DECISION MAKING PROCESSES AND THE ADOPTION OF ENERGY
SAVING TECHNIQUES IN SOCIAL HOUSING
A.G. ENTROP Ir.1
G.P.M.R. DEWULF Prof. Dr. 1
1
Department of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Twente, PO
Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, the Netherlands, a.g.entrop@utwente.nl,
g.p.m.r.dewulf@utwente.nl
Keywords: stakeholders, decision making, energy saving, residential real estate
Summary
Many innovative techniques and large policy measures have been introduced to
reduce energy consumption. Despite the high ambitions and societal pressures, the
adoption rate of energy measures is still low. Using adoption theories this paper
provides a framework to analyse the adoption process of energy saving techniques
in building processes. The stakeholders in the adoption process of energy
measures are analysed during every phase of a building project. This framework is
used to analyse four projects of a social housing corporation. The low rate of
adoption of energy saving techniques can be explained by the large number and
variety of stakeholders involved.
1. Introduction
The energy consumption in the built environment accounts for more than forty per
cent of the total energy consumption in Europe (EC, 2002). Improving the energy
performance of the built environment has an important impact on the reduction of
carbon dioxide emissions and sustainability in general. Many innovative
techniques have been introduced to lower the energy consumption or to use
renewable energy sources, but not all techniques have been broadly adopted.
There is a large variety of innovative techniques. They differ in terms of
complexity and costs. In some cases new techniques can directly replace the
conventional product, in other cases large adjustments in the building have to be
made. Energy saving techniques can reduce life-cycle costs, but often lead to
higher investment costs. Although many measures are widely accepted in society
and high ambitions regarding the energy performance of the forthcoming building
are often expressed during the initial phase of a building project, these ambitions
are not always realised in practice. We are aware that policy-measures might not
have the expected impact if there is a lack of social acceptation of those measures
(see e.g. Raven 2006). Therefore sustainable energy measures will not be
successfully implemented as long as we do not have a clear understanding of the
behavior of the users, where we interpret the term ’user‘ as stakeholders in the
construction process: architects, developers, builders, clients and end-users, i.e.
consumers. We expect that this is due to the influence of specific stakeholders in
the design and construction process of buildings.
Our objective is to make a contribution to the knowledge on decision making
processes by developing a framework to analyse the influence on the adoption of
energy saving techniques by stakeholders involved in building processes. Our
framework is based on innovation adoption theories. We focused on the
stakeholders who are involved in the adoption process of innovative techniques
that lower the energy consumption or make use of renewable energy sources. The
case studies are building (re)design processes in social housing.
It is expected that the stakeholders involved in the building process are of
influence on the adoption process (Cooke et al, 2007), whereby the ambitions
stated by the clients before construction and the actual energy performance after
construction often do not correspond with each other. In a building process some
organisations or persons are only for a limited time path involved and all have
different interests and targets. Therefore, many individual reasons to adopt or to
reject energy techniques can exist.
2. Developing a framework to analyse adoption in building processes
In this section we will first address the adoption theory as presented by Rogers
(2003). Then the context, in which adoption processes take place, will be
discussed, before presenting specific characteristics of building processes.
2.1 Adoption theory in general
Many studies have been published on adoption of innovations. Well-known is the
work of Rogers that gives insights in which characteristics of energy saving
techniques are relevant, how the adoption process can be phased, and which kind
of adopters exist. His work is being used to come to a framework on the adoption
process of energy saving techniques in the built environment.
Rogers (2003, pp. 12) states that: an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that
is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption . In this paper the
idea, practice, or object are techniques that lower the energy consumption or
techniques that make it possible to fulfil the need for energy in a renewable way.
The individual or other unit of adoption in building projects are a variety of
stakeholders. A stakeholder is in our case an individual or organisation with an
interest or concern in a building project. Not all stakeholders can exert influence
on the progress and outcomes of a building project. The group of stakeholders that
can exert influence is further referred to in this paper as ‘actors’.
Rogers (2003) defines five attribute that strongly influence the rate of adoption of
innovations, namely relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and
observability. This means for example that a high level of complexity will more
likely result in a lower adoption of an innovative energy saving techniques than a
low level of complexity. In the process of adopting or rejecting an innovation five
phases are distinguished, namely (ibid., pp. 171-189):
1. Knowledge: in this stage an individual (in our case actor) is exposed to an
innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions;
2. Persuasion: the individual forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude
toward the innovation. The mentioned perceived attributes are important
in this stage;
3. Decision: activities are undertaken that lead to a choice to adopt or reject
an innovation;
4. Implementation: this occurs when an individual puts an innovation to use;
5. Confirmation: in this stage the individual seeks to avoid a state of
dissonance or to reduce it if it occurs.
2.2 Adoption processes in their context
Dieperink et al. (2004) and Hartmann et al. (2008) stress the importance of
studying adoption in its context. The framework of Dieperink et al (2004) expands
Roger’s model by linking the adoption process with macro developments,
technical aspects, economic aspects and the company’s context. The specific
characteristics of the context have to be understood in order to analyse the
decision-making process of innovations.
The integrative model of Dieperink et al. explaining the diffusion of innovations
offers a detailed structure to align motivations and arguments of actors for
adopting or rejecting energy saving techniques. Vermeulen et al. (2006)
elaborates on the model of Dieperink et al. (2004) by specifying first and second
level variables, which explain the adoption of energy innovations for new office
buildings. They mention that the actor’s characteristics and the networks in which
the actor participates have impact on the decision making process and therefore
on the adoption rate. This network forms the heart of our framework.
Research of Hartmann et al (2008) focuses on the adoption of innovations by
professional public clients, in which four conflicting factors were strongly
affecting the innovation perception of this actor. Hartmann et al. (2008) offer a
model of the adoption process that links the public dimension and professional
dimension of the client with the innovation perception. These scholars see risk as
an important additional innovation attribute. Their model describes the
deliberation process underlying the adoption process.
Based on these studies we distinguish four contextual dimensions, namely: the
characteristics of the actors, the context of the project, the macro developments,
and the state of technology. The last one is based on Dieperink’s “technical
aspects” and Hartmann’s attribute “risk”. By specifying which techniques are in
which stage of the innovation life cycle, risks can partially be assessed.
2.3 Adoption processes in the construction industry
Building projects can be characterised as inter-organisational projects. In building
projects, where organisational connections exist adjacent to inter-organisational
connections, decisions are taken in a complex context. In every phase of the
building process actors and stakeholders join or leave. The different phases of
building processes can be profoundly explained by using the process protocol of
the University of Salford as specified in Table 1.
Table 1: Phases in the design and construction process (Kagioglou, et al., 1998).
Group
Pre-project phases
Pre-construction phases
Construction phases
Post completion phase
Phases
0. Demonstrating the need
I. Conception of need
II. Outline feasibility
III. Substantive feasibility study & outline financial authority
IV. Outline conceptual design
V. Full conceptual design
VI. Production design procurement & full financial authority
VII. Production information
VIII. Construction
IX. Operation & maintenance
This arrangement shows from a certain perspective some similarities compared to
the innovation decision process of Rogers. The awareness of a certain necessity
and generating an attitude are prevailing in the first phases (phase 1 and 2). In the
final drawings and documents, before setting a price for construction, adoption or
rejection decisions need to be taken (phase 3). The construction process needs to
cope with the installation procedure for the specific energy techniques (phase 4).
In the end the user of the building will experience if the techniques perform and
really can save energy (phase 5).
In the building process we consider ten actors to have direct influence in the
adoption or rejection of energy saving techniques (see Table 2). The actors are
involved in different stages of the building process. The trajectory to come from
an energy saving concept to specific energy saving techniques, the contextual
factors influencing the process, and the roles of the actors are included in our
framework (see Figure 1). The five phases of Rogers are expected to be only
partially in line with the phases of the general design and construction process.
Individual actors are persuaded and are taking decisions on energy saving
measures at different stages in the process. In other words, the overall diffusion
process consists of various personal adoption cycli which vary per actor.
Takers
Granters
Table 2: Descriptions of the ten actors regarded in this research
Actor
Description
Client – Principal (Cl) Person or organisation requesting the constructive service of a professional
person or organisation. In some cases a client can be a property developer.
Customer- User (Cu) Person or organisation making use of the provided building
Warden (W)
Person or organisation responsible for the supervision of and maintenance on
the building and its location
Property developer
Person or organisation that converts land to a new purpose, especially by
(PD)
constructing buildings
Project manager (PM) Person that plans, organizes, and allocates resources to come to a successful
completion of a specific project (as specified by the client)
Municipality (Mu)
A town or district having a local government that enforces building
regulations
Architect (A)
Person who designs buildings and in most cases supervises their construction
Consultant (Cs)
Person or organisationthat provides expert advice professionally
Contractor (Co)
Organisation or person that undertakes a contract to provide materials and/or
labour for a construction project
Subcontractor (Sc)
Organisation or personthat carries out work for a company as part of a larger
project
Manufacturer (Ma)
Firm that fabricates constructioncomponents and/or materials
Decision making networks of actors in building process
Cl
A
Mu
Actor’s
characteristics
A
Cl
A
Co
Cs
Project’s
context
Cl
Co
Cs
Cl
Co
Sc
A
Cu
W
Ma
Chronological order
Macro
development
State of
technology
Factors influencing the diffusion of energy saving techniques
Fig. 1: Framework to analyse the adoption process in building processes.
Actors leaving
process
II-III.
IV-VI.
VII-VIII.
IX.
Feasibility study & Conceptual & production Production Operation &
outline financial
design & financial
information & maintenance
construction
authority
authority
2. Actors’ 3. Decision of
4. Actors’
5. Actors’ Adopted energy
persuasion
actors
implementationconfirmation saving technique
Rejected energy
saving technique
Actors entering
process
Influence
0-I.
Demonstrating
and conception
of need
Concept of
1. Actors’
knowledge
energy saving
3. Using the framework for social housing processes
In this section we will operationalise the framework in order to analyse social
housing projects by specifying the context in more detail. There are multiple
reasons to study social housing projects. First, by the end of 2003 the total number
of houses owned by social housing corporations was 2,420,500 being more than
one third of the Dutch houses (Dekker, 2004). Secondly, the development of
social housing seems to experience financial problems in achieving an improved
energy performance. Thirdly, social housing corporations are considered to be
highly experienced principals or property developers regarding real estate, but
based on the investments costs less experience is expected to exist on the adoption
of innovative techniques that go beyond the regulations in the Building Code. In
this section we will further explain the context based on the four factors described
in Figure 1.
3.1 Macro development
The context issue called “macro development” is mainly referring to the society at
large (Dieperink et al, 2004). We clustered the developments in political, juridical
and economic events within the construction industry in the Netherlands during
the time-period 2003-2009.
Political developments: Starting from 2003 the government tried to encourage
housing corporations to develop more houses to rent and to sell. Although, the
number of houses developed by housing corporations increased, the government
announced in 2006 that the corporations need to spend money on improving
complete neighbourhoods. By 2010 the corporations will spend € 2.5 billion per
year for improving neighbourhoods. At this moment it is estimated that housing
corporations own houses with a value of € 380 billion (by means of the Valuation
of Immovable Property Act), according to CBS the total VIPA-value of houses
was approximately € 1,633 billion in 2008.
Legal developments: In the time period 2003-2009 the national Building Code of
2003 applied for new buildings. Regarding the energy use of buildings, a
minimum insulation value of 2.5 (m²·K)/W, a minimum value for ventilation of
0.7 dm³/(s·m²), a maximum value for air infiltration of 0.2 dm³/s per dwelling and
an Energy Performance Coefficient (EPC) for dwellings of 1.0. The minimum
floor height of 2.6 m and the height and width of door openings (2.3 m x 0.9 m),
also incorporated in the Building Code, influence the energy use indirectly. The
EPC is based on an equation that relates forecasted and permissible energy use,
incorporating the installed systems for heat production, heat resistance of the
building shell and the size of the house, etc. By the beginning of 2006 the EPC
was reduced to 0.8.
Economic developments: Regarding the economic developments in this time
period, it is important to address that in 2002 and 2003 there were small increases
in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of only 0.1% and 0.3%. After 2003 the
GDP increased every year from 2.2% to 3.6%, until the crisis started in the second
half of 2008. On average the house prices increased from January 2003 to January
2009 by 23.8%. The price to construct a new house for a housing corporation rose
from € 90,000.- in 2003 for 383 m 3 to € 99,000.- in 2008 for 385 m 3. Prices of
houses developed by private ownership or by project developers rose from €
126,000.- for 542 m 3 to € 147.000,- for 563 m 3.
3.2 State of technology
One can argue if the state of technology is a macro development. Nevertheless,
technical developments are highly important in the field of energy saving
techniques and the authors would like to address that for every building project
the current state of available energy techniques should be regarded. However,
stakeholders might attempt to rely on traditional techniques that are known to
them by means of former projects. Last decade many new technologies were
introduced in the housing market to save energy. At this moment the high
efficiency natural gas boiler and insulation packages with a heat resistance of 3.0
m2·K/W are common in the Netherlands. The adoption rates of solar collectors,
photovoltaic panels, and heat pumps are still rather low, although the techniques
are already available for many years. The adoption rate of heat exchangers for
waste water of showers is on the other hand relatively high. This technique has
low investments costs, is easy to implement in new houses and has a high impact
on the EPC. New techniques recently introduced in residential real estate are
Phase Change Materials and LED-lighting for example. The availability of
techniques will in the nearby future increase, because of growing environmental
awareness and higher energy prices. Techniques that are already available will be
improved and will probably become cheaper.
3.3 Project’s context
Dutch social housing corporations have agreed to lower the energy consumption
of their houses. Starting by October 2008, the natural gas consumption needs to be
lowered by at least 20% within 10 years. Therefore, an energy performance
certificate, which were introduced all around Europe in line with the Energy
Performance Building Directive (EC, 2001), with classification B is desirable for
existing houses or the performance should at least be improved by two steps in
this A to G classification method. For new houses the energy consumption should
be decreased by 25%, starting from the first of January 2011. In 2015 the
reduction should increase to 50%.
Our main interest in this paper is the energy target. From the corporation’s point
of view the most important issue and “raison d’être” is to offer housing to all
persons in society that are not able to obtain housing by themselves. These
persons are most often restrained by financial means, but it is also possible that
tenants have a physical or mental handicap.
3.4 Actor’s characteristics
The objective of social housing corporations is to provide affordable housing of a
proper quality for households with a minimum income. It is hard to achieve this
objective in a market with relatively high land prices of € 341.- /m2 on average.
Besides, the average building costs of a rented house are € 86,000.- (excluding
VAT) (Bouwend Nederland, 2007) and the adoption of energy saving techniques
makes even higher investments necessary.
A subsidy on the rent is provided for the tenants of this type of residential real
estate, when their income -minus the costs of renting- are below certain thresholds.
These thresholds are solely based on the basic costs of hiring without service costs
or energy costs. On average the basic costs are € 402.- per month (Bouwend
Nederland, 2007). This means that extra energy investments (that go beyond the
basic regulations of the Building Code) can not be earned back by raising the
monthly rent, because an increase will result in a subsidy stop for the tenant.
However, the tenant does receive a lower energy bill and therefore will benefit
from the investment done by the housing corporation.
4. Results of the case study research
After describing the context, this section presents four cases to gain insights in the
influence of stakeholders in adopting energy saving techniques. These cases are
provided by one social housing corporation in the Dutch municipality of Almelo.
We analysed internal documents (like investment reports, specifications and
drawings) and held interviews to specify the role of different actors and to fill in
our framework. The corporation owns approximately 6,700 houses. Within the
corporation different departments can be distinguished. One department has the
obligation to initiate projects (client), another department manages the project
(project manager), and a third department maintains and rents houses (customer).
In some housing corporations these departments even form stand-alone firms,
which only share one corporate identity for outsiders. By interviewing
stakeholders and by studying written documents we were able to study the role
and influence of every actor with the use of our framework.
4.1 Case 1: The design and construction process of new social houses
The first case (see Figure 2) studied is a project in which 73 new social houses
were developed, of which 35 houses were commissioned by the client (Cl 1)
described in the previous section. The other 38 houses were commissioned by
another social housing corporation in the same municipality (Cl2). In January
2005 a first proposal to develop the 35 houses shows that the houses are expected
to be built with a standard EPC of 1.0 or less. Although the municipality
requested to develop houses with a 10% lower EPC from the very first beginning,
it took the social housing corporation more than eight months for incorporating
this policy into their design process.
In November 2005, under pressure of the municipality (Mu), the social housing
corporations improved in het investment proposal the EPC ambition to 0.9. This
mainly meant that the architect improved the heat resistance of floors, walls and
roofs in the designs of the houses, resulting in EPC’s with values of 0.81 to 0.95
with an average of 0.90. In this case the municipality was the most important
stakeholder in coming to a better energy performance than obliged by the
National Building Code. This improved energy performance was commissioned
by the client to the architect.
Decision making networks of actors in building process
Actors entering
process
EPC 0.9
II-III.
EPC 1.0
Cl 1
VII-VIII.
IX.
Adopted energy
saving techniques
EPC 0.9
Cl 2
Mu
IV-VI.
Mu
Cl 1
Ar
Cl 1
Ar
Chronological order
Fig. 2: Stakeholders in achieving an improved energy performance in case 1
Actors leaving
process
0-I.
4.2 Case 2: The design and construction process of new condos for seniors
The second project is a housing project for elderly. In this project the social
housing corporation (Cl 1) collaborated with a local living and healthcare centre
(Cl 2), as shown in Figure 3. The social housing corporation developed a high-rise
apartment building containing 41 apartments and three penthouses. The initiation
took place in December 2002 and the construction was completed in June 2009.
In September 2003 the ambition was expressed to come to an improvement EPC
of 0.9. Nevertheless, in 2005 an EPC of 0.98 was mentioned in the request for the
building permit. The property developer, an internal department of the social
housing corporation, used his influence to come to an improved EPC within the
designs of the building. Although the client (Cl1), property developer (PD) and
project manager (PM) belong to the same organisation, the project manager did
not share the ambition in contrast with the property developer. In the next phase
the EPC was therefore adjusted to 0.98.
0-I.
IV-VI.
EPC 0.9
Cl 1
Cl 2
Actors entering
process
II-III.
PD
VII-VIII.
IX.
EPC 0.98
PD
Ar
CS 1
PM
Ar
Actors leaving
process
Influence
Decision making networks of actors in building process
CS 2
Ar
CS 1
CS 1
Chronological order
Fig. 3: Stakeholders influence in achieving an energy performance in case 2
4.3 Case 3: The design and refurbishment of duplex houses
The third case, that started in 2003, is a refurbishment process of 81 duplex
houses, which were transformed to 54 dwellings. In this process e no explicit
energy saving ambitions were specified in the project or investment proposal (see
Figure 4). Nevertheless, the project manager introduced some measures to
improve the energy performance because of the growing awareness that energy
performance certification would be introduced for buildings in the whole
European Union. Consequently the heat resistance of the roof, windows, walls
and floors was improved.
0-I.
II-III.
IV-VI.
Cl
PM
PM
PD
A+C
A+C
VII-VIII.
IX.
CS
Chronological order
Fig. 4: Stakeholders in coming to an improved energy performance in case 3
Actors leaving
process
Influence
Actors entering
process
Decision making networks of actors in building process
Afterwards, on request of the social housing corporation energy performance
certificates were obtained for the 54 dwellings, showing so called Energy Indices
of 1.13 to 1.21 or in other terms a label B. The energy label was given by an
external organisation (CS), when the houses were already constructed and in use.
4.4 Case 4: The design process for refurbishment of condos
In 2004 a process was initiated on how to refurbish 102 condos, which were
constructed in 1958 and renovated in 1988. After 45 months in which the plans
were initiated, developed and a price was set by a contractor, the plans were not
approved by the director, because the project was to expensive (see Figure 5). In
2009 the six buildings encompassing the 102 condos were demolished. The need
for refurbishment was given by the fact that in 2008 the buildings would end their
second life cycle; twenty years after the renovation of 1988. The plans were based
on stripping the complete building to its carcass and adding extra condos with an
EPC of 0.8 on top. At first an EPC of 0.95 was set as a target, but the possibility
to receive subsidy triggered the project manager to ask for an improved energy
performance. A new building shell would provide a better heat resistance for the
existing condos.
0-I.
II-III.
IV-VI.
VII-VIII.
IX.
EI label B → EPC 0.8
Cl
Ar
Ar
PD
PM
PM
Ar
CS
CS
Actors leaving
process
Actors entering
process
Influence
Decision making networks of actors in building process
Chronological order
Fig. 5: Stakeholders in coming to an improved energy performance in case 4
5. Discussion and conclusions
Our research aims at improving the understanding of the role and influence of
actors in the process of adopting energy techniques. A framework was developed
based on the adoption process of innovations. The design processes in our cases
show, however, that by using rather traditional technologies the social housing
corporation was already able to comply with the compulsory EPC of the Building
Code or the 10% lower EPC demanded by the municipality. Individual techniques
seem not to dominate the discussions between stakeholders, but the EPC as an
indicator is a major discussion topic. Rogers’ aspect of relative advantage
addresses the impact of separate techniques on the EPC and not the possible
advantage of energy reduction for the user. On the other hand, the fact that
traditional measures are being used in the studied cases shows the great relevance
of Rogers’ attribute of compatibility.
The influence of stakeholders differs strongly per project. Although the client,
project manager, and project developer belong to the same organisation, they
seem not to share one common vision regarding the energy performance. The
municipality was able to force an improved EPC for the new buildings and
ambitious project managers played an important role in the renovation projects.
The impact of the architect may certainly not be neglected but his influence was
only prevalent in the last case.
We can conclude that our framework helps to depict the transformations in
relations between stakeholders during the design process. A clear analysis of the
specific interests of stakeholders is needed to develop and implement successful
energy savings measures. The paper further revealed the importance of studying
adoption in its specific context, in this case the social housing setting.
Further research should take place on the roles of energy saving techniques and
stakeholders in the building processes of offices.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to express their gratitude to Marieke Plegt for her research
activities and SenterNovem for providing financial support for the present
research “Exergy in the Built Environment” (LT02003).
References
Bouwend Nederland (2007). “De bouw in cijfers 2002-2006.” (Dutch),
Zoetermeer.
Cooke, R., Cripps, A., Irwin, A., Kolokotroni, M., “Alternative energy
technologies in buildings: Stakeholder perceptions” Renewable Energy, 32,
2320-2333.
Dekker, S.M. (2004). “Prestaties van woningcorporaties in 2003,
prestatieafspraken en toezicht in 2004.” (Dutch), DGW/SR2004130681,
Ministerie van VROM, ‘s-Gravenhage.
Dieperink, C., Brand, I., and Vermeulen, W. (2004). “Diffusion of energy-saving
innovations in industry and the built environment: Dutch studies as inputs for a
more integrated analytical framework.” Energy Policy, 32(6), 773-784.
Entrop, A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., Dewulf, G.P.M.R., and Halman, J.I.M. (2008).
“Decision making processes and the adoption of energy saving techniques in
residential and commercial real estate.” Proceedings SB08, G. Foliente, T.
Luetzkendorf, P. Newton and P. Paevere, eds., Melbourne, Australia
European Council (2002). “Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD)”
Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and Council.
Hartmann, A., Reymen, I.M.M.J., and Oosterom, G. van (2008) “Factors
constituting the innovation adoption environment of professional public
clients.” Building, Research & Information, 36(5), 436-449.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M., and Sheath, D.
(1998). “Process protocol” ISBN 090-289-619-9, University of Salford,
Salford.
Raven, R.P.J.M. Mourik, R.M., Feenstra, C.F.J., Heiskanen, E. (2009)
“Modulating societal acceptance in new energy projects: Towards a toolkit
methodology for project managers.” Energy, 34, 564-574.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). “Diffusion of innovations.” 5th edition, ISBN 0743222091,
Free Press, New York.
Vermeulen, W.J.V., and Hovens, J. (2006) “Competing explanations for adopting
energy innovations for new office buildings.” Energy Policy, 34 (17), 27192735.