Delgado, L; Shealy, T; Garvin, M and Pearce, A (2018) Framing energy efficiency with payback period: Empirical study to increase energy consideration during facility procurement processes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(5): 04018027, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The federal government is the country's largest energy user and government facilities are responsible for 40% of total energy emissions, yet traditional energy-efficiency methods are not reducing emissions at the federal government's annual goal of 2.5%. Behavioral science states decision makers do not always understand or anticipate outcomes of possible choices because of time or processing capability, and cognitive biases (i.e., loss aversion and anchoring) reduce consideration for energy efficiency. The hypothesis is that choice architecture, the structure of procurement options, influences facilities management decisions. In this study engineering and building science students (n=56) were presented with scenarios varying in cost and energy efficiency. The control group received the current government facilities procurement form, and the intervention group received a modified version of the government form prompting them to calculate the payback period prior to choosing an option. The prompt for payback period framed the decision as comparing longer gains rather than upfront costs. The results indicate statistically significant differences (p=0.0003) between participants in the control who did not choose the more expensive, more efficient option and those in the intervention group who frequently did choose this option. These results demonstrate potential applications for choice architecture to improve government facilities management energy-reduction decisions. This behavioral approach complements what are often costlier investments in technology and holds promise for less intrusive solutions compared with legal and economic policies for energy reduction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | energy reduction, framing, science, procurement process, economic policy, building science, facilities management, payback, bias, energy efficiency, efficiency, option, empirical study |
| Subjects: | specialized education, engineering principles, business policy, economic analysis, conceptual models, contractual arrangements, energy systems, sustainability and energy, probability and distributions, research methods, performance management, management, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Procurement, Governance, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Education, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here