2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing the effectiveness of weatherization treatments for low-income, American, urban housing stocks in different climates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Low‐income consumers often face issues with managing energy costs and living (Butler et al., ). Prior programs that have aimed at reducing energy use have involved economic or cash incentives (Davis, Fuchs, & Gertler, ), awareness/education campaigns (Reeves, Cummings, Scarborough, & Yeykelis, ), and structural changes to houses (Bradshaw, Bou‐Zeid, & Harris, ). Despite pockets of success, there has been limited impact of these programs, particularly for low‐income segments, with energy consumption continuing to increase along with bills to the point of stimulating significant government investment to test innovative alternative methods (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, ).…”
Section: Context: Low‐income Household Energy Efficiency Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low‐income consumers often face issues with managing energy costs and living (Butler et al., ). Prior programs that have aimed at reducing energy use have involved economic or cash incentives (Davis, Fuchs, & Gertler, ), awareness/education campaigns (Reeves, Cummings, Scarborough, & Yeykelis, ), and structural changes to houses (Bradshaw, Bou‐Zeid, & Harris, ). Despite pockets of success, there has been limited impact of these programs, particularly for low‐income segments, with energy consumption continuing to increase along with bills to the point of stimulating significant government investment to test innovative alternative methods (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, ).…”
Section: Context: Low‐income Household Energy Efficiency Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is attributed to lower income individuals converting monetary savings into improved standard of living (e.g., increased thermal comfort, electronics purchases, etc.). In fact, variability in energy savings achieved by WAP participants who had installed a programmable thermostat, attic insulation and/or had air sealed their homes caused Bradshaw, Bou-Zeid, and Harris (2014, p. 542) to recommend that “proper installation training and resident education are necessary to ensure that a higher percentage of potential energy savings is realized” in the WAP program. Similarly, the Fraunhofer Institute study (Urban & Gomez, 2013) of programmable thermostats conducted in a low-income apartment building showed that use of programmed setbacks could achieve a 65% savings in energy used for heating, but only a quarter of the occupants chose to do so, demonstrating the need for an occupant-engagement strategy to accompany the technology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Roofs constructed around the mid-twentieth century have very low insulation in general; they are mostly coated with tar and covered by a layer of gravel. These remain the most commonly-found roof structures in the Northeastern United States, which in general has an older housing stock [39]. Apart from their lack of proper insulation layer, the gravel and tar increase the radiative absorptivity of the roof structure.…”
Section: One Year Runmentioning
confidence: 99%