LAS RUTINAS Y NORMAS

If humans are intended as active energy users within different energy flows, the relevant energy policy could be better understood (Wilhite et al. 2001), in other words, energy supply and management should be viewed from an energy-user perspective (Lutzenhiser 2009, p.39). However, as energy is invisible, it is understandable that why so many peo- ple are not aware of how much energy they have consumed or whether they might have consumed much more than they really need.

It is crucial for building energy efficiency to make occupants understand and accept the energy saving measures suggested by experts, as well involve themselves in these measures actively with the increasing awareness of energy conservation, otherwise, it could result in impeding the expected control and management of energy consumption (Mitterer et al. 2012, p.230). Many studies (Chen et al. 2011, Hunter 2004, Tindall et al. 2003) have corroborated that occupants with high education or holding more knowledge about energy conservation in hand have higher intention to conserve energy, as well could be keener to perceive their energy using behaviours and engage in conservative behav- iours. In the study by Bartusch (Bartusch et al. 2012, p.642), it was found out that many of the independent variables (e.g., outdoor temperature, building properties and energy- consuming installations) failed to demonstrate any statistically significant differences in annual electricity consumption per square meter heated living space. The most likely un- derlying reason might be the impact of individual household energy-related behaviour, which could affect the final energy consumption significantly. According to research re- sults by Lindén (Lindén et al. 2005), household energy consumption accounted for a fifth of the total in North European Nations and about two-thirds of all the energy use in the U.S. (Ewing and Rong 2008), patterns of occupant behaviour may influence levels of energy use to the same extent by choosing equipment and appliances. Therefore, combin- ing with addressing energy conservation behaviour of occupants rather than merely fo- cusing on price mechanisms or new technologies for curtailing energy consumption is an essential part of the success of sustainable residential energy efficiency.

An effective performance of residential energy conservation measures and energy policy needs a positive and active participation of occupants, as it determines to what extent the technological, political and economic contribution are accepted and implemented by end users, and also affects the level of behaviour change and awareness improvement of oc- cupants. Meanwhile, social participation also depends to a certain extent on the availabil- ity of technology and information, on reasonable and political programs supporting the

residential energy conservation. For instance, instead of expensive energy efficient retro- fit or appliances paid by consumers it is more acceptable to provide educational programs for those limited-resources consumers with low- and no-cost ways to reduce energy costs, thereby increasing the likelihood of future investments in energy conserving retrofits. Aiming to improve social participation of occupants in energy saving activities, it is worth to keep in mind by housing designers and operators that the most significant resource for an efficient residential energy consuming system is its consumers, i.e. occupants. Each effort should not forget to educate and encourage the occupants to take full advantage of the sustainable management and services and behave with better energy-saving awareness. Many studies indicate that the informed, concerned and proactive occupants are necessary to pull the energy market towards a greater efficiency (Boardman 2004). On the contrary, a poor social participation causes not only a waste of resources and investments but also a possible change in energy policies and incentives that ought to have benefited the con- sumers and other stakeholders. The reasons resulting in weak social participation are many-fold due to different objective conditions, but some of them are common, for ex- ample, insufficient energy saving awareness of occupants owing to living tradition and habits, and organization failure of building owners and energy managers. Therefore, suf- ficient energy-saving knowledge and information are continuously necessary to incentiv- ise the public.

An effective measure promoting to improve social participation, i.e. improvement of en- ergy efficiency in residential buildings by subjective initiative, has to recognize the indi- vidual characteristics of energy consumers, such as their culture and tradition, attitudes to household energy use and driving forces behind their actions and changes, household demographics and income levels. Bin and Dowlatabadi introduced the Consumer Life- style Approach (CLA) to postulate that five factors determine consumer use behaviours and consequences (Bin and Dowlatabadi 2005):

- External environmental factors (e.g., culture or family background) from the con text in which consumer decision processes happen.

- Individual determinants (e.g., personal attitudes).

- Household demographics (e.g., single-family, family with/without children, or multi-generation family).

- consumer choice or action.

- Natural environmental impacts (e.g., climate or geographic conditions). (Guin and Kirby 2013).

Technology and Urban Systems (LBNL BTUS) conducted by Tianzhen Hong and his team, it introduces a DNAS (Drivers-Needs-Actions-Systems) ontology for occupant be- haviour standardization107. This ontology addresses especially the influence the factors of energy-related behaviour of occupants:

- Drivers represent the environmental factors that stimulate occupants to fulfil a physical, physiological or psychological needs.

- Needs mean the physical and non-physical requirements of the occupant that must be met in order to ensure satisfaction with their environment.

- Actions address the interactions with systems and activities that occupants can perform a achieve environmental comfort.

- Systems refer to the equipment or mechanisms within the building with which occupants may interact with to restore or maintain environmental comfort. In addition, different methods and theories were developed to analyse occupant behav- iours from the socio-culture and socio-economic perspectives. Frederiks (2014) intro- duced a “behaviour economics” theory that focuses on what we shall do to bridge the gap between knowledge/awareness and actions. Røpke (1999) indicated that change of be- haviour and therefore the resulted change of living requirements and qualities could be understood as a consequence of societal processes, which have been described as drivers behind quantitate energy consumption of households. Gram-Hanssen (2011) also consid- ered that there could be an interaction between energy efficiency and consumer behaviour, which includes psychological and social understanding more than pure economic and technological factors. Wilson and Dowlatabadi (2007) promoted the relevant theories that determine occupant decision-making with regard to residential energy use, e.g., utility- based decision models and attitude-based decision models. The utility theory of decision- making is based on economic theory, i.e. it is assumed that occupants make behavioural decisions “rationally” for maximization of the performance of utility given budget con- straints like household income and preferences and prices of goods (Damton 2008, Jack- son 2005). The attitude theory of decision-making, however, is more vulnerable than util- ity-based, as it is influenced by different common and individual factors, such as the at- tributes and description of technology and practice, knowledge and experience of new energy-efficient products, and individual interests and habits. Both theories are developed from the perspective of energy-related purchase phase. Moezzi and Lutzenhiser (2010) highlighted in their theories the impact of occupants on residential energy consumption and pointed out the shortcomings of some old ideas and theories that have analysed how

to improve building energy efficiency. For example, some thought technology and be- haviour as two separate realms, which might lead to mismatches between invested tech- nologies and policies with the real usage by occupants. Wood (2006) found out in his study that the way people really use thermostats at home may be much different than assumed in current codes and models or in designing process, as households are much more active to manage their internal temperature through using the thermostats more so- phistically than has previously been supposed in models, even if thermostats have already been developed to a very intelligent level. In addition, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991) proposes that human behaviour is resulted from the initial human intention that essentially influenced by human’s concerns or attitudes towards the behav- iour, subjective norms and values, and perceived behavioural control. TPB is extended to the field of household energy use (Clemet et al. 2014) for prediction of energy conserva- tion intentions and behaviours at home. Though TPB identifies a relative clear thought about the causal association among behaviours and the underlying foundations, however, an exact form of these relations is still uncertain and the corresponding research and ap- plication in residential energy conservation are also inadequate, moreover TPB has prob- lems to explain repetitive occupant behaviours (Klöckner 2013).

For the current situation, the social participation is challenged by the following aspects: - Accessible information and technologies.

- Adaptable and optional technical equipment. - Acceptable prices for optimal qualities. - Improved living comfort and safety. - Trade-off analysis among stakeholders.

It is worth to mention that the trade-off between the immediate costs of the investment and savings expected in the medium to long-term could be a major barrier to energy effi- ciency investment (UNEP SBCI 2009). The immediate costs of the investments refers not only to the monetary costs for implementing energy efficient measures (e.g., retrofit, re- furbish, replace and moderate for existing buildings, or high-efficient technologies in new buildings), namely “the first cost”, but also to the necessary changes in living customs that sometimes is a challenge for the households. For instance, some studies have found a linear relationship between energy demand for space heating and indoor temperature, however which is often different for various types of buildings and heating systems due to preferences and consumer behaviour (Leth-Petersen and Togeby. 2001, pp.387-403). It might also depend on the building thermal quality and the climate (Haas et al. 1998, pp.195-205).