Ibrahim A. Motawa
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Phil F. Banfill
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Download article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp110572586Published in: World Renewable Energy Congress - Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 57:40, p. 2586-2593
Published: 2011-11-03
ISBN: 978-91-7393-070-3
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
The UK target to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from housing has been challenged by the fact that 80% of the UK housing stock existing in 2030 has already been built. Energy-efficiency technologies for existing housing are developed in attempt to meet this target; e.g. fabric upgrades; ventilation systems; etc; but the interrelationship between the technical and social aspects of using these technologies is not fully understood. From the household perspective; a clear financial case in addition to other intangible benefits should exist to create high demand for these technologies. On the other hand; many technological interventions are still in the development stage and according to the technology diffusion theory there will be a delay in adopting these technologies on the expected scale. This study will use system dynamics modelling to investigate the relationship between the supply and demand of energy-efficiency technologies for existing housing. A dynamic hypothesis will be set to analyse the interrelationships among the controlling variables of technologies development over a period of time. This paper introduces the main structure of the study and discusses the technique adopted to model the identified dynamic hypothesis.
[1] DEFRA; e-Digest of Environmental Statistics; online available from (http:// www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics /index.htm); 2009.
[2] Z. Zavody; Pathway to zero-carbon homes. In; European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee) 2007 Summer Study; Côte d?Azur; France; 4-9 June 2007.
[3] Sustainable Construction Task Force; Making the most of our built environment; DTI; 2004.
[4] T. Oreszczyn and R. Lowe; Challenges for energy and buildings research: objectives; methods and funding mechanisms; Journal of Building Research & Information; Volume 38 (1); 2010; pages 107 – 122
doi: 10.1080/09613210903265432.
[5] A. Peacock; P. Banfill; M. Newborough; D. Kane; S. Turan; D. Jenkins; M. Ahadzi; G. Bowles; P. Eames; H. Singh; T. Jackson; and A. Berry; Reducing CO2 emissions through refurbishment of UK housing. In; European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee) 2007 Summer Study; Côte d?Azur; France 4-9 June 2007.
[6] G. Pellegrini-Masini; G. Bowles; A. Peacock; M. Ahadzi; P. Banfil; Whole life costing of domestic energy demand reduction technologies: householder perspectives. Construction Management and Economics; Vol 28 (3); 2010; pages 217 – 229
doi: 10.1080/01446190903480027.
[7] I. Motawa; A. Price; and W. Sher; A Fuzzy approach for evaluating the iterated implementation of innovations in construction; International Journal of IT in Architecture; Engineering and Construction; Vol. 1(2); 2003; pp 105-118.
[8] I. Motawa; A. Price; and W. Sher; Modelling the implementation of technological innovations in construction; International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology: Special Issue on Interoperability for SME-based environments; Vol. 20 (3); 2004; pp 78-89.
[9] G. Pellegrini-Masini; The carbon-saving behaviour of residential households. In: Futures of Cities 51st IFHP World Congress; Copenhagen; 2007.
[10] J. Sterman; Business dynamics: systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill; 2000.
[11] E. Rogers; Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press ISBN 0029266505; 1995.
[12] Y. Veneris; Modelling the transition from the Industrial to the Informational Revolution; Environment and Planning; 22 (3); 1990; pp. 399-416.
doi: 10.1068/a220399.
