| Summary: | Residential energy visualization has increased in popularity during the past years, due to both legislation and an increased focus on the environmental impact of buildings. Meanwhile, the European energy efficiency directive has raised a debate on legislation on individual metering and charging (IMC), in which many negative voices among property owners and developers are being raised. The controversies bring interesting aspects to the analysis of energy visualization and its prerequisite IMC. This thesis will analyze the possibilities and barriers to implement residential energy visualization in new buildings in Stockholm, and the focus will be on local developers' perspective. The purpose of the thesis is to establish Stockholm developers' willingness to pay (WTP) for an IMC and energy visualization solution. The thesis defines perceived utility as the driving force for WTP, and accordingly the developer WTP is analyzed by evaluation of the developers' perceived utility of different technical aspects of an energy visualization solution. The solution has been modularized into three modules; IMC of hot water, IMC of heating and residential visualization. The hypothesis is that utility of the solution modules is perceived differently depending on developer ownership and developer business model; if the developer builds for property management or to sell. The empirical data has been collected through twelve in-depth interviews with developers in Stockholm. The developers were of different size, ownership and with different business models. When looking at the developers from an overall perspective, the analysis shows that there is some willingness to pay for IMC of hot water but none for IMC of heating. It can also be seen that residential visualization is something that the developers have some interest in although the overall WTP is considered low. Although environmental and fairness aspects are often mentioned by the developers in the context of IMC and energy visualization, operational and financial utility seem to be more influential in driving willingness to pay and as these utilities are not perceived, the overall WTP is low or non-existent for IMC and energy visualization. The hypothesis that developers would perceive utility differently depending on ownership or business model, if they build for property management of for sales, could not be proven. There are possibly tendencies for such differences but in this study such patterns were not clear enough to state the hypothesis as true. Additional to the WTP and developer groups, insights and takeaways are presented. The insights and takeaways are based on opportunities and risks that developers perceive with IMC and visualization, as well as requirements they have on the systems.
|
|---|
