Uptake of water- and energy-conservation devices in the home

Warning View the most recent version.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

by Avani Babooram and Matt Hurst

[Full article in PDF]

Introduction
What you should know about this study
Most Canadian households use CFLs and low-flow showerheads
Owners more likely to use conservation devices in their homes than renters
Conservation technologies more popular in higher-income households
The proportion of households with conservation technologies increases with education
Age of dwelling related to use of programmable thermostats
Established households more likely to have conservation technologies
Rainwater collection devices buck the trend
Popularity of conservation devices varies by CMA
Households with water meters more likely to have water-conservation devices
Summary

Introduction

Today, many Canadians are concerned about the environment, and increasing attention is focused on the scarcity of resources. Consequently, more and more individuals and governments are seeking ways to reduce or alter energy and water consumption patterns.

In 2007, the Canadian residential sector used 1.4 million terajoules (TJ) of energy (the energy equivalent of 3.1 billion 9-kg propane cylinders like those used for most barbeques).1 Heating, major appliances2 and lighting accounted for approximately 63%, 9% and 4% of this energy use, respectively.3 In 2006, the residential sector accounted for the majority of municipal water use (57%). The bulk of residential water was used in the bathrooms of peoples' homes—35% in showers and baths while another 30% was used flushing toilets.4

One well-known method of conserving resources is through the adoption of energy- or water-efficient technologies. These technologies allow people to maintain their standard of living while reducing their impact on the environment by using less energy or water, and, at the same time, reducing their utility bills. For example, using an energy-saving device like a programmable thermostat can reduce energy consumption and lower heating bills by up to 15%.5 In addition, the use of an energy-efficient appliance can result in savings of hundreds of dollars in energy costs over the lifetime of the appliance.6

Depending on the cost of water and the amount of water used, households can save upwards of $100 a year by switching from a standard to an ultra-low volume toilet.7 A low-flow showerhead can also decrease water use: a standard showerhead uses 17 litres of water per minute, while a low-flow showerhead uses only 10 litres of water per minute.8

Using data from the 2007 Households and the Environment Survey, this article examines which households are more likely to use energy- and water-efficient technologies. More specifically, this study examines the association between dwelling ownership, income, education, age of dwelling and the number of years lived at the dwelling and the uptake of conservation technologies. It focuses on five particular technologies that have been developed to reduce consumption of water or energy in the home: low-volume toilets; low-flow showerheads; compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs); programmable thermostats; and appliances bought to save energy or water (see "What you should know about this study" for concepts, definitions and details).


Top of Page

 

What you should know about this study

The Households and the Environment Survey (HES) collects information on a variety of environmental themes. The survey was designed to address the needs of its funding source, the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) project, a joint venture between Statistics Canada, Environment Canada and Health Canada. The CESI project reports annually on air quality, water quality and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada using indicators to identify areas of importance to Canadians and monitor change in these areas.

The target population for the HES was households in Canada, excluding households in which no member was 18 years of age or older. Also excluded were households located in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, households located on Indian reserves and military bases, and households consisting entirely of full-time members of the Canadian Forces. In 2007, the survey collected information from a sample of 21,690 households representing about 13 million households from across Canada.

Definitions
Income: total annual household income before tax.
Education:  the highest level of education completed by any member of the household.
Programmable thermostats:  thermostats that can be programmed for different temperatures over a period of time (e.g., daily, weekly, etc.).  For example, using a programmable thermostat to save energy often involves allowing the temperature at night to fall during the heating season, or allowing the temperature to rise while occupants are not at home during the cooling season.  In this article, discussion of programmable thermostats refers to households with programmable thermostats and who use them.
Low-volume toilets: toilets that use less water per flush or toilets where a device has been placed in the toilet tank to lower the volume of water held by the tank and thus lower the volume of water used when the toilet is flushed.
Buying an appliance to save energy or water: major appliance purchased within the five years prior to 2007 where the respondent reported that energy or water consumption was one of two major factors considered in the purchase of the appliance.

The sample for Table 1 is a subset of all households interviewed in the survey. Households excluded from the analysis in Table 1 are those that, for the questions regarding sociodemographic information, either responded that they did not know the answer, refused to answer, did not have a response recorded for the question, or who were not asked the question because it did not apply to them. There is one exception to this general rule: the household income variable has a special category that represents households where valid responses could not be obtained.

Exclusions are handled differently for the questions relating to the use of programmable thermostats, low-flow showerheads and low-volume toilets. For these questions, any type of response other than "yes" has been grouped in the "no" category. As a result, for these three variables in the analysis no households were excluded and thus there was no "non-response" by definition. This is the convention used by Statistics Canada's Environment Accounts and Statistics Division. Based on the above-mentioned rules, 1,667 households were excluded, leaving 20,023 households for analysis in this table.

The sample for Table 2 is also a subset of all households interviewed in the survey. The rules that define the subset follow those described above for Table 1. The exclusion rules apply to questions regarding low-flow showerheads, low-volume toilets and rainwater-collection devices. All of these rules exclude 2,357 households from the analysis. One additional rule applies to the analysis of rainwater collection devices: for estimates in these two columns, households that do not have a lawn or garden to water are excluded from the analysis.

Modeling
Logistic regression was used to determine the strength of the associations between particular household characteristics and the use of a conservation device while simultaneously accounting for the effect of other characteristics, expressed in terms of odds ratios. Standard errors were calculated for all estimates using bootstrap methods, unless otherwise noted.

End of text box


Top of Page

Most Canadian households use CFLs and low-flow showerheads

In 2007, more than 70% of households had one or more CFLs (Chart 1). Low-flow showerheads were also a popular conservation device, with just under two-thirds of households (64%) reporting using them in their homes.

Low-volume toilets were not quite as popular, with less than one-half of households (42%) having a low-volume toilet. Just over one-third of households had purchased an appliance to save energy or water in the five years prior to 2007 (36%), and almost the same proportion of households used a programmable thermostat (34%).

Chart 1 Less expensive conservation technologies are more popularChart 1  Less expensive conservation technologies are more popular

Compared to the other technologies, CFLs and low-flow showerheads are less expensive and easier to install. This could explain their popularity relative to other, more costly, technologies like energy-efficient appliances, and technologies that are more time-consuming and difficult to install, like low-volume toilets or rainwater-collection devices.


Top of Page

Owners more likely to use conservation devices in their homes than renters

In 2007, homeowners were more likely to have water- or energy-conservation devices than were renters (Chart 2). Dwelling ownership was the characteristic most strongly associated with adopting these technologies, even after controlling for education and income.

Chart 2 Owners have greater uptake of conservation technologies than rentersChart 2  Owners have greater uptake of conservation technologies than renters

Households who owned their homes had more than twice the odds of using a programmable thermostat or buying an appliance to save energy or water than households that lived in a rented dwelling (Table 1). Use of water-saving devices followed a similar trend.
           
Renters may have less freedom than owners to change appliances and fixtures like toilets and showerheads, and water and electricity costs may be included in their rent, removing the monetary incentive to save. This may partly explain the differences in their adoption of conservation technologies.

Table 1 Proportion of households using energy-conservation devices, by household characteristics, 2007Table 1  Proportion of households using energy-conservation devices, by household characteristics, 2007

The use of programmable thermostats also depends on having the device in the home. For example, 13% of households in rented dwellings useda programmable thermostat compared to 41% of owner-occupied households. This difference is largely explained by the differing prevalence of programmable thermostats—households that rented their dwelling were much less likely to have a programmable thermostat in their homes than owner-occupied dwellings (22% versus 41%) (data not shown).


Top of Page

Conservation technologies more popular in higher-income households

People with higher incomes are more likely to engage in proactive environmental behaviours, often because they have the resources to do so.9 The 2007 Households and the Environment Survey data support this, as a greater proportion of higher-income households had conservation technologies than did lower-income households (Chart 3).

This was particularly true for big-ticket items like new appliances. About 47% of households in the highest income bracket ($80,000 or more) had bought an appliance in order to save energy or water in the five years prior to 2007 compared to 15% of those in the lowest income bracket (under $20,000). Use of programmable thermostats followed a similar trend: 49% of households in the highest income bracket used a programmable thermostat, compared to 17% of households in the lowest income bracket.

Chart 3 Higher-income households more likely to use conservation devicesChart 3  Higher-income households more likely to use conservation devices

However, for more affordable technologies like CFLs and low-flow showerheads, the relationship between income and usage was not as strong. Of households in the highest income bracket, 78% used CFLs, compared to 54% of those in the lowest income bracket. Similarly, for low-flow showerheads, 68% of those in the highest income bracket used this device, compared to 51% in the lowest income bracket.


Top of Page

The proportion of households with conservation technologies increases with education

People with higher levels of education tend to engage in more proactive environmental behaviours because they have had more opportunity to gain knowledge about environmental issues.10 This finding also holds true for the use of resource-conservation devices:  for more expensive items like programmable thermostats, 41% of households where at least one household member had completed a university degree used a programmable thermostat, compared to 17% of households where the highest completed level of education was less than a high school diploma. A similar trend was observed for the less expensive CFL: 75% of households where at least one household member had completed a university degree had a CFL, compared to 52% of households where the highest completed level of education was less than a high school diploma. These relationships held even after the effects of income, age, dwelling type and region had been taken into account.

Buying an appliance to save energy or water was not related to the level of education once other factors like income had been taken into account (Table 1). This suggests that, for these higher-priced items, income may play a more important role than education.


Top of Page

Age of dwelling related to use of programmable thermostats

Households living in older homes were less likely to use programmable thermostats. Of those living in homes built from 1996 to 2007, 46% used a programmable thermostat, while only 28% of those living in homes built before 1961 did so. This is partially explained by the fact that older homes are less likely to have been built with programmable thermostats, which are now a standard option in many newer homes.

However, the age of a dwelling was not related to the use of CFLs, the recent purchase of appliances, or the use of low-flow showerheads. About 70% of households were using one or more CFLs in 2007, regardless of the age of the dwelling.

Homes built between 1984 and 1995 were less likely to have low-volume toilets than those built prior to 1984. However, the trend reverses for homes built between 1996 and 2007—they are the most likely out of all homes to have low-volume toilets. The period from 1984 to 1995 may be a blip in a growing trend of installing low-volume toilets. Homes built during this period are less likely than homes more recently constructed to have low-volume toilets as a standard feature, and may not be old enough to have had toilets replaced or devices installed in tanks through home-improvement projects.


Top of Page

Established households more likely to have conservation technologies

For many of the conservation devices, the longer a household had been in a dwelling, the more likely the household had water- and energy-conservation devices.  Of households who had lived in their dwellings for 5 years or less, 60% used low-flow showerheads, compared to 70% of those who had lived in their dwellings for 11 to 20 years, and 64% of those who lived in their dwellings for more than 20 years (Table 2). Of those who had lived in their dwellings for 5 years or less, 38% used low-volume toilets, while 47% of those who had lived in their homes for more than 20 years did so.

The opposite, however, was observed for the use of programmable thermostats. Of households who had been in their dwellings for 5 years or less, 34% used a programmable thermostat compared to 29% of those who had been in their dwellings for more than 20 years. This association remained even when other factors like the age of the dwelling and the composition of the household had been taken into account (Table 1).


Top of Page

Rainwater collection devices buck the trend

In general, for the conservation technologies discussed to this point, higher levels of income and education were associated with an increase in the proportion of households using conservation technologies. However, no association was observed between rainwater-collection devices, such as rain barrels, and income; and an opposite relationship was found with education. That is, higher education was related to a lower chance of having a rainwater-collection device (Table 2).

Table 2 Proportion of households using water-conservation devices, by household characteristics, 2007Table 2  Proportion of households using water-conservation devices, by household characteristics, 2007

Dwelling ownership and the age of a dwelling were strong determinants of whether households used rainwater-collection devices. Of owned dwellings, 18% had such devices compared to 11% of rented dwellings. Of dwellings built before 1961, 21% had such devices, compared to 11% of dwellings built from 1996 to 2007.


Top of Page

Popularity of conservation devices varies by CMA

The use of conservation devices varied from one census metropolitan area (CMA) to another. Programmable thermostats were more popular in Ottawa–Gatineau (45%), Toronto (44%), Calgary (39%) and Edmonton (41%), and less popular in Montreal (29%) and Vancouver (31%). CFLs were more common in Ottawa–Gatineau (77%) and Toronto (74%), and less common in Edmonton (62%), Winnipeg (65%), Calgary (63%) and Montreal (64%) (Table 1).

Of households in Toronto and Ottawa–Gatineau, 67% and 66%, respectively, used low-flow showerheads, compared to 56% of households in Vancouver. Households in Edmonton were most likely to have low-volume toilets, with 53% of households having one. At 30%, those in Montreal were least likely to have one (Table 2).

The use of rainwater-collection devices varied. They were most common in Edmonton (38%) and least common in Montreal (6%), Toronto (8%), and Vancouver (8%). For Vancouver, this is likely related to the fact that of all the CMAs studied, Vancouver had the highest average annual rainfall (1,476 millimetres annually11) and thus rainwater-collection devices may not be required.


Top of Page

Households with water meters more likely to have water-conservation devices

For households living in dwellings connected to municipal water systems, having a water meter increased the chances of having a water-conservation device. Of metered households, 68% had low-flow showerheads, compared to 60% of un-metered households. In addition, 50% of metered households had low-volume toilets, compared to 33% of un-metered households (Table 2).

Households with water meters pay for each cubic metre of water used, which may increase their desire to conserve water by using water-saving devices like low-flow showerheads and low-volume toilets. In comparison, when municipal water costs are not based on the volume of water used, there may be less incentive to conserve. Overall, residential water-use rates for Canada reflect this relationship. In 2001, residential households who did not pay for their water by volume used 474 litres per person per day, which was 74% more than those who paid by volume (and thus had meters).12

Households that were not connected to a municipal water supply—and thus likely drew water from a well—had levels of water-conservation device uptake higher than un-metered households for two of the three devices. Of households not connected to a municipal water supply, 62% had low-flow showerheads and 45% had low-volume toilets. Although the day-to-day cost of water use from wells is relatively inexpensive—usually only for the electricity to pump the water—the possibility of a well running dry and the future costs of deepening an existing well or drilling a new one may encourage these households to conserve. Consequently, both metered households and households that were not connected to a municipal water supply had incentives to conserve water and were more likely to exhibit conservation behaviour than those who were connected to the municipal water system but did not have a meter.


Top of Page

Summary

A number of factors were related to the uptake of energy- and water-conservation devices by households. Dwellings owned by a household member were more likely to have these devices and the proportion of households that used energy- and water-saving devices was greater with higher levels of income and education.

Small-ticket items like CFLs and low-flow showerheads were more popular than more expensive items like appliances and low-volume toilets. The less expensive conservation devices also tend to be easier to install than the other conservation technologies like low-volume toilets and programmable thermostats.     

More than one-third of households had purchased an appliance to save energy or water within the last five years. Similarly, one-third of households used a programmable thermostat in their homes, indicating that, despite the initial cost of these devices, Canadians are willing to adopt them.

Avani Babooram is an analyst with the Environment Accounts and Statistics Division and Matt Hurst is a senior analyst with the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division of Statistics Canada.

Notes

  1. Statistics Canada. 2010. Households and the Environment: Energy Use, 2007. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-526-S. 39 p.
  2. Major appliances include stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, freezers, washing machines and dryers.
  3. Natural Resources Canada. 2009. Residential Secondary Energy Use by Energy Source and End-Use.http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/
    res_00_1_e_4.cfm?attr=0     (accessed July 26, 2010).
  4. Environment Canada. 2010. Withdrawal Uses.www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=851B096C-1 (accessed July 26, 2010).
  5. Natural Resources Canada. 2009. Thermostats and Controls.http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/thermostats-controls.cfm?attr=4 (accessed July 26, 2010).
  6. Natural Resources Canada. 2009. How Much Does Your Appliance Cost to Operate?http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/appliances/appliances-costs.cfm?attr=4 (accessed July 26, 2010).
  7. Environment Canada. 2010. Wise Water Use.www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1 (accessed July 26, 2010).
  8. Environment Canada. 2010. Wise Water Use.www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1 (accessed July 26, 2010).
  9. Kollmuss, Anja and Julian Agyeman. 2002. "Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?" Environmental Education Research.Vol. 8, no. 3. p. 239 to 260.
  10. Kollmuss, Anja and Julian Agyeman. 2002. "Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?" Environmental Education Research.Vol. 8, no. 3. p. 239 to 260.
  11. Taken from http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/precipitation/cl1108446 (accessed Aug. 23, 2010).
  12. Infrastructure Canada. 2010. The Importance of Water Metering and Its Uses in Canada. http://www.infc.gc.ca/research-recherche/results-resultats/rn-nr/rn-nr-2005-06-eng.html. (accessed July 26, 2010).