The Races project
Evaluating communication efforts and urban climate constraints for energy savings
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON URBAN CLIMATE AND HISTORY OF METEOROLOGY25 - 26 February 2013 - Florence, Palazzo Medici Riccardi
Valentina Grasso, Alfonso Crisci, Francesco Vaccari
Races project
“Raising awareness on climate and energy savings” Funded: LIFE + Period: 01/01/2009 – 30/04/2011
Communication and awareness raising on calimte change and energy savings at local level.
SchoolsFamilies Public stakeholders
Leader: Florence MunicipalityPartners: CNR – Ibimet; Modena Municipality; Fondazione E. Mach (TN); EURO-NET; Bari University
5 cities: Florence, Modena, Trento, Potenza, Bari
AimAim
Inform and engage!
The urban dimension of climate chenge
• Communicate climate change topics
• “City” as the perfect local dimension
• Inform and engage
carbon budget monitoring - contest
http://www.liferaces.eu - http://community.liferaces.eu
whowho
whatwhat
whenwhen
wherewhere
howhow
250 families
HeatingElectric powerMobility
November 2009 – October 2010
Florence, Trento, Modena, Bari, Potenza
Self-reading of meters and self reporting on web platform
participants
Volounteers participating in the carbon budget
Starting group: 316 families
Active participants: 247 families
Valid results: 185 families
Users
City BA FI MO PZ TN Total
Unvalid 7 21 10 20 4 62
Valids 17 135 11 6 16 185
Total 24 156 21 26 20 247
Florence participants
Families starting: 180Families completing: 156
data collected
Structural data
• Family: components n.° and age
• Household:– House type (building, cottage,..)– Construction year– Area (center, suburbs) – Floor– Rooms; square meters; height– N. window– Dishwasher / air conditioner
• Mobility: – Type of car/moto; fuels; engine
size; access to public transport
energy use
• Baseline 2008: power; heating; km driven.
Monitoring period: 8-12 months
Requested a minimum 3 self-reading of:
• Power (kWh)• Heating• Km driven
the “climate” factor
Histogram of Relative importance of agents having impacts on each CB energy sector considered
Evaulating the “effort”
Rewarding EFFORT and not EFFICACY
• EFFORT: average reduction % compared to 2008 in the 3 areas.
•NET REDUCTION: reduction % compared to 2008 normalized for monitoring days.
•FINAL REDUCTION: absolute reduction gained as CO2 Kg.
Normalization:
• Power: consumption days; family components; square meters;
• Heating: consumption days; family components; square meters; HDD-heating degree days.
• Mobility: consumption days; fam. components; Rainy days
effort index - “yes, we can”
efficacy: energy savers
results scheme
City Effort
%
Savings %
Monitoring days
Power sector
Heating
sector
Mobility
sector
2008 Kg CO2
CB Kg CO2
CO2 saving
s
Potenza +30% +46% 323 -28% -56% +131% 8.677 10.546 +1.869
Bari -25% -31% 280 -56% -12% 0% 4.962 2.657 - 2.305
Florence -17% -1% 323 -34% -10% 11% 7.739 7.110 - 629
Modena -13% -10% 326 -16% -24% -2% 9.197 6.688 - 2.509
Trento -13% 0% 345 -10% -7% -37% 9.592 8.712 - 880
Median value
-15%
-2% 323 -47% -14% -2%7.24
76.33
5- 912
best players
Effort index*
Savings *
Power sector effort
*
Heating sector effort
*
Mobility sector effort
*First 50
-44% -26% -68% -33% -45%
1- 100
-32% -15% -57% -22% -24%
1 - 150
-19% -8% -53% -17% -8%
1 - 174
-17% -5% -48% -14% -3%
*calculated as median value on selected sample
Families engaged in monthly monitoring gained the best results
To be or not to be ENGAGED
final remarks
• Feedbacks are very useful to engage in energy conservation practices the more frequent the
monitoring, greater the savings
• Engaging citizens give access to “data”
• Communication activities project can help research - “Collaborative science” approach
Thank you!
Valentina [email protected]
@valenitna
Data available on https://github.com/alfcrisci/races_analitics