6. Survey Results
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
6.9.5. Times of inactivity
6.9. Energy relevant behavior expect as the chance that all people are absence decreases – in Lyon the average time of absence increases with the number of people if more than 2 people live in the household. This might be linked to the fact that full-time working mothers are far more common in France than in Germany and to the customary all-day childcare facilities and schools in France. When running separate regressions for the French and German sample in order to explain the hours of absence with the number of adults and children per household, these variables have a significant influence with opposite sign depending on the city of residence. When grouping the two samples together these variables hence lose their significance. This is why separate regressions runs for Lyon and Stuttgart are reported in order to explain the variance in the daily absence from home.
Households belonging to different lifestyles groups spend a different amount of time per day at home (see Figures 6.7 and 6.8). This fact has a big impact on their energy consumption, as they can not switch appliances in this time. For both cities lifestyles with low levels of modernity spend more time at home than more modern lifestyles.
P-values and Somers’ D for comparisons of lifestyle groups with the rest of the sample in both cities are shown in Table 6.81. In Stuttgart, conservative well-off, conventionalists and traditional workers tend to be less away from home than the rest of the sample, hedonists, home-centered and entertainment seekers report to spend more time outside of home when compared to the rest of the sample; for home-centered and entertainment seekers the difference is on a very low level of significance. In Lyon, reflexives report to be absent significantly longer, conven-tionalists significantly shorter than the rest of the sample. Comparing Stuttgart households to Lyon households, shows that the latter report to spend significantly less time out of home (D=-.078, p=.003).
For the Stuttgart sample knowledge of the lifestyle dimensions can explain 10.7 % of variance in the daily absence from home. Modernity has a positive correlation to absence from home on a very high level of significance, while the standard of con-sumption has a negative correlation on a very low level of significance (column 1).
Using sociodemographic variables as predictors, the number of persons, full-time workers and children, as well as the age of the respondent, show a significant
influ-0.50.50.5
0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h 0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h 0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h
Conservativ well-off Liberal well-off Reflexives
Conventionalist Success seekers Hedonists
Traditional worker Home-centered Entertainment seekers
Fraction
Stuttgart
Histogram: hours per day with nobody at home
Figure 6.7.: Absence from home by lifestyles in Stuttgart
ence on the absence from home; these variables can explain 34.2 % of variance in the dependent variable (column 2). If we combine information about lifestyle and sociodemographic variables in one model (column 3) the lifestyle dimensions have no additional explanatory power in regard to the absence from home (Table 6.82).
An OLS-regression using the Lyon sample (Table 6.83) shows that here of the lifestyle dimensions only the level of modernity is correlated significantly with the time spend at home (column 1); explaining only 2.2 % of variance, lifestyles in this sample can explain less variation of the absence from home than in the Stuttgart sample. Of the sociodemographic variables, here only the number of full-time workers in the household has a significant effect on the absence from home. When controlling for it, the number of adults as well as the number of children in the household have no significant effect on the absence from home (column 2). The number of full-time workers alone explains 8.9 % of variance in the Lyon sample.
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
0.2.4.60.2.4.60.2.4.6
0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h 0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h 0 - 4 h
5 - 9 h9 - 14 h
14 - 19 h19 - 24 h
Conservativ well-off Liberal well-off Reflexives
Conventionalist Success seekers Hedonists
Traditional worker Home-centered Entertainment seekers
Fraction
Lyon
Histogram: hours per day with nobody at home
Figure 6.8.: Absence from home by lifestyles in Lyon
When combining both sets of predictors, we see that – similar to the Stuttgart sample – information about the lifestyle dimensions does not add much to the explained variance of the model, which is overall much lower than in the Stuttgart sample (column 3).
Table 6.79.: Distribution of average absence from home by city, lifestyle, and num-ber of persons (in %)
0–4 h 5–9 h 9–14 h 14–19 h 19–24 h Total
CityStuttgart 24.0 20.2 34.2 16.6 5.1 100.0
Lyon 27.6 37.9 13.3 9.9 11.3 100.0
Total 25.6 28.1 24.9 13.6 7.8 100.0
Number of persons
1 19.4 26.9 30.5 13.8 9.4 100.0
2 39.4 24.6 21.5 11.2 3.2 100.0
3 24.0 33.0 19.6 10.5 12.9 100.0
4 18.5 44.5 16.4 12.9 7.7 100.0
5 20.3 27.3 9.6 34.0 8.8 100.0
6 37.5 0.0 12.5 50.1 0.0 100.0
Total 25.6 28.1 24.9 13.6 7.8 100.0
Lifestyle
Conservative well-off 22.5 41.6 21.5 8.2 6.2 100.0
Liberal well-off 27.4 32.7 20.3 14.0 5.6 100.0
Reflexives 14.3 27.2 29.1 20.2 9.2 100.0
Conventionalist 48.7 19.9 20.5 10.1 0.7 100.0
Success seekers 19.3 30.6 27.6 13.4 9.2 100.0
Hedonists 14.5 25.5 28.2 18.1 13.7 100.0
Traditional worker 45.6 24.1 19.5 7.2 3.6 100.0
Home-centered 22.0 24.7 32.9 10.3 10.2 100.0
Entertainment seekers 23.9 19.9 23.8 17.0 15.4 100.0
Total 24.8 28.2 25.5 13.4 8.1 100.0
N 290 292 251 139 65 1,037
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
Table 6.80.: Average absence from home in hours by city, lifestyle, number of per-sons, and household income
Stuttgart LyonCity Total
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Lifestyle
Conservative well-off 7.7 (0.7) 9.3 (1.4) 8.5 (0.8)
Liberal well-off 9.3 (0.7) 8.1 (0.6) 8.7 (0.5)
Reflexives 11.0 (0.8) 10.8 (1.0) 10.9 (0.8)
Conventionalist 7.1 (0.6) 4.2 (0.9) 6.6 (0.6)
Success seekers 10.3 (0.4) 9.3 (0.7) 9.9 (0.4)
Hedonists 12.3 (0.7) 10.4 (1.1) 11.2 (0.7)
Traditional worker 7.1 (0.8) 5.7 (2.0) 6.8 (0.8)
Home-centered 11.0 (0.7) 7.4 (1.0) 9.8 (0.6)
Entertainment seekers 12.3 (1.6) 9.7 (2.0) 10.7 (1.4)
Total 9.6 (0.2) 8.8 (0.3) 9.4 (0.2)
Number of persons
1 11.0 (0.4) 8.9 (0.6) 10.1 (0.3)
2 8.0 (0.3) 7.0 (0.5) 7.5 (0.3)
3 8.9 (0.6) 10.3 (1.1) 9.5 (0.6)
4 8.2 (0.5) 10.4 (0.9) 9.1 (0.5)
5 9.9 (1.3) 12.1 (1.7) 10.9 (1.0)
6 4.4 (1.5) 16.5 (0.0) 10.4 (1.2)
Total 9.6 (0.2) 8.8 (0.3) 9.3 (0.2)
Monthly household net income
less than 800e 8.4 (1.6) 14.7 (4.3) 9.6 (1.6)
800-1500e 9.7 (0.7) 9.0 (0.9) 9.3 (0.6)
1501-2000e 9.8 (0.6) 7.9 (0.9) 9.2 (0.5)
2001-2500e 9.9 (0.6) 6.9 (0.7) 8.8 (0.5)
2501-3000e 10.6 (0.6) 9.3 (0.9) 9.9 (0.5)
3001-3500e 10.4 (0.8) 5.9 (0.7) 8.6 (0.7)
3501-4000e 9.3 (0.9) 8.3 (1.0) 8.8 (0.7)
4001-4500e 9.5 (0.8) 11.6 (1.3) 10.6 (0.8)
4501-5000e 9.6 (1.0) 10.1 (1.2) 9.9 (0.8)
more than 5000e 8.0 (0.7) 10.5 (0.8) 9.4 (0.5)
Total 9.6 (0.2) 8.8 (0.3) 9.3 (0.2)
Table 6.81.: Somers’ D and tests for significance for differences in daily absence from home between lifestyle groups
Stuttgart Lyon
Somers’ D p Somers’ D p
Conservative well-off -.0241 .0107* .0073 .6840
Liberal well-off -.0136 .5742 -.0351 .2658
Reflexives .0153 .1155 .0636 .0206*
Conventionalist -.0919 .0001*** -.0498 .0049**
Success seekers .0502 .1002 .0297 .4254
Hedonists .0604 .0012** .0364 .2052
Traditional worker -.0604 .0027** -.0257 .1263
Home-centered .0429 .0679† -.0303 .1545
Entertainment seekers .0212 .0897† .0038 .8609
† p<.1, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Table 6.82.: OLS-regression: Absence from home per day in hours (Stuttgart)
Variable Coef. Lin. SE Coef. Lin. SE Coef Lin. SE
Nr. of adults -2.169 ⇤⇤⇤(.330) -2.025 ⇤⇤⇤(.346)
Nr. of fulltime workers 2.395 ⇤⇤⇤(.390) 2.263 ⇤⇤⇤(.409)
Nr. of children -1.594 ⇤⇤⇤(.276) -1.515 ⇤⇤⇤(.289)
Age -.116 ⇤⇤⇤(.017) -.109 ⇤⇤⇤(.019)
Modernity 3.927 ⇤⇤⇤(.518) 18.22 .561 (.583)
Standard of consumption -.895 †(.488) -.048 (.464)
Intercept 2.453 (1.639) 18.22 ⇤⇤⇤(1.144) 16.44 ⇤⇤⇤(2.312)
N 1019 641 624
Adj. R2 .107 .342 .337
Significance levels : †: 10% ⇤ : 5% ⇤⇤: 1% ⇤ ⇤ ⇤: .1%
6.9. Energy relevant behavior
Table 6.83.: OLS-regression: Absence from home per day in hours (Lyon) Variable Coef. Lin. SE Coef. Lin. SE Coef Lin. SE
Nr. of adults -.376⇤⇤⇤ (.572) -.379 (.602)
Nr. of fulltime workers 2.285⇤⇤ (.725) 2.313⇤⇤ (.780)
Nr. of children .067⇤⇤⇤ (.434) .130 (.446)
Age -.023⇤⇤⇤ (.033) -.003 (.039)
Modernity 2.101⇤ (.871) 1.752 (1.121)
Standard of consumption .223 (.719) .591 (.825)
Intercept 2.829 (2.876) 9.227⇤⇤⇤ (2.085) 1.911 (4.525)
N 352 331 317
Adj. R2 .022 .092 .105
Significance levels : †: 10% ⇤: 5% ⇤⇤: 1% ⇤ ⇤ ⇤: .1%
Table 6.84.: Average sleeping duration in hours per household by city, lifestyle, and number of persons
Stuttgart LyonCity Total
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Lifestyle
Conservative well-off 7.5 (0.3) 7.2 (0.4) 7.3 (0.3) Liberal well-off 7.2 (0.2) 7.1 (0.2) 7.1 (0.1)
Reflexives 6.9 (0.3) 7.0 (0.3) 7.0 (0.2)
Conventionalist 7.6 (0.2) 8.3 (0.6) 7.8 (0.2) Success seekers 6.9 (0.1) 7.3 (0.2) 7.1 (0.1)
Hedonists 6.6 (0.3) 7.4 (0.2) 7.1 (0.2)
Traditional worker 7.7 (0.3) 7.0 (0.9) 7.6 (0.3) Home-centered 7.3 (0.1) 7.1 (0.5) 7.2 (0.2) Entertainment seekers 7.5 (0.4) 7.3 (0.3) 7.4 (0.2)
Total 7.2 (0.1) 7.3 (0.1) 7.2 (0.1)
Number of persons
1 7.8 (0.1) 7.9 (0.1) 7.8 (0.1)
2 7.0 (0.1) 6.6 (0.2) 6.8 (0.1)
3 6.2 (0.2) 6.9 (0.2) 6.6 (0.2)
4 5.8 (0.2) 6.7 (0.3) 6.2 (0.2)
5 6.5 (0.2) 7.4 (0.1) 6.9 (0.1)
6 6.7 (0.7) 6.0 (0.2) 6.3 (0.4)
Total 7.2 (0.1) 7.3 (0.1) 7.2 (0.1)
6.9.5.2. Sleeping duration
The time-span between the time when the last person of the household gets to sleep and the time when the first person in the household gets up was calculated in order to frame a time where no appliances in the household are switched by any of the household members. The average sleeping duration per household by lifestyle and number of persons is shown in Table 6.84. As could be expected the duration during which all household members are asleep decreases with the number of people in the household. For the lifestyle groups it varies between 6.6 and 8.3 hours per day.
Table 6.85 reports p-values of adjusted Wald tests comparing each of the lifestyle
6.9. Energy relevant behavior groups to the rest of the households in each city. In Stuttgart, the differences between the conventionalists, success seekers, hedonists and traditional workers displayed in Table 6.84 are significant on the 95 %-level. In Lyon, only the differ-ence between conventionalists and the rest of the sample is significant on a very low level. The small difference in average sleeping duration between households in Lyon and Stuttgart is not signifcant (p=.0565).
Table 6.85.: Adjusted Wald-test for differences in the average sleeping duration between lifestyle groups
Stuttgart Lyon
p p
Conservative well-off .3275 .8375 Liberal well-off .8793 .3988
Reflexives .3061 .3814
Conventionalist .0439* .0685†
Success seekers .0153* .6519
Hedonists .0247* .3542
Traditional worker .0355* .7966
Home-centered .3145 .6477
Entertainment seekers .4183 .7827
† p<.1, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001