Adan, H and Fuerst, F (2015) Modelling energy retrofit investments in the UK housing market: A microeconomic approach. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(3), pp. 251-267. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – Improving the energy efficiency of the existing residential building stock has been identified as a key policy aim in many countries. The purpose of this paper is to review the extant literature on investment decisions in domestic energy efficiency and presents a model that is both grounded in microeconomic theory and empirically tractable. Design/methodology/approach – This study develops a modified and extended version of an existing microeconomic model to embed the retrofit investment decision in a residential property market context, taking into account tenants' willingness to pay and cost-reducing synergies. A simple empirical test of the link between energy efficiency measures and housing market dynamics is then conducted. Findings – The empirical data analysis for England indicates that where house prices are low, energy efficiency measures tend to increase the value of a house more in relative terms compared to higher-priced regions. Second, where housing markets are tight, landlords and sellers will be successful even without investing in energy efficiency measures. Third, where wages and incomes are low, the potential gains from energy savings make up a larger proportion of those incomes compared to more affluent regions. This, in turn, acts as a further incentive for an energy retrofit. Finally, the UK government has been operating a subsidy scheme which allows all households below a certain income threshold to have certain energy efficiency measures carried out for free. In regions, where a larger proportion of households are eligible for these subsidies,the authors also expect a larger uptake. Originality/value – While the financial metrics of retrofit measures are by now well understood, most of the existing studies tend to view these investments in isolation, not as part of a larger bundle of considerations by landlords and owners of how energy retrofits might influence a property’s rent, price and appreciation rate. In this paper, the authors argue that establishing this link is crucial for a better understanding of the retrofit investment decision.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy efficiency; investment decision; energy efficiency gap; energy retrofit investments; microeconomic modelling; rental market |
| Index terms: | housing, methodology, energy efficiency measure, energy efficiency gap, tenant, rental market, wages, willingness to pay, microeconomic modelling, data analysis, modelling, markets, investment decision, synergy, income, dynamics, energy-saving, household, house price, energy retrofit investment, domestic energy efficiency, residential property, owner, England, residential building, energy efficiency, subsidy, landlord |
| Subjects: | construction type, practitioner, sustainability and energy, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, economic analysis, analytical methods, renovation and retrofit, research methods, Geography, business economics, demography, partnership management, sociology, price determination, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Procurement, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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