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.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Urban Studies,Building and Construction,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Civil and Structural Engineering,Human Factors and Ergonomics
Reference37 articles.
1. Allcott, H.
and
Greenstone, M.
(2012), “Is there an energy efficiency gap?”,
Journal of Economic Perspectives
, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-28.
2. Amstalden, R.
,
Kost, M.
,
Nathani, C.
and
Imboden, D.
(2007), “Economic potential of energy-efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: the effects of policy instruments and energy price expectations”,
Energy Policy
, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1819-1829.
3. Berry, S.
,
Marker, T.
and
Chevalier, T.
(2008), “Modelling the relationship between energy efficiency attributes and house price: the case of detached houses sold in the Australian capital territory in 2005 and 2006”, World Sustainable Building Conference, Melbourne, pp. 21-25.
4. Bird, S.
and
Hernández, D.
(2012), “Policy options for the split incentive: increasing energy efficiency for low-income renters”,
Energy Policy
, Vol. 48, pp. 506-514.
5. Brounen, D.
and
Kok, N.
(2011), “On the economics of energy labels in the housing market”,
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献