An Incentives Planning Framework for Residential Energy Retrofits: A Life Cycle Thinking-Based Analysis under Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building energy retrofits can reduce emissions and increase cost savings. Some retrofits that can deliver higher emissions savings are not popular due to a lack of economic justifications. Financial incentives can be used to change buyer perception around such retrofits. This study proposes a framework to identify the best-performing retrofit strategies for a given building cluster and the optimal incentive amounts to promote the chosen strategies, accounting for uncertainties, stakeholder priorities, and budget constraints. The proposed framework was demonstrated using a case study complemented with policy insights. Life cycle cost savings and capital cost significantly impact retrofit purchase decisions. Case study results showed that retrofitting houses heated with electricity can produce significant cost savings. However, adopting energy-conscious behaviours in houses heated with natural gas and injecting renewable natural gas into the gas supply can produce two times more emissions savings achieved by any retrofit strategy applied to an electrically heated house. This indicates the need for adopting performance-based incentives over the prescriptive approach to reward occupant efforts in addition to asset performance. Despite potential life cycle cost savings, incentives must be complemented with low-interest loans to promote retrofit strategies carrying higher capital costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".