Understanding the determinants of home-efficiency improvements is significant to a range of energy policy issues, including the reduction of fossil fuel use and environmental protection. This paper analyzes retrofit choices by assembling a unique data set merging a nationwide household survey from Germany with regional data on wages and construction costs. To explore the influence of both heterogeneous preferences and correlation among the utility of alternatives, we estimate conditional-, random parameters-, and error components logit models that parameterize the influence of costs, energy savings, and household-level socioeconomic attributes on the likelihood of undertaking one of 16 renovation options. We use the model coefficients to derive household-specific marginal Willingness to Pay estimates, and with these assess the extent to which free-ridership may undermine the effectiveness of recently implemented programs that subsidize the costs of retrofits.
BanfiS.FarsiM.FilippiniM.JakobM. (2008). “Willingness to Pay for Energy-Saving Measures in Residential Buildings.” Energy Economics30: 503-516.
2.
Ben-AkivaM.LermanS. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge.
3.
BKI (2006). Baukosten 2006. Teil 2: Statistische Kostenkennwerte fur Bauelemente. (Construction Cost 2006, Part 2). BKI Baukosteninformationszentrum (ed.), Stuttgart.
4.
BrownstoneD.TrainK. E. (1999). “Forecasting New Product Penetration With Flexible Substitution Patterns.” Journal of Econometrics89: 109-129.
5.
CameronT. A. (1985). “A Nested Logit Model of Energy Conservation Activity by Owners of Existing Single Family Dwellings.” The Review of Economics and Statistics67: 205-211.
Ecofys (2004). “Cost Effective Climate Protection in the EU Building Stock.” Research Report, Ecofys GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
8.
EtoJ.KitoS.ShownL.SonnenblickR. (1995). Where Did the Money Go? The Cost and Performance of the Largest Commercial Sector DSM Programs. Research Report, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-38021, University of California.
9.
FDZ (2006). “BA-Beschaftigtenpanel 1998-2005.” Codebuch, FDZ Datenreport, Nr. 5/2006. Research Data Center (FDZ) of the Federal Employment Service (BA) in the Institute for Employment Research, Nurnberg, Germany. Internet: http://fdz.iab.de.
10.
Finanztest (2007). “Aus Alt wird Neu.” (Fix it up). Finanztest, Consumer Report September2007: 42-57.
11.
HartmanR. S. (1988). “Self-Selection Bias in the Evolution of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs.” The Review of Economics and Statistics70: 448-458.
12.
HensherD. A.GreeneW. H. (2003). “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation30: 133-176.
13.
HensherD.A.JonesS.GreeneW.H. (2007). “An Error Component Logit Analysis of Corporate Bankruptcy and Insolvency Risk in Australia.” The Economic Record38: 109-129.
14.
IoannidesY. M. (2002). “Residential Neighborhood Effects.” Regional Science and Urban Economics32: 145-165.
15.
IWU (1997). Energiepafi Heizung/Warmwasser: Energetische Qualitdt von Baukorper und Heizungs-system. (Energy Certificate Heating/Hot Water: The Energetic Quality of Structures and Heating Systems). Research Report, Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt, Germany.
16.
JakobM. (2006). “Marginal Cost and Co-Benefits of Energy Efficiency Investments - The Case of the Swiss Residential Sector.” Energy Policy34: 172-187.
17.
JoskowP. L.MarronD. B. (1992). “What Does a Negawatt Really Cost? Evidence from Utility Conservation Programs.” The Energy Journal13: 41-73.
18.
KingH.HonakerJ.JosephA.ScheveK. (2001). “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review95: 49-69.
19.
KoppelmanF. S.BhatC. (2006). A Self Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models. Research Report Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Internet: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/koppelman.html
20.
MalmE. (1996). “An Action-Based Estimate of the Free-Rider Fraction in Electric Utility DSM Programs.” The Energy Journal17: 41-48.
21.
MetcalfG. E.HassetK. A. (1999). “Measuring the Energy Savings from Home Improvement Investments: Evidence from Monthly Billing Data.” The Review of Economics and Statistics81: 516-528.
22.
QuigleyJ. M.RubinfeldD. L. (1989). “Unobservables in Consumer Choice: Residential Energy and the Demand for Comfort.” The Review of Economics and Statistics71: 416-425.
23.
ReveltD.TrainK. E. (1998). “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” The Review of Economics and Statistics80: 647-657.
24.
ReveltD.TrainK. E. (2000). “Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households’ Choice of Electricity Supplier.” Working Paper No. E00-274, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
25.
TrainK. E. (1994). “Estimation of Net Savings from Energy-Conservation Programs.” Energy19: 423-441.
26.
TrainK. E. (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
