Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Engineering Management

Front. Eng    2020, Vol. 7 Issue (2) : 287-300     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0081-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Big Data to support sustainable urban energy planning: The EvoEnergy project
Moulay Larbi CHALAL(), Benachir MEDJDOUB, Nacer BEZAI, Raid SHRAHILY
School of Architecture, Design, and the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Download: PDF(3555 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Energy sustainability is a complex problem that needs to be tackled holistically by equally addressing other aspects such as socio-economic to meet the strict CO2 emission targets. This paper builds upon our previous work on the effect of household transition on residential energy consumption where we developed a 3D urban energy prediction system (EvoEnergy) using the old UK panel data survey, namely, the British household panel data survey (BHPS). In particular, the aim of the present study is to examine the validity and reliability of EvoEnergy under the new UK household longitudinal study (UKHLS) launched in 2009. To achieve this aim, the household transition and energy prediction modules of EvoEnergy have been tested under both data sets using various statistical techniques such as Chow test. The analysis of the results advised that EvoEnergy remains a reliable prediction system and had a good prediction accuracy (MAPE  5%) when compared to actual energy performance certificate data. From this premise, we recommend researchers, who are working on data-driven energy consumption forecasting, to consider merging the BHPS and UKHLS data sets. This will, in turn, enable them to capture the bigger picture of different energy phenomena such as fuel poverty; consequently, anticipate problems with policy prior to their occurrence. Finally, the paper concludes by discussing two scenarios of EvoEnergy development in relation to energy policy and decision-making.

Keywords urban energy planning      sustainable planning      Big Data      household transition      energy prediction     
Corresponding Author(s): Moulay Larbi CHALAL   
Just Accepted Date: 27 December 2019   Online First Date: 27 February 2020    Issue Date: 27 May 2020
 Cite this article:   
Moulay Larbi CHALAL,Benachir MEDJDOUB,Nacer BEZAI, et al. Big Data to support sustainable urban energy planning: The EvoEnergy project[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 287-300.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-019-0081-9
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2020/V7/I2/287
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Moulay Larbi CHALAL
Benachir MEDJDOUB
Nacer BEZAI
Raid SHRAHILY
Fig.1  Architecture of EvoEnergy.
Fig.2  3D model of the Sneinton area in Nottingham in EvoEnergy.
Fig.3  Summary of a household energy history and socio-economic profile on mouse hover.
Fig.4  Household energy prediction module.
Fig.5  Comparison of two households’ transition patterns and energy consumption figures.
Fig.6  The methodology flowchart of this research in relation to our previous work (Medjdoub and Chalal, 2017).
Fig.7  Pie charts showing the distribution of age groups over the BHPS and UKHLS data sets.
Transition target Year of transition Model Goodness of fit (McFadden’s R2) obs ll (null) ll (model) df AIC LR chi2 (6) Prob.>chi2
Couples with children 1 Pooled model 0.626 480 -188.064 -70.40656 6 152.81 7.68 0.2625
Model with interaction effects 0.646 480 -188.064 -66.56636 12 157.13
2 Pooled model 0.514 269 -104.314 -23.03278 6 58.065 9.91 0.1284
Model with interaction effects 0.527 269 -104.314 -18.07673 12 60.15
Couples without children 1 Pooled model 0.361 1092 -413.4964 -264.3681 7 542.73 8.18 0.3167
Model with interaction effects 0.371 1092 -413.4964 -260.2763 14 548.55
2 Pooled model 0.468 693 -259.5675 -138.1586 7 290.31 10.18 0.1788
Model with interaction effects 0.487 693 -259.5675 -133.0703 14 294.14
Lone parents 1 Pooled model 0.683 4166 -1609.361 -510.5721 8 1037.14 6.12 0.6342
Model with interaction effects 0.685 4166 -1609.361 -507.5138 16 1047.02
2 Pooled model 0.514 2690 -1015.016 -260.9618 8 537.92 3.46 0.9021
Model with interaction effects 0.534 2690 -1015.016 -259.2309 16 550.46
Tab.1  The results of the Chow likelihood test comparing the coefficients of transition models resulting from BHPS and UKHLS
Mann–Whitney U test Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z test
Transition rates Transition rates
Mann–Whitney U 15.500 Most extreme differences Absolute 0.429
Wilcoxon W 43.500 Positive 0.429
Z -1.151 Negative 0.000
Asymp. sig. (2-tailed) 0.250 Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z 0.802
Exact sig. [2*(1-tailed sig.)] 0.259b Asymp. sig. (2-tailed) 0.541
Tab.2  The results of the Mann–Whitney U and Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z test statisticsa
Fig.8  The decrease in the percentage of single non-elderly households over different waves of BHPS and UKHLS as a result of them moving to other household types such as couple without children.
LP
1 year
LP
2 years
CN
1 year
CN
2 years
CWC
1 year
CWC
2 years
Log10 annual electricity usage BHPS 0.11** 0.12** 0.11** 0.093** 0.16** 0.13**
UKHLS 0.114** 0.117** 0.1157** 0.1043** 0.142** 0.152**
Square root of annual gas usage BHPS 0.008 0.005 0.114** 0.091** 0.160** 0.135**
UKHLS 0.01 0.009 0.129** 0.0835** 0.148** 0.115**
Tab.3  Comparison of impact of household transition on energy consumption across BHPS and UKHLS
Fig.9  The validation process of the developed energy prediction model.
Fig.10  Clustered bar graph representing the estimated and actual EPC energy figures of the chosen householders.
Fig.11  Discrepancies between the estimated energy figures using BHPS and the EPC energy data reported using the mean percentage error index (MPE).
Fig.12  Discrepancies between the estimated energy figures using UKHLS and the EPC energy data reported using the mean percentage error index (MPE).
Homogeneity of variance If partially heterogeneous, what category is homogenous/heterogeneous?
Gender Homogeneous N/A
Age Mostly heterogeneous Aged 36–45 is homogeneous
Marital status Mostly homogeneous Married is heterogeneous
Level of education Mostly heterogeneous A-Level is homogeneous
Tenure mode Mostly heterogeneous Rented from employer and private landlords are homogeneous
Dwelling type Mostly homogenous Living in terraced dwelling is heterogeneous
Dwelling size Mostly heterogeneous 3-bedroom dwelling is homogeneous
Socio-economic class Mostly heterogeneous Professional occupations and unskilled workers are homogeneous
  Summary of the homogeneity of variance analysis of different socio-economic and demographic variables across the BHPS and UKHLS data sets
1 W Abrahamse, L Steg (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5): 711–720
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.05.006
2 ADECOE (2016). Is UK’s approach to fuel poverty suffering from a poverty of ideas? Available at: adecoe.co.uk/2016/03/10
3 S Bamberg, G Möser (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1): 14–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
4 S Barr, A W Gilg, N Ford (2005). The household energy gap: Examining the divide between habitual- and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy, 33(11): 1425–1444
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.016
5 M Bedir, E Hasselaar, L Itard (2013). Determinants of electricity consumption in Dutch dwellings. Energy and Building, 58: 194–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.016
6 P H G Berkhout, A Ferrer-i-Carbonell, J C Muskens (2004). The ex post impact of an energy tax on household energy demand. Energy Economics, 26(3): 297–317
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.002
7 BRE (2013). Report 3: Metered fuel consumption—Including annex on high energy users. In: Energy Follow Up Survey, 2011. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change
8 D Brounen, N Kok, J Quigley (2012). Residential energy use and conservation: Economics and demographics. European Economic Review, 56(5): 931–945
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.02.007
9 M Chalal (2018). A Smart Urban Energy Prediction System to Support Energy Planning in the Residential Sector. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University
10 M Chalal, M Benachir, M White, R Shrahily (2016). Energy planning and forecasting approaches for supporting physical improvement strategies in the building sector: A review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64: 761–776
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.040
11 G C Chow (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica, 28(3): 591–605
https://doi.org/10.2307/1910133
12 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2017a). Energy consumption in the UK. 2017 ed. London: Crown
13 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2017b). Household energy efficiency headline release. 2017 ed. London: Crown
14 A Druckman, T Jackson (2008). Household energy consumption in the UK: A highly geographically and socio-economically disaggregated model. Energy Policy, 36(8): 3177–3192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.021
15 R Y Du, W A Kamakura (2006). Household life cycles and lifestyles in the United States. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1): 121–132
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.121
16 J Edwards, A Townsend (2011) CIOB carbon action 2050: Buildings under refurbishment and retrofit. Bracknell, UK: The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)
17 A Faruqui, S Sergici, A Sharif (2010). The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence. Energy, 35(4): 1598–1608
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.07.042
18 E R Frederiks, K Stenner, E V Hobman (2015). The socio-demographic and psychological predictors of residential energy consumption: A comprehensive review. Energies, 8(1): 573–609
https://doi.org/10.3390/en8010573
19 B Gatersleben, L Steg, C Vlek (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(3): 335–362
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003004
20 W H Greene (2002). Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
21 Z F Guo, K L Zhou, C Zhang, X H Lu, W Chen, S L Yang (2018). Residential electricity consumption behavior: Influencing factors, related theories and intervention strategies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(1): 399–412
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.046
22 B Hitesh (2018). Family life-cycle. Marketing Management Articles
23 G Huebner, D Shipworth, I Hamilton, Z Chalabi, T Oreszczyn (2016). Understanding electricity consumption: A comparative contribution of building factors, socio-demographics, appliances, behaviours and attitudes. Applied Energy, 177: 692–702
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.075
24 G M Huebner, J Cooper, K Jones (2013). Domestic energy consumption—What role do comfort, habit, and knowledge about the heating system play? Energy and Building, 66: 626–636
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.043
25 Institute for Social and Economic Research (2016). British Household Panel Survey (BHPS)
26 R V Jones, A Fuertes, K J Lomas (2015). The socio-economic, dwelling and appliance related factors affecting electricity consumption in domestic buildings. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43: 901–917
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.084
27 R V Jones, K J Lomas (2015). Determinants of high electrical energy demand in UK homes: Socio-economic and dwelling characteristics. Energy and Building, 101: 24–34
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.052
28 A Kavousian, R Rajagopal, M Fischer (2013). Determinants of residential electricity consumption: Using smart meter data to examine the effect of climate, building characteristics, appliance stock, and occupants’ behavior. Energy, 55: 184–194
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.086
29 A Khosrowpour, R K Jain, J E Taylor, G Peschiera, J Chen, R Gulbinas (2018). A review of occupant energy feedback research: Opportunities for methodological fusion at the intersection of experimentation, analytics, surveys and simulation. Applied Energy, 218: 304–316
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.148
30 S Longhi (2015). Residential energy expenditures and the relevance of changes in household circumstances. Energy Economics, 49: 440–450
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.018
31 E McCrum-Gardner (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1): 38–41
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.09.002 pmid: 17961892
32 S L McFall, C Garrington (2011). Understanding society: Early findings from the first wave of the UK’s Household Longitudinal Study. Colchester, Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
33 B Medjdoub, M L Chalal (2017). Impact of household transitions on domestic energy consumption and its applicability to urban energy planning. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 4(2): 171–183
https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2017029
34 G Nair, L Gustavsson, K Mahapatra (2010). Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy, 38(6): 2956–2963
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.033
35 Office for National Statistics (2018). Population estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: Mid-2016
36 D S Pereira, A C Marques, J A Fuinhas (2019). Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? Energy, 170: 791–803
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.199
37 W Poortinga, L Steg, C Vlek (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1): 70–93
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251466
38 Stata (2015). Longitudinal-Data/Panel-Data Reference Manual, Release 14. College Station, TX: Stata Press
39 L Steg, C Vlek (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3): 309–317
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
40 P Tiwari (2000). Architectural, demographic, and economic causes of electricity consumption in Bombay. Journal of Policy Modeling, 22(1): 81–98
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-8938(98)00003-9
41 Understanding Society (2017). Understanding Society—The UK Household Longitudinal Study. The Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
42 K Vringer, T Aalbers, K Blok (2007). Household energy requirement and value patterns. Energy Policy, 35(1): 553–566
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.12.025
43 S Yang, Y Zhang, D Zhao (2016). Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and indirect ways in China? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics. Energy Policy, 93: 196–205
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.018
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] James M. TIEN. Convergence to real-time decision making[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 204-222.
[2] Feng YANG, Manman WANG. A review of systematic evaluation and improvement in the big data environment[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(1): 27-46.
[3] Xiaohong CHEN. The development trend and practical innovation of smart cities under the integration of new technologies[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(4): 485-502.
[4] Jing LIN, Uday KUMAR. IN2CLOUD: A novel concept for collaborative management of big railway data[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(4): 428-436.
[5] Benachir MEDJDOUB, Moulay Larbi CHALAL. Impact of household transitions on domestic energy consumption and its applicability to urban energy planning[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 171-183.
[6] Jonathan Jingsheng SHI, Saixing ZENG, Xiaohua MENG. Intelligent data analytics is here to change engineering management[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 41-48.
[7] Yong Shi. Challenges to Engineering Management in the Big Data Era[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(3): 293-303.
[8] Lie-yun Ding,Sheng-yu Guo. Study on Big Data-based Behavior Modification in Metro Construction[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(2): 131-136.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed