4.5 Article

Ex-post evaluation of residential insulation program in the city of Temuco, Chile

期刊

ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 126-135

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esd.2021.04.003

关键词

Residential insulation; Matching with differences-in-differences; Outdoor emissions; Energy consumption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first ex-post evaluation of a residential insulation program found that it did not significantly reduce energy consumption or external PM2.5 emissions in treated dwellings, but did significantly increase thermal comfort. Therefore, while it was not effective in reducing air pollution, it did improve quality of life.
There is abundant literature about the impact of residential insulation on energy consumption using different methods. However, ex-post evaluation methods have not been used yet, which are helpful when the participants in a program are not chosen randomly. Therefore, this study performs the first ex-post evaluation of a residential insulation program using the matching with differences-in-differences method. This non-experimental method allows obtaining the causal impact of the program since it controls for observable factors and non-observable factors that are invariable over time. The data comes from a unique survey that includes energy consumption for heating and control variables for households benefited and not benefited by the program, both in the year before and after the retrofit. The results show that the residential insulation program does not significantly reduce energy consumption or external PM2.5 emissions in the treated dwellings. Still, there is a significant increase in the perception of thermal comfort associated with the rebound effect. Thus, it is concluded that the program has not been an effective tool to reduce air pollution, but it improves the quality of life through an increase in thermal comfort. (C) 2021 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据