Download Report

NSSI
Working Paper 47
September 2012
Why Some Homeowners
Energetically Renovate and
Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR)
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann,
Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
IED – Institute for Environmental Decisions
NSSI – Natural and Social Science Interface
Dominik Saner, MSc ETH in Environmental Engineering, PhD candidate
Ecological Systems Design, Institute of Environmental Engineering
ETH Zurich, Schafmattstrasse 6, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 44 633 68 40; Fax: +41 44 633 10 61, dominik.saner@ifu.baug.ethz.ch
PD Dr. Ralph Hansmann
Department of Environmental Systems Science
ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 33, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 44 632 63 16, Fax: +41 44 632 10 29, hansmann@env.ethz.ch
Dr. Evelina Trutnevyte
Natural and Social Science Interface, Institute for Environmental Decisions
ETH Zurich, Universitätsstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 44 632 49 03; Fax: +41 44 632 10 29, evelina.trutnevyte@alumni.ethz.ch
Prof. Dr. Roland W. Scholz, former head of Natural and Social Science Interface
Institute for Environmental Decisions
ETH Zurich, Universitätsstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland, Tel.: +41 44 632 58 91; Fax: +41 44 632 10 29,
roland.scholz@env.ethz.ch
Why Some Homeowners Energetically
Renovate and Others Do Not – The Case of
Herisau (AR)
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................... 2!
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3!
1!
2!
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 4!
1.1!
Face to Face Interviews and Questionnaire ....................................................................... 4!
1.2!
Analyses .............................................................................................................................................. 5!
Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 5!
2.1!
Characteristics of recently renovated houses and their owners ................................ 5!
2.2! PCA and Cluster analysis based on willingness for energetic renovations .......... 6!
2.3! Correspondence between clusters and further homeowner characteristics ...... 8!
3!
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 9!
4!
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 10!
5!
References .................................................................................................................................................. 10!
September 2012
1
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
Abstract
The residential sector in Switzerland is required to meet very ambitious energy efficiency targets within the next 25
years. Most recent energy scenarios for Switzerland assume that buildings will use significantly less fossil energy for
heating and hot water purposes than today. This assumption relies heavily on the effectiveness of cantonal and federal
incentive schemes for the implementation of energy efficiency measures. However, some homeowners may not respond
to subsidies or do not see the importance of energetic renovation. In our study, we conducted face-to-face interview
with 31 homeowners in Herisau, Appenzell Ausserrhoden. The goal was to determine factors and characteristics that
encourage or hinder them from exercising their right of applying for incentives for energy efficiency measures. We
found that homeowners who have recently performed energetic renovations somewhat differ from those who would be
willing to take subsidies from the government for such renovations. A tendency towards stronger environmental attitudes was found among those who actually renovated their houses, whereas the willingness to take part in incentive
schemes was related negatively with age, duration of ownership, time living in the building, and market liberal attitudes. We also found that some financial incentives (e.g. for solar collectors or district heat) are much better accepted by
homeowners than state measures (e.g. for modern wood-heating systems). The results suggest that awareness of benefits of energy efficiency measures still needs to be raised, in particular among homeowners, who are older and/or live in
their house for a long period of time.
Keywords: renovation, energy efficiency measures, willingness to renovate
2
NSSI Working Paper 47
Why Some Homeowners Energetically Renovate and Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR)
Introduction
Introduction
In 2011 the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) published
the most recent energy scenarios for Switzerland with a
time horizon up to the year 2050 (Prognos, 2011). The
publication describes two scenarios, which were written
in the light of the disastrous nuclear accident in Fukushima (Japan) of March 2011 and the consequent decision of
the Federal Council to phase out nuclear power in Switzerland. One scenario is called “business as usual”, the other
one “new energy policy”. Both scenarios assume that
Switzerland will achieve significant annual reductions in
the use of energy for heating purposes from 271 PJ to 183
PJ and 101 PJ, respectively, between the year 2009 and
2050. Similar reduction rates are also derived in other
prospective studies, for instance a study for the city of
Zurich (Wallbaum, Heeren, Jakob, Martius, & Gross, 2010).
Herein the authors calculated the end energy demand for
heating of all buildings within the city limits for the next
40 years and two scenarios called “reference” and “efficiency”. In the “reference” scenario the heat demand will
decrease from 13 PJ in the year 2010 to 10 PJ in the year
2050 and in the “efficiency” scenario to 7 PJ in the year
2050.
The results of the aforementioned studies are on the one
hand extrapolations of trends for energetic consumption
in the building stock, but on the other hand also demonstrate the belief in further progress and high implementation rates of energy efficiency measures. However, these
changes in the building stock might not come as easy as
these scenarios assume. Almost 89% of all dwellings and
73% of all apartments in Switzerland are privately owned
(Ott, Jakob, Baur, Kaufmann, & Ott, 2005). The rest is
owned by institutions. This means that for the majority of
buildings the decisions for energetic renovation are made
on an individual basis by a homeowner, who might not
entirely be driven by economic reasoning.
September 2012
In the aftermath of two transdisciplinary case studies in
the canton Appenzell Ausserrhoden (AR), led by the Chair
of Environmental Science – Natural and Social Science
Interface (NSSI) at ETH Zurich, Schlegel, Trutnevyte et al.
(2012) calculated the residential heating energy demand
for all dwellings in the canton. They found that in Herisau,
the capital of the canton, almost 85% of all dwellings are
heated with fossil energy (i.e. oil or natural gas) and that
they use on average 525 MJ/(m ·year) of heating energy. In
2008 the parliament of Appenzell had implemented a
cantonal energy concept with the goal to reduce the demand of fossil energy in the housing sector by 10% until
2015. The canton supports homeowners in total with CHF
400’000 per year (econcept, 2008) to achieve this goal.
Additionally, on national level the so-called building program was launched in 2010. In the first year CHF 23 million
were spent on 5’556 projects for energy efficiency
measures of building envelops (BAFU, 2010).
2
In our study we analyze who is likely to make use of todays’ cantonal and federal measures and which types of
measures are suitable to trigger renovation decisions. We
applied a methodology similar to the approach of Banfi et
al. (2011). But instead of modeling homeowner’s decision
making process, we focused on analysis of the factors that
correlate with the homeowners’ actual and supposed
renovation decision. These factors may influence how well
homeowner perceive the cantonal measures and how
they value the costs and benefits of an energetic renovation. For example strong environmental awareness may
motivate homeowners to take renovation, although these
renovations would not be beneficial from a solely economical perspective. To investigate into these issues we
conducted a questionnaire survey with homeowners
living in Herisau, the capital of Appenzell Ausserrhoden.
3
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
1
Methods
1.1
Face to Face Interviews and Questionnaire
Although Herisau is a city with over 15’000 inhabitants
and the center of the region, it has preserved its rural
heritage. In 2011, a total of 100 homeowners were selected
from a database containing all addresses of Herisau. Before randomly selecting potential participants, the database was filtered for people owning single family dwellings with central heating systems using fossil energy
carrier. Thus, the assumption was that the participants
basically have the decision making power to refurbish and
modernize their homes either due to energetic and comfort reasons, or for long-term conservation of value. In
addition, houses built after 2000 were excluded from the
random sampling to get a coherent sample of houses, for
which renovation probably is needed in most cases. From
100 homeowners 31 agreed to participate in a face-to-face
interview. The interviewer visited these homeowners at
their homes, conducted the survey and completed the
questionnaire based on the answers of the participants.
The average duration of the interview was approximately
one hour.
the homeowners were inquired how willing they were to
conduct an energetic renovation if they would be reimbursed with CHF 140 per window for their replacement.
The total costs of the renovation measures were also
revealed to the homeowners in these scenarios (i.e. approx. CHF 15’000–20’000 per house in the item on window replacement). Homeowners had to respond on a
continuous scale between 0 (not at all) and 10 (very willing). The willingness to engage in totally ten different
measures was assessed in this way (i.e. (ii) partly reimbursement of costs for insulation of walls, (iii) partly reimbursement of costs for insulation of roof, (iv) partly
reimbursement of costs for insulation of floors, (v) partly
reimbursement of costs for total renovation to MINERGIEstandard, (vi) total reimbursement of costs of hiring an
energy consultant, (vii) specific amount of money for
installing a ground source heat pump, (viii) specific
amount of money for installing a new wood heating, (ix)
specific amount of money for mounting solar collectors,
(x) the opportunity to join a district heating network).
The first part of the interviews served to gather information on the houses, such as exact year of construction,
number of floors, and characteristics of roof, walls, windows and heating system. Questions about energy use
and then questions on most recent renovations and foreseeable renovations in the future were asked. In addition,
the homeowners had to rate the importance of different
reasons for the conducted or planned renovations (i.e.
aesthetics, comfort, conservation of value, reduction of
energy use, or legal requirements) on scales from 0 (= not
important at all) to 10 (= highly important). In the second
part the interviewer asked for the homeowner’s willingness for energetic renovations based on ten different
scenarios of subsidies. The scenarios were derived from
real cantonal and national energy efficiency programs and
the amounts of subsidies reflect the actual values in 2011
(Amt für Umwelt AR, 2012; BAFU, 2012). For example, (i)
In the final part of the questionnaire homeowners provided information about themselves. In addition to sociodemographic information like gender, age and the economic situation like income (measured in discrete categories: 1 = up to 4’600 CHF/month, 2 = 4’600–6’700
CHF/month, 3 = 6’701–8’901 CHF/month, 4 = 8’901–12’500
CHF/month, 5 = more than 12’500 CHF/month) and savings (measured in discrete categories: 1 = up to 50’000
CHF, 2 = 50’001–100’000 CHF, 3 = 100’001–200’000 CHF,
4 = 200’001–300’000 CHF, 5 = more than 300’000 CHF). It
was also inquired, how long they already live in the house
and how long they have owned it. Finally their political
attitudes were assessed using discrete rating scales from 1
(not at all) to 10 (absolutely agree) for ten items in which
they could agree or disagree to certain political statements ranging from fiscal and environmental policy to
law and order and foreign policy.
4
NSSI Working Paper 47
Why Some Homeowners Energetically Renovate and Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR)
Methods
1.2 Analyses
In the statistical analysis of the data we separated homeowners who renovated their buildings after 2008 due to
energy efficiency considerations and those who did not.
The new energy strategy of the canton is in place since
2009 therefore the year 2008 was used as a threshold
value. This allowed analyzing the characteristics of homeowners who recently renovated their homes in comparison to the others and hence investigating which factors
played a role in determining whether the homeowner
took a chance in the cantonal and national energy efficiency program.
Furthermore, a principle component analysis (PCA) of the
willingness-to-renovate judgments was conducted. PCA is
a method to extract a small number of fundamental
components from a larger number of variables based on
the correlations between the variables (Backhaus,
Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2006). Aim of the PCA was to
investigate the dimensional structure of the willingnessto-renovate judgments and to determine groups of
measures that have a higher acceptance than others. In a
next step, a cluster analysis of homeowners was conducted based on the willingness-to-renovate judgments to
arrive at typical groups of homeowners in this regard. And
in a final step, correspondence between the homeowner
type, cluster membership and the PCA dimensions was
then investigated.
2 Results
2.1 Characteristics of recently renovated houses and their owners
Out of the 31 homeowners, 10 have renovated parts of
their houses after 2008, whereas 21 have not renovated
their houses since then. The two resulting homeowner
groups were compared to each other with regard to demographic characteristics and characteristics of their
houses. There were no significant differences (significance
level, p<0.05), but some noteworthy tendencies with a
significance level of p!0.1 were found.
It turned out that those who recently renovated their
homes tended to have a lower household income (mean
income category: M = 2.3 vs. M = 3.1; p = 0.10). Furthermore, those of the renovating group of homeowners have
on average owned their houses for a shorter time period
September 2012
than those who did not recently renovate (mean duration
of ownership: M = 16.9 years vs. M = 23.4 years; p = 0.10).
In addition the houses which were renovated after 2008
tended to be older than the other houses in the sample
(mean construction year: M = 1888.1 vs. M = 1937.9;
p = 0.11). There were no further salient differences. The
average age of both homeowner groups was for example
nearly identical (M = 58.2 years vs. M = 58.4 years;
p = 0.95).
With regard to the political orientation of the two groups
the most salient difference was that homeowners who
renovated their homes after 2008 tended to be more in
favor of strong environmental protection than the others
5
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
(M = 5.3 vs. M = 3.8; p = 0.11). Average ratings of the two
homeowner groups with respect to statements in six
further political fields were by and large similar. Consistent with their environmental orientation and the
cantonal strategy, the motivation of all ten homeowners
to renovate their homes was to reduce the energy use (i.e.
showing ratings >5 on the scale from 0 to 10). The average
rating for reduction of energy use was with M = 9.0 exceptionally high. Energy concerns were thus rated as more
important reason for recent renovations than conservation of value (M = 7.6), comfort (M = 5.1), or aesthetic considerations (M = 3.9).
Significant differences between the two homeowners
groups were found in relation to their willingness to perform a renovation, if certain cantonal incentives were
provided. Willingness to exchange windows (M = 3.9 vs.
M = 1.1; p = 0.01), and to renovate the damming of the roof
(M = 4.4 vs. M = 1.7; p = 0.03) was significantly higher
among those who renovated their homes after 2008. In
tendency willingness to join a local district heating network when available (M = 6.4 vs. M = 3.8, p = 0.10) was
also higher among those who recently renovated their
home.
2.2 PCA and Cluster analysis based on willingness for energetic renovations
A PCA of the 10 ratings of willingness to implement energy efficiency measures revealed three principal components. The resulting rotated loading matrix is shown in
Table 1. Accordingly, the first component loaded highly on
measures that improve the isolation of the house (e.g.
changing windows, damming roof, damming walls and
floor, achievement of Minergie-standard). The second
component loaded highly on cost free energy consultancy
and the installation of wood heating systems. These are
also the two measures with the lowest acceptances as a
consultation was perceived as direct state interventionism and wood heating systems were perceived dirty (i.e.
dust from wood). The third factor loaded on use of clean
heating and hot water energy sources, namely ground
source heat pump systems, solar thermal collectors and
local district heating network. Clean in this regard means
that the energy carrier is not stored in the house.
Table 1. Rotated component loading matrix resulting from a PCA on homeowners ratings of willingness to implement
different energy efficiency measures.
Energy efficiency measures
Component
1
Component
2
Component
3
Communality
Exchanging windows
0.76
-0.17
0.14
0.63
Insulation of walls
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.84
Insulation of roof
0.66
0.19
0.17
0.50
Insulation of floors
0.79
0.18
0.05
0.66
Reaching MINERGIE-standard
0.80
0.17
0.32
0.77
Energy consultancy
0.20
0.78
0.11
0.67
Installing Ground source heat pump
0.05
0.33
0.65
0.53
Installing modern wood heating
0.01
0.88
0.17
0.80
Mounting solar collectors
0.33
-0.37
0.72
0.76
Join a district heating network
0.12
0.26
0.79
0.71
Eigenvalues "
3.27
1.82
1.76
Note: Number of extracted components determined by Kaiser-Guttman criterion. Only components with Eigenvalues
">1 were considered; Factor loadings after Varimax rotation.
6
NSSI Working Paper 47
Why Some Homeowners Energetically Renovate and Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR)
A cluster analysis for grouping homeowners according to
their willingness judgments was also conducted. Application of the Ward Method and the squared Euclidean Distance dissimilarity measure (Backhaus, et al., 2006) resulted in a three cluster solution with average willingness
judgments (i.e. cluster centroid vectors) as shown in Table
2. Accordingly, there was one small cluster with only three
homeowners, who were generally more willing to renovate their homes than the others with regard to all suggested measures except for the use of modern wood
heating systems. A second cluster entailing the majority
Results
of homeowners (n = 21) was only willing to engage in use
of solar thermal energy and to join a local district heating
network, but tended to reject all other measures. The
third cluster of n = 7 persons rejected all energetic improvement and innovation measures. The three clusters
thus differed significantly with regard to PCA component
1 covering measures for improving the isolation of the
house (p<0.001) and PCA component 3 covering use of
innovative energy sources (p<0.001). They were however
not different from each other with regard to the average
scores of PCA component 2.
Table2. Average ratings of willingness to implement different energy efficiency measures in the 3 homeowner clusters
formed on the basis of the similarity of these judgments (Cluster Centroids).
Energy efficiency measures
Cluster 1
n=3
Cluster 2
n=21
Cluster 3
n=7
Overall
sample
Exchanging windows
6.2
1.7
1.1
2.0
Insulation of walls
7.0
1.2
1.1
1.7
Insulation of roof
6.0
2.5
1.2
2.6
Insulation of floors
9.0
2.1
1.4
2.6
Reaching MINERGIE-standard
9.2
1.1
0.1
1.7
Energy consultancy
4.8
3.1
0.1
2.6
Installing Ground source heat pump
3.9
2.6
0.9
2.3
Installing modern wood heating
0.9
1.0
0.1
0.8
Mounting solar collectors
9.3
5.2
0.1
4.5
Join a district heating network
8.1
5.3
0.9
4.6
Willing to improve
insulation and to use
innovative heating
Inclined to
innovative
heating
Unwilling to implement energy
efficiency measures
Cluster names (a-posteriori)
Note: Cluster analysis with Ward Method and squared Euclidean Distance dissimilarity measure. Willingness scale from
0 to 10; average values >5.0 are printed boldly (reflecting considerable willingness).
Based on the average willingness judgments and the PCA
scores we named the clusters “homeowners highly willing
to improve insulation and use clean heating energy
sources” (cluster 1), “homeowners inclined to use clean
September 2012
heating energy sources” (cluster 2), and “homeowners
unwilling to implement energy efficiency measures”
(cluster 3).
7
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
2.3 Correspondence between clusters and further homeowner
characteristics
One-Way Anova was used to investigate how the three
clusters of homeowners differed from each other with
respect to personal characteristics. Cluster membership
and hence willingness to renovate was significantly related to age (p = 0.015). Homeowners of cluster 3 were oldest
(M=66.6 years), and those of Cluster 2 (M = 57.0 years),
were on average still older than those of cluster 1
(M = 49.0 years). Those who are in the “unwilling to implement energy efficiency measures” cluster 3 were on
average also living for a longer period of time in their
home (M1 = 8.7, M2 = 26.0, M3 = 30.1 years; p = 0.03) and
have owned it for longer time (M1 = 8.7, M2 = 20.2,
M3 = 29.9 years; p = 0.004). In tendency those of cluster 3
have also more savings available than those of the other
two clusters (p = 0.09). With regard to political attitudes
the only significant finding between the three clusters
was found with regard to free market vs. regulation of the
economy (p = 0.02). Here, those of cluster 3 opposed regulation of the economy (M = 6.8), whereas those of cluster 1
(M = 4.3) and cluster 2 (M = 4.8) are on average rather
neutral in this regard. Two noteworthy tendencies towards differences were found in relation to social security
policy (p = 0.065) and law and order policy (p = 0.099).
Homeowners in cluster 3 oppose strong engagement of
the state in social security (M3 = 6.8) whereas those of the
8
two other clusters give on average medium ratings in this
regard (M1 = 4.3, M2 = 4.8). However, both cluster 2 and
cluster 3 tended to favor rigorous law and order (M2 = 6.7,
M3=5.8), whereas only the homeowners of cluster 1 gave
somewhat lower ratings in this regard (M = 4.3). Differences between the three clusters in relation to environmental protection policy were not significant (p = 0.38).
There was no significant relationship found between the
three established clusters of homeowners and the two
groups of homeowners (i.e. renovation vs. non renovation). However, there was a tendency that homeowners in
the small cluster 1 (66.6%) recently more often renovated
their homes than those of Cluster 2 and 3 (both 28.6%) (cf.
Table 3).
Table 3. Contingency table representing number of
homeowners in the two renovation groups and the three
clusters.
Cluster Cluster Cluster
1
2
3
Total
Renovation after
2008
2
6
2
10
No renovation after
2008
1
15
5
21
Total
3
21
7
31
NSSI Working Paper 47
Why Some Homeowners Energetically Renovate and Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR)
Conclusions
3 Conclusions
In the analyses we studied two distinct groups and three
established clusters of homeowners. The groups were
built based on actually performed energetic renovations.
Homeowners who renovated their homes after 2008
formed one group and homeowners who did not renovate
since 2008 formed the other group. There were tendential
differences between these groups. Homeowners who
renovated their buildings after the implementation of the
Appenzell energy concept had lower income and older
houses, but owned their homes for a shorter period of
time. The main reason for renovation was the reduction of
energy use, and recent renovations correlated positively
with endorsement of strong environmental protection
policies. These findings suggest that the implementation
of cantonal measures for more energy efficient buildings
contributed to the renovation decisions in recent years.
However, the three clusters that were formed on the basis
of homeowners’ willingness-to-renovate did not correspond closely with actual renovations in recent years.
Although eleven homeowners refurbished their building
since 2008 only three homeowners had stated high willingness-to-renovate in connection with most cantonal
measures. The clusters differed in the age. Younger
homeowners were more willing to renovate than older
homeowner. Clusters also differed in political attitudes.
Homeowners unwilling to renovate had more economically liberal and socially conservative political opinions
than homeowners from the other clusters. These differences did not appear between the two homeowner
groups who recently renovated versus not renovated their
houses. The fact that the groups and the clusters were not
congruent can be explained by two reasons. (i) We inquired the willingness-to-renovate always in connection
with a cantonal financial incentive. This could have influenced the answers. People who renovated their homes are
aware of environmental problems and the necessity of
reducing energy use; however, some of them might not
be in favor of subsidies from the state for energetic renovation. (ii) PCA and cluster analysis suggest that some
September 2012
cantonal measures are less preferred than others. The
least preferred measure was an incentive for the replacement of an old heating in favor of a wood heating. This
measure was rejected by all clusters. A comment from
some interviewees on the subject of wood heating was
that it is perceived inconvenient and dirty during operation. This explains why the participants of this study were
generally unwilling to install modern wood heating and
rated this measure lowest.
The most preferred cantonal measures were subsidies for
solar collectors and the opportunity to get access to a
district heating network, because they are perceived as
clean and easy to install.
Preferences for insulation measures were higher than for
wood heating but not high in absolute terms. This leads
to the conclusion that generally measures are higher
rated that support refurbishments that do not come with
long and complicated construction work or are not considered dirty or complicated in the use phase (e.g. wood
heating). Thus, if the use of wood as an energy source
shall be increased as outlined in the cantonal energy
strategy (econcept, 2008), centralized wood incineration
plants should be supported that are connected with a
district heating network. Furthermore, if considerable
engagement in subsidized measures for both improving
house insulation and use of clean heating energy sources
is targeted, it may be an option to increase the financial
incentives for the former relative to the latter to persuade
more homeowner to insulate their buildings.
Finally, it is important to raise awareness of energy efficiency issues with the aim to motivate homeowners to
engage in reasonable modernizations. In particular older
people and those who already live for a long period of
time in their house should be targeted and provided with
information on benefits of renovations.
9
Dominik Saner, Ralph Hansmann, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Roland W. Scholz
4 Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Corinne Moser for her valuable contributions during the design of the questionnaire used in
this study, and Ilona Imoberdorf for her effort in visiting the homeowners and performing the interviews. We thank also
Yann Blumer for his profound feedback on previous versions of this article. Especially, we would like to thank the authorities from the Amt für Umwelt Appenzell Ausserrhoden and their head, Hans Bruderer, for their financial support.
5 References
Amt für Umwelt AR. (2012). Förderung – Appenzell Ausserhoden. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from
http://www.ar.ch/departemente/departementbau-und-umwelt/amt-fuerumwelt/energie/foerderung/
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2006).
Multivariate Analysemethoden (Vol. 11). Berlin (D):
Springer-Verlag.
BAFU. (2010). Das Gebäudeprogramm im Startjahr 2010.
Ittigen (CH): Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU.
BAFU. (2012). Das Gebäudeprogramm – Was wird gefördert? Retrieved March 10, 2012, from
http://www.dasgebaeudeprogramm.ch/index.p
hp/de/foerderung/was-wird-gefoerdert
Banfi, S., Ramseier, C., Alberini, A., Jakob, M., & KnellwolfPióro, D. (2011). Erneuerung von Einfamilienhäusern – Eine mikroökonomische Analyse für ausgewählte Schweizer Kantone. Ittigen (CH): Bundesamt für Energie BFE.
10
econcept. (2008). Energiekonzept 2008–2015. Appenzell
(CH): Amt für Umwelt AR.
Ott, W., Jakob, M., Baur, M., Kaufmann, Y., & Ott, A. (2005).
Mobilisierung der energetischen Erneuerungspotenziale im Wohnbaubestand. Ittigen (CH): Bundesamt für Energie BFE.
Prognos. (2011). Zwischenbericht I – Energieszenarien für die
Schweiz bis 2050. Ittigen (CH): Bundesamt für
Energie BFE.
Schlegel, M., Trutnevyte, E., & Scholz, R. W. (2012). Patterns
of residential heat demand in rural Switzerland.
Building Research & Information, 40, 140-153.
Wallbaum, H., Heeren, N., Jakob, M., Martius, G., & Gross,
N. (2010). Gebäudeparkmodell – Büro-, Schul- und
Wohngebäude – Vorstudie zur Erreichbarkeit der
Ziele der 2000-Watt-Gesellschaft für den Gebäudepark der Stadt Zürich. Schlussbericht. Zurich
(CH): Stadt Zürich.
NSSI Working Paper 47
ETH-UNS Working Papers
■ UNS-Working Paper 1 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W. (1994). Muss man den Formalismus
beherrschen, um die Formalisten zu schlagen? Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W. (1998). Umweltforschung zwischen Formalwissenschaft und Verständnis: Muss man den Formalismus beherrschen,
um die Formalisten zu schlagen? In A. Daschkeit & W.
Schröder (Eds.), Umweltforschung quergedacht:
Perspektiven integrativer Umweltforschung und -lehre
(pp. 309–328). Berlin: Springer.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 2 (Out of Print)
UNS (1994). Lehrstuhlbeschreibung Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften
(UNS).
Fallstudie,
Forschung und Berufspraxis. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 3
Mieg, H. A. (1994). Die Expertenrolle. Zürich: ETH
Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 4
Heitzer, A. & Scholz, R. W. (1994). Monitoring and
evaluating the efficacy of bioremediation – a conceptual framework. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 5 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W., Weber, O., & Michalik, G. (1995). Ökologische Risiken im Firmenkreditgeschäft. Zürich: ETHZürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W., Weber, O., & Michalik,
G. (1995). Ökologische Risiken im Firmenkreditgeschäft.
In Overlack-Kosel, D., Scholz, R. W., Erichsen, S.,
Schmitz, K. W., and Urban, G. (Eds.), Kreditrisiken aus
Umweltrisiken (pp. 1–49). Bonn: Economica.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 6 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W., Heitzer, A., May, T., Nothbaum, N., Stünzi,
J., & Tietje, O. (1995). Datenqualität und Risikoanalysen
– Das Risikohandlungsmodell zur Altlastenbearbeitung. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W.,
Heitzer, A., May, T. W., Nothbaum, N. Stünzi, J., & Tietje,
O. (1996). Datenqualität und Risikoanalysen: Das
Risikohandlungsmodell zur Altlastenbearbeitung. In S.
Schulte-Hostede, R. Freitag, A. Kettrup, and W. Fresenius (Eds.), Altlasten-Bewertung: Datenanalyse und
Gefahrenbewertung (pp. 1–29). Landsberg: Ecomed.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 7 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W., Mieg, A. H., & Weber, O. (1995). Mastering
the complexity of environmental problem solving by
case study approach. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as:
Scholz, R.W., Mieg, H.A., & Weber, O. (1997). Mastering
the complexity of environmental problem solving with
the case study approach. Psychologische Beiträge, 39,
169–186.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 8 (Out of Print)
Tietje, O. & Scholz, R. W. (1995). Wahrscheinlichkeitskonzepte und Umweltsysteme. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Tietje, O. & Scholz, R. W. (1996). Wahrscheinlichkeitskonzepte und Umweltsysteme. In A.
Gheorghe & H. Seiler (Eds.), Was ist Wahrscheinlichkeit? Die Bedeutung der Wahrscheinlichkeit beim
Umgang mit technischen Risiken (pp. 31–49). Zürich:
vdf.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 9 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W. (1995). Grenzwert und Risiko: Probleme
der Wahrnehmung und des Handelns. Zürich: ETH
Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W. (1996). Grenzwerte und
Risiko: Probleme der Wahrnehmung und des Handelns. In A. Grohmann & G. Reinicke (Eds.), Transparenz
und Akzeptanz von Grenzwerten am Beispiel des
Trinkwassers (pp. 5–19). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 10 (Out of Print)
Weber, O. (1995). Vom kognitiven Ungetüm bis zur
Unverständlichkeit: Zwei Beispiele für Schwierigkeiten
im Umgang mit Grenzwerten. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Weber, O. (1996). Vom kognitiven
Ungetüm bis zur Unverständlichkeit: zwei Beispiele für
Schwierigkeiten im Umgang mit Grenzwerten. In
Umweltbundesamt (Ed.), Transparenz und Akzeptanz
von Grenzwerten am Beispiel des Trinkwassers.
Berichtsband zur Tagung vom 10. und 11. Oktober 1995
(mit Ergänzungen), (pp. 133–150). Berlin: Erich Schmidt
Verlag.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 11
Oberle, B. M., Meyer, S. B., & Gessler, R. D. (1995).
Übungsfälle 1994: Ökologie als Bestandteil von
Unternehmens- strategien am Beispiel der Swissair.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 12 (Out of Print)
Mieg, H. A. (1996). Managing the Interfaces between
Science, Industry, and Society. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Mieg, H. A. (1996). Managing the
interfaces between science, industry, and society. In:
UNESCO (Ed.), World Congress of Engineering Educators and Industry Leaders (Vol. I, pp. 529-533). Paris:
UNESCO.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 13 (Out of Print)
Scholz, R. W. (1996). Effektivität, Effizienz und Verhältnismässigkeit als Kriterien der Altlastenbearbeitung.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W. (1996).
Effektivität, Effizienz und Verhältnismässigkeit als
Kriterien der Altlastenbearbeitung. In: Baudirektion
des Kantons Zürich in Zusammenarbeit mit ETH-UNS
(Eds.). Grundsätze, Modelle und Praxis der Altlastenbearbeitung im Kanton Zürich: Referate zur Altlastentagung 1996 (pp. 1–22) Zürich: AGW Hauptabteilung
Abfallwirtschaft und Betriebe.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 14 (Out of Print)
Tietje, O., Scholz, R. W., Heitzer, A., & Weber, O. (1996).
Mathematical evaluation criteria. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W., Heitzer, A., and
Weber, O. (1998). Mathematical evaluation criteria. In
H.-P. Blume, H. Eger, E. Fleischhauer, A. Hebel, C. Reij, &
G. Steiner (Eds.), Towards sustainable land use (pp. 53–
61). Reiskirchen: Catena.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 15
Steiner, R. (1997). Evaluationsbericht: Bewertung der
obligatorischen Berufspraxis im Studiengang Umweltnaturwissenschaften durch Betriebe und Studierende. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 16 (Out of Print)
Jungbluth, N. (1997). Life-cycle-assessment for stoves
and ovens. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published
as:
Jungbluth, N. (1997). Life-Cycle-Assessment for stoves
and ovens. 5th SETAC-Europe LCAS Case Studies
Symposium, (pp. 121–130), Brussels.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 17
Tietje, O., Scholz, R. W., Schaerli, M. A., Heitzer, A., &
Hesske, S. (1997). Mathematische Bewertung von
Risiken durch Schwermetalle im Boden: Zusammenfassung des gleichnamigen Posters auf der
Tagung der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft
in Konstanz. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 18
Jungbluth, N. (1998). Ökologische Beurteilung des
Bedürfnisfeldes
Ernährung:
Arbeitsgruppen,
Methoden, Stand der Forschung, Folgerungen. Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 19 (Out of Print)
Weber, O., Scholz, R. W., Bühlmann, R., & Grasmück, D.
(1999). Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination and Attitudes to Decontamination Strategies.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Weber, O., Scholz, R.
W., Bühlmann, R., & Grasmück, D. (2001). Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination and Attitudes
to Decontamination Strategies. Risk Analysis, Vol. 21,
Issue 5, pp. 967–967.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 20 (Out of Print)
Mieg, H. A. (1999). Expert Roles and Collective Reasoning in ETH-UNS Case Studies. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Mieg, H. A. (2000). University-based
projects for local sustainable development – Expert
Roles and Collective Reasoning in ETH-UNS Case
Studies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 67–82.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 21
Scholz, R. W. (1999). «Mutual Learning» und Probabilistischer Funktionalismus – Was Hochschule und
Gesellschaft von einander und von Egon Brunswik
lernen können. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 22 (Out of Print)
Semadeni M. (1999). Moving from Risk to Action: A
conceptual risk handling model. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Semadeni, M. (2000). Moving from risk
to action: A conceptual risk handling model. In R.
Häberli, R. W. Scholz, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000
Conference: Transdisiplinarity – Joint Problem-Solving
among Science, Technology and Society. ETH Zurich.
Workbook I: Dialogue Sessions and Idea Market (pp.
239-234). Zürich: Haffmanns Sachbuch Verlag.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 23 (Out of Print)
Güldenzoph, W. & Scholz, R.W. (2000). Umgang mit
Altlasten während dem Transformationsprozess im
Areal Zentrum Zürich Nord (ZZN). Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
(Published as: Güldenzoph, W., Baracchi, C., Fagetti, R.,
& Scholz, R. W. (2000). Chancen und Dilemmata des
Industriebrachenrecyclings: Fallbetrachtung Zentrum
Zürich Nord. DISP 143, 36, 10-17.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 24
Semadeni M. (2000). Soil and Sustainable Land-Use.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften
■ UNS-Working Paper 25
Sell J., Weber, O., & Scholz, R. W. (2001). Liegenschaftsschatzungen und Bodenbelastungen. Zürich: ETH
Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften
■ UNS-Working Paper 26 (Out of Print)
Hansmann, R., Hesske, S., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. W.
(2001). Internet-unterstützte Umweltbildung: Eine
experimentelle Studie zur Anwendung des OnlineSimulationsspiels SimUlme im Schulunterricht. Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Hansmann, R., Hesske, S.,
Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. W. (2002). Internet-unterstützte
Umweltbildung: Eine experimentelle Studie zur
Anwendung des Online-Simulationsspiels SimUlme im
Schulunterricht. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, Nr. 1/2002.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 27
Scholz, R. W. & Weber, O. (2001). Judgments on Health
Hazards to Soil Contamination by Exposed and Notexposed Residents. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnaturund Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 28
Scholz, R. W., Steiner, R., & Hansmann, R. (2001).
Practical Training as Part of Higher Environmental
Education. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 29
Hansmann, R., Scholz, R. W., Crott, H. W., & Mieg, H. A.
(2001). Education in Environmental Planning: Effects of
Group Discussions, Expert Information, and Case Study
Participation on Judgment Accuracy. Zürich: ETH
Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 30
Laws, D., Scholz, R. W., Shiroyama, H., Susskind, L.,
Suzuki, T., & Weber, O. (2002). Expert Views on
Sustainability and Technology Implementation.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 31
Flüeler, T. (2002). Robust Radioactive Waste Management: Decision Making in Complex Socio-technical
Systems. Part1 = Options in Radioactive Waste Management Revisited: A Proposed Framework for Robust
Decision Making; Part 2 = Robustness in Radioactive
Waste Management. A Contribution to Decision
Making in Complex Socio-technical Systems. Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Part 1 published as: Flüeler, T. (2001a):
Options in Radioactive Waste Management Revisited:
A Framework for Robust Decision Making. Journal of
Risk Analysis. Vol. 21. No. 4. Aug. 2001:787-799. Part 2
published as: Flüeler, T. (2001b): Robustness in Radioactive Waste Management. A Contribution to Decision-Making in Complex Socio-technical Systems. In: E.
Zio, M. Demichela & N. Piccinini (eds.): Safety &
Reliability. Towards a Safer World. Proceedings of the
European Conference on Safety and Reliability. ESREL
2001. Torino (I), 16-20 Sep. Vol. 1. Politecnico di Torino,
Torino, Italy:317-325.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 32
Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. A., Crott, H. W., & Scholz, R. W.
(2002). Models in Environmental Planning: Selection of
Impact Variables and Estimation of Impacts. Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 33
Schnabel, U., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. W. (2002). Using
the Power of Information of Sparse Data for Soil
Improvement Management. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 34
Weber, O., Reiland, R., & Weber, B. (2002). Sustainability Benchmarking of European Banks and Financial
Service Organizations . Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 35
Kammerer, D., Sell, J., & Weber, O. (2002). Evaluation of
AIJ Project Proposals – Potential Contribution to
Sustainable Development. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 36
Scholz, R. W., Mieg, H. A., & Weber, O. (2003).
Wirtschaftliche und organisationale Entscheidungen.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften. (Published as: Scholz, R. W., Mieg, H.
A., & Weber O. (2003). Wirtschaftliche und organisationale Entscheidungen, In: Auhagen & Bierhoff.
Wirtschafts- und Organisationspsychologie.)
■ UNS-Working Paper 37
Scholz, R. W. & Binder, C. (2003). The Paradigm of
Human-Environment Systems. Zürich: ETH Zürich,
Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 38
Hansmann, R., Crott, H. W., Mieg, H. A., & Scholz, R. W.
(2003). Is Group Performance Improved by Evaluating
Task Difficulty and by Knowing about the Differential
Effects of Conformity?. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 39
Binder, C., Hofer, C., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2003).
Transition process towards regional wood flows by
integrating material flux analysis and agent analysis:
The case of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Switzerland.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 40
Loukopoulos, P. & Scholz, R. W. (2003). Future Urban
Sustainable Mobility: Using ‘Area Development
Negotiations’ for
Scenario Assessment and for
Assisting the Democratic Policy Process. Zürich: ETH
Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 41
Fenchel, M., Scholz, R. W., & Weber, O. (2003). Does
Good Environmental Performance reduce Credit Risk?
– Empirical Evidence from Europe`s Banking Sector.
Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 42
Grasmück, D. & Scholz, R. W. (2003). Risk perception of
heavy metal soil contamination by high-exposed and
low-exposed inhabitants. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 43
Wolfensberger, M., Lang, D., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). (Re) Structuring the field of Non-Energy Mineral Resource
Scarcity. Summary of the Workshop “Scarce Raw
Materials” August 31–September 2, 2007 – Davos,
Switzerland. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 44
Stauffacher, M., Walter, A., Lang, D., Wiek, A., & Scholz,
R. W. (2005). Learning to Research Environmental
Problems from a Functional Sociocultural Constructivism Perspective: The Transdisciplinary Case Study
Approach. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und
Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 45
Walter, A., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W.
(2006). Measuring social effects of transdisciplinary
research projects – Design and application of an
evaluation method. Zürich: ETH Zürich, Umweltnaturund Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 46
Junker, B., Flüeler, T., Stauffacher, M., & Scholz, R. W.
(2006). Description of the safety case for long-term
disposal of radioactive waste – the iterative safety
analysis approach as utilized in Switzerland. Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
■ UNS-Working Paper 47
Saner, D., Hansmann, R., Trutnevyte, E., & Scholz, R. W.
(2012). Why Some Homeowner Energetically Renovate
and Others Do Not – The Case of Herisau (AR). Zürich:
ETH Zürich, Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissenschaften.
ETH Zurich
Institute for Environmental Decisions IED
Natural and Social Science Interface NSSI
CHN J76.1
8092 Zurich
SWITZERLAND
Phone +41 44 632 58 92
URL http://www.nssi.ethz.ch