Research report Household Environmental Monitoring Project Volume 2: Appendices

Research report Household Environmental Monitoring Project Volume 2: Appendices
Research report
External Research Program
Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Volume 2: Appendices
CMHC—Home to Canadians
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has
been Canada’s national housing agency for more than 60 years.
Together with other housing stakeholders, we help ensure
that Canada maintains one of the best housing systems in the
world.We are committed to helping Canadians access a wide
choice of quality, affordable homes, while making vibrant,
healthy communities and cities a reality across the country.
For more information, visit our website at www.cmhc.ca
You can also reach us by phone at 1-800-668-2642
or by fax at 1-800-245-9274.
Outside Canada call 613-748-2003 or fax to 613-748-2016.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation supports
the Government of Canada policy on access to
information for people with disabilities. If you wish to
obtain this publication in alternative formats,
call 1-800-668-2642.
Appendix 1: Previous Research
Motivational Techniques for Encouraging Sustainable Behaviour
Cullbridge Marketing and Communications. 2005. Tools of Change: Proven Methods for Promoting
Health, Safety and Environmental Citizenship. Retrieved from
http://www.toolsofchange.com/English/firstsplit.asp (May 15, 2005)
• how-to guide for community groups and other organizations to promote environmental awareness and
implement a strategy for changing behaviour within a target group -- includes successful case studies
• promotes tools that use principles of community-based social marketing such as obtaining
commitment for change from participants, creating incentives and removing barriers to change
McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
• outline of suggested actions that can be taken in communities to promote sustainable behaviour, based
on previous research in environmental psychology
Environmental Monitoring Tools
California Urban Water Conservation Council. 2002. h2ouse.org: Water Saver Home Water Use
Calculator. Retrieved from http://www.waterbudgets.com/ConserVision/CUWCC/DataInput.htm (July
27, 2004)
• web tool for Californian residents that calculates home water use, and provides a “water budget” that
advises user on the ideal amount of water that should be used based on area in which home is located,
size of lot, numbers of fixtures, etc. – informs user of potential cost savings when actions taken to
reduce water use
Canada Green Building Council. 2003. LEED Canada – Green Building Rating System. Retrieved from
http://www.cagbc.org/building_rating_systems/leed_rating_system.php (September 1, 2005)
• rating system for new construction or major renovation of commercial, institutional, industrial
buildings that allows design team to consider several sustainable design practices based on a point
system
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2000. Practices for Sustainable Communities. SCIP
(Sustainable Communities Indicators Program). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Also retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer_ree/English/scip/index.cfm (January 15, 2005)
• database of customized sustainability indicators to compare past and future environmental
performance from national to neighbourhood census tract level – consists of a software package and
web site
• used by planners, governments and other decision-makers to increase awareness of and prioritize
environmental strategies – continual collection of data allows for monitoring of sustainable progress
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2004. Household Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Questionnaire. Also retrieved from http://www.district.north-van.bc.ca/article.asp?a=448&c=388
(January 15, 2005)
• questionnaire rates actions based on resultant greenhouse gas emissions -- items assessed include
home energy use, transportation, waste, food consumption patterns
• user inserts values based on personal consumption patterns and can compare values with those of an
average Canadian family -- suggestions to reduce emissions included
Celto Canadian Envirosystems Ltd. Carbon Lifestyle Model.
• model described as a ‘decision-helping tool’, created to aid residents and workers in low-rise
buildings in reducing carbon emissions through examination of physical features of site/building and
promotion of behavioural changes by residents
• recommendations made based on physical and behavioural consumption data that is entered into tool
-- emphasis on sustainable improvements to biological and waste treatment systems
• degree of success of recommendations is determined by physical measurement of biological and
waste treatment systems, and through community evaluations obtained through workshops and
surveys
City of Edmonton, Office of the Environment. 2004. CO2RE (Carbon Dioxide Reduction Edmonton),
Edmonton’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Energy Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.co2re.ca
(December 12, 2004)
• booklets and information on website, designed to educate reader and provide incentives for upgrades
to reduce greenhouse gases and save money
• tailored to specific requirements of Edmonton homeowners, based on survey of housing
demographics, building code and results of previous EnerGuide home audits
City of Toronto. 2004. Water Efficiency – Indoor Water Efficiency Retrofit Kit. Retrieved from
http://www.toronto.ca/watereff/water_saving_kits/indoor_kit.htm (July 27, 2004)
• web site outlines cost and resource savings benefits and components of water retrofit kit available for
Toronto residents from City of Toronto
David Suzuki Foundation. 2005. The Nature Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/WOL/Challenge/ (August 15, 2005)
• web tool that calculates participant’s effects on nature through greenhouse gases generated, air and
water pollutants generated, water used, loss of farms and wetlands
• invites participant to pledge actions to reduce environmental impact and sign up as part of
commitment to change
• compares participant’s current and potential environmental performance with average Canadian
statistics
Earthday Network, Redefining Progress. 2002. Ecological Footprint Quiz. Retrieved from
http://www.myfootprint.org/ (December 15, 2004)
• tool compares amount of global biologically productive land available to amount of land required to
supply user’s consumption requirements – allows user to specify Canadian values
• user enters consumption values in categories such as food, housing, transportation, waste
• recommendations to reduce consumption provided upon completion of quiz
EnerACT. 2005. Smart Living Journal. Retrieved from http://www.smartliving.ca/StJournal.pdf (May
16, 2005)
• 12-week guide to reduce energy use – two to three recommendations made per week
• participant enters value of last hydro and gas bill consumption both prior to and upon completion of
12-week period
• participant encouraged to check each recommended action as it is completed, then sign and send back
completed journal to EnerACT group (Toronto-based organization that created journal) to register
commitment and enter a draw for free EnerGuide audit
EPA Victoria, Centre for Design at RMIT (Melbourne), Redefining Progress. 2005. Household Ecofootprint Calculator. Retrieved from http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/eco-footprint/docs/Home_EF_2.0.xls
(July 20, 2005)
• Australian eco-footprint calculator web tool (compares global land available to land required to
sustain current level of consumption) – user enters consumption values for home heating, electricity
and water use, food, alcohol and clothing purchases, transportation, waste production
• participant can compare results with Australian or world average eco-footprint
Government of Canada. 2004. Your Guide to the One-Tonne Challenge (Cat. No. M144-27/2003E).
Ottawa. Also retrieved from http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english (February 15, 2005)
• lifestyle quiz developed to determine effects of individual consumption on greenhouse gas emissions
• includes a comparison to average Canadian emission levels and recommendations to reduce
emissions by at least one tonne
• provides link to community efforts taking place across Canada
Natural Resources Canada, CANMET Energy Technology Centre. 2004. RETScreen International Clean
Energy Decision Support Centre. Retrieved from http://www.retscreen.net/ang/menu.php (September
1, 2005)
• helps planners and designers to implement renewable energy and energy efficient technologies, with
an emphasis on technologies for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings
• includes tools to calculate effects of wind energy, photovoltaics, biomass, passive solar design, solar
air & water heating, ground-source heat pumps
National Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. The Anti-Idling Toolkit. Ottawa:
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. Retrieved from http:/oee.nrcan.gc.ca/
transportation/idling/material/tool-kit-introduction.cfm (January 10, 2005)
• website offers free materials for use by community groups to organise an anti-idling campaign to
reduce emission of greenhouse gases
• includes a “CO2 Calculator” that describes potential CO2, fuel and cost savings when idling time
reduced
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2003. Commercial Building Incentive Program
(CBIP) Screening Tool. Retrieved from http://buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/ee4/english/home/index.php
(September 1, 2005)
• allows users to determine if the design of a new commercial, multi-residential or institutional building
exceeds the requirements of the Model National Energy Code for Buildings
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. EnerGuide for Houses Home Energy
Plan. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency.
• residential energy assessment developed by NRCan that examines such items as air leakage and
insulation levels in building envelope and mechanical equipment
• report provides energy efficiency rating for house, and lists recommendations to reduce energy use
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. The EnerGuide Appliance Directory.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/appliances.cfm?attr=4 (November 4, 2004)
• booklet provides information on efficiency ratings for major appliances sold in Canada
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. Energy Star Simple Savings Calculator.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/participants/procurement/calculator.cfm?
attr=20 (September 1, 2005)
• used to compare the costs of purchasing energy-efficient products compared to conventional
equipment for commercial and institutional buildings
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. Fuel Consumption Guide 2005.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumption-guide/fuel-consumptionguide.cfm (January 20, 2005)
• booklet provides information on fuel efficiency ratings for vehicles sold in Canada
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. Simple Payback Calculator (Lighting).
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technical-info/tools/payback-lighting.cfm?attr=20
(September 1, 2005)
• calculates approximate cost savings when replacing lighting fixtures with more energy efficient units
Partners for Climate Protection. 2004. Inventory Quantification Support Spreadsheet (part of Partners for
Climate Protection GHG software). Retrieved from
http://kn.fcm.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=4702&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1098
300161 (July 20, 2005)
• database tool used to calculate level of municipal carbon dioxide emissions by inputting values of
heating fuel, electricity, water and transportation fuel use and waste production – examines industrial,
commercial, residential resource consumption
Pembina Institute (with founding partner Climate Change Action Fund, Government of Canada). 2004.
One Less Tonne Tool. Retrieved from http://www.onelesstonne.ca (June 2, 2004)
• web tool designed to aid individuals in reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions – promotes
reductions in electricity, heating energy, transportation fuel and water use
• when cycling through several suggested actions to reduce emissions, user is encouraged to press
“commit” button before moving to next item – accumulated total of commitments displayed at bottom
of screen records potential cost savings and emission reductions
• upon completion of tool, user is encouraged to register his or her commitment by typing name and
email address – summary of commitments and information updates are sent to participant as future
reminders
Redefining Progress. 2003. Household Ecological Footprint Calculator. Retrieved from
http://www.rprogress.org/newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/ef_household_0203.xls (November 2, 2004)
• eco-footprint calculator web tool (compares global land available to land required to sustain current
level of consumption) – user enters consumption values for home heating, electricity and water use,
food, alcohol and clothing purchases, transportation, waste production
Analyses of Environmentally Sustainable Projects
Anielski Management Inc., The Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2005. Ecological
Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions. Retrieved from
http://www.anielski.com/Documents/EFA%20Report%20FINAL%20Feb%202.pdf (July 20, 2005)
• examines variations in ecological footprint values among various Canadian municipalities
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2001. CMHC Research Highlights: Analysis of the
Annual Energy and Water Consumption of Apartment Buildings in the CMHC HiSTAR Database,
Technical Series 01-142. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
• report on energy and water consumption data from 40 multi-unit residential buildings across Canada
as collected in HiSTAR database developed by CMHC and NRCan – additional information from
future assessments to be added to database
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2003. CMHC Research Highlights: Case Studies of
Major Home Energy Retrofits, Technical Series 03-115. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
• describes energy-efficient residential retrofits made to provide examples of energy and cost savings
possible in existing housing stock -- improvements made to building envelope & furnace, electrical
appliances, water conservation measures
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2001. CMHC Research Highlights: EcoPerth: A
Small Rural Community Takes Action on Climate Change. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
• a description of efforts by local businesses, community groups and residents of the Ontario town of
Perth to increase and involve members in environmentally-friendly community practices with a
primary aim to reduce greenhouse gases
• inventory taken of initial greenhouse gas emissions and potential improvements – after making
changes, community documents results and shares information on successful practices with residents
Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Division. 2001. CMHC Research Highlights: Energy Use
Patterns in Off-Grid Houses, Technical Series 01-103. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
• examines off-grid electrical energy use and associated lifestyle patterns in 12 Canadian households –
study goal to provide examples of energy-saving measures for grid-connected houses
Hill, Duncan. 2001. Case Study of a Successful Innovative Multi-Unit Residential Building: A
Compendium of Research of the Conservation Co-op Building. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
• performance review of environmental features of building and behaviour of residents, 5 years after
construction
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 1997. 1994 Home Energy Retrofit Survey.
Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. Retrieved from
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/infosource/pdfs/Retrofit-full_e.pdf (November 2, 2004)
• description of most common home energy efficiency retrofits made in Canada in 1994
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2000. 1997 Survey of Household Energy Use:
Summary Report. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency.
• residential component of the National Energy Use Database - examines trends in energy use for
heating, air conditioning and ventilating (including building envelope characteristics) and electrical
(heating if applicable, appliances, lighting)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. Annual fuel consumption, fuel cost and
CO2 emissions. Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumptionguide/guide-consume-cost-co2.cfm?attr=8 (November 9, 2004)
• provides information on environmental impacts and costs of vehicle use
Perks, William T. and Wilton-Clark, Andrea. 1996. Consumer Receptivity to Sustainable Community
Design: Designing an Alternative for the Residential Suburb in Calgary and Seeking the Consumer’s
Opinions and Choices. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
• assesses receptivity of potential householders to various sustainable features in community planning
and design
Resource Conservation Techniques and Manuals
American Water Works Association. 2005. Water Conservation Around the Home. Retrieved from
http://www.awwa.org/advocacy/learn/conserve (January 6, 2005)
• outlines tips for reducing water use around the home
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1985. Energy-Efficient Housing Construction. Ottawa:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
• provides information on methods and materials for energy-efficient design
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2004. Install water conserving fixtures. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/wacon/waensatip/waensatip_009.cfm (January 23, 2004)
• outlines benefits to upgrading to low-flow toilets, showerheads and faucets
• includes information on costs and energy savings that result when upgrades are made
City of Ottawa. 2004. Garbage, Recycling and Leaf & Yard Waste. Retrieved from
http://ottawa.ca/city_services/garbage/11_0_en.shtml (July 27, 2004)
• web site provides information on garbage collection, recycling, compost and “Take it Back” program
• information on locations and dates for Household Hazardous Waste program
Enermodal Engineering, Gas Technology Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Natural
Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada. 2005. Advanced Buildings:
Technologies and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.advancedbuildings.org (September 1, 2005)
• provides technical information and case studies for use by building professionals that includes
information on energy efficiency, electricity production, water conservation, waste management and
indoor air quality
Environment Canada. 2004. Water: No Time to Waste – A consumer’s guide to water conservation.
Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi5.htm (May 19, 2004)
• describes water-saving tips around the home including kitchen, bath, outdoors
Environment Canada. 2005. Freshwater Website: Quickfacts. Retrieved from
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/e_quickfacts.htm (January 19, 2005)
Epp, E., Perron, R., Perks, W. T., Sale, C. and van Vilet, D. 1999. Sustainable Community Design.
Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
• CD-ROM to be used as a checklist of features to be considered in sustainable community design
European Commission, Directorate General XVII for Energy, and the Architect’s Council of Europe.
1999. A Green Vitruvius: Principles and Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design. London: James
& James Ltd.
• provides information on methods and materials for sustainable design
Griffin, D. & Morgan, D. 2004. A New Water Projection Model Accounts for Water Efficiency.
Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/wacon/wacon_102.cfm (December 10, 2004)
• provides information on costs of water-efficient upgrades
Guthrie, P. 1998. The Architect’s Portable Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• provides standards on several sustainable design features, including passive solar design and
daylighting methods
Harland, E. 1999. Eco-Renovation: The Ecological Home Improvement Guide. Vermont: Chelsea Green
Publishing.
• provides information on methods, materials and case studies of sustainable design
Jones, L. 1998. Tap the Sun: passive solar techniques and home designs. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, Natural Resources Canada.
• provides information on passive solar design features including window sizing and orientation,
thermal mass, super-insulated building envelope
Lechner, N. 2001. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
• provides information on methods, materials and case studies of energy-efficient design including
passive solar design, daylighting, passive cooling methods
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2003. EnerGuide: Tips for Your Home.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/houses-maisons/english/homeowners/eneractive/tips.cfm
(September 11, 2003)
• provides tips for reducing energy and resource usage for appliances, heating equipment, lighting,
plumbing, landscaping, etc.
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 1998. Household Lighting (Cat. No. M91-10/61998E). Retrieved from
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/Household_Lighting.cfm (November 2, 2004)
• provides information on energy consumption and costs of various types of residential lighting
systems
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. Reference Libraries for Commercial and
Institutional Buildings and Equipment. Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technicalinfo/reference/index.cfm?attr=20 (September 1, 2005)
• provides technical information and case studies for sustainable practices for new and existing
buildings
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
• provides information and tips on how to reduce consumption patterns and live more sustainably while
maintaining an acceptable quality of life
Wayne State University. 2004. Energy Conservation for Office Computers. Retrieved from
http://computing.wayne.edu/hardware/saveenergy.php (May 17, 2004)
• includes tips to save energy when operating personal computers
Wilhide, E. 2002. ECO: An Essential Sourcebook for Environmentally Friendly Design and Decoration.
New York: Rizzoli.
• provides information on methods, materials and case studies of sustainable design
Information Sources for
Physical Context, Results and Recommendations
Sections of Household Reports
Physical Context Section
Site Sketch
• glazing percentages and house area calculations do not include basement values
Landscaping and Outdoor Water Use
landscaped areas calculated using VectorWorks software
• recommendation to increase garden space: gardens require less water than grass lawns: “Flower gardens
with tall plants help retain moisture in the ground. In fact, larger gardens means you spend less energy
on watering and mowing your lawn.” (NRCan, 2003)
•
Passive Solar Heating and Cooling
increased glazing recommendation: good passive solar design can provide up to one-third to one-half of
the heating needs for a new home; 6% glazing for passive solar design; glazing most effective within
30o of south (Jones, 1998)
•
Natural Ventilation
• increased operable glazing recommendation: 8% operable glazing optimal for natural ventilation
(Lechner, 2001)
Daylighting
increased glazing recommendation: 10% to 25% glazing optimal for daylighting (Guthrie, 1998)
•
Alternative Energy Sources
solar hot water and solar air heating info provided by Les Rodriques at Carearth, 25 Selwyn Crescent,
Kanata, ON, www.carearth.com
•
References for Physical Context section:
Guthrie, P. 1998. The Architect’s Portable Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, L. 1998. Tap the Sun: passive solar techniques and home designs. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, Natural Resources Canada.
Lechner, N. 2001. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency (2003). EnerGuide: Tips for Your Home.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/houses-maisons/english/homeowners/eneractive/tips.cfm
(September 11, 2003)
Results Section
Explanation of Electricity Results
• appliance consumption data provided by Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency
• lightbulb info.: compact fluorescent light bulbs use up to 75% less electricity and last up to 10 times
longer than incandescent bulbs (Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency)
Explanation of Water Results
assume resource savings of 40% when using kitchen faucet aerator (15 L/min – 8.8 L/min) (CMHC,
2004; Enviroshop, 2004)
• “If your toilet is more than ten years old…(it uses) about 18 litres or more of water per flush.” “If your
toilet was manufactured after 1985, it could be a water-conserving type which used about 13 litres per
flush.” (Environment Canada, 2004)
• assume resource savings of 5.5 L/minute when switching to low-flow showerhead (15 L – 9.5 L):
“…the shower is the second heaviest water user in the house, averaging flow rates of 15 to 20 litres per
minute.” (Environment Canada, 2004)
• effectiveness of different lawn sprinkler types: “When it comes to watering plants and flower beds, drip
irrigation is the most effective method….If you use a sprinkler for your lawn, choose the type that spins
in a circle. This type lays down water in a flat pattern in large droplets which drop to the soil surface,
thus minimizing evaporative losses. The oscillating type which cycles back and forth applies water in a
fine spray straight up part of the time, leading to higher evaporative losses.” (Environment Canada,
2004)
•
Explanation of Transportation Results
• car consumption values provided by Natural Resources Canada
References for Results section:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2004. Install water conserving fixtures. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/wacon/waensatip/waensatip_009.cfm (January 23, 2004)
Environment Canada. 2004. Water: No Time to Waste – A consumer’s guide to water conservation.
Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi5.htm (May 19, 2004)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. The EnerGuide Appliance Directory.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/appliances/eg-environment.cfm
(November 4, 2004)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. Fuel Consumption Guide 2004.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumption-guide/fuel-consumptionguide.cfm (November 9, 2004)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 1998. Household Lighting (Cat. No. M91-10/61998E). Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/
Household_Lighting.cfm (November 2, 2004)
Recommendations Section
Heating Energy Recommendations:
EnerGuide recommendations
• recommended to all participants based on results of EnerGuide Home Energy Plan – results transferred
from Home Energy Plan to participant report
insulate water tank
recommended when EnerGuide Home Energy Plan indicates that water tank efficiency is 0.70 or lower
•
Calculations for water tank insulation:
implementation cost: $26.00
annual resource savings 1337 MJ
annual cost savings of $26.00
annual GHG reduction 0.13 T
Source Info:
hot water tank blanket cost listed at $26.00 (http://www.envirocentre.ca/English/EnviroShop.htm)
•
annual cost savings listed at $26.00 (http://www.envirocentre.ca/English/EnviroShop.htm)
•
1 kWh = 3.6 MJ Energy Information Administration, Annual Review 2003
•
annual GHG reduction calculated with Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator Software
•
install solar hot water heating system
• recommended when participant household has acceptable roof solar access for installation of solar hot
water heating system
Calculations for installation of solar hot water heating system:
implementation cost: $5400.00 for household of 2 occupants or less, $6600.00 for household of 3
occupants or more
annual resource savings (MJ) = (total annual heating energy consumption) x 17.5%
annual cost savings: (total annual heating energy cost) x 17.5%
annual GHG reduction: determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
Source Info:
implementation cost information supplied by Les Rodriques at Carearth, 25 Selwyn Crescent, Kanata,
ON, www.carearth.com
• resource and cost savings: water heating accounts for an average of 35% of total annual heating energy
consumption; solar water heating reduces water heating energy consumption by an average of 50% in
the Ottawa area – information supplied by Les Rodriques at Carearth, 25 Selwyn Crescent, Kanata, ON,
www.carearth.com
• annual GHG reduction determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
•
General Heating Energy Recommendations:
turn down furnace thermostat
o
• recommended when participant questionnaire indicates that daytime heating thermostat is set at 21 C or
higher
wash clothes in warm water and rinse in cold water
• recommended when participant questionnaire indicates that clothes are washed or rinsed in hot water
Source Info:
"For every 1oC (2oF) you lower your thermostat, you save 2% on your heating bill." (Government of
Canada, One Tonne Challenge)
• “Washing in warm rather than hot water uses 50% less energy…” (Government of Canada, One Tone
Challenge)
•
References for heating recommendations:
Government of Canada. 2004. Your Guide to the One-Tonne Challenge (Cat. No. M144-27/2003E).
Ottawa.
Jones, L. 1998. Tap the Sun: passive solar techniques and home designs. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, Natural Resources Canada.
Natural Resources Canada. 2004. EnerGuide for Houses Home Energy Plan. Ottawa.
Electricity Recommendations:
cost for electricity supply: $0.047 per kWh;
cost for electricity including transmission and delivery: $0.07 per kWh
(http://www.energyshop.com/es/prices/on/eleON.cfm)
replace 5 incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs
• recommended when more than 10 light bulbs in home are incandescent
Calculations for compact fluorescent bulb installation:
implementation cost: $5.00/light bulb x 5 lightbulbs = $25.00
annual resource savings = 429 kWh (cost savings of $30.00 ÷ $0.07 per kWh)
annual cost savings for 5 lightbulbs: $30.00
annual GHG reduction (T) = 0.16
Source Info:
"By replacing five of the most used standard bulbs in your home with Energy Star-qualified compact
fluorescent light bulbs, you can reduce your GHGs and save about $30 per year." (Government of
Canada One-Tonne Challenge); $30/yr was divided by $0.07/kWh (cost per kWh in Ontario including
transmission and delivery) for annual resource savings of 429 kWh/yr
• compact fluorescent light bulbs use up to 75% less electricity and last up to 10 times longer than
incandescent bulbs (Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency)
• annual GHG reduction calculated with Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator Software
•
eliminate use of freezer
• recommended when stand-alone freezer is used by participant household
Calculations for freezer elimination:
implementation cost: none
annual resource savings (kWh): based on annual electricity consumption info. provided by NRCan
annual cost savings: (annual kWh consumption) x $0.07
annual GHG reduction: determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
Source Info:
annual freezer electricity consumption data provided by Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy
Efficiency
• annual GHG reduction determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
•
upgrade refrigerator to Energy Star model
• recommended when electricity consumption of current refrigerator in participant household is 800 kWh
or higher
Calculations for refrigerator upgrade:
implementation cost: $1100.00
annual resource savings (kWh): (annual kWh consumption of existing refrigerator) – 440 kWh
annual cost savings: (annual kWh savings) x $0.07
annual GHG reduction: determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
Source Info:
refrigerator implementation cost of $1100.00 provided by Sears Home Store, 2685 Iris Street, Ottawa,
ON, 613-820-5551
• annual existing refrigerator electricity consumption data provided by Natural Resources Canada, Office
of Energy Efficiency
• average 2002 Energy Star-qualified refrigerator consumption is 440 kWh/yr (NRCan OEE, 2004)
• annual GHG reduction determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
•
upgrade clothes washer to Energy Star, front-loading model
recommended when electricity consumption of current clothes washer in participant household is 600
kWh or higher
•
Calculations for clothes washer upgrade:
implementation cost: $1100.00
annual resource savings (kWh): (annual kWh consumption of existing clothes washer) – 300 kWh
annual cost savings: (annual kWh savings) x $0.07
annual GHG reduction: determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
Source Info:
clothes washer implementation cost of $1100.00 provided by Sears Home Store, 2685 Iris Street,
Ottawa, ON, 613-820-5551
• annual existing clothes washer electricity consumption data provided by Natural Resources Canada,
Office of Energy Efficiency
• an average 2002 Energy Star qualified clothes washer uses 300 kWh/yr (NRCan OEE, 2004)
• annual GHG reduction determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
•
install and use a clothes line instead of clothes dryer for 25% of annual wash load
recommended when participant questionnaire has indicated that clothes are currently not hung to dry
•
Calculations for clothes line installation:
implementation cost: $25.00 - $100.00
annual resource savings (kWh): (annual kWh consumption of existing clothes dryer) x 0.25
annual cost savings: (annual kWh savings) x $0.07
annual GHG reduction: determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
Source Info:
clothes line kit cost of $25.00 provided by Home Depot, 1900 Baseline Road, Ottawa, 613-723-5900
• annual existing clothes dryer electricity consumption data provided by Natural Resources Canada,
Office of Energy Efficiency
•
•
annual GHG reduction determined using Athena V2.0 Environmental Impact Estimator
General Electricity Recommendations:
install ceiling fans; use fans instead of air conditioning whenever possible
• recommended when participant household does not have ceiling fans in living areas or bedrooms
Source Info:
"…a 60-watt ceiling fan costs between 8 cents and $1.50 to operate monthly, while an air conditioner
can cost between $6.75 and $40.50 a month." (Government of Canada, One Tonne Challenge);
•
References for electricity recommendations:
Government of Canada. 2004. Your Guide to the One-Tonne Challenge (Cat. No. M144-27/2003E).
Ottawa.
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. The EnerGuide Appliance Directory.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/appliances/eg-environment.cfm
(November 4, 2004)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 1998. Household Lighting (Cat. No. M91-10/61998E). Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/
Household_Lighting.cfm (November 2, 2004)
Water Use Recommendations:
conversions: 1 m3 = 1000 litres
cost: A = (L of water savings) ÷ 1000 x $0.585 + $2.00
B = A x 1.66
Total Cost = A + B
replace toilets with 6L per flush low-volume models
recommended when low-volume toilets are not found in participant household
•
Calculations for toilet replacement recommendation:
implementation cost (dollars) = (no. of toilets) x $250.00
annual resource savings (L):
when switching from 13 L/flush toilet to 6 L/flush = (no. of occupants) x 7 L x 4 flushes/day x 365
days
when switching from 18 L/flush toilet to 6 L/flush = (no. of occupants) x 12 L x 4 flushes/day x 365
days
cost savings (dollars) = ((annual water savings, L) ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) + ((annual water savings, L)
÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) x 1.66
Source Info:
assume 4 toilet flushes/person/day in each participant household (Griffin & Morgan, 2004)
• “If your toilet is more than ten years old…(it uses) about 18 litres or more of water per flush.” “If your
toilet was manufactured after 1985, it could be a water-conserving type which used about 13 litres per
flush.” (Environment Canada, 2004)
• $250.00 cost of new toilet provided by Home Depot, 1900 Baseline Road, Ottawa, 613-723-5900,
www.homedepot.ca
•
install water-saving showerheads (flow rate of 9.5 litres/minute or less)
• recommended when low-flow showerheads are not found in participant household
Calculations for showerhead replacement recommendation:
implementation cost (dollars) = (no. of showerheads) x $9.00
annual resource savings (L) = (total length of showers in minutes for household during monitoring
week) x 5.5 L x 52 weeks
annual cost savings = ((annual resource savings (L)) ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) + ((annual resource savings
(L)) ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) x 1.66
Source Info:
$9.00 cost of low-flow showerhead provided by Envirocentre Enviroshop
• assume resource savings of 5.5 L/minute when switching to low-flow showerhead (15 L – 9.5 L):
“…the shower is the second heaviest water user in the house, averaging flow rates of 15 to 20 litres per
minute.” (Environment Canada, 2004)
•
attach low-flow aerator to kitchen faucet and use for dishwashing by hand (can reduce flow rate by
approximately 40%)
• recommended when aerator for kitchen faucet is not found in participant household, and when dishes in
household are washed by hand
Calculations for kitchen faucet aerator recommendation:
implementation cost (dollars) = $7.00
annual resource savings (L) = (no. of hand dishwashing loads during monitoring week) x 21 L x 52
weeks
annual cost savings = ((annual resource savings (L)) ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) + ((annual resource savings
(L)) ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) x 1.66
Source Info:
• assume resource savings of 40% when using kitchen faucet aerator (15 L/min – 8.8 L/min), reducing
average water use for dishwashing by hand from 35 L to 14 L (21 L savings):
• kitchen faucet aerator available at Envirocentre Enviroshop (8.8 L/min flow) at cost of $6.96
• “Kitchen and bathroom faucets can be responsible for 10% to 15% of total indoor use at a flow rate of
10 to 20 L/m.” (CMHC, 2004)
• water consumption: dishwashing by hand – 35 L (Environment Canada, 2005)
reduce use of outdoor sprinkler by a half-hour per week (during June, July, August)
recommended when participant indicates sprinkler is used during summer months for more than 1 hour
per week
•
Calculations for sprinkler reduction:
implementation cost: none
annual resource savings (L) = 12 weeks x 700 L/half-hour = 8400 L
annual cost savings (dollars) = (8400 L ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) + (8400 L ÷ 1000 x 0.585 + 2.00) x 1.66
= $18.41
Source Info:
"Watering your lawn uses 700 litres in half an hour.” That is more than the average daily water
consumption of an entire household." (Government of Canada, One Tonne Challenge)
•
General Water Recommendations:
install and use rain barrels to collect water for your garden
• recommended when household does not have rain barrel
Source Info:
$35.00 cost per rainbarrel provided by Arbour Environmental Shoppe, 800 Bank Street, Ottawa, 613567-3168, www.arbour.on.ca
•
References for water use recommendations:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2004. Install water conserving fixtures. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/wacon/waensatip/waensatip_009.cfm (January 23, 2004)
Environment Canada. 2004. Water: No Time to Waste – A consumer’s guide to water conservation.
Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/info/pubs/nttw/e_nttwi5.htm (May 19, 2004)
Environment Canada. 2005. Freshwater Website: Quickfacts. Retrieved from
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/e_quickfacts.htm (Janurary 19, 2005)
Government of Canada. 2004. Your Guide to the One-Tonne Challenge (Cat. No. M144-27/2003E).
Ottawa.
Griffin, D. & Morgan, D. 2004. A New Water Projection Model Accounts for Water Efficiency.
Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/wacon/wacon_102.cfm (December 10, 2004)
Transportation Recommendations:
upgrade to the most efficient 2005 vehicle model in same class
• recommended to participant if (a) payback period is under 30 years, or (b) participant is considering
purchase of new vehicle within the coming year
Calculations for vehicle upgrade to best in 2005 class (same size/type or smaller):
implementation cost: cost of vehicle (dealer base price + additional 10%) – (current vehicle price)
annual resource savings (L of fuel) = (km driven during monitoring week) ÷ 100 x ((current vehicle
rating) – (new vehicle rating)) x 52 weeks
annual cost savings (dollars) = (annual fuel savings) x 0.804
CO2 reduction (Tonnes) = (annual fuel savings) x 2.36 ÷ 1000
Source Info:
• EnerGuide List of Most Fuel-Efficient Vehicles for 2005 (NRCan OEE, 2005):
Automobile Class EnerGuide 2005 Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
Compact
Honda Civic Hybrid
Mid-size
Toyota Prius
Station wagon
Pickup
Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Corolla Matrix
Ford Ranger/Mazda B2300
Special Purpose
Van
Ford Escape Hybrid
Honda Odyssey Ex-L
•
•
•
•
L/100 km L/100 km
(city)
(hwy)
Base Price Pricing Info.
4.9
4.5
28,500.00honda.ca
4.0
4.2
30,530.00toyota.ca
gmcanada.com
7.9
5.9
19,900.00 toyota.ca
10.0
7.5
18,010.00ford.ca
6.6
12.0
7.0
7.7
33,195.00ford.ca
32,700.00honda.ca
average regular unleaded fuel cost during monitoring week was $0.804/L
(www.ottawagasprices.com/stats/2004/monthly-200410.shtml)
average vehicle fuel efficiency based on 55 percent city and 45 percent highway driving (NRCan OEE,
2004)
1 L of regular unleaded gasoline produces 2.36 kg of CO2 tailpipe emissions (NRCan OEE, 2004)
estimate of current vehicle price based on sample prices at www.autotrader.ca
use 10% ethanol-blended gasoline
• recommended to all participants
Calculations for switch to 10% ethanol-blended gasoline from regular unleaded:
implementation cost (dollars): (L of fuel consumed during monitoring week) x $0.02 x 52 weeks
annual resource savings = none
annual cost savings (dollars) = none
CO2 reduction (Tonnes) = (L of fuel consumed during monitoring week) x (0.00236 T – 0.00212 T) x
52 weeks
Source Info:
1 L of regular unleaded gasoline produces 2.36 kg of CO2 tailpipe emissions (NRCan OEE, 2004)
• 1 L of 10 percent ethanol gasoline produces 2.12 kg of CO2 tailpipe emissions (NRCan OEE, 2004)
• 10 percent ethanol gasoline cost during monitoring week was assumed to be $0.02 higher than regular
unleaded (pricing info supplied by MacEwen Petroleum, 1063 Bank Street, Ottawa, 730-0327)
•
reduce car use by 25% (by taking public transit, using carpool, walking or biking)
• recommended to all participants
Calculations for reduction of car use by 25%:
implementation cost (dollars) = (cost of one adult bus pass: $63) x 12 months = $756.00
annual resource savings (L of fuel) = (L of fuel consumed during monitoring week) x 0.25 x 52 weeks
annual cost savings (dollars) = (annual fuel savings) x $0.804 + vehicle maintenance
CO2 reduction (Tonnes) = (annual fuel savings) x 0.00236 T
Source Info:
• cost of one adult bus pass in Ottawa is $63.00/month (www.octranspo.com/fares_menuE.htm)
• average regular unleaded fuel cost during monitoring week was $0.804/L
(www.ottawagasprices.com/stats/2004/monthly-200410.shtml)
• average vehicle fuel efficiency based on 55 percent city and 45 percent highway driving (NRCan OEE,
2004)
• 1 L of regular unleaded gasoline produces 2.36 kg of CO2 tailpipe emissions (NRCan OEE, 2004)
References for transportation recommendations:
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. Fuel Consumption Guide 2004.
Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuel-consumption-guide/fuel-consumptionguide.cfm (November 9, 2004)
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2004. Annual fuel consumption, fuel cost and
CO2 emissions. Retrieved from http://oee.nrcan.ca/vehicles/guide/guide_07_costs.cfm (November 9,
2004)
The
Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Jane Thompson Architect
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Welcome to the Household Environmental Monitoring Project.
This information sheet describes the purpose of the study, the requirements of participating
households, and the benefits to participants. Please review this material, and if you are interested in
taking part in the study, complete the application form and return it to our office by September 21th,
2004. Please direct any questions to us at 747-8104. We will contact you by September 25th to
schedule a home visit and questionnaire delivery.
Study Objective
The goal of this study is to develop techniques to assist households to reduce their environmental
impact. The study will provide participants with a record of their weekly household consumption, the
environmental and financial costs of that consumption, practical suggestions for reducing that impact,
and then will assess the value of this approach in motivating and enabling reduced environmental
impact at the individual household level.
Study Framework
September 2004
October 2004
January 2005
March 2005
October 2005
- Application forms are completed and participants contacted.
- Households complete a one week monitoring period record and
background questionnaire, receive an Energuide audit and professional
house assessment.
- Participants receive individual household reports.
- A forum is held to discuss community-wide results and possibilities.
- Participants are contacted to determine whether any of the report
recommendations have been implemented and the results of these
initiatives.
Participant Requirements
1. Households must be located in the community of Lindenlea (bounded by Springfield, Maple
Lane, Acacia, and Beechwood) and lived in by the owners. House type may be detached, semidetached or townhouse, but not multi-family buildings with a common entrance or stairwell.
2. At least one member of the household must be in residence throughout the week of October 16 22, 2004 and available to complete a one week monitoring record based on typical occupancy
patterns. This record will track water use, electricity use, home heating fuel consumption, travel
by automobile, public transportation, cycling/walking, and waste/recycling.
3. Homeowners should intend to continue living in their present home until October 2005 when the
study period is complete.
4. The study group will include as representative as possible a mix of family types and size,
dwelling size and condition, and knowledge and interest in environmental issues. If more than
twenty application forms are received, participants will be selected to reflect this variety based on
responses to the application form questions.
5. During the course of the study, participants will be required to fill out two questionnaires. The
first will gather background information affecting household consumption such as appliances and
equipment in the home, previous house renovations, commuting methods, etc. The second
questionnaire, completed at the end of the study, will ask participants to assess the usefulness of
the information provided to them, comment on the recommendations they are most and least
likely to implement, and offer their suggestions for improving the monitoring technique.
6. Participants will provide authorization for the research team to review utility bills for the
household in the year previous to and following the monitoring period.
7. In March of 2005, one or more members of each household will be asked to take part in a two
hour forum to discuss community wide results and potential initiatives that may arise from the
study.
8. One year following the monitoring period, participants will be contacted to determine whether
any of the recommendations contained in their household report have been implemented and
whether there have been any resulting benefits from these measures.
Participant Benefits
1. Each participating household will receive an Energuide audit and report assessing the energy
efficiency of their home. The report provides retrofit suggestions and anticipated energy savings
to be generated. The $175-$200 cost of this audit is covered by the research grant provided by
CMHC to Jane Thompson Architect. Households that have completed the Energuide audit are
eligible for a subsequent Federal grant based on improved efficiency ratings once any upgrades
have been made.
2. The research team will provide a professional assessment of additional aspects of the home
affecting environmental performance including water and electricity efficiency, passive and active
solar opportunities, landscaping options, indoor air quality concerns, and the impacts of
household consumption patterns.
3. Participants will receive data on their average weekly costs and consumption levels for heating/air
conditioning, water, electricity and transportation. Suggestions for reduced environmental impact
will include approximate retrofit cost, anticipated operational savings, and options for sourcing
recommended measures. Participants will have an opportunity to learn from measures that have
worked successfully for other similar households.
4. Each household will learn how their consumption in each category fits within the neighbourhood
range without their results being identified to other participants. All data collected will be
protected by privacy regulations.
5. The information and recommendations presented to participants are intended for their personal
use without any commitment or expectation that they implement any suggested recommendations.
Households will not receive any promotional or sales calls as a result of participation in this
study.
The
Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Ja ne Th om pso n A rchi t ect
1 Middleton Drive , Ottawa , Ontario , K1M 1B8
tel: 61 3-747- 8104 fax: 613-7 47-839 6
[email protected]
sponsored by
Canada Mort gage and Housing Corporat ion
HOUSEHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROJECT
APPLICATION FORM
Please fill out the information below and return to the address in the header.
Name of Primary Contact___________________________________________________
Mailing Address _________________________________________________________
Telephone Number________________________________________________________
Email __________________________________________________________________
How many persons live in your home? (Indicate the number of persons in each age group.)
under 20
20-40
40-60
over 60
Approximate year of home construction. (Check one.)
before 1900
1900-1939
1940-1979
after 1980
Approximate square footage of your home (excluding basement & garage)
under 1400 sq.ft.
1400-2000 sq.ft.
over 2000 sq.ft.
Extent to which your home has been altered since the original construction.
no changes
minor changes (kitchen or bathroom remodels, window replacements)
major renovations (additions, full interior rebuilds)
How would you rate your knowledge of the options available to reduce the environmental impact
of your household?
poor
fair
good
p 1 of 1
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Jane Thompson Architect
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
HOME VISIT CHECKLIST AND RESEARCHER NOTES
HOUSEHOLD: _______________
Table 1 – General Measurements
Site Sketch on separate page, noting:
- lot size
- north orientation
- house footprint measurements
- major tree locations/approximate heights & types
- approximate height & distance of neighbouring buildings to south of house
Heated House Area (sq.m.):
Basement
Total Window Areas
operable
non-operable
Ground Floor
N
Second Floor
Third Floor
Total
E
Number of Storeys
Wall Construction
S
Estimated Insulation Levels:
W
roof
above-grade walls
basement
skylights
Table 2 - Home Energy Factors (Heat & Electricity)
Outdoor
Living Areas/Halls
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
no. of incandescent bulbs
no. of incandescent bulbs
Utility Room/Basement/Laundry
ceiling fans?
heating source: size/efficiency
air conditioner type
Bedrooms
water heater: gas or electricity?
no. of fluorescent bulbs
insulated?
no. of halogen bulbs
temperature setting
no. of incandescent bulbs
exposed plumbing insulated?
ceiling fans?
second fridge (brand/model/year)
Bathroom 1
clothes washer brand/model/year
no. of fluorescent bulbs
clothes dryer brand/model/year
no. of halogen bulbs
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of incandescent bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
Bathroom 2
no. of incandescent bulbs
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
Kitchen
no. of incandescent bulbs
refrigerator brand/model/year
Bathroom 3
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of fluorescent bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
no. of halogen bulbs
no. of incandescent bulbs
no. of incandescent bulbs
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Jane Thompson Architect
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Table 3 – Water Use Factors
Outdoor
Bathroom 1
paved surface area
showerhead: low flow?
percentage of total lot area
grass surface area
percentage of total lot area
garden surface area
percentage of total lot area
in-ground sprinkler?
leaking?
tub: size/type
faucet leaking?
sinks: number
leaking?
toilet: low flow?
no. of rainbarrels
volume reduced?
no. of downspouts/location
leaking?
Bathroom 2
Laundry
showerhead: low flow?
sink faucet leaking/dripping?
leaking?
insulated plumbing?
tub: size/type
Kitchen
sinks: number
faucet leaking?
dishwasher brand/model/year
type of kitchen sink
leaking?
toilet: low flow?
sink faucet – aerated/ condition?
volume reduced?
garbage disposal?
leaking?
water filtration system?
Bathroom 3
Utility and Heat
showerhead: low flow?
in-floor radiant heating? where?
leaking?
tub: size/type
faucet leaking?
sinks: number
leaking?
toilet: low flow?
volume reduced?
leaking?
Table 4 – Waste Factors
outdoor composter?
indoor kitchen composter?
blue box? (y/n, where kept?)
black box? (y/n, where kept?)
trash compacter?
Miscellaneous Notes:
Fire place or wood stove in house? Used for heating or only on special occasions?
Odometer Vehicle 2
Odometer Vehicle 1
Gas Meter Reading
Oil Tank Level
Electricity Meter Reading
Water Meter Reading
START: Monday, October 18
Reading:
Table 1 – Meter Readings
HOUSEHOLD LOG BOOK
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
END: Monday, October 25
Reading:
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
(number of loads)
Dishwashing by Hand
(number of loads)
Dishwashing with Dishwasher
(number of baths, how full of water is the
tub)
Baths
(total length of showers for all occupants
each day)
Showers
(number of loads)
Laundry
(approximate number of minutes water is
used)
Car Washing & General Usage
(approximate number of minutes exterior
taps are running each day)
Lawn & Garden Watering
Monday
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Table 2 – Water Use Log
OUTDOOR
WATER USAGE
INDOOR
WATER USAGE
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Notes
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
TRANSPORTATION
(number of trips and
destinations)
Motor Vehicle 2
(number of trips and
destinations)
Motor Vehicle 1
(number of trips and
destinations)
Walking
(number of trips and
destinations)
Biking
(number of trips and
destinations)
Public Transit
Monday
Table 3 – Transportation Log
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Tuesday
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
Sunday
WASTE
(Place your compost in the bag provided.
Weigh your bag at the end of the week.)
Compost
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
End Weight:
Blue Box
Garbage Bag
Weight:
Compost Bag
Weight:
End Weight:
Thursday
Black Box
Wednesday
Black Box
Start Weight:
Tuesday
Notes
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
Start Weight:
Blue Box
(Weigh your blue box and black box at the start
of the week. Collect your recyclables and
weigh your boxes again at the end of the week.
Report the weights.)
Monday
Recycling
(Collect your garbage into the plastic bag
provided. Indicate at the end of the week the
weight of your garbage bag.)
Garbage
Table 4 – Waste Log
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
How long have you lived in your house? ______ yrs
Long term Operating Cost
Savings
Improving Indoor Air
Quality
Reducing Environmental
Impact eg. energy
consumption, protecting
green space etc.
Personal Comfort &
Convenience
Resale Value
Prioritize the following considerations in making decisions
about home upgrades: (1 through 5, 1 being most important)
too big
Does your furnace have a programmable thermostat?
yes no
too small
the right size
_____nighttime temp
If a thermostat is used to control your a/c system, at
what temperature is it generally set?
At what outside temperature do you turn the a/c off?
At what outside temperature do you turn the a/c on?
If you own an air conditioner:
______daytime temp
If yes, during heating months, at what temperature do
you set your thermostat?
seal windows with plastic wrap
storm windows
Given the current usage patterns of your house do you
consider your house:
attic _______
Have you taken any of the following measures to reduce
home heat loss during winter months?
if yes; walls ______
Is your house used for a home business?
How many occupants are typically in the house during the
daytime?
________ yrs
Do you know the thickness or rating of the insulation in your
walls and attic?
yes
no
Have you upgraded the insulation levels in your home?
yes
no
How long do you expect to continue living in this house?
Home Energy Use
Occupancy Considerations
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Colours________
circulating
drip irrigation
1-2 hours
over 2 hours
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
0 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
How many loads of dishes do you do by hand during an average
week?
0 loads
How many dishwasher loads do you do during an avg week?
0-1 hour
During an average summer week, how long is your water
sprinkler running?
overhead
What type of lawn sprinkler do you use?
Water Use
How many hours per week are all computers on?
How many computers are in your home?
if yes; seasonally? all year?
Do you hang clothes up to dry?
yes no
Whites______
At what temperature do you wash your clothes?
(Hot, Warm, Cold)
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
cans
glass
plastics
leaves & grass
coffee grinds
½ full
full
more than one box used
½ full
full
more than one box used
full
more than one bag used
Occupant 2
____ Occupant 4
____ Occupant 6
Occupant 1
____ Occupant 3
____ Occupant 5
What is the distance from your home to your
workplace/school?
Transportation Energy Use
½ full
On an average week, how full is your garbage bag when
taken out for pickup?
empty
On average every two weeks, how full is your black box?
empty
On average every two weeks, how full is your blue box?
fruit & vegetable wastes
egg shells
Do you compost the following items
paper
Do you recycle the following items?
Household Waste
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
no
no
________
________
Car
________
Public Transit ________
Bicycle
Walking
Based on your family’s trips in any given week,
approximately what percentage would be assigned to each
mode of transport?
yes
Would you be interested in a neighbourhood carpool?
yes
Do any members of the household regularly carpool?
If you own more than one vehicle what is the primary reason
for owning the additional vehicles?
What is the primary use of your vehicle?
Car 3:
Car 2:
Car 1:
What is the make, model and year of your vehicle(s)?
no
equal
less
no
____ Other (please specify) _____________________________
____ Lack of available time to consider and implement changes.
____ Fear of possible financial costs of implementing measures.
____ Lack of knowledge about where to begin and how to
proceed.
____ Concern about an adverse impact on your lifestyle.
____ Don’t feel it will make much of a difference.
Prioritize the following obstacles to your household reducing its
impact on the environment; (1 through 5, with 1 being the biggest
obstacle.)
yes
Would knowing of your neighbours’ efforts motivate you to act?
more
How would you rate your household’s effort to reduce
environmental impact as compared with other households you
know?
yes
Would you say you consciously make efforts to reduce the
environmental impact of your household?
Household Action to Reduce Impact
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Jane Thompson Architect
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Jane Thompson Architect
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
RELEASE OF WATER CONSUMPTION INFORMATION
I agree to allow Jane Thompson Architect to access my City of Ottawa Water & Sewer records only for the
purpose of monitoring changes in my consumption. By entering the account information below I authorize
the utility to release my consumption history to Jane Thompson Architect for monitoring purposes only. I
understand that all information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of The
Household Environmental Monitoring Project.
Name
Address
Date
Signature
City of Ottawa Water & Sewer account number
RELEASE OF ENERGUIDE ENERGY ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
I agree to allow Jane Thompson Architect to access my EnerGuide Energy Assessment Report only for the
purpose of assessing energy efficiency performance as part of The Household Environmental Monitoring
Project. I understand that all information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of
The Household Environmental Monitoring Project.
Name
Address
Date
Signature
Household Descriptions
Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Number of
Occupants
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
5 (week); 6 (year)
4
3
1
4
4
2
4
3
2
Year of House
Construction
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1900-1939
1940-1979
1900-1939
1900-1939
after 1980
1940-1979
1900-1939
1900-1939
1940-1979
Extent of Alterations Since
Construction
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
minor changes
major renovations or additions
major renovations
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
minor changes
major renovations or additions
minor changes
major renovations or additions
no changes
minor changes
major renovations or additions
major renovations or additions
minor changes
Knowledge of Options to Reduce
Environmental Impact
fair
good
poor
good
fair
fair
fair
fair
good
fair
good
fair
fair
fair
good
fair
fair
good
good
good
Occupancy Considersations
(1 through 5, 1 being most important)
Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
How long have you
lived in your house?
(yrs)
2
17
21
3
3
4
<1
2
15
19
19
8
5
2
5
5
3
2
<1
12
How long do you
expect to continue How many occupants are typically in
living in this house?
the house during the daytime? Is your house used for a home business?
>40
1
TRUE
>40
1
TRUE
10
2
FALSE
n/a
0
TRUE
>40
0
FALSE
4
3
FALSE
10
0
FALSE
8
0
FALSE
25
0
TRUE
24
0
FALSE
35
1.5
TRUE
25
4
TRUE
>40
2
TRUE
5
0
FALSE
15
0
FALSE
10
0
FALSE
7
2
TRUE
10
3
TRUE
20
3
FALSE
15
0.5
TRUE
Given the current usage patterns
of your house, do you consider
your house (right size, too small,
too big)
the right size
the right size
the right size
the right size
the right size
too small
the right size
the right size
the right size
the right size
the right size
too small
the right size
the right size
too big
the right size
the right size
the right size
too small
the right size
Personal Comfort &
Convenience
1
1
1
5
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
Resale Value
3
2
2
2
3
4
2
4
5
5
5
5
3
2
5
2
1
5
4
5
Long term
Operating Cost
Savings
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
4
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
Improving Indoor
Air Quality
5
2
5
1
5
3
5
5
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
1
1
Reducing
Environmental
Impact
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
3
3
1
4
1
2
5
2
3
4
3
1
2
General Measurements
Ground
Floor
Second
Floor
1
2
93.37
113.96
78.6
69.04
3
4
100.61
80.64
100.61
80.64
5
6
7
73.67
64.66
58.53
8
Household
Third
Floor
House Size and Construction
Total
AboveTotal
Grade
Perimeter
Area
Total Lot Number of
(sq.m)
Length (m)
Area
Storeys Wall Construction
171.97
183
41
50
361
416
240.97
161.28
44
81
397
307
2 double brick, 2x4 stud
2 stucco
old brick on wood
3 frame
2
68.28
64.66
58.53
141.96
129.32
117.06
38
37
33
355
364
475
2
2
2
83.15
83.15
166.3
41
335
2
9
10
91.88
79.06
91.88
79.06
183.76
158.12
44
37
325
313
11
12
13
115.94
74.04
87.51
99.87
74.04
66.7
215.81
148.09
154.22
47
37
39
312
208
374
14
15
69.68
78.04
48.77
78.04
16
111.76
111.76
17
87.14
18
19
20
102.38
93.09
72.28
75.25
93.09
66.24
39.75
78.04
brick (original), stucco
2 (addition)
2
brick on original, vinyl
2 siding on addition
2 load bearing masonry
1-2 brick (12" thick)
118.45
234.12
43
38
352
249
2 brick on 2x4 studs
3 brick/stucco
223.52
50
377
2
87.14
39
369
177.63
186.18
138.52
47
45
37
367
322
267
Estimated Insulation Levels
Roof
R40
R35
R40
Roof Above-grade
RSI walls
none in existing,
7.1 addition R12
6.25 R12
7.1 R10 - 20
Total Window Areas (sq.m.)
Wall RSI
R40
4-6" batt in
addition
R200 1995
R40
7.1 R12/R20
R20
brick and studs
(only one wall with
3.5 insulation)
brick/stucco on 2x4
batt
1 studs
stucco, brick, siding on
2 2x4 studs
2
none
2
2x6 studs with batt
insulation
none
South
oprble
South
nonoprble
West West nonoprble
oprble
oprble
0.62
1.65
1.17
1.11
7.89
4.9
0
0.75
3.1
6.02
0.37
2.6
4.74
4.47
0.87
1.61
1.8 - 3.5
4.96
5.2
5.42
1.86
3.95
4.23
2.03
0
7.42
5.94
1.72
1.82
7.53
1.56
1.2
0
0.6
4.22
4.82
0
0.48
2.34
5.37
9.43
2.31
0
0.26
0
6.09
3.77
3.45
5.33
2.06
3.19
0
2.84
3.46
2.14 +
5.72 4.02 GB
0.34
0.45
3.39
0
1.03
0.7
1.6 +
4.02GB
5.59
0
3.71
1.04
5.89
1.84
2.31
3.99
1.69
2.31
4.19
3.43
0.47
1.24
2.34
6.9
2.88
0
3.12
0.54
7.87
0
0
0
10.53
1.92
5.11
0.72
2.53
0
7.93
5.63
5.33
0
0.47
1.46
2.36
3.22
1.08
7.87
2.16
0.22
5.3
1.45
5.82
0
0.13
3.44
3.36
1.93
0.75
0
4.64
2.53
0
4.14
3.74
0
0
6.3
5.3
2.99
2.86
3.96
6.35
5.52
1.83
2.68
5.57
1.05
0.08
2.1
0
0.5
0
1.1
2.92
0.76
1.64
6.62
1.06
0.75
0
6.81
6
2.05
3.01
1.31
2.57
2.06
0
6.02
2.74
0
0
7.39
4.74
1.59
0
0
0
wood chips
7.1 R20
almost no
insulation in
original, stucco on
2x6 stud in
addition
East East nonoprble
oprble
2.1
2.1
insulation in
ceiling joists
wood chips
North North non
oprble
oprble
Skylights
3.5
2.1 - 3.5
nonoprble
6.3
8.3
21.6
Household Action to Reduce Impact
Prioritize the following obstacles to your household reducing its impoact on the environment: (1 through 5, with 1 being the biggest obstacle)
Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Make efforts to
reduce the
environmental
impact of
household?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Rate your
household's effort to
reduce environmental
impact compared with
other households.
equal
more
equal
more
equal
equal
equal
more
more
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
17
18
19
20
yes
yes
yes
yes
Don't feel it will
make much of a
difference.
4
Concern about an
adverse impact on
your lifestyle.
5
Lack of knowledge
about where to
egin and how to
proceed.
3
yes
yes
yes
3
3
4
5
5
5
4
2
5
1
4
3
5
5
1
4
3
2
4
5
3
more
more
more
more
equal
more
equal
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
5
2
4
5
5
2
4
3
3
1
4
4
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
equal
more
more
equal
yes
yes
yes
no
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
2
2
3
3
Would knowing your
neighbours' effforts
motivate you to act?
no
no
no
yes
yes
Fear of possible
financial costs of Lack of available time
implementing
to consider and
measures. implement changes. Other (please specify)
Other ranking
1
2
1
return on investment
4
5
1
2
2
5
3
1
1
2
5
5 Lack of financial resources
1
2
proliferation of plastic
3
4 packaging
3
2
5
4
3
2
4
2
2
3
5
1
cost of hiring an expert or buy
5
1 solar panels
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
Home Energy Use
Insulation
if yes:
Have you
Househ upgraded the
insul?
old
No
1
Yes
2
No
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
No
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
Yes
10
Yes
11
Yes
12
No
13
Yes
14
Yes
15
No
16
No
17
Yes
18
No
19
Yes
20
Do you know
the rating of
your insul?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Window Actions
if yes:
walls
attic
R12
R35
R10-R20
R40
R20
varies
R40
R12
R12/R20
R40
R20
R12
Programmable Thermostat
If yes, at what temperature
do you set your thermostat?
Have you taken any measures to reduce
home heat loss:
storm
windows
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
seal windows
with plastic caulking to
wrap
seal gaps
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Does furnace
have a program
thermostat?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
day time
temp
19
n/a
20
18-20
22
20
16
20
20
n/a
19
20
n/a
18
16
20
22
19
20
21
night time
temp
14
n/a
15
18-20
18
18
16
16
18
n/a
15
21
n/a
20
16
17
18
18
16
18
Air Conditioner
If you own an air conditioner:
At what outside At what outside
At what
temperature do temperature do
temperature is
you turn the a/c you turn the a/c
a/c thermostat
on?
off?
generally set?
n/a
n/a
27
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
22
22-24
18
22-23
27
n/a
25
28
26
26
25
20
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
24
24
n/a
n/a
n/a
31
29
25
26
n/a
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
28
26
22
30
30
24
30
28
24
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
28
22
32
28
25
26
24
24
Laundry
Computers
At what temperature do you
wash your clothes?
Whites
cold
cold/cold
warm/warm
warm/warm
hot/hot
warm/warm
warm/warm
hot/cold
hot/hot
cold/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
warm/warm
warm/warm
warm/warm
warm/warm
hot/hot
hot/hot
warm/warm
warm/warm
Colours
cold
cold/cold
warm/warm
warm/warm
cold/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
warm/cold
warm/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
warm/warm
cold/cold
cold/cold
warm/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
cold/cold
Do you hang your
clothes up to dry?
Yes - All Year
Yes - Seasonally
No
No
No
Yes - Seasonally
Yes - All Year
No
Yes - Seasonally
Yes - All Year
No
Yes - Seasonally
Yes - All Year
No
Yes - Seasonally
Yes - All Year
No
No
How many
computers are
in your home?
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
How many
hours per
week are all
computers
on?
5
60
3-4
4
15
4-5
8
45
21
15
50-60
14-20
35
15
10
240
70
2
8
Water Use
Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
What type of lawn
sprinkler do you use?
overhead
overhead
circulating
none
drip irrigation
none
overhead
overhead
overhead
circulating
circulating
circulating
circulating
circulating
overhead
none
none
none
overhead
How long is your water
sprinkler running?
0-1 hour
over 2 hours
1-2 hours
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
1-2 hours
1-2 hours
0-1 hour
1-2 hours
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
0-1 hour
1-2 hours
How many dishwasher
loads during a week?
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
0 loads
more than 5 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
more than 5 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
How many loads of dishes do you
do by hand during an average
week?
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
0 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
0 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
0 loads
1-5 loads
more than 5 loads
1-5 loads
Household Waste
Do you recycle the following items?
Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
paper
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
cans
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
glass
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
plastics
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Do you compost the following items?
fruit &
coffee
leaves &
vegetable
grinds
grass
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
egg shells
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
Every two weeks, how full is
blue box?
full
full
1/2 full
full
more than one box used
full
1/2 full
more than one box used
more than one box used
full
full
more than one box used
full
full
1/2 full
full
full
more than one box used
full
1/2 full
Every two weeks, how full is
black box?
full
full
more than one box used
full
more than one box used
more than one box used
full
more than one box used
more than one box used
full
full
more than one box used
full
full
full
full
more than one box used
more than one box used
full
1/2 full
How full is weekly garbage bag?
full
1/2 full
more than one bag used
full
more than one bag used
full
full
1/2 full
more than one bag used
1/2 full
full
more than one bag used
full
full
full
full
1/2 full
1/2 full
1/2 full
1/2 full
Transportation Energy Use
What is the distance from your home to your
workplace/school?
House
hold
1
2
3
4
Occup 1 Occup 2 Occup 3 Occup 4
5
11
0.8
0.8
0
6
4
0
10
0-200
1
6
5
3
6
2.5
3
1.5
7
8
9
10
30
9
3
5
10
3.5
4
10
0.5
5
4
0.5
8
11
12
13
14
15
10
3
6
28
6
2.5
3
5
1
5
8
3
0.5
16
17
18
19
5
8
4
5
5
3
0
3
20
25
3
1
1.5
1
Percentage assigned to each mode of weekly
transport?
What is the make, model and year of your vehicle(s)?
Occup 5 Car 1
station wagon
SUV
minivan
minivan
Car 1 Hwy
Eff
8.4
7.9
9
8.6
SUV
11.1
SUV
8.1
sedan
SUV
sedan
sedan
7.1
12.2
6.9
7.3
Car 1 City
Eff Car 2
11.4
10.9
13.4 compact
13.3 truck
15.7 sedan
Car 2 Hwy Car 2 City Primary use of
Eff vehicle?
Eff
cottage and back
family and business
5.9
8.3 pleasure, work/travel
9.7
14.4 family, work
commute to work, trips
7.9
11.3 to cottage
10.8
10.2
17.6 SUV
9.8
10.3
8.1
1.5 hybrid sedan
minivan
compact
sedan
compact
4.2
8.1
6.3
7.8
6.8
4
12.2
9.1
10.8
9.3
minivan
compact
minivan
minivan
8.2
6.4
8.5
8.8
12 sedan
8.1
13.1
13.5
8.2
compact
7.2
11.6 sedan
6.3
Reason for owning
additional vehicles?
convenience
business
weekend errands, summer
cottage commute
groceries, errands, trips
transportation to work
for occupant 1
10.5 recreation/travel
parental gift
Commuting
pleasure
business, shopping,
lessons, social events
leisure, work
commuting, vacations
work, errands
errands and recreation
11.6 work, weekend activities conflicting activities
odd errands
errands, long trips
drive to work
9.1 to commute to work
work in different places,
need extra car for Dr. apts.
Currently
carpool?
No
No
No
No
Interest in
carpool?
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
40
0
0
60
No
No
65
20
7.5
7.5
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
5
40
10
7
0
40
20
20
40
10
30
40
55
10
40
33
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
30
22
90
35
27.5
20
1
0
0
16.5
40
1
0
0
32.5
10
75
10
65
23.5
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
20
30
50
12.5
0
5
0
17.5
20
50
25
20
60
15
25
50
No
No
9
0
1
90
Walking
50
50
25
10
Bicycle
35
5
0
0
Public
Transit
0
0
0
10
Car
15
45
75
80
REPORT FOR HOUSEHOLD 1
The Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
sponsored by
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Jane Thompson Architect
1 Middleton Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1M 1B8
tel: 613-747-8104 fax: 613-747-8396
[email protected]
Introduction
The following report provides an overview of the environmental impact of your
household and guidance on the most effective means to reduce that impact.
The results and recommendations in this report are based upon our analysis and
interpretation of the information you provided through the questionnaire and monitoring
week log books, your previous year utility bills, the home visit completed by our office,
and the EnerGuide assessment completed by the EnviroCentre. A copy of this material
is included for your reference at the end of the report. This household specific
information has been supplemented by available general research and data. While we
have attempted to ensure the information provided is as accurate as possible, given the
nature of this type of research, the suggested energy savings, cost savings and
emission reductions should be taken as approximations only.
The report is divided into sections that will help you to understand the scope of
the environmental impact of your household. These sections address your attitudes
toward environmental issues, examine the physical characteristics of your house and
surrounding property, present consumption rates for home heating, electricity, water,
transportation and waste, and compare these results with the study group and average
Canadian levels. The last section presents recommendations for reducing environmental
impact that are tailored to the consumption patterns and lifestyle of your household.
Wherever information was available, results have been shown for both the
monitoring week and an average weekly amount based on last year’s utility bill. This
allows us to compare weekly consumption with the activities reported in your log book
during the monitoring week, and also to check these rates against a more representative
year long weekly average. Results for personal transportation and waste were available
only for the one week monitoring period, therefore may less accurately reflect typical
yearly consumption. Since some factors, such as waste and water consumption are
highly dependent on the number of occupants, while others such as home heating are
not, these comparisons are made on both a total household and per occupant basis.
The recommendations page lists possible house infrastructure and lifestyle
changes that we believe are worth considering from the perspective of reducing
environmental impact, promoting resource conservation, improving the quality and
comfort of your home and reducing operating costs. These recommendations are ranked
as high, medium or low priority based on the estimated length of time to recuperate any
initial investment. Recommendations with a longer than thirty year payback have not
been included in this list in an effort to prioritize the many options available. Other
options may, however, make sense in your particular circumstances, or be justified on
other grounds. For example, the replacement of an automobile or appliance in good
working order with a more energy-efficient alternative may not be immediately justified
from a payback perspective, but should be considered at the point when replacement is
necessary. Wherever relevant, recommendations have been marked with an asterisk to
indicate that they will have a lifestyle impact that may or may not be acceptable for your
household.
A “date implemented” column has been included on the recommendation page.
We ask that you complete this column entry whenever your household decides to
implement one of the suggested measures. During our follow up check in October 2005,
these entries will help us to understand which kinds of measures are of greatest interest,
and allow us to compare your following year utility bills against any changes that have
been made.
As you will see in the following pages, the existing environmental impact of your
household is well below both the study group average and typical Canadian levels.
Nonetheless, we hope the following information will be of use to you in determining
specific areas where further improvement is possible and practical.
We appreciate your participation in this study and welcome any questions or
comments you may have.
Magda Goemans
Jane Thompson
Andrew Wisniowski
Profile of Twenty Participating Households
Household Characteristics
The following charts illustrate the range of physical characteristics of the twenty households
participating in this study. Each of these characteristics will have some effect on the consumption rates of
a household. For example, a large older house with few upgrades will generally require higher than
average fuel to heat; a household with many occupants will generally consume more water and electricity
and produce more waste.
In each of the eight areas below, your household falls within the most common household
characteristics of the study group. Based on these physical characteristics alone, it is expected that your
household consumption rates would be in the mid-range of values within the study group.
Lot Area (sq. ft.)
House Area (sq. ft.)
5% 5%
55%
10%
15%
25%
5%
<1400
1
2500-3499
1400-1999
2
3500-4499
+2000
3
<2500
35%
Number of Stories
+4500
60%
Your Lot Area: 3880 sq.ft.
85%
Your House Area: 1850 sq.ft.
Approx. Date of Construction
Extent of House Modifications
Number of Stories in Your
House: 2
Number of Occupants
5% 5%
5%
5%
20%
1940-1979
30%
+1980
75%
30%
minor
changes
major reno
or addition
65%
Extent of Modifications to Your
House: major reno or addition
Home Business in Household
Housing Type
(Full or Part Time)
detached
Yes
semidetached
No
50%
row house
100%
Your Household Response: Yes
Your Household Type: Detached
2
3
4
40%
5+
20%
Approximate Date of Construction
of Your House: 1920
50%
1
no
changes
1900-1939
Number of Occupants in Your
Household: 4
Profile of Twenty Participating Households
Household Attitudes
Along with the physical characteristics of each household, occupant attitudes to and knowledge of
environmental conservation have an effect on lifestyle choices and consumption rates. Differing priorities
and perceived obstacles to reducing household impact suggest different approaches to assisting your
household to reduce consumption.
Your household has indicated a slightly lower to average level of knowledge and effort to reduce
environmental impact among the study group. It is likely, however, that the households willing to
volunteer for this study generally possess a higher level of environmental interest and awareness than
the norm. As you will see in the report, the recorded results of your household consumption also suggest
that your evaluation of your efforts is overly modest!
Your priorities in making decisions about home upgrades and perceived obstacles to reducing
household impact match the most common responses of the study group. These priorities suggest that
practical, cost-effective measures that improve the quality of your home are of greater interest to you than
options justifiable on environmental grounds alone, and that providing information and time-saving
assistance would be beneficial to your household.
Your response that knowing of your neighbours’ efforts would not motivate you to act suggests that
the comparisons made on the following pages may provide less of an incentive for you than some other
participants.
Do You Make Conscious Efforts to
Reduce Your Environmental Impact?
Rate Your Household’s Knowledge of Rate Your Household’s Environmental
Environmental Options
Effort in Comparison to Others You Know
5%
Yes
Poor
35%
Equal
Fair
No
45%
Good
60%
More
Less
55%
100%
Your household response: Yes
Would Knowing of Your Neighbours’
Efforts Motivate You to Act?
Your household response: Fair
Priorities in Making Decisions About
Home Upgrades
15%
25%
Yes
No
75%
Your household response: No
33%
15%
21%
16%
Your top 3 priorities:
1. Comfort
2. Operating Costs
3. Resale Value
Comfort
Resale
Operating
Costs
Indoor Air
Quality
Environ.
Impact
Your household response: Equal
Most Common Obstacles to Reducing
Household Impact on the Environment
23%
12%
15%
28%
22%
Your top 3 responses:
1. Economic Cost
2. Lack of Time
3. Lack of Knowledge
Won't Make
A Difference
Lifestyle
Lack of
Knowledge
Economic
Costs
Lack of Time
Physical Context
Landscaping and Outdoor Water Use
The landscaped portion of your lot is currently composed of 30% impermeable area (concrete or asphalt), 18%
permeable area (pavers), 40% grass area, and 12% garden area. Garden areas generally require less watering each
week, so replacing some grass areas with gardens could reduce your water consumption. Reducing the amount of
impermeable area by replacing asphalt or concrete driveways and patios with light coloured, more permeable
surfaces such as pavers, stone or gravel would reduce water runoff and heat build-up around your property.
Installation of eavestroughs and downspouts to collect roof rainwater that can then be stored in rain barrels at
recommended locations (1), would reduce your water consumption requirements.
Passive Solar Heating and Cooling
The location and the extent of windows can have a significant effect on the amount of energy required to heat
and cool your home. A house in Canada designed for passive solar heat can receive from 30% to 50% of its heating
needs from the sun. The EnerGuide Home Energy audit determined that the current solar contribution to your home
heating is 9.4%, a fairly low value.
Glazing on a wall within 30 degrees of south provides the best passive solar gain. In your home, the wall
adjacent to your neighbour’s driveway faces close to due south (2). Although it receives some shading from the
neighbour’s house (3), morning, midday and afternoon sun reaches portions of the wall, particularly on the second
floor.
The current percentage of south glazing in your home is 2%, whereas south glazing area equal to 6% to 8% of
the floor area of a home is generally recommended to provide substantial amount of passive solar gain without
excessive overheating. Your house would benefit from the addition of windows on this face, but note that regulations
prohibit windows on walls closer than 4 feet to the property line, which appears to be the case for the front portion of
the wall (4).
To conserve energy, north facing glazing should be kept to a minimum and energy efficient triple glazed
windows installed. Your house is fortunate to have a low value of 1.2% glazing on the north face.
East and west windows make some contribution to solar gain but also contribute to overheating if they are left
unshaded, particularly west facing windows (5). The existing deciduous trees at the rear of the property are well
located to provide shading of the west windows in warmer months and allow sun penetration when bare of leaves in
the colder months (6). The addition of a deciduous tree in the southeast corner of your property is recommended to
achieve the same effect on the east side of the house (7).
Natural Ventilation
Operable glazing equal to 8% of the floor area of your home and evenly distributed on all sides of your home
is recommended to provide good levels of natural ventilation and reduce your requirement for mechanical air
conditioning. Operable glazing above this level contributes to some heat loss since operable windows are less
energy efficient than fixed windows. Your home has about 9.5% operable windows, an amount close to the ideal
level.
Daylighting
A glazed area of 10 - 20% of the floor area, distributed wherever possible on more than one wall of a room,
provides good daylighting and reduces the requirement for electric lighting. Your total glazed area of 11% is at the
low end of this range. The addition of windows, particularly to the south face of your home, would improve natural
lighting.
Alternative Energy Sources
Sources include photovoltaic panels or wind turbines to produce electricity, solar panels for hot water heating
and home heating, and ground source heating systems. For an urban home like yours the most cost-efficient and
practical alternative energy source would be a solar hot water system that could provide about 50% of your hot water
heating requirement. The south facing portion of your roof would provide an ideal location for the installation of one or
more roof mounted solar collectors for hot water heating. A solar air heating unit which preheats air before it enters
your home and reduces demand on your furnace could also be considered for installation on the upper portion of the
south wall or south facing roof. The remaining alternative sources are not yet cost effective for your home.
Monitoring Results - Home Heating Energy
Heating Energy During Monitoring Week (October 18 -25, 2004)
2800.0
2400.0
2000.0
1200.0
800.0
400.0
Insufficient Data
1600.0
Insufficient Data
Avg/household 1769 MJ
Insufficient Data
Heating Energy (MJ)
3200.0
0.0
Your Household
Avg/occupant 605 MJ
Household Consumption
Consumption Per Occupant
Households
During the monitoring week your household consumed 1989 MJ of energy or 497 MJ per person. This
amount is 112% of the average amount per household and 80% of the average amount per occupant for the
households in the study group.
4000.0
3600.0
3200.0
2800.0
2400.0
2000.0
1600.0
1200.0
800.0
400.0
0.0
Your Household
Households
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Avg/household 2440 MJ
Insufficient Data
Heating Energy (MJ)
Average Weekly Heating Energy Based on Previous Year Utility Records
Avg/occupant 905 MJ
Household Consumption
Consumption Per Occupant
Based on your gas bills from October 2003 to October 2004 your average weekly energy use over the last
year was 2728 MJ or 682 MJ per person. This amount is 112% of the average amount per household and
73% of the average amount per occupant for the households in the study group. Heating fuel consumed
over the year cost $1,670.00 and produced about 8.5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
EnerGuide Ratings
EnerGuide Energy Efficiency Rating
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Avg rating (potential): 70
Avg rating (current): 57
Your Household
Households
EnerGuide Rating - Current
EnerGuide Rating - Potential
Based on the Home Energy Report provided by the EnviroCentre, your existing rating of 44 is one of the
lower values in the study group. However, your home has significant potential for upgrade to a quite typical
rating of 69. Upgrades would also make a significant improvement in the areas you indicated as priorities –
improving home comfort, lowering operating costs and increasing resale value.
The energy savings calculator used in the Home Energy Report to calculate total energy used and potential
savings relies on assumptions geared to a typical Canadian home. When we compare these results with the
utility bills for your house, the energy savings calculator estimation is 1.8 times your actual energy
consumption. For the purposes of our recommendations page at the end of this report, we have reduced the
savings predicted in the Home Energy Report by this factor to more accurately reflect your actual household
consumption.
Explanation of Results
Your home heating consumption is slightly above average for the study group on a household basis. The
following factors contribute to this result:
ƒ As indicated by the EnerGuide rating, the energy efficiency rating of your house is 23% lower than the
study group average.
ƒ The house area requiring heating is slightly above the average house size in the study group.
ƒ The solar contribution to home heating is below average levels for the group.
ƒ The very high efficiency of your furnace (one of the highest in the group) helps to compensate for the
factors noted above to reduce consumption.
ƒ Your thermostat is set to lower than average levels to further reduce energy use.
Monitoring Results - Electricity
250.0
200.0
Avg/household 153 kWh
100.0
50.0
Insufficient Data
150.0
Insufficient Data
Electricity Consumption (kWh)
Electricity Consumption During Monitoring Week (October 18 -25, 2004)
Avg/occupant 56 kWh
0.0
Your Household
Households
Household Electricity Consumption
Electricity Consumption Per Occupant
During the monitoring week your household consumed 118 kWh of electricity or 30 kWh per person. This
amount is 77% of the average amount per household and 53% of the average amount per person for the
households in the study group.
250.0
200.0
Avg/household 155 kWh
50.0
0.0
Your Household
Households
Insufficient Data
100.0
Insufficient Data
150.0
Insufficient Data
Total Electricity Consumption (kWh)
Average Weekly Electricity Consumption Based on Previous Year Utility Records
Avg/occupant 57 kWh
Household Electricity Consumption
Electricity Consumption Per Occupant
Based on your electricity bills between October 2003 and October 2004 your average weekly electricity
consumption over the past year was 135 kWh per household or 33.5 kWh per person. This amount is 85%
of the average amount per household and 57% of the average amount per person for the households
studied. The amount of electricity consumed over the year cost $328.77 and produced about 2.5 tonnes of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Explanation of Results
Your electricity consumption is lower than the majority of monitored households in your
neighbourhood. This appears to be primarily due to good electricity conservation practices by your
family, since the appliances and light fixtures in your household are not particularly energy efficient.
Some of the good practices noted wereƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Air conditioning is almost never used.
Clothes are hung up to dry throughout the year.
Computers are running for an average of only 5 hours during the week.
More dish loads on average are washed by hand in your household than with a dishwasher.
Some areas where electricity use could be reduced furtherƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Your major appliances have the following annual energy consumption ratings:
ƒ Refrigerator: 830 kWh (current EnergyStar models use about 50% less energy)
ƒ Clothes dryer: 890 kWh (about average energy use in comparison with current models)
ƒ Clothes washer: 1470 kWh (current EnergyStar models use about 60% less energy)
There is a stand-alone freezer running in your home which uses about 620 kWh or about 9% of
your annual electricity consumption.
89% of the lightbulbs in your home are incandescent. Incandescent bulbs use 75% more energy
than compact fluorescent bulbs and 15 - 40% more than halogen bulbs.
Monitoring Results - Water
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
Insufficient Data
Water Consumption (L)
Average Daily Water Consumption During Monitoring Week (October 18 -25)
Your Household
Avg/household 500 L
Avg/occupant 165 L
Litres per household per day
Litres per occupant per day
Households
During the monitoring week your household consumed 429 L of water or 107 L per person per day. This
amount is 87% of the average amount per household and 63% of the average amount per person for the
households in the study group.
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Insufficient Data
Water Consumption (L)
Average Daily Water Consumption Based on Previous Year Utility Records
Your Household
Households
Avg/household 586 L
Avg/occupant 201 L
Litres per household per day
Litres per occupant per day
Based on consumption recorded on your water bills between October 2003 and October 2004 your average
daily water consumption over the past year was 511 L of water or 127 L per person per day. This amount is
87% of the average amount per household and 61% of the average amount per person for the twenty
Lindenlea households studied. The amount of water consumed over the year was 185,000 L and cost you
approximately $110 in water supply charges and $183 in sewerage surcharges.
Explanation of Results
Your average weekly consumption matched consumption during the monitoring week very closely,
therefore the information you recorded about water use during the monitoring week provides a good
indication of typical water use and opportunities for reduction. Your water consumption per person is
substantially lower than the average of the households in the study. Similarly to the electricity results, this
appears to be largely due to good conservation practices.
ƒ
ƒ
During summer months you estimated your lawn sprinkler is running for a relatively low amount of time
in comparison to other participant households.
More dish loads on average are washed by hand in your household than with a dishwasher.
The following are areas where improvements could be made:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Based on our observations, there are 3 higher-volume toilets and 1 higher-volume showerhead in your
home. Higher-volume toilets use an average of 70% more water than newer low-flow models, and
higher-volume faucets use an average of 60% more water than water-saving showerheads.
There are no aerators on the faucets in your home. The addition of an aerator to a kitchen faucet can
reduce water use by about 40%.
Your household does not collect water in rain barrels for watering the garden.
An overhead sprinkler is used to water your grass, a method that uses quite a bit of water due to high
evaporative losses. Drip irrigation is the most effective method for lawn watering; the second best
option is a circulating sprinkler. Either of these methods would allow you to water less often and for a
shorter period of time.
Monitoring Results - Transportation
Your responses to questions about transportation habits suggest that
your fuel consumption would be less than most households in the
group. Your estimated transportation split indicates low automobile
transportation use, and your monitoring week log resulted in even
lower use than your estimate. Your household was one of the few
that expressed an interest in a neighbourhood carpool.
The vehicle fuel consumption chart below combines the distance you
drove during the monitoring week with the fuel efficiency of your
vehicle to determine the approximate gas consumption of your
household.
Estimated Transportation
Split By Trips
43%
31%
10%
Walking
Number of Cars in Study Group
25%
1
2
75%
Your response: 1
Monitoring Week Transportation Would You Be Interested in a
Split By Logged Trips
Neighbourhood Carpool?
10%
36%
42%
Walking
Yes
Cycling
Cycling
No
Public
Transit
Automobile
PublicTransit
Automobile
13%
16%
Your estimate: 40% - 75% walking
0% - 35% cycling
25% automobile
9%
Your results: 65% walking
24% cycling
11% automobile
90%
Your response: yes
6690
160
5850
140
3340
2510
1670
840
0
120
100
80
Insufficient Data
5020
4180
Fuel Consumption (L)
Projected Fuel Cost / Yr ($)
Vehicle Fuel Consumption During Monitoring Week (October 18 -25, 2004)
60
40
20
Avg/household 36.9L
Avg/occupant 13.3L
0
Your Household
Households
Consumption per household
Consumption per occupant
During the monitoring week your household consumed 9.26L of vehicle fuel or 2.32L per occupant.
This amount is 25% of the average amount per household and 17% of the average amount per
occupant for the households in the study group. This level of fuel consumption projected over a oneyear period would cost $387.00 for the year and produce 1.1 tonnes of CO2.
Automobile Fuel Consumption (City Fuel Consumption)
Best Fuel Efficiency
Among Participating Households
4.0 L/100km
Average Fuel Efficiency
Among Participating Households
11.3 L/100km
Your Automobile’s
Fuel Efficiency
11.4 L/100km
The fuel consumption rating of your 1998 Subaru Legacy Outback is 11.4 L/100km (city) and
8.4 L/100km (hwy). The city fuel consumption value is 2.85 times higher than the best fuel efficiency among
participating households (achieved by a hybrid vehicle), and 1.01 times the average fuel efficiency.
Explanation of Results
Your transportation fuel consumption for the monitoring week was among the lowest in the study group.
While your vehicle is not particularly fuel efficient, the amount your car is driven was very low during this
week. It is possible, however, that the monitoring week results are lower than is typical for your household,
since the monitoring week results included less automobile use than your estimated transportation split.
Because your non-automobile trips are by foot or bicycle, you are not generating additional emissions from
the use of public transportation.
Monitoring Results - Waste
Do You Recycle?
Like almost all households in the study group you recycle and
compost to divert most of your waste from landfill. Your waste log
shows that the percentage of your total waste that is garbage is low
and black box is high.
The Household Waste Stream charts below compare the total
weight of waste by category for the monitoring week per household
and per occupant. Both your total waste and the garbage
component of this total are much lower than the average.
100%
Your Response: Yes
Do You Compost?
Waste Log
17%
Yes
No
35%
Garbage
12%
15%
Blue Box
10%
Yes
No
16%
Black Box
36%
Average Community Split
Total Waste Flow (kg)
90%
Compost
12%
57%
Your Household
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Your Response: Yes
Avg total waste 16.6kg
Avg waste to landfill
5.1kg
Your Household
Households
Compost
Black Box Recyclables
Blue Box Recyclables
Waste to Landfill
During the monitoring week your household produced 12.3 kg of waste: 1.8 kg was sent to landfill, and the
rest was either recycled or composted. Your total waste produced was 70% of the average amount
produced per household for the households in the study group. This level of waste production projected over
a one-year period would amount to a total of 639.6 kg of which 93.6 kg would be sent to landfill.
Total Waste Flow per
Occupant (kg)
Household Waste Stream During Monitoring Week (October 18-25) Per Occupant
10.0
8.0
6.0
Avg total waste 5.3kg
4.0
Avg waste to landfill
1.8kg
2.0
0.0
Your Household
Households
Compost
Black Box Recyclables
Blue Box Recyclables
Waste to Landfill
During the monitoring week each occupant in your household produced 3.1 kg of waste: 0.5 kg was sent to
landfill, and the rest was either recycled or composted. Your per occupant waste produced is 52% of the
average amount produced per person for the households in the study group. This level of waste
production projected over a one-year period would amount to a total of 161.2 kg; 26.0 kg would be sent to
landfill.
Explanation of Results
Your total waste consumption is among the lowest of the study group per occupant, and a very large portion
of the waste you do generate is being diverted from landfill. Further reductions would be possible only by
reducing the total amount consumed or the amount of packaging included with the products you buy.
Monitoring Results - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Insufficient Data
Total Green House Gas Emissions
per Household (Tonnes)
Household Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.9
Avg Tonnes Electricity Usage
7.7
Avg Tonnes Home Heating Fuel
4.5
Avg Tonnes Automobile Fuel
15.1 T Total Avg Tonnes
Your Household
Households
Based on your use of automobile fuel, home heating fuel, and electricity, your household is responsible for
just over 12 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. This total is made up of about 8.5 tonnes from
home heating, 2.5 tonnes from electricity and 1 tonne from personal transportation. This amount is 82% of the
average amount produced by the study group households. The emissions arising from the consumption of
home heating fuel accounts for about two thirds of your total.
Per Capita Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
16
14
12
10
8
Insufficient Data
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
per Occupant (Tonnes)
18
6
4
2
0
1.1
Electricity Usage
0.5
2.7
Home Heating Fuel
2.0
1.6
Automobile Fuel
5.4 T
Community
Average
Your Household
Households
2.5
5.0 T
One Tonne
Challenge
Start Point
When your total household emissions are divided by the number of household occupants, the result is about
3 tonnes per person, one of the lower values among the 20 households.
Reducing this data to per occupant emissions allows comparison of these results with the recent Federal
Government initiative, the One Tonne Challenge. This initiative asks each Canadian to reduce their personal
greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne, or about 20% of the 5 tonne Canadian average, in order to help
Canada to reach its Kyoto targets. However, as the graph above illustrates, this average figure should not
be taken to literally mean that we each generate at a rate of 5 tonnes and should therefore each reduce by 1
tonne to achieve a personal 20% reduction. The Lindenlea study group average is not far off the expected 5
tonne figure, but the variations within even this single community make an across the board cut of one tonne
seem like an unbalanced approach. The large variations in per person emissions seen here are primarily a
result of differing extents of automobile use, and the number of occupants sharing the total household
heating, electricity and automobile fuel consumption.
Your current level of per person emissions puts you well ahead of the One Tonne Challenge goal of 4
tonnes. However, while our Kyoto target is to reduce emissions by 6% below 1990 levels, it is believed that
this target should be viewed as a small first step, and that to prevent global climate change, Canadians
should be reducing their emissions to 60% below 1990 levels or about 2.5 tonnes per person.
The recommendations on the final page of this report illustrate ways you could reduce your current
emissions by a further 5.7 tonnes for your household, or 1.4 tonnes per occupant. This level of reduction
allow you to live within the more challenging 60% below 1990 goal.
Recommendations
Approximate
Implementation
Cost
Heating Energy (kJ)
Potential
Annual
Resource
Savings
Potential Annual
Cost Savings
Potential
Annual GHG
Reduction
(Tonnes per
year)
Priority
MJ
add R13 insulation to inside of main walls with 2" rigid
boards
$8,000.00
36300
$440.00
1.80
M
increase air tightness by 25% by sealing leaks in
plumbing stacks, chimneys and duct chases; remove
potlights or replace with airtight units
$1,500.00
10400
$125.00
0.50
M
insulate foundation to R12 with rigid board and/or
sprayed foam
$4,000.00
10900
$135.00
0.60
L
$25.00
1340
$25.00
0.10
H
$6,600.00
24830
$290.00
1.49
L
insulate hot wter take with insulating blanket (required if
tank feels warm to the touch)
install solar hot water heating system
Electricity (kWh)
replace 5 incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent
bulbs
eliminate use of freezer (if not required)
upgrade clothes washer to Energy Star, front-loading
model
kWh
$25.00
430
$30.00
0.20
H
$0.00
620
$45.00
0.20
H*
$1,100.00
1170
$80.00
0.40
M
Water (L)
L
replace toilets with 6L per flush low-flow models (3
toilets)
$750.00
210240
$300.00
n/a
H
install 1 water-saving showerhead (flow rate of 9.5
litres/minute or less)
$10.00
8580
$20.00
n/a
H
attach low-flow aerator to kitchen faucet and use for
dishwashing by hand
$10.00
4350
$10.00
n/a
H
L
Transportation (L)
use 10% ethanol-blended gasoline
reduce vehicle use by 25%
All Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
plant a deciduous tree at southeast corner of property
enable the 'sleep' mode on your computer to cut the
energy use to less than half (screen savers do not save
energy
install and use rainbarrels to collect water for your
garden
Other Measures Your Household Has Taken
Legend
Priority - H
M
L
*
0-10 year payback
11-20 year payback
21-30 year payback
Recommendation will have a lifestyle impact
$0 - $10.00
none
$0.00
0.10
H
$0.00
0.125
$100.00
0.29
H*
$1,600.00
5.68
$22,000.00
Date
Implemented
The
Household Environmental
Monitoring Project
Ja ne Th om pso n A rchi t ect
1 Middleton Drive , Ottawa , Ontario , K1M 1B8
tel: 61 3-747- 8104 fax: 613-7 47-839 6
[email protected]
sponsored by
Canada Mort gage and Housing Corporat ion
HOUSEHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Please indicate how useful you found each of the following:
EnerGuide Assessment (blower door test and report provided by the EnviroCentre)
Very Useful
Useful
Not Useful
Aspects of the EnerGuide Assessment you found most useful:
Areas where the EnerGuide Assessment could be improved:
Monitoring Week (utility readings and activity log completed by your household)
Very Useful
Useful
Not Useful
Aspects of the Monitoring Week process you found most useful:
Areas where the Monitoring Week process could be improved:
Household Report (results and recommendations for heating, electricity, water, transportation and waste)
Very Useful
Useful
Not Useful
Aspects of the Household Report you found most useful:
Areas where the Household Report could be improved:
Of the three documents the most useful was:
EnerGuide Assessment
Monitoring Week
Household Report
2. Comparisons made between households in the Household Report were intended to provide participants
with a sense of their consumption in a community context, and to allow the research team to better
understand which household characteristics typically lead to higher or lower environmental impact. Do
you think these comparisons are useful as presented?
Yes
No
Comments:
3. Did you receive any particular surprises or insights from the results for your household in the
Household Report? Were there any surprises or insights from the community results?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Are you satisfied with the level of household information provided by this study? Do you feel that the
amount of effort your household put into this research study was worth the results and recommendations
you received?
___________________________________________________________________________________
5. Please list those recommendations made at the end of the Household Report that you are most likely to
implement:
Recommendation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Have already
implemented
Very likely
to implement
this year
Would like
to implement
some day
6. Evaluate how effective the potential government initiatives listed below would be to reduce the
environmental impact of your household:
Potential Initiative
Increase utility charges (heating fuel, electricity, water) to reflect
the full cost of production and environmental impact.
Implement progressive utility billing where rates increase with
household consumption.
Promote voluntary energy efficiency standards for appliances and
vehicles.
Legislate higher energy efficiency standards for appliances and
vehicles.
Provide significant tax rebates for purchase of energy-efficient
appliances, vehicles, alternative energy sources.
Increase taxes on inefficient vehicles or appliances.
Promote resource conservation programs for individuals such as
the One Tonne Challenge.
Provide additional grants for energy-efficient home improvements,
similar to those currently provided through the EnerGuide
program.
Expand the EnerGuide program to include assessment of lifestyle
factors, electricity, water, transportation and waste consumption
(similar to the Household Report)
Implement community programs to assist households in reduction
of environmental impact.
Improve transportation infrastructure to encourage public transit
use, biking and/or walking.
Fund community-based alternative energy sources or other
sustainable initiatives.
Other suggestions:
Comments:
High
Priority
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not
Effective
Appendix 5: Community Forum Summary
On May 9, 2005, a community forum was held at the Lindenlea Community Centre to discuss the results
of The Household Environmental Monitoring Project and future community initiatives. The forum
consisted of a brief presentation by Jane Thompson of common themes encountered in the individual
reports and some suggested directions or initiatives for future resource use reduction. Participants were
encouraged to comment on the process and what they had learned, and suggest changes they would like to
see implemented at the community level. Sixteen of the twenty households were represented at the
forum; their comments are summarized below:
1. Discussion of the effectiveness of EnerGuide Assessment, Monitoring Week and Household
Report:
EnerGuide Assessment:
All participants in attendance stated they found the EnerGuide assessment useful, and approximately onethird of participants found the report the most useful of the three tools.
Comments made by participants:
some of the more technical consumption tables in the report were difficult to understand
some energy retrofit methods described in the accompanying literature may not be correct
a presentation to the community on energy retrofit methods by a local contractor or building supply
representative would help homeowners implement EnerGuide recommendations
Monitoring Week:
The majority of participants expressed satisfaction with the one-week monitoring period. A small number
of participants indicated a willingness to participate for more than one week to obtain more accurate
average results, but the majority felt one week was sufficient.
Comments made by participants:
the monitoring week was useful in assembling data for the Household Report, but this length of
assessment may not reflect average consumption patterns
the monitoring week documents made participants very aware of day-to-day consumption habits
air travel was not measured, and could potentially be added to future surveys
information about pets should have been included in the survey (eg. cat litter waste would have had
an impact on waste total)
Household Report:
Participants felt the Household Report was an important part of the process primarily because it brought
together the results of the EnerGuide Assessment, Monitoring Week, Home Visit and questionnaire.
Comments made by participants:
a sufficient level of detail in the report helped participants determine resource reduction priorities –
comparison charts between households were excellent
report incorporated EnerGuide and Monitoring Week info into one understandable document
it would be most relevant to compare results of households with the same number of occupants (ie.
comparing 4-person and 1-person households does not appear to be as valid)
attaching dollar savings and cost information provided good incentive to implement
recommendations
2. Discussion of the merit of the recommendations provided:
Most participants agreed that the Household Reports contained a suitable number of recommendations,
and that most recommendations were relevant and realistic.
Comments made by participants:
many recommendations can be incorporated into future renovations
suggestions for changes to lifestyle habits are useful, and provide a reminder for the homeowner
when participating in daily activities (eg. changing lightbulbs, shopping, driving)
regarding transportation fuel reduction recommendations, there are many variables to consider
when purchasing a vehicle (family size, etc.), and fuel efficiency is not always as high a priority -perhaps car use should be recorded separately from household consumption
solar hot water heating systems were recommended, but these have not yet received city approval
on-demand water heating systems could also have been suggested to reduce heating energy use
3. Discussion of best techniques for achieving reduction in household environmental impact:
Most participants stated they believe legislated changes are more effective than voluntary measures.
Most participants support higher charges for high levels of consumption and financial incentives to
support sustainable purchases.
Comments made by individual participants:
One Tonne Challenge may not be a useful approach, as varying levels of reduction are required for
individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emission level to four tonnes
legislation and incentives in other regions of North America (eg. increased parking charges
downtown) has helped to reduce automobile emissions
Canadian media should encourage environmental sustainability to counteract prevalent
consumerism
vehicles are getting larger – projects like the Household Environmental Monitoring Project could
potentially show marketers and government that there are consumers who are interested in smaller
and more efficient vehicle choices
smart meters should be made more readily available for water, electricity, gas
the community should talk to the city about the Compost-Plus program, and talk to Ottawa Hydro
about renewable energy options
the community could potentially become a “carbon-neutral” group (purchase/sell credits)
the compactness of the Lindenlea neighbourhood encourages use of sustainable transportation
methods
the community aspect of the study is relevant, but current municipal planning in most areas of the
city often makes it difficult to travel without a car
it may be very difficult to achieve the densities proposed in the Ottawa 20/20 plan, as municipal
planning is limited in its ability to influence commercial interests and the desire for large lots
use community involvement and comparison as incentive for change
there should be a follow-up study performed – Lindenlea was formed as a model planned
community, and could become a model environmental community as well
a study of the environmental impact of this type of community compared to typical suburban
neighbourhoods would be beneficial
Post-Report Questionnaires: A Summary of Responses
Questionnaires were provided to households in May 2005 to assess the effectiveness of the Household
Monitoring Project and its various components. Fifteen of the twenty households responded; their
comments are summarized below:
1. Rating of EnerGuide Assessment, Monitoring Week and Household Report
The first section of the questionnaire asked participants to rate how useful they found the EnerGuide
Assessment, the Monitoring Week and the Household Report.
EnerGuide Assessment:
A majority of respondents gave the EnerGuide Assessment a ‘Very Useful’ rating as indicated below:
Very Useful:
Useful:
Not Useful:
87%
13%
0%
Most Useful (as compared to Monitoring Week and Household Report):
37%
Comments on the beneficial aspects of the assessment:
- the EnerGuide Assessment provided information about areas of greatest heat loss in the home, and
made suggestions about such items as furnace or HRV upgrades that the homeowners had not
previously considered
- the assessment allows homeowners to prioritize the most cost-efficient energy upgrades, including
simple improvements (eg. caulking of air leaks at joints) that can be done by the homeowners
themselves
- the potential for a government grant is an incentive to make energy-efficient retrofits
Concerns and suggested improvements:
- more extensive explanations should be provided of the HOTXP energy use/savings tables and
EnerGuide scores contained in the assessment report
- some EnerGuide recommendations are unlikely to be implemented as they would be fairly costly
and payback time frames are unrealistic
- one participant who has previous experience with thermal imaging to determine areas of heat loss
in a building envelope believes this would be a valuable addition to the EnerGuide assessment
Monitoring Week:
Most respondents rated the monitoring week as ‘Useful’ as shown below, but none ranked it as the most
useful of the three:
Very Useful:
Useful:
Not Useful:
20%
80%
0%
Most Useful (as compared to EnerGuide Assessment and Household Report):
0%
Comments on the beneficial aspects of the monitoring week:
- tracking of household habits identified the causes of highest resource consumption for their
household
- made them very aware of consumption and impact on the environment
- necessary part of data collection to produce the Household Report
Concerns about the Monitoring Week and suggested improvements:
- average annual waste and transportation fuel consumption could not be accurately assessed over a
one-week period, especially if one or more occupants was away from the house during this period
- the measurement of waste production was not very exact, and the level of total waste production in
comparison to other households may have been affected by factors such as pet ownership or a
large amount of diaper waste that resulted from having a young baby in the home
- a significant proportion of resources are often used outside the home, affecting the household’s
rating of environmental impact (eg. using water when showering at work, creating waste by
purchasing meals with disposable packaging at restaurants)
- one participant noted that in measuring transportation patterns, the distance traveled would be a
greater indicator than the number of trips taken, as many short trips use a smaller amount of fuel
than a few long trips
Household Report:
Most respondents rated the monitoring week as ‘Very Useful’ as shown below, and the highest number of
participants rated the Household Report as ‘Most Useful’ among the three Household Monitoring Project
components:
Very Useful:
Useful:
Not Useful:
73%
27%
0%
Most Useful (as compared to EnerGuide Assessment and Monitoring Week): 63%
Comments on the beneficial aspects of the Household Report:
- most comprehensive of three since it incorporated EnerGuide report and Monitoring Week info.
- the comment most often made by respondents was that comparisons made between households
regarding environmental impact were very relevant, providing either confirmation of the benefits
of measures they had already taken or incentive to make future improvements
- many homeowners also found that the customized information provided by the report allowed
them to implement changes that would make the most difference to that household’s
environmental impact
- liked comparisons within the community
Concerns or suggested improvements:
- some participants noted that a more extensive measurement of certain household factors or
lifestyle patterns (eg. height of existing landscaping to provide natural cooling, air travel not
accounted for, reasons for excessive automobile use, some family members not home that week)
could have provided a more accurate comparison between households
- comparisons would be most relevant between households with the same number of occupants
- some respondents felt the recommendation section could be improved by adding more detail on
how recommendations could be implemented; others felt that some recommendations were
impractical, not suited to the lifestyle of occupants or size of household, or could negatively affect
the look of the house
2. Household Comparisons
The second section of the questionnaire asked participants if comparisons between households were
useful as presented. A large majority of respondents (87%) found the comparisons useful, 7% found them
somewhat useful, and 7% did not find them useful. The following additional comments were made by
participants:
- One participant was surprised at the level of variation in consumption rates of other households, while
others attributed differences to certain physical factors such as the age of the home or travel distance to
work. Some respondents expressed an interest in learning in more detail which factors made the most
difference among households.
- The respondent who rated the comparisons as somewhat useful commented that the comparison of
households with similar traits (ie. number of occupants, number of cars) would be more relevant.
3. Surprises or Insights
The third section of the questionnaire asked if participants had received any surprises or insights from
their results or those of the community:
- Many respondents expressed surprise that their own levels of resource consumption were higher than
they expected. While some acknowledged that individual lifestyle patterns contributed to these results,
others attributed these levels to some physical factors of the home, such as unexpected levels of heat
loss in the building envelope resulting in higher levels of heating fuel consumption.
- Several respondents were pleasantly surprised to discover their levels of resource consumption were
much lower than they had assumed.
- While one respondent noted that higher levels of consumption among other households had negatively
affected the community total, another participant described the Lindenlea community as ‘conservationminded’ in comparison to their own household results.
- Some respondents were surprised to learn about the energy-efficiency failings of their house, eg. no
insulation in some walls
4. Satisfaction with Information Provided
When asked if households were satisfied with the amount of information they received in comparison to
the level of effort required to participate in the study, all respondents stated they were satisfied, and about
half added comments indicating they were very pleased with the information provided.
- Several respondents noted an appreciation of recommendations suited to their households; these
recommendations confirmed their own assumptions regarding the environmental benefits of certain
actions that had been previously considered.
5. Recommendations Most Likely to Be Implemented
Participants were asked which recommendations they were most likely to implement:
- Many participants had already implemented several recommendations from the report. The most
common measures implemented were lightbulb replacements and reductions in vehicle use (each
adopted by 6 households).
- Other measures implemented by 3-4 households were a switch to ethanol gas, measures to increase
house air tightness and insulation, a switch to low-flow showerheads and the use of the ‘sleep mode’
feature to reduce computer energy use.
- The measures most likely to be implemented by respondents within the year include energy-efficient
upgrades to the building envelope (increased insulation, air tightness), kitchen faucet aerator and
showerhead replacement and lightbulb replacement.
- Other commonly noted measures to be completed within this time frame include the lowering of
thermostat temperature, toilet and water heater replacement and the addition of rain barrels and ceiling
fans.
Recommendation
replace lightbulbs with compact fluorescents
insulation upgrades
increase air tightness of building envelope
install kitchen faucet aerator
reduce vehicle usage
install low-flow showerhead
use ethanol gas
insulate hot water tank
use energy-saving features on computer
replace toilet with water saving model
lower heating thermostat
use clothes line and/or drying rack
use rain barrels
install and use ceiling fans
replace water heater with more efficient model
install heat recovery ventilator
wash laundry in warm water, rinse in cold
close curtains during day to reduce cooling
energy
eliminate freezer
reduce lawn sprinkler use
start composting
replace furnace with high-efficiency model
replace vehicle with more fuel efficient model
install solar water heating system
have already
implemented
6
2
3
0
6
2
4
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
very likely to combined total would like to
implement
implement this
someday
year
5
11
1
9
11
3
7
10
1
8
8
0
1
7
0
5
7
0
0
4
0
4
4
0
0
3
0
2
3
3
3
3
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
3
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
6. Effectiveness of Measures to Reduce Environmental Impact
Participants were asked to rate the effectiveness of several suggested measures to reduce the
environmental impact of their households:
- Voluntary energy efficiency standards and conservation programs such as the One Tonne Challenge
were felt to be not effective or only somewhat effective by the majority of respondents.
- Highest priority initiatives included legislating higher energy-efficiency standards, promoting good
environmental choices by providing tax rebates for energy-efficient purchases, increasing taxes on
inefficient vehicles or appliances and implementing progressive utility billing. The item with the
highest combined rating of ‘high priority’ or ‘very effective’ was improving transportation
infrastructure to encourage public transit, biking or walking. Each of these initiatives involve
government taking a stronger role in legislating and supporting good environmental practice, and on
consumers paying for the environmental cost of their consumption.
- Other suggestions:
- implement higher hydro peak period pricing
- free parking and the use of bus lanes on downtown streets for hybrid and electric vehicles
- implement more sustainable urban planning measures that support intensification and reduce
expansion into greenspaces
- reduce the sale of energy to the US to encourage its adoption of more sustainable energy policies
- contractor do-it-yourself workshops and bulk-buying of environmentally-friendly products within
local communities
Initiative
High Priority
Improve transportation infrastructure to
encourage public transit use, biking and/or
walking.
Legislate higher energy efficiency standards
for appliances and vehicles.
Provide significant tax rebates for purchase
of energy-efficient appliances, vehicles,
alternative energy sources.
Provide additional grants for energy-efficient
home improvements, similar to those
currently provided through the EnerGuide
program.
47%
Very
Combined Somewhat
Effective
Total
Effective
47%
93%
7%
Not
Effective
0%
67%
13%
80%
20%
0%
47%
33%
80%
20%
0%
33%
40%
73%
27%
0%
Implement progressive utility billing where
rates increase with household consumption.
40%
33%
73%
27%
0%
Increase utility charges (heating fuel,
electricity, water) to reflect the full cost of
production and environmental impact.
Increase taxes on inefficient vehicles or
appliances.
Fund community-based alternative energy
sources or other sustainable initiatives.
20%
53%
73%
20%
7%
47%
20%
67%
27%
7%
13%
47%
60%
40%
0%
Expand the EnerGuide program to include
assessment of lifestyle factors, electricity,
water, transportation and waste consumption
(similar to the Household Report).
14%
36%
50%
36%
14%
Implement community programs to assist
households in reduction of household
impact.
Promote resource conservation programs for
individuals such as the One Tonne
Challenge.
Promote voluntary energy efficiency
standards for appliances and vehicles.
13%
33%
47%
53%
0%
0%
27%
27%
73%
0%
7%
7%
13%
53%
33%
Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Ottawa
Heating Degree Days
Month
2003
2004
November
468.8
484.3
3% higher
December
722.2
814.9
13% higher
1191.0
1299.2
9% higher
Subtotal: November-December
Month
Difference 2003 to 2004
2004
2005
Difference 2004 to 2005
January
1045.3
920.7
12% lower
February
750.0
700.6
7% lower
March
559.2
668.8
20% higher
April
377.8
324.8
14% lower
May
166.2
205.0
23% higher
June
54.0
16.1 *
70% lower
July
1.8
2.9
61% higher
August
29.8
8.4
72% lower
September
66.8
57.2 *
14% lower
269.8 *
6% lower
October
287.0
Subtotal: January-October
3337.9
3174.3
5% lower
Yearly Total
4528.9
4473.5
1% lower
Cooling Degree Days
Month
2003
2004
November
0.0
0.0
December
0.0
0.0
Subtotal: November-December
0.0
0.0
2004
2005
0.0
0.0
Month
January
Difference 2003 to 2004
Difference 2004 to 2005
February
0.0
0.0
March
0.0
0.0
April
1.9
0.0
May
4.0
1.9
53% lower
June
27.1
111.6 *
312% higher
July
86.5
128.6
49% higher
August
47.5
115.4
143% higher
September
11.1
October
0.0
33.1 *
198% higher
6.4 *
Subtotal: January-October
178.1
397.0
123% higher
Yearly Total
178.1
397.0
123% higher
Source: Environment Canada
Notes:
1. *Estimated figure according to Environment Canada.
2. Heating degree-days for a given day are the number of Celsius degrees that the mean temperature is below 18°C. If the
temperature is equal to or greater than 18°C, then the number will be zero. For example, a day with a mean temperature of
15.5°C has 2.5 heating degree-days; a day with a mean temperature of 20.5°C has zero degree-days. Heating degree-days
are used primarily to estimate the heating requirements of buildings.
3. Cooling degree-days for a given day are the number of Celsius degrees that the mean temperature is above 18°C. If the
temperature is equal to or less than 18°C, then the number will be zero. For example, a day with a mean temperature of
20.5°C has 2.5 cooling degree-days; a day with a mean temperature of 15.5°C has zero degree-days. Cooling degree-days
are used primarily to estimate the air-conditioning requirements of buildings.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
c
b
0%
6*
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1*
30%
33%
75%
15
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
20%
4*
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1*
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
5%
1*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1*
11
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10*
1
0
0
1*
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1*
1
50%
13%
40%
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
*includes implemented measures that were not recommended in individual Household Report
c = percentage of recommended measures implemented
b = percentage of measures implemented (whether recommended in individual Household Report or not)
53%
75%
15
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
5%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
25%
5*
0
1*
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5%
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55%
11
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
5%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
25%
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
15
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
15%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25%
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
20%
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
19
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30%
impl
32%
95%
impl rec
57%
35%
impl rec
36%
70%
14
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
install kitchen
faucet aerator
and use for
reduce lawn use ethanolhand
sprinkler use blended gas
dishwash
impl rec
20%
75%
impl rec
31%
80%
impl rec
100%
5%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
replace toilet install lowflow
repair leaking with water
saving model showerhd
faucets
impl rec
13%
40%
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
use clothes
line and/or
drying rack
instead of
dryer
impl rec
0%
25%
5
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
upgrade
clothes
washer to
more efficient
model
impl rec
0%
70%
impl rec
upgrade
fridge to more eliminate
freezer or
efficient
second fridge
model
impl rec
65%
85%
17
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
replace
incandes
lightbulbs
with compact
fluor
impl rec
100%
5%
impl rec
0%
80%
16
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
install a heat
install solar
recovery
water heating ventilation
system
system
impl rec
33%
45%
9
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
insulate hot
water tank
impl rec
replace
furnace with
highefficiency
model
impl rec
increase air
tightness of
building
envelope
impl rec
0%
55%
impl rec
0%
30%
impl rec
30%
50%
impl rec
replace water
heater with
add insulation
more efficient
to abovegrade walls
insulate attic model
a = percentage of households that received recommendation (out of 20 households)
a
0%
0
0
3
5%
0
0
2
Totals
0
impl rec
0
rec
1
Household
install
outdoor reset
control
insulate
thermostat for foundation
boiler system wall
Implementation Statistics (page 1 of 2)
0
1
0
0
6
30%
0
1
1
1
19
95%
32%
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
10%
2*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1*
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10%
50%
20%
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
20%
4*
0
0
0
1*
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
40%
44%
90%
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20%
21%
95%
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15%
60%
25%
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Other measures
0
0
14
11
16
0 insulate hot water tank
11
0
13
13
adjusted dishwasher, reduced ac use,
0 increased air tightness
0 installed new window on east side of house
0
17
16
0
0
16
0 carpool, install bath faucet aerators
13
15
0
15
16
0 install bath faucet aerators
changing exterior doors, hot water tank
0 insulation
0
17
12
0
0
17
18
19
14
15
impl.
Totals
0 replaced vehicles
rec.
0
0
insulate attic walls & floors, replace door,
0 insulate crawlsp
replaced two windows, improved wall
0 insulation and air tightness
0%
impl
0%
30%
impl rec
wash laundry
in warm
compost all
water, rinse in applicable
cold
items
impl rec
install and
use
rainbarrels
impl rec
use energysaving
features on
computer
impl rec
20%
75%
impl rec
install and
use ceiling
fans and/or
lower heating reduce ac
thermostat
usage
impl rec
25%
20%
impl rec
1
rec
replace
vehicle with
reduce
more fuel
vehicle usage efficient
by 25%
model
Implementation Statistics (page 2 of 2)
5
2
5
6
1
6
5
6
3
9
5
3
13
6
0
4
2
0
4
8
36%
13%
45%
55%
8%
46%
29%
38%
20%
56%
38%
20%
81%
35%
0%
22%
12%
0%
29%
53%
% impl.
Recommendations with Largest Average Resource Savings
Heating Energy *
Recommendation
insulate above grade walls
upgrade furnace
install solar hot water heating system
insulate foundation
insulate ceiling
increase air tightness
install heat recovery system
replace hot water tank
insulate hot water tank
Highest
Individual
Household
Savings (MJ)
Highest
Indiv GHG
Savings (T)
1.75
1.22
1.32
1.07
1.13
0.55
0.37
0.36
0.13
44205
27114
34799
49163
18779
20608
6222
9179
1337
2.65
1.63
2.09
2.95
1.13
1.24
0.37
0.55
0.13
Avg. Resource
Avg. GHG
Savings (kWh) Savings (T)
Highest
Individual
Household
Savings (kWh)
Highest
Indiv GHG
Savings (T)
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.07
0.07
1172
429
621
238
484
0.43
0.16
0.23
0.09
0.18
Avg. Resource
Avg. GHG
Savings (L) Savings (T)
Highest
Individual
Household
Savings (L)
Highest
Indiv GHG
Savings (T)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
56940
51480
8400
16016
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Avg. Resource
Avg. GHG
Savings (L) Savings (T)
Highest
Individual
Household
Savings (L)
Highest
Indiv GHG
Savings (T)
4206
1901
n/a
9.93
4.49
1.83
Avg. Resource
Avg. GHG
Savings (MJ) Savings (T)
29215
20275
21946
17842
18779
9257
6222
6067
1337
Electricity
Recommendation
upgrade clothes washer to Energy Star, front-loader
replace 5 incandescent bulbs with fluorescent
eliminate use of freezer
install and use clothes line for 25% of wash load
upgrade fridge to Energy Star model
515
429
415
205
192
Water
Recommendation
replace toilets with 6L per flush low-volume models
install water-saving showerheads
reduce use of outdoor sprinker by half-hour per week during summer months
use low-flow aerator to kitchen faucet for hand dishwashing
56940
16896
8400
3081
Transportation
Recommendation
upgrade vehicle to most efficient model in same class
reduce car use by 25%
use 10% ethanol-blended gasoline
609
384
n/a
1.44
0.91
0.37
* Averages and highest values in Heating Energy category calculated from measures recommended in Household Reports (other measures
recommended in individual EnerGuide assessments not included in calculations).
Visit our home page at www.cmhc.ca
06/06/06
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement