaten für Hochrechnungen mit der Deutschen Gebäudetypologie des IWU, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  36. Jakob M. The Drivers of and Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Renovation Decisions of Single-Family Home-Owners, Working Paper Series 07-56. ETH Zurich: CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics; 2007.Google Scholar
  37. Kwak S-Y, Yooand S-H, Kwak S-J. Valuing Energy-Saving Measures in Residential Buildings: A Choice Experiment Study. Energy Policy. 2010;38:673–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lancaster K. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy. 1966;74:132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lilien, G.L., A. Rangaswamy and A. De Bruyn (2007), Principles of Marketing Engineering, Trafford.Google Scholar
  40. Lindén A-L, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Eriksson B. Efficient and Inefficient Aspects of Residential Energy Behaviour: What Are the Policy Instruments for Change? Energy Policy. 2006;34:1918–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher and J.D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods – Analysis and Applications, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 1964;1:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McFadden, D. (1974), Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in: P. Zarembka, (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York, 105-142.Google Scholar
  44. MORI (2008a), MORI research carried out for ANEC, BEUC, UK National Consumer Council (NCC), the UK Energy Savings Trust and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in May 2008, available at: http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-ENV-2008-G-040b.pdf.
  45. MORI (2008b), MORI research carried out for the UK Government, Sweden and The Netherlands in December 2008, available at: http://www.mtprog.com/cms/librarypublications/.
  46. Nelson P. Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political Economy. 1970;78(2):311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. OJL 170/10 (2003), Commission directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, available at:http://www.osram.by/osram_com/About_Us/Society_and_the_Environment_-_Global_Care/EU_directives_and_promotion_opportunities/EU_directives/Energy_Labelling/DIRECTIVE-2003_66_EC.pdf.
  48. OJL 297 (1992), Council Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by househole appliances. Official Journal of the European Union L 297, pp. 16-19, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0075:EN:HTML.
  49. Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison; 2006.Google Scholar
  50. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C, Wiersma G. Household Preferences for Energy-Saving Measures: A Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2003;24:49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rossi PE, Allenby GM. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Marketing Science. 2003;22:304–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadler M. Home Energy Preferences and Policy: Applying Stated Choice Modelling to a Hybrid Energy Economic Model. Report to Natural Resources Canada: Simon Fraser University; 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Sawtooth (2008), CBC v6.0 Technical Paper, Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Download: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/cbctech.pdf.
  54. Stieß, I., V. van der Land, B. Birzle-Harder and J. Deffner (2010), Handlungsmotive: Hemnisse und Zielgruppen für eine energetische Gebäudesanierung, Project Report, commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  55. Stø, E. and P. Strandbakken, (2009), The Future of Energy Labels in Europe: A Consumer and Stakeholder Approach to the Revisions of the EU Energy Label, paper presented at the Joint Actions on Climate Change Conference, 8-10 June 2009 – City of Aalborg.Google Scholar
  56. Topten.info (2009), Cold Appliances: Recommendations for Policy Design, available at: http://www.topten.info/index.php?page=refrigerators_rg%26fromid=144.
  57. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (2009), Meilensteine im Bereich Energie, available at: http://www.europa-fuer-verbraucher.de/meilensteine-energie.html.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Heinzle
    • 1
  • Rolf Wüstenhagen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations