6. Survey Results
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
6.9.7. Showers
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
income was confounding with the effect of the number of fulltime workers, but the latter explained more variance when comparing two models where one variable was switched for the other; as the latter also made more sense with regard to the dependent, household income was dropped for the model, as was the educational level, which showed no significant correlation. When adding lifestyle and city of residence, the lifestyle dimensions remain to have a significant correlation to the number of showers but add only very little explanatory power.
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
Table 6.92.: Average number of showers per week by city, lifestyle, number of per-sons, and household income
Stuttgart LyonCity Total
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Lifestyle
Conservative well-off 8.5 (0.9) 8.6 (1.6) 8.6 (0.9)
Liberal well-off 7.8 (0.6) 9.8 (0.7) 8.9 (0.5)
Reflexives 10.8 (1.2) 10.3 (0.9) 10.4 (0.7)
Conventionalist 7.0 (0.6) 5.0 (0.8) 6.6 (0.5)
Success seekers 7.6 (0.4) 11.1 (0.7) 9.1 (0.4)
Hedonists 6.9 (0.7) 11.2 (1.0) 9.3 (0.7)
Traditional worker 4.5 (0.6) 5.8 (1.5) 4.7 (0.6)
Home-centered 7.1 (0.7) 8.3 (1.2) 7.5 (0.6)
Entertainment seekers 8.8 (1.1) 8.2 (0.7) 8.4 (0.6)
Total 7.4 (0.2) 9.7 (0.2) 8.5 (0.2)
Number of persons
1 4.7 (0.2) 6.1 (0.2) 5.3 (0.2)
2 7.8 (0.2) 8.9 (0.4) 8.3 (0.2)
3 11.4 (0.6) 15.2 (0.9) 13.1 (0.5)
4 13.9 (0.9) 17.9 (1.3) 15.6 (0.7)
5 14.3 (1.4) 27.1 (2.9) 20.4 (1.6)
6 11.4 (3.0) 26.0 (6.8) 18.4 (3.8)
Total 7.4 (0.2) 9.7 (0.2) 8.4 (0.1)
Monthly household net income
less than 800e 5.3 (0.9) 10.4 (3.1) 6.1 (1.0)
800-1500e 4.7 (0.4) 6.4 (0.5) 5.6 (0.3)
1501-2000e 5.5 (0.4) 7.5 (0.6) 6.2 (0.3)
2001-2500e 6.3 (0.5) 6.6 (0.5) 6.4 (0.4)
2501-3000e 9.2 (0.7) 9.7 (0.7) 9.5 (0.5)
3001-3500e 8.1 (0.7) 12.1 (1.5) 9.7 (0.7)
3501-4000e 10.6 (0.8) 14.0 (1.1) 12.2 (0.7)
4001-4500e 10.2 (1.1) 11.0 (1.3) 10.6 (0.8)
4501-5000e 11.6 (1.3) 16.1 (2.3) 14.3 (1.5)
more than 5000e 11.3 (0.7) 12.8 (1.4) 12.2 (0.8)
Total 7.4 (0.2) 9.7 (0.2) 8.4 (0.2)
Table 6.93.: Adjusted Wald-tests for differences between lifestyle groups regarding weekly number of showers per household
Stuttgart Lyon
p p
Conservative well-off .1871 .4366 Liberal well-off .3656 .9424
Reflexives .0055** .6213
Conventionalist .4808 .0000***
Success seekers .3959 .0461*
Hedonists .5309 .1823
Traditional worker .0000*** .0071**
Home-centered .7285 .1934
Entertainment seekers .2140 .0254*
† p<.1, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Table 6.94.: OLS-regression: Number of showers taken
Variable Coef. Lin. SE Coef. Lin. SE Coef Lin. SE
Nr. of baths .065 (.101) -.555⇤⇤⇤ (.097) -.552⇤⇤⇤ (.100)
Nr. of adults 3.613⇤⇤⇤ (.315) 3.664⇤⇤⇤ (.333)
Nr. of fulltime workers .744⇤ (.349) .697† (.368)
Nr. of children 3.275⇤⇤⇤ (.341) 3.259⇤⇤⇤ (.354)
Age -.058⇤⇤⇤ (.013) -.045⇤⇤ (.016)
Modernity 1.778⇤⇤⇤ (.464) 1.052⇤ (.470)
Standard of consumption .746† (.425) .586† (.355)
Lyon 1.944⇤⇤⇤ (.371) 2.577⇤⇤⇤ (.354) 2.287⇤⇤⇤ (.383)
Intercept 1.276 (1.471) 3.604⇤⇤⇤ (.913) -1.148 (1.832)
N 1024 960 932
Adj. R2 .057 .481 .485
Significance levels : †: 10% ⇤ : 5% ⇤⇤: 1% ⇤ ⇤ ⇤: .1%
6.9. Energy relevant behavior Summarizing the effect of lifestyle dimensions on energy relevant behavior, the analysis showed no correlation with the number of washing-machine cycles, a correlation on a low level of significance regarding the use of washing-machines and television sets, as well as with the number of warm meals prepared, and a significant correlation with the usage of personal computers and the number of showers taken, even when controlling for city of residence and other sociodemographic variables as well as for the ownership of the respective device. Similar to the analysis of the ownership of devices, lifestyle groups show significant differences in various energy relevant user behaviors (summarized in Tables 6.95 and 6.96 ), but lifestyle dimensions had a much smaller explanatory power than the sociodemographic variables. When controlling for sociodemographics they could raise the variance explained by only around 1–2.5 %.
Significant differences between the french and the german city that persist when controlling for other sociodemographics, lifestyle dimensions, and ownership of devices were found in regard to the number of dishwasher cycles, usage of television sets and personal computers, the number of warm meals prepared, and the number of showers taken. The french households in the sample reported on average a lower number of dishwasher cycles, longer daily usage of television sets and personal computers, and a higher number of warm meals to be prepared at home, as well as a higher number of showers per week and person.
Attitude scales as theenvironmental consciousnessornew environmental paradigm could not explain additional variance when controlling for sociodemographic vari-ables.
Apart from the number of persons living in the household and household income, there are no other variables that are constantly linked to differences in user behav-ior or appliance ownership which raises the energy consumption of the household, i.e. Lyon households on average have less cooling devices, but these tend to be larger and less energy efficient than the cooling devices found in Stuttgart house-holds, a higher educational level for one raises the average number of personal computers in a household and also the daily usage, but lowers the average number of television sets and their daily usage. If the first counterbalances the second in terms of electricity consumption is depending on the type of computer and
televi-sion set used. Furthermore, the same kind of behavior can be of different impact for the energy supplier, depending if it takes place at peak hours of demand or not.
For this reasons, the energy demand resulting from the differences in appliance ownership and consumer behavior described in this chapter will not be calculated statically and averaged over a certain period of time, but will be simulated as daily load curves with the distributions of energy relevant behavior and appliance provision levels for different groups found in the survey parametrising the model (see Chapter 7).
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
Table6.95.:Summaryofsignificantdifferencesbetweenlifestylegroupsinenergyrelevantbehavior(Stuttgart) Washing machine cycles
Tumble
dryer cyDishwasherTelevisionComputer clescyclesusageusage
Absence from homeTime sleepingNr.of mealsWarm dinnerNr.of showers Conservative well-off+†-*+* Liberalwell- off+* Reflexives–*+** Conventionalist–†-***+*–*** Success seekers–* Hedonists–*+**–*–*** Traditional worker+***+***–**+*-†–*** Home- centered+† Entertainment seekers+**+† †p<.1,*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<.001
Table6.96.:Summaryofsignificantdifferencesbetweenlifestylegroupsinenergyrelevantbehavior(Lyon)Washingmachinecycles Tumbledryercycles Dishwashercycles Televisionusage Computerusage Absencefromhome Timesleeping Nr.ofmeals Warmdinner Nr.ofshowersConservativewell-off +***+***Liberalwell-offReflexives+†–†-†+*+***Conventionalist-**+†+***–***Successseekers +†+*
Hedonists+*–*Traditionalworker +***–**
Home-centered –*–*+***
Entertainmentseekers –†–*
†p<.1,*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<.001