Download - The role of behaviour in the transition to more energy efficient use at home – Lessons from Portugal
Theroleofbehaviourinthetransitiontomoreenergy
efficientuseathome–LessonsfromPortugal
AnaSofiaTorresFaria
MBAinInternationalIndustrialManagementfromtheEsslingenUniversityofAppliedScience(DE,2003)
‘EuropeanDegreeinInternationalManagement’(DEMI)fromtheUniversityofValenciennesetduHainaut-
Cambresis(FR,2002)
DegreeinInternationalManagementfromtheRSMErasmusUniversity(NL,2001)
DegreeinEconomicsfromtheUniversidadedoMinho(PT,2001)
ThesissubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofaDoctorofPhilosophy
December2014
EngineeringandInnovationDepartment
FacultyofMathematics,ComputingandTechnology
TheOpenUniversity
I
Abstract
ThisstudyinvestigateddomesticenergyusebehavioursinPortugalandwaysofreducingenergyuse.Thisis
important because current energy use in the developed world is considered to be unsustainable.
Interventionstrategiescouldplayan important role to reduceenergyuse.Whilesomeprevious research
hasdemonstratedthatcertain interventionstrategiesdid,ordidnot,producechanges inbehaviour,they
mostly could not sufficiently explain the underlying and impacting determinants, or how change came
aboutandledtothedesiredadoption,whethershortorlong-term,ofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.
Thisstudythereforeaimstoexplorehowtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathomecould
beencouraged.Withthistheresearchhastheobjectivetobetterunderstandthedifferentdeterminantsof
energyuseathome,theunderlyingmotivations,barriersandpotentialinterventionstrategies.Toachieve
thisthestudyusesanexploratoryanditerativemulti-methodapproachconsistingofsurveyquestionnaires,
followedbyqualitativeresearchthroughfocusgroupstargetedatenergyusersathome,andalsoindividual
in-depthinterviewswithenergyconservationinterventionpractitioners.
The findings of this research show that if the rate of adoption ofmore energy efficient behaviours is to
increase,theninterventionsthatarefocusingonprovidinginformationorfinancialincentives,areunlikely
toworkforalargeproportionofenergyusers.Instead,theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursat
homeisseentodependontheabilityofinterventionstrategiestochallengeexistingnorms,thuscreating
newunderstandings,expectationsandutilizationofenergyservicesthatcouldmanifestintheadoptionof
moreenergyefficientbehaviours.Withthisfindingsalsosuggestthatcommunity-basedinitiativesmightbe
anadequatemeanstochallengesocialnormsandtobringaboutchange.
II
Declaration
Thisistocertifythat:
The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where indicated, due
acknowledgementshavebeenmade inthetext toallothermaterialused,thethesis is less than100,000
wordsinlength,inclusiveofallfootnotes,bibliographiesandappendices.
_____________
AnaFaria
December2014
III
Acknowledgments
FirstandforemostIwouldliketothankmypartnerinlifeAndreasforchallengingmeatfirstandsupporting
meafterwardsfromtheverybeginningofmyjourneyuntiltoday.Iwouldliketoextendmygratitudetomy
parents who on their singular way have always supportedme throughout these years.My PhD journey
startedoutofapassionfortheareaIworkinandthevastnumberofon-goingopenquestionstoexplore.
Having said that, I would like to thank the Open University and Professor Joaquim Borges Gouveia,
PresidentoftheboardofEnergaia,fortheopportunityprovidedbygrantingmetherightandflexibilityto
carry out my PhD work within a joint enterprise / academic partnership. I would like to extend my
acknowledgementtomycurrentandformerworkcolleagues, inparticulartothe2Js (JoãoandJosé) for
theirsupport,andforallthefruitfultalksandcompanionships.
WithregardstotheactualbodyofthisworkI’dliketoexpressmygratitudetotheEntidadeReguladorado
SectorEnergético(ERSE)forselectingtheEnergyprofilerprojectforfunding,whichsupportedmyresearch
at its initial stage. Itwaswithin thescopeof thisproject that Ihadthepleasure towork togetherwitha
highly skilled and motivated team and to learn how to become a researcher through practice. This
collaborationbroughtupanumberofopportunitiesthatwouldhavebeendifficulttorealizeotherwise.The
Energyprofilerprojectprovidedmewiththeopportunitytoexplorethetopiconalarger,nationalscalethat
otherwisewouldhavebeendifficulttoachieve.TheprojectalsoallowedmetoworktogetherwithDalila
AntunesandRuiGaspar,whowere thatpatient towalkme through the initial SPSS stepsandwith time
becamelong-termcolleagues. I’dalso liketoexpressmygratitudetothoseFGparticipantsandindividual
interviewees,whoIshallnotname,butwhoworkedwithmetogetheronmyresearchanddedicatedparts
oftheirtimetoanswermyquestionsandallowedmetoproceedwithmyresearch.Aspecialthankyouto
André,whotookpartofthisresearch,andwithwhomunfortunatelyIwillnotbeabletosharethiswork.
Last,butnotleast,IwouldliketothankDrChristianAtkins,DrNiiAmooandDrKieranMervynwhohave
workedasexternalreviewersandproofreaders.
Finally I would like to thankmy supervisors, Dr Christine Thomas, Dr Emma Dewberry and initially also
ProfessorMarylynCarriganwhosupportedmeintheinitialphase,aswellasthewiderMCTteamforthe
supportandguidanceprovidedtome.
IV
Tableofcontents
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................I
DECLARATION...........................................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..............................................................................................................................III
TABLEOFCONTENTS................................................................................................................................IV
LISTOFFIGURES........................................................................................................................................X
LISTOFTABLES........................................................................................................................................XII
LISTOFTERMINOLOGYANDABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................XIII
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 ENERGYUSEANDSUSTAINABILITY.................................................................................................................1
1.2 MOTIVATIONSANDBARRIERSTOENERGYUSE.................................................................................................3
1.3 ENERGYUSEANDBEHAVIOURCHANGE..........................................................................................................5
1.4 AIMOFTHERESEARCH...............................................................................................................................6
1.5 RESEARCHQUESTIONS...............................................................................................................................7
1.6 RESEARCHPROCESSANDINFORMATIONFLOW................................................................................................8
1.6.1 Researchprocess...........................................................................................................................8
1.6.2 Informationflow............................................................................................................................9
1.7 THERESEARCHWITHINTHEPORTUGUESECONTEXT........................................................................................11
2 ENERGYUSEANDSUSTAINABILITY...................................................................................................15
2.1 DOMESTICENERGYUSE............................................................................................................................15
2.1.1 Invisibilityofenergyuse..............................................................................................................18
2.1.2 Energyuseandenergysavingathome.......................................................................................19
2.2 DETERMINANTSOFENERGYUSEATHOME....................................................................................................20
2.2.1 Socialandculturalinfluences......................................................................................................21
2.2.2 Comfort,convenienceandneeds.................................................................................................23
2.2.3 Normsandenergyefficiency.......................................................................................................23
2.2.4 Economicinfluences....................................................................................................................25
V
2.2.5 Incomelevelsandenergypoverty...............................................................................................26
2.2.6 Demographictrends....................................................................................................................27
2.2.7 Theroleofinfrastructureandtechnologicalfactorsininfluencingenergyuseathome............28
2.2.8 Thereboundeffectanditsinfluenceondeterminingenergyuseathome.................................29
2.3 CONCLUDINGREMARKS............................................................................................................................31
3 ENERGYUSEBEHAVIOURS:MOTIVATIONSANDBARRIERS...............................................................33
3.1 MOTIVATIONSFORSAVINGENERGYATHOME...............................................................................................33
3.2 PRO-ENVIRONMENTALCONCERN:AMOTIVATIONALVARIABLEORBARRIERTOBEHAVIOUR?...................................33
3.3 BARRIERSTOADOPTINGMOREENERGYEFFICIENTBEHAVIOURS........................................................................37
3.3.1 Monetaryfocusasabarrier........................................................................................................37
3.3.2 External/macrobarriers:policybased,structuralandeconomicbarriers...................................37
3.3.3 Knowledgebasedbarriers...........................................................................................................39
3.3.4 Cultural–normativeandsocialbarriers.....................................................................................40
3.4 INDIVIDUALPSYCHOLOGICALBARRIERS........................................................................................................40
3.4.1 Habitsasabarrier.......................................................................................................................41
3.4.2 Comfortasapsychologicalbarrier..............................................................................................41
3.4.3 Individualbeliefsandself-efficacyasabarrier............................................................................42
3.4.4 Resistanceandunwillingnesstochangeasabarrier..................................................................44
3.5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS............................................................................................................................45
4 ENERGYUSEANDINTERVENTIONSTRATEGIES.................................................................................48
4.1 ENERGYUSE,INTERVENTIONSANDSUPPORTIVEFRAMEWORKS.........................................................................49
4.1.1 Potentialinterventionlayers.......................................................................................................53
4.2 BEHAVIOURALCHANGE,COMMUNICATIONANDPERSUASION...........................................................................54
4.2.1 Persuasionandcommunication..................................................................................................57
4.2.2 Mentalmodelsandcommunication............................................................................................58
4.2.3 Behaviouralchange,andrelevantandsupportivecommunication............................................59
4.3 STRUCTURALINTERVENTIONS....................................................................................................................59
4.3.1 Financial-economicinterventions................................................................................................60
4.3.2 Physical/technicalinterventions..................................................................................................60
VI
4.3.3 Legalregulation...........................................................................................................................60
4.4 PSYCHOLOGICALINTERVENTIONS................................................................................................................61
4.4.1 Informationprovision..................................................................................................................62
4.4.2 Commitmentandgoalsetting.....................................................................................................65
4.4.3 Behaviouralinterventionthroughdesign....................................................................................66
4.4.4 Rewardsandpunishments..........................................................................................................67
4.4.5 Learningtheoriesandmodelling.................................................................................................69
4.4.6 Sociallearningcommunitybasedapproaches............................................................................70
4.5 COMBINEDSTRUCTURAL/PSYCHOLOGICALINTERVENTIONS.............................................................................71
4.5.1 Promptingstrategies...................................................................................................................71
4.5.2 Feedbackprovision......................................................................................................................72
4.5.3 Monitoringsystemsandmetering...............................................................................................73
4.5.4 Socialmarketing..........................................................................................................................74
4.6 CONCLUDINGREMARKS............................................................................................................................77
5 RESEARCHMETHODOLOGYANDDESIGN..........................................................................................79
5.1 LITERATUREREVIEWONAVAILABLEMETHODS...............................................................................................80
5.1.1 Inductiveordeductive.................................................................................................................80
5.1.2 Subjectiveorobjective.................................................................................................................81
5.1.3 Positivismorconstructivism........................................................................................................81
5.1.4 Qualitativeorquantitative..........................................................................................................82
5.1.5 Availableresearchinstruments...................................................................................................84
5.1.5.1 Surveysandsurveyquestionnaires......................................................................................................85
5.1.5.2 Thematicanalysis..................................................................................................................................85
5.1.5.3 Contentanalysis...................................................................................................................................86
5.1.5.4 Comparativeanalysis............................................................................................................................86
5.1.5.5 In-depthindividualinterviews..............................................................................................................86
5.1.5.6 Telephoneinterviews...........................................................................................................................86
5.1.5.7 Groundedtheory..................................................................................................................................87
5.1.5.8 Actionresearch.....................................................................................................................................88
5.1.5.9 Focusgroups.........................................................................................................................................88
VII
5.1.5.10 Directparticipantobservation............................................................................................................89
5.2 METHODSUSED......................................................................................................................................90
5.3 SURVEYQUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................................................................................93
5.3.1 Surveyquestionnaireanddataanalysismethodology................................................................94
5.3.2 Questionaddedforthespecificpurposeofthisresearchwork...................................................96
5.4 FOCUSGROUPS.......................................................................................................................................98
5.4.1 Focusgroupobjectives................................................................................................................99
5.4.2 Focusgroupcomposition...........................................................................................................101
5.5 IN-DEPTHINDIVIDUALINTERVIEWS............................................................................................................104
5.5.1 Interviewobjectives...................................................................................................................104
5.5.2 Samplingofinterviewees...........................................................................................................105
5.6 SUMMARYOFEMPIRICALSTUDYMETHODS.................................................................................................106
5.7 QUALITATIVEDATAANALYSIS:FOCUSGROUPANDIN-DEPTHINDIVIDUALINTERVIEWS.........................................107
5.8 RESEARCHETHICS..................................................................................................................................108
5.9 SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................109
6 EXPLORINGDOMESTICENERGYUSE...............................................................................................111
6.1 CHARACTERISTICSOFDOMESTICENERGYUSE..............................................................................................111
6.1.1 Invisibilityasadistinctivecharacteristicofenergyuse.............................................................111
6.1.2 Thefundamentalroleofdomesticenergyuse..........................................................................116
6.2 DETERMINANTSOFDOMESTICENERGYUSE................................................................................................116
6.2.1 Relationofbehaviourandenergyuse.......................................................................................117
6.2.2 Buildingcharacteristics..............................................................................................................121
6.2.3 Growingnumberofhomeappliances........................................................................................121
6.2.4 Energyefficienthomeappliancesandoverallenergyprices.....................................................122
6.2.5 Theevolutionofculturalandsocialnorms................................................................................125
6.3 CONCLUDINGREMARKS..........................................................................................................................127
7 FACTORSINFLUENCINGENERGYUSEATHOME..............................................................................135
7.1 MOTIVATIONALVARIABLESANDENERGYEFFICIENTBEHAVIOURS....................................................................135
7.1.1 Themotivationforsavingmoney..............................................................................................135
VIII
7.1.2 Pro-environmentalbehaviourandpro-socialmotivations........................................................137
7.1.3 Needsandexpectationsanditsrelationtomotivationforsavingenergy................................144
7.2 BARRIERSFORADOPTINGMOREENERGYEFFICIENTBEHAVIOURS.....................................................................144
7.2.1 External/macrobarriers:policybased,structuralandeconomicbarriers.................................145
7.2.2 Knowledgebasedbarriers.........................................................................................................147
7.2.3 Cultural-normative-socialbarriers.............................................................................................152
7.3 INDIVIDUALPSYCHOLOGICALFACTORSASABARRIER.....................................................................................154
7.3.1 Habitsasanobstacletotheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.............................154
7.3.2 Comfortandconvenience..........................................................................................................157
7.3.3 Efficacyandoutcomeexpectations...........................................................................................158
7.3.4 Resistancetoandunwillingnesstochange...............................................................................161
7.4 CONCLUDINGREMARKS..........................................................................................................................163
8 INTERVENTIONSTRATEGIESANDPERCEIVEDEFFECTIVENESS.........................................................170
8.1 COMMUNICATIONDESIGNANDPERSUASION..............................................................................................171
8.2 STRUCTURALINTERVENTIONS..................................................................................................................173
8.2.1 Rewardsandpunishments........................................................................................................173
8.2.2 Incentivesandsamples..............................................................................................................174
8.2.3 Labelling....................................................................................................................................175
8.2.4 Demonstratingandfacilitating.................................................................................................177
8.2.5 Interventionthroughdesign......................................................................................................178
8.3 PSYCHOLOGICALINTERVENTIONS..............................................................................................................179
8.3.1 Targetedface-to-faceinformation............................................................................................179
8.3.2 Informationandcommunicationcampaigns............................................................................180
8.3.3 Educationinterventions.............................................................................................................183
8.3.4 Communitybasedinterventions................................................................................................184
8.4 COMBINEDSTRUCTURAL/PSYCHOLOGICALINTERVENTIONS............................................................................185
8.4.1 Information,feedbackandmonitoringequipment...................................................................185
8.4.2 Smartmeteringandpromptingstrategies................................................................................187
8.4.3 Information,feedbackandenergybills.....................................................................................188
IX
8.5 CONCLUDINGREMARKS..........................................................................................................................188
9 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................196
9.1 SPECIFICANSWERSTOTHERESEARCHQUESTIONS........................................................................................196
9.1.1 RQ1:Whatexplainsenergyuseathome?.................................................................................196
9.1.2 RQ2:Whatinfluencesenergyuseathome?..............................................................................197
9.1.3 RQ3:Whatisthepotentialroleofinterventionstrategiesonenergyuseathome?................199
9.2 KEYFINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................200
9.2.1 Importancetochallengetheunderstandingofnormal.............................................................201
9.2.2 Invisibilityofenergyanditsimplications...................................................................................202
9.2.3 Financialmotivationstosaveenergy........................................................................................202
9.2.4 Knowledge,competenceandself-efficacy.................................................................................203
9.2.5 Energyefficientbehaviourandoutcomeefficacy......................................................................203
9.3 LIMITATIONSOFTHERESEARCH................................................................................................................204
9.4 SUGGESTEDFUTURERESEARCH................................................................................................................204
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................206
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................................226
APPENDIXI:ENERGYPROFILERSURVEYQUESTIONNAIRE..........................................................................................226
APPENDIXII:REDUCEDVERSION-FGQUESTIONNAIREBEFOREDISCUSSION................................................................234
APPENDIXIII:CONSUMERINTERVIEWROADMAP...................................................................................................235
APPENDIXIV:PRACTITIONERINTERVIEWROADMAP...............................................................................................238
APPENDIXV:LISTOFANSWERSFORQUESTION6OFEPSURVEYQUESTIONNAIREREGARDINGENERGYSAVINGREPORTED
BEHAVIOURS..................................................................................................................................................240
APPENDIXVI:–LISTOFANSWERSFORQUESTION15OFEPSURVEYQUESTIONNAIREREGARDINGENERGYSAVINGREPORTED
BEHAVIOURS..................................................................................................................................................241
APPENDIXVII:VARIABLESDEFINEDDURINGENERGYPROFILERSTUDY.........................................................................242
APPENDIXVIII:–LISTOFANSWERSFORQUESTIONQ16OFEPSURVEYQUESTIONNAIRE(REPORTEDBARRIERSAND
CONSTRAINTS)................................................................................................................................................243
APPENDIXIX:–LISTOFIDENTIFIEDBARRIERSDURINGTHEFG.................................................................................244
APPENDIXX:–SAMPLEDISTRIBUTIONWITHREGARDTOREGION,GENDER,AGEGROUPSANDRURAL/URBANAREA............245
X
ListofFigures
FIGURE1-1:THETHREEMAINPILLARSOFSUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT:ECONOMICGROWTH,ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAND
SOCIALEQUALITY,(KENNEDY,2011)..................................................................................................................2
FIGURE1-2:THERELATIONBETWEENINDIVIDUALENERGYRELATEDBEHAVIOURANDBARRIERSTOCHANGE,(BARENERGY,2011).
...................................................................................................................................................................4
FIGURE1-3:SCHEMATICREPRESENTATIONOFRESEARCHDESIGN.....................................................................................8
FIGURE1-4:SCHEMATICREPRESENTATIONOFINFORMATIONFLOW................................................................................10
FIGURE2-1:DISTRIBUTIONOFENERGYCONSUMPTIONINHOUSEHOLDSBYSOURCETYPEIN2010,(INE,2011;INEI.P./DGEG,
2011)........................................................................................................................................................17
FIGURE2-2:DISTRIBUTIONOFENERGYCONSUMPTIONINHOUSEHOLDSBYUSETYPEIN2010,(INEI.P./DGEG,2011).........18
FIGURE2-3:MAINFACTORSINFLUENCINGCONSUMERBEHAVIOURANDEMERGENCEOFCONSUMPTIONPRACTICES,(EEA,2013).
.................................................................................................................................................................20
FIGURE2-4:ANACTOR-STRUCTUREMODELOFCONSUMPTION,(ADAPTEDFROMSPAARGARENANDVANVLIET(2000))........22
FIGURE3-1:DIAGRAMMATICREPRESENTATIONOFTHECONDITIONALRELATIONSBETWEENEFFICACYBELIEFSANDOUTCOME
EXPECTANCIES(ADAPTEDFROMBANDURA(1977B),P.350)................................................................................43
FIGURE4-1:REDUCINGCARUSE:FACTORSAFFECTINGBEHAVIOURALCHANGE,(PRENDERGRASTETAL.2008,P.104)............50
FIGURE4-2:DIAGRAMMATICREPRESENTATIONOFTHE4E’SMODEL,(DEFRA,2008,P.53).............................................52
FIGURE4-3:MINDSPACE’SINFLUENCESONBEHAVIOUR,(DOLAN,2010).......................................................................52
FIGURE4-4:THERELATIONBETWEENMATERIAL,SOCIALANDINDIVIDUALCONTEXTS,ADAPTEDFROMSOUTHERTONETAL.
(2011).......................................................................................................................................................53
FIGURE4-5:THERELATIONBETWEENENERGYUSEDETERMINANTS,MOTIVATIONS,BARRIERSTOCHANGEANDTYPESOF
INTERVENTION,ADAPTEDFROM,(BARENERGY,2011).........................................................................................54
FIGURE5-1:RESEARCHDESIGNFROMINITIALFRAMINGTOIMPLEMENTATION..................................................................79
FIGURE7-1:AVERAGEVALUESFORRISKPERCEPTIONOFCLIMATECHANGEANDATTITUDE,KNOWLEDGEANDENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOUR[N=1.014,F(2.89,2914.70)=434.73,P=.000,Η2=.57],(ENERGYPROFILER,2011).....................139
FIGURE7-2:VALUESFORATTITUDE,KNOWLEDGEANDRESPONSIBILITYTOWARDSENERGYUSE[N=1.014;F(2.89,2914.70)=
434.73,P=.000,Η2=.57],(ENERGYPROFILER,2011)....................................................................................140
FIGURE7-3:REPORTEDPRO-ENVIRONMENTALBEHAVIOURS[N=1.014],(ENERGYPROFILER,2011)..................................141
FIGURE7-4:REASONSFORNOTSAVINGENERGYATHOME–RESPONSESFROMFGS........................................................145
FIGURE7-5:FREQUENCYOFCATEGORYGROUPSOFBARRIERSDURINGFGS....................................................................145
XI
FIGURE7-6:ENERGYEFFICIENTBEHAVIOURSDISCUSSEDDURINGTHEFGS.....................................................................151
FIGURE8-1:TYPEOFINTERVENTIONSINRELATIONTOTHEBARRIERSTHATCOULDBEADDRESSED.......................................170
XII
ListofTables
TABLE5-1–FOCUSGROUPROADMAPANDTECHNIQUESUSED....................................................................................100
TABLE5-2–SUMMARYOFRESEARCHACTIVITIES......................................................................................................106
TABLE5-3–CONTENTANALYSIS............................................................................................................................108
TABLE6-1–RELATIONINBETWEENCHAPTERANDRESEARCHQUESTIONS......................................................................111
TABLE6-2–REPORTEDENERGYEFFICIENTBEHAVIOURS[N=1.014],(ENERGYPROFILER,2011).......................................119
TABLE6-3–SUMMARYOFFINDINGSRELATINGTORQ1............................................................................................128
TABLE7-1–COMPOSITESCALES[N=1.014,F(2.89,2914.70)=434.73,P=.000,Η2=.57],(ENERGYPROFILER,2011)..
.......................................................................................................................................................................138
TABLE7-2–SUMMARYOFFINDINGSRELATINGTORQ2............................................................................................164
TABLE8-1–SUMMARYOFFINDINGSRELATINGTORQ3............................................................................................193
XIII
ListofTerminologyandAbbreviations
Attitudes:“relativelyenduringpredispositiontorespondfavourablyorunfavourably”towardssomething,
(Simons,1976,p.80)influencingconsumptionpatterns,recommendationtoothers,beliefsandintentions”,
(Schiffman&Kanuk,1999,pp.199-200)
Attitude-Behaviour Gap: positive attitudes do not necessarily lead to behaviour, (Kollmuss & Agyeman,
2002), a phenomenon also known within pro-environmental behaviours, since general positive pro-
environmentalattitudesdonot seemtobeparticular importantpredictorsofenvironmentally significant
behaviour, (Bamberg,2003;Poortinga,Steg,&Vlek,2004;Schultz,Oskamp,&Mainieri,1995;Thøgersen,
2004).
Behaviour: the result ofmultiple conscious and unconscious processes aswell as internal (psychological
variablessuchasnorms,beliefsorvalues)andexternalvariables(e.g.social,economicphysical),driversand
constraints,personalcapabilities,orhabitsandroutines, (Jackson,2005;Nye,Whitmarsh,&Foxon,2010;
Stern,2000).
Behavioural change intervention:Genericandspecific interventions to supporta change inbehaviourat
theindividualandpopulationlevel. Intheenvironmentalcontext itcanbeunderstoodasachangeinthe
patternsofconsumptionofresources,(CommitteeonClimateChange[CCC],2012).
Behaviour-Based Programs: Energy efficiency programs that utilize an understanding of how individuals
interact with energy in order to decrease energy demand, (American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy[ACEEE],n.d.).
Beliefs:psychologicalstateinwhichanindividualholdsapropositionorpremisetobetrue,(Schwitzgebel,
2010),which in termsofbehaviourcouldbe the“salient information, relevant to thebehaviour”, (Ajzen,
1991,p.189).
Biocapacity:theareaoflandandproductiveoceansactuallyavailabletoproducerenewableresourcesand
absorbCO2emissions,(WorldWideFundforNature[WWF],2012).Biocapacityquantifiesnature’scapacity
toproducerenewableresources,providelandforbuilt-upareasandprovidewasteabsorptionservicessuch
ascarbonuptake.BiocapacityactsasanecologicalbenchmarkagainstwhichtheEcologicalFootprintcanbe
XIV
compared.Both theEcological Footprintandbiocapacityareexpressed ina commonunit calledaglobal
hectare,where1gharepresentsabiologicallyproductivehectarewithworldaverageproductivity.
CID: For thepurposeof this researchCID stands for ‘Consumer Interview’meaning the3 interviews that
were performed to consumers selected from the focus group that had been performed as part of the
empiricalstudy.
Collectiveefficacy:“senseofcollectiveefficacy”doesexistwhereindividualscansolvetheirproblemsand
improvetheirlivesthroughconcertedeffort,(Bandura,1986,p.449).
Comprehensive Home Energy Audits: An assessment of a home’s energy use that includes a visual
inspection, diagnostic testing, analysis, and a list of proposed improvements, ending with guidance to
completethework,oractualcompletionofthework,(ACEEE,n.d.).
Concept,conceptionorconstruct:abstractobject,oramentalrepresentation,e.g.wellbeing,depression,
poverty,achievement, family.Theyarenotonlythebuildingblocksoftheory,buttheyalsoformthe link
betweentheoryandempiricalresearch,(Bergman,2010).
Consumerism: emphasisonorpreoccupationwith theacquisitionof consumergoods, (OxfordUniversity
Press,2013).
Consumption: the “human transformation of materials and energy”, (Royal Society of London & U.S.
NationalAcademyofSciences,1997,p.684),requiringthe“selection,use,disposal,andrecyclingofgoods
andservices”,(Campbell,1995,p.102).
Curtailment behaviours: behaviours that must be performed frequently, involving repetitive efforts to
reduce energy, and involve more operational day to day habits and routines, such as lowering the
thermostat, turning lights and appliances off, (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, & Rothengatter, 2005; Gardner &
Stern,2002).
Demand-SideManagement:Theplanning,implementation,andmonitoringofutilityactivitiesdesignedto
encourage consumers tomodifypatternsofelectricityusage, including the timingand levelofelectricity
demand,(U.S.EnergyInformationAgency[EIA],2013).
XV
Descriptivenorm:whatmostpeopledo; theperception individualsholdaboutwhat isnormal inagiven
situation,(Cialdini,Kallgren,&Reno,1991;Cialdini,Reno,&Kallgren,1990).
Dwelling: a self-contained unit of accommodation, (Department for Communities and LocalGovernment
[DCLG],2012).
EcologicalFootprint:trackshumanity’sdemandsonthebiospherebycomparinghumanity’sconsumption
against theEarth’s regenerative capacity,orbiocapacity,by calculating thearea required toproduce the
resources people consume, the area occupied by infrastructure, and the area of forest required for
sequestering CO2 not absorbed by the ocean, (Galli et al., 2007; Kitzes et al., 2009;Wackernagel et al.,
2002).
Efficacyexpectations:“theconvictionthatonecansuccessfullyexecutethebehaviourrequiredtoproduce
outcomes”,(Bandura,1977a,p.193).
Efficiencybehaviours:infrequenttypeofbehaviours,likeforexampleone-offactions,whichoftenentailan
investment,suchas loftorcavitywall insulation,orbuyinganenergyefficientairconditioner.Commonly
alsoreferredtoas ‘efficiencybehaviours’or ‘investmentbehaviours’, (Abrahamseetal.,2005;Gardner&
Stern,2002;Kempton,Boster,&Hartley,1995).
EnergyAudit:assessmentofahome'senergyuse.These includeanumberofdifferent typesof surveys,
including (in increasing order of cost and complexity): online audits, in-home home energy surveys,
diagnostichomeenergysurveys,andcomprehensivehomeenergyaudits,(ACEEE,n.d.).
Energy Conservation: reduction in the amount of energy consumed in a process or system, or by an
organizationorsociety,througheconomy,eliminationofwaste,andrationaluse,(BusinessDictionary,n.d.).
Savingenergybydoingwith lessordoingwithout(e.g.,settingthermostats lower inwinterandhigher in
summer;turningofflights;takingshortershowers;turningoffairconditioners;etc.),(ACEEE,n.d.).
Energyefficiency:ratioof‘useful’outputstoenergyinputsforasystem.Thesysteminquestionmaybean
individualenergyconversiondevice (e.g.aboiler),abuilding,an industrialprocess,a firm,asectororan
entire economy, (Sorrell, 2007). Percentage of total energy input to a machine or equipment that is
consumedinusefulworkandnotwastedasuselessheat,(BusinessDictionary,n.d.).
XVI
Energy efficiency gap: difference between the ‘actual energy efficiency’ and the ‘potential efficiency’,
meaning part of the efficiency gain due to technological developments is being ‘taken back’, (Feenstra,
Backhaus,&Heiskanen,2009).
EnergyEfficiencyMeasure:particulargoodorpracticethatprovidesanenergyefficiencybenefit.Upgraded
insulation, energy efficient appliances, and adjusting a boiler’s limit control are examples of measures,
(ACEEE,n.d.).
EnergyEfficiencyPotential:amountofenergysavingspossible,(ACEEE,n.d.).
Energy Management System: computerized system for fully automatic control of HVAC, lighting,
refrigeration,andothercommercialbuildingsubsystemsinordertoaccuratelymanageandmonitorindoor
temperature, comfort, and environmental quality. An EMS often saves energy andmoney by operating
systemsonlywhenneededandbyallowingtime-of-dayschedulingandpeakloadsheddingcontrol,(ACEEE,
n.d.).
Energyservices: theseare theservices thatpeoplegain fromusingenergyand includewarmrooms,hot
water,awell-lithomeandrefrigeratedfood,(EnvironmentalChangeInstitute[ECI],2005)
Energy Performance Certificate (EPC): The certificate provides a rating for residential and commercial
buildings,showingtheirenergyefficiencybasedontheperformanceof thebuilding itselfand itsservices
(such as heating and lighting). EPCs are requiredwhenever a building is built, sold or rented out, (CCC,
2012).
EnvironmentallySignificantBehaviour(ESB):abehaviourthatdoesnot“threatenhumanhealth,welfare,
orotherthingspeoplevalue”,(Stern,1997,p.15)andthat ischaracterizedby its“positive impactonthe
availability of materials or energy from the environment and/or by the extent to which the behaviours
positivelyalterthestructureanddynamicsofecosystemsorthebiosphere”,(Stern,2000,p.408).
EP:ForthepurposeofthisresearchEPstandsfor‘energyprofilerstudy’ashadbeenconductedwithinthe
empiricalwork.
FG: For thepurposeof this researchFGstands for ‘FocusGroup’ as theyhadbeenconductedwithin the
empiricalwork.
XVII
Habits:Even though thiswork is awareof thedifferentunderstanding from the fieldsofpsychologyand
sociologyofthehabitsconstruct,itisnotwithinthescopeofthisresearchtoadvocateforoneortheother
understanding.Asa resultof this, habits, routinesandpracticesmightbeused interchangeablymeaning
individualsrunningonautopilot,(Grist,2010).
Household:onepersonoragroupofpeoplewhohavetheaccommodationastheironlyormainresidence
andeithershareatleastonemealaday,orsharethelivingroom,(DCLG,2012).
Information-Behaviour Gap: disconnection between knowledge hold and behaviour outcome, (Jackson,
2005;Schultz,2002;Southerton,McMeekin,&Evans,2011;Stern,1999).
Injunctivesocialnorm:whatoughttobedone;explicitlyreflectthemoralrulesandguidelinesofthesocial
group,(Cialdinietal.,1990,1991).
Lifestyles:thewaypeoplelivetheirlife,fulfiltheirneedsandaspirations,throughthemediationofgoods
that are closely linked to material and resource flows, (Backhaus, Breukers, Mont, Paukovic, &Mourik,
2012).
Moralnorms:analtruisticbehaviourresultsonceamoralnormisactivated.Thisactivationoccursoncean
individualbecomesawarethathisorherbehaviourhaspossiblenegativeconsequencesforothersand is
willingtotakepersonalresponsibilityfortheothers’well-being,(Schwartz,1970,1977).
Norms:“rulesandstandardsthatareunderstoodbymembersofagroupandthatguideand/orconstrain
socialbehaviourwithouttheforceoflaws”,(Cialdini&Trost,1998,p.152).
Outcomeexpectancy:“aperson’sestimatethatagivenbehaviourwillleadtocertainoutcomes”,(Bandura,
1977a,p.193).
Perceived Behavioural Control: individual’s belief about the easiness or difficulty of performing a given
behaviour,(Ajzen&Madden,1986).
PersonalCarbonAlliances:WithPCAs,eachadulthasanequalcarbonallocationtocoverpurchasesofgas,
electricity, petrol and aviation. The PCA brings home to the individual, in a forcefulway, the amount of
carbonbeingreleasedthroughdailyactivities,(ECI,2005).
XVIII
Personal norms: feelings of strong moral obligation that people experienced to engage in pro-social
behaviour,(Schwartz,1970,1977).
PID:ForthepurposeofthisresearchPIDstandsfor‘ProviderInterview’,meaningthe3interviewsthatwere
performedtopeopleworkingforinterventionproviderswithintheenergyarea.
Priceelasticity: thepercentagechange inonevariable followingapercentagechange inanother,holding
othervariablesconstant,(Sorrell,2007).
Reboundeffect:alsoknownas‘take-backeffect’,ismeasuredbythedifferencebetweentheprojectedand
actualsavingsduetoincreasedefficiencyandisnormallyexpressedasapercentageoftheexpectedenergy
savingsfromanenergyefficiencyimprovement,(Sorrell,2007).
Self-efficacy:“people’sjudgmentsoftheircapabilitiestoorganiseandexecutecoursesofactionrequiredto
attaindesignatedtypesofperformances”,(Bandura,1986,p.395).
Single-ActionBias:tendencypeoplehavetoengageintosinglecorrectiveactionsandtherefore‘doingtheir
bit’thusincreasingtheresistanceanddecreasingtheneedoftakingadditionalactions,(Weber,1997).
SmartMeters:Anadvancedelectricitymeterthatusesrealtimesensorstoprovideinformationonpower
consumptionandprice,(ACEEE,n.d.).
Social Marketing: the application of marketing principles and tools to achieve socially desirable goals,
(Andreasen,1995;Kotler&Zaltman,1971).
SocialNorms:unwrittenrulesandexpectationsthatframeappropriateandinappropriateexpectationsand
behaviourswithinagroupofindividuals,(Lewis,1969).
Spillovereffect:termusedtodescribethetransferabilityacrossbehavioursandcontextsbetweenonekind
ofenvironmentalbehaviourandanother,(Thøgersen&Ølander,2002).
Subjectivenorm:individualperceptionaboutwhatotherpeoplewhoareimportanttohim/herthinkofthe
specific behaviour, rather than the individual personal belief about themorality of the given behaviour,
(Ajzen&Fishbein,1980).
XIX
Sustainable development: “the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without
compromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds”,(UnitedNations[UN],1987).
Sustainableconsumption: “theuseofgoodsandservices that respondtobasicneedsandbringabetter
qualityof life,whileminimising theuseofnatural resources, toxicmaterials andemissionsofwasteand
pollutantsoverthelifecycle,soasnottojeopardisetheneedsoffuturegenerations”,(NorwegianMinistry
oftheEnvironment,1994).
Values:Consideredbysome,asthehardestthingtochange,(Andreasen,1995;Kotler,Roberto,&Roberto,
1989),valuesmightbeoveralldefinedas“adesirable trans-situationalgoalvarying in importance,which
servesasaguidingprincipleinthelifeofapersonorothersocialentity”,(Schwartz,1992,p.21).
1. Introduction
1
1 Introduction
Currentenergyuseinthedevelopedworldisconsideredtobeunsustainablewithenergyconsumptionand
production patterns undermining sustainable development and the equitable distribution of resources
worldwide, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [IPCC], 2007; Stern, 2007). To achieve more
sustainableenergyuselevelsrequiresacombinationofculturalandtechnologicaladvancesandinnovation
inthedesignofsocialandinstitutionalsystemsandsystemsofproductionandconsumption,(Cole,2011).
However,althoughsuchchangesatsocietallevelarelikelytoleadtosomereductionsinenergyuseatthe
household level, it is recognised that significant change in household energy consumption is unlikely to
occurwithoutchangesinindividuals’energyusagebehaviours.Toachievethegoalofsustainablelevelsof
householdenergyuserequiresaclearunderstandingofenergyuseathomeandwhat influencescurrent
energy use behaviours so to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, (Darby, 2006; Janda, 2011). This
research aims to explore how the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home could be
encouraged.With this the researchhas theobjective tobetterunderstand thedifferentdeterminantsof
energyuseathome,theroleofmotivationsandbarriersthatdriveenergyuseathome,andthepotential
roleofinterventionstopromotebehaviouralchange.
This chapter firstly sets the context for the researchbydescribing theneed forworking towardsamore
sustainable society and the important role that energy use plays in this. It then considers the role of
individuals’energyusebehaviours;whatmotivatesthemandwhatbarrierstheyfaceandhowtheymight
beinfluencedtoreducedomesticenergyuse.Thechapterconcludeswiththeresearchaims,theresearch
questionsandthestructureofthethesis.
1.1 Energyuseandsustainability
Energyuseunderpinsmostaspectsofmodernlife.Itisimportantintheproductionofgoods,mostservices
andthewaywelive.However,manyformsofenergy,inparticularfossilfuels,contributetoenvironmental
problems, such as climate change and local air pollution, (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development,(OECD],2012).Whatwedesireinamodernlifestylethereforeseemstocomeatthecostof
undesired environmental problems and this is particularly prevalent for developed countries, (UN, 1987;
1. Introduction
2
IPCC,2007;Stern,2007).Recenttrendsregardingincreasingglobalpopulation,(U.S.CensusBureau,2011;
UN,2011)andincreasingmaterialconsumption,asaconsequenceofthegrowinglevelofperceivedneeds,
have exacerbated this problem, (The Royal Society, 2012). It has therefore been argued that changes in
currentlifestyleswillberequiredtoachieveasustainablelevelatwhichtheneedsofthepresentaremet
without compromising the environment for future generations so as to allow for the long-term use of
natural resources for currentaswell as futuregenerations, (Backhausetal., 2012; IUCN,UNEP,&WWF,
1991; UN, 1987). Development should thus be socially and morally just, ethically acceptable and
economicallysound,withenvironmentalindicatorsasimportantaseconomicindicators,(LealFilho,2011;
UN,1987).Assuch,sustainabledevelopment impliesabalanced intersectionofeconomic,environmental
andsocialfactors,(Elkington,1997),(Figure1-1).
Figure1-1:Thethreemainpillarsofsustainabledevelopment:economicgrowth,environmentalprotectionandsocialequality,(Kennedy,2011).
However, evidence suggests that it will become increasingly difficult to meet such expectations and
commitments,(WWF,2012),withinafastgrowinghumanpopulationthathasincreasedfrom1.6billionin
1900to7billionin2011,(U.S.CensusBureau,2011)andisforecasttoreachjustover9.3billionby2050,
(UN,2007).Thisrapidandwidespreadchangeintheglobalhumanpopulation,coupledwithunprecedented
levelsofconsumption,hasimplicationsforfiniteplanetaryresourcesandpresentsachallengenotonlyto
theenvironment,butalso tohumanhealthandwellbeing, (TheRoyal Society,2012).What citizens from
developedcountriesperceiveasbeinga,‘normallifestyle’,mightnotbesustainableinaglobalcontextof
populationgrowthanddepletingnaturalresources.Thisbecomes,inparticular,apparentwhenconsidering
the ecological footprint that measures the demands of humanity on the biosphere by comparing
1. Introduction
3
consumption against the Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity, (WWF, 2012). The ecological
footprintshowsaconsistenttrendofoverconsumptionforthefewlastdecades,withagrowingbiocapacity
deficit.Humanity’sannualdemandonthenaturalworldhasexceededwhattheEarthcanannuallyrenew
since the 1970s. In 2008 it exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity bymore than 50 per cent, whichmeans it
wouldtake1.5yearsfortheEarthtofullyregeneratetherenewableresourcesconsumedinoneyear,(Galli
etal.,2007;Kitzesetal.,2009;Poumanyvong&Kaneko,2010;Wackernageletal.,2002;OnePlanetLiving,
n.d., WWF, 2012). At the individual human level the ecological footprint is influenced by the choices
individualsmakeonwhattheyeat,whatproductstheypurchase,howtheyheat/cooltheirhomesandhow
they travel, (WWF,2012).Achallengeofouragecould thusbeseen indecouplinghumanprogress from
resource use and environmental decline, (KPMG, 2012). This is to say decoupling unsustainable human
needs, wants and expectations and rebuilding these in a more sustainable way. As long as this is not
achievedhowever, therewillbea conflictbetween limitlessneedsvs. limited resourcesand theneed to
definetheboundariesofwhatisunderstoodas‘sustainable’,‘normal’or‘sociallyacceptable’consumption,
(NorwegianMinistryoftheEnvironment,1994;UN,1987,1992).
Sustainability in relation to energy use can also, “be understood as a continuous learning process that
occurswhenagivensocietyacquiresthenecessaryknowledgetoreduce itsenergyconsumptionwithout
diminishing itsqualityof lifeorcreatingnewsocial inequalities”,(Tabaraetal.,1999,p.1).Thereforethe
focusoffulfillingindividualneedsinamoresustainablewayisacoreconceptofthisthesis;reinforcingthat
sustainabilityinenergytermsshouldnotmeanlosingwellbeing,butratherdoingthingsinadifferentway.
Partofthatdifferentwayrequiresindividualbehaviouralchangeandanunderstandingofthemotivations
andbarriersforchange.
1.2 Motivationsandbarrierstoenergyuse
Motivations are factors encouraging, or influencing, a change in behaviour, or maintaining a current
behaviourandbarriersthosethatobstructorlimitchange.Savingmoneyandprotectingtheenvironment
arethefirstandsecondmostfrequentlyreportedmotivationsforsavingenergyathome,(Eurobarometer,
2011a).However,theyarenotoftenfullyrealizedasreducedenergyusemightbeperceivedasnegatively
impactingcomfortorwellbeing.Insuchanequationthegainandmotivationofmaintainingoldhabitscan
1. Introduction
4
haveahigherprioritythanthatofsavingmoneyandprotectingtheenvironment.Inthissituationthegain
and motivation of maintaining old habits constitute a barrier to the adoption of more energy efficient
lifestyles, (Jackson, 2005; Prendergrast, Foley, Menne, & Isaac, 2008). Individuals’ own habits, or their
compliance to existing and commonly accepted standards and social norms, canwork asmotivations to
maintaining existing behaviours, (EEA, 2013; Shove, 2003). To achieve a change towards energy efficient
behaviour would thus require understanding the respective barriers, (Homans, 1958), as well as the
underlying attitudes and values, (Andreasen, 1995; Homans, 1958; Kotler et al., 1989). This interplay
betweenbarriersandbehavioursisdepictedinFigure1-2andThrone-Holst,Strandbakken,andStø(2008)
suggestthatitconsistsofsixbarriergroups.Figure1-2highlightstheinterplayintermsofmacroandmicro
factors between the individual, surrounding setting and infrastructure that could motivate, enable and
reinforceindividualbehaviouralchangeaswellasillustratethecomplexityofsuchrelations.
Figure1-2:Therelationbetweenindividualenergyrelatedbehaviourandbarrierstochange,(Barenergy,2011).
In accordance with Throne-Holst et al. (2008), barriers toward the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviourscouldbegroupedas:
(1) Information/knowledge barriers, where people are lacking relevant information regarding energy
efficiencymeasuresthattheycouldadopt.
(2) Physicalandstructuralbarriers,wheretheexistingphysicalstructureofdwellingsandofsocietycanbe
adisincentiveandtendtolockpeopleintolesssustainablebehaviours.
1. Introduction
5
(3) Political barriers, such as laws and regulations that frame and determine the ability to change
individualbehaviours.
(4) Cultural-normative barriers, as people do not live in isolation, and social and cultural norms may
restrictengagementinmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,eveniftheyholdapositiveopiniontowards
them.
(5) Economic barriers, since more energy efficient solutions can be expensive, the higher prices may
thereforediscouragepeoplefrombecomingmoreefficientintheirenergyuse.
(6) Individual-psychological barriers, as a pre-determinant of the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours. This is the individual willingness to change behaviour that is influenced by individual’s
personalhabitsandcomfortzones,includingforinstancetheconceptofself-efficacy,(Bandura,1986),
orPerceivedBehaviourControl,(Ajzen,1991).
As such,anygivenmotivationmighthave to faceanumberofbarriers fromdifferentbarriergroups.To
achievebehaviouralchangetowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursthereforewouldnot
onlyrequireunderstandingalloftherespectivebarriers,butalsotheunderlyingattitudesandvalues,and
subsequentlymeanstoovercomeeachofthem.
1.3 Energyuseandbehaviourchange
Energysavingcanbe realized through infrastructuraldevelopment, increasing technologicaldevelopment
anddeployment,theintroductionofmoreenergyefficientmaterialsandappliancesandalsothroughthe
rationalandsustainableuseofenergyathome,basedontheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.
For decades, research has mainly focused on the technical component, such as providing more energy
efficienthomeappliancesorbuildingmaterialsandonlymorerecentlyhasattentionbeendirectedtothe
non-technical components and to the contribution of how people behave and interact with home
appliances and infrastructures, in terms of energy use at home, (EEA, 2013). The reasons for a focus on
technologymighthavebeenthatitwasexpectedtobe‘easier’toinfluenceefficiencybehavioursthatare
characterized by one-off actions, instead of changing curtailment behaviours, whichmust be performed
frequently, (Abrahamseetal., 2005;Gardner&Stern,2002).However, focusingonefficiencybehaviours
usually involvestheneedforan initial investment,whichcan itselfactasabarrier.Butevenintheevent
1. Introduction
6
thatthosebarrierscanbeovercomeandfinancialsavingsgenerated,theenergysavedmightsubsequently
beusedforotherenergyusingactivity,ortoincreasethenumberofhomeappliancesthatpeoplehave.It
canthus leadtowhat isknownasa ‘rebound-effect’wheretheenergysavingpotential isnot realized in
practice,(Khazzoom,1980).Forthesereasonsthecontributionthatcurtailmentbehaviourscanplayshould
notbeunderestimatedandinterventionsthatattempttochangebehavioursmust,ultimately,needtolead
to long-termbehaviour change to be successful. The literature shows a diversity of existing intervention
strategies and types that could support and enable behavioural change and can be grouped into two
broadercategories:(a),structuraland(b),psychologicalinterventions,(Poortingaetal.,2004;Steg,2003).
Structuralinterventionsaimtochangethe(social)contextinwhichbehaviouraldecisionstakeplace,based
onthebeliefthatbyalteringtheconditionsonwhichbehaviourisbased,thebehaviourwillthenchangein
accordance. In contrast, psychological interventions aim at changing existing perceptions, knowledge,
attitudes,normsandvalues,(i.e. individual,micro-levelvariables).Theunderlyingassumptionhereisthat
by changing these determinants, behaviour will change accordingly. Structural and psychological
interventionshavebeenemployed to encouragehousehold energy conservationwith varyingdegreesof
success, (Abrahamseet al., 2005;Geller,Harrington,Rosenfeld, Tanishima,&Unander, 2006;Heiskanen,
Mourik, Feenstra, & Pariag, 2009; Kurz, 2002; Southerton et al., 2011). A number of studies apparently
suggest that success, when it occurs, rarely survives when the change interventions are discontinued,
(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Heiskanenetal.,2009;Kurz,2002;Lutzenhiser,2002).Despitethegrowingbodyof
existingresearchandevidence,thereappearshoweverstilltobenoclearevidencewithintheliteratureon
thepotential long-termeffectivenessof change interventionswithin the fieldof energyuse athome; an
areathatthisworkattemptstoexplorefurther.
1.4 Aimoftheresearch
Theoverallaimofthisresearchistoexplorehowtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathome
couldbeencouraged.Withinthis,afirstobjectiveistoprovideanoverviewofthenatureofenergyuseat
home and the factors that influence energy use, (chapter 2). Subsequently the research investigates
whether the same set of factors and conditions can be found within the empirical study in Portugal,
(chapter6).Secondly,thisresearchhastheobjectivetoadvanceonthetheoryofmotivating,enablingand
1. Introduction
7
reinforcing factors that could promote the adoption of more energy efficient habitual behaviours and
practicesatahouseholdlevel,(chapter3),aswellasforthePortuguesecontext,(chapter7).Thirdly,this
researchhastheobjectivetoexplorethepotentialeffectivenessofchangeinterventionswithinthefieldof
energyuseathomeandthedifferenttypesofinterventionsthatmightbeused,(chapter4)andhowthose
areperceivedandevaluatedwithintheexamplesofpracticeinPortugal,(chapter8).
Thereasonforthegeographicfocusofthisresearchwastwo-fold.Firstly,theresearcherwasawareofan
apparent scarcity of existing studies that investigated domestic energy use in Portugal and secondly, for
pragmaticreasons,astheresearcherisbasedinPortugalandcognisantofthesocialcontextofhousehold
energyuse.ThegeographicalscopehasbeenlimitedtonorthernPortugaltoexplorethetopicofresearch
inmoredepth.
1.5 ResearchQuestions
Basedupon the reviewof the literatureaswell asdrivenby the thesis aimandobjectives, the following
researchquestions,(RQ),havebeenderived:
ResearchQuestion1:Whatexplainsenergyuseathome?
a) Whatarethecharacteristicsofenergyuseathome?
b) Whataredeterminantsofenergyuseathome?
c) Howdoindividualsunderstandtheirenergyuseathome?
ResearchQuestion2:Whatinfluencesenergyuseathome?
a) Whataremotivationalvariablesforadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours?
b) Whatarethebarriersforadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours?
c) Howdoindividualpsychologicalfactorsinfluenceenergyuse?
ResearchQuestion3:Whatisthepotentialroleofinterventionstrategiesonenergyuseathome?
a) Whatareperceivedrequirementsofinterventionstrategies?
b) Whatareindividualperceptionsontheeffectivenessofinterventionstrategies?
1. Introduction
8
1.6 Researchprocessandinformationflow
Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoftheresearchprocessandinformationflow.
1.6.1 Researchprocess
Tofullyexploretheresearchquestions,thisresearchusesamixedmethodsdesign,wherequalitativeand
quantitativemethodsarecombined.Theuseofbothqualitativeandquantitativemethodswasseentobe
necessary to encompass differing aspects of the research, as explained in Chapter 5. Figure 1-3 is a
schematicrepresentationoftheresearchdesign.
Figure1-3:Schematicrepresentationofresearchdesign.
AscanbeseeninFigure1-3,theresearchstartswithacomprehensiveliteraturereviewofthetheoretical
approaches to understanding human behaviour in general and more specifically, those concerned with
more energy efficient lifestyles. To better explore the topic, the literature around energy use and
sustainabilitywasreviewedto locatediscussionand identifythereasonswhypeopleareexpectedtouse
lessenergyathome. Inaddition, the literaturewithin the fieldofbehavioural change,moregenerallyas
wellaswithinanenergycontext,hasbeenreviewed.Chapter2explorestheuseofenergyatahousehold
1. Introduction
9
levelanditsrelationtosustainability.Chapter3reviewstheliteratureonunderstandinghumanbehaviour
and inparticular,ofenergy relatedbehavioursathome.Thissectionalso looksatmotivating factorsand
barriers relatedto individualbehaviouralchangewithintheenergyarea.Chapter4 looksat thepotential
effectiveness of change interventionswithin the field of energy use at home and the different types of
interventions thatmightbeapplied.Thischapter includesa reflectionaround theoriesofpersuasionand
theirroleinframeworksforchangesuchassocialmarketing.Chapter5detailstheresearchmethodologies
adoptedandtheresearchdesignfortheempiricalphaseofthisresearch.Chapter6,7and8presentand
discuss the findings from the empirical phase of this research. These include the results from the
energyprofilernationalsurvey,exploratoryfocusgroupsandin-depthinterviews.Finally,chapter9presents
theresearchconclusions,drawingonthetheoreticalandempiricalfindingsanddiscussesthecontribution
ofthisresearch.
1.6.2 Informationflow
Figure 1-4 provides a schematic representation of the information and how the respective chapters and
sectionsinformeachother.Ascanbeseen,inFigure1-4therearethreedirectinformationstringsthatstart
inchapter1,(sections1.1,1.2,1.3),whicharethenfollowedupintheliteraturereview,(chapters2,3,and
4)andsubsequentlylookedatempirically,(chapters6,7,and8).
1. Introduction
10
Figure1-4:Schematicrepresentationofinformationflow.
Chapter(1(*(Introduction 1.1.#Energy#use#and#
sustainability#
1.2.#Motivations#and#
barriers#to#energy#use
1.3.#Energy#use#and#
behaviour#change
Chapters(2,(3(and(4(*(Literature(Background( 2.#Energy#use#and#
sustainability
3.#Energy#use#behaviours:#
motivations#and#barriers
4.##Energy#use#and#
Intervention#strategies
Chapters(6,(7(and(8(*(Empirical(Work( 6.#Exploring#domestic#
energy#use#in#Portugal
7.#Factors#influencing#
energy#use#at#home
8.#Intervention#strategies#
and#perceived#
effectiveness
Chapter(9(*(Conclusion 9.2.1.#RQ1 9.2.2.#RQ2 9.2.3.#RQ3
RQ1:(What(explains(energy(use(at(home? X
RQ1a.#What#are#the#characteristics#of#energy#
use#at#home?X
RQ1b.#What#are#determinants#of#energy#use#at#
home?X
RQ1c.#How#do#individuals#understand#their#
energy#use#at#home?
RQ2:(What(influences(energy(use(at(home? X
RQ2a.#What#are#motivational#variables#for#
adopting#more#energy#efficient#behaviours?X
RQ2b.#What#are#the#barriers#for#adopting#more#
energy#efficient#behaviours?#X
RQ2c.#How#do#individual#psychological#factors#
influence#energy#use?X
RQ3:(What(is(the(potential(role(of(intervention(strategies(on(energy(use(at(home? X
RQ3a.#What#are#perceived#requirements#of#
intervention#strategies?X
RQ3b.#What#are#individual#perceptions#on#the#
effectiveness#of#intervention#strategies?X
Thesis(information(flow
Relation(between(sections(and(Research(Questions((RQ,(section(1.5.)
Aim(of(the(research((section(1.4)The#overall#aim#of#the#research#is#to#explore#how#the#adoption#of#more#energy#efficient#behaviours#at#home#could#be#
encouraged.#Chapter#2#aims#to#provide#an#overview#of#the#nature#of#energy#use#at#home#and#the#factors#that#influence#energy#
use#with#Chapter#6#investigating#whether#the#same#set#of#factors#and#conditions#can#be#found#within#the#empirical#study#in#
Portugal.#Chapter#3#aims#to#better#understand#the#motivating,#enabling#and#reinforcing#factors#that#could#promote#the#adoption#
of#energy#efficient#habitual#behaviours#and#practices#at#a#household#level,#while#Chapter#7#examines#if#similar#conditions#can#be#
found#in#the#Portuguese#context.#Chapter#4#explores#the#potential#effectiveness#of#change#interventions#within#the#field#of#
energy#use#at#home#and#the#different#types#of#interventions#that#might#be#used#and#subsequently#within#Chapter#8#how#those#
are#perceived#and#evaluated#within#the#examples#of#practice#in#Portugal.#
1. Introduction
11
1.7 TheresearchwithinthePortuguesecontext
Previousresearchshowsthatstructuralpsychological interventionscanbeappliedtosupportandenable
behaviouralchangeofenergyuseathome,(Poortingaetal.,2004;Steg,2003),andthatsuchinterventions
have been employed with varying degrees of success, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Geller, Harrington,
Rosenfeld, Tanishima, & Unander, 2006; Heiskanen, Mourik, Feenstra, & Pariag, 2009; Kurz, 2002;
Lutzenhiser, 2002; Southertonet al., 2011).Despite the growingbodyof existing research andevidence,
there appears to be however a lack of clear evidence within the literature on the potential long-term
effectivenessofsuchinterventions.ThisisinparticulartrueforstudiescarriedoutinPortugal.Thislackin
existing studieswithinPortugal perhaps results from the fact that energy consumptionhas only recently
becomeamatterthatgained in importance. Itthusremainsunclearwhetherthesamesetoffactorsand
conditionsfromsuchexistingstudiescanalsobefoundwithinPortugal,andinthecasethattheycouldbe
foundhoweffectivesuchinterventionshavebeeninthelong-term.
Havingremainedrelativelyunchangedduringtheperiodfrom2003to2008,thegrossinlandconsumption
ofenergyinPortugaldecreasedby5.7%in2009,andmuchofthischangeisclaimedtonotbearesultofa
structural shift in the pattern of energy consumption, but that it can be attributed to a lower level of
economicactivityasaresultofthefinancialandeconomiccrisis,(Eurostat,2015).Consumptionrebounded
in2010inmostoftheMemberStates—withonlyLithuania,Greece,Portugal,Cyprus,CroatiaandSpain
recordingconsecutivecontractionsinconsumptionin2009and2010—possiblyreflectingthelowlevelof
economicoutputandconsumerconfidenceinseveraloftheseMemberStates,(Eurostat,2015).
Since2012thissituationdidchangehoweverandlargely impactedbyEUwideregulationsandinitiatives,
(PortugueseGovernment,2013).AsaresultofthistheNationalEnergyEfficiencyActionPlan(NEEAP)has
been adopted in 2008, and the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) in 2010, (Portuguese
Government, 2013). NEEAP and NREAP are both policy instruments aimed at achieving the targets and
internationalcommitmentswithregardtoenergyefficiencyandtheuseofenergyfromrenewablesources
that thePortugueseGovernmenthadagreed to.NEEAPandNREAParepartof apolicy thatpromotes a
rational and sustainable energymodel,without compromising the competitiveness of enterprises or the
quality of life, programs and plans that annually provide strategic guidelineswhich aim to contribute to
1. Introduction
12
specificobjectivesandtoallowtoboostmeasuresatalllevels(ADENE,n.d.).NEEAPandNREAPalsoaimat
identifyingexistingbarriers,tosupportimprovementofenergyefficiency,increaseinenergyderivedfrom
renewable sources and with a view to establishing the most suitable programmes and measures for
complying with the said commitments, without neglecting national situation, (Portuguese Government,
2013).
BasedonNEEAPandNREAPpolicyinstrumentstheRegulatoryAuthorityforEnergyServices(ERSE),thatis
responsible for thedefinitionofmechanismstopromoteenergyefficiency,hasestablishedacompetitive
mechanismtosupportactionsfordemandmanagementwithinthe‘PlantothePromotionofEfficiencyin
Electric Energy Consumption’ (PPEC) program. PPEC aims to promotemeasures to improve efficiency in
energyconsumptionthroughactionsundertakenbysuppliers,networkoperatorsandpromotionentities,
andthataretargetedatanumberofmarketsegments,(PortugueseGovernment,2013).Suchmeasuresare
dividedintangibleandintangiblemeasuresandaccordingtothefollowingthreemarketsegments:industry
andagriculture;tradeandservices;andtheresidentialsector.Withinthetangiblemeasuresthereappeared
tobeapredominanceof lightingmeasures(includingpublic lighting),consumptionmanagementsystems,
or for electronic variable speed drives, (ERSE, 2010). Within the intangible type of measures the most
commonmeasuresrelatedtothedisseminationandinformationcampaignstargetedatahouseholdlevel
andatfinalconsumers,butalsotoenergyaudits,(ERSE,2010).
The interest in the funding available has been growing over the years with the 2008 call for projects
receiving131projectsthatwerepresentedby21promotersandequallingatotalamountofapproximately
56millioneurosofinvestment;andafinalsetof159projectspresentedby48promotersin2011-2012and
equalling a total amount of approximately 57.1million euros in funding, (ERSE, 2007; ERSE, 2009; ERSE,
2012). From this initial set, a selectionprocesshad to takeplaceand for instance, in2011,57measures
were approved and received funding within the national context. Among those, 17 projects were
implemented, in the market segment ‘Domestic Energy’ on three different settings: lighting (5),
consumption management (9), and dissemination (3), (ERSE, n.d.). Two practical examples of such
measuresaredescribedinthefollowing:
a) ‘Save Electric Energy’: in 2008 the Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection (DECO)
promoted a national campaign in order to provide information on themeaning of saving electric
1. Introduction
13
energy,inthreedifferentmainareas:home,work,andschool.Forthispurpose,teamsmadeupof
young graduates were formed – named “carbon brigades”, who acted throughout the country
raisingawarenessbyawardingpromotionalmaterial(ERSE,2008);
b) ‘GuideforEnergyEfficiency’:launchedin2012bythePortuguesegovernment,directlysupportedby
thePortugueseAgencyfortheEnergy(ADENE).Thisguideprovidedpracticalrecommendationsand
awareness-raising information regarding how to better use electric devices on a rational and
sustainableway,indiversecontextssuchaswhileusinghouseholdappliances,butalsoasaguideto
supporttheintroductionofthenewEuropeanUnionEnergyLabel(ADENE,2013).
Apart from few exceptionsmost of the intangible projects do not report on the amount of energy that
couldbesavedasaresultoftheprojectandassuchthereisnoindicatorofthesuccessandefficacyofthe
intervention.
Inadditiontothoseprogrammesandmeasures,thePortuguesegovernment,incollaborationwithADENE,
implementedtwopracticalsupportfinancinginstruments:theEnergyEfficiencyFund(FEE)andtheSupport
Fund for Innovation (FAI).TheFEE isa financial instrument thataims to fundprogrammesandmeasures
under the NEEAP, to encourage energy efficiency for both enterprises and citizens, to support energy
efficiencyprojects, and topromotebehavioural change in thisdomain, throughcross-orientedactionsof
energy efficiency in the areas of behaviour, taxation and incentives, and funding, (FEE, n.d.). The FAI
supports innovation and technological development projects, technology demonstration projects in the
areasofrenewableenergyandenergyefficiency,investmentprojectsinenergyefficiency,andpartnership
buildingsupportservicesbetweenPortuguesecompaniesandthescientificandtechnologicalsystem,(FAI,
n.d.).WiththisPortugalisdeterminedtoachievethenationalenergyefficiencygeneraltargetfor2020that
aims to reduce primary energy use by 25%, along with a specific target for Public Administration of
achievingareductionof30%(EuropeanCommission,n.d.).Portugalalsoaimstoreducethenation’senergy
dependenceandsafeguardsecurityofsupplies,bypromotingabalancedenergymix, includingtheuseof
energyfromendogenousrenewablesources(PortugueseGovernment,2013).
The energyprofiler study that supported parts of the empirical study presented in this thesis has been
carried out within exactly this wider context. The energyprofiler study was a collaborative Portuguese
1. Introduction
14
nationalfundedresearchprojectcoordinatedbytheauthorofthisresearchonbehalfofEnergaia,a local
energyagency inVilaNovadeGaia,Portugal,togetherwithtwoadditionalprojectpartners,FactorSocial
andTerrasystemics.Thestudywasoneof the intangiblePPECmeasures selected in the2009application
roundandaimedatdefiningandcharacterizingthePortuguesepopulation insegments/profilesbasedon
the collected data regarding individual perceptions, attitudes, competence and patterns of energy
consumption in the residential sector (Energaia, 2008). These segments/profiles could later be used to
supportthedevelopmentofmorespecificandtargetedpoliciesandinterventionsinordertoimprovetheir
efficacytowardsreducingenergyuseathome.Themotivationfortheprojectwasanidentifiedgapinthe
knowledge regarding national energy use patterns in the residential sector in Portugal, and the energy
saving potential that could be derived from such consumption patterns (Energyprofiler, 2011). The
energyprofiler study thus attempted to explainwhat influences energy use at home and how could the
populationbesegmented,highlightingthemajordifferencesinbetweensegments,(Energyprofiler,2011).
Chapter9willprovidefurtherinformationonhowthefindingsoftheresearchpresentedinthisthesisdo
relatetothenationalcontextashasbeendescribedwithinthissection.
2. Energyuseandsustainability
15
2 Energyuseandsustainability
This first,of three, literaturereviewchaptersprovidesabrief introductiontothesubjectofsustainability
andenergyuseinthehome.Itexplorestheliteratureonsustainabilityaspectsandthecharacteristicsand
determinants of domestic energy use and how lifestyles shape energy use, or negatively impact the
sustainable use of it. Energy is essential for us to live thewaywe know. Even though improvements in
efficiency could have allowed OECD1 countries to decouple GDP growth from growth in primary energy
consumption,(Gelleretal.,2006),thishasnothappenedandenergyconsumptionisthusstillcloselylinked
toGDPgrowth,(Sorrell,2007).Thissectionwillprovideanoverviewonenergyconsumption,thevariables
that are influencing energy consumption and opportunities for greater efficiencies within European
householdsingeneral,andPortugalinparticular.
Chapter3furtherexploreswhatcouldexplainenergyuseathome,withaparticularfocusonmotivations
andbarrierstowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.Thefinalliteraturereview,chapter
4,exploreshowtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourscouldbepotentiallyencouraged.
2.1 Domesticenergyuse
Theamountofenergyconsumedbyindividualswithintheirhomesaccountsforasignificantshareoftotal
energy consumption2 and CO2 emissions, (BPIE, 2011; Deutsch, 2010; Gardner & Stern, 2002). In 2009,
Europeanhouseholdswere responsible for 68percentof the total final energyuse inbuildings and25.4
percent of total final energy was consumed by the residential sector in Europe in 2008, (EEA, 2011;
Eurostat, 2011). Furthermore, in 2008 the residential sector accounted for 27 percent of the end-use
greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in the EU-27 and in the case of Portugal, 16 percent, (EEA,
2011). In residential buildings most of the energy used is required for domestic hot water and space
heating,ventilation, lightingandcooling,withhomeappliancesaccountingforapproximatelyone-thirdof
electricityused,(EuropeanCommission,2010).Spaceheating isstill themostenergy intensiveend-use in
1OECD=OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment
2 Total energy consumptionand final energy consumptionasdefined in, (EuropeanEnvironmentAgency [EEA], 2004,2011;Official
StatisticsofFinland[OSF],2013).
2. Energyuseandsustainability
16
EUhomesandaccountsforaround70percentofthetotalfinalenergyuse,thoughithasbeendecreasing
incomparisontoothersourcesinrecenttimes,(Backhausetal.,2012;BPIE,2011).Energyconsumptionfor
water heating, for example, remained unchanged, whereas consumption for electrical appliances and
lightingincreased,(Backhausetal.,2012;BPIE,2011).Overall,energyconsumptioninthehouseholdsector
continued to rise annually, though with a slower growth rate during the last few years, (European
EnvironmentAgency[EEA],2008;Odyssee&MURE,2011),whichsuggeststhathouseholdshavebecome,
onaverage,moreenergyefficient,eitherdeliberatelyorduetotheeconomicdownturn.
Fromageographicalperspectiveadifferenceappears toexistbetweennorthernand southernEuropean
countries,withheatingneeds insoutherncountries,suchasPortugal,being lowerduetomilderwinters,
(Healy,2004;WHO,2012).Southerncountrieshoweverhaveahigh‘relative’energyconsumptionratefor
two identified reasons: firstly the lack of sufficient thermal envelope insulation3 in southern European
buildingstock,andsecondlythefactthatcoolingbecomesanimportantcontributortooverallconsumption
wherehomesare,inmanycases,equippedwithairconditioningsystems,(BPIE,2011).
For Portugal the residential sector similarly shows rising energy demands, which increased from 2.510
kWh/householdin2008,to2.630kWh/householdin2009andto2.671kWin2010,(DGEG,2010).Amore
in-depthanalysisofthelatestdata,(INE,2011;INEI.P./DGEG,2011)4,onhouseholdenergyconsumptionin
Portugal andasdepictedwithin Figure2-1, shows thatelectricityemergedas themain sourceofenergy
consumed in households, excluding fuels used in vehicles, representing 42.6 percent of total energy
consumption. Electricity was mainly consumed in kitchen and electrical appliances, amounting to 41
percentand33percentoftheoverallelectricityconsumptionrespectively.
3Insulationofroof,exteriorwallsandfloor.
4DatareportoverthereferenceperiodfromOctober2009toSeptember2010unlessotherwisestated.
2. Energyuseandsustainability
17
Figure2-1:Distributionofenergyconsumptioninhouseholdsbysourcetypein2010,(INE,2011;INEI.P./DGEG,
2011).
Electricityconsumptionhasseenthehighest increasefrom15.8percent in1989, to27.5percent in1996
andnowtowards42.6percent,withelectricitynowbeingpresentin99.9percentofthehouseholds.Ata
Europeanlevel, (EuropeanCommission,2010),therehasbeenan increase intheoverallavailable income
andthereforethermalcomfort,aswellasagrowingnumberofelectricalapplianceswithinhouseholdsthat
will have contributed to an overall increase in energy consumption, (DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; INE, 2011; INE
I.P./DGEG,2011).Firewoodisusedin40percentofhouseholdsandemergedasthesecondmainsourceof
energyconsumedinPortuguesehouseholds,withaweightof24.2percentinthetotalenergyconsumedby
thedomesticsector.Thisenergysourcehasbeenlosingimportanceinthepastfewyears,decreasingfrom
60.3percentin1989,to41.9percentin1996andismainlyusedforhouseheatingandinthekitchen,(INE,
2011; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011). This predominance of firewood and electricity as the main energy sources
mightberelatedtotherecentintroductionandconsolidationofthegasnetwork.Furthertothis,almost85
percentof theenergywithinhouseholds isbeingused in threemaincategoriesasmapped inFigure2-2:
kitchen, (39 percent), water heating, (23.5 percent) and house heating, (21.5 percent)5, (INE, 2011; INE
I.P./DGEG,2011).HouseheatingthushasalowershareoftotalenergyconsumptioncomparedtoEuropean
valuesthatshows70percentonanaverage,(Backhausetal.,2012;BPIE,2011).
5Withinthekitchen,energywouldbespentonpreparingfoodandrefrigeration,butalsoonactivitiessuchaslaundryordishwashing,
withapredominanceofenergy intensivehomeappliances.Waterheating ismainlyforshoweringandaccountsforalmost¼ofthe
energybeingconsumedatthehousehold,(INEI.P./DGEG,2011).
42,6%
24,2%
13,6%
3,0%9,0%
2,4%
4,3%
0,7% 0,2%
Distributionofenergybysourcetype
Electricity
Firewood
LPGbotlles(butane)
LPGbotlles(propane)
NaturalGas
PipedLPG
Heatingoil
Solarthermal
Coal
2. Energyuseandsustainability
18
Figure2-2:Distributionofenergyconsumptioninhouseholdsbyusetypein2010,(INEI.P./DGEG,2011).
Average energy usage per Portuguese household is increasing and is perhaps a result of an increase in
average income,which isknownto influencetheamountofperceived individualneeds, (WWF,2012).As
can be seen from the data presented in this section, households hold a significant potential for cost
effective savings that could be realized through structural and policy measures. Improving building
requirementsorretrofittingopportunitiesthusholdagreatpotentialforreducingenergyconsumption.
2.1.1 Invisibilityofenergyuse
Onedistinctcharacteristicofenergyconsumptionandincomparisontotheconsumptionofphysicalgoods,
isits“Invisibility”,(Darby,2006),or“Doublyinvisibility”,(Burgess&Nye,2008).Energyisnotuseddirectly
at home, but is rather mediated by the appliances people have and practices people do at home. For
example, people do not simply consume gas or electricity, but rather the services these energy sources
provide,suchascooking, lighting,orwashing, (Martiskainen,2007).Assuch,energymightbeanabstract
concept and it might be difficult to account for its use, or, environmental impact. This distinctive
characteristicmightthereforeposeanadditionalbarriertowardspromotingmoreenergyefficientlifestyles
and poses the question as towhether improving energy visibility could be away to reduce energy use.
Research suggests thismight be the case, or at least partially so. For the case of using information and
feedbackprovisioning,asameanstomakeenergyusevisible,studiesfoundthatthishadresultedin less
energy use at home, though it appeared to be not enough to promote long-term change, norwere the
realized savings seen as being significant with regards to achieving sustainable energy use levels,
(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Geller,2002;Martiskainen,2007;Staats,Wit,&Midden,1996).Asshownfromthe
21,5%
0,5%
23,5%39,1%
10,9%
4,5%
Distributionofenergybyusetype
Househeating
Housecooling
Waterheating
Kitchen
Smalldomesticappliances,entertainmentandcomputerequipment
Lighting
2. Energyuseandsustainability
19
literature,energycanbecomevisibleatcertaincircumstances,forinstance,throughenergybills,(Brandon
& Lewis, 1999;Darby, 2006), through the services and amenities that energy provides, (Goldblatt, 2005;
Martiskainen,2007),orwhenpurchasinganewhomeappliance, (Gardner&Stern,2002,2008; Jackson,
2005).Thisposesthequestionastowhetherenergybecomingmorevisiblecouldbeawaytoencourage
theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.
2.1.2 Energyuseandenergysavingathome
Itisatruismthatbuildingsdonotuseenergy,butpeopledo,eventhoughpeopledonotactuallyexplicitly
wanttouseenergy;itisserviceslikelightandcomforttheyreallyseek,(Janda,2011).Currentlythefocus
on intervention requires not only the use of less energy, (‘negawatts’), but also more efficient use. An
exampleoftheformercouldbetoswitchlightsoffwhenleavingaroomandthelattercouldbetochange
tomoreenergyefficientlightbulbsinordertoprovidelightinginamoreefficientway.
Energy saving behaviours can be distinguished betweenefficiency and curtailment behaviours. Efficiency
behaviours are infrequent, one-off type of behaviours,which often entail an investment, such as loft or
cavity wall insulation, or buying an energy efficient air conditioner, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner &
Stern,2002;Kemptonetal.,1992).Curtailmentbehaviours incontraryarethosethatmustbeperformed
frequently,involvingrepetitiveeffortstoreduceenergyandinvolvemoreoperationaldaytodayhabitsand
routines, suchas lowering the thermostatand turning lightsandappliancesoff, (Abrahamseetal.,2005;
Gardner & Stern, 2002; Kempton et al., 1992). Each of these two groups requires different levels of
investmentintime,moneyorindividualeffortandcommitmenttoperform.Forexample,toinsulateone’s
loftrequiresthetimetolookforanadequatesupplier,tohiresomeonetoperformtheworkanddemands
acertainamountofinvestment;butitwouldbeaone-offaction.Ontheotherhand,tomaintainalower
thermostat setting, (even if one has a properly insulated loft), requires a certain level of knowledge,
willingnessandcommitmentnottoincreaseroomtemperatureonaday-to-daybasis;thisisnotaone-off
action,butafrequentlyperformedone,aso-calledroutinebehaviour.
Lessunanimousagreement,thanonthegroupingofthesetwobehaviours,canbefoundintheimpactthey
can have in terms of energy saving and conservation, and there is some disagreement as to whether
curtailment or efficiency behaviours are more effective in reducing energy use at home, (Martiskainen,
2. Energyuseandsustainability
20
2007).Somestudiessuggestthatcurtailmentbehaviourscould initiatesustainable, long-termbehavioural
changes, (Geller, 2002), while others suggest that efficiency behaviours are generally more effective in
obtaining actual energy savings, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2008). In addition to this,
curtailment behaviours might be perceived, by individuals, as negligible behaviours when it comes to
energysavings,asindividuallytheywouldgenerateonlysmallsavingsandtherefore,inordertoproducean
impactwouldrequireadoptionbymanypeople,(Winter&Koger,2004,)and/ortheadoptionofanumber
ofbehavioursbyeachindividual.
2.2 Determinantsofenergyuseathome
The way people use energy in the home is the result of a mixture of socio-economical-techno-cultural
factorsthatframesneeds,opportunities,beliefsystemsandabilities,asillustratedinFigure2-3.
Figure2-3:Mainfactorsinfluencingconsumerbehaviourandemergenceofconsumptionpractices,(EEA,2013).
Energyuseathomeisoftenexplainedasbasedonasetofenablingvariablesandexistingconditions.For
instance, the European Environment Agency, (EEA, 2013), suggested a number of factors influencing
consumerbehavioursandemergingpracticesthatcouldsupporttheunderstandingofenergyuseathome,
aswellastheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.Thissectionwilldiscussdeterminantsthathad
been identified from the literature as influencing energy use at home, namely, social and cultural
influences,comfort,convenienceandneeds,norms;technologicaldevelopments;aswellaseconomicand
demographic trends, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; BPIE, 2011; DGGE/IP-3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005; INE
I.P./DGEG,2011;Lomas,2010;Spaargaren&vanVliet,2000;Wilhite&Lutzenhiser,1999)andthatcanbe
of an internal, external, social, or structural nature, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Gardner & Stern, 2002;
2. Energyuseandsustainability
21
Kempton,Reynolds,Fels,&Hull,1992;Martiskainen,2007;Nyeetal.,2010;Prendergrastetal.,2008).The
workofJackson(2005)showsforexamplethatinternaldeterminantsmightconsistofattitudes,beliefsand
norms,whileexternaldeterminantscouldconstituteregulations.Abrahamseetal.(2005)incontrastshows
thatdeterminantsmightincludewidersocietal,aswellaspersonalfactors,whiletheworkofDholakiaand
Dholakia (1983)showsthatdeterminantscouldresult fromaseriesofnestedand interlockingchoices, in
whichmacro-choices delimit and define the scope ofmicro-choices andwhere household energy use is
seentobeasnotonlytheresultofachoiceamongbehaviouralalternativesbutwheretheproductionof
suchalternativesisalsoviewedastheresultofasocialchoiceprocess.Thusthereappearstobeadiversity
ofmacro- andmicro- factors.Macro-level factors such as technological development, economic growth,
demographic factors, institutional factorsandculturaldevelopmentappear to influencebehaviourat the
broader level, while micro-level factors such as motivation, opportunity and ability appear to shape
behaviourattheindividuallevel,(Darnton,2008;Jackson,2005;Nyeetal.,2010;Prendergrastetal.,2008;
Stern,2000). Thusenergyuse isdeterminedbymultiple consciousandunconsciousprocesses,drivenby
internalpsychologicalvariables,suchasnorms,beliefsorvalues,aswellasexternalvariables,(e.g.social,
economic physical), drivers and constraints, personal capabilities, or habits and routines, (Jackson, 2005;
Nye et al., 2010; Stern, 2000). As such energy consumption is not a behaviour in itself, but rather a
consequence of particular behaviours, (Becker, Seligman, Fazio, & Darley, 1981). Consequently to
understand and influence behaviours on energy use would require, firstly, an understanding of the
determinantsofenergyusebehaviours.
2.2.1 Socialandculturalinfluences
Socialandculturalfactors,suchasthermalcomfort,cleanlinessandconvenienceinthehome,orambient
lightingthatimpacttheamountofenergyusedathomeareinfluencedbothbyindividualpreferencesand
commonsocialunderstandings,(Giddens,1984;Lewis,1969).Asanexample,forPortugalthepenetration
rate of refrigerators, washingmachines and televisions at home has increased to close to 100 percent,
suggestingthatowningtheseappliancesisnowconsideredtobeastandard,(INE,2012).Thisintroduction
ofhomeappliancesbringsalongsocialpracticesthatevolveovertimeanddevelopintosocialnormsthat
establishstandardsthatcanlockindividualsintowhatisconsideredtobea‘normal’practice.Thiscanlead
toindividualsfindingithardtochangetheirdomesticroutinesandbehaviours,ortochangetheminaway
2. Energyuseandsustainability
22
thatwouldbringaboutasignificantimpactintermsofenergyuse,(Goldblatt,2005;Maréchal,2010;Shove,
2004). This understandingof behaviour as anoutcomeof routinized, socially learnedhabits orpractices,
embedded into particular socio-technical infrastructures, or a system of provision, can be traced to
sociologyandtotheon-goingdebateaboutstructurevs.agency;whichdefinestherelationshipsbetween
individuals,communitiesandsocietyinmoredetail.Ifontheonehand,humanbehaviourisconstrainedby
structuralfactors,ontheother,socialstructureisahumanproductofitself.Thisistosaythatestablished
rules and ways of doing things can be changed once people start to ignore them, replace them, or
reproduce them differently and as a result develop a new social practice, (Giddens, 1984). There are,
however,limitsastohowmuchindividualscanchangesocialstructure,(Heiskanenetal.,2009).Thisrelates
to thedebatearoundwhether consumersare free tomakechoicesabout theirownactions,orwhether
forces outside their control impose those, (Giddens, 1984). Giddens’work (1984), for example has been
settingthegroundforviewingconsumptionasasetofsocialpracticesthatareinfluencedontheonehand
by social norms and lifestyle choices, and on the other, by the institutions and structures of society, as
exemplifiedinFigure2-4,(Giddens,1984;Randles,2009;SpaargarenandvanVliet,2000).
Figure2-4:AnActor-StructureModelofConsumption,(adaptedfromSpaargarenandvanVliet(2000)).
The model in Figure 2-4 shows the interplay of social norms, lifestyle choices and the institutions and
structuresofsociety,whichcomprisethetwobasicpillarsofsociologicaltheory.Themodelsuggeststhat
2. Energyuseandsustainability
23
shiftingconsumptionpatternsrequires‘raising’routinebehavioursfromalevelofpracticalconsciousness6
todiscursiveconsciousness7,thereforemakingthemmorevisible.Thisdistinctioncanbeofrelevancesince
most of the everyday, routine actions that consume energy at home are performed in practical
consciousness, (Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000), reminiscent of being under automatic pilot control that
appearstolock-inindividuals.
2.2.2 Comfort,convenienceandneeds
In today’s developed economies socially perceived needs frequently relate to comfort, convenience and
wellbeing,andareperceivedasbeingpartofa ‘normal’ lifestylewhichneeds tobesatisfied, (Lehman&
Geller, 2004; WWF, 2012). Comfort and convenience needs are the result of technological progress,
increasedincomelevels,availabilityoflaboursavingappliancesandcultural/socialdynamics,creatingnew
practices that embed into the social fabrics of daily lives, (Shove, 2009). Examples of this are the
automationofjobspreviouslydonebyhand,andsubstitutingenergy-usingapplianceslikecomputersand
consoleswhereinthepastpeoplewouldhaveworkedusingpenandpaper,orentertainedthemselveswith
boardgamesorbooks.Comfortconditions,ingeneral,aresociallyinfluencedandmaychangewithtimeas
design, activity, and technology change, (Shove 2003). The gap between estimated and actual energy
performanceinhousingtendstodirectlyincreasetoincreasingcomfortlevelsbeyondwhatwaspredicted,
(StevensenandRijal,2010).Onesuchexamplescanbeseenintheincreasingpenetrationofcentralheating
andcoolingsystemsofthelastfewyearsthatseemstobeaccompaniedbyagrowing,perceivedneedof
improvingindoorthermalcomfort,(Eurostat,2007).
2.2.3 Normsandenergyefficiency
Norms are rules and standards that impact energy use as they guide and/or constrain social behaviour,
(Cialdini&Trost,1998).Withintheliteratureanumberofdifferentnormsaredefined,suchaspersonaland
moral norms, (Schwartz, 1970, 1977), subjective norms, (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and descriptive and
6Practicalconsciousnessconsistsofallthingswhichactorsknowtacitlyabouthowto‘goon’inthecontextsofsociallifewithoutbeing
abletogivethemdiscursiveexpression(…)describingbehavioursthatresideinthe‘non-consciousness(Giddens,1984).
7Discursiveconsciousnesscanmanifestinpurposefulandintentionalbehaviour,(Giddens,1984).
2. Energyuseandsustainability
24
injunctive norms, (Cialdini et al., 1991; Cialdini et al., 1990). Normsmight emerge from interactionwith
others, they may or may not be stated explicitly and sanctions for deviating from norms are, mostly,
imposedbysocialnetworks,notthelegalsystem,(Cialdini&Trost,1998).Normsfurthertendtomotivate
and constrain individual actions by promising social rewards and sanctions for acting, or not acting, in
certain kindsofways. For instance, onemight not litter not only becauseonemight get a fine, but also
because one does not want others to think, “I’m the kind of person that litters”. Individuals tend to
negotiateandinformmuchoftheirbehaviouronthebasisofwhatothersdoaroundthemandbysimply
copying the way others around them behave. This is used as a means to bypassing the mental effort
involvedinthinkingitoutforoneselfand/ortofreeupcognitiveresourcesformore,perceived,important
tasks,(Cialdinietal.,1990).Whetherandhowonerespondstoanormalsodependsonwhichkindofnorm
issalientforthatspecificcircumstance,(Cialdini,1993;Cialdinietal.,1991;Cialdinietal.,1990;Steg,2003).
Within this structure, norms influence behaviour through imitation, social comparison, or social learning
theory,(Bandura,1977b,1986;Cialdinietal.,1991).
For the theoretical relationbetweennormsandenvironmental significantbehaviours8, anamplebodyof
available literature exists, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; de Groot, Steg, & Dicke, 2007; Guagnano, 2001;
Osterhus, 1997; Schultz et al., 2005), but less evidence can be found within the literature for the
contribution of norms to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Currently, the
sociallyacceptednormappearstobetowardstheacceptanceofanover-consumptionofenergyandthus
adoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviourswillbedifficulttoachievewithoutsuchbehavioursbeingviewed
asthesocialnorm,(Schwartz,1977;Stern,1999,2000).Inadditiontothis,thegrowingnumberofneedsas
wellasownedhomeappliancesmightbeseenasanindicatorofthesocialnormmovingtowardsahigher
levelofconsumption,(Cialdinietal.,1990,1991;Triandis,1977).Normsfurtherappeartoimpactbehaviour
differently. This is to say that personal norms and attitudes that are based on altruistic and
biospheric/ecological values seem to bemore effective at leading to simple, repetitive, low-cost, (effort,
money,andtime),energysavingbehaviours, (Black,Stern,&Elworth,1985;Heberlein&Warriner,1983;
8 Environmentally significantbehaviour isbehaviour thatdoesnot “threatenhumanhealth,welfare,orother thingspeoplevalue”,
(Stern,1997,p.15)andthat ischaracterizedby its“positive impactontheavailabilityofmaterialsorenergyfromtheenvironment
and/orby theextent towhich thebehaviourspositively alter the structure anddynamicsof ecosystemsor thebiosphere”, (Stern,
2000,p.408).
2. Energyuseandsustainability
25
Stern,1992).Specifically,researchindicatesthataltruistic/socialnormsaremuchmorestronglyrelatedto,
“low constraint”, environmentally friendly behaviours, such as adjusting a thermostat, than they are to,
“highconstraint”,behaviours,suchasmajorcapitalinvestmentstoimprovetheenergyefficiencyofone’s
home, (Blacketal.,1985;Lindenberg&Steg,2007).Forexample,an intention to reducecarusemaybe
seen as a more costly behaviour compared to buying organic food because of the, perceived, higher
inconvenienceassociatedwithreducingcaruse,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Poortingaetal.,2004).
2.2.4 Economicinfluences
Economicsandits,“Rationalman”,principle,(Mill,1836),suggestthatpeoplearedrivenbyself-economic
interest, i.e. peoplewillmaximize their setofpreferencesand theirutility, (i.e. the valueattached toan
outcome).Inaperiodofrisingenergyprices,(Odyssee&MURE,2011)andinaccordancetothe,“Rational
man”,approach,reducingenergybillsshouldthusbeaprimarymotivationforsavingenergy.Thisistosay,
onewouldexpectenergyusetofalloncepricesgoup, inordertonotincreasethepercentageof income
dedicatedtoenergy.However,evidencesuggeststhattherelationbetweenpriceandenergyuseisnot1to
1,meaning, for instance,a10percent increase inpricedoesnot leadtoa10percentdecrease inenergy
use. This phenomenon is knownwithin the economics literature as, ‘price elasticity’, i.e. the percentage
changeinonevariablefollowingapercentagechangeinanother,holdingothervariablesconstant,(Sorrell,
2007).Demandforenergy isoftenperceivedtobe, ‘inelastic’, intheshortterm, i.e.energyusedoesnot
changestraightawaywhenpricesincrease.But,itisseentobe,‘elastic’,inthelongterm,i.e.afewyears
afterprice increaseshouseholdsareable tomodify to saveenergy. This is to say that in the short term,
risingpricesmightnotbeeffective in significantly stimulatingdemand reduction.This is in theuptakeof
demand reductionmeasures that could save energy at home, (Department of Energy& Climate Change
[DECC],2011).AnanalysisofUSdemandelasticity in responsetoprice risessuggests thata tenpercent
increase inelectricitypricesonlydecreasesdemandbyaroundonepercent, (Nakajima&Hamori,2010).
Elasticity might be one of the reasons why higher energy prices, government taxes and subsidies have
apparentlynothadtheexpectedimpactinreducingenergyconsumptionatahouseholdlevel,(Spaargaren
&vanVliet;2000).
2. Energyuseandsustainability
26
2.2.5 Incomelevelsandenergypoverty
In the case of income levels, the literature provides some apparent contradictory findings. Evidence has
equally shown that higher income levels often relate to higher energy use, (DECC, 2011), as well as for
apparent dissociation,with similar income level households using significantly different levels of energy,
(Gaterslebenetal.,2002). If indeedenergyuse increaseswith income level, thenonecouldexpectmore
affluenthouseholdstousemoreenergythanlessaffluentones.However,poorerhouseholdsarealsomore
likelytoliveinpoorly-insulatedhomesandlesslikelytobeabletoimprovetheirhomes’energyefficiency,
(ScottishGovernment,2010). For instance, for those in fuelpoverty, theymightnotbeable toafford to
spendmoreonenergyandareforcedintousinglessenergyifpricesrise.Conversely,wealthierhouseholds
may be more prone to ignoring ‘avoidable’ energy use, such as heating unused rooms, or leaving
unnecessarylightson.Withthisthedemandforenergytendstobemoreelasticinpoorerhouseholdsthan
in wealthier ones, meaning that they tend to use less energy if prices rise. Further to this, poorer
households might also experience energy poverty, which is a situation where a household is unable to
accessasocially-andmaterially-necessitatedlevelofenergyserviceinthehome,(Buzar,2007a).According
to Boardman (1991, 2010), a household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spendmore than 10
percentofits(disposable), incomeonhouseholdfuel,(energy), includingheatingthehousetoacceptable
WorldHealthOrganization levels9.Accordingtothe literature, fuelpovertyresults fromacombinationof
lowincome, lowenergyperformancedwellingsand increasingenergyprices, (UKGovernment,2013)and
there is equally evidence that southern Europe suffers from the highest levels of fuel poverty and the
pooresthousingconditionswithintheEU,(Healy,2003;SEI,2003).Theinabilitytoaffordtoheatthehome
adequatelyisparticularlypronouncedacrosseasternandsouthernEuropeanstates,withover30percent
of households in Portugal, Bulgaria and Cyprus declaring this inability, (The University of York, n.d.).
MagalhãesandLeal (2012)estimatea92percent fuelpoverty rate formainlandPortugalundernominal
conditions by considering a tariff of 0.089€ per kWh of energy supplied. Healy (2004) reported that in
Portugalonly6percenthadcavitywallinsulation,3percentdouble-glazing,2percentfloorinsulationand6
percentroofinsulationintheirhomes,(oneoftheusualpre-conditionsforfuelpoverty).Inadditiontothis,
9 The World Health Organisation takes 21ºC as a benchmark temperature for those more vulnerable, such as the elderly and
handicappedandaminimumtemperatureof16ºCforable-bodied,healthypeople,butrecommendsaminimumof18ºCforsedentary
activities.
2. Energyuseandsustainability
27
nearly a quarter of Portuguese households stated that they had rotten window frames, while a third
revealed that they had patches of condensation on indoor walls, two good indicators of poor energy
efficiency,(Healy,2004).Furthertothis,19percentofhouseholdsinPortugalweresufferingfromleaking
roofs, indicating the absence of adequate roof insulation, (Healy, 2004) and the latest data for Portugal
revealsthat26.8percentreportedtheirinabilitytokeeptheirhomeadequatelywarm,(Eurostat,2013).An
additionalprobleminMediterraneanstatesistheneedforcooling,with30percentofthepopulationinthe
8statesborderingtheMediterraneanSeareportingthattheyareunabletokeeptheirhomesadequately
coolinsummer,(SILC,2007).Eventhoughheatingseemsstilltobethemainissueintheshortterm,cooling
is likely tobecomean increasingly important issueover the comingyears, inparticularwith risingglobal
temperatures, (ECI, 2005). The limited extent of certain types of networked energy infrastructures,
(particularly gas),means that in addition to inefficient residential stocks and affordability issues, energy
deprivationisalsopredicateduponthespatialandtechnicallimitationsassociatedwithswitchingtowards
moreaffordablefuelsourcesinthehome,(Buzar,2007a,2007b,2007c).
Besides decreasing the quality of life and influencing social fulfilment, there is also a strong associations
between inadequately heated homes and increased rates ofmorbidity andmortality, (Harrington et al.,
2005).ThefactthatinPortugal,theexcessofwintermortalityratesandhospitalepisodescomparedtothat
of summer is among the highest in Europe, adds to the suspicion that households are not heating their
homes adequately and to an associationwithmortality rates and hospital episodes, (Eurowinter Group,
1997; Gascoigne, Morgan, Gross, & Goodwin, 2010; Healy, 2004; IPCC, 2007; McMichael, Woodruff, &
Hales,2006).
2.2.6 Demographictrends
Inaddition toeconomic influences, thereare twodemographic trends thathavebeenobservedover the
last few decades that seem to influence energy use: household size and composition. Today people in
industrialised countries tend to live in larger houses, with a lower, average number of occupants per
householdandagrowingnumberofsingle-occupancydwellings, (Goldblatt,2005).A largerhome implies
increased floor and air space toheat, or cool and thus an increase in the requiredenergy tomaintain a
comfortabletemperature inthehouse.Evidencesuggests that themorepeoplethereare inahousehold
2. Energyuseandsustainability
28
themoreenergyefficientpercapitathathouseholdbecomes,meaningthatsingle-personhouseholdstend
tousemoreenergyperpersonwhencomparedtomulti-personhouseholds,(EnergySavingTrust,2012).As
aresultofthis,projectedpopulationgrowthmightbelessimportantthantheaveragenumberofoccupants
perhouseholdandinparticular,thenumberofsingleoccupancydwellings.
2.2.7 Theroleofinfrastructureandtechnologicalfactorsininfluencingenergyuseathome
During the past few decades there has been an extraordinary growth in the number and choices of
consumer energy-using products, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011). This is in particular true for labour saving
devicesandpersonal/homeentertainmentsystems,withtheassociatedenergyconsumptioncontributing
toacontinuingupwardtrendindomesticelectricityconsumption,(EnergySavingTrust,2011).Furtherto
this, technologies that are designed to ‘improve’ people’s lives, such as air-conditioning, have rapidly
developed from being a luxury towards becoming essentials, (Shove, 2003). Despite improvements in
energyefficiencyinhomesandproducts,thedemandforenergyhasoutstrippedthisimprovement,(Energy
SavingTrust,2011;Odyssee&MURE,2011).This suggests thateven though technologicaldevelopments
increased theenergyefficiencyofappliances,partof thisefficiencygain isbeing, takenback (Odyssee&
MURE,2011).This,takeback,couldbeoneexplanationforthedifferencebetween,actualenergyefficiency
and potential efficiency, also known as the energy efficiency gap, (Feenstra et al., 2009). Overall four
reasonsseemtocontributeto‘takeback’.Firstly,duetothegrowingnumberofenergyusingappliancesto
befound intheaveragehome,(EnergySavingTrust,2011).Secondly,thewaytheseappliancesareused,
(EnergySavingTrust,2011;Goldblatt,2005; INE I.P./DGEG,2011;Lomas,2010).Thirdly,withinthesocio-
technicalsystemandthewaythatindividualchoicesareconstrainedandshaped,theso-calledbehavioural
lock-in, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Direção Geral de Energia e Geologia [DGEG], 2010;Maréchal, 2010;
Quercus,2008).Thefourthreasonrelatestothe,‘reboundeffect’,whereenergyefficiencyimprovements
mayimpactonthedemandforothergoodsandservices,asthesavingsfromoneappliancecanbeusedon
otherenergyusingactivities,(Binswanger,2001;Khazzoom,1980;Odyssee&MURE,2011;Sorrell,2007).
Howevertechnologicaldevelopmentsarenotlimitedtoappliancesbutalsotothebuildingcharacteristics.
Energyuseathomeisinfluencedbybuildingcharacteristicssuchasage,orientation,size,buildingenvelope
(i.e. roof,exteriorwalls,and floor)and theperformanceof installedheating/coolingsystem, (BPIE,2011;
2. Energyuseandsustainability
29
DGGE/IP-3E,2004;Goldblatt,2005).Thecharacteristicsofabuilding,itsdesignanditstechnicalstandards
donotonlyinfluencewell-being,buttheyalsodefinehowmuchenergyisconsumedinandbyabuilding,
andasaconsequence,howmuchheating,ventilationandcoolingenergyisneededtocreateacomfortable
environmentbasedonrespectiveclimateconditions,(BPIE,2011).Significantsavingsinenergyusecouldbe
achievedbyimprovingbuildingcharacteristicsandtheEuropeanUnionhasbeenactiveinthisareaandhas
passedanumberofEuropeanDirectives,(EnergyPerformanceofBuildingsDirective-EPBD),soastodefine
the minimum standards to be used in new buildings, as well as within the refurbishment of existing
buildings.However,sincebuildingshavealongservicelife,thismaynotdeliverimmediateenergysavings,
orat leastnottothe levelthatmightberequired.Eventhough‘new’buildingsareexpectedtoconsume
around¼ less than the ones built in 1990, they accounted for only 21 percent of total building stock in
Europe,thustheimpactofmoreenergyefficientwaysofbuildingwilltaketimetoproduceglobalresults,
(BPIE, 2011; Odyssee & MURE, 2011). This is to say that people might be temporally locked into the
buildingstheylivein,(Maréchal,2010)andthatitwillrequiretimetoincreasetheenergyefficiencyofthe
buildingsandtoreducetheamountofenergybeingused.Thesamelong-termdilemmacanbeseeninthe
heating/cooling systems of buildings that equally have a relatively long lifetime, which in the case of
standardboilersisnormally15-20years,(EnergySavingTrust,2011).Forthisparticularcaseandduetolow
substitution rates,effortmight ratherbe focusedon theeffectiveuseofheating/cooling systems, rather
thanonthesubstitution,whichrequiresinvestment,(EnergySavingTrust,2011).
2.2.8 Thereboundeffectanditsinfluenceondeterminingenergyuseathome
The potential, energy savings, from improved energy efficiency are commonly estimated using basic
physicalprinciplesandengineeringmodels.However,thesavingsthatarerealizedinpracticegenerallyfall
short of these engineering estimates.One explanation for this is that improvements in energy efficiency
apparently encouragea greateruseof the services, a response knownas theenergyefficiency, rebound
effect, or, take-back effect, (Khazzoom, 1980). Generally speaking this rebound, or take-back effect is
measuredby thedifferencebetween theprojected and actual savingsdue to increasedefficiency and is
normallyexpressedasapercentageoftheexpectedenergysavingsfromenergyefficiencyimprovements;a
ratioof the lostbenefitcomparedto theexpectedenvironmentalbenefit,onceconsumption isconstant,
2. Energyuseandsustainability
30
(Grubb, 1990; Sorrell, 2007). Thus a rebound effect of 20 percent means that only 80 percent of the
expected energy savings have been achieved. In accordance to Gottron (2001) and Sorrell (2007) three
differenttypesofreboundeffectmightbeobserved:
• Direct rebound effect: energy efficiency improvements make energy services cheaper, so
consumptionofthoseservices increaseoncetheconsumerchoosestousemoreoftheresource
instead of realizing the energy cost savings; e.g. people have their loft insulated and later raise
theirthermostattoahighertemperature.
• Indirect rebound effects: even if consumption of energy services remains unchanged, the
consumer can chose to spend the money saved by buying other goods, which use the same
resource;e.g. individualshavetheir loft insulatedorbuyafuel-efficientcarandthereforerealize
savingsonfuelbills,butthenusethosesavingstolatergoonalonghaulvacation.
• Macroeconomiceffects:anyreductions inenergydemandwill translate into lowerenergyprices
thatencourageincreasedenergyconsumption.Decreaseddemandforaresourceleadstoalower
resourceprice,makingnewuseseconomicallyviable;e.g.new,moreenergyefficienttechnologies
thatmakeitems,suchasairconditionersmoreaccessibleandaffordabletousers.
Directandindirectreboundeffectsappeartovarywidelydependingontechnologies,sectorsandincome
groupsandoftentheycannotbequantifiedwithmuchconfidence,(Sorrell,2007).Thisappearstosupport
on-going discussion and lack of agreement regarding size and impact of the rebound effect.On the one
handfindingsshowthatreboundeffectscouldcompletelyoffsettheenergysavingsfromimprovedenergy
efficiency,(Brookes,2000;Guertin,Kumbhakar,&Duraiappah,2003;Herring,2006;Sorrell,2007).Recent
research has shown take-back examples where thermal efficiency improvements were out-weighed by
increases in energy levels for lights and appliances, (Lomas, 2010; Wright, 2008). On the other hand,
findings indicate that the rebound effect is ofminor importance, largely due to the understanding that
demandforthoseservicesappearstobeinelasticinmostcases,asenergycostrepresentonlyasmallshare
of the total costs of those services, (Lovins, 1998; Lovins, Henly, Ruderman,& Levine, 1988; Schipper&
Grubb, 2000). Even some of the researchers that argue towards the impact of the rebound effect
acknowledgethatforspecificenergyservices,completeoffsetcoulddeclineasdemandsaturates,(Sorrell,
2. Energyuseandsustainability
31
2007). As such, reducing energy use at home by improved technological solutions might be insufficient
withoutthecooperationofindividuals,sincetheuseofenergyathomeresultsfromacomplexinteraction
betweenbuilt form, location,energy-usingappliances,occupantsand theaffordabilityof fuel, (Crosbie&
Baker,2010).
2.3 Concludingremarks
Thischapterlookedatcharacteristics,(RQ1a)anddeterminants,(RQ1b),ofenergyuse,showingthatthere
isagrowingtrendinenergyuseandamultitudeofreasonsthatshapeandinfluenceenergyuseathome,
(RQ2).
A distinctive characteristic of energy use at home, (RQ1a), could be seen in its, ‘invisibility’, as a
characteristic in itself, furtherexpressed throughenergyenteringhomes throughhiddenpipes,orby the
nature of current metering and billing systems, (Burgess & Nye, 2008; Darby, 2006; Hargreaves, 2012).
Energy isnotuseddirectlyathomebutrathermediatedbytheappliancespeoplehaveandthepractices
peopledoathome,suchascooking, lighting,orwashingforexample,(Martiskainen,2007).Asecondkey
characteristic,(RQ1a),isthecommonunderstandingofenergybeingsomethingessentialforpeopletolive
inthewayweknowandthatitisconsideredalmostasagiventhatisnormaltohave,oratleasttousethe
servicesandamenitiesthat itprovides, (Gelleretal.,2006;Sorrell,2007).Withthis, itcouldalsobeseen
thatenergymightbeanintermediarybetweenourneedsandthefulfilmentofthoseneeds.
It also could be seen that there are numerous determinants that impact energy use that result from a
mixture of socio-economical-techno-cultural factors that frame needs, opportunities, belief systems and
abilities,asillustratedinFigure2-3.Withthis,itcouldbeseenthatdeterminantsofenergyuse,(RQ1b),are
frequentlya resultofenablingvariablesandexisting conditionswhereanumberof factors influence the
consumers’ behaviours and emerging practices, (EEA, 2013). Determinants that the literature provided
include,(RQ1b),socialandcultural influences,comfort,convenienceandneeds,norms,andtechnological
developments,aswellaseconomicanddemographictrends,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;BPIE,2011;DGGE/IP-
3E, 2004; Goldblatt, 2005; INE I.P./DGEG, 2011; Lomas, 2010; Spaargaren & van Vliet, 2000; Wilhite &
Lutzenhiser, 1999). It could be seen, for example, that technological development in buildings and
appliances allows for increased efficiency, though a growth in the number of such technologies equally
2. Energyuseandsustainability
32
leadstoanincreaseinenergydemandandoverallenergyconsumption,asituationcommonlyreferredto
as the rebound effect, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011; Khazzoom, 1980). It also could be seen that
infrastructure-social-cultural settings can act in away that locks people into their building infrastructure
and behaviours, (Maréchal, 2010). In this regard research to date indicates that buildings hold great
potentialforenergysaving,yettheirservicelifeandreducedrefurbishmentratesmayrequiremoretimeto
supportmoreenergyefficientlifestyles,(BPIE,2011;Odyssee&MURE,2011).Anoverallincreaseinincome
levels, (Energy Saving Trust, 2011), needs, (Lehman& Geller, 2004), as well as an increasing number of
singlehouseholds,furtherincreasestotalenergyconsumption,(EnergySavingTrust,2012;Goldblatt,2005).
All of these factors are considered to contribute to an increase in energy use, or to the take back of
efficiencyimprovementsachievedduringthepastfewyears,(Odyssee&MURE,2011),alsoknownasthe
‘energyefficiencygap’,(Feenstraetal.,2009).ForsouthernEuropeancountriesitcanalsobeseenthatthe
poor quality of the building envelope results in a less efficient use of energy in order to maintain the
requiredlevelofthermalcomfort,(Healy,2003;SEI,2003).
Withregardstohowpeopleperceivetheirenergyuseathome,(RQ1c),anumberofdifferentaspectscould
befoundintheliterature.Itcouldbeseenthatpeopleperceivetheirenergyuseasnormal,evenifassuch
it includes commodities that are indispensably necessary to support one’s life, but also those that are
perceived as being ‘normal’, (Lehman & Geller, 2004; Smith, 1776; Townsend, 1979, WWF, 2012). The
chapterfurtherdiscussesthattheunderstandingofwhat‘normal’is,isperhapsnotnormalatall,ornormal
forallandthat‘normal’standardscanbedefinedasamixofindividualpreferencesthatareinfluencedby
socialcommonunderstandings,(Giddens,1984;Lewis,1969).
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
33
3 Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
Thischapterexploresthenatureofenergyrelatedbehavioursandinvestigatestheunderlyingmotivations
andbarriersthatcanencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientones(RQ2).
3.1 Motivationsforsavingenergyathome
Savingmoneyorreducingcostiscommonlyreportedastheprimarymotivationforsavingenergyathome,
(Leiserowitzetal.,2009).Besidesthefinancialmotivation,otherknownmotivationalvariablesinclude,for
example, the need to comply with social norms, or to comply with personal, altruistic and moral
motivations such as environmental protection, (IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Leiserowitz et al.
(2009) found for example, that such personal, altruistic and moral motivation for Americans can be
translated into actions such as to turn off the lights, lowering the thermostat in winter, or raising it in
summer.Inlinewiththis,Brouweretal.(2008)foundthat80percentofEuropeanswouldpay,onaverage,
an extra one Euro per 100 Kilometre for their airline ticket out of a sense of moral obligation and
responsibility,with respect to climate change, concern for future generations and the environment. Yet,
Kaplan (2000) found, for example, that personal, altruistic or moral motivations can also work in the
oppositewayandcause feelingsofhelplessness,or stressing the individual sacrificeand thusactingasa
motivation tomaintainexistingenergy relatedbehaviours,with individuals resistingmakingchanges that
theyperceiveasreducingqualityoflife.
3.2 Pro-environmental concern: a motivational variable or barrier to
behaviour?
Research to date indicates that the majority of people in industrialized countries (1), are aware of
environmental problems, (Diekmann & Meyer, 2008; Leiserowitz, 2007; Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006;
Poortinga,Pidgeon,&Lorenzoni,2006) (2),holdpositiveattitudes towardsenvironmentalprotection (3),
areawareoftheenvironmentalconsequencesandpersonalrisksand(4),holdinformationregardingways
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
34
onhowtotackletheproblems,(Brouwer,Brander,&vanBeukering,2008;Eurobarometer;2011a,2011b;
Maibach,Roser-Renouf,&Leiserowitz,2009;Whitmarsh,2009).Thesefindingstogethersuggestthatpro-
environmentalbehaviourshouldbewidespreadamongthesepopulations,whichhoweverdoesnotseem
tobeapparent.Despite suchpositiveattitudes, concernsandawareness, thesedonot seemto translate
adequately into pro-environmental behaviours and thus there appears to be an attitude-behaviour gap,
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Tobler et al., 2012), with people not behaving in
accordance to their attitudes and adopting pro-environmental and energy efficient behaviours at home.
Lookingat the literature it appearshowever, as if thereareanumberof reasons thatmightexplain this
apparentphenomenon.
Firstly, environmental problems appear to be perceived as a less immediate threat within the limited
capacity of individuals for worrying about an issue; a phenomenon known as the finite pool of worry,
(Linville&Fischer,1991).Asthelevelofworryincreasesaboutonetypeofrisk,concernaboutothersmay
decrease,with people tending to paymore attention to near-term threats, such as the economic crisis,
ratherthanto largerandlong-termthreats,suchasclimatechange,(Leiserowitz,Maibach,Roser-Renouf,
Smith, & Hmielowski, 2011; Linville & Fischer, 1991; Upham et al., 2009). Most recent data for Europe
confirms,forexample,thattopicssuchasclimatechangehavebeenlosingimportance,whilstatthesame
time,anxietyovertheeconomyrose,(Eurobarometer,2010;Eurobarometer,2011a:2011b).
Secondly, people are disconnected to environmental consequences, which are often evaluated as
uncertain, as those risks are perceived as being spatially and temporarily remote risks, affecting future
generationsandothercountries,(Maibachetal.,2009;Uphametal.,2009;APA,2009).Gilfordetal.(2008)
describedthisissueas,“Temporalpessimism”and,“Spatialoptimism”.“Temporalpessimism”,meansthat
environmental quality will decrease over time, whereas, “Spatial optimism”, implies that environmental
qualityworsensasgeographicdistanceincreases.Researchtodatesuggeststhatthereisoneexceptionto
this ranking of individual concerns; energy security. For example, DECC (2012), found that in general,
concernaboutenergysecuritytobehigherthanconcernaboutclimatechangeandthat40percentofthose
surveyedwereconcernedwithsteeprisesinenergyprices.
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
35
Thirdly, understanding environmental issues is a complex topic and there is noticeable doubt about the
validityofscientificfindings,suchasclimatechangeandthedegreeofanthropomorphiccontributiontoit,
(BBCNews, 2010; IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2011a;Reynolds,Bostrom,Read,&Morgan, 2010). This
complexity, in conjunction with individual detachment, to the topic can lead to a perceived
disempowerment and belief that individuals cannot do anything, or, are not responsible for solving the
problem,(Brouweretal.,2008;Martiskainen,2007;S.C.Moser&Dilling,2004;Whitmarsh,2009).
Fourthly,engaginginsometypeofpro-environmentalbehaviourscanprovideafeelingofhavingdonetheir
bit, regardless of the limited impact their actionsmight actually have,which then can result in ascribing
further responsibility to others to take additional actions, (Prendergrast et al., 2008). Weber (1997)
described this as the “Singleactionbias”, representing the tendency individualshave toengage in single
correctiveactions,makingthemlesslikelytotakeadditionalstepsifthefirstactionisnotthemosteffective
one and presumably, because the first action succeeded in reducing their feeling of ”Worry or
vulnerability”.Inadditiontothis,feelingresponsibleforsolvingtheproblemcanbeinfluencedbytimeand
space where individuals pay more attention to near-term threats and care for their family and friends,
(Slovic, 2000; Slovic, Finucane, Peters,&MacGregor, 2004;Weber, 2006). Such responsibility to care for
becomes looseroncediscussing futuregenerationsormoreabstract locations, suchas thenation,or the
world.Followingthetime/spacephenomenonandtheresultingindividualdetachment,immediatethreats
suchas a shortage in energy supply aremore relevant andof greaterurgency than futureproblems, for
exampleclimatechange,(Slovic,2000;Slovicetal.,2004;Weber,2006).
Lastly, this understanding of shared responsibility in solving the problem implies a need for a collective
effort, (LealFilho,2011)andwhere free-riderscancausea lackofcollectivemotivation toactmorepro-
environmentally. Free-riders are usually individuals who are extremely resistant to changing their own
actionsandinsteadenjoythebenefitaccruedfromcollectiveeffort,butcontributelittleornothingtothe
effortofachievingthecommongoal,(IPPR,2009;Maibachetal.,2009;Uphametal.,2009).Commonfree-
riderswithinanenvironmentalcontext include,allothers,othercountriesandtheenterprisesector,with
examplesforthelatterbeingshoppingcentresthatleavetheirlightsonallnight,ordistantactivities,such
asengagingindeforestationoutsideofnationalboundaries.AsGarvey(2009)summarized,“Thesealevel
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
36
will be where it will be in 2050 whether this wine bottle is recycled or not. So why bother?”. Such a
conscious denial of personal responsibility is also known as the “Passive bystander” effect, (Marshall &
Lynas, 2003), or “Bystander effect”, (Darley & Latane, 1968) and can reflect low individual efficacy on
contributing towards solving theproblem, (Lorenzoni&Pidgeon, 2006;Uphamet al., 2009). Thepassive
bystandereffectexpressesthewayinwhichindividualresponsesareinfluencedbytheresponsesofthose
around them. Previous experience demonstrated the individuals’ tendency to social conformity and the
socialinfluencefromfamily,friendsorneighbours,whichmightbeillustratedas“Ifothersdon’tdoit, it’s
rathernot important,sowhyshouldIcare”,(Thaler&Sunstein,2008).This istosaythat individualshold
lowexpectationsabouttheimpactoftheirownactions,butatthesametime,theystronglybelievethatifa
largenumberofindividualswouldengageinthosesameactionsthenthatwouldhaveanimpactandcould
solve theproblem, (Maibachet al., 2009). Butbydoing this it also increases the feeling that individuals’
actionsdonotmakeadifferenceontheirown.The,free-rider,problemisthereforeonewhere,whatasa
groupcouldbecalledarationalresponse,meaningtotakeaction,becomesirrationalforanindividual,ifno
otherbystanderseemstohaveanyintentiontoact;theideaof“Iwillifyouwill”.The,free-rider,problem
connectstothe,“Tragedyofthecommons”,dilemma,(Hardin,1968;Jager, Janssen,Vries,Greef,&Vlek,
2000) inwhichthebehaviourthat is inthe individual’s interest isnotoptimalfromthegroup’saggregate
perspectiveandviceversa.This iswheremultiple individuals,acting independentlyandrationally in their
own self-interest, ultimately deplete a shared, limited, resource, even once it is clear that it is not in
anyone's long-term interest. This can lead to a feeling of powerlessness, since if people perceive they
cannotchangeasituationtheywillverylikelyretreatintoapathyandresignationandthuswillbelesslikely
to address environmental issues, (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; S. C.Moser, 2007; S. C.Moser & Dilling,
2004).
Assuch thereappears tobeawealthof literature findings thatexplainswhypositiveattitudes,concerns
and awareness regarding the environment might not result in pro-environmental and energy efficient
behavioursathome.
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
37
3.3 Barrierstoadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours
In accordance with the literature there appears to be a number of barriers that could influence the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours. Even where individuals are concerned about the
environment,oraremotivatedtosavemoneybyreducingtheirenergyuse,theadoptionofmoreenergy
efficient behaviours can often have negative connotations associated with giving up something, a
discomfort, a restricted lifestyle, or a more general reduction in their quality of life, (Barenergy, 2011;
Kaplan,2000).
3.3.1 Monetaryfocusasabarrier
Afocusonsavingmoneyasamotivationtosaveenergymightultimatelyformabarrier,forthefollowing
reasons.Firstly,afocusonsavingmoneycancontributetofeelingsofboringnessandhassle,causedbythe
effort required toengage innumerousactions, thatat theendof theday result inonlyminormonetary
savings,(GreenAlliance,2011;IPPR,2009).Secondly,afocusonsavingmoneycouldleadtotherebound,
ortakebackeffect(seesection2.2.8.).Thirdly,formosthouseholds,exceptthose infuelpoverty,energy
billsaccountforasmall(3-4percent)shareofdisposableincome,whichmightresultinalackofmotivation
forpeopletotakemeaningfulactionstosaveenergyathome,(BPIE,2011).Assuch,moneyasamotivation
tolessenergyuseappearstobeabarriertowardsactuallyrealizingenergysavings.
3.3.2 External/macrobarriers:policybased,structuralandeconomicbarriers
The literatureposits that thereareanumberofexternal/macrobarriers,namelypolicybased, structural
andeconomicbarriersthatcaninfluenceenergyuseathome.Politiciansdevelopframeworks,suchaslaws,
directivesorregulations,whichcanfacilitate,orworkasabarrierto,theadoptionofmoreenergyefficient
behaviours, (Barenergy, 2011). Policy making can organise opportunities to foster innovation and
technologytake-up,butalsotosetthegroundforpromotingpro-environmentalbehaviours,ortoprohibit
thosebehavioursthatarenot inthe interestofthe individualsorthesociety, (GreenAlliance,2011).The
introductionofcongestionchargesandthedefiningofstandardsforbuildingsandelectricalappliances,are
examples for how policy based interventions can influence the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours.Policybasedinterventionscanhoweveralsocreateabarrier.Ifchargesandstandardsareset
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
38
too low, theymightnothavemuch influencewith regards tobehavioural change,but ratherworkasan
indicatorofwhatissociallyexpected.Anexampleforthiswouldbethecurrentpolicyattemptstoassure
that energy supply would always match growing demand; where energy intensive behaviours are not
challenged,butratheracceptedandsupplied,(GreenAlliance,2011).
Further to this, physical-structural barriers, such as the available infrastructure of the buildings, or the
availability and economic viability of technological solutions, also influence the degree of freedom and
opportunitytoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,(Barenergy,2011).Suchphysical-structuralbarriers
can lead to so called locked-in situations, such as being locked into poorly built and inefficient housing,
(Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Martiskainen, 2007). Overcoming physical-structural barriers thus
requiresrefurbishmentofolderhousingandmakingavailablenewphysical-structuralinfrastructures,such
astheintroductionofmoreenergyefficientproducts.Removingphysical-structuralbarriersdoeshowever
notnecessarilyleadtorealizingenergysavingsdueto,forexample,reboundandtakebackeffects,ordue
totheenergyefficiencygap,(Maibachetal.,2009).
In addition to this there might also be economic barriers, such as required initial investment, or the
capability and willingness to invest, (Barenergy, 2011), that can play a crucial role in this and act as a
disincentive to adopt more energy efficient behaviours, (IPPR, 2009). With regard to these, there also
appears to be a preference of short-term gains compared to long-termones, (Nordlund&Garvill, 2002,
2003; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002), as well as a preference for action when these create
potential gains, rather than taking action to avoid potential losses, (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). For
example, one might prefer to refurbish the kitchen that results in immediate benefits, rather than to
exchangetheboilerforamoreenergyefficientonesoastosavemoney inthemedium-longterm.More
environmentally friendly options are often also more expensive than standard appliances or services,
(Barenergy, 2011) and thus constitute an additional barrier, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Economic barriers
thus perhaps influence efficiency behaviours more strongly than curtailment ones, since curtailment
behavioursoftendonotrequireaninvestment.Inadditiontothis,homeappliancesmayhavelonglifetime
spans and are purchased infrequently. As a result substituting them might not always be beneficial in
environmental termsandwouldrequirecomplexcalculationsoutsidetheabilityofmostordinarypeople,
(DGGE/IP-3E,2004;Leiserowitzetal.,2009;Quercus,2008).Addressingeconomicbarriershasthusproved
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
39
tobeachallengingtopicthatmightrequiregovernmentalinterventions,suchashomeownertaxbreaksand
subsidy programmes, to support and accelerate the diffusion of more energy efficient appliances and
solutions,(Leiserowitzetal.,2009).
3.3.3 Knowledgebasedbarriers
Lack of individual knowledge can also constitute a barrier for the adoption of more energy efficient
behavioursincetheymightnotknowhowtobehavemoreefficiently,ordonothavethetimetoresearch
whichoptionsarebest, (Leiserowitzetal.,2009).Knowledgebasedbarriersareassociatedwitha lackof
access, or difficulty in understanding relevant information, such as regarding different options and the
potentialbenefitsofthosedifferentoptions,(Barenergy,2011;Leiserowitzetal.,2009).Informationmight
entailaccessingdifferentsources, fromamorestructural level,suchasfiscal, legal,regulatory,toamore
individuallevelofcost,awareness,orbenefits.Previousresearchindicateshowever,thatthereappearsto
beagoodlevelofknowledgeregardingtopicssuchasthecontributionsofbehaviourtocauses,impactsand
solutions of climate change, (Brouwer et al., 2008; Eurobarometer, 2011b; Whitmarsh, 2009). These
findings equally show that levels of knowledge and engagement decrease once the contextmoves from
climate change to more specific issues, such as carbon reduction, or energy use, (Baird & Brier, 1981;
DEFRA,2007;Gatersleben,2000;Uphametal.,2009;Whitmarshetal.,2009).Thesedecreasing levelsof
knowledgemightthusbeabarrierforwhattheindividualunderstandstobelinksbetweenbehaviourand
lifestyleathomeand increase inenergyuse, carbonconsumptionandCO2emissions, (Brandon&Lewis,
1999; Darby, 2006; Upham et al., 2009; Future Foundation, 2006). In addition to this previous research
suggests that there is low salienceof climate change, energy and environment in individuals’ day-to-day
choicesandactions,(BrookLyndhurst,2007;Giorgi,Fell,Austin,&Wilkins,2009).Thishighlightsapotential
dissonancebetweenthegrowingknowledgeandawarenessofenvironmentalproblemsatagenerallevel,
thatdoesnottranslateintopersonallyrelevantbehavioursandthusconstitutesaninformation-behaviour
gap, (EnergySavingTrust,2011;Martiskainen,2007).Previousstudies inPortugalequally reveala lackof
informationregardingthemostrelevantenergyusesathome intermsof their relativeproportiontothe
monthly energy bill, which indicates a dissonance between the actual and the perceived energy use of
differentcategoriesofhomeappliances,(Quercus,2008).
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
40
3.3.4 Cultural–normativeandsocialbarriers
Culturalprerequisitesandsocialnormsthatsetaesthetics,comfortorevensocialposition,canalsoworkas
barriers towards adopting more energy efficient lifestyles, (Barenergy, 2011). To resolve such barriers
requires a clear understanding about the social processes within which decisions aremade, (Carpenter,
Folke,Scheffer,&Westley,2009;Folke,2006).Energysavingbehaviourchallengesexistingwaysofthinking
anddoing, includingsocialcustomsandthewaysof living,aswellas theassumptionsthatsupport these
attitudesandbehaviours,(SedgwickandEdgar,1999).Withincurrentlifestyles,mostoftheenergyrelated
services are perceived as necessary for meeting basic needs and social practices. Therefore, energy
consumption has been driven by evolving expectations and standards of what is normal, (Heiskanen,
Johnson,&Vadovics,2009;Quitzau&Røpke,2008;Shove,2003).Examplesofsuchevolvingpracticesand
normsareplenty,includingtheaestheticsquestionofsolarpanels,(IPPR,2009),toenergyefficientlighting,
(Leiserowitz et al., 2009), the social taste for ambient low-lighting, (Barenergy, 2011; Southerton et al.,
2011;Wilhite&Lutzenhiser,1999),ortheimportanceofevolvingcooling(andheating),practicesathome,
(Shove,2005;WilhiteandLing,1992).Thesecultural,normativeandsocialsettingshelpto framenormal
behaviourandexpectationsconcerningtheconsumptionofenergyandtherefore,workasabarriertothe
adoptionofenergy-savingbehaviours,(Southertonetal.,2011).Therefore,energyconsumptionmightnot
only be, individually invisible, but also, socially invisible and rarely the subject of conscious decision,
(Lutzenhiser, 1993). Changing these social customs and norms is both difficult and problematic, as it
requires shifting the focusof interventionaway from individual consumerdecisions, toward shaping and
interveninginthesharedbehavioursofsocialgroups,(Southertonetal.,2011).
3.4 Individualpsychologicalbarriers
Individualpsychologicalbarriersaretheproductoftheexistingcultural,normativeandsocialexpectations
thatsupporttheindividualperceptionregardinglimitstowhatpeoplearewillingtodotosaveenergy,with
these limitsoftenbeing rooted inpersonalexperiences,orupbringing, (Barenergy,2011). In this context
psychological barriers can help to explain an existing unwillingness to adopt more energy efficient
behaviourandthusconstitutebarriersandasfurtherexaminedinthefollowing.
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
41
3.4.1 Habitsasabarrier
Energyuseathomeisoftentheoutcomeofestablishedhabitsandpracticesthatcanconstituteabarrier
towards the adoption of different andmore energy efficient behaviours, (Darnton, 2008; Jackson, 2005;
Martiskainen,2007;Prendergrastetal.,2008;Uphametal.,2009).Habitsthuscanactasadeterminantof
domesticenergyuseandareseentobeoneofthereasonswhyenergyconsumptionkeepsrisingdespite
anevidentincreaseinawarenessandconcernaboutenergyuseathome,(Maréchal,2010).Indeed,energy
consumingbehaviours,suchasswitchingoffthelights,orturningoffappliances,areoftenguidedbydeeply
ingrained habits and therefore can become counter-intentional to individual best intents, (Verplanken&
Faes,1999).Counter-intentionalhabitsrepresentakindofcognitivetrap,thatlocksindividualsintoroutine
behaviours, evenwhen these behaviours conflict with the individual’s rational deliberations, or that are
inconsistent with social norms, (Jackson, 2005). Counter-intentional habits might thus help explain the,
efficiencyparadoxandcontinuedincreaseofenergyconsumptiondespiterisingenvironmentalawareness
among the population, (Maréchal, 2010). Such deeply ingrained habits could lead to locked-in practices,
whereindividualsbecomelocked-inintotheirdailyenergyconsumptionbehaviours,(Maréchal,2010).This
makesthemlessopentorationaldeliberationandthuscryptictounderstand,whichlimitstheindividual’s
response to policies, as well as behavioural change interventions, designed to promote the adoption of
moreenergyefficientbehaviour, (Jackson,2005;Stern,2007).Asa result,habitscanbecomebehaviours
that are difficult, (Bamberg, 2003), although not impossible to change, (Matthies, Klöckner, & Preißner,
2006).
3.4.2 Comfortasapsychologicalbarrier
Theexpectationofindividualcomfortisconsideredtobeanimportantpsychologicalbarriertoanyattempt
toreduceenergyconsumption,(Huebner,Cooper,&Jones,2011;Shove,2003).Thedistantandsometimes
invisible,negativeconsequencesofenvironmentallydamaging,orenergyintensivebehaviours,seemtobe
overpoweredbytherelativelyimmediatecertaintiesofareductionincomfortandconvenience,(Lehman&
Geller, 2004).Understanding thedetail towhat constitutes comfort requiresone to consider contextual,
social, technological, cultural, historical and psychological factors, (Hitchings, 2009; Shove, 2003, 2006).
Recent trends suggest a large variation in comfort conditions and practices, (de Dear & Brager, 2001;
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
42
Hitchings,2009),butalsoadecreasedlevelofindividualthermaladaptabilityduetothegrowingattraction
ofsettingunsustainableambientstandards, (deDear&Brager,2001). Inglobalterms,theenergycostof
maintainingstandardizedcomfortconditions inbuildingsand in indoorenvironmentsaroundtheworld is
ultimately unsustainable, (Shove, Heather, Lutzenhiser & Hacket, 2008). Although people have reported
beingcomfortableinatemperaturerangeof6–30oC,(ChappellsandShove,2005),comfortexpectations
are converging towards artificially heatedand cooledenvironments,which increaseenergy and resource
use, particularly as air-conditioning gains prominence in households, (Cooper, 1998; Ackermann, 2002).
Todaymost people tolerate a narrower temperature band and reject formerways of achieving comfort,
suchasopeningwindows,usingblanketsandappropriateclothing,buildingthermallyefficienthousing,or
takingsiestasonhotafternoons,(Shove,2003).Thereforeexpectationsaboutwhattypeofthermalcomfort
is desirable (humidity levels, temperature, etc.), as well as how that comfort should be achieved, are
converging towards air-conditioned environments, (Strengers, 2008). Despite the direct link between
comfort,peakdemandanddemandmanagement,currentexpectationsofcomfortarestill consideredto
be a basic, non-negotiable human right in developed nations, rather than being understood as
unsustainable,(Strengers,2008).
3.4.3 Individualbeliefsandself-efficacyasabarrier
Anindividual’sbeliefabouttheeaseordifficultyofperformingagivenbehaviour,oronbeingcapableof
achieving a particular goal, is seen to influence individual decision on whether or not to conduct a
behaviour, (Martiskainen, 2007). From literature this belief has been observed in studies on self-efficacy
expectancies, (Bandura, 1986), perceived behavioural control, (Ajzen&Madden, 1986), locus of control,
(Maddux, 1995), ability concepts, (Ølander& Thøgersen, 1995), or sense of agency, studies, (Jeannerod,
2003).Suchstudiesallshowthatone’sbehaviourcanhaveanimpactandthatoneiscapableofcontrolling
the outcomes of one’s own behaviour. This involves both beliefs about the likelihood between certain
behavioursanddesiredgoalsoroutcomes(outcomeexpectancies)andbeliefsaboutanindividual’sability
toexecutethebehaviours(self-efficacyexpectancies).InhisoriginalworkBandura(Figure3-1)referredto
such a distinction as “Efficacy expectations” and “Outcomeexpectations”with the formermeaning “The
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
43
convictionthatonecansuccessfullyexecutethebehaviourrequiredtoproduceoutcomes”andthelatteras
“Aperson’sestimatethatagivenbehaviourwillleadtocertainoutcomes”,(Bandura,1977a,p.193).
Figure3-1:Diagrammaticrepresentationoftheconditionalrelationsbetweenefficacybeliefsandoutcome
expectancies(adaptedfromBandura(1977b),p.350).
Bandura justifies this distinction on the ground that “Individuals can believe that a particular course of
actionwillproducecertainoutcomes,butiftheyentertainseriousdoubtsaboutwhethertheycanperform
the necessary activities such information does not influence their behaviour”, (Bandura, 1977a, p. 350).
Efficacybeliefsarethusseentoinfluencetheinitiationandpersistenceofbehavioursandcoursesofaction,
thus they are assumed to be specific to behaviours and situations, (Bandura, 1977a, 1982, 1986). As a
consequence, perceived efficacy in one behavioural-situational domain could therefore be expected in
otherdomainsdependingontheextenttowhichthebehavioursandsituationssharecrucialfeaturesand
requiresimilarskillsandfunctions,(Bandura,1990).For instance,perceivedefficacyinrecyclingmight,or
mightnot,beexpected tooccurwithenergy savingathome,dependingonhowthe twobehavioursare
evaluated.
Individual beliefs, regarding self-efficacy, can be learned in variousways, including personal or vicarious
experiences,learninginfluencedbyindividualattemptsinagiventask,thedegreeofpersistenceindoingso
and ultimately success of the action, (Bandura, 1977a). Bandura (1977a), hypothesized that self-efficacy
affects choiceof activities, effort andpersistencewith success,or failure, inpersonalperformancebeing
proposedasthemostpowerfulinfluenceonself-efficacy.Successfulpersonalexperiencesraiseself-efficacy
and failures lower it, but once a strong senseof self-efficacy is developed, a failuremaynot havemuch
impact,(Bandura,1986).Forexample,ifsomeoneisattemptingtosaveenergyandregistersadecreaseon
the energy bill, this could contribute to the perception of self-efficacy via successful energy saving. The
opposite, an increase on the energy bill,might contribute to belief failure and lack of efficacy in saving
energy.Thisbuildingofpersonalexperience isseentobeparticular important,sincepeopletendtohold
ontobeliefsanddonotabandonthem,evenafter receivingcontradictory information, (Anderson,2007).
Person Behaviour Outcome
EFFICACYBELIEFSLevel
StrengthGenerality
OUTCOMEEXPECTANCIESPhysicalSocial
Self-evaluative
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
44
Individualscanholdmanybeliefsaboutanygivenbehaviour,buttheycanattendtoonlyarelativelysmall
numberofbeliefsatanygivenmomentanditisthissmallnumberofsalientbeliefsthatareconsideredto
be the prevailing determinants of a person’s intentions10 and behaviours, (Ajzen, 1991). In the case of
energy this could be, for instance, to decide between adding another layer of clothes or maintaining a
higher room temperature for perceived comfort needs. This is to say that, if one’s previous experience
reinforcesself-efficacyinsavingenergyathome,onemightpersistintheeffort.Inthecaseoffailurethis
mightleadtotheabandonmentoffurtherattemptstosaveenergyathome.
Once individual self-efficacy and competence are extended to a group level, a collective efficacy can be
observed. Individual responses are not entirely independent of responses from others, from what is
perceivedasthesocialnormandthereforeasenseofcollectiveefficacydoesexistwhere individualscan
solve their problems and improve their lives through concerted effort, (Bandura, 1986). Research by
Andreasen(1995)furtherrevealedthattheremightbeaperceivedlackofcollectivecapacitythattogether
withaperceivedoppositionandaperceivedsocialmandate,canconstitutethekeyreasonsfor individual
inaction.Thisperceivedlackofcapacitymightthusoccuroncethetargetaudiencenolongerbelievesthat
theycancarryoutanactionandmaintain it, (Bandura,1977a,1992;Rotter,1954;Schwartz,1977;Stern,
1999).Forinstance,believingonehasnocontroloverclimatechangecouldfacilitatemechanismssuchas
denialandworkagainstpro-environmentalbehaviours,(Gifford,Iglesias,&Casler,2008).BakerandKirsch
(1991) foundthatoncepeopleanticipatedaversiveoutcomes, theywereno longerwillingtoengage ina
behaviourthatmayproducethoseoutcomes.Their linguistichabit istosaythattheycannotperformthe
behaviour(lowself-efficacy),ratherthansayingthattheywillnotperformit.Thisthenmightoverestimate
theprevalenceoflackofefficacyandalsogenerateapathyandanincreasedsenseofhelplessnesstowards
environmentalissues,(Allen&Ferrand,1999;Donn,1999;Vandenbergh,Barkenbus,&Gilligan,2008).
3.4.4 Resistanceandunwillingnesstochangeasabarrier
Resistanceandunwillingnesstochangeoftenresultsfromdeeplyingrainedhabits,existingandcommonly
acceptedstandards,orsocialnorms,suchasmaintainingthecurrentlevelsofcomfortandwellbeing,that
10Anintentioniswhatonesaysoneplanstodo.
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
45
all canbeconsideredasabarrier towards theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours, (Barenergy,
2011;Darnton,2008;Darnton,Verplanken,White,&Whitmarsh,2011;EEA,2013;Gardner&Stern,2008;
Jackson,2005;Prendergrast,Foley,Menne,&Isaac,2008;Shove,2003).
Researchhasprovided someevidence for anumberofbehaviours in termsofhowwillingpeopleare to
engage in theminorder toprotect theenvironment. They foundthat individualsaregenerally receptive
towardsrecyclingandtheconservationofenergyathome,butnotedconsiderablyresistancetochanging
personalhabits,suchastravelling,(DEFRA,2007;Thomas&Sharp,2013;Tobleretal.,2012;Uphametal.,
2009;Whitmarsh,2009;Whitmarsh,Turnpenny,&Nykvist,2009;Williamson,Soebarto&Radford,2010).
Travel habits seem to be the hardest to change; personal resistance and unwillingness to change are a
primebarrierforthis,(Tobleretal.,2012).
3.5 Concludingremarks
Thischapterlookedatwhatinfluencesenergyuseathome(RQ2),andtheunderlyingmotivationalvariables
and barriers for adoptingmore energy efficient behaviours. As can be seen,maintaining existing energy
relatedbehavioursappearstooutweighthemotivationtoadoptmoreenergyefficientonesasaresultofa
numberofmacro,knowledgerelated,cultural,normative,socialandpsychologicalreasons,thatconstitute
barrierstowardschange.Evenmotivations,suchasrealisingmonetarysavings,ultimatelycanconstitutea
barrier.Potentialbenefitsseemtodirectlycompetewiththeeffortthatwouldberequiredtoengageinthe
numerousactionsrequiredtoactuallyachievemeaningfulsavings,(BPIE,2011;GreenAlliance,2011;IPPR,
2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009), as well as competing with a perceived loss in terms of desired level of
comfortandwellbeing,(Barenergy,2011;Darnton,2008;Darnton,Verplanken,White,&Whitmarsh,2011;
EEA,2013;Jackson,2005;Shove,2003).Othermotivations,suchastheneedtocomplywithsocialnorms,
or to comply with personal, altruistic andmoral motivations, do not appear to constitute an important
motivation to adoptingmore energy efficient behaviours at home, (IPPR, 2009; Leiserowitz et al., 2009).
Fromabarrierperspective,all such factorscouldhoweverprevent theadoptionofmoreenergyefficient
behaviours (RQ2b).Thisseemedtobe, inparticular, true for family relatedcomfort levelswherethere is
considerableresistancetochangeingrainedbehavioursparticularlythosethatareperceivedasnormaland
sociallyacceptable,(DEFRA,2007;Tobleretal.,2012;Uphametal.,2009;Whitmarsh,2009;Whitmarshet
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
46
al., 2009). A barrier towards change frequently results from a resistance to making changes that are
perceivedasreducingqualityoflife,(Kaplan,2000),whilepreferenceisgiventoeasytodohabits,suchas
switchingthelightsoff,orrecycling,(Thøgersen&Ølander,2002).
As can be seen through this chapter, barriers for adopting more energy efficient behaviours at home
(RQ2b),mightalsoinclude(1),Thelockineffectofinfrastructuresandexistingsocialconventions,suchas
comfort and convenience, (Heiskanen et al., 2009; Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007).(2); The
attitude/value-behaviourgap,(Kollmuss&Agyeman,2002).(3);Thedisconnectiontowardsenvironmental
risks, concerns and problems which are overall perceived as spatially and temporarily uncertain,
(Eurobarometer,2011a;2011b;Leiserowitzetal.2011a;2011b,Maibachetal.,2009;Uphametal.,2009);
(4),Requiredengagementinnumeroussmallactions,(Katesetal.,2001;Weber,1997);(5),Theinvisibility
of theconsequencesofonesactions, (Thøgersen,2005); (6), Socialdilemmas, since individualeffortsare
understoodasuselessunlessothersparticipateorcontributeaswell,(Kollock,1998;Maibachetal.,2009;
Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Uusitalo, 1990); free-riding as a problem in itself and as a justification for
resistancetochangeonesownactions,(IPPR,2009;Maibachetal.,2009;Uphametal.,2009);(7)Political
andeconomicbarriersthatcouldpromoteandfacilitatetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,
(Green Alliance, 2011); (8), Cultural-normative barriers as social practices influence energy consumption
drivenbyevolvingexpectationsandstandardsofnormaleverydaylife,(Heiskanenetal.,2009;Quitzau&
Røpke,2008;Shove,2003;Southertonetal.,2011);or(9)Knowledgebasedbarriersasindividualsmaynot
alwaysbeawareoftheenvironmental impactsofbehaviours,orbenefitsofchanges inthesebehaviours,
(Baird&Brier,1981;Gatersleben,2000),includinglackofaccesstorelevantinformation,(Barenergy,2011;
DEFRA,2007;EnergySavingTrust,2011;Leiserowitzetal.,2009;Martiskainen,2007;Uphametal.,2009;
Whitmarshetal.,2009).
In terms of psychological barriers (RQ2c), it can be seen that adoptingmore energy efficient behaviour
mightrequire increasingefficacyexpectationsandoutcomeexpectations, (Bandura,1977a;Martiskainen,
2007).Anticipatingaversiveoutcomes,beitloworundesiredimpacts,mightexplainwhypeoplereportnot
beingcapable toperformabehaviour (lowself-efficacy), rather thansaying that theywillnotperform it,
(Baker& Kirsch, 1991). This thenmight generate apathy and an increased sense of helplessness, (Donn,
1999),orareducedparticipationinenvironmentallysignificantbehaviours,(Allen&Ferrand,1999).Thusit
3.Energyusebehaviours:motivationsandbarriers
47
can be seen that to successfully address environmental problems will require a collective effort and
efficacy,whichthenbringsalongthepsychologicalbarrierof“Iwillifyouwill”,(Vandenberghetal.,2008).
FurtherItcanbeseenthattheaspectsoftimeandspace,andshort-term(economic),focuscanleadtoa
lack of consideration for longer-term impacts / interconnections of actions and decisions, (Nordlund &
Garvill,2002,2003;Stern,2000;Thøgersen&Ølander,2002).Currentlythereappearstobenocleardata
forPortugalonwhethersuchaspectsoftimeandspace,short-termfocusandlonger-termimpactcanbe
observed.
Theliteratureprovideslittleevidenceregardingtheabilityofvaluesandattitudestoinfluencetheamount
ofenergybeingusedathome.Forthecaseofvalues,literatureindicatesthatvalueshavealooseinfluence
onbehaviour,(Rohan,2000),affectingbehaviourindirectlythroughspecificbeliefs,normsandintentions,
(Feather,1990;Nordlund&Garvill, 2003;Poortingaetal., 2004), thoughvalue-actiongaps couldalsobe
observed, (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Similarly, the contribution of attitudes as a predictor of pro-
environmental behaviours seems not to be well established, despite the existence of available studies,
(Bamberg,2003;Geller,1981;McKenzie-Mohr&Smith,1999;Poortingaetal.,2004;Schultzetal.,1995;
Thøgersen,2004).Asseenfromtheliteraturetheremightalsobeanattitude-behaviourgap,(Kollmuss&
Agyeman,2002).Thoughattitudesseemtoguidebehaviourforthosecaseswhereattitudesarestrongand
where social and structural conditions support the behaviour, (Stern, 2000), or for changing simple,
repetitive, low-costenergysavingbehaviours, (Abrahamse&Steg,2009;Abrahamseetal.,2005;Blacket
al.,1985;Heberlein&Warriner,1983;Stern,1992),aswellasforhavingthefinancialabilitytoperformthe
behaviour, (Gatersleben, 2000). This might be, in particular, problematic, since energy consuming
behaviours are often habitual and therefore difficult to modify, (Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003),
althoughnotimpossibletochange,(Matthiesetal.,2006).Itthusappearsthattoencouragetheadoption
of more energy efficient behaviour would likely require overcoming a number of barriers, including
individualpsychologicalones.Altogetherthiswouldthereforeimplyaneedforbetterunderstandingof,for
example, thesocialprocesseswithinwhichdecisionsaremade, (Barenergy,2011;Carpenteretal.,2009;
Folke, 2006), or how the cultural, normative and social settings impact to frame normal behaviour,
(Maréchal,2010).
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
48
4 Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
Thischapter looksat thepotentialeffectivenessofchange interventionswithinthe fieldofenergyuseat
home(RQ3)andthedifferenttypesofinterventionsthatmightbeapplied.
Achieving lasting behavioural change appears to be often problematic and environmental values, beliefs
andattitudesdonotappear tohavea significant influenceonenergyconsumption, (Martiskainen,2007;
Uphametal.,2009).Someagreementexiststhat,promotingbehaviouralchangerequiresacombinationof
effort,fromcommunicationtopolicymaking,toreducethevariousbarriersthatexist(IPPR,2009).Todate,
most intervention strategies have, however, predominantly focused on voluntary behavioural change,
rather than on changing contextual factors that can determine individual decisions, (Abrahamse et al.,
2005; Jackson, 2005). Contextual factors set the context where individual decisions are made and
intervention strategies, that do include both voluntary behaviour change and contextual factors, might
therefore increase the level of success in promoting lasting behavioural change, (Gärling et al., 2002).
Common contextual factors include technological developments, economic growth, demographic factors,
institutionalfactorsandculturaldevelopments,(Gatersleben&Vlek,1998),thattogether,shapeindividual
factors, such as motivations, opportunities and abilities, (Ølander and Thøgersen, 1995). Findings from
Abrahamseetal.(2005),suggestthatoncevoluntarybehaviourchangeandcontextualfactorsareapplied
together,thenbehaviouralchangeinterventionsmightalsobeabletotargetthe individual’sperceptions,
preferences and abilities. Theymight equally change the context inwhich decisions are beingmade (for
instance, through financial rewards, laws,or theprovisionofenergy-efficientequipment) andasa result
they couldmake energy saving behaviour relativelymore attractive. For instance, householdsmay save
moreenergybyproperlyinsulatingtheirhomesthanbyloweringthermostatsettings.However,theuseof
energy-efficient appliances does not necessarily result in reduction of the overall energy consumption,
which inpart isaconsequenceofareboundeffect, (Berkhout,Muskens,&Velthuijsen,2000).Toavoida
reboundeffectmight require intervention strategies that provide the right interplay between contextual
factors andmicro-level factors, though the literature on combined intervention strategies appears to be
scarce and there is apparently little evidence about the actual impact of such combined intervention
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
49
strategies,(Abrahamseetal.;2005). Inadditiontothis, it isoftendifficulttoestablishthecontributionof
eachoftheinterventionsseparatelyandthevolumeandconsistencyoftheevaluationsthatarecurrently
available has been very poor, often vague and generic with very little empirical rigour presented,
(Southertonetal.,2011).
4.1 Energyuse,Interventionsandsupportiveframeworks
There are a number of frameworkswithin the environmental field that attempt to support intervention
strategies to find the right interplay between the various existing factors. Frameworks from the field of
behaviouraleconomicsapproachthematter,forexample,byputtingforwardasetofexternal,internaland
socialdeterminants,soastounderstandindividualbehaviour.Theoverallaim,asillustratedinFigure4-1,is
to provide an integrated approach to changebehaviour through a number of external, internal or social
factors, such as emotions or habits, which could change the balance of costs vs. benefits that is at the
centre of the traditional economic perspective of understanding human behaviour, (Prendergrast et al.,
2008).
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
50
Figure4-1:Reducingcaruse:Factorsaffectingbehaviouralchange,(Prendergrastetal.2008,p.104).
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
51
Fromabehaviouraleconomicperspective,itisarguedthatindividualbehavioursareinfluencedbyamuch
widerrangeoffactorsandnotlimitedtoone’s,‘expectednetbenefits’.Suchfactorsinclude,forexample,
the impact of habits, emotions, cognitive capabilities, cultural attitudes and social norms. From an
economic perspective all of such factors can thus impact the balance of an individual’s costs vs. benefit
understandingandthusimpactbehaviour,(Prendergrastetal.,2008).Assuch,informationalandfinancial
levers alonemight not be sufficient to explain an individual’s behaviour and that the prevailing rational
model of behaviour is, in some circumstances, inappropriate once one considers how people make
decisions,(Prendergrastetal.,2008).
Anotherframeworkwithintheenvironmentalfieldthatattemptstosupportinterventionstrategiestofind
the right interplay uses psychological interventions as a framework and tool to promote individual
behaviouralchange.Focusislaidonchangingexistingperceptions,knowledge,attitudes,normsandvalues
under the assumption that this thenwould result in behaviour changing accordingly, (Abrahamse et al.,
2005). Intervention can then address the community level and the social aspects of energy-related
behaviour,insteadoftheindividualapproachthathasbeendominatingthearea,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;
Darby,2006;Heiskanenetal.,2009;Middlemiss,2008).
Anotherframeworkthatcouldpotentiallybeusedtosupportinterventionstrategiesisamodeldeveloped
byDEFRA (UKDepartment forEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs),under theUK’s strategy topromote
pro-environmental behaviours, as depicted in Figure 4-2 and which works alongside the four E factors,
Enable,Engage,ExemplifyandEncourage,(DEFRA,2008).
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
52
Figure4-2:Diagrammaticrepresentationofthe4E’smodel,(DEFRA,2008,p.53).
As can be seen from Figure 4-2, promoting pro-environmental behaviour from the DEFRA 4E Model
frameworkperspectivewouldrequireanumberofactionstoresult inhabitsbeingbrokenandnewmore
environmentalfriendlybehavioursadopted.
A further framework to support intervention strategies is theMindspace approach, (Dolan, 2010),which
intends to take behavioural science to the very heart of policy-making. Theword,Mindspace, is itself a
mnemonicofninenon-coerciveinfluencesonbehaviour,asFigure4-3shows:
Figure4-3:Mindspace’sinfluencesonbehaviour,(Dolan,2010).
From a Mindspace framework perspective, the approach seeks to influence behaviour by changing the
context,whichwouldencouragepeopleunconsciouslyintoonecourseofaction,ratherthananother.
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
53
In summary, it can be clearly shown that there are a number of frameworks that attempt to support
interventionstrategiestofindtherightinterplaybetweenthevariousexistingfactorsthatcouldbeusedto
encourage theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours. Each framework showsa slight variation in
termsofexistingfactorsandapproach.
4.1.1 Potentialinterventionlayers
Asmuchastherightinterplaybetweenthecontextualfactorsandmicro-levelfactorsinfluenceenergyuse
athome,sodoadiversityofdeterminants,motivationsandbarriers.Theyallareconsideredinfluentialto
energy use at home and thus might be taken into account for any intervention attempts. Behavioural
change interventions tend toaddressat leastoneof the contexts inwhichbehaviourmightbe changed,
individual,social,orcontextual/materialspheres,(Southertonetal.,2011),asillustratedinFigure4-4.
Figure4-4:Therelationbetweenmaterial,socialandindividualcontexts,adaptedfromSouthertonetal.(2011).
Figure 4-4 illustrates that influencing the individual sphere might require interventions to focus on the
individual attitudes soas to changebehaviours and choices.Within the social sphere, such interventions
will address social norms, cultural conventions and shared understanding of practices. In the
contextual/material sphere, intervention might refer to the objects, technologies, and infrastructures,
whichcanenableorconstrain theadoptionofnewbehaviours, (Southertonetal.,2011).Following from
this,Figure4-5,buildsfromBarenergy(2011)andsummarizeswhatcouldmotivate,enableandreinforce
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
54
individual behavioural change in relation to the barriers, that literature indicates exist, that need to be
addressedandfinally,thetypeofinterventionsthatcouldbeusedinordertopromotechange.
Figure4-5:Therelationbetweenenergyusedeterminants,motivations,barrierstochangeandtypesofintervention,
adaptedfrom,(Barenergy,2011).
As Figure 4-5 illustrates, there might be two different layers of intervention. One that addresses the
external/macrofactors,suchastheneedofanadequate legal framework,orthedeploymentof financial
instruments, thatcouldpromote individualchangeandonethatpromotes internalchangeby influencing
values, beliefs or perceptions. Comfort, convenience, individual willingness,motivation, opportunity and
abilityareallidentifieddeterminantsthatinfluenceenergyuseathomeandashavebeendetailedthrough
Chapterstwoandthree.Thusthereappeartobeanumberofinterventionlayers(Fig4-4)andfactors(Fig
4-5),thoughtheliteratureappearsundecidedastowhichcouldencouragelastingchange.
4.2 Behaviouralchange,communicationandpersuasion
Persuasioncan influenceothersbymodifyingtheirbeliefs,values,orattitudes, (Simons,1976,p.21)and
ultimately their behaviour, (Jackson, 2005; Martiskainen, 2007). Persuasion is often based on three
principles; (1), thecredibilityof thesender (2), thepersuasivenessof theargument/messageand (3), the
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
55
responsivenessoftheaudience,(O’Keefe,1990).Persuadingpeopletochangecanbeparticularlydifficultin
amessage-denseenvironmentandeffectivepersuasionrequiresanumberofprinciplestobemetsuchas,
understanding the target audience, using emotional and imaginative appeals, immediacy and directness,
commitments/loyalty schemes and the use of ‘retrieval cues’ to catalyse the new behaviour, (Jackson,
2005). There are a number of persuasion theories and approaches that might be applied to promote
behaviouralchange.
The cognitivedissonance theory, (Festinger, 1957)assumes, forexample, thatpeopleprefer congruency,
i.e. people aremotivated to avoid internal inconsistency (dissonance), between values, beliefs, attitudes
and behaviour. These feelings of discomfort might arise from conflicting attitudes or values, but might
equallybeinvokedbydiscrepanciesbetweenanattitude,e.g.abouttheself,andbehaviourhighlightingthe
desire for attitude-behaviour consistency, (Jackson, 2005). The theory suggests that once engaging in a
behaviour that opposes attitudes, people experience distress and an uncomfortable psychological state
resulting from the awareness of holding conflicting beliefs, or acting inconsistently with one’s attitudes.
Dependingontheimportanceoftheissueandthedegreeofdiscomfort,peoplethenwillbepersuadedto
changebeliefs,attitudesorbehavioursinordertoreduceinconsistenciesinthecognitiveinformationthat
they hold about themselves, their behaviour, or their environment, (Brehm & Kassin, 1996; Dainton &
Zelley,2005). InaccordancetoBrehmandKassin (1996),peopletendtoadoptoneof threestrategiesto
reducedissonance: (1),changingtheirattitudeto justify theirbehaviour,particularly for long-termhabits
where it is suggested that people readjust their long-term goals rather than, “changing the habit of a
lifetime”,(Jackson,2005,pp.114-115).AnexampleofthiswouldbetheLondoncongestioncharge,where
public opinionwas opposed before itwas introduced, but seems to have changed once the chargewas
introduced, (Darnton,2008;Knottetal.,2008). (2),Claiming,orperceiving, tohave littleornochoiceof
action, i.e. reducingdissonancebyunder-reportingknowledgeabout the impactofparticularbehaviours,
(Darnton,2008),Forexample,under-reportknowledgeonhowtoreduceenergyuseinordertoreducethe
unavoidablecontradiction in responses toquestionsaboutpersonalenergyuse.Thiscouldbeoneof the
reasons for decreasing levels of reported knowledge once moving from bigger issues, such as climate
change,towardsmorespecificbehaviours,suchasenergysavingathome.(3)Bydenyinganyinconsistency,
i.e. denying personal responsibility for tackling the problem, or by ‘over-claiming’ the involvement in,
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
56
“Issueswhichpeoplethinktheyoughttobeseentobeinvolvedin”,(Darnton,2008,p.12).Withregardsto
denial of inconsistencies, the literatureprovides threeequallydifferentwaysonhow thismighthappen.
Firstly, people might underestimate individual energy use as well as its contribution to environmental
problems. Secondly, by overestimating the prevalence of non-conservation as a habit shared by other
people,suggestingthistobeanormal,societalbehaviour.Thirdly,byover-claimingthefrequencyofpro-
environmental activities, such as recycling, as away to support the feeling of personal contribution and
reinforcingtheperceptionofalreadydoingeverythingtheycan,(Cialdinietal.,1990;vanderPligt,1985.)
An alternative persuasion theory thatmight be applied is, Higgins’s (1987) Self Discrepancy Theory, that
assumes that the individual self-concept is derived partly, from ones’ own perspective of ‘myself’ and
partly, from‘my’perceptionsofothers’perspectivesofme.Thetheorydistinguishesbetweensixdistinct
types of self-concept: actual-own, actual-other, ideal-own, ideal-other, ought-own and ought-other,with
discrepanciesgivingrisetodifferenttypesofemotionalresponse.Forexample,discrepancybetween‘my’
actual self-conceptand ‘my’ ideal self-concept is likely togive rise todejection-relatedemotions, suchas
disappointmentanddissatisfaction.Discrepanciesbetween‘my’actualself-conceptandthe idealconcept
othershaveofme,ontheotherhand,aremostlikelytogiverisetofeelingsofshameorembarrassment.
Incongruitiesbetween‘my’actualself-conceptand‘my’oughtself-conceptarelikelytogiverisetofeelings
ofguilt.
Social judgment theory, (C.W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965;M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961), is another
persuasiontheorythatmightbeusedandthatassumesthatpeoplemakeevaluations,socalledjudgments,
aboutthecontentofmessagesbasedontheiranchorsonaparticulartopic.Whenthetopicisonethathas
personalsignificancetotheindividual, it isconsideredtobecentraltotheirsenseofself,hence,theyare
ego-involved,(Dainton&Zelley,2005).Thetheorysuggeststhateachperson’sattitudescanbeplacedinto
oneofthreecategories,withtheindividualreactiontoapersuasivemessagedependingonthepositionon
thetopic,(M.Sherif&Hovland,1961):(1),thelatitudeofacceptance,includesallthoseideasthatpeople
findacceptable(2),thelatitudeofrejection,includesallthoseideasthatpeoplefindunacceptableand(3),
the latitudeofnon-commitment, includesthose ideas forwhichpeoplehavenoopinion.Social judgment
theoryproposes thatpersuadersmustcarefullyconsider thepre-existingattitudesofanaudiencebefore
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
57
designingthemessage.Accordingtothetheory,threescenarioscantakeplace:(1),sendingamessagethat
fallsintopeople’slatitudeofrejectionmightleadtounsuccessful,persuasiveeffort,(2),sendingamessage
aimedatpeople’slatitudeofacceptancemightonlyleadtoreinforcementofwhatpeoplealreadybelieve,
ratherthanpersuasion,or(3),sendingamessagetargetedtopeople’slatitudeofnon-commitment,orthe
edgesofit,wouldbetruepersuasion,(Dainton&Zelley,2005;Miller,2002).
Afurtherpersuasiontheorythatcouldbeapplied, istheelaborationlikelihoodmodel,(Petty&Cacioppo,
1986),thatpredictsthatiflistenersaremotivatedandabletoconsideranelaboratedmessage,persuaders
should rely on strong, factually based arguments and that arguments can backfire if they are weak, or
poorly presented, (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Conversely, persuaders should focus on emotionally based
peripheral messages if receivers cannot, or will not, consider an elaborated message, even though
recognizingthatusingaperipheralrouteisexpectedtoguaranteenolong-termchange,butratherminimal
andtransitoryeffects,(Petty&Cacioppo,1986).
Ascanbeseen,therearenumerouspersuasiontheoriesandwhileeachofthemvariesintheirrespective
approach, they all might be applied to promote behavioural change and as will be further examined in
Chapter8,onceitcomestoperceivedrequirements(RQ3a)andindividualperceptionsontheeffectiveness
ofinterventionstrategies(RQ3b).
4.2.1 Persuasionandcommunication
Persuasionisoftenassociatedwithcommunicationandbehaviourchangeintervention.Literaturesuggests
that unpopular messages, such as the need to change lifestyles and to reduce consumption, may be
rejected,orignored,toavoidconfrontingtheimplicationsforappreciatedbehaviours,(Feinberg&Willer.,
2010;Uphametal.,2009,vanderPligt,1985).Thustheremightbetheneedforcreatinganewbalanceby
changing individual attitudes rather than behaviour, (Gass & Seiter., 2003). As such attempts to shame
individualsintoadoptingpro-environmentalbehaviourscanbeineffectiveinchangingbehaviours,(O’Keefe,
2002);anytypeofpersuasionattemptshouldbeframedinawaytobuildupnarrativestowhichindividuals
canconnect.Altogether,thisimpliesthatanytypeofmessagethatreferstopotentialsolutionsshouldbe
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
58
deliveredinapositive,andnotconfrontationalframe,thereforeencouragingindividualstobelieveintheir
abilitytocontributetowhattheyperceiveasapositivechange.
4.2.2 Mentalmodelsandcommunication
Individuals use their knowledge and beliefs to help them interpret new information in order to reach
conclusions.Amentalmodelrepresentsaperson’sthoughtprocessforhowsomethingworksandservesas
the framework to fitnew information, (Morgan, Fischhoff,Bostrom,&Atman,2002).Mentalmodelsare
oftenbasedonincompletefacts,pastexperiencesandevenintuitiveperceptions,thathelpshapeactions
and behaviour, influence what people pay attention to and define how people approach and solve
problems,(Carey,1986).But,byworkingasaframework,sometimesamentalmodelmayalsoworkasa
filter, resulting in only selective knowledgebeing considered,with people seekingout, or absorbing, the
information that only matches their mental model. Here, they might be confirming what they already
believeaboutanissue,whichthencouldposeapotentialchallengeforcommunicationaimingatpromoting
moreenergy efficient behaviours. This situation is knownwithin the literature as a confirmationbias, as
peoplelookforinformationthatisconsistentwithwhattheyalreadythink,want,orfeel,leadingthemto
avoid,dismiss,orforgetinformationthatrequiresthemtochangetheirpositionand,quitepossibly,their
behaviour,(Shome&Marx,2009).Itmightbethusthatoncepeoplesay,“Ican’t”,thatitsimplymeans,“I
don’twantto”.Thusanimportantcriterionforeffectivecommunicationistoknowtheaudience,whatthey
understandandmisunderstandabouttheissue,howtheyperceiveathreattotheircurrentandintended
behaviours, their values, beliefs and policy preferences, or their barriers to change and underlying
motivations.Allofthesecouldeitherconstrain,orinspire,furtherengagementwithsolutions,(Maibachet
al.,2009).Practitionersthusneedtodiscoverwhatmisconceptionstheaudiencemayhaveintheirmental
models, so that information can be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor, and
analogy, i.e. combined with narrative storytelling, made vivid through visual imagery and experiential
scenarios, balanced with scientific information and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings,
(Shome&Marx,2009).Framingisthusperceivedasthesettingofanissuewithinanappropriatecontextto
achieveadesiredinterpretation,orperspective.Inaddition,toframethemessage,practitionersalsoneed
the specificsof the targetaudienceand their segmentation, inorder toprepare frames inadvance to fit
withtheaudiencementalmodels,(Shome&Marx,2009).Tobesuccessful,messagesmightalsoconsider
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
59
individuals’goalsandwhethertheirgoal is tomakesomethinggoodhappening,orpreventingsomething
badfromhappening,(Shome&Marx,2009).
4.2.3 Behaviouralchange,andrelevantandsupportivecommunication
Humanshold a limited capacity forworrying; theyhave a finitepool ofworry, (Linville& Fischer, 1991),
therefore tending to view near-term threats asmore relevant and of greater urgency than caring about
futureproblems,(Slovic,2000;Slovicetal.,2004;Weber,2006).Peoplethustendnottoimmediatelyreact
to threats thatmaymanifest themselves in the distant future, but rather look for balancing long-range
worrieswith thedemandsofmore immediateconcerns, (Chaiken&Trope,1999;Marxetal.,2007).The
literature suggests this to be one of the barriers to motivate people into taking action to prevent
environmentalproblems,(Shome&Marx,2009).Inadditiontothis,individualshaveanaturaltendencyto
avoid losses, rather than to seek gains, (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Once a, ‘gain vs. loss’, frame is
combinedwith a, ‘nowvs. future’, frame, people discount future gainsmore than future losses, (Thaler,
1981).Forexample,peoplemaybemorelikelytoadoptenvironmentallyfriendlybehavioursiftheybelieve
theirwayoflifeisthreatenedandthatinactionwillresultinevengreaterthreats,thusaddressingpeople’s
desire to avoid future losses rather than realizing future gains. Theymight be less likely to adopt these
measures if they focus on the current situation, which they see as acceptable and discount future
improvementsof it.Thusanytypeofcommunicationsshouldberelevantandsupportive.Shome&Marx
(2009), provide an example for such relevant and supportive communication by promoting energy
efficiencyappliancesashelpingthehomeownerstoavoidlosingmoneyonhigherenergybillsinthefuture,
insteadofhelpingthemsavemoneyinthefuture.
4.3 Structuralinterventions
As can be seen in Figure 4-5 (p.50), there are a number of intervention types that can be grouped in
between structural and psychological interventions, (Poortinga et al., 2004; Steg, 2003). Structural
interventions aimed, for example, at changing the (social), context in which behavioural decisions take
place (Fig. 4-5), are based on the belief that by altering the conditions in which behaviour takes place,
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
60
behaviour will change accordingly (Fig. 4-5). Structural interventions include, for example, financial-
economicmeasures,physical/technicalalternatives,andlegalregulation,(Steg,2003).
4.3.1 Financial-economicinterventions
Financial-economic measures hold the potential to promote energy saving by making energy-intensive
behavioursrelativelymoreexpensiveandenvironmentally-friendlyalternativesrelativelylessexpensive.To
illustrate, increasing the costs of energy use, by means of a tax on gas and electricity, may induce
householdstoreducetheirenergyuse,(Streimikiene&Ciegis,2010).Furthermore,increasingthepricesof
productsthatrequiremuchenergymayencouragehouseholdstochooselessenergy-intensivealternatives.
Nevertheless, thesekindsofmeasuresonly tend tobeeffective if consumers take the financial cost into
accountwhenmakingsuchchoices.
4.3.2 Physical/technicalinterventions
Physical/technical alternatives involve changes to already existing infrastructure and equipment, such as
the introduction of energy-efficient appliances. There is some overall agreement that efficiency
improvementsarenecessary forsustainabledevelopment,butneverthelesstechnological innovationsare
perceivedasapartialsolution,astheeffectivenessoftechnologicalmeasuresrequirestheadoptionofnew
technology,aswellastheknowledgeofhowtousesuchtechnologiesefficiently,(Abrahamse,2007;Steg,
2003). Inaddition to thisapossible reboundeffect,as identifiedbyKhazzoom(1980),mayalsooccur, in
thatconsumersmayincreasetheuseofefficientappliances,thuscounterbalancinginitialefficiencygains.
4.3.3 Legalregulation
Alsothereislegalregulationasentailedbytheintroductionoflegislationbythegovernment,suchasspeed
limitsforcarsinordertoreducecarbondioxideemissions.Oftenthisformofmeasuresisassociatedwith
some form of punishment to thosewhose behaviour deviates from the regulations and is based on the
assumptionthattheseruleswilleventuallybecomeinternalized.Regulatorymeasuresmaybeaneffective
strategyforbehaviouralchange,providedthemonitoringandenforcementsystemworksproperly.
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
61
4.4 Psychologicalinterventions
In contrast to structural interventions, psychological interventions aim to change existing perceptions,
knowledge, attitudes, norms and values (i.e. individual-level variables), so that behaviour will change
accordingly, (Southerton et al., 2011). A recent review of the potential of structural and psychological
interventionstrategieshasprovedthatthemostpromisingapproachesinvolvedenergyaudits,community
basedinterventionsandthecombinationofmorethanonetypeofintervention,andproducingsavingsof
between 2 and 20 percent, depending on the type of intervention, (EEA, 2013). There are a number of
models that attempt to support psychological intervention, such as the three term contingency ABC11
(Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequence), model of behavioural change, (Geller, 2002), that assumes that
behaviours are directed by antecedent stimuli that preceded them and that state the availability of a
positive,ornegative,consequence,(Dwyer,Leeming,Cobern,Porter,&Jackson,1993;Gelleretal.,1990;
Lehman & Geller, 2004). Antecedent-Behaviour interventions attempt to influence one or more
determinants prior to the performance of the determinant behaviour. Examples of antecedent
interventionssuchascommitment,goalsetting,modellingandinformation,(Abrahamseetal.,2005)aimat
influencingunderlyingbehaviouraldeterminants(e.g.knowledge).OntheothersideoftheABCmodelare
Behaviour-Consequence interventions,whicharebasedontheassumptionthatoncepositiveornegative
consequences are attached to certain behaviour, this will subsequently lead to an alteration of this
behaviour, (Geller, 2002). Within the environmental context this implies, for example, that pro-
environmental behaviour becomes a more attractive alternative, once positive consequences, such as
monetary incentives, are attached to it. Feedback and rewards are another possible Behaviour-
Consequencestrategy.Forinstance,oncehouseholdsreceivefeedbackabouttheireffortstoreduceenergy
use,theymay,asaresultofthepositiveconsequencesattachedtotheirbehaviour,bemotivatedtofurther
conserveenergysincetheymighthavebecomeknowledgeable,(Geller,2002).Savingshavebeenshownin
the regionof 5 – 15percent for direct feedback and0–10percent for indirect feedback, (Darby, 2006).
Recent research on smart metering and householder engagement has, however, equally found that
feedbackaloneisnotenoughtointerestoccupants,(Darby,2010).
11NottobeconfusedwiththeABCbehaviouralchangemodeldevelopedbySternetal(1995)
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
62
Following,anumberofsuchpsychologicalinterventionapproacheswillbediscussed.
4.4.1 Informationprovision
Providing information aims to increasing knowledge regarding energy use, which in turn is expected to
result in theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour, (Geller, 2002). This assumptionof information
provisionasapredecessorofbehaviourcanbegroundedintheKnowledgeDeficitTheory(KDT),atheory
thatadvocatesforacausalrelationshipbetweenknowledgeandbehaviour,(Schultz,2002).KDT’sprimary
assumptionisthatpeoplewanttohelpthemselvesandtheenvironment,buttheylackinformationabout
howand/orwhytheyshouldmakechangestotheirbehaviour.Assuch,theprovisionofinformationabout
how,orwhy,oneshouldactwouldhelpovercominginactionandleadtothedesiredbehaviour.Fromthe
literature it is, however, not entirely clear whether this cause-effect is indeed taking place and that
information regarding energy savingmeasures is leading to a reduction of energy use. This cause-effect
relationmightbe,forexample,negativelyimpactedbylimitedtimeandcapacitytoprocessalltheavailable
information,orbecauseinsightalonedoesnotnecessarilychangebehaviour,orsincethesubjectofenergy
usemight be too complex to be changed by single, stand-alone interventions, such as information and
feedbackprovision.
Informationprovision,asawaytoincreaseindividualawarenessofproblemsrelatedtoenergyuse,aswell
astoincreasetheknowledgeaboutpossiblealternatives,hasbeenwidelyusedforpromotingenergysaving
and conservationbehaviours, (Abrahamseet al., 2005). In the spheresofpolicy and theenergy research
community,theinformationdeficitmodeltendstodominate,(Janda,2011).Theprovisionofinformation,
orfeedback,isperceivedasawayof‘teaching’peopletherequiredenergymanagementskillsandingiving
people a sense of their ability to control energy use, (Chatterton, 2011). Information provision covers a
large spectrum of interventions, mass media campaigns, information and training centres, technical
manualsandbrochures,labellingandenergyaudits,andcanbeusedforprovidingdetailedinformationto
variousactors, consumers,equipmentoperators/technicians,managersofbuildingcomplexes,engineers,
architectsanddecisionmakers, (BPIE,2011). Individualsareoftenpresentedwithanumberofsuggested
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
63
pro-environmental behaviours in the form of, ‘To Do’12 lists, which are unranked lists of recommended
actionswhichaimtoprovidesomeguidanceandhelptoindividualshavinganunderstandingofthetypeof
pro-environmentalbehaviourstheycouldadopt, (Gardner&Stern,2008). Ithasbeenobservedhowever,
thatsuchguidanceand‘To-do’listscouldequallyleadtoindividualsdecidingtotakenoactionatall,orto
only carry out one or two actions, or perhaps, to engage with those actions that are the easiest to
remember and perform, regardless of the environmental impact those actionsmight have, (Barr&Gilg,
2006;Darnton,2008;Gardner&Stern,2008).
Informationcampaignsarealso foundtobecostefficientandaneasy to implementmeans toovercome
informationbarriers, though the literatureequally found that informationcampaignsoftenhave little,or
no, impactonpromotingbehaviouralchangeandthuscanbeexpensive inrelationtotheireffectiveness,
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Southerton et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that information alone is seldom
sufficienttopromotechange,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Geller,2002;Staatsetal.,1996).Yet,incaseswhere
lack of knowledge has been identified as a barrier to participation, information dissemination seems to
motivatechangesinbehaviour,(Geller,2002).Nevertheless,researchalsofoundthatpeopleoftenpossess
theknowledgerequiredtoengageinmodifyingbehaviour,buttheylackthemotivationfordoingso,which
indicates theexistenceof an, ‘information-behaviour gap’, between theheld informationandbehaviour,
(Geller, 2002; Jackson, 2005; Prochaska, DiClemente,&Norcross, 1992; Schultz, 2002; Southerton et al.,
2011;Stern,1999).Oneexampleforsuchaninformation-behaviourgapisAlGore’sfilm,‘AnInconvenient
Truth,’ that emphasized the seriousness of the global climate crisis, argues that it could be solvedwith
present and foreseeable technology, and concludes that all citizens could play ameaningful role in the
solution,thuscreatingasenseofawarenessregardingtheneedforchangeforthebetter.Researchfound
that watching the movie increased knowledge about the causes of global warming, concern for the
environmentandwillingness to reducegreenhousegases,but thiswillingnessdidn’tnecessarily translate
intoaction, (Gardner&Stern,2008;Nolan,2010).A reviewof intervention studiesonhouseholdenergy
12ToDolistscomeinanumberofformats:
‘20thingsyoucando’http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/20things.htm
‘101WaysToHealTheEarth’http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC22/Guide.htm
‘100WaystoSaveTheEnvironmenthttp://www.seql.org/100ways.cfm
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
64
conservationcarriedoutbyAbrahamseetal. (2005),providedsomefurtherevidencefortheexistenceof
an information-behaviour gap. They found that workshops, mass media campaigns and even targeted
informationprovisioningeneralledtohigherlevelsofconcernabouttheenergycrisis,toanincreasedlevel
of knowledge about energy conservation, of (self-reported), conservation behaviours and to stronger
intentionstoadoptenergy-savingmeasures.However,eventhoughinformationmighthaveinfluencedthe
underlying determinants of energy use, Abrahamse et al. (2005), found no clear evidence that this also
resultedinanyreductioninenergyuse.
The literature does provide, however, some evidence that information provision could support the
adoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.Informationprovisionmightsupporttheadoptionofenergy
efficientbehaviourswhenusedincombinationwithothertypeofintervention,suchasfeedbackprovision,
orauditingandpersonalisedadvice,(Abrahamseetal.,2005).Equally,informationstrategiesthatmadeuse
of, for example, face-to-face interventions, which used feedback mechanisms such as monitoring
equipment (water or energy), or that included individual pledges to a long term commitment to reduce
consumption,seemedtosupporttheadoptionofenergyefficientbehaviours,(Southertonetal.,2011).For
example, Staats, Leeuwen, and Wit (2000), found that office workers improved their energy efficient
behaviours, such as keeping thermostat settings consistent and removing objects from heating grates,
immediately after an informational brochurewas handed out to them. Subsequently, other intervention
components, such as poster prompts and feedback, were added to maintain these energy efficient
behaviours.Theresultsofthesesubsequent interventioncomponentsdemonstratedthatenergyefficient
behavioursbenefited fromthecombinationofdifferentstrategies.Secondly, informationprovisionmight
also be more effective if such information-based interventions are tailored to fit specific situations,
(Abrahamseetal.,2005).Tailoredinformationishighlypersonalizedandspecificinformation.Anadvantage
ofthisapproachisthatpeople,insteadofgettinganoverloadofgeneralinformation,whichmaynotapply
totheirsituation,receivetailoredinformationonly.Examplesoftailoredinformationareenergyaudits,i.e.
ahomevisitbyanauditorwhosuppliesarangeofenergy-savingoptionsbasedontheircurrentsituation.
For instance,auditorsmayadviseahousehold toapply insulationand/or to lower thermostatsettingsas
well asa complementary setof curtailmentbehaviours, (Abrahamse,Steg,Vlek,&Rotehengatter,2007).
Previousresearchshowsthathomeenergyaudits(mainlyfocusingonheatingandairconditioning),might
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
65
beaveryefficientinterventionmeasuretoincreaseenergysavingsinhouseholds,(Abrahamse,2003,2007;
Leiserowitz et al., 2009). Thirdly, tailored information, targeted at an intended population segment, also
appeared tosupport theadoptionofenergyefficientbehaviours, (Leiserowitzetal.,2009;Southertonet
al.,2011).Successfulinformationcampaignsseemtousepracticesthatarenowadayscommonlyaccepted
as good campaign design practices: simple, clear messages, repeated often through a variety of
interpersonalandmediachannels,byavarietyoftrustedsources,(Streimikiene,2012).
4.4.2 Commitmentandgoalsetting
Commitmentstrategiesinvolveaskingparticipantstomakeaverbal,orwritten,commitmenttoperforma
desiredbehaviour, suchas to saveenergy,which isoften linked toa specificgoalor referencepoint, for
instance, to reduce energy use by X percent, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Goal setting is often used in
combination with other interventions, such as feedback (to indicate how households are performing in
relationtothegoal),oraspartofacommitmenttoconserveacertainamountofenergy.Cialdini(2001),
arguedthatoncepeoplehavemadeacommitment,theyaremorelikelytoperformtheirtargetbehaviour,
especially, if thecommitment isactive,public, andperceivedasvoluntary.Commitment strategiesmight
also draw on the social norm of consistency, which creates pressure to be internally and externally
consistent,dependingonwhetherthepledgewastooneself,orpublic,(Cialdini,2001).Pledgestooneself
mayactivateapersonalnorm,meaningamoralobligation,withpublicpledgesactivatingsocialnorms,the
expectationofotherstopursuethebehaviour.Commitmentstrategiesareoftenseenasawaytousethe
‘foot-in-the-door’ technique that assumes that compliance to a first (smaller), request will result in
compliance toa subsequent (bigger), request, (Abrahamseetal.,2005).Theefficacyof commitmentand
goalsettinginbringingaboutchangesinenergyuseisexpectedtoincreaseonceusedincombinationwith
othertypeofinterventions,(Abrahamseetal.,2005).Forinstance,commitmentstrategiesthathavebeen
combininggoalsettingwithfeedbackappeartobemoreeffectivethanusinggoalsettingalone,(McCalley
&Midden,2002).Commitmentstrategieshavebeen,forexample,successfullyappliedtoreducehousehold
energy use, especially in the long-term, as found in several studies, (Abrahamse et al., 2005). Similarly
McCalleyandMidden(2002),foundthatparticipantswhohadbeengivenagoalaswellasfeedback,saved
more energy per washing trial, than participants who had only received feedback (without a goal). In
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
66
addition to this,Becker (1978),highlighted thecareone shouldhave indefininggoals.During this study,
householdswereeithergivenarelativelydifficultgoal(20percent),orarelativelyeasygoal(2percent),to
reduceelectricityuse.The results suggest thataneasiergoalappearsnot tobeeffective,asa2percent
reduction may be perceived as not being worth the effort. Finally, previous research found that there
appearedtobenosignificantlydifferentbehaviourbetweenparticipantswhohadbeenabletosetagoal
andthosewithanassignedgoal,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Becker,1978;Bittleetal.,1979;Brandon&Lewis,
1999;Gerdes,2009).
In summary, commitment, goal setting and feedback appear to be viable mechanisms for reducing
householdenergyuseand,especially,inviewofrealisinglong-termbehaviouralchanges,(Abrahamseetal.,
2005);andparticularlywhenusedincombination,(McCalley&Midden,2002).
4.4.3 Behaviouralinterventionthroughdesign
Ashasbeenexploredanddemonstrated inprevioussections, infrastructuresand technologiesareat the
coreofenergyconsumption,whether that is cooking,bathingor surfing the internet,but thesealso lock
people intobehaviours thatcanbeverydifficult tochange, (Maréchal,2010;Southertonetal.,2011),as
hasbeenshowninChapterTwo.Thus,behaviouralinterventionsmightmakeuseofenvironmentaldesign,
or material context adjustments that focus on the introduction of devices, or objects, that create
opportunitiesforadesiredbehaviourmodification,suchaspro-environmentalbehaviour,moresalient,or
convenient.Thisisalsoknownaschoicearchitectureandtheconceptofnudge,wherethedefaultoptions
aresetinordertofacilitatetheselectionoftheindividual’sbestchoice,(Thaler&Sunstein,2008),through
changes in thecontext inwhich theyaremade.According toGrist (2010),nudging isofparticularuse to
influencehabitualbehaviours.Tofacilitatebetterdecisionmakinginindividuals,Nudgeapproachescanuse
productdesignasamechanismtonudgebehaviourinaparticulardirectioninspecificcontexts.Anexample
ofnudgingcanbeseeninPortland,USA,wherethetimingoftrafficsignalswerechangedinawaythatwas
supposedtoallowareductioninpetrolusebymotorists,(Southertonetal.,2011).ThePortlandcasethus
illustrateshownudgingcanbeusedwithoutindividualshavingtomakeachoice,ornecessarilyawarethat
they have been ‘nudged’. Another example of nudging is the default opt-in for discretionary charges to
finance carbonoffsetting schemes, (Southerton et al., 2011), or thedefault of a TV, or power box, from
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
67
stand-by tooff. In thisway,choicearchitecturecancontribute to framing individualoptionsbymaking it
easier for people to adopt the desired rather than, the undesired behaviour, (Dobson, 2011; Thaler &
Sunstein,2008).Nevertheless,therearesomecriticstothenudgingapproach.Forinstance,Dobson(2011),
argues that nudging fails to engage people at the level of principle and, could be considered as a
paternalistic,anti-democraticapproachtochangingbehaviourwithoutpriorknowledge.Thiswillbefurther
examinedinChapter8whenitcomestoperceivedrequirements(RQ3a)andindividualperceptionsonthe
effectiveness of intervention strategies (RQ3b). Dobson (2011), further argues that though nudging is
perceivedasa‘low-cost’and‘lowpain’strategy,thisactuallymightnotnecessarilybethecase.
Physicalinfrastructuresarealsoanimportantdesignelement,sincetheysupportthedevelopmentofsocial
context, of the norms of consumption and is prominent in energy, building, transport, water and
waste/recycling sectors, (Southerton et al., 2011). Shove and Southerton (2000), provided one example
with the introductionof the freezerwithinhouseholds,whichhasdevelopedalongside anentire frozen-
food infrastructure. This has resulted in changes to the design and use of houses and kitchens, the
developmentoftheout-of-townsupermarketsandasubsequentdeclineoflocalfoodstores,whichinturn
render household food provisioning, without a freezer, increasingly difficult. Shifting infrastructure thus
holdsasignificantpotentialtofacilitate individualdecision-makingandtoshiftsocialnormstowardmore
sustainablebehaviours.Assuch,interventionsinmaterialinfrastructuresnotonlycreatetheconditionsfor
new habits to emerge, but they also hold the potential to lock people into sustained environmentally
friendly behaviour. The main constraint with regards to intervention relates, consequently, to the
infrastructureandcostinvolvedinestablishingthose,ashasbeendiscussedinsection4.3.2.
4.4.4 Rewardsandpunishments
Rewardandpunishmentapproachesappealtopeople’sself-interestandcanbeeffectiveintheshortterm.
Individuals have an apparent natural tendency to avoid losses, rather than to seek gains, (Kahneman&
Tversky,1979).Theydiscountfuturegainsmorethanfuturelosses,(Thaler,1981),preferingtohaveshort
termgainsratherthanlongtermones,(Nordlund&Garvill,2002,2003;Stern,2000;Thøgersen&Ølander,
2002) and they tend to give preference to taking actionwhere these create potential gains, rather than
takingactiontoavoidpotentiallosses,(Tversky&Kahneman,1991).Withthis,thelogicbehindthereward
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
68
andpunishmentapproachissimplytoavoidpain(punishments)andembracepleasure(rewards).As long
as the incentives and disincentives are aligned with the goal, the adoption of different behaviours is
evaluatedaspossible.Dobson(2011)highlightedtwomainbenefitofthisapproach:itcanworkveryfast,
oftenresultinginobservablepositiveoutcomesassoonasachargeandincentivemeasureisputinplace
and, people donot need to agreewith the environment agenda for it towork. Acceptancemight be an
issue inparticular in thecaseof taxes, charges,or fees.Asanexample,aBBCWorldServicePoll (2007),
survey showed that 50 percent of responders’ were in favour of raising taxes on energy sources that
contribute to climate change, whilst 44 percent opposed this. Acceptance levels did, however, increase
onceitwasnotedthattherevenuesofthosetaxeswouldbedevotedtoimprovingefficiencyandseeking
outsourcesofenergythatdonotproduceclimatechange,orifothertaxeswerereducedinline,sothatthe
total tax bill remain the same. Less agreement seems to exist regarding the effectiveness of financial
incentives. Southerton et al. (2011), highlighted that financial incentives often interfere with market
mechanisms, supporting earlier findings from Thøgersen and Møller (2008) that illustrate that financial
incentivesdonotnecessarily foster longtermchanges inbehaviour,oncethe incentive is removed.Even
thoughthereisevidencethatrewardsseemtohaveapositiveeffectonenergysavingandhaveeffectively
encouragedenergyconservation,thereislessevidencethatthisisnotashort-termeffectandthatdesired
behavioursarenotdroppedtobaselinelevelsoncetherewardcontingencyisdiscontinued,(Abrahamseet
al.,2005;Dwyeretal.,1993;Geller,2002;Gelleretal.,1982).Dobson(2011)suggestedthatareasonfor
suchareversalmightbethefactthatthestrategyseemstofailtoengagepeopleatthelevelofprinciple,
since with punishments and rewards, people do not need to have any environmental commitment
whatsoever for it towork.This is to say thatwhat initially couldbeperceivedasa short-termadvantage
with immediate impact, canactuallybecomeadisadvantage in the long-run,due to the fact thatpeople
respond to the prompt and not the principles underlying it (Dobson, 2011). Nevertheless, Geller (2002),
addedtothisdiscussionbysuggestingthatrelapsescanalsoresultfrominterventionsthatwere,relatively,
short in duration and not in place long enough to lead to long-term behaviour change. In contrast,
strategies geared towards punishment seem to have beenmore successful in enforcing change, such as
monetary penalties discouraging unwanted behaviours, i.e. the London congestion charge.Nevertheless,
thismightbe,again,ofshort-termimpact,as(Dobson,2011),studiesoftheLondoncongestionchargehave
shownthatafteraninitialperiodoftrafficreduction,levelsincreasedagain.Thisrelapsepotentialperhaps
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
69
also explains why, in recent years, less focus has been placed on environmental interventions that use
reward schemes to incentivise change. During the 1970’s, reward over punishment strategies were a
popular component of environmental interventions due to the negative attitudes and counter-control
measures that can result from perceived punishment, (Brehm, 1972; Skinner, 1971). 55 percent of the
interventions reviewed by Geller et al. (1982) involved the use of tangible rewards. In contrast, only 27
percentofthestudies(15of54),fromthe1980’sreviewedbyDwyeretal.(1993)usedrewards,compared
to13percent(4of32),ofenvironmentalrelatedstudiespublishedsince1990.
Insummary,rewardandpunishmentsystemshavean,apparent,positiveandviableshort-termimpactbut
are less promising in the long-term, (Abrahamse et al., 2005; Dobson, 2011; Dwyer et al., 1993; Geller,
2002;Gelleretal.,1982;Nordlund&Garvill,2002,2003;Southertonetal.,2011;Stern,2000;Thøgersen&
Møller, 2008; Thøgersen & Ølander, 2002). But, they might equally contribute to the disconnection of
peoplethinkingaboutthemoralandethicaldimensionofsustainabilityandthusreducethepotential for
social learning within the process (Dobson, 2011). Rewards and punishments systems thus hold the
potential to reduce the likelihood of sustainability being thought of in normative terms. Sustainability
becomes a non-normative policy objective achieved by the mobilisation of a reductive view of human
motivation (self-interested utility maximisation), without making reference to sustainability at all; so
missing the principle and opportunities for long-term social learning. In addition to this, rewards and
incentivesmight have a different impact depending on the household income. Household energy use is
related to people’s income,withwealthier families spendingmore on energy than poorer ones (section
2.2.5.). This punishment and reward system might have differing impacts dependant on the different
incomegroupsandonhowmuchisspent,asafractionofincomeand/orexpenditureandislikelytoeffects
theirreactiontosuchtypesofinterventions.Finally,rewardsandpunishmentssystemsdonot,apparently,
addresstheperformancecontextofhabits,(Maréchal,2010),thustheydonotseemtotakeintoaccount
oneoftheidentifiedbarrierstoenergysavings,ashasbeendiscussedinChapterthree.
4.4.5 Learningtheoriesandmodelling
Modellingisawaytoprovideexamplesofdesiredbehaviourtoencouragelearningby,trialanderrorand
byobservinghowothersbehave,(Bandura,1977b).Modellingthusassumesthatexampleswillbefollowed
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
70
oncetheyareunderstandable,relevant,meaningfulandrewarding, intermsofpositiveresultstopeople.
Evidenceregardingtheuseofmodellinginenergyconservationareasseemstobescarce.Instudiesfrom
the 80s,Winett and Kagel (1984) andWinett, Leckliter, Chinn, Stahl, and Love (1985), demonstrated its
utility in increasingenergy savingandconservationathome,at least in the short term,withparticipants
who viewed a 20-minute video presentation of conservation behaviours significantly decreasing their
residential energy use by 10 percent over a nine-week periodwhen compared to controls. Additionally,
beforeandaftertestingrevealedasignificantincreaseinknowledgefortheexperimentalgroup,butnotfor
the control group. A follow-up study, one year later, showed, however, that the savings were not
maintained, thusmodelling intervention did not lead to a long-termbehavioural change.More recently,
McMakin, Malone, and Lundgren (2002), used videotaped modelling, as part of a multi-component
campaign,toreducehomeenergyuseofresidentsatmilitarybases;thisprovedtobemoderatelyeffective
inpromotingbehaviouralchange.
4.4.6 Sociallearningcommunitybasedapproaches
Community-basedinitiativesappeartobewellinlinewithsocialpracticetheory,(Giddens,1984)andoften
seektochangeconsumerbehaviourbyinfluencingsocialnorms,byfocusinginontheimportanceofsocial
networks for circulating information and expectations regarding appropriate behaviours. They seek to
supportindividualeffortsinordertolivemoresustainablybyframingwhatitisthat,‘we’,liketoconsume,
aswellaswhat, ‘we’,understandtobeappropriate,or inappropriate,conduct, (Southertonetal.,2011).
Within this structure, community based initiatives target behaviour, followed by careful analysis of the
barriersthatpreventthedesiredbehaviour,leadingtothepilotingofacommunity-wideinterventionplan,
within a small segment of the community and finally, to the implementation and evaluation of a
community-wide application, (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Thus, the objective is to help reduce the gap
betweencurrent interventionstrategiesandtooptimize theconditions toenable individuals tocarryout
energy efficiency behaviour. Namely (1), people value energy efficiency measures more if the benefits
remain directed to themselves; (2), energy use and savings must be visible; (3), goals and motives for
energy efficiency measures must be provided; and finally (4), information must be personalized and
presented in a clear way, (McMakin et al., 2002). One example of Community-based initiatives is the
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
71
EcoTeams Program (ETP) that consists of small groups, e.g. neighbours, friends and families, who come
togetheronceeverymonthtoexchangeinformationaboutenergy-savingoptions,(Abrahamseetal.,2005)
andtoreceivefeedbackaboutownandotherEcoTeamsenergysavingpractices.Staats,Harland,andWilke
(2004), suggest ETP could be a promising type of intervention, since it has been successful in reducing
energy use in several domains, both shortly after the program and during a follow-up two years later.
Howeverandasalreadymentioned,duetothecombinedsetofinterventionsthatisoftenusedwithinETP,
it isdifficult toattribute success toa single interventiondomain, (Abrahamseetal., 2005). Furthermore,
ETP participants presumably were highly motivated, making it difficult to generalize results to wider
populationswhichmightbeholdingdifferentlevelsofmotivationsregardingenergyuseandenergysaving
behaviour,(Abrahamseetal.,2005).
4.5 CombinedStructural/Psychologicalinterventions
Some interventions identified within the literature, which appear to be a rather combined approach of
structuralandpsychologicalinterventions,followonbelow.
4.5.1 Promptingstrategies
Prompting strategies are verbal or written messages that designate desirable target behaviours and
promptingmessagesare considered tobe away toprovide information, (Staats et al., 2000). Prompting
strategies might be an attractive intervention, since they can be of relatively low cost and can have
considerable impact if used properly. In accordance to Geller, Winett, and Everett (1982), prompting
strategiesshouldmeetanumberofconditionssoastomaximizetheireffectiveness,namelythatthetarget
behaviourshouldbeeasytoperform,clearlydefinedandthatthemessageisdisplayed,incloseproximity,
towherethetargetbehaviourcanbeperformed.Inadditiontothis,messagesshouldbestatedpolitelyto
avoid elicitingnegative reactions, (Brehm, 1972; Skinner, 1971) and labelled in such away as toprovide
information designed to help consumers make informed choices, (Shove, 2004). To further increase
effectiveness, productswould need to be fully and consistently labelled so as to provide consistent and
comparative levels of information for consumers, (DGGE/IP-3E, 2004). The general challenge for carbon
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
72
labelling is to ensure that the information provided within the label is meaningful, easy to understand,
standardised,andthatmotivatesconsumersintowantingtotakeaction,(Southertonetal.,2011).
4.5.2 Feedbackprovision
Feedbackinvolvesprovidinginformationtoparticipantsabouttheirenvironment-relevantbehavioursandis
thus similar to information provision. A distinctive difference to information provision is that feedback
strategiestendtobemoretailoredsotomaketheconsequencesofbehaviourmoresalient.Feedback in
the energy use area could be, for example, to provide households with information about their energy
consumption, or achieved energy savings, with the expectation that households can associate certain
outcomes,e.g.energysaving,withtheirbehaviour,(Abrahamseetal.,2005). Inmosthomes,attemptsto
understandenergyusehavebeen,aptly, compared toshoppingatagrocerystorewithoutanypriceson
displayandreceivingabillattheendofamonth’sworthofpurchases,(KemptonandMontgomery,1982,
Janda,2011).
Feedbackmightvaryinfrequency,purposeandtype,(Darby,2006;Fischer,2008).Firstofall,thefrequency
offeedbackisassociatedwiththewayfeedbackisprovided,e.g.monitoringdevicescanprovidecontinuous
feedback, compared to energy bills, which provide feedback, perhaps, on a monthly base. Secondly,
feedback can also be provided for specific households or, as a comparison to other, similar households,
neighbours,or communities. Feedbackabout individualperformance relative toothersmaybehelpful in
reducinghouseholdenergyusebythemediationofsocialnorms,bycomparisonoftheirenergyusetothat
offriends,orneighbours,(Cialdinietal.,1991;Cialdinietal.,1990;Triandis,1977).Comparativefeedback
couldthusinfluencetheperceptionofwhatconstitutes‘normal’energyuseandalsoproduceafeelingof
competition, social comparison, or social pressure,whichmay be especially effective once important, or
otherrelevantfactorsareusedasareferencegroup,(Steg,Dreijerink,&Abrahamse,2006).Yet,evidence
appearsscarcethatusingcomparativefeedbackcouldindeedbemoreeffectivethanindividualfeedback,
(Brandon and Lewis, 1999). This impact might also be influenced by the way comparative feedback is
provided.Thisistosaythatwhenpeoplebecomeawareofasocialdescriptivenorm(whatisdone),their
behaviour tends to change to become closer to the norm,which could then negatively impacting those
users that use less energy, as theymight feel tempted to increase their energy use, (Brandon & Lewis,
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
73
1999).Thepowerofthesemessagescanneverthelessbeharnessedbyusinginjunctivenormsinstead,with
messagesconveyingapprovalofparticularactionsconsideredtocontributetodecreasetheeffect,(Schultz,
Nola,Cialdini,Goldstein,&Griskevicius, 2007). Thirdly, it isnot clearwhether itmakesanydifference to
give feedback in terms of monetary rather than environmental costs, since studies investigating this
differencedidnot findanyevidence for this,ordeterminationas towhich couldbemoremeaningful to
recipients,(Brandon&Lewis,1999).
4.5.3 Monitoringsystemsandmetering
The‘invisibility’ofenergymightcontributetoindividualunawarenessofconsumptionlevelsandfostering
support towards measures, such as feedback on energy consumption and personal contribution, could
provide an access to the problem of providing information, (Darby, 2006; Roberts & Baker, 2003).
Monitoring systems, such as energymeters, could be seen as away to, ‘commoditize,’ behaviour into a
good proxy, in order tomake consumption visible, (WWF, 2008). Today'smonitoring systems offer new
opportunities to observe and give feedback to people and to engagewith them, in real time, about the
complexwaysinwhichtheyconsumeenergy.Theyarehowevernotentirelynewandsmartmetering,for
example,wasinitiallyproposedinthe1970s,thoughonlyrecentlyhascomeintofullview,(Darby,2010).
Recentresearchonsmartmeteringandhouseholderengagementagreesthatfeedbackaloneisnotenough
to interest occupants, (Darby, 2010), but nevertheless, feedback strategies have shown modest, but
consistent,energysavings,althoughsomeexceptionsdoexist,(Abrahamseetal.,2005;Dwyeretal.,1993;
Geller et al., 1982). Research shows that in-homedisplays give interested users feedback information to
helpthemunderstandandmanagetheirelectricitymoreefficiently,achievingsavingsintherangeof5–15
percent, (EEA,2013).There is alsoevidence thatdisplayshaveanenduring impact,even ifonlyused for
shortperiods,throughchangedhabitsandinvestmentinefficiencymeasures,(Darby,2006;Rossini,2009).
Monitoringsystemshavebeenshownthatfeedbackefficacyisexpectedtobeinfluencedbythetimethat
thefeedbackisprovided;andfavouringfeedbackprovisionimmediatelyafterthebehaviouroccurs,(Geller,
2002). Themore frequent that feedback is given, themore effective it is with themost positive effects
beingobservedwithcontinuousfeedback,(Abrahamse,2003;Abrahamseetal.,2005).However,theuseof
energymetershasbeenunderdiscussionsincetheiracceptanceandimpactlevels,apparently,dovary.On
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
74
one side, appreciation could be observed, but equally there had been annoyance, (Hargreaves, Nye, &
Burgess,2010; IPPR,2009). Inadditiontothis, the impactofenergymeters, in termsofenergysaving, is
considered to decrease with time (EEA, 2013) which is in-line with findings from Darby (2006), that
feedbackonconsumptioncouldhaveanimpact,butmightnotbesufficientforpeopletounderstandand
thuschangetheirbehaviourregardingenergysaving.Yet,thejointuseoffeedbackandcommitmentcould
beaviablewaytoachieveimpact,(Maréchal,2010;Stern,2000).
4.5.4 Socialmarketing
Social marketing can be defined as the application of marketing principles and tools to achieve socially
desirable goals, (Andreasen, 1995; Kotler& Zaltman, 1971). Socialmarketers understand that behaviour
change is themain goal and that to change behaviour it is not necessarily required to change people’s
fundamental attitudes and beliefs, but rather toworkwithin their current attitudes and beliefs. As such
socialmarketingopens theopportunity topromotebehaviouralchangebasedonexistingvalues thatare
not necessarily pro-environmental, but still could fostermore sustainable behaviours, (Southerton et al.,
2011).Socialmarketinghasbeenusedinavarietyofareastopromoteindividualbehaviouralchangeand,
in particular, to provide solutions in public health areas, (Grier & Bryant, 2005; Helmig& Thaler, 2010).
Socialmarketinggenerallypromotesvoluntarybehavioural changebasedonbuildingbeneficialexchange
relationshipswithatargetaudienceforthebenefitofsociety,(Schwartz,B.inHastings,2008).Thisdraws
fromtheexchangetheory, (Hastings&Haywood,1991),whichstatesthatpeoplechangetheirbehaviour
becausetheyareofferedsomething inexchangethat, theyperceive,providesgreaterbenefitsandfewer
barriers than thealternative.Asa result individualswill takeaction toadaptas it is in their interest and
abilitytodoso.That is, theywill takemeasureswherethebenefitsoutweighthecoststothem.Assuch,
promoting individual change requires anunderstandingof someof the relevant principleswhich are the
core of social marketing: the target population, segmentation of the population and aligning change
interventionstospecificsegments.Withthis,theprincipleofchangeisclearlydistinctfromtheregulatory,
or the education principle, (Andreasen, 1995), as the regulatory principle focuses on rewards and
punishments, while the education principle assumes that people modify behaviour as they acquire
informationorskillsthattheydidnotpreviouslyhave.Voluntarybehaviouralchangealsomeansthatthere
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
75
isnocoercionandassuch,itdoesnotexcludetheNudgeapproach,sincechangingtheconditionsinwhich
behaviour occurs is not viewed as coercion as individuals are allowed to choose. Contrarily, choice
architectureshouldratherbeseenasatoolformakingthe‘right’individualdecisionaseasyaspossiblefor
peopletodo.
Thehistoryofcommercialmarketingshowsthatknowingandsegmentingone’saudiencesisaprecondition
for success. Behavioural change interventions that are drawing on social marketing thus need to be
targetedatspecificsegmentsofthepopulation.Forexample,inthecaseofadoptingmoreenergyefficient
behaviouronewouldhavetotake intoconsiderationtheexistingneeds,barriersandmotivationstosave
energy, actions already undertaken and those that individuals intend to take and accurately targeting
segments, using messages, messengers, communications channels and policies that are appropriate to
them, (Leiserowitz et al., 2009; Southerton et al., 2011).Whilst similar to commercial marketing, social
marketing works on the principle of population segmentation using the 4Ps (product, price, place and
promotion). These are the basic structural elements that social marketing addresses to produce a
competitivebenefitforaparticularsegmentoftheaudience,onceorientatedthroughthemarketexchange
filter, (Grier & Bryant, 2005; Weinreich, 1999), aimed at changing individual behaviour and attitudes,
(Andreasen,1995;G.Hastings&Saren,2003;Helmig&Thaler,2010;Kotleretal.,1989).Thebasicideaisto
rebalancethe4PsmixcompensatingformissingorweakPs.Thedifferencebetweencommercialandsocial
marketingisinwhatthe4Psstandfor.Forsocialmarketingthe4Pshavethefollowingobjectives:
• ‘Product’meansthesocialproposition,thedesiredbehaviouroneisaskingtheaudiencetoadopt,
the associated benefits of adopting the desired behaviour and any tangible objects, or services,
whichsupport,orfacilitate,thedesiredbehaviour.
• ‘Price’meansthecostofinvolvementandalsothebarriersthatthetargetaudienceneedstoface
oncechangingtowardsthedesiredbehaviour.Non-monetarycostssuch,as time,shouldalsobe
considered. Here is where the exchange principle is important, since the benefits of changing
behaviourshouldbegreaterthanthecosts.
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
76
• ‘Place’ stands for accessibility, either the location where the target audience will perform the
desiredbehaviour,orwheretheproduct,orservice,ismadeavailabletothetargetaudience.
• ´Promotion’ covers communication, how the product, or service, is made known to the target
segment.Fortheenergyarea,theproductisrathertheadoptionofnewbehaviourregardingthe
usage of energy consuming appliances and actions and not just of purchasing new appliances,
(Peattie&Peattie,2003).
Theacademic literatureon socialmarketing, behaviour change, andeven commercial branding, suggests
that people are motivated to purchase products and/or change their behaviour based on three broad
categoriesofbenefits, (Leiserowitzetal., 2009). Theseare; (1), functionalbenefits:what theproduct,or
behaviour,willdo; (2), self-expressivebenefits:what theproduct,orbehaviour, saysaboutone;and (3),
self-evaluativebenefits:howtheproduct,orbehaviour,makesonefeelaboutthemselves.Leiserowitzetal.
(2009), furtherproposed that functionalbenefitsareones thatare relatively simple topromoteand that
promotional communication campaigns need only to invoke the functional benefits of the product, or
behaviourthatmembersofthetargetaudiencefindmostpersuasive.Ontheotherside,self-expressiveand
self-evaluativebenefits,thoughbeingmorechallengingtopromote,areoftenmorepowerfulandoflonger
duration.Enhancingthefunctionalbenefitsofsavingenergycouldtherefore involvemessagessuchas, ‘It
willsavememoney’,asthoseseemtobeatthecentreofindividualmotivationtosaveenergy.Enhancing
self-expressivebenefits,on theotherhand,might involvemessagessuchas, ‘I’mthekindofpersonwho
caresabouthelpingtoreduceglobalwarming’,while,associatedself-evaluativebenefitsmightincluding,‘I
feelgoodaboutmyselfonceIdothisbecauseit’sthemoralthingtodo’.
Judgingfromtheliterature,thereappearstobe,however,threelimitationstotheuseofsocialmarketingin
the energy area. Firstly, a relation between the success and failure of behavioural change interventions
couldbeinfluencedbytheabilitytoremovebarriersthatcurrentlyimpedetargetaudiencemembersfrom
performingrecommendedbehaviours,(Leiserowitzetal.,2009).Assuch,enhancingindividuals’motivation
tochangeisnecessary,butlikelywon’tbesufficientaloneandinorderfortherecommendedbehaviourto
bewidelyadopted,therewillalsobeaneedtoremovethebarriersthatindividualsface.InChapters2and
3, a number of such barriers towardsmore pro-environmental behaviour,more specifically towards less
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
77
energy intensiveones, havebeendiscussedand removing thosebarrierswas seen to require addressing
cultural,normativeandindividualpsychologicalvariablesthatareoftenhardtochange.Secondly,thesocial
marketingapproachmightactuallyservetodefer,orevenundermine,theprospectsformorefar-reaching
and systemic behavioural changes that are needed in the area of energy consumption. According to the
WWF (2008), this is to say that socialmarketingmight lead to feelings of uncertainty, despair and guilt,
contributing to states of denial, paralysis and apathy resulting in people feeling helpless in regards to
adoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,asdiscussedwithinsection3.4.3.Thirdly,inthecaseofenergy,
there might be no visible, direct benefit of saving energy. It is difficult for individuals to perceive the
benefitsofthesocialgoodthatsocialmarketinginterventionpromotes.Assuch,theuseofsocialmarketing
withintheenergyconsumptionareamightlookforinspirationinotherrelatedareas,suchasreducingthe
number of non-voters during elections, or donation campaigns. Kotler et al. (1989), recognized, for
example, that social marketing campaigns could have limited success in promoting behavioural change,
sinceindividuals,evenifawareoftheconsequencesoftheirbehaviour,mightlackmotivation,orability,or
simplybecausethecompetitivebehaviourismoreattractive.
4.6 Concludingremarks
Ashas beendiscussed throughout this chapter, achieving lasting behavioural changemight be a difficult
undertaking, in particular since environmental values, beliefs and attitudes apparently do not have any
significant influenceonenergy consumption. It canalsobe seen that thereareanumberof frameworks
that attempt to support intervention strategies,by trying to find the right interplaybetween thevarious
strategieseachshowingaslightvariationintermsofexistingfactorsandapproach.Thisincludestheright
interplay between contextual factors and micro-level factors, plus a diversity of other determinants,
motivationsandbarriersthatmayneedtobetakenintoaccountforanysuccessfulinterventionattempt.It
has been discussed that there are a number of potential intervention layers and that any type of
interventionmightalsohave to take intoaccount theroleofcommunicationandpersuasion,so that the
credibility of the sender, the persuasiveness of the argument/message, or the responsiveness of the
audiencecanbeassured.Theliteratureshowsadiversityofexistinginterventionstrategiesandtypesthat
could be broadly grouped into either, structural or, psychological interventions. While structural
4.Energyuseandinterventionstrategies
78
interventionsaim tochange the (social), context inwhichbehaviouraldecisions takeplace,psychological
interventionaimsatchangingexistingperceptions,knowledge,attitudes,normsandvalues(i.e.individual,
micro-level variables). To date however, most intervention strategies have predominantly focused on
voluntarybehaviouralchange,ratherthanonchangingcontextualfactorsaimedatdeterminingindividual
decisions. The difference here is, that contextual factors set the context where individual decisions are
made and intervention strategies that include both, voluntary behaviour change and contextual factors,
might,therefore,increasethelevelofsuccessinpromotinglastingbehaviouralchange.Despiteagrowing
body of research and evidence, there still appears to be no clear evidence for the potential long-term
effectivenessofchangeinterventionswithinthefieldofhomeenergyusewhichthisresearchattemptsto
explore further in Chapter 8. In regard to this, it can also be seen that there are numerous persuasion
theories that might be applied to promote behavioural change, with each one providing a different
approachthatcouldbeuseful.Chapter8will thus investigatehowsuchpossibleapproaches, factorsand
determinantsmightbebestconsideredwithininterventions(RQ3b)andwhattheserequirementsmightbe
(RQ3a).
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
79
5 Researchmethodologyanddesign
Thischapterdiscussesthemethodologicalapproachestakenintheresearchstudy.Italsoconsidersother
theoreticalapplicablemethodologiesandreasonsfordiscountingtheseapproaches.Thechapterprovides
an overview of the research design, the methods used to address research questions and details how
research questions have been derived from previous literature review chapters. An overview of the
researchdesignisshowninFigure5-1outliningtherelationbetweenthedifferentphasesofresearch.
Figure5-1:Researchdesignfrominitialframingtoimplementation.
This research isofanexploratorynatureandaims toexplorehowtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficient
behavioursathomecouldbeencouraged.Withthistheresearchhastheobjectivetogainanunderstanding
ofenergyuseathomeandhowtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourscouldbepromoted.The
methodologicalapproacheschosenforthisstudythusmustbecompatiblewiththeexploratorynatureof
theresearchandtosupportansweringtheoverallresearchquestions:
• RQ1:Whatexplainsenergyuseathome?
• RQ2:Whatinfluencesenergyuseathome?
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
80
• RQ3:Howtopromoteenergyefficientbehaviour?
Ascanbeseenfromthequestions,thisresearchdoesnotattempttotestexistingtheories,buttoobtainan
insightandin-depthknowledge,ofthetopicunderinvestigationthroughthedifferentphasesofresearch.
The study targets both energy users and energy conservation intervention practitioners in the area of
energy efficiency, so to provide amore comprehensive and complete overview of potential behavioural
interventionsthatwouldresultintheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
5.1 Literaturereviewonavailablemethods
The methodological approaches chosen for this study have been selected based upon the exploratory
natureoftheresearchandaftercarefulevaluationandconsiderationofthepossibletheoreticalapplicable
methodologiesthatareavailable.
5.1.1 Inductiveordeductive
Through this research a preference has been given for inductive research, with the emphasis on an
exploratoryapproachtoimprovetheunderstandingofenergyuseathomeandhowtheadoptionofmore
energy efficient behaviour could be promoted. In an inductive approach theory is developed from the
observation of empirical reality; which involves moving from individual observation to statements of
generalpatterns,or laws,(HusseyandHussey,1997).This is incontrasttoadeductiveapproachwherea
conceptual and theoretical structure is developed and then tested by empirical observation, so tomove
from the general to the particular, (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Empirical research requires choosing
betweenthedeductiveorinductiveresearchparadigms.Figure5-2demonstratesthedifferencesbetween
thesetwoparadigmsandresearchapproaches.
Figure5-2:Inductivevs.deductiveresearchapproaches,(Rudestam,Newton,2001,p.5).
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
81
Asthisresearchhasbeenplacinganemphasisonanexploratoryapproachaninductiveapproachhasthus
seentobemoreappropriatetoimprovetheunderstandingofenergyuseathomeandhowtheadoptionof
moreenergyefficientbehaviourscouldbepromoted.
5.1.2 Subjectiveorobjective
Anotherdecisionthathadtobetakenrelatestothequestionofsubjectivityandobjectivity,whichmeans
theextenttowhichtheresearcherissubjective(involvedinorhasaninfluenceontheresearchoutcome)
orobjective(distancedfromorindependent)intheexecutionofthefieldwork(empiricalwork).Easterby-
Smith et al. (2002) and Tashakkori & Teddlier (2003) both discussed the traditional assumption that in
science the researchermustmaintain complete independence if there is tobeany validity in the results
produced.However,within this research, the researcher seeks to explore andunderstand thenarratives
built around energy use at home, uncovering the perceptions of reality, which is by its very nature,
subjective.Itisacceptedthatsuchasubjectiveapproach,asusedintheresearch,requirestherecognition
ofany influenceor limitation such subjectivitymayhaveon theconductor findingsof the research. It is
arguedthattheselectionofamixedmethodapproachwiththeinclusionofqualitativemethodsimpliesthe
existenceofasubjectiveapproach(Hussey&Hussey,1997),sincequalitativedata issubjectivebynature
since different people canperceive the truth differently.With this, the researcher’s experiences, beliefs,
and values are incorporated into the research design and analysis of data, with qualitative researchers
studyingthingsintheirnaturalsettings,attemptingtomakesenseof,orinterpret,phenomenaintermsof
themeaningspeoplebringtothem.
5.1.3 Positivismorconstructivism
Positivismisbasedonadeductive,scientificprocess,lookingforacauseandeffectrelation,drawnfroman
initialhypotheses,whereasconstructivismisbynaturemoreinductive,basedontheinterpretationofdata
togeneratea conclusion, (HusseyandHussey,1997).Within the inductiveapproach theory isdeveloped
fromtheobservationofempiricalreality,andthusitisconstructed.Theinductiveapproachisthussimilar
to constructivism in so far as constructivism uses inductive reasoning. From a constructivist perspective
knowledge is developed through the interactionwith the naturalworld (Glasersfeld, 1990; Piaget, 1952;
Piaget, 1969). Knowledge is thus not passively received but it is actively constructed through social
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
82
interaction and it has an important influence on the formation of language, thought, and finally of
personality.(Vygotsky1978).InaccordancewithPiaget(1952)knowledgeisnotarepresentationofthereal
world, but instead a collection of conceptual structures that results from the development of human
intellectandproceedsthroughadaptationandorganization.Theexistingknowledgeofanindividualisthus
aresultofpastandexistingexperiences(Glasersfeld,1989).
Thisresearchfurthercombinespositivistandconstructivistparadigms,asuseofbothparadigmswasseen
tobeanappropriatemeanstoprovidetheresearcherwiththeabilitytostatisticallyanalysethedata,whilst
alsoallowingforanexplorationofthecomplexsetofvariablesthatinfluencehumanbehaviour.
5.1.4 Qualitativeorquantitative
Empiricalresearchrequireschoosingwhethertoadoptaquantitativeorqualitativeapproach,orsomemix
of the two. If inoneway,quantitative researchaimsatgeneratingstatistics through theuseofmethods
such as surveys or structure interviews, qualitative research aims at exploring attitudes, behaviour and
experiences through suchmethods as interviews or focus groups (Dawson, 2002). A quantitative study,
consistentwiththequantitativeparadigm,isaninquiryintoasocialorhumanproblem,basedontestinga
theorycomposedofvariables,measuredwithnumbers,andanalysedwithstatisticalprocedures, inorder
todeterminewhetherthepredictivegeneralizationsofthetheoryholdtrue.Incontrast,aqualitativestudy
is an inquiry process of understanding social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic
picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting
(Cresswell,2009).Thepurposeofqualitativeresearchistoexaminethepatternsofmeaningwhichemerge
from thedata and these are oftenpresented in the participants' ownwords. The task of the qualitative
researcheristofindpatternswithinthosewords(andactions)andtopresentthosepatternsforothersto
inspectwhileatthesametimestayingasclosetotheconstructionoftheworldastheparticipantsoriginally
experienced it. Denzin and Lincoln (2002) point out that qualitative research is multi-method in focus,
involvinganinterpretive,naturalisticapproachtoitssubjectmatter.Thismeansthatqualitativeresearchers
studythingsintheirnaturalsettings,attemptingtomakesenseoforinterpretphenomenaintermsofthe
meaningspeoplebringtothembytheuseofavarietyofempiricalmaterials.Thisconstructivistnotionthat
reality is changingwhether the observerwishes it or not is an indication ofmultiple or possibly diverse
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
83
constructionsofreality.Constructivismvaluesmultiplerealitiesthatpeoplehaveintheirminds.Therefore,
toacquirevalidandreliablemultipleanddiverserealities,multiplemethodsofsearchingorgatheringdata
are in order and the use of investigators,method and data triangulations to record the construction of
realityisappropriate(Creswell&Clark,2007).
In accordance to the literature, (Creswell and Clark, 2007; Morse, 2003), the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination also provides a better understanding of research problems than
either approach used alone. It can help answer questions that cannot be answered by quantitative or
qualitative approaches alone, which was seen as relevant and to support the nature of this research.
Quantitativemethodsappear tobe inparticular suitable toaddressa largepopulationand thusproduce
results that are easy to code and standardize, (D.Morgan, 2007;Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Such
quantitative approaches are however limited to provide in-depth and detailed information and thus
qualitativemethodologies were subsequently used to explore the topic inmore detail and to allow the
voice,concernsandpractices,ofresearchparticipantstobeheard,(Cole,2006;WeaverandOlson,2006).
Using narratives and qualitativemethods appeared to be howevermore adequate to better understand
everyday energy practices,with structured questionnaires to gather a broader spectrumof data. As this
research seeks to understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live, the
qualitative approach of data gathering had thus been dominant throughout this study. Quantitative
research inthisstudy isthereforeaimedtogain insightand identify issuesforthesubsequentqualitative
phases of the empirical work, while the qualitative research aims to explore attitudes, behaviour and
experiencesthroughsuchmethodsasinterviewsorfocusgroups.
Theuseofboth,qualitativeandquantitativemethodologiesallowedtheresearcher toembracedifferent
aspectsofenergy relatedbehaviours,aswellas toaddress theirdiversityandcomplexity soas tobetter
understand themeaning that people assign toenergyuse, exploring the full complexity of determinants
that influence energy use, and to increase general understanding on how the adoption ofmore energy
efficientbehaviours couldbepromoted.Theuseofbothgroupsofmethods also supports the reliability,
validity and quality of the findings, since both qualitative and quantitative researchers need to test and
demonstratethattheirstudiesarecredible(Golafshani,2003).Withthistheuseoftriangulation,ameans
ofcombiningqualitativeandquantitativeresearchmethods,couldbeseenasaviableapproachtoallowfor
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
84
the“convergenceamongmultipleanddifferentsourcesof informationto formthemesorcategories ina
study”(Creswell&Miller,2000,p.126)andtoreflectthemultiplewaysofestablishingtruth(Golafshani,
2003;Bergmann,2011).Triangulationcanbeameanstoovercometheinfluencetheresearcherhasonthe
behaviourofparticipants,orintermsofthebiastheresearcherbringshimselforherselfintotheconductof
theresearch(Easterby-Smith,Thorpe,&Lowe,2002;Patton,2002).
Triangulation therefore allows for an increase in the reliability, quality and validity of the findings,
(Bergman,2011;Easterby-Smithetal.,2002;Golafshani,2003;Patton,2002).Triangulationinthiscontext
was thus also seen as ameans to overcome the influence that the researcher has on the behaviour of
participants,orintermsofthebiasthattheresearcherbringsintotheconductoftheresearch.AsHussey&
Hussey(1997)argued,theselectionofamixedmethodapproachwiththeinclusionofqualitativemethods
implies the existenceof a subjective approach, since qualitative data is subjective by nature as different
people can perceive the truth differently. Further to this the research used some of the triangulation
categoriesproposedbyStake(1995),namelydataandmethodologicaltriangulationandmultiplemethods
likesurveys,focusgroupsandindividualinterviews,aswellastheorytriangulationduringwhichmorethan
one theoretical scheme in the interpretation of the phenomenon is used. As this research seeks to
understandpeopleandthesocialandculturalcontextswithinwhichtheylive,amainlyqualitativeapproach
todatagatheringwasused.Thisresearchisdesignedbasedonamixed,multi-methodresearchapproach,
using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. As detailed by Cresswell & Clark (2007) and
Morse(2003)thepremiseofusingamixedmethodsresearchapproachisthattheuseofquantitativeand
qualitative approaches in combinationprovides abetterunderstandingof researchproblems thaneither
approachalone.Assuchamixedmethodsresearchapproachcanhelpansweringquestionsthatcannotbe
answeredbyquantitativeorqualitativeapproachesalone.
5.1.5 Availableresearchinstruments
This researchhasbeendrawingon the following triangulationcategoriesproposedbyStake (1995):data
and methodological triangulation by the use of multiple methods (survey, focus group and individual
interviews) as well as theory triangulation. In this exploratory study, qualitative and quantitative data
collection techniques were used and the research methods applied throughout this work consist of
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
85
literature review, survey questionnaire, focus group interviews and in-depth individual interviews as
depictedwithinFigures5-1and5.4.
Towards the beginning a range of potentially available methods was explored by drawing on available
reviews of research methods, such as Creswell & Clark (2007) and Denzin & Lincoln (2002). Methods
reviewedincluded:
5.1.5.1 Surveysandsurveyquestionnaires
Surveys,andmorespecificallysurveyquestionnaires,arean instrument forcollectingsurvey information,
providing structured, often numerical data, that can be administered without the presence of the
researcher (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000:245). Surveys are often used to quantify or measure a
concept. The goal may be to discover frequency of behaviour or to compare attitudes. Survey
questionnairesareseentobeappropriateforthosecaseswheretheresearcherintendstoexploreatopic
by addressing a large number of people and to produce results that are easy to code and standardize,
particularly if closedquestions,witha limitedsetofpossible responses (Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003).
Surveyquestionnairesarehoweverlimitedinordertoprovidein-depthanddetailedinformationandthey
havealimitedscopeofthedatathatbecollected,andthelimitedflexibilityofresponses(Cohen,Manion&
Morrison,2000:245).
5.1.5.2 Thematicanalysis
Thematicanalysisishighlyinductive,withthethemesemergingfromthedataandnotbeingimposedupon
itby theresearcher, (Dawson,2002).This typeofanalysis ishighly inductive, that is, the themesemerge
fromthedataandarenot imposedupon itbytheresearcher. Inthistypeofanalysis, thedatacollection
and analysis take place simultaneously. Even background reading can form part of the analysis process,
especiallyifitcanhelptoexplainanemergingtheme.Themesthenformtheoverallstructureforacontent
analysisthatwascarriedoutmanually,usingspread-sheets,(Litoselliti,2003).
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
86
5.1.5.3 Contentanalysis
Contentanalysisiscommonlyusedbyresearchersinsocialsciencestoanalyserecordedtranscriptsandis
based on the assumption that an analysis of language in use can reveal meanings, priorities and
understandings, as well as ways of organising and seeing the world, (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).”
Oftenthemessageisdeliveredasatext,orconvertedtoone(forexample,aninterviewtranscriptmaybe
produced or focus-group notes may be developed). In the conceptual analysis model, categories are
developed and coded, and the number of occurrences of themes or issues is recorded.Content analysis
thus could include the study and interpretation of written and visual material, for example, magazines,
televisionadvertisements,photographs.
5.1.5.4 Comparativeanalysis
Comparative analysis uses data from different people that is compared and contrasted in a continuing
processuntil the researcher is satisfied thatnonew issuesarearising, (Dawson,2002).Comparativeand
thematicanalysesareoftenusedinthesameproject,withtheresearchermovingbackwardsandforwards
betweentranscripts,memos,notesandtheresearchliterature,(Dawson,2002.
5.1.5.5 In-depthindividualinterviews
Individualinterviewsareeasierfortheresearchertocontrolthanafocusgroup,inwhichparticipantsmay
take the initiative, (Creswell&Clark,2007). Individual interviewsareapurposivesamplingmethod, i.e.a
sample based entirely on one's knowledge of the population and the objectives of the research, was
selected as themost appropriate and in accordancewith the literature, (Creswell& Clark, 2007, Powell,
1997).This isanunderstandingsharedalsobyLeedy&Ormrod (2001)wherepeople,orotherunits,are
chosenforaparticularpurpose,implyingtheuseofjudgmentbytheresearcher.
5.1.5.6 Telephoneinterviews
Face-to-faceinterviewsarethemostexpensiveformofinterview.Theinterviewerhastoarrangeaplaceto
holdtheinterviewandhastomakethearrangementstogetthereandthustelephoneinterviewrequires
far less resources, (Cassiani, Zanetti, & Pelá, 1992; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). However, a major
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
87
limitationoftelephoneinterviewingisitscomplexityandlengthoftheinterviewsinceunlikethedynamics
of face-to-face interviewing; it can be tiresome to keep the average person on the telephone for longer
than 20–30 minutes and all of the body language data will be lost using this method (Lavrakas, 1993;
Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). In addition to this, complicated questions, and in particular those that
require the respondent to seeor read something, are impossible via the telephone; so theyareperhaps
best used for short and very focused interviews (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). The most common
methodtoreduceresistancetoparticipationhasbeentoofferincentives(Tourangeau,2004).
5.1.5.7 Groundedtheory
Grounded theory is a form of inquiry used in the areas of education and health research where the
emphasis is on the generation of theory that is grounded in the data and that emerged from the data,
(Dawson,2002).This isdifferentfromothertypesofresearchthatseektotestahypothesis. Ingrounded
theory,methods such as focus groups and interviews tend to be the preferred data collectionmethod,
alongwithacomprehensiveliteraturereview,whichtakesplacethroughoutthedatacollectionprocessso
tohelpexplainingtheemergingresults, (Dawson,2002). Ingroundedtheorythenumberofpeopletobe
interviewed isnotspecifiedat thebeginningof the researchas the researcher isopenandresponsive to
where the research will lead and the research and data collection continues until a saturation point is
reachedatwhichnonewinformationisbeingcollected,(Dawson,2002).
• Ethnographyasaphenomenologicalmethodologyusingobservedpatternsofhumanactivity
The emphasis in ethnography is on describing and interpreting cultural behaviour and where the
researchers immerse themselves in the lives and cultures that they study, including to live within the
researchpopulationsotoparticipate intheiractivitieswhilstobservingthepopulationsbehaviour, taking
notes, conducting interviews, analysing, reflecting and writing reports, (Dawson, 2002). Ethnographers
highlighttheimportanceofthewrittentextbecausethisishowtheyportraytheculturetheyarestudying,
(Dawson,2002).
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
88
5.1.5.8 Actionresearch
Action research is a systematic enquiry with the objective to obtain practical results that allow for
improvingaspecificaspectofpracticeandtomakethoseresultsavailableforfurtherscrutinyandtesting
(Wright,2008).Actionresearchaimstodeliverpracticalresultsthatcanbeutilizedtoimproveorcorrecta
current state.Action research followsa four stages cycle (Figure5-3) thatemphasizes the importanceof
reflectiononaction(McMahon,2007).
Figure5-3:ActionResearchCycle(Wright,2008).
Actionresearchisadeliberateandplannedintenttosolveaparticularproblem,orasetofproblems,and
by its nature involves strategic action, (McMahon, 2007 p.167). It is thus different to the reflective
practitionermodelasexpressed, forexample, inKolb’s learning cycleasgoing through the cyclewill not
resultinactionresearch,(McMahon,2007p.167).ActionResearchdrawsontheinterplayofdialogueand
the involvement of a group of ‘stakeholders’ that are engaged in the process of inquiry and that
collaborativelyengage ina continuous cycleof analysis, reflection,planningandaction, (Burns, 2006). In
practiceachallengethatactionresearchfacesistoestablishacontinuousinquirycircle,(Burns,2006).
5.1.5.9 Focusgroups
Focusgroupresearchisaformofqualitativemethodusedtogatherrich,descriptivedatainasmallgroup
formatwhereparticipantshaveagreedtofocusonatopicofmutualinterestandwheretheemphasisison
understanding participant’s experiences, interests, attitudes, perspectives and assumptions (Wilkinson &
Birmingham,2003).Focusgroupsareanappropriatemeanstoexploremultipleperspectivesofrealityand
howparticipants feel and think, (Cole,2006;Morgan,2007). Theyallow toexplore individualbeliefs and
perceptionsregardingmotivationandbarrierstowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourat
homeandassuchtogaininsightintopeople’ssharedunderstandingsofeverydaylife,(Gibbs,1997).They
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
89
drawupon respondents’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions; and explore the role that
these individual beliefs, perceptions and social norms could be playing, (Gibbs, 1997; Mischler, 1986;
Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003).Thepurposewithintheinterviewisnottoelicitamultiplicityofviewsand
emotionalprocesseswithinagroupcontext,butrathertoexploreonanindividualbasisthemeaningand
significanceofwhatishappening,(Gibbs,1997;Mischler,1986;Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003).
Focusgroupsallowparticipantstosharetheirspecificexperiencesaboutthetopicunderinvestigationand
with those experiences being explored in relation to predetermined research questions, (Merton and
Kendall, 1987). They thus allow exploring the everyday use of language and culture of particular groups
(Morgan,Krueger,&King,1998;Powell&Single,1996)sotoproducedataandinsightthatwouldbeless
accessible without the interaction foundwithin a group, (Morgan, 1998). They allow for the interaction
withinthegroupbasedontopicsthataresuppliedbytheresearcher,whichforinstance,groupinterviewing
wouldhavenotallowed for, (D.Morgan,1998,p.12).Thisallowsone to findoutwhycertain topicsare
more salient than others, though on the downside there is less control over the data produced than in
eitherquantitativestudiesorone-to-one interviews, (Morgan,1998).Anotherpossibledownsideof focus
groups is that participants might not be expressing their own definitive individual view, but might be
influencedbyothersinthegroupand/orthegroupdynamic,(Morgan,1998).Theyarealsonotsuitableto
generalizefindingsduetothesmallnumbersofpeopleparticipatingandthelikelihoodthatparticipantswill
notreflectarepresentativesample,(Gibbs,1997).
5.1.5.10 Directparticipantobservation
Directobservationtendstobeusedinareassuchashealthandpsychologyanditinvolvestheobservation
of a ‘subject’ in a certain situation, often using technology such as video, (Dawson, 2002). Direct
observationischaracterizedbyaprolongedperiodofintensesocialinteractionbetweentheresearcherand
thesubjects,inthemilieuofthelatter,duringwhichtimedata,intheformoffieldnotes,areunobtrusively
andsystematicallycollected,(Bogdan,1972:3).
Giventhenatureoftheresearchproblemasoutlined inChapter1, itwasthendecidedtoadoptamixed
methodapproachasbeingthemostappropriateforthisresearchprojectandasfollowingfurtherdetailed.
Eachof thedata collectionmethodsused in this researchproject couldbe consideredpartof anoverall
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
90
approachtoimprovingthequalityandvalidityoftheresearchdataandinaccordancetothetriangulation
approach adopted. For the quantitative study a survey instrument had to be used as this was the
methodologyofchoice for theEnergyprofiler studywithwhich thisquantitativepartof the researchhad
beenintegrated.Forthequalitativepartofthestudyfocusgroupsandin-depthinterviewingwereseenas
themost adequateways toprovideevidenceonhowenergy is usedat home in the contextof people’s
everyday lives. Incomparisonto in-depth interviewing, focusgroupsappearedtohavealsoanadvantage
whenitcomestoobservingalargeamountofinteractionsinalimitedperiodoftime.Despitethepotential
disadvantageoftelephoneinterviews,thein-depthinterviewingwasmadebasedontelephoneinterviews
for logistical reasonsandas existing researchalso suggest that telephone interviewsare still suitable for
shortandveryfocusedinterviews(Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003),whichhadbeenthecase.
Free translationwas seen tobe themost appropriatemeans, though it is acknowledged thatpotentially
othermethodscouldhavebeenequallyused,suchasword-for-word,literalorsemantictranslation.
5.2 Methodsused
Through this research a preference has been given for inductive research, with the emphasis on an
exploratoryapproachtoimprovetheunderstandingofenergyuseathomeandhowtheadoptionofmore
energyefficientbehaviourcouldbepromoted.Thisresearchfurthercombinespositivistandconstructivist
paradigms,asuseofbothparadigmswasseentobeanappropriatemeanstoprovidetheresearcherwith
the ability to statistically analyse the data,whilst also allowing for an exploration of the complex set of
variablesthatinfluencehumanbehaviour.Asaresultofblendingsuchdifferentapproaches,thisresearch
applies a mixed, multi-method research methodology, using both quantitative and qualitative research
procedures.
Asthisresearchseekstounderstandpeopleandthesocialandculturalcontextswithinwhichtheylive,the
qualitativeapproachofdatagatheringhadbeendominantthroughoutthisstudy.Quantitativeresearchin
thisstudyisthereforeaimedtogaininsightandidentifyissuesforthesubsequentqualitativephasesofthe
empiricalwork,whilethequalitativeresearchaimstoexploreattitudes,behaviourandexperiencesthrough
suchmethodsasinterviewsorfocusgroups.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
91
Initial research was undertaken using secondary sources, such as published literature, discussions with
otherresearchers,orgeneralmediasources,toexploretheoverallaimoftheresearch.Thisprovidedthe
basisfordraftinganinitialsetofresearchquestionsandtodeducefromthoseanumberofquestionsfor
inclusionwithin theenergyprofilerstudyquestionnaire, (seesection5.3.2. fordetails).Theenergyprofiler
study was being carried out in Portugal at the time of this research and offered the researcher an
opportunity to contribute several questions and to access the survey data. Inclusion of data from this
surveywasseenasappropriatetosupporttheinitialexplorationofthetopicunderresearchandsotobe
abletoaddressalargepopulationandthusproduceresultsthatareeasytocodeandstandardize,(Morgan,
2007;Wilkinson& Birmingham, 2003). Such quantitative approaches are however limited to provide in-
depthanddetailedinformationandthusqualitativemethodologiesweresubsequentlyusedtoexplorethe
topic inmoredetailand toallowthevoice, concernsandpractices,of researchparticipants tobeheard,
(Cole,2006;WeaverandOlson,2006).Assuch, the initial insight fromthesurveyproducedan indication
into the characteristics and determinants of energy usage at home, aswell as the factors that influence
such.Theobjectivewastoobtainabasicunderstandingofthesubjectarea,sotoidentifyonwheretofocus
inmoredetailsubsequently,tofillgapsintheinformation.
Focusgroupworkwasfollowedbyindividual interviews,whichwereconsideredanappropriatemeansto
exploremultipleperspectivesofrealityandhowparticipantsfeelandthink, inaccordancetotheworkof
Cole(2006)andMorgan(2007).Theinitialfocusgroups,(seesection5.4fordetails),allowedtheresearcher
to explore individual beliefs and perceptions regardingmotivation and barriers towards the adoption of
moreenergyefficientbehaviourathomeandassuchtogaininsightintopeople’ssharedunderstandingsof
everyday life, (Gibbs, 1997).Oneobjective in this regardhas been to drawupon respondents’ attitudes,
feelings,beliefs,experiencesandreactions; focusgroupsallowforthis. Individual interviews, (seesection
5.5 for details),were then used to explore the role that individual beliefs, perceptions and social norms
couldbeplaying in termsofenergyuseandenergysavingonaday-to-daybase.Thepurposewithin the
interviewisnottoelicitamultiplicityofviewsandemotionalprocesseswithinagroupcontext,butrather
toexploreonanindividualbasisthemeaningandsignificanceofwhatishappening,(Gibbs,1997;Mischler,
1986;Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003).
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
92
Theuseof triangulation, (Bergman,2011;Easterby-Smithetal.,2002;Golafshani,2003;Patton,2002), is
thusseentoembracedifferentaspectsofenergyrelatedbehaviours,aswellas toaddresstheirdiversity
andcomplexitysoastobetterunderstandthemeaningthatpeopleassigntoenergyuse,exploringthefull
complexityofdeterminantsthat influenceenergyuse,andto increasegeneralunderstandingonhowthe
adoption ofmore energy efficient behaviours could be promoted. Triangulation in this contextwas thus
alsoseenasameanstoovercometheinfluencethattheresearcherhasonthebehaviourofparticipants,or
intermsofthebiasthattheresearcherbringsintotheconductoftheresearch,(Hussey&Hussey,1997).
Further to this the researchusedsomeof the triangulationcategoriesproposedbyStake (1995),namely
data and methodological triangulation and multiple methods like surveys, focus groups and individual
interviews, as well as theory triangulation during which more than one theoretical scheme in the
interpretationofthephenomenonisused.
Figure 5-4 provides an overview of the research; namely literature review, survey questionnaire, focus
groupandin-depthindividualinterviews,asfurtherdetailedinthefollowingsections.
Figure5-4:Researchdesign.
Atthebeginningoftheresearch,asystematicsearchofpublishedworkhadbeencarriedoutsotogainan
insightandunderstandingintotheresearchproblem,tosetthebackgroundandcontextfortheresearch,
andtoidentifygapsinknowledgeandvariablestoconsiderindevelopingthekeyresearchquestions.With
this, informationwascollectedabout: (1) thechallengeofsustainabledevelopmentandhowit relatesto
household energy use; (2) the contribution of the fields of economics, psychology and sociology to
understandhumanbehaviour;(3)thefactorsinfluencingenergyuse,savingandconservationathome;and
(4) thedifferentalternatives toenableandpromote individualbehavioural change.The literature review
alsoincludedkeyacademictheorieswithinthechosenareaandatalaterstage,ithelpedtomakesenseof
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
93
the results obtained during the different phases of the research by comparing the findings with the
literature.
Pre-definedkeywordswereusedtosearchavarietyofon-lineavailableacademicjournalsanddatabases.In
addition to this, bibliographies of works were examined so to locate additional published material that
could be of interest to the research. Official homepages of public and private research institutes were
consultedaswellaspersonalhomepagesandblogs fromestablished researchers in the field.Finally, the
outputs of national, European and USA research projects and newsletters were reviewed, such as the
Sustainable Development Research Network, (SDRN), so as to include the latest research findings. The
results of this literature review allowed for the refinement of the initial research questions, as well as
forming the basis for the empirical part of this research, and for the research methodology that are
presentedinthefollowing.
5.3 Surveyquestionnaire
Asurveyquestionnairewasusedduringtheinitialphaseoftheresearchtogaininsightandidentifyissues
forthesubsequentqualitativephasesoftheempiricalwork.Theobjectiveinusingthissurveydatawasto
explore key issues identified during the literature review and more generally, to explore attitudes and
behaviourstoenergyuseinthePortuguesecontext.Thesurveyquestionnairewasdesignedandaspartof
a wider study, the energyprofiler study, that was being carried out at the time of this project. The
energyprofiler studywasa collaborativePortuguesenational funded researchproject coordinatedby the
authorofthisresearchonbehalfofEnergaia,alocalenergyagencyinVilaNovadeGaia,Portugal,together
withtwoadditionalprojectpartners,FactorSocialandTerrasystemics.Anumberofquestionsthatwereof
equalimportancetotheenergyprofilerstudyandthePhDresearchstudywereincludedinthesurvey.The
researcherwasallowedtorewordsomeoftheinitialenergyprofilerquestions,aswellastointroduceaset
offurtherquestionsintothesurvey,soastoexploreissuesthatwereidentifiedduringtheinitialliterature
review.Thesequestionswereconcernedwiththevisibility/invisibilityofenergyrelatedbehaviours,therole
of individual beliefs, motivations and perceptions with regards to energy use, and on saving and
conservationaspects, (asdetailed insection5.3.2).Theenergyprofilerstudywas the firstnational survey
conducted in Portugal that collected data regarding individual perceptions, attitudes, competence and
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
94
patterns of energy consumption in the residential sector.With this the study attempted to identify and
characterize the different segmentswithin the Portuguese population, based on socio-psychological and
demographic factors, so to support the development of policies, programmes and interventions with
regardstoenergyefficiencyatanhouseholdlevel,(Energyprofiler,2011).
5.3.1 Surveyquestionnaireanddataanalysismethodology
Theenergyprofilerstudywasbasedontelephoneinterviewswith1,019Portugueseinhabitants,(aged18+),
that had been carried out between January and February 2010. The questionnairewas designed by the
project team with the support of an external advisor, Professor Brenda Boardman (UK), drawing on a
numberofquestions fromprevious surveysand itwas refined throughpre-testingbeforeexecution.The
representativenessofthedatawascontrolledthroughsampledesign,fieldworkquotasandpost-fieldwork
weighting.
Datawasweightedforthefollowingcharacteristics:age,gender,areaandsub-area.Resultsincludedinthis
thesis are based on weighted data unless otherwise stated. The survey data was analysed by the
energyprofiler project teamusingdescriptive statistics and included comparisonsofmeans, (using t-test,
ANOVA)andproportions,(usingchi-square,Fisher'sexacttest,Binomial).Thisstatisticalanalysiswasused
tocharacterize individualsregardingtheirperceptions,attitudes,competency,(cognitiveandbehavioural)
and their associated energy use patterns. The results of these analyses provide the data used in this
research.
Theenergyprofilersurveyquestionnaire,(AppendixI),includedthefollowingfourgroupsofquestions:
• Group 1; targeted at individual perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding climatic change,
environmentalproblems,energyconsumptionandenergysaving.
• Group2;targetedatenergyconsumingbehaviour,existinglevelof information,competenceand
frequencyofspecificbehaviours,motivationsandbarrierstoaction,aswellastheusualsourcesof
informationregardingenergysavingbehaviour.
• Group 3; targeted at household characteristics, such as the type of house, ownership, type of
appliancesinthehouse,aswellastheamountofenergyconsumed.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
95
• Group 4; targeted at the individual respondent, looking at characteristics such as age, gender,
educationandincome.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
96
5.3.2 Questionaddedforthespecificpurposeofthisresearchwork
Forthepurposeofthisresearchthreespecificadditionalquestions,(Q2,Q15andQ6),wereincludedinthe
energyprofiler questionnaire to provide an initial insight on two relevant concepts for this research: the
visibility/invisibility of energy related behaviours and the role that individual beliefs, motivations and
perceptionsmightplayintermsofenergyuse,savingandconservationathome.Thethreequestionsthat
wereincludedwere:
• Q2: “Which home appliances do you have at home that consume energy, (think about gas and
electricity)?”ThisquestionrelatedtotheresearchquestionRQ1.
• Q15: “Which reason(s)do you consider tobe important to savingenergy, (gas andelectricity)?”
ThisquestionrelatedtotheresearchquestionRQ2.
• Q16: “Why don’t you try to save energy more often?” This question related to the research
questionRQ2.
Q2was included as an open format question where people were asked to provide a list of their home
appliances that consumed energy. This question was expected to provide some insight into those
appliancesthatpeopleareawareofandalso itmighthavebeenanindicatorfortheenergy invisibilityof
certaintypesorgroupsofappliances,aswellasforenergyrelatedpractices.
Q15andQ16aimedtoprovideaninsightonindividualbeliefswithregardsto,(a),individualmotivationsto
saveenergyand(b),individuallyperceivedbarrierstosavingenergy.AsforQ2,anopenformatwasused.
In addition to those three questions another seven questions, (Q8 to Q14), had been collaboratively
formulated togetherwith the energyprofiler project teamand aredetailedbelow.Thesequestionswere
aimed to explore researchquestionsRQ1 toRQ3 in a broader attempt to form thebase for subsequent
focusgroupsandindividualinterviews.Thesevenquestions,(Q8toQ14),are:
• Q8“Canyoupleaseorderthefollowingfivebehavioursfromtheonethatsavesthemostenergy,
totheonethatsavestheleast?”:thefivebehaviourswere:1.Reducingshowertimefrom15to10
minutes; 2. Turn off equipment, as opposed to leaving them on "stand-by"mode; 3. Replacing
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
97
incandescent lights by fluorescent lights; 4. Periodically defreeze freezer/fridge; 5.Wash at low
temperatures(30-40degree).
• Q9 “When you turn the heating on in a room, what do you do with regards to the doors and
windows?”withalistoffourpossibleanswersbeingprovided.
• Q10“Wheniscoldoutside,whatdoyoudotoincreaseyourcomfortathome?”withalistoffour
possibleanswersbeingprovided.
• Q11“Regardingthefridgeandfreezer,whatdoyoudoonceyouneedtoopenit?”witha listof
fourpossibleanswersbeingprovided.
• Q12“Regardingthewashingmachine,whatdoyoudowhenyouneedtouseit?”withalistoffour
possibleanswersbeingprovided.
• Q13“HowdoyouturnofftheTVandotherappliances?”withalistoffourpossibleanswerswas
provided.
• Q14 “Once you leave a room, what do you do with regard to the lighting?” with a list of four
possibleanswerswasprovided.
Q8 aimed to explore the existing level of knowledge regarding specific behaviours and to highlight any
potentialgapbetweentheintentandimpactofbehaviourintermsoftheenergyuse.Thesixquestions,9
to14,relatetosixspecificenergyrelatedbehavioursandtowhatpeoplecurrentlydowhenfacingthose
specificsituations.Foreachofthequestionsadefinedsetofanswerswasprovidedandrespondentshadto
choosethebehaviourthattheycouldidentifymostwith.Theaimofthesesixquestionswastoassessthe
behaviours that are currentlybeingperformedand the frequencyof their performance, so to assess the
levelofcompetenceandperformancetobestpractice.
The energyprofiler study was thus important to contextualize the topic of the research, with the initial
findingsfromthesurveysubsequentlybeingfurtherexploredthroughthequalitativephaseofthisresearch
work.Theenergyprofilerstudyalsoprovidedsomeunderstandingregardingthemotivationstouseandto
saveenergyathome,aswellasthemainperceivedbarrierstochangeandprovidedsomeanswerstowhat
enables,explainsorinfluencesenergyuseandsavingathome.Thequestiononhowtopromotedifferent
behaviours, (RQ3), was not addressedwith the energyprofiler survey. The energyprofiler study revealed
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
98
what seemed tobeagapbetweenexistingbehaviours,motivationsandbarriers to savingenergy,which
wasfurtherexploredduringthesubsequentphasesoftheempiricalstudy.
5.4 Focusgroups
Focus groups, (FGs),were carriedoutwith theaimof exploring in greaterdepthbeliefs andperceptions
regardingmotivationsandbarrierstowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathome.This
enabledtheresearchertoexplorethemoregeneralprocessofenergyrelatedbehaviour,withoutlimiting
the research to environmental questions, such as why individuals do not choose less environmentally
damagingandlessenergyefficientbehaviour.Inthisresearch,focusgroupswereusedinawaysimilarto
theworkofMertonandKendall(1987)byattemptingtogetparticipantstosharetheirspecificexperiences
aboutthetopicunderinvestigationandwiththoseexperiencesbeingexploredinrelationtopredetermined
researchquestions.Forthepurposeofthisresearch,focusgroupswereusedtogatherinsightsinto,energy
use,homeenergysavingandconservation,toexploremotivations,attitudesandbehaviours,aswellasto
preparethegroundforsubsequentlyconductedinterviews.Thepurposewastoexploretheeverydayuse
of languageandcultureofparticulargroupsassuggestedbyMorgan,Krueger,&King(1998)orPowell&
Single(1996).
Instead of focus groups other research methods could have been used, such as direct participant
observation,groupinterviewing,or in-depth interviewing,asawaytoprovideevidenceonhowenergy is
used at home in the context of people’s everyday lives. However in comparison to direct participants’
observation and in-depth interviewing, focus groups appeared to have an advantage when it comes to
observingalargeamountofinteractionsinalimitedperiodoftime.SincetheFGmethodologyusesgroup
interactiontoproducedataandinsightthatwouldbelessaccessiblewithouttheinteractionfoundwithina
group,(Morgan,1998).Thefocusgroupsdidprovideaccesstoindividuals'interactionontopicsthatwould
otherwise have been difficult to observe, such as informal group conversations regarding daily energy
relatedbehaviours,thedeterminantsofactionsandmotivationstochange.Inlinewiththeliterature,the
FGsallowed for, “The interactionwithin thegroupbasedon topics thatare suppliedby the researcher”,
(Morgan,1998,p.12),whichforinstance,groupinterviewingwouldhavenotallowedfor.TheInteraction
betweenparticipantsallowedtheresearchertounderstandtheirviewoftheworld,thelanguagetheyuse
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
99
whendiscussingenergyuse,theirvaluesandbeliefs,ortheinteractionwithparticipantsaskingquestionsto
eachothersoastore-evaluateandreconsidertheirownunderstandingsoftheirspecificexperiences.This
allowedtheresearchertofindoutwhycertaintopicswheremoresalientthanothersastheFGssimulate
whatintheliteratureisknownas‘asocialgatheringandinteraction’,(Morgan,1998)andwhichallowedfor
what seemed to bemultiple interpretations that had been expressed by participants, with a number of
explanationsbeingprovidedastotheirrespectivebehaviours.
Focusgroupmethodologydoesnonethelessalsohavelimitations.Firstly,thereislesscontroloverthedata
producedthanineitherquantitativestudiesorone-to-oneinterviews,sinceFGresearchisopenendedand
cannotbeentirelypredetermined,(Morgan,1998).Secondly,becauseindividualsmightnotbeexpressing
their own definitive individual view, but might be influenced by others in the group and/or the group
dynamic,(Morgan,1998).Thirdly,thefactthatfocusgroupsarenotsuitableforgeneralizingfindingstoa
population,dueto thesmallnumbersofpeopleparticipatingandthe likelihoodthatparticipantswillnot
reflecta representative sample, (Gibbs,1997). Fourthly, the selectionofgroupmemberswill likelyaffect
theoutcomeofthediscussionitself, (Wilkinson&Birmingham,2003).However,sincethepurposeofthis
researchwastogainaparticularinsightintothetopicandnottoapplygeneralizefindingstoapopulation,
FGswerestillseentobethemostsuitableresearchmethod.
5.4.1 Focusgroupobjectives
Theobjectiveofthefocusgroupswastoexploreasetofemergingfindingsfromtheenergyprofilerstudy
regarding themotivations to use and to save energy at home, aswell as to identify themain perceived
barrierstochange,(RQ2).DuringtheFGsthefollowingthemeswereexplored:
• Perceivedrolesandfunctionsofenergyuseathome
• Self-perceptionofownenergyuseathome
• Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
• Factorsthatcouldfacilitatetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientorrelatedbehaviours
FGswerestructuredwithapredeterminedlistofopen-endedquestionsandactivitiesinordertoelicitthe
constructionsandperceptionsof theparticipantsandwithout imposing the researchers’preconceptions.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
100
Table5-1presentsafreetranslationfromPortuguesetoEnglishofthepredeterminedlistofquestions in
relationtotheobjectivesandtechniquesthatwereused.
Table5-1–Focusgrouproadmapandtechniquesused.
Question Objective Technique
Q1.Think back to yesterday. Whathaveyoudonethatusedenergy?
Tolistperceivedenergyconsumingbehaviours.
Take people back + open question:writedownonflipchart.
Q2.When you think about energywhat isthefirstthingthatcomestoyourmind?
Tolistfirstthoughtssotointroducediscussion;expectedresults:identifieddailypractices.
Openquestion.
Q3.If energy was an object, whatwould be the individuals’characteristics?
Evaluatewhetherpeoplecanpictureenergyandtomakeitvisible
throughtheuseofadjectives/characteristics.
Followupquestions+metaphorandassociation; prompt colour, smell, 5senses.
Q4.Ifyouwouldhavethechancetosaveenergywhywouldyoudoso? Identifymotivationstosaveenergy. Openquestion, followedbyprobing
andpromptingquestionsifrequired.Q5.Think back to any attempt youmade to save energy. How wouldyoudescribetheexperience?
Identifyindividualperceptionsoncesavingenergy,suchasexperiences,motivationsorperceivedbarriers.
Openquestion.
Q5.1. What were the reasons forsuchasuccess/lackofsuccess?
Followupquestion.
Q6. Some people have beenreportingdifficulties tochangetheirenergyconsumingbehaviours.Whatisyourpersonalexperience?
Open question and third partyprojection.
Q7. We have been hearing thatpeople say they already save/do alltheycan.Howdoyoufellaboutit?
Identifyperceivedbarriers.
Open question and third partyprojection.
Q7.1. A number of reasons havebeenmentioned. Iwould liketoaskyou to write down the 3 mostimportantonesoneperpost-it
Follow-up question and groupactivitysotopromotediscussionforgroupingthosepost-itsandlabelthegroups.
Q7.2. How would you like to behelpedtoovercomesuchbarriers?
Follow-upquestion.
Q8.Imagineyouhavebeenaskedtodevelop a future interventionprogramtobelaunchednationwide.Whatwouldyouincludewithinit?
Identifycharacteristicofinterventionsthatweredeemedto
bedesired.
Role-play; prompting for mediumstouse,typeofmessage.
Q9.Can you share an example yourecallfromanycampaignpromotingenergysaving?
Identifyinitiativesatthelevelofrecognitionandrecall.
Openquestion.
Q9.1.Which components of thecampaign have called yourattention?
Identifydistinctivefactorsofcampaigns,includingcharacteristicsthatweredeemedasbeingdesired.
Followupquestion.
Q9.2. Inyouropinionhowusefuldoyoufindthistypeofcampaign?
Followupquestion.
Q10.Canyoupleasedrawan imagefor the campaign, or write thesloganyouwoulduse? Toprovideasummaryofthe
discussion.
Image and word association,drawingsandslogansonpaperbase,groupactivity.
Q10.1. What was the differencebetweenthiscampaignandtheonesyouhavejustbeenmentioning?
Followupquestion.
As can be seen from Table 5-1, a variety of techniques have been used to promote the discussion and
interaction between FG participants, but also to reduce the influence of the researcher. To generate
practicalcomparablediscussions,asetofenergyrelatedbehaviourswerepromptedduringtheFGs,suchas
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
101
showering,lightingandcookinghabits,butalsoroomtemperatureandstandbypractices.Thesebehaviours
weredeterminedby consideringanumberof factors,namely their impacton theenergybill, their likely
visibility, theiracceptability to thegroup, the feasibilityofadopting thebehaviourand the frequency the
behaviouroccurred.
Within theFGs, the first setofquestionsexplored thosebehaviours thatwereperceivedasenergyusing
ones,aswellastheroleandcharacteristicsofdailyenergyuse.Subsequently,participantswereaskedfor
motivations and barriers to saving energy at home and lastly they were asked for their input and
perceptions about possible intervention programmes or communication campaigns to promote the
adoption of more energy efficient behaviours at home. They were not specifically told that such
programmes or campaigns must be appealing to them, but rather that it should be suitable for the
population in general. This last part provided the researcher with an understanding of the kind of
narratives,focusandmessagesthatwereperceivedtoholdapotentialtopromotebehaviouralchange,to
highlightpotentialgapsbetweenmotivationsandbarriersandtoderivefromthisapossibleroadmapfor
action.
Though this research is focusing on day-to-day behaviours, discussion also included investment types of
decisions, which provided an insight into how FGs’ participants understood the contribution to energy
savingeffortsofbothgroupsofbehaviours.
5.4.2 Focusgroupcomposition
Results used within this research are the outcome of the seven FGs that took place between June and
September 2011 in three different locations inNorth Portugal. In total 41 volunteers participated in the
study and this sample is by nomeans representative, though, an attempt had beenmade to provide a
heterogeneousmixofgenders,age,educationand incomelevelssotoallowforareasonablediversityof
opinions and experiences to be revealed. Therefore participants were selectively chosen to assure the
desired level of heterogeneity. Variable gender was chosen over age to promote a dialogue that could
underpin specific gender energy consuming practices at home. Though any of these two variables could
havebeen chosen, since findings from theenergyprofiler study indicated that age, regionandgenderall
seemed to influence the way individuals can be grouped in terms of energy use at home. Different
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
102
education and income levels had not been a variable for the FGs’ composition, though 4 of the FGs
consistedofcurrentlyunemployedthatwerestudyingtoobtainhighschoolequivalenteducation,whilethe
other3FGsconsistedofparticipantsinregularemploymentthatheldatleasthighschoolleveleducation.
Whenthisresearchwasinitiallydesigned,4FGswereplanned:onewithlowbehaviour,twowithmedium
behaviourandonewithhighbehavioursasthefollowingFigure5-5shows.
Figure5-5:Initialfocusgroupdesign.
Theinitialassumptionwasthattheparticipantsforthefourfocusgroups,(Figure5-5),couldberecruited
from the group of over 900 people that answered the energyprofiler questionnaire and agreed to be
contactedforfollow-upactivities.Aftercontactingsomeofthoserespondents,itbecamenonethelessclear
thatsuchrecruitmentprocesswouldnotbeaviableoptionbecauseofgeographicaldistanceandforthe
majorityof cases the inability todrive longdistances. Since theobjectivewas tohave face-to-face focus
groupstherewastheneedforadifferentFGformattoovercomethesebarriers.Participantswereinstead
recruited from the localpopulationvia two strategies. Firstly through invitation, (FG1, FG2andFG3)and
secondlybycollaboratingwithalocaltraininginstitute,fromwhichtwoclassesofadultsthatwereenrolled
invocationaltrainingwererecruited,(FG4,FG5,FG6andFG7).
Asaresultofthis,atotalof7,(insteadoftheinitially4),FGshavebeentakingplace,whichstillallowedfor
thedesirableheterogeneity.Inadditiontothis,thisnewapproachallowedonededicatedFGthatconsisted
ofparticipantsthatworkwithintheenergyefficiencyandrenewableenergysectorandassuchtoexplore
anynotabledifferencesintermsofbehaviours,levelsofknowledge,language,andmotivationsthatcould
existbetweenexpertandnon-expertgroups.Figure5-6presentsthegroupingofthe7FGs.
Highbehaviour
Bothgenders
Anyage
Mediumbehaviour
Women
Anyage
Lowbehaviour
Bothgenders
Anyage
Mediumbehaviour
Men
Anyage
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
103
Figure5-6:Partialandtotaldistributionoffocusgroupparticipants.
At the beginning of the FGs, participants were invited to answer a simplified paper-based pre-
questionnaire,whichwasa reducedversionof theenergyprofilerquestionnaire, (seeAppendix II).Based
upon their responses participants were classified as, ‘low behaviour’ for those performing none or one
energy saving behaviour, ‘medium behaviour’ for those performing between 2 or 3 energy saving
behaviours, and ‘highbehaviour’ for thoseperformingmore than3energy savingbehaviours. Figure5-6
shows the results of this questionnaire and highlights that the age group 25-45 might be overall
overrepresentedbutalsothatalmosthalfoftheFGs’participantsreportalreadyperformingmorethan3
energysavingbehaviours,(sincetheyareclassifiedasHighfrequencyofbehaviour(H)).Participantswere
notgivenafinancialincentivetoparticipateintheirFG.
H M L H M L<25 <2525-45 5 25-45>45 >45<25 <2525-45 1 1 25-45 2 1 2>45 >45
H M L H M L<25 <2525-45 4 25-45>45 >45 1<25 <2525-45 25-45 1 1 1>45 >45 1 1
H M L H M L<25 <2525-45 1 25-45>45 1 >45<25 <25 125-45 25-45 1 3 2>45 2 1 >45
H M L H M L<25 <25 0 0 0 025-45 1 25-45 9 2 0 11>45 >45 1 1 0 2<25 1 <25 1 1 0 225-45 2 3 25-45 7 9 5 21>45 >45 2 2 1 5
20 15 6 41
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG7
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
Total
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG5
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG6
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG3
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG4
FG1
Frequencyofbehaviour
Male
Female
FG2
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
104
5.5 In-depthindividualinterviews
The information collected during the focus groups was subsequently used as the basis for six semi-
structuredin-depthinterviews:threewithfocusgroupparticipantsrepresentingtheenergyconsumersand
threerepresentingenergyconservationproviders. Interviewsweresemi-structuredwithapredetermined
list of open questions so to guide the conversation and to allow the participants to express themselves
withoutanyrestrictionandwithoutimposingontheresearchers’preconceptions.Individualinterviewsare
easier for the researcher to control than a focus group, in which participants may take the initiative,
(Creswell&Clark,2007).Otherqualitativemethodsthathadbeenconsideredweredirectobservationor
diaries. Direct observation tends to be used in areas such as health and psychology and it involves the
observationofa‘subject’inacertainsituation,oftenusingtechnologysuchasvideo,(Dawson,2002).For
this research direct observation had been seen not to be suitable due to the difficulty of such
methodologiesonceitcomestoobservingindividualenergyconsumingbehavioursathomeandwithinthe
participants’naturalsettings.Diariesareusedasresearchinstrumentstocollectdetailedinformationabout
behaviour, events and other aspects of individuals' daily lives, with the narrative being built from the
‘actors’’pointofview,(Corti,1993).Duetothenumberofenergyrelatedbehaviours individualsperform
ondailybasis,diariesdidhowevernotseemtobeasuitablemethodofresearch.
5.5.1 Interviewobjectives
The in-depth individual interviewsbuiltonthefindingsof theFGs,namelythe importancethat individual
beliefs,perceptionsandsocialnormsplayintermsofenergyuseandenergysavingonaday-to-daybase.
The objective of the interviews was thus to better understand the individual motivations and barriers
towardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathome.
In-depthinterviewswereusedtoexplorethefollowingtopics:
• Toexplorebarrierstoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehavioursfromaconsumerandapractitioner
pointofview.
• Tounderstandthemeaningof‘comfort’,‘convenience’and‘normal’andtheirperceivedinfluence
regardingenergyusefromaconsumerandapractitionerpointofview.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
105
• Tounderstandwhether‘comfort’,‘convenience’and‘norms’havebeenpartoftheconsiderations
ofpractitionerswhendesigningbehaviouralchangeinterventions.
• Toexploredifferentapproachesthatcould integrate ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’and ‘norms’within
behaviouralchangeinterventionsinordertopromoteareconsiderationoftheseathome.
Togeneratepracticallycomparablediscussions,asetofmotivations,barrierstoactionandenergyrelated
behaviours sourced from the roundtable discussion of the focus groups were prompted during the
interviewswithenergyconsumers.Twodifferentsetsofquestionsweredeveloped,(seeAppendix IIIand
IV,)onetargetedatenergyconsumersandonetargetedatenergyinterventionproviders.Bothgroupswere
initiallyquestionedabouttheoveralldegreeofeasinessordifficultytosaveenergyathome,aswellasthe
reasonsforsuchevaluation.Energyconsumerswerethenaskedfortheirunderstandingof‘comfort’ level
and‘normal’energyuseathome,aboutthe impactofenergysavingbehavioursandto identifypotential
energysavingbehavioursthattheywouldbewillingtoengagein.Energyinterventionproviderswereasked
fortheirunderstandingaboutwhatconsumersperceivedaslevelof‘comfort’, ‘convenience’and‘normal’
energyuseathome.Theywerealsoaskedabouttheirexperienceonbehaviouralchangeinterventionsand
in particular for those interventions focusing on promoting the adoption of a different norms regarding
energyuseathome.Finallytheywereaskedaboutpossibleinterventionstrategiesthatcouldbepursuedin
thefuture.
5.5.2 Samplingofinterviewees
A total of six interviews were performed, three with consumers and three with intervention providers.
Consideringthenatureoftheresearch,apurposivesamplingmethod,i.e.asamplebasedentirelyonone's
knowledgeofthepopulationandtheobjectivesoftheresearch,wasselectedasthemostappropriateand
inaccordancewiththe literature, (Creswell&Clark,2007,Powell,1997).This isanunderstandingshared
alsobyLeedy&Ormrod(2001)wherepeople,orotherunits,arechosenforaparticularpurpose,implying
theuseofjudgmentbytheresearcher.Consumersintervieweeswereselectedfromtheparticipantsofthe
FGs based on answers provided during discussion and notable with regards to ‘comfort’, ‘convenience’,
‘normalconsumption’and‘norms’.ThesetopicshavebeendiscussedtoagreaterextentwithinFG1,FG2
and FG3. Participants of the other four FGsweremore concernedwith saving energy as they could not
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
106
affordtopayhigherenergybillsandthusevaluatedcomfortassomethingthatrequiresmoney.Thethree
consumers interviewedwere twomen, (CID1 and CID2), and onewoman, (CID3). Intervention providers
were chosen as they had been involved in designing behavioural change interventions, or as theywere
involved in the policymaking process of defining the priorities for national intervention.More precisely
PID1worksinadepartmentpromotingenergyefficiencyatoneofthePortugueseenergyutilitycompanies.
PID2 works for the ADENE – Agência para a Energia, a Portuguese national energy agency, that is
responsible for home energy certification, supporting the Portuguese government in the definition of
policies and new legislation, but also managing a number of interventions promoting energy efficiency
themselves.Finally,PID3 isamiddlemanageratERSE-EntidadeReguladoradosServiçosEnergéticos,the
Portuguese energy service regulation body, responsible formanaging a Portuguese national programme
targeted at financing and sponsoring behavioural change intervention to promote energy saving,
conservationandefficiencywithintheresidential,servicesandindustrysectors.
5.6 Summaryofempiricalstudymethods
Theprevioussectionsdiscussedthemainresearchmethodsthatwereadoptedduringtheempiricalpartof
thisstudyandTable5-2providesanoverviewoftheparticipantsforeachofthethreeactivitiesaswellasit
clarifiesthesampleandprocessforselectionofit.
Table5-2–Summaryofresearchactivities.
Survey FocusGroup In-depthinterviews
Samplecriteria
The objective was tohave a representativesample of Portuguesecitizens fromall regions,collected through quotasampling procedures,considering the aim ofthe study. The sampleshould be evenlydistributed with regardto gender, age group,region and urban/ruralarea(seeappendixXfordetailed sampledistribution).
Participants wereselectively chosen toassure the desired levelof heterogeneity interms of genders, age,education and incomelevels.
A purposive samplingmethod, i.e. a samplebased entirely on one'sknowledge of thepopulation and theobjectives of theresearch,wasselected.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
107
Selectionprocess
Onlyoneparticipantperhousehold wasconsidered fortelephone interviews,performed by arecruitment and surveycompany - Consulmark(Gallup Group)nationwide. 1019interviews wereconductedinatotal.
Participants wererecruited from the localpopulation via twostrategies. Firstlythrough invitation, (FG1,FG2 and FG3) andsecondly bycollaborating with alocal training institute,from which two classesof adults that wereenrolled in vocationaltraining were recruited,(FG4, FG5, FG6 andFG7).
A total of six interviewswere performed, threewith consumers andthree with interventionproviders.
5.7 Qualitativedataanalysis:Focusgroupandin-depthindividualinterviews
Focusgroupandin-depthindividualinterviewswereaudiorecordedandafterwardstranscribed.Intermsof
primaryqualitativedata,acombinationofthematic,comparativeandcontentanalysiswasused.Thematic
analysis was firstly used to search for keywords or concepts mentioned during the FGs and ID, and to
identify overarching themes. Discussions of energy use could usually be found linked to words such as
comfort,convenience,normal,andmoneyorsaving.Thematicanalysisishighlyinductive,withthethemes
emergingfromthedataandnotbeing imposeduponitbytheresearcher,(Dawson,2002).Drawingfrom
Litoselliti (2003) themes then formed the overall structure for a content analysis that was carried out
manually,usingspread-sheetsasthefollowingexampleinTable5-3demonstrates:
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
108
Table5-3–Contentanalysis.Transcriptextract Argumentativecategories Overarchingthemes
Male,FG3:wecannotseparateenergyuse from economic development. 20yearsagooncewewereourkids’age,our country was less developed, wewere a poorer country. Our parentscould not offer us whatwe today doto our kids… The appeal toconsumption,withPlayStations,soundsystems,aTVsetineachroom…onceIwas a childmyparents had a singleTVathome,andnowadayshowmanydowehave?
Changeinconsumptionpatterns;Change in the number of homeappliancesowned;Need to cater for a growing number ofexpectationsandneeds.
Economic development as afactor influencing energy use athome;Numberofownedappliancesasafactorinfluencingenergyuse;Evolution of social norms as afactorinfluencingenergyuse.
Contentanalysisiscommonlyusedbyresearchersinsocialsciencestoanalyserecordedtranscriptsandis
based on the assumption that an analysis of language in use can reveal meanings, priorities and
understandings, as well as ways of organising and seeing the world, (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003).
Comparative analysis uses data from different people that is compared and contrasted in a continuing
process until the researcher is satisfied that no new issues are arising, (Dawson, 2002), and has been
attempted within this research. Further to this, background reading was used as part of the analysis
process,inparticulartoexplainanyemergingthemethatwasnotconsideredintheinitialliteraturereview
process. The results of the qualitative data analysiswere then discussed as themes and subthemes and
illustrativequotesareprovidedthroughoutthiswork.
BothquantitativeandqualitativedataphaseswereconductedinthePortugueselanguagewithfindingsand
analysis translated intoEnglishby the researcher.Questionnaire roadmaps,analysisor illustrativequotes
presentedinthisworkwerethentranslated,usingafreetranslationstyle,focusingonthemeaninginorder
tocapturetheideaandcontextofwhatwassaid.Othermethodscouldhavebeenused,suchasword-for-
word,literalorsemantictranslation,howeverfreetranslationwasseentobethemostappropriatemeans.
5.8 Researchethics
Forthepurposeofthisresearch,primaryandsecondarydatawerecollectedtoexplorehowenergyisused
athome.Theuseofsecondarydataisidentifiedandsourcesacknowledged.Thetargetgroupforcollecting
primarydatawerecitizensaged18andabove,whohave theirmain residence inPortugal.Permission to
collect,transcribeandtousethedataforthepurposeofthisresearchhadbeengrantedbytheparticipants
atthebeginningofeachofthequantitativeandqualitativedatagatheringsessions.
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
109
Inthecaseofthenationalsurveyquestionnaire,respondentswerechosenrandomlythroughaprofessional
companyandtheywereinformedaboutthepurpose,methodsandintendedpossibleusesoftheresearch
aswellaswhattheirparticipationintheresearchentailed.
FGs’participantsandIDintervieweesparticipatedvoluntarilyinthedatagatheringphasesandnocoercion
wasusedatanytimeduringtheresearch.FGs’participantsandIDintervieweeswereinformedaboutthe
purposeoftheresearch,hadtheprocedureexplainedthatwouldfollowandweregiventheoptiontoleave
theroomiftheywished.NeitherEPrespondentsnorFGs’participantsandIDintervieweesweregivenany
typeofcompensationforparticipatinginthestudy.Duetothemethodologiesuseditisextremelyunlikely
therewouldbeanydirectharmtotheresearchparticipants.Noprivateand/orsensitivedatawascollected
forthepurposeofthisresearchandasaconsequencenoethicalclearancewasrequiredfromtheOUUK.
Onceconducting the focusgroupsand interviews,commonlyaccepted techniqueswereusedandspecial
attention was paid to the design, revision and undertaking so to ensure integrity and quality. The
confidentialityof informationsuppliedbyparticipants,and theanonymityof respondents,was respected
and guaranteed due to the use of codes to represent FG participants and interviewees. Further, audio
recordings and transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were kept confidential and in a secure
location. No image that would allow visual identification was made during any of the phases of the
empiricalstudy.Collectedprimarydatafromthesurveyquestionnairewascomputedbytheenergyprofiler
projectteamusingSPSS,withtheresearcherbeingdirectlyinvolvedduringthepreandpostanalysisofthe
data. This research uses the results of such analysis and no further analysis of data was performed.
Qualitative data was analysed using commonly accepted analytical techniques, with a combination of
thematic,comparativeandcontentanalysisused.
5.9 Summary
Thischapterexplainsthevariousoptionsavailableduringthefieldresearchpartofthisstudyandthelogic
fortheselectionofthespecificapproach,strategyandmethods,someofwhichrequiredamoresubjective
approachduetothenatureofcollecting,analysingandinterpretingthemorequalitativefocusgroupand
interviewdata.Insummarytheresearchismainlyofaninductivenatureintermsofformulatingatheory
5.Researchmethodologyanddesign
110
from bottom-up, and using a multi-method approach that combines a survey, with focus groups and
individualin-depthinterviewsastheprimaryresearchmethods.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
111
6 Exploringdomesticenergyuse
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present and discuss the findings from the empirical work as outlined in Chapter 5;
namelyfromtheenergyprofilersurveyquestionnaire,((EP),see5.3),theFocusGroups,((FG),see5.4)and
fromin-depthindividualinterviews,((ID),see5.4).Individualinterviewsinvolvedconsumers,(CID),aswell
asinterventionproviders,(PID).TheobjectiveofusingdatafromtheEPwastosetthebroadercontextof
the research,with theFGsand ID interviewsexploringspecific topics thatemerged fromtheEP findings.
Therelationshipbetweenchapters6,7and8,andtheresearchquestionsisshownsubsequentlyinTable6-
1.
Table6-1–Relationinbetweenchapterandresearchquestions.
Chapter RQs
Chapter6 RQ1:Whatexplainsenergyuseathome?
Chapter7 RQ2:Whatinfluencesenergyuseathome?
Chapter8 RQ3:Whatisthepotentialroleofinterventionstrategiesonenergyuseathome?
6.1 Characteristicsofdomesticenergyuse
Thecharacteristicsofenergyusewereexploredinallstagesoftheresearchandtwomaincharacteristics
emergedduringtheempiricalstudy:theinvisibilityofenergyinhomeandthefundamentalrolethatitplays
onday-to-daypractices.
6.1.1 Invisibilityasadistinctivecharacteristicofenergyuse
During the FGs and ID interviews, energy was often reported as invisible, in particular referencing
electricity.Infact,someoftheFGs’participantssaidthatutilitiessuchaswaterorgaswerelessabstractto
themthanelectricity,asoneFGparticipantsummarized:
“ForinstancewithelectricityIthinkitismoredifficultbecauseit'ssomethingonecan'tsee.
Withawatertapopenonecanseetheamountofwaterflowing”,Female,FG3
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
112
AfewFGs’participantsexpressedthisinvisibilitybycomparingenergyusewiththepurchaseofgoodsand
howlessvisible,intangibleandmoreimmaterialthepurchaseofenergycanbe:
“Becauseenergy,onedoesnotbuyinpackages,(comparingittothepurchaseofgoodsata
supermarket)”,Female,FG6
GiventheoverallagreementamongFGs’participantsthatenergyandinparticular,electricity,issomething
invisible and immaterial, the topic was not further prompted during the ID interviews. During CID,
intervieweesdidnotestablish this relationshipby themselves;whilst, contrary, itwasbroughtupbyPID
interviewees, who frequently discussed how invisibility could increase the difficulty of promoting more
energy efficient behaviours. This indicates a different level of awareness between consumers and
interventionproviders.
Onaday-to-daybasisenergywasreportedasvisible throughanumberofways.DuringFGs,participants
discussedtheirinteractionwithenergynamely,(1),throughtheservicesandamenitiesenergyprovidesfor
their home appliances, or, enrolling in practices, such as cooking, lighting, or washing for example; (2),
when purchasing home appliances, as a moment in time where energy use was considered within the
purchaseprocess;(3),whenpayingenergybills,orbuyingbottledgas,orwood;thisactionremindedthem
oftheirenergyuse.
AsastartingpointtoexploringthequestionduringtheEPsurveyquestionnaire,respondentswereasked,in
anopen-format typeof questionwithoutbeingprompted, tonameall theenergy-consuming appliances
they owned at home. This questionwas aimed at understanding the respondent’s perception regarding
thosehomeappliancesthatconsumedenergy.Anassumptioninaskingthisquestionwasthattherewould
beabodyofun-reportedhomeappliances,asrespondentseitherdonothavethoseappliances,orbecause
they do not recall having themas they did not associate such applianceswith energy consumption, (i.e.
insignificant or invisible energy consumption), (Energyprofiler, 2011). To exclude the possibility of non-
existent equipment, the EP team compared the findings of the EP survey questionnaire with the
penetration rate of such appliances within the Portuguese population, using the latest available data13.
13"HouseholdExpenditureSurvey"(2005-2006-INE)
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
113
Figure 6-1 compares the difference between the numbers of home appliances EP respondents reported
owning,(herepresentedinpercentage)andNationalreportedfigures.
Figure6-1:PercentagesofhomeappliancesreportedbyEPrespondents[n=1.014]incomparisontonational
ownershipdata,(Energyprofiler,2011).
Based on the findings illustrated in Figure 6-1, the EP team concluded that there appeared to be a gap
between reported and owned home appliances, (Energyprofiler, 2011). EP findings indicate that
respondentsmayhavenotreportedsomeappliancesandtendtounderestimate,mainly,thesmallerand
technology/entertainmentrelatedappliances.Theonlyexceptiontothisisthecooker,whichwasthemain
underestimated largeappliance.Anexplanationfor thismightbe, that inPortugalcookersare frequently
runongasandnotelectricity, and thatgas is,perhaps,notunderstoodasbeinganenergy source.With
regardstounderestimatingsmallandtechnology/entertainmentrelatedappliances,oneinterpretationfor
this is that EP respondents have those appliances at home, but forgot to report them, due to their
perceived insignificantenergyconsumption.Fromthedatapresented inFigure6-1,thiscannotbeclearly
concluded,thereforethismatterwasfurtherexploredduringFGsbyaskingparticipantstoreporthowthey
usedenergyathomethepreviousday.Thisquestionprovidedanextensivelistofanswersassummarized
inFigure6-2.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
114
Figure6-2:ReportedhomeappliancesandpracticesduringFGsonceparticipantswereaskedwhattheydidthedaybefore.
As can be seen in Figure 6-2, the list of reported home appliances and practices is extensive and
comprehensive, anddonot support the assumption that EP respondentsmighthave forgotten to report
home appliances based on low energy consumption. From the findings of the FGs’ participants it is not
possible to conclude for or against any predominant reason. However, FG interactions seemed to have
facilitatedarecallingofamorecomprehensivelistofhomeappliances,aswellastherespectivepractices.
This suggests that during the EP survey, respondentsmight have simply forgotten to recall some of the
home appliances that they owned.One such reason for forgetting home appliances could be simply not
havingrecentinteractionwiththeapplianceorassociatedpractices,andasthefollowingquoteindicates:
“UsuallyIwillusethewashingmachineeachsecondday”,FemaleFG6
Afurtherreasonfornotreportingappliancesandpracticeshasbeenan,apparent,underreportingof
thosewhichpeopledonotneedtointeractwithintermsof‘switchingonoroff’:
“W1:wearetalkingaboutthelightsbutthereareotherthingsthatarealwaysonlikethe
fridge.W2:yes,Iwasexcludingthosethings”,FG2
It could further be observed, that the moment of purchase served as a reminder to a few of the FGs’
participants andCID intervieweesas tohowmuchenergy theyuseathome. Thus, it couldbe seenas a
moment in time when energy appears to have a higher visibility, through product energy labelling for
PracticesLights Entertainmentappliances LightingTV Stove DoingthelaundryPC Fridge Doingthedishes
Microwave Freezer CookingIron Radio Preparesometoasts
Microwavewatch Lightandengineoftheaquarium ListeningtomusicStandbylights Waterengine Ironing
Washingmachine Electricalgates ChargemobileHoover Drill Chargecamera
Exhaustfan Playstation WatchingTVTumbledryer Gasforshower Chargetoothbrush
Presencelightforkids Coffeemachine ShoweringBoiler Fan
Televisionset BatteryofmobilephoneHotwater Hairdryer
Heatpumptoheatwater VacuumcleanerCoffeemachine SmallappliancesHand-blender Allotherappliancesthatareon24h
Homeappliances
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
115
example,with narratives during the discussions suggesting a period of reflection before the purchase of
such appliances.Overall, FGs’ participants reported consideringdifferent alternativeswhenbuyinghome
appliances, aswell asbeingmoreawareofenergyefficient items;but, that thosemightnotbe the final
purchase,asthefollowingquotesummarizes:
“I think we don't pay much attention to A-class appliances which allow you to use less
energy. However, once we are looking for buying an home appliances there is a big
differenceinprice”,Female,FG6
The quote above, also highlights that the purchase decision process embraces not only the amount of
energy the appliance will use but also the investment required in buyingmore energy efficient ones, a
phenomenon that research to date has identified as a barrier to the purchase ofmore energy efficient
appliances,aswellastheadoptionofrenewableenergysources,(Barenergy,2011;Gardner&Stern,2002,
2008;Jackson,2005).FromthefindingsoftheFGsandtheIDinterviews,itwasnotpossibletounderstand
whether purchasing more energy efficient home appliances accounted for the majority, or not, of the
purchasingdecisions,butthatthepurchaseitselfmightindeedprovideenergywithsomevisibility.
Inadditiontothis,energybillswereconsideredbythemajorityofFGs’participantsandCIDintervieweesas
amomentintimewhenenergyappearstogainsomevisibility.Itremained,however,unclearastohowfar
energy bills actually contributed to energy visibility. FGs’ participants prevalent feelingswas that energy
billsprovidedlittlehelpful information,intermsoftheamountofenergybeingused,whichsuggeststhat
energy bills in Portugalmight be obscuring rather than helping understanding of their energy use. FGs’
participants provided a number of reasons for this: (1), energy bills are usually sent out bi-monthly and
often report on estimated energy consumption, rather than real consumption levels; (2), Not all energy
sourcesareaccountedforthroughtheenergybill.FGs’participantsseemtooverlookenergysourcesthat
werenotaccounted for in theenergybill, suchasbottledgasand firewood.FGs’participantsseemedto
havedifficultiesinestimatingtheirmonthlyuseofbottledgasandfirewood;(3),Thefactthatasignificant
number of FGs’ participants reported paying a fixed amount during 11 months of the year with the
difference being paid in the 12th month. Thus, this contributes to a lack of understanding of energy
consumptiononamonthlybase,asthefollowingquoteillustrates:
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
116
“IpaythesameamounteachmonthandonlyattheendoftheyearIpaythedifferenceof
theenergyuse.It'sverydifficulttoknowhowmuchenergyIusedduringthemonths”Male,
FG3
The12thmonthenergybillwas, apparently, a subjectof close reflection for a significantnumberof FGs’
participantsandCIDinterviewees;(4),Paybillsusingdirectdebit,wasreportedtocontributetowardsthe
increasedinvisibilityofenergyuse;(5),Portugueseenergybillsalsoincludesurcharges,thatarenotrelated
toenergyuseandthatcouldaccountforupto44.9percentofthefinalpriceforelectricity,(Eurostat,n.d.),
that could hinder understanding how much energy is used. Some, but not all, of these surcharges are
disclaimed within the bill, which contributes to a lack of transparency. Commonly, the above reasons
questiontheefficacyofenergybillsintheoneformoranothertoprovideanadequatelevelofinformation.
6.1.2 Thefundamentalroleofdomesticenergyuse
TheFGdiscussionsandtheCID interviewsshowedstrongagreement inthefundamentalrolethatenergy
playsforpeople,asthefollowingquotesummarizes:
“Electricityallowsustouseourfivesenses,byseeingTV,listeningtomusic,(…),alsothesmell
with a freshener, (…), to cook…,(not finishing to go through the remaining senses)”Female
FG2
FGs’ participants and CID interviewees agreed that energy is fundamental to fulfil basic needs, such as
cookingorbathing,butalsoaspectsthatbelongedtonormalneedsandlifestylesandrelatedtocomfort,
convenienceorcommonpractices.Withthis,someoftheFGs’participantsalsoexpressedsomefrustration
thattheycouldnotfulfilalltheirneedswithouthavingtoworryaboutthenextenergybill,sinceenergywas
toocostlytofulfilalltheirneeds.AssuchtherewasanoverallagreementamongFGs’participantsandCID
intervieweesregardingenergyasfundamental,vitaloressential.
6.2 Determinantsofdomesticenergyuse
Energy use at home is often explained as based on a set of factors and existing conditions, (EEA, 2013;
Maréchal,2010)andthissectionaimstoexploresuchfactorsandconditionsthathadbeenreportedduring
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
117
theempiricalstudyandtoreflectondeterminantsthatareinfluencinghomeenergyusage.Theresultsfor
this section are given as a series of themes that emerged during the FGs and the ID interviews, as FGs’
participantsandIDintervieweeshadnotbeendirectlyaskedforwhatdeterminestheirenergyuseathome.
6.2.1 Relationofbehaviourandenergyuse
FindingsfromtheEPsurvey,FGsandCIDinterviewsindicatethatpeoplehavealreadyadoptedsomemore
energy efficient behaviours. Q6 of the EP survey questionnaire, an open-ended question, asked
respondentstoexplainwhattheywerealreadydoingtosaveenergyathome.EPrespondentswereinvited
toprovidealistofeverythingtheydidtosaveenergyandastheresultingdataispresentedintermsofthe
frequencyofanswers in relationto the totalamountof respondents.AsFigure6-3shows, theresponses
providedbytheEPsurveyincludedarangeofefficiencyandcurtailmentbehaviours,(AppendixVprovides
afulllistofanswers).
Figure6-3:Reportedenergyefficientbehaviours,inpercentoftotalNo.ofrespondents[n=1.014](Energyprofiler,2011).
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%
Boughtasmallerfridge
Thethermostatisatamaximumof18°Celsius
Doubleglasses
Insulationofthehouse
Idon’tusethepre-washstepinthedishwasher
Havesolarpanelsathome(thermal/photovoltaic)
Insulationofdoorsandwindows
Energyefficientheatingsystem
Turnoffthecentralheatingduringthesummer
EnergyclassAappliances
Alwaysusethewashingmachine/dishwashercompletelyfull
Cookwithgas
Handwashthedishes
Turndownthewashingmachine/dishwashertemperature
Airdrytheclothes
Takeaquickshower
Others
Useofefficientlamps
Turnoffappliances(anddon’tleavethemonstand-by)
Turnoffthelightswhenthereisnooneintheroom
0,3%
0,4%
0,6%
0,7%
0,8%
1,2%
1,5%
1,7%
3,5%
8,2%
9,2%
10,3%
11,4%
11,6%
12,2%
13,8%
20,2%
34,4%
44,0%
61,7%
Energyefficientbehaviours
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
118
Theresults,aspresentedinFigure6-3,showthatthemostcommonlyadoptedbehavioursarecurtailment
behaviours of turning lights off and avoiding standby consumption. These curtailment behaviours are
followedbythepurchaseofenergyefficientlightbulbsandhomeappliances,(energyclassAappliancesin
Figure6-3).Incontrasttothis,efficiencybehavioursrelatedtowaterandspaceheatingwerelessreported.
Figure6-4:FrequencyofreportedenergysavingbehavioursinFGpre-questionnaire.
Figure6-4shows the resultsof theFGpre-questionnaire, (seeAppendix II for the full versionof thepre-
questionnaire)andascanbeseen34outof41FGs’participantsreportedtouseenergyefficientlightbulbs,
followedby 25 participants usingA class ormore energy efficient appliances, 17 participants controlling
roomtemperatureand14 insulatingtheirdoorsandwindows.Equally,duringtheFGdiscussionsandCID
interviews, thepurchaseofenergyefficient lightbulbsandhomeappliances,aswellas turning lightsoff
andavoiding standby,hadbeen reportedas themostwidespreadefficiencyandcurtailmentbehaviours.
These four behaviours could, during the discussion, be traced back to past nationwide interventions in
whichenergyefficientlightbulbshadbeenprovidedforfree,ordiscountsofferedformoreenergyefficient
majorhomeappliances.Thefourenergysavingbehavioursmostoftencitedinthepre-questionnairemight,
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
119
however,betheresultofabias,sincetheywerealreadyprovidedasoptionstoanswersforQuestion2in
thesamequestionnaire.Sincecontrollingroomtemperatureandinsulatingdoorsandwindows,hadahigh
response rate in the pre-questionnaire, it only was discussed within the FGs once prompted. Thus, the
reportedbehaviourappearedtonotcorrespondtotheactual,current,behaviour.However, thefactthat
theFGstookplaceduringsummer,whensuchbehavioursarenotperformed,mighthavebeenanequally
validexplanationandfromobservationsthisremainsunclear.
A second set of questions, (Q9 to Q14), in the EP survey questionnaire further explored the level of
adoptionofbestpractice,intermsofenergyefficientbehaviour,insixspecificsituations,ascanbefoundin
Table6-2.
Table6-2–Reportedenergyefficientbehaviours[n=1.014],(Energyprofiler,2011).SpecificSituation(bysurvey
question)Reportedresults
Question 9 – “When youturn on the heating systeminaroom,howdoyouleavethewindowsordoors?”
22.2 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by answeringthat they not only close doors and windows, but additionally they insulated thehouse to prevent heat losses.Most respondents, (38.8 percent), closeddoors andwindows, without thermally insulating the house. Only about 4 percent ofrespondentsdidnothing,oronlyclosewindows/doorsoncetheyremember.
Question 10 – “When it’scoldoutsidewhatdoyoudoto enhance the comfort athome?”
42.8percentofrespondentsreportedtheadoptionofbestpracticebyfirstputtingonextraclothesandthenincreasingroomtemperatureifnecessary.Onlyabout5.6percentof respondents seekhigh thermal comfortwithoutworrying aboutenergyconservation. A large percentage, representedmainly in "other" procedures, havenoelectricheatingorfireplaceandthus,don’tfitinthisquestion.
Question11–“Whatdoyoudo once you open thefridge/freezer?”
65.5percentofrespondentsreportedtheadoptionofbestpracticebytryingtoclosethedoorasquicklyaspossibleandremoveeverythingtheyneedatonce.Onlyabout5 percent of respondents did not indicate concerns about energy conservationrelatedtofridgeusage.
Question12–“Whatdoyoudo once using the washingmachine?”
75.8percentofrespondentsreportedadoptionofthebestpracticebyalwaysusingthewashingmachine atmaximum load and air drying their clothes. Only about 8percentofrespondentsdidnotindicateconcernsaboutenergyconservationatthislevel.
Question 13 – “Howdo youturn off the TV and otherappliances?”
64 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice by turningappliancesoff.Still,ahighpercentageofrespondents,(24.2percent),reportedusingthestand-byoptionoftheequipment.Onlyabout11percentofrespondentsdidnotindicateconcernsaboutenergyconservationatthislevel,nevershuttingoffordoingitoncetheyremember.
Question 14 – “When youleave a room what do youdoinrelationtothelights?”
About 86.8 percent of respondents reported the adoption of best practice byreporting that, "Asa rule, I turnoff the lightswhen I leavea room".Onlyabout3percentofrespondentsdidnotindicateconcernsaboutenergyconservationatthislevel,neverturningoffthelightoronlydoingsooncetheyremember.
TheresponsesshowninTable6-2indicateagoodlevelofknowledgeandadoptionofmoreenergyefficient
behaviours regarding lighting and stand-by practices. Nevertheless, when it comes to other behaviours,
suchasinteractionwithmajorhomeappliances,homethermalinsulationorshoweringpractices,thislevel
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
120
ofreportedknowledgeandadoptionofenergyefficientbehaviour,islessoftenreportedwhichindicatesit
mightalsobelessoftenadopted.
From the above findings, in combinationwith the FG discussions and interview responses, the following
couldbelearnt.Firstly,theenergyefficiencyofappliancesdoesnot,onitsown,appeartonecessarilybea
guaranteeof lowerenergyuse, since it is thewaythatpeopleuse theirappliances that influencesactual
energy consumption. This point will be discussed more in section 6.2.3 and is supported by literature,
(Goldblatt,2005;INE,I.P./DGEG,2011;Lomas,2010).TheresponsesofFGs’participantsandCIDinterviews
indicatedthatthere,indeed,seemedtobeadissonancebetweenthebehaviourofpurchasinganappliance
inrelationtoitsuse.Forexample,asignificantnumberofFGs’participantsreportedbuyingenergyefficient
lightbulbs,whilst at the same timepaying less attention to theway theyused the lamp, as exemplified
withinthefollowingquote:
“That'sthereasonwhytheydevelopedtheenergyefficientlightbulbs.Theyknowwewillnot
switchlightsoff”,Male,FG7
This suggests that, despite technological developments and the use ofmore energy efficient appliances,
energy intensehabitsmightstillbemaintainedandthereforepotentialenergygainscouldbe lost.This is
described in literature as the, “Rebound effect”, (Khazzoom, 1980) and as illustrated in the quote, as a
directreboundeffect.Findingsfurthershowthatreportedenergysavingbehaviourfrequentlyfocusedon
easytoperformbehavioursthathavenoapparentimpactintermsofcomfort,convenienceandwellbeing
suchastheoneexpressedinthequoteabove.Thesefindingsshould,however,beevaluatedwithcarefor
tworeasons.Firstly,itwasnotalwaysclearwhetherFGs’participantsandIDintervieweeswereinfluenced
by what they perceived the researcher wanted to have as an answer, or, whether the responses are a
consequence of participants wanting to maintain a consistency in their own reasoning, which from the
literatureisinfluencedbythe,“Cognitivedissonancetheory”,(Festinger,1957).Secondly,energyseemsto
bestronglyassociatedwithelectricityandseenasasynonymforelectricity,orperhapsforelectricityplus
gas.Thereforeresponsesmightwellbelimitedequallytosuchenergysourcesonly.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
121
6.2.2 Buildingcharacteristics
The majority of the FGs’ participants and ID interviewees seemed to understand the role building
characteristics have with regards to the amount of energy used on a day to day basis, as well as the
limitation that they represent to adopt energy efficient behaviour. Building characteristics discussed
includedage,orientation,size,buildingenvelope,performanceofinstalledheating/coolingsystem,aswell
as the potential to refurbish, or install renewable energy systems. Situations, such as not being able to
reduce energy use due to lock-in effects, were reported by all 6 ID interviewees and by a few FGs’
participants,asthefollowingquotesdemonstrate:
“Therearealreadyanumberoftechnicalsolutionswithinbuildingoptionsthatcouldprotect
theenvironmentthat,duetothefactofbeingsoexpensive,arenotoftenused”,Male,FG3
“Ifwewanttoinstallasolarpaneltheyaresoexpensive”,FemaleFG6
Two of the PID interviewees further considered building characteristics to be a strong determinant for
domesticenergyuseandthatotherfactors,suchaslocationorstylepreferences,wereofahigher,decision
making,importancethanenergyefficiencywhenpurchasingproperty.PID1arguedthatonlyasmallniche
ofthepopulationseemedtotaketheenergyefficiencyoftheirnewhomesintoconsideration.Giventhat
ownershipofahousewasnotasegmentationcriterionforselectingFGs’participantsandCIDinterviewees,
itwasnotpossibletounderstandwhethertheenergyefficiencyofnewhomeswasavariableinthehouse
selectionprocess.
6.2.3 Growingnumberofhomeappliances
AnumberofFGs’participantsandCIDintervieweesfurtheracknowledgedthattheyownagrowingnumber
of appliances in comparison to the past. By the past, they were usually referring to what their parents
ownedatthatage,orwhentheywereyoungerandstilllivedwiththeirparents.However,norelationship
wasestablishedbythembetweentechnologicalefficiencygainsperappliance,theoverallgrowingnumber
ofappliances,andtheimpactthatthiscouldhaveontheamountofenergybeingused.Asaresultofthis
and,apartfromtwocases,FGs’participantsandCIDintervieweesdidnotseemtobeawareoftheimpact
of thegrowingnumberofhomeappliancesand relatedhigherenergyconsumption.Thisphenomenon is
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
122
discussed, within research, as one of the explanations for the, “Energy efficiency gap”, (Feenstra et al.,
2009)andthePIDintervieweessupportedthis.
Though not understanding the full scope of the increased number of appliances they owned, FGs’
participantsprovideanumberofexamplesofthisevolutionofownerships,suchas increasednumbersof
TV sets per household, the change from washing clothes by hand towards a washing machine, or the
growingpenetrationrateofheating/coolingsystems.
“IhaveanACatmyholidayhousethatIusetoheatduringwinterandcoolduringsummer.
ForsureafterwardsIneedtopaythebill,butitfeelsgood.Maybe15yearsagoIdidn'thave
anACandIsurvived”,Female,FG2
ThequoteabovenotonlyshowsthatsomeoftheFGs’participantsstartedtoownhomeappliancesthey
were not used to owning, but that this can also represent an evolution of needs and expectations, as a
combinationofcomfortandaffordance.
Heatingsystems,bothwaterandroom,werealsoapartofthediscussionamongall7FGs.Ingeneral,FGs’
participantsseemedtobeawareoftheimpactthatsuchhomeappliancecanhaveintermsofcontribution
toelectricityand/orgasbill.Nevertheless,inthreeFGs,onemisconceptionwasoftenobservedinregardto
thebeliefthatoneissavingenergybyusingwood,insteadofgasorelectricity.FGs’participantsseemedto
believe theywere savingenergywithout recognizing theywere simplyexchangingoneenergy source for
another.OnlyoneFGparticipantmentionedthattheenergyefficiencyoftheirheatingsystemhadbeena
discussionpointoncebuildingtheirhouse.
6.2.4 Energyefficienthomeappliancesandoverallenergyprices
Findings from the EP survey show that energy consumption was reported as the most important
characteristic, (31.1percent),whendeciding topurchaseelectrical appliances.This is followedbyenergy
labels14,with29.2percent. Lowerpercentages include theprice/quality ratio, (17.8percent),price, (16.8
percent), or power, (e.g. watts), (14.3 percent). However, those findings should be analysed with some
14AccordingtotheEuropeanUnionEnergyLabelStandard.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
123
cautionsincetheyarenotin-linewithotherresearchinthisareathatshowsadifferentorderofpurchasing
factor priorities,with quality being first, followed by price and only then comes energy consumption, as
presentedwithintheresultsoftheenergyprofilerstudy,(Energyprofiler,2011).Oneofthereasonsforsuch
aresultmightbethatpeoplewerequestionedaboutthemaincharacteristicsoftheirhomeappliancesthat
theyboughttheyearbefore,withinasurveythatrelatedtoenergyuse.Thiscouldhavetriggeredenergy
consumptionasthefirstanswer.Thisapparentcontradictioncouldalsobeobservedwithintheresponses
ofsomeoftheFGs’participantsandIDinterviewees:
“Ithinkwedon'tpaymuchattentiontoA-classapplianceswhichallowyoutouselessenergy.
However,oncewearedecidingtobuyanhomeappliancesthereisabigdifferenceinprice”,
Female,FG6
The findings from the FGs and ID interviewees did not also provide any clear evidence on how relevant
energyuse canbewhenpurchasing ahomeappliance. FGs’ participants andCID interviewees, however,
identifiedhigherpurchasingpricesasabarrier tothepurchaseofmoreenergyefficientappliances,since
thiswouldrequire,– inter-alia – investingup-frontwithsavingsbenefitsonlyachievable inthemedium-
longterm:
“ThepricedifferenceofA-classappliancesisconsiderablymoreexpensivewhichisareason
fornotbuyingsuchclassofappliances”,Female,FG6
DuringtheFGsandtheCIDinterviews, itwasnotpossibletofullyunderstandwhetherparticipantswere,
indeed, purchasing energy efficient home appliances, or whether their monetary situation presented a
limitation to such purchases. Evidence was provided for both cases, both buying more energy efficient
appliancesandalsoforbeingunabletoaffordthem,eventhoughtheywereawareofthebenefits:
“I'mproudofhavingaheatpumpathomesinceitwassoldasbeingaveryefficientsolution
toheatwater…thismakesmefeelinghappywithmydecision”,Female,FG2
Inordertofullyunderstandtheimpactofthehigherpriceofenergyefficientappliances,intermsofenergy
use at home, requires understanding how the costs of running such an appliance could compare to the
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
124
initial investmentrequired.This is, inparticular,meaningfulsincesavingmoneyhadbeenreportedasthe
mainmotivationtosaveenergyathome,duringtheenergyprofilersurveyandonecouldexpectthatany
change in energyprices, be it in absoluteor relative,would influence consumption.However, this is not
alwaysthecaseandduringtheempiricalworkevidencewasprovidedthatchallengedthisassumption.
During the FGs stage, two categories of participantswere identified. Firstly a group that appeared tobe
abletoaffordhigherenergybillsand,secondly,agroupthatreportedtohavealimitedamountofmoney
to spendonenergy. Participants belonging to the first group seemed tobe awareof theneedof saving
energyandreportedtryingtodoso.However,theyalsoreportedtobewillingtospendahigheramounton
energy, in order to maintain their desired level of comfort at home, which suggests that concepts of
comfortandperceivedneedsmightincreasewithincomelevel.Thesecondgroupincludedparticipantsthat
reportedreducingtheirenergyuse,totheminimumrequired,inordertofulfilwhattheyperceivedasbasic
needs,withsomeofthoseparticipantsreportingthattheycouldnotaffordservicesandamenities,suchas
roomheatingduringwinter, as theywouldhave liked to. For this second group, usingmoreenergywas
reportedasnotbeingaviableoptionbecausetheysimplycouldnotaffordit.Thisgroupof,whatseemedto
be,lessaffluentFGs’participantsmightevenbeinanenergyorfuelpovertysituationasduringtheFGs,a
significantnumberofparticipantsfromFG4,5,6and7reportedexperiencesthatappeartobesituationsof
energyand/orfuelpoverty.Yet,therewasanoverallagreementamongtheselessaffluentFGs’participants
toaspire to lifestyleswhich lead to theadoptionofmoreenergy inefficientbehaviours.Within this, they
couldbeconsideredfrugalconsumerswhoareobligedtokeepcostsdown.
ThediscussionsalsoshowedaconsensusamongFGs’participantsthat,ifthepriceforenergywaslower,or
they could havemoremoney to spend, (meaning the relative price of energywas reduced), this would
resultinthemusingmoreenergy:
“The reason for reporting to save isamonetaryone,perhaps if theyhadmoremoney they
wouldusemoreenergy”,(reportingonhowsheperceivedothersmotivationtosaveenergy),
Female,FG4
“Depends on the individual financial circumstances: those spendingmoremoney on energy
canafforddoingso(…)theycanpaymoreandsaveless”,Male,FG4
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
125
Thesequotesindicateapossiblerelationship,notonlybetweendecreasingpriceandhigherenergyuse,but
also of increasing income levels and increasing energy use and that energy use would almost certainly
increaseifFGs’participantseitherhadmoremoneytospend,orifenergypricesdecreased,makingenergy
relativelycheaper.Ontheotherside,ifenergypricedidgoup,thismightnotimpactenergyusethatmuch
intheshort-term.Those,morefrugal,FGs’participantsappearedto,perhaps,notmanagetosaveenergyas
they already only use it for, perceived, basic needs. Some, more affluent FGs’ participants, in contrary
appearedtonothavesuchconstraints.These findingsprovide furtherevidence,supportingthe literature
regarding energy use, as inelastic in the short term, butmore elastic in the long term, as suggested by
Sorrell(2007).Thissuggeststhatonlyatacertainpricecouldoneexpecttoseeareductiononenergyuse.
Other,moreaffluent,FGs’participantspointedout,however,thatiftheycouldaffordtopayhigherenergy
bills,theyalsowouldbedoingso.Thisprovidesevidencesupportingthebodyofliteraturethatadvocates
thathigherincomemightleadtohigherenergyuse,(DECC,2011;Gaterslebenetal.,2002).
These findings nevertheless raise a question regarding the effectiveness of those types of interventions
targetedatchangingenergyprices.During theFGs,anumberof such intervention typeswerediscussed,
suchastaxesorsubsidies,withsubsidiesbeingfavouredbyparticipantsovertaxes.Withinfiveoftheseven
FGs a type of interventionwas discussed that aimed at penalizing bad behaviours, (i.e. energy overuse),
providing some further incentive for the goodbehaviour, (i.e. energyunderuse).A significant numberof
FGs’participantswere receptive to thepositionofpayingapenalty,whichcouldbean increasedenergy
price, compared to the standard price. Similarly, in those cases where energy was underused, FGs’
participants suggested a bonus for good performance. Nevertheless, the initial enthusiasm of FGs’
participants towards such type of intervention and the effectiveness of the interventionwas not clearly
established.Inlightofthediscussionofthepreviousparagraphthevalidityoftheseresponsesis,perhaps,
notentirelyclear.
6.2.5 Theevolutionofculturalandsocialnorms
Institutional, social and cultural factors influence the way lives are lived based on the norms that are
established.During theFGsand ID interviews,acommonthemerelated to theevolutionof standardsof
comfort,namelythermalcomfort,orconvenienceofnewlyestablishedpractices,whichwereconsideredby
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
126
FGs’ participants and ID interviewees to be a mix between individual preferences and social/cultural
common understandings. FGs’ participants provided a number of examples for practices that have been
evolvingovertime,asforinstanceheatingordoingtheirlaundryanddishesandhowanewwayofdoing
these has developed that was expected to be followed. This evolution seem to be the result of the
interactionbetweentheintroductionofhomeappliances,theabilitytooperatethemandwhathasbecome
anormalwayofdoingtheseactivities,asoneoftheFGs’participantssummarizedit:
“I don’t know how I could live withoutmywashingmachine. I know in older times people
didn’thadonebutnowadays…ImeanIdoknowhowtowashclothesbyhandbutjusttheidea
ofthecoldwater…”,Female,FG4
Thequoteexpressesnotonlyhowpeopleseemedtohaveadaptednewpracticesathome,butalsohow
these newwaysmight lock individuals into these newpractices, creating a dependency on a day-to-day
basis,withindividualsfindingithardtochangetheirdomesticroutinesandbehaviours.Thisistosaythat
the evolution in the number of appliances and associated practices seemed to be accompanied by an
evolutionofindividualneedsandaspirationsthatbecomenormal:
“Wegotusedtothecomfort,tohavealllights,toseeTV,wegotusedtoallofthis.Thatdoes
notmeanthatifsomeonewouldtakeallofthatawaywewouldnotsurvive.”Female,FG7
Aquestion,therefore,waswhetherFGs’participantsandIDintervieweesperceivedthesehomeappliances
already as a basic need, orwhether theywere still considered as being a luxury. During the FGs and ID
interviews,anumberofparticipantsandintervieweesacknowledgedthatsomehomeappliancesanddaily
practicescouldbeperceivedasa luxury,basedonthecomfort level theywereassociatedwith.Thiswas
particularlyevidentwhendiscussingshowerpracticesandroomtemperatureduringwinter.DuringtheFGs,
participantsprovidedsomeexamplesofappliancesthattheyconsideredtobefundamentalfortheirday-
to-day lives,namely the fridge, thewashingmachine, lightsand the stove,due to theessential role that
theyplaywithindailyroutines.Thisdichotomybetweenbasicandluxuryneedwasexploredinmoredetail
duringtheCIDinterviewsbyaskingintervieweesiftheyweretoreducetheirenergyusewhatwouldthey
considerasabasicneedandwhatwouldtheyconsideraluxury.CIDintervieweesexperienceddifficultyin
clearlyseparatingbasicneedsfromluxuryanditappearedthatbasicneedswereunderstoodaseverything
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
127
theycurrentlydo,meaningnothingwouldbeconsideredaluxuryforthem.Assuch,basicneedsincludeda
reasonableroomtemperature,areasonableamountof lightandtherequirednumberofshowersto feel
clean.Thedefinitionof ‘reasonable’hasneverbeenspecified indetail,but rather remainsasanabstract
conceptofhavingabrighterorwarmerhouse.Luxuryneedsthatholdasavingpotentialwerereportedin
some areas, such as reducing shower duration, avoiding standby consumption, avoiding leaving on
unnecessary lightsandappliances,whichcouldallbeconsideredasavoidingenergywaste.This suggests
that,overall,FGs’participantsandCIDintervieweesappearedtobeawareofwhatgoodpracticesareunder
specific situations. However, they did not perceive non-performance of good practice as being a luxury.
Findings indicated,however, thatknowingaboutgoodpracticedidnot translate intoconcretebehaviour
and, particularly, when comfort seemed to be a dominant need that is both socially aspired for and
accepted.FromtheFGsandCID interviewsnoconsistentnarrativeemergedofamoralobligation touse
energyinadifferentway.
6.3 Concludingremarks
Thischapterdiscussedthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudythatlookedathowenergyisusedathomein
termsofitscharacteristicsanddeterminantswithinthePortuguesecontext.Table6.3providesanoverview
aboutthefindings,howthoserelatetotheresearchquestionsandanynoteworthyobservations,followed
byasummaryofthefindingswithregardsonhowtheyrelatetothefirstresearchquestion,(RQ1)andthe
literature.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
128
Table6-3–SummaryoffindingsrelatingtoRQ1
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
ChapterSection:6.1.Characteristicsofdomesticenergyuse
6.1.1.Invisibilityasadistinctivecharacteristicofenergyuse
Energyappearstobegenerallyseenasanabstractconceptasaresultofitsinvisibility. RQ1a Apparentgapbetweenreportedandownedhomeappliances,notablyforthecaseofsmall
andentertainmentappliances.
Energy being visible, (1), through the services and amenities itprovides once using home appliances and developing practices, (2),once paying for energy bills and, (3), once purchasing homeappliances,asthisconstitutesamomentofreflectionwheredifferentalternativeappliancesarecompared.
RQ1a,RQ1c
Scopeofassociationbetweenhomeapplianceandassociatedpracticeandcorrespondingenergyuseremainedunclear.
Unclearunderstandingofthefinalpurchasingdecision:is itfororagainstenergyefficientappliances?
6.1.2.Domesticenergyuseasbeingfundamental
Energy tobe seenasbeingessential forpeople to live theway theyknow and, in particular, to support what is seen as their normallifestylethatnotonlyfulfilsthebasicneedsofwater,foodandshelter,butalsoperceivedneedsofcomfortandconvenience.
RQ1c
Energy is perceived as something rare and expensive, resulting in aneed to save energy at home; in opposition with the preference tofulfilindividualneedswithoutanylimitations,orconcerns.
RQ1cFindings indicate a strong association of energy to electricity than to any other energysource.A reason for thismight be the fact that electricity is themain energy source fordomesticenergyuseinPortugal.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
129
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
ChapterSection:6.2.Determinantsofdomesticenergyuse
6.2.1.Relationofbehaviourandenergyuse
The energy efficiency of appliances alone is not necessarily aguaranteeof less energybeingused, since thewaypeople use theirappliancesequallyinfluencesactualconsumption.
RQ1b
Focus on easy to do behaviours, with reduced impact in terms ofcomfort,convenienceandwellbeing. RQ1b
Turning lights off and avoiding standby consumption as the most often reportedcurtailmentbehaviours.Purchasingenergyefficientlightbulbs,aswellasenergyefficienthomeappliances, isreportedasthemostwidespreadefficiencybehaviour. Incontrarytothisefficiency,behavioursrelatedtowaterandspaceheating,werelessoftenreported.
6.2.2.Buildingcharacteristics
Individual choices are constrained and shapedby the socio-technicalsystem,thisisthehomestheyliveinandtheappliancestheyown. RQ1b
6.2.3.Agrowingnumberofhomeappliances
Evidence of the growing number of energy using appliances to befoundintheaveragehome. RQ1b
6.2.4.Energyefficienthomeappliancesandoverallenergyprices
Despite the increased energy efficiency of homes and appliances,therehasbeenanincreaseindomesticenergyuse,whichcouldbe,forexample, a result of the way appliances are used as well as thereboundeffect.
RQ1b
Unclear understanding of the importance that Portuguese people attribute to energyconsumption of home appliances at themoment of purchase.Within the energyprofilerstudyenergyconsumptionwasconsideredtobethemostimportantaspect,despitetherehadbeenequallycontradictingfindingswithinthesamestudy,(Energyprofiler,2011).AlsothroughthesubsequentFGsandCIDinterviewsnoclearevidencecouldbecollected.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
130
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
6.2.4.Energyefficienthomeappliancesandoverallenergyprices(cont.)
Energyuseaspriceinelasticintheshorttermbutseentobeelasticinthelongterm. RQ1b,RQ1c
Unclear relation between income level and energy use, through anobservedtendencyforhigherreportedincomelevelstobeassociatedwithhigherreportedenergyuse.
RQ1b,RQ1c
Evidenceofenergyandfuelpovertyasasocialandmaterialproblem. RQ1b,RQ1c
6.2.5.Theevolutionofculturalandsocialnorms
Needsdevelopedovertime,referringtobasicrequirementsofwater,food and shelter, as well as socially perceived needs of comfort, orconvenience. All of these are perceived as belonging to a normallifestyle,withevidenceofcomfortandconvenienceassociallyframedneedsorwantsascustomwithinsociety.
RQ1b,RQ1c
Apparentsocialandculturalneedsofowningmoreandmorehomeappliances,behavinginawaythatcouldbeconsideredenergyintensiveandfavouringthemaintenanceofcomfortlevels.Ageneraltendencyofunderstandingcomfortandconvenienceasneedsthatmustbefulfilled,butnotasluxuryneeds.Beingabletofulfiltheseneedsappearstobesociallyandculturallyacceptedandalmostdesirable.
Social and cultural factors influence the way lives are lived oncepractices have been established,with standards locking people into,whatthen,appeartobenormalsocialpractices.
RQ1b,RQ1c
For the Portuguese, house heating has a lower share of total energy consumptioncompared to European values, (70 percent on an average), which may be the result ofmilder climatic conditions, in combinationwith fuelpoverty (Backhauset al., 2012;BPIE,2011).
More affluent people appear to trade money for comfort andconvenience,givingpriorityto individualandfamilywellbeing,ratherthan, for instance, environmental protection. Those in apparentenergy and fuel poverty seemed to not be able to reach an aspiredcomfort level and in some cases they might even live in unhealthyconditions.
RQ1b,RQ1cMostenergy, inPortugal, isspentonhouseheating, inthekitchenandonwater, thoughlessevidenceexistsforPortugal,regardingthewaypeopleconsumeenergyintheirhomes,aswellasbehaviourswhichholdthehighestenergysavingpotential.
6.Exploringdomesticenergyuse
131
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
6.2.5.Theevolutionofculturalandsocialnorms(cont.)
Behaviours appeared to be socially determined by norms, by whatothersarounddoandbycopyingthewaythatothersaroundbehave.This seemed to be, in particular, true once these behaviours hadbecomeroutine.
RQ1b,RQ1c
Thereislittleevidencethatnormscouldhelppromotingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours. RQ1b,RQ1c
6.ExploringdomesticenergyuseinPortugal
132
Thefollowingsummaryprovidesevidenceonhowthefindingsreportedinthischapterprovideanswersto
theresearchquestions1,(RQ1),whatexplainsenergyuseathomeandthesub-questions,(RQ1a),whatare
the characteristics of energy use at home, (RQ1b), what are determinants of energy use at home and
(RQ1c),howdoindividualsunderstandtheirenergyuse.
WithregardstoRQ1aandthecharacteristicsofenergyuseathome,twocharacteristicsemerged.First,the
invisibility of energy has been perceived as a distinctive characteristic of energy use. Findings provide
further evidence that energy is perceived as something invisible that, compared to other utilities, is
intangibleandabstract.Improvingenergyvisibilitywasseenasameanstopromoteandfostertheadoption
ofmore energy efficient behaviours, though FGs’ participants and CID interviewees equally showed that
even once visible, they had little knowledge about howmuch energy they use, both of which are well
knownfromliterature,(BrandonandLewis,1999;Darby,2006;Goldblatt,2005;Martiskainen,2007).Awell
discussedexample,theenergybill,showedthatdespitemakingenergyvisibletheimpactislimitedandthe
empirical study seems to confirm the findings of Darby (2006) and Brandon and Lewis (1999). FGs’
participants prevalent feeling was that energy bills provided little helpful information, in terms of the
amountofenergybeingusedathome,whichsuggests thatenergybillsmightobscure, rather thanhelp,
understandingofenergyuse.Theirefficacytoprovideanadequatelevelofinformation,thatcouldsupport
acomprehensiveevaluationofenergyuseathome,wasalsoquestioned,ashighlightbyDarby(2006)and
Brandonand Lewis (1999). Inaddition to this, from the findingsof FGsand the ID interviews, itwasnot
possibletoclearlyunderstandwhetherwhenreportingonenergyuse,FGs’participantsandIDinterviewees
onlytalkedaboutelectricity,oriftheyalsoreferredtootherenergysources,suchasgasorfirewood.Such
adifferencemightbe,however,ofparticularimportancesincefindingshaveequallyshownthatenergyasa
conceptholdsa strongerassociation toelectricity, than toanyother typeofenergysource.Therefore, it
mightbeassumedthatparticipantsmighthaveunderstoodenergyasbeingsynonymouswithelectricity.
Thesecondemergingcharacteristicofenergy,(RQ1a),relatestothefundamentalroleenergyplaysinday
to day life, a characteristic that was not challenged during the FGs and the CID interviews and which,
indeed, is very much in line with the literature, (Geller et al., 2006; OECD, 2012; Sorrell, 2007). This
characteristic, strongly related to the way individuals understand their energy use, (RQ1c), as this
fundamental role appears to be mediated by the needs that it fulfils, including those that result from
6.ExploringdomesticenergyuseinPortugal
133
existinglifestyles.Suchneedsinthemajorityrelatedtocomfort,convenienceandwellbeing,practicesthat
becomehabitualandthusperceivedasbeingnormalneeds.Thisseemstomatchwellwithfindingsfrom
literature and that suggests that concepts of comfort and perceived needs might increase with income
level; an assumption supported by earlier research, (WWF, 2012; DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002).
Findings further show that reported energy saving behaviour frequently focused on easy to perform
behaviours that have no apparent impact in terms of comfort, convenience and wellbeing. The strong
dependencyandrelianceonenergymightalsoexplainwhyenergywasperceivedasexpensivebyFGandID
participants.ThisistosaythatFGs’participantsandIDintervieweesappearedtobequitecomfortablewith
a certain levelofnormalization,where individual energyuse isperceivedandevaluatedasnormal, even
though it was understood as being energy intensive. This observation supports findings from literature,
(Bandura,1977b,1986;Cialdinietal.,1991;Cialdinietal.,1990;WWF,2012)andonlya fewof theFGs’
participantschallengedthisnormalization;butfromthepointofviewofnotbeingabletoaffordit,rather
thannotaspiringtosuchalifestyle.FindingsfromFGs’participantsandIDintervieweesfurthershowthat
aslongasitisaffordable,theyarewillingtopaymoreforenergyinordertomaintaincurrentlifestyles.This
is to say the norm is rather towards the fulfilment of own needs and familywellbeing, and less toward
environmental protection, (DECC, 2011), (RQ2).As a result of this reportednormalization, little evidence
couldbeseenthatwouldsuggestthatnormscouldbeusedtopromotemoreenergyefficientbehaviours,
(RQ3), though theydidappear tobedeterminants forenergyuse, (RQ1b)andconsequently,achange in
norms could reduce energy use. Other strong determinants that could be seen related to building
characteristics,astheseinfluence,toagreaterdegree,theamountandwayenergyisusedathome,which
alignswellwith the literature, (BPIE, 2011;DGGE/IP-3E,2004;Goldblatt, 2005).Nevertheless,only a few
FGs’ participants understood, or have been aware, about the locked-in effect that this situation
encompasses and that this too is well known from literature, (Goldblatt, 2005; Maréchal, 2010; Shove
2004).
Energypriceswerereportedasinfluencingenergyuse,butnotthatoftenandprovidedfurtherevidencein
supportoftheliterature,(DECC,2011;Gaterslebenetal.,2002,Sorell,2007),regardingenergyuseasprice
inelasticintheshortterm,butmoreelasticinthelongterm.Nevertheless,thisreducedlevelofenergyuse
would,inaccordancetothoserelevantFGs’participants,changeiftheycouldaffordtopayhigherenergy
6.ExploringdomesticenergyuseinPortugal
134
bills,providingevidence to support literature thatadvocateshigher incomesmight lead tohigherenergy
use, (DECC, 2011; Gatersleben et al., 2002). Findings from the FGs and ID interviewees did thus show a
positiverelationbetweenenergypricesandenergyuse,aswellasbetweendisposableincomeandenergy
use.Thispositiverelationmirrorsearlierresearch,(DECC,2011;Gaterslebenetal.,2002);Sorrell,2007)and
hasbeen,forexample,explainedbytheconceptofpriceelasticityanddemandsaturation,(Sorrell,2007).
Afurtherfindingrelatestowhatisknownfromtheliteratureasenergyand/orfuelpoverty,(Buzar,2007a;
Boardman,2010;UKGovernment,2013).DuringtheFGs,asignificantnumberofparticipantsfromFG4,5,6
and7reportedexperiencesthatappeartobesituationsofenergyand/orfuelpoverty,whichisinlinewith
theassumptionsfromliteraturethatthiswouldbethecasewithinMediterraneancountries,(Healy,2003;
SEI,2003;SILC,2007;WHO,2012).
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
135
7 Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
Chaptersevenexplorestherelationshipsbetweenmotivationsandbarriersofenergyuseinthehome.The
chapterdiscussesthefindingsfromtheenergyprofilersurveyquestionnaire(EP),thefocusgroups(FG)and
thein-depthindividualinterviews(ID)regardingwhatinfluencesenergyuseathome(RQ2).
7.1 Motivationalvariablesandenergyefficientbehaviours
Motivations were explored initially during the energyprofiler (EP) survey, with Q15, an open-format
question, (Appendix VI for full list of answers) and then further explored during the FGs and ID, to, in
particular,betterunderstand the influence thatenvironmental concerns couldhave in termsofadopting
moreenergyefficientbehaviours.
7.1.1 Themotivationforsavingmoney
Findings from the EP survey show that 7 out of 8 respondents, (n = 1.014), reported cost-savings as the
most importantmotivationtosavingenergy.DuringtheFGsandCIDs,tosavemoneywasputforwardas
themain reason for saving energy, thus reassuring the earlier EP findings.Moreover, themotivation to
save, for monetary reasons, seemed to be even more important to those FGs’ participants with an,
apparent, lower levelofdisposable income.For thisgroupof lessaffluentFGs’participants,energycosts
seemed tohaveahigher impacton theirdisposable income,withparticipants reporting that itwouldbe
unfeasibletoaccommodateadditionalcosts.EquallyforFG1,thegroupthatconsistedofparticipantsthat
workwithintheenergyareaandthatarewellawareoftheenvironmentalimpactofenergyuse,monetary
motivationstosaveenergywerereportedtobethemostimportantones.
Whilecost-savingshadbeenreportedasthemostimportantmotivation,itcouldbeequallyobservedthat
monetarymotivationappearedtobeindirectconflictwithcurtailmentbehavioursthatwouldberequired
toactually realize suchmonetarygains. FGs’participantsand ID interviewees frequentlypointedout the
effort thatwould be required to engage in numerous energy saving actions that, in accordance to their
view,onlyresultinminormonetarysavingsforeachoftheactionsundertaken.Engagementinanumberof
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
136
actionsonadailybasisandtherequirement to reinforce theneedofsuchactions toall familymembers
wasseenasinconvenientanddemanding,asillustratedwithinthefollowingquotes.
“Itrytodoso,(switchlightsoff),butit'snoteasy.SometimesIsimplyforgetit.It'snormal”,
MaleFG6
“I sometimes announce at home: one of these days Iwill burn a CD to play over and over,
tellingthingsasswitchthelightsoff…switchthisoff…(talkingabouttheneedtorecallfamily
memberswhattheyshoulddo)”,FemaleFG6
“IusuallygoaroundandswitchlightsoffandindeedIgetpsychologicallymoretiredofdoing
sothantheenergyIwillsaveattheendofthemonth”,MaleFG3
Ascanbeseenfromthequotestoengage inrepetitiveactionsrequiresaconstanteffort,andthuswhile
cost-savingsmight be themost importantmotivation to save energy, in practice thismight not lead to
actualsavings.
DuringtheFGsandCIDs,itcouldalsobeobservedthatafocusonmonetarymotivationmightevenresultin
an increasedenergyuse, forexampleby leaving lowenergy lightson,which in literature isreferredtoas
thereboundeffect,(Khazzoom,1980,Sorrell,2007,Gottron,2001).EvidencefromtheFGsandCIDssuggest
theexistenceofboth,adirectandanindirectreboundeffect.Adirectreboundeffectappearedtoexistsas
some of the FGs’ participants reported usingmore of the resource, instead of realizing the energy cost
savings,forexample,byleavingenergyefficientlightbulbsonsincetheyconsumedless,orhavinglonger
showers,astheywereabletobuybottledgasatalowerprice.Anindirectreboundeffectappearedtoexist,
assomeFGs’participantsreportedthattheywouldspendthemoneysavedonthingstheycouldnothave
purchasedotherwise.Thisistosaythatafocusonfinancialsavingappearedtoindeedsupportpotentially
energyandcarbonintensivebehaviours,thatthencouldreduceor,evencancel,theenvironmentalbenefit
achievedthroughtheenergysaved.
Inadditiontothis,thefocusonfinancialsavingsseemedtofacilitatetwomisconceptions,namelythatthe
useofoffpeaktariffsandwoodarewaystosaveenergy.Thesearemisconceptions,sinceinbothofsuch
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
137
casesenergyisnotbeingsaved;withoffpeaktariffspeopleconsumethesameamountofenergy,onlypay
lessforitandbyusingwoodinsteadofgasorelectricity,peoplemightnotbesaving,butrathersubstituting
theirenergysource.
“Onethinks there isanassociatedcostandthatoneneedstosave.This is thereasonwhy I
thinkaboutoffpeaktariffsandtrytousethemasmuchaspossible”Female,FG2
For these two cases, the focus on cost-savings could have easily lead to a re-bound effect, as already
discussedin2.3.6and6.3.
7.1.2 Pro-environmentalbehaviourandpro-socialmotivations
Pro-environmental and pro-social motivational variables that have been identified, mainly related to
environmentalconcernsaswellastheneedforcaringforfuturegenerations.Pro-environmentalandpro-
socialmotivational variables that couldbeobserved related for example to social norms,or topersonal,
altruistic andmoralmotivations, such as environmental protection, or an individual feeling of doing the
rightthing.
During the EP survey, the environmental motivational variable emerged as the second most important
motivation to save energy after the monetary stimulus. More than half of the EP survey respondents
reportedenvironmentalmotivationsasareasonforsavingenergy,with1in3reportingtofocusonsaving
resourcesand1 in6reportingaconcernedwithclimatechange.DuringtheFGs,themajorityoftheFGs’
participantsreportedsimilarmotivationstowardstheenvironment,thoughmonetarymotivationremained
predominant,withtheenvironmentalcomponentperceivedasasecondary,sideeffect:
“It'sanadditionalsavingtosaveonthose,(environmental),resources”,FemaleFG6
Furthermore 1 in 6 respondents reported that they save energy for the benefit of future generations, a
motivationthatcouldalsobeobservedthroughouttheFGs:
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
138
“There is the environmental motivation since our children are the ones bearing the
consequencesofourcurrenthabits.”Female,FG7
ForboththeEPsurveyandFGs,theconcernforfuturegenerationsseemedtobe,however,comparatively
lowasanindividualpriorityandnotablyso,whencomparedtothemonetaryvariable.In4outofthe7FGs,
protectingtheenvironmentwasputforwardasbeingtherightthingtodo,thetopicmainlycameupinthe
contextofrecyclingaspartofpro-environmentalbehaviourwhendiscussingeffectivewaystoprotectthe
environment.Withthis,FGs,and laterCIDs,providedsomeevidencethatsavingenergycouldbeseenas
therightthingtodoforenvironmentalreasons,thoughthefollowingpresentedevidencesuggeststhatthis
actuallymightnotbethecase.
ThefindingsindicatethatEPsurveyrespondentsandFGs’participantsholdverypositiveattitudestowards
theenvironment,notonlyonabroaderlevel,butalsotowardsenergyandresourcesaving.DuringtheEP
studyeightcompositescaleswerecomputedresultingfromtheaggregationofquestionnaireitems.Scales
were psychometrically validated based on Cronbach Alfa/inter-item reliability analysis and Pearson’s
correlation(fortwoitemscales),whichcanbeseenintheTable7-1below.
Table7-1–Compositescales[n=1.014,F(2.89,2914.70)=434.73,p=.000,η2=.57],(Energyprofiler,2011)..Scale/Variable Items(seequestionnaireinAppendixI) Reliability
Generalattitudetowardstheenvironment Q1(items1-10,12,14,17) α=.82
Knowledgeonclimatechangeandenergy Q1(items3,12,13,15,16) α=.65
Perceivedriskrespondtoclimatechange Q1(items2e4) α=.65
Frequencyofenvironmentalperformance Q7(items1-7+10-12) α=.64
Attitude towards the conservation of energy and
naturalresourcesQ1(items1,5,6,7,9,10,14e17) α=.77
Knowledge in relation to energy conservation
measuresQ1(items13e15) α=.70
Responsibilityinenergyuse Q1(items11e18) α=.76
Attitudetowardsenergy Q1(items1,6,9,10,14,17) α=.72
Competenceintheuseofenergy Q9-14 α=.52
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
139
In general, the scales had acceptable (α =. 60) to high (α =. 80) internal consistency levels and strong
correlations (r above .50) suggesting the items have relatively high internal consistency and can be
understoodasareliablemeasureofthevariablestheyrepresent.Onlythecompetencymeasureinrelation
toenergyusehaslowlevelsofconsistency.Onereasonforsuchcouldbethefacttheindividualitems(Q9
toQ14)evaluatedifferentaspectsofenergy consumption (heating,useof refrigerator,washingmachine
andTVlighting)andassuchtheymightnotbeperceivedaspartofasinglecategory.
Figure 7-1, plots the average Likert scale values for the composite scales of, “General Environmental
Attitude”, “General Environmental Knowledge”, “Risk Perceived of Climate Change” and “Environmental
Behaviour”,containedwithintheEPsurvey.MoreinformationontheEPstudyandmethodareavailablein
AppendixVII.
Scale
GeneralEnvironmental
Attitude
GeneralEnvironmentalKnowledge
RiskPerceived–ClimateChange
EnvironmentalBehaviour
Mean 4.22 3.76 4.29 3.44
S.D. 0.45 0.57 0.53 0.66
Figure7-1:Averagevaluesforriskperceptionofclimatechangeandattitude,knowledgeandenvironmentalbehaviour[n=1.014,F(2.89,2914.70)=434.73,p=.000,η2=.57],(Energyprofiler,2011).
As can be seen from Figure 7-1, EP respondents have a high positive assessment of the environment in
general, suggesting a favourable opinion regarding environmental issues and their resolution. EP
respondents show a high positive attitude, towards the conservation of natural resources and energy,
which implies a favourable opinion in relation to energy conservation measures at home. Similarly, EP
respondentsreportedhavingastrongresponsibilitytowardsenergyuseathome,revealingahighlevelof
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
140
importanceinthisaction.Fromanotherperspective,andasshowninFigure7-2,EPrespondentsreported
andoverallheld,positiveattitudesandknowledgeforconservingenergyathome.
Scale
Attitude(…)resourcesand
energyAttitudetowards
energyconservation
Knowledgeregardingenergyconservation
Responsibilitytowardsenergyuse
Mean 4.24 4.23 3.64 4.23
S.D. 0.50 0.53 0.77 0.53
Figure7-2:Valuesforattitude,knowledgeandresponsibilitytowardsenergyuse[n=1.014;F(2.89,2914.70)=434.73,p=.000,η2=.57],(Energyprofiler,2011).
The positive attitudes and apparent knowledge, as presented in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, did not seem to
translate,however,intoperformanceandfrequencyofpro-environmentalbehaviours.Ascanbeseenfrom
the same EP survey responses, (Q7), to separate waste, reuse bags, or control room temperature was
reported as ranging from between, "Sometimes", to, "Often", depending on the specific behaviour, as
Figure7-3illustrates.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
141
Figure7-3:Reportedpro-environmentalbehaviours[n=1.014],(Energyprofiler,2011).
The frequencyof reportedbehaviours, shown inFigure7-3,was thus significantly inferior to thepositive
attitude shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, highlighting the potential inconsistency between global
environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviours. This is to say that the favourable opinion of
environmentalprotectionpresentedinFigure7-1,apparentlydidnottranslateintoahighfrequencyofpro-
environmentalbehaviours,indicatingtheexistenceofanattitude-behaviourgap.Thisdoessupportearlier
findingsindicatingthatattitudesseemtohavelittlepredictivevalueforexplainingbehaviour,(Geller,1981;
McKenzie-Mohr& Smith, 1999) and thus, can lead to an attitude-behaviour gap, (Kollmuss& Agyeman,
2002).
EPfindingsfurthershowthatsomepro-environmentalbehaviours,suchasre-usingbags,orturningoffthe
lightwhen leavingaroom,aremoreoftenreportedthanothers,suchasusingrechargeablebatteries,or
turningoffthestandbymodeofhomeappliances.DuringtheFGsandtheCIDinterviewstherealtionship
between positive environmental attitudes and actual behaviours, was further investigated to better
understandthereasoning.Findingsindicatethatthepositiveattitudestowardsenergysavingseemedtobe
surpassed by the, individual, direct benefits of energy use, such as comfort and wellbeing, which were
reportedtorankhigheronindividualprioritiesaslongastheyremainaffordable,(see3.4.4.).Thisistosay
thatoverallattitudestowardsenvironmentalandenergyconservation,asdemonstratedinFigures7-1and
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
142
7-2, might be high when evaluated in isolation, but when compared to other factors, they might be
surpassed. Insuchcasesthereappearedapreferenceforcomfortandwellbeing,overenvironmentaland
energy conservation. Thus in isolation, environmental and energy conservation might be strong
motivationalvariables,butinconjunctionwithothervariables,theymightbecomparativelyweak.Insucha
situation, saving energy to save money or the environment enters into direct competition with the
expectation and desire of maintaining established practices and fulfilment. This is well-known from the
literature with suggested benefits and motivations, for example, being convenience and comfort,
(Barenergy,2011,Darnton,2008,Darntonetal.,2011,Jackson,2005,Prendergrastetal.,2008).
A further observation of inter-dependent and inter-related factors concerns financial and pro-
environmental variables, in conjunction with differing points in time. The majority of FGs’ participants,
beingmoreor lessaffluent,demonstratedconcernwith their current financial-economic situation,which
wasseenasaconcrete,neartermthreat,comparedtothepotentialconsequencesoftheirenergyusein
environmental terms which was perceived as a more abstract long-term threat. This was, for instance,
expressed by a number of participants through their understanding that today’s generation would not
suffertheconsequencesofpredictedenvironmentalproblems.OnlyafewFGs’participants,andonlyone
CID interviewee, reported to be sceptical that they would not suffer at all from such negative
consequences. Negative consequences, referred to the fact that today’s generation might already be
suffering from scarcity of resources, such as petroleum or water, but not necessarily from the
environmentalimpactsoftheiruse.Intheoppositedirection,thefinancialeconomiccrisiswasdescribedas
something that FG participants and CID interviewees were currently experiencing and perhaps, even
affected by and that, therefore, did concern them. FGs’ participants, CID and PID interviewees also
acknowledged the difficulty in understanding the relation between individual energy use and the
environmental damage,which together negatively influenced their individualmotivation to save energy.
SomeFGs’participantsclaimedtonotbeabletounderstandthevalueofthecontributionoftheirindividual
energyconsumingbehavioursandthustheydonotknowwhethertheirconsumptioncouldbeclassedas
normalornot,asthefollowingquoteshows:
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
143
“What isanormaluse?Howmuchenergy is itperday?And if I consumeabovethat level,what
happens?Do Ineedtousexmorekilosofcoal? Is thatwhat itmeans?Onecannotunderstand”,
Female,FG2
Withthis,itappearedasiftheinabilityofunderstandingtheconsequencesofonesactionsledtoasenseof
helplessness and disempowerment. This supports earlier findings from Thøgersen (2005), that reduced
levelsofknowledge,regardingtheenvironmentalimpactofonesbehaviour,includingenergyuse,appears
toinfluencetheabilitytoactinaccordancetoindividualpositiveenvironmentalattitudes.Furthertothis,
themajorityoftheFGs’participantsperceivedthebehavioursofothersashavingamoredirectimpacton
the environment then their own energy saving behaviours. There was a strong consensus among FGs’
participantsthattheyperceivedsavingenergyashavingalowerimpactontheenvironmentincomparison
tootherbehaviours,suchaswatersavingorrecycling,thoughnounderlyingreasonscouldbeperceived:
“Idon'tthinkonethinksIwillsaveenergyinordertoprotecttheenvironment,Iwillrecycleto
savetheenvironment,thatmightworkout”,MaleFG7.
Anothermotivationalvariablethathadbeenexaminedwasthelimitednessofresourcesasamotivationto
uselessenergy,whichthemajorityoftheFGs’participantsdidnotseemtotakeintoaccount.AllthreeCID
interviewees, incontrary, reported tounderstandenergysourcesas something limitedandone reported
energyscarcityasafundamentalreasontoreducehisenergyuse.
Insummary, thefindingspresented inthissection indicatethatenvironmentalmotivationsappeartonot
play an important role in inspiring people to adopt more energy efficient behaviours for a number of
reasons as has been discussed through this section, most notably because of an apparent lack of
motivation.FGs’responseshavefurthershownthepotentialexistenceofanattitude-behaviourgap,thus
support earlier findings provided by Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002). Such an attitude-behaviour gapmight
explainthe,apparent,observeddissonancebetweenverypositiveattitudestowardstheenvironmentand
resulting actions. Once it comes to action, participants seemed to position environmental concerns at a
lowerprioritylevel,comparedto,forexample,financial,orfamilycomfortandwellbeingissues.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
144
7.1.3 Needsandexpectationsanditsrelationtomotivationforsavingenergy
As can be seen in section 6.2.5, social norms have been found to be potentially strong determinants of
energy use. From a motivational perspective, social norms, however, did not appear to be a strong
determinanttosaveenergyathome,thoughitwasextensivelyrecognised,oncetalkingaboutbarriers,as
detailedinsection7.2.DuringtheEPsurvey,only3.6percentwereconcernedwiththesocialcomponent
forsavingenergy,orstatus,(2.6percent),orself-image,(2.7percent).Socialnormswerehoweverreported
duringtheFGs,theCIDandPIDinterviews,toplayanimportantroleinpro-environmentalbehaviours,such
asrecyclingandwaterconservation.Asamotivationalvariabletosaveenergy,socialnormswerehowever,
reportedtobeoveralloflowimportance.Thisisnotsurprising,asFGs,theCIDandPIDinterviewsequally
didshowthatcurrentusage levelsarefrequentlyunderstoodasbeingnormal, (see6.2.5),andtherefore,
the social norm is determined by current energy use,which is expected to accommodate all needs and
expectations.
7.2 Barriersforadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours
Barriers were explored initially with Q16 of the energyprofiler survey, in an open-format question,
(AppendixVIII for full listofanswers), thataskedrespondents toprovide their reason(s) fornot trying to
saveenergymoreoftenathome.FindingsindicatethatEPrespondentsinthemajority,believedtheywere
already doing everything they could to save energy and a question for the FGs and the ID interviews,
therefore,was toexplore if this, indeed,hasbeen thecase,orwhether theremightbeanybarriers that
leadtotheconclusionofhavingdoneeverything.ThefrequencyofresponsesduringtheFGs(seeAppendix
IXforfullresponses),whenaskedtoprovidethreereasonsfornotsavingenergy,arepresentedinFigure7-
4,intheformofawordcloud,subsequentlyshowningroupedformatinFigure7-5.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
145
Figure7-4:Reasonsfornotsavingenergyathome–responsesfromFGs
Figure7-5:FrequencyofcategorygroupsofbarriersduringFGs.
Aswillbeseenthroughthissection,notallsuchinitialreasonsfornotsavingenergyathomeappearedto
ultimatelyplayarole,whileothersdid.
7.2.1 External/macrobarriers:policybased,structuralandeconomicbarriers
As shown in Figure 7-5, economic conditionswhere put forward as potential barriers for adoptingmore
energyefficientbehaviours.FGs’participantsandIDintervieweesputforwardtwoeconomicbarriersthat,
both could be classified as policy based barriers. Firstly, a few FGs’ participants felt that only those
appliances thatareconsideredby lawasbeingenergyefficient shouldbeavailable forpurchase. In their
view,suchcompliancetominimumstandardscould,however,onlybeachievedthroughpolicymeasures,
aspostulatedintheliterature,(Barenergy,2011).Thusalackofsuchmeasurescouldbeseenasabarrier.
Barrier Comfort Habits
WillingnessLaziness
Resistancetochange
Self-indulgence
EnvironmentFuture
InitialinvestmentReturnon
theinvestment
InformationActionscurrentlytaken
Economicconditions
Socialnorm,social
dilemma,hypocrisy
Frequency 6 4 6 7 6 8 34 9 16 15
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
146
ThesecondbarrierdiscussedwithinfiveoftheFGs,relatedtopenaltyandincentivemechanismsthatcould
promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour at home. According to the FGs’ participants,
penaltyandincentivemechanismscouldonlybepromotedthroughpolicy-makinginterventionsandthus,
thelackthereofagainconstitutedabarriertothem.
Two more, further, barriers could be observed during the FGs and the ID interviews, both of which
appeared to belong to physical-structural barriers, namely housing and existing home appliances. The
infrastructure of the house was seen as being a determinant of energy use at home. This barrier was
particulardiscussedinCIDandPIDinterviewsandtherewasstrongconsensusregardingtheimportanceof
houseinfrastructure,aswellasthedifficultyofintervention,evenwhentechnicalandeconomicoptionsare
available:
“Thereareasetofsolutionsthatcanprotecttheenvironment,namelyintermsofthewaythe
houseisbuild,thatforthereasonofbeingsoexpensivearenotused”,MaleFG3
“I have the limitation of living in an apartment building which does not allow me to take
actionsinanindependentwayinordertosaveenergy”,CID2
“Ifwewanttoinstallasolarpaneltheyaresoexpensive”,FemaleFG6
Therewasastrongconsensusthatchangingexistinginfrastructurewillnotonlybecostintensive,butalso
only feasible once existing home appliances are out of service, orwhen technological solutions become
moreeconomicallyviable.Assuch,thefindingsalignedwellwiththeliterature,(GardnerandStern,2008;
Martiskainen,2007,Goldblatt,2005,Maréchal,2010).Forthecaseofefficiencybehaviours,withwhichan
initialinvestmentisrequired,notbeingabletoaffordthepurchaseofmoreenergyefficientapplianceswas
oftenreportedbyFGs’participantsasaneconomicbarriertowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficient
behaviour.ThisbarrierwasmorepredominantwithinFGs4,5,6and7,whichappearedtobelessaffluent,
thoughitwasalsodiscussedwithaslightlydifferentfocuswiththeremainingFGs. Inthecaseofthe less
affluentFGs,thediscussionfocusedmoreonthepurchaseofenergyefficienthomeappliances,themore
affluentconcentratedontheneedfor improvingthebuilding itself,or installrenewableenergysolutions.
This division resembles the discussion from section 2.4.4, 2.4.5 and 6.2.4, regarding the influence of
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
147
economics, energy prices and income levels in terms of energy use at home. With this all the FGs
consideredeconomic aspects and financial limitations as constitutingbarriers. For the former group, the
barrier related to curtailment behaviours, while for the latter group, it related to efficiency behaviour,
similartothediscussioninsection6.2.
7.2.2 Knowledgebasedbarriers
Withregards toknowledgebasedbarriers, the findingshavebeensomehowcontradictory,as theresults
indicated that participants had adequate information, yet they argued the existence of some types of
knowledgebarrierandthus,lackofinformation.Thatparticipantshadadequateinformationcouldbeseen,
for example, from EP respondents who reported an average-high level of general environmental
knowledge,aswellasknowledgeofmeasuresforconservingenergyathome.Furthermore,halfoftheEP
respondents reported already doing everything they can and 1 in 5 reported their current actions as
sufficient.Asmallerpercentage,(16.9percent),oftheEPrespondentsreportedthattheywouldliketodo
more,butdidnotknowhow.Similarly,lackofinformationhasbeenthemostoftenreportedbarrierfornot
savingmoreenergyathomeduringFGs,ascanbeseeninFigure7.5(page127)EquallysimilartotheEP
responses, the wider findings of the FGs did indicate that participants actually appeared to have such
knowledge.These,partlycontradictory,findingsarepresentedbelow.
Both, FGs’ participants and ID interviewees, frequently expressed difficultywith regards to one of three
aspects: (1), lackof information regarding theiroverall energyuse, (2), lackof information regarding the
contributionofspecifichomeappliancesandbehaviourstothetotalamountofenergyusedand(3),asa
resultoftheprevioustworeasons,alackofinformationregardingtheamountofenergythatcanbesaved
byadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.
Regarding the lack of knowledge, in terms of overall energy use, during the FGs, there was overall
agreementtowardsthedifficultyofunderstandinghowmuchenergytheyusedathome.Thiswaseventhe
caseforparticipantsofFG1thatworkintheenergyindustry.Thisdifficultywasperhapslessaresultofnot
being able to understand ones energy use, but rather due to the lack of feedback systems that could
providemeaningfulrealtimeinformation.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
148
Men1:IhavetheunderstandingofsavingwhenIswitchthelightsoffthatI’msaving
somethingbutIdon’tknowhowmuchthatis.
Men2:Butthat’sit...youhavethefeeling...IsubstitutemyTVagainstamoreenergyefficient
oneandIhavenoideahowmuchthatcouldsaveme.Ican’tknowsinceIdon’thavean
energymeter...ifIwouldhaveoneIwouldnowhowmuchIsave,FG1
Similarly EP responses on providing amonthly, or an annual, figure for respondents’ electricity and gas
consumption, (Q29, Q30), showed a significant lack of knowledge on how much energy is used on a
monthlyandyearlybase.MostEPrespondentsprovidedanaverageannualcostforelectricity,of126.93€,
(SD=133.81€)andofgas,111.07€,(SD=86.31€).Formonthlyvalues,electricitycorrespondsto67.55€,(SD
=35.33€)andgas56.27€,(SD=35.94€).DuringtheFGs,fewparticipantsreportedhowmuchtheypayfor
energyandevenCIDinterviewees,onceaskeddirectly,hesitatedinprovidingavalue.Onceprovided,the
valueappearedtoberatheranestimatedvalue.Inadditiontothis,participantsinfouroftheFGsandalso
CID interviewees reported their energy use, not in kW, but in Euros, thus indicating that the amount of
energyusedisnotreallyknownandfocuses,verymuch,ontheprice.Nevertheless,thisevaluationseemed
tobe strongly associatedwithmonthly energybills, (electricity andpiped gas in Portugal), and lesswith
otherenergysources,suchasbottledgasorfirewood.Asanapparentconsequence,peopleneitherknew
howmuchenergytheywereusing,nordidtheyseemtobeabletorefer toenergy inanyothervariable
thanthemonetaryone.
“There isnootherway tomeasureenergyuse,onedoesnotknow, Ipersonallydon't know
anotherwaytomeasureapartfromtheamountIpayforenergy”Female,FG4
Further, findingsdid showanapparentdisadvantage to thecurrentdesignofenergybills,whichmade it
difficulttoseparateanincreaseinenergyusefromchangesintheprice,orofisolatingitspricefromother
surchargesthatareincludedwithinenergybillsinPortugal.
Inregardtothis,mostoftheFGs’participantsdidnotunderstandhowtointerprettheamountofenergy
used;withregardstoifitcouldbeconsiderednormal:
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
149
“Thesingle indication Ihave that Iuse littleenergy isdue to theamount Ipay since Idon't
evenknowwhetherit'slittleortoomuch”Female,FG2
Themajorityof theFGs’participantsclaimedtonotunderstandwhatanormalenergyuse levelathome
wouldbe.FormostoftheFGs,adetaileddiscussiononwhatnormalmeans,usuallytookplaceatthispoint
intermsofhowtodefinenormal,whatshouldbeincluded,orexcluded,orhowtoaccommodatespecific
individualandfamilycircumstances.ThemajorityoftheFGs’participantsconcludedthatnormalenergyuse
would need to be calculated in relation to some sort of variable, such as persons per household. FGs’
participants showed a common agreement that knowing this normal value for the energy use at home,
would allow them to compare their own energy use with others, in order to understandwhether their
energyusewasabove,belowornormal.
Intermsofthecontributionofspecifichomeappliancesandbehaviours,themajorityofFGs’participants
andCIDintervieweesrevealedseveraldoubtsregardingthecontributionofdifferenthomeappliancesand
energyrelatedpractices:
“Idon'tfeelreadytoreducetheenergyIuse.Idon'tknowhowmucheachapplianceisusing,
eachlampandasaconsequenceIcan'treducetheenergyused”Female,FG4
“LastyearIboughtanelectricaloven(…)andIwascurioustoseehowmuchenergyitusedso
Iwoulddoaroastorbakeacakeandwouldcheckforhowmuchenergyitwasusing.AndI
learned that for a roast I needed 4, a cake 2 (referring to energy units), I already cannot
rememberbutbythattimeIlearnedhowmuchenergyIwasusing”Female,FG7
“1stwomen: Ithinkthatwedon'tknowthingswecouldtodo(tosaveenergy)2ndwomen:
andother timeswedon't dobecausewedonotwant to payattention to the information”
Female,FG6
While the quotes above illustrate doubts regarding the contribution of different home appliances and
energyrelatedpractices,theyalsoillustrateanapparentunwillingnesstoengageandlackofinterestinthe
subject. With regards to the perceived overall energy saving potential at home, only a quarter of EP
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
150
respondentsansweredthequestion,(Q31),regardingthepotentialforsavingenergyathome,reportingan
average saving of 16.48 percent. One of the respondents reported the potential reduction in Euros,
reaching an average of 18.05 Euros per month, which was less than the percentage cited. This again
suggests some difficulty in evaluating and calculating energy saving potentials. This difficulty of
understandingenergyuseandthesavingpotentialofspecificbehaviourswasfurtherdemonstratedonce
EPrespondentswereaskedto list fiveenergysavingbehaviours, fromtheonethatsavesmostenergyto
theonethatsavestheleast,(Q8).Thelistofthefiveenergysavingbehavioursincludedthefollowing:(1),
“Usethewashingmachineand/ordishwasherat lowtemperature(30-40º)”; (2),“Defrostperiodicallythe
fridge/freezer”; (3), “Replace incandescent light bulbs by fluorescent ones”;(4), “Turn off an appliance
insteadofleaveitinstand-by”;and(5),“Reducetheshowertimefrom15to10minutes”.EPsurveyresults
show that the ordering is not aligned with the actual impact of the five behaviours computed by the
energyprofilerprojectteam.Accordingtotheprojectteams’calculations,theindividualbehaviourwiththe
highestpotential forsavingenergywouldbe to reduceshower time, followedbyeliminatingall stand-by
consumptions.EPrespondentsconsideredthosetwooptionshowever tobeofa lower impact,withonly
17.76percent consideringa reduced shower timeand12.95percent consideringeliminatingall stand-by
consumptionsashavingahighimpact.Instead,“Replacingincandescentlightbulbswithfluorescentones”,
hadthehighestpercentage,(77.53percent),followedby”Usingthewashingmachinesinprogramsforlow
temperatures”, (70.65 percent). This suggests that EP respondents might lack knowledge regarding the
impactofspecificenergysavingbehaviours.However,thisfindingshouldbeevaluatedcarefully,sincenot
beingabletoorderapre-givennumberofbehaviours,doesnotautomaticallyimplythatEPrespondents,in
general, possess limited knowledge of the subject domain. In fact, what it suggests is that respondents
might have some difficulty in comparing behaviours and understanding their individual contribution
towardsenergysavings.Finally,EPrespondentswereinvitedtoprovideinformationoneverythingtheydid
to save energy, (Q6), (Appendix VI) and the results suggest a good level of knowledge regarding both,
efficiency and curtailment behaviours,which could save energy at home. Equally, FGs’ participantswere
askedforthesametypeof information,withtheresultsbeingpresented inFigure7-6, listingallofthese
behavioursthatwerediscussedduringtheFGs.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
152
AsFigure7-6shows,duringtheFGsanumberofenergyefficientbehaviourshavebeendiscussedandthe
majorityoftheFGs’participantswereabletoidentifythebestpracticesunderspecificcontexts.However,
somerespondentsatthesametime,seemedtolackthelevelofknowledge,(Q8,Q31),thatwouldenable
themtocomparedifferentspecificbehaviours,ortoevaluatethesavingpotentialtheycouldachieve.FGs’
participantsandCIDandPIDintervieweesstronglyagreedthatnotknowingtheindividualcontributionof
energyconsumingbehaviourscouldinfluencetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
Insummary,interpretingthedatacollected,withintheEP,FGsandCIDs,regardingthelevelofinformation
heldproved tobedifficult, aswellunderstandinghow fara lackof knowledge, couldbeconsideredasa
barrier.Atfirstglance,thereseemstobe,whatiswellknownfromtheliterature,aninformation-behaviour
gap,(Jackson,2005;Schultz,2002;Southertonetal.,2011;Stern,1999),sincepeoplereportahighlevelof
knowledgeonthedifferentsubjectsdiscussed,butthendonotseemtoact inaccordance.Findings,have
however,alsoshownthatoncelookingatamorespecificaspect,ormoredetailedinformation,itappears
that knowledge and information are not barriers as such, but rather a convenient excuse for not taking
action.Suchfindingsareequallyknownfromtheliterature,withpreviousresearchhighlightingthatpeople
tend to verbalize an inability to do something, (Baker and Kirsch, 1991), as a way to deny personal
responsibilityfordealingwithaproblem.Inthemajorityofcases,ageneralneedforbeingprovidedwith
targetedandusefulinformation,thatcouldsupportindividualdecisionandcloseinformationcircles,could
beobservedacrossthedifferentresearchphases.
7.2.3 Cultural-normative-socialbarriers
Theevolutionofculturalandsocialnormsinfluenceenergyuseathomeandthus,canactasabarriertothe
adoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,(see3.3.4).Thisistosaythatadoptingmoreenergyefficient
behaviours,might,challengeexistingwaysofthinkinganddoing:thesocialcustomsandwaysoflivingand
the assumptions that support these attitudes and behaviours that as a consequence represent cultural,
normativeandsocialbarrierstochange.DuringtheFGs,anumberofexamplesofcultural-normativeand
socialbarrierscouldbeidentified.Firstofall,thefactthatsocialnormsseemstoacceptalevelofenergy
usewithoutbeingperceivedasoveruse.ManyFGs’participantsdefined their energyuseasbeingusual,
habitual,ornormalandthusshowednoactualneedtosaveenergy;FGs’participantsseemedtobequite
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
153
comfortable with how society will judge their energy use. An exception to this normal energy use was
discussedbyafewFGs’participants,whoreportedthepressurefromsocietytoreduceenergyuseandto
behave in away, outlinedby theparticipants as being green, in order to fit the social norm. Those FGs’
participantsequallyexpressedthatthisperceivedneedofbeinggreen,mightevenresultinreportingthings
thattheydonotactuallydoinordertofulfilthesocialexpectations:
“TofitthesocietynormpeoplesayIsave,Idoallbutinrealitytheydonothing”,FemaleFG7
As an example of how social norms can influence individual behaviour, FGs’ participants frequently
highlighted twocases: recyclingand savingenergy.They felt that for recycling, the socialnormexpected
one to recycle, while for energy saving this was not the case. For energy, the majority of the FGs’
participants and all three CID interviewees reported to feel somehow entitled to overuse energy and
admittedanegoisticfocus,i.e.afocusonfulfillingindividualneedsthewaytheywanted.
Overallhowever,thequestionofwhatcouldbeunderstoodasnormaluseofenergyremainedunanswered.
This topic was thus further explored during the ID with both, energy consumers, (CID) and energy
interventionproviders,(PID).CIDintervieweeswereaskedtochooseoneoffivealternatives,(high,normal,
average,reducedandconditioned),thatcouldbestdescribetheirenergyuseathome.Thosefivecategories
werechoseninordertousetheterminologythatFGs’participantsusedduringtheirdiscussionwhenthey
described their energy use at home. Two out of three CID interviewees considered their energy use as
averageandoneasnormal,whichmirroredtheFGs’ results.During theCID interviews itwaspossible to
underpin,toacertaindegree,thisunderstandingofnormalandaverage.CIDintervieweesevaluatedtheir
energyuseasnormal,oraverage,incomparisontowhattheirfriendsandfamilyused,aswellashowmuch
theypaidforenergy.NormaloraverageenergyusewasadditionallydefinedbyallthreeCIDinterviewees,
throughaself-evaluationprocessbycomparingwhattheydidtowhattheyknowthebestpracticeswere.
Yet,normalenergyusealsoseemedtoequalminimumenergyuse.Onceaskedaboutwhatcouldbeseen
as thepossibleminimumenergyuseathome,CID intervieweesenumeratedanumberof situations that
werealsoperceivedbythemasbeingcurrentnormalenergyusage,suchashavingareasonableamountof
light,roomtemperature,orthenumberofshowersrequiredtofeelclean.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
154
Insummary,fromaconsumer’spointofview,thereseemedtobeanunderstandingthattheirenergyuseis
inlinewiththatoftheirfriendsandfamily,thereforeitisseenasbeingnormal.PIDintervieweesreinforced
theperceptionthatpeoplewillbasetheirunderstandingofnormaluseontheamountofenergyused,ona
dailybasis, to fulfil theirneeds.Oneof thePID intervieweeshighlightedthisperceptionofnormaluseas
beinginfluencedbysocietyandcurrentlifestyles.TwoofthePIDintervieweesfurtherhighlightedtheneed
ofdefiningnormalenergyuse,takingintoconsiderationthedifferentvariablesthatinfluenceenergyuseat
home,whilst,latterly,beingabletocommunicatethesetotheconsumer.
7.3 Individualpsychologicalfactorsasabarrier
Individual psychological factors such as comfort, habits, willingness, laziness, resistance to change, self-
indulgence, or actions that individuals have been already taken at one point in time, are all potential
barrierstowardstotheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourandarediscussedbelow.
7.3.1 Habitsasanobstacletotheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours
Habitsandpracticesareconsideredtoinfluenceenergyuse,inbothways,i.e.,ifbadhabitsexisttheywill
increase energy use, or good energy habits will decrease use, (see 3.4.1.). FGs’ participants and CID
intervieweessharedanunderstandingthatagreatnumberofbehavioursarehabitualinnatureandimpact
theirdailylife,asthefollowingquotesexemplify:
“Humanbeingsarecreaturesofhabits, regardlesswhetheryou like itornot (…)peopleget
used.Humanbeingsarecreaturesofhabits,it'saroutine”,Female,FG2
“It'sreallyanhabit,IenteraroomandIswitchthelighton,Icouldgobackandswitchtheone
beforeoffbutIdon'tandIgofurtheronlikethis”,FemaleFG4
“I simply forget it, (to switch appliances really off avoiding standby consumption)”, Female
FG7
Habits and practices were perceived as being acquired over time and performed in an automatic way,
highlightingthehabitualcharacterofenergyrelatedbehaviours:
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
155
“Therearehabitsthatareeasiertochangethanothers”,Female,FG2
“Thosearehabits,somepeopleliketoswitchlightson”,Male,FG4
“I didn't have that habit, but I started switching appliances really off to avoid standby
consumption”,Female,FG7
Themajorityof theFGs’participantsagreed thatadoptingmoreenergyefficienthabitsmightbehard to
achieve,andevenifmanagingtodoso,itwasfeltthatthiswouldleadtoareducedimpactintermsofthe
energythatwasused,orsaved.Onceapproachedonthistopic,someoftheFGs’participantshighlighted
thattheywerewellawareofsomeundesirablehabitsthatwouldleadtohigherthannecessaryenergyuse,
suchasshoweringpractices,havingtheTVonevenifnotwatchingit,ornotswitchingthelightsoffonce
leaving the room. Though being aware about such undesirable habits, almost all of the participants still
found it hard to change them. In their view changing habits would require an individual effort of
rememberingandrepeatedlyperformingthedesirablepractice.
“Weashumanbeingsdevelophabitswhicharelateronhardtorenounceorchange”,CID2
Threemain reasons were provided, during the FGs and the ID interviews, for the difficulty of changing
habits.Firstofall,mostoftheFGs’participantsreportedthegeneraldifficultyinchanginganytypeofhabit
andthisiswellreportedinliterature,(IPPR,2009;GreenAlliance,2011).Thiswasseentobeparticulartrue
whentheoverallobjectivewastosaveenergybyengaginginnumerousindividualactionsthat,individually,
only result inminormonetary savings for each action. Secondly, FGs’ participants and CID interviewees
agreedthathabitsprovideda levelofcomfort,convenienceandwell-being,thatallowedthemtobe lazy
andself-indulgent,repeatedwhattheyareusedtodoingandwhatseemedtowork,againthesefindings
arewell in support in literature, (see section 3.4.1.). This resistancewas found in almost all established
behaviours during the FGs and CIDs. However, resistancewas particularly predominant on changing the
number, duration and temperature of showers, heating rooms during winter, avoiding standby
consumptionorswitchinglightsoff:
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
156
“No,Idon’tclosethewateroncewashingmyself.No,Iopenthewater,inthemeantimeIget
undressedthewaterisrunningtogettherighttemperature,Igetinandthewaterkeepson
running”,Female5,FG2
Male2:IfsomeonewouldtellmethatinthesummerIcouldonlyhaveoneshower…Iwouldbe
verydisappointed…
Male3:noformeit’salsoaquestionofduration…Itakeagesintheshower,it’soneofthose
thingsthatmakemefeelgood.
Male2:butdoyouclosethewateroncewashingyourself?
Male4:no
Male2:why?
Male4:becauseofconvenience,self-indulgence,FG3
Thirdly, and related to this resistance of changing habits, the majority of FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees revealed scepticism regarding the impact of changing such habits in terms of the saving
potentialthatcouldberealizedand,aswillbediscussedinmoredetailinsection7.2.3.,onself-efficacyand
expectationsregardingtheoutcomeofownbehaviour.
However, it could also be observed that a constant awareness of some of the FGs’ participants, might
eventually lead toanunfreezingofoldhabits,asdescribedbyGiddens (1984), thatwouldallow fornew
habitstoform.
“Myconscienceisalreadysaying,no,gobackandswitchthatlightoff”,FemaleFG7
Nonetheless,someoftheFGs’participants,andoftheCIDandPIDinterviewees,agreedthatifonecould
seetheimpactofhabitsontheenergybill,thenthiscouldfacilitateindividualbehaviouralchange:
“Ifsomeonewouldexplainandprovetomethatchanginganoldhabitwillhaveasignificant
impactonmyenergybillandontheenvironmentIdon'tthinkitwouldbetoocomplicatedto
change”,CID1
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
157
DuringtheFGsandCIDinterviews,agroupofparticipantsandintervieweescouldbeidentifiedthatseemed
tothinkandact inadifferentway.Thisgroupappearedtobehavemoreoften inamoreenergyefficient
way, as a consequence of the way they were educated and raised from an early age. One of the CID
intervieweesexplainedthedifferencebetweenherandherpartner’senergyuseandthatthiswasrelated
to the different education that they received in their parents’ home, which would have influenced and
remainedintoadulthood.AllthreeCIDintervieweesarguedthatsomehabits,suchasleavinglighton/off,
was something they got used to doing from an early age and that those habits remained over time
becomingperceivedasnormal.Forthosealreadyusedtosavingenergy,notsavingwasconsideredtobe
irrational,awaste.Thiscouldbeareasonforanoverallagreement,amongFGs’participantsandCIDand
PIDinterviewees,towardsanefforttoeducatingyoungergenerations,toenablethemtounderstandingthe
impactoftheirbehavioursandpositivelytohelpineducatingamoreenergyandenvironmentalresponsible
generation.
Theabovediscussionshowsthathabitsseemtoplayanimportantroleinenergyuseathomeandarepart
ofone’snarrativeoncediscussingthetopic.Participantsusedhabitstojustifydoingthingsthewaytheydo
it, be it positive or negative and these habits need to be taken into considerationwhen promoting the
adoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
7.3.2 Comfortandconvenience
Maintainingcurrent levelsofcomfortseemtobe fundamental toFGs’participantsandCID interviewees.
Savingenergywasoftenperceivedas impactingcurrent levelsofcomfort,orasoneof thePID interview
suggested,interventionsshouldberathertargetedatpromotingenergyconservation,thusavoidingenergy
wastage, instead of focusing on saving energy, as this is often associated with losing comfort. This
relationshipbetween saving energy and a reduced level of comfort,werepredominant responseswithin
FG1,FG2andFG3,whereparticipantsseemedtohavemoredisposableincometospendonenergyandasa
consequence,werewillingtotrade-offcomfortandwellbeing,formoreenergyuseandlesssavings.Thisis
alsoknownfromliterature,astheimpactofsavingenergy,ondisposableincome,mightbeinsufficientto
motivateindividualactiontosaveenergy,since,forexampleBPIE’sresearch(2011),suggeststhatformost
households, energy bills account for a small, (3-4 percent), share of their disposable income and thus
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
158
constitutes abarrier formeaningful action towards reducedenergyuse.However, a distinction couldbe
seenduring theFGsandthe ID interviews,betweenbehaviour thatcould impactcomfortandthose that
werejustinconvenienttodo.Examplesofcomfortreductionincludedreducingshowerduration,orroom
temperature,withexamplesofinconveniencebeingtheneedtogetoutofbedtoreallyswitchtheTVoff,
insteadofleavingitsetonstandbymode.SeveralFGs’participantsfeltstronglythatconveniencecouldbe
linked to laziness and self-indulgence, in the sense that it wasmore convenient to leave appliances on,
insteadof really switching themoffand later,onagain.Overall, therewasa tendency toconsider family
wellbeing as more important, than the financial or the environmental impact for saving energy. In
particular, forthosecaseswhereFGs’participantswereparents,theirchildrenwerereportedashavinga
significant impact on the energy use at home and this does not always mean using energy in an
unsustainable way. This influence starts at an early age, with parents reporting the need for
installing/improvingtheirheatingsystems,orofincreasingroomtemperature,inordertomaintainfamily
wellbeing:
“Athomeweonlyinstalledaheatingsystemonceourchildwasborn”,Female,FG7
However,havingchildrenathomeseemstohaveahigherinfluence,oncechildrengetolderandadoptless
energyefficientbehaviours,suchasleavingthelights,computerorTVonaswellashavinglongershowers.
This connects back to the need for educating this, new, generation, in order to better understand the
impacttheirbehaviourcanhaveandpromotingthedevelopmentofmoreenergyefficientexpectations.
Overall, comfort and convenience appeared to constitute a clear barrier towards reducing energyuse at
home,whichisalsoknownfromliteratureasbeingastrongreason,(e.g.Barenergy,2011,Darnton,2008,
Darntonetal.,2011,Jackson,2005,Prendergrastetal.,2008).
7.3.3 Efficacyandoutcomeexpectations
The initial findingsfromtheEPsurveyquestionnairesuggested,thatrespondentshelda lowlevelofself-
efficacytowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,withmorethanhalfofEPrespondents
reportingtoalreadybedoingeverythingtheycaninordertosaveenergyathomeandwith22.1percent
reporting that they, “Save already enough”. In contrast, the majority of FGs’ participants and CID
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
159
interviewees,whenaskediftheyagreedwithsuchastatement,rejectedthattheycouldbealreadydoing
everything theycando to saveenergyathome.MostFGs’participants strongly felt, that there isalways
something one can do to save energy at home, which indicates a level of self-efficacy regarding their
potential to save energy at home. However, this opinion gradually changed during the FGs’ discussion,
when the discussion moved from the abstract level of saving energy, to specific behaviours that were
exploredinmoredetail.Whenaskedforthereasonsfornotsavingmoreenergyathome,anumberofthe
FGs’participantsusedtheirexistingenergysavingbehavioursasareasonfornotsaving further.Assuch,
reportingtoalreadyact inamoreenergyefficientway,apparently,provideda feelingof indulgencethat
justifiednoneedtotakefurtheraction.ThefindingsfromtheEP,showthat16.9percentofrespondents
claimthattheywould liketodomore,butdonotknowhow,whileonly2.3percentdonotbelievetheir
effortstowardssavingenergywouldbeworthwhile.IncontrasttotheEPfindings,themajorityoftheFGs’
participants andCID intervieweesappeared tobe confident regarding their ability to adoptmoreenergy
efficientbehaviours,withemergingnarrativesrevealingthattheywere,nevertheless,unsureregardingthe
outcomeofsuchbehaviourintermsofenergyusedandsaved.Duringboth,FGsandCIDs,therewereno
significantdifferencesregardingthetopicthatappearedtobenoteworthy.Someofthereasons,forsuch
disbelief, on the outcomes provided by FGs and CIDs include, the need for collective action and that
individualresponsesalonewouldnotbesufficient.AsoneFGparticipantsummarizedit:
“I can know how to performmore energy efficient behaviours, but if the remaining family
membersdon’tdothesamethemhiseffortmightbeeasilycancelledoff.”Male,FG3
For all of the FGs, though to a varyingdegree, thediscussion seemed tomove fromaquestionofbeing
able,tobeingwillingtoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,whencomparingindividualandcollective
efforts.Beingableandbeingwilling,seemedtobealignedwhendiscussingchangeintheeasyandsimple,
ratherthandifficultandcomplicatedbehaviour.Intermsofsavingenergy,assomethingeasyandsimpleto
do,meaningjustamatterofchanginghabits,appearstobevalidforthoseday-to-dayactionsthatdonot
requiremuchefforttoperformandthatdonotimpactonthelevelofcomfortandwellbeingathome.FGs’
participantsprovidedsomeexamplesofsuchbehavioursthattheyreportedtobewillingtochangenamely,
switchinglightsoff,cookingwiththelidsonandreducingthenumberoftimesanddurationofopeningthe
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
160
fridge.Avoidingstandbyconsumptionwasnotalwaysreportedasbeingeasy,sincethereisaconvenience
factorattachedtothebehaviourthatwasreportedashinderingbestpractice.Theperceptionofbehaviours
thatweredifficulttochangeincludedthosethatweredirectlyassociatedwithperceivedanddesiredlevels
of comfort andwellbeing, such as reducing room temperature or reducing the number and duration of
showers.Thisquestionofevaluatinghoweasy,ordifficult,itwouldbetosaveenergy,wasfurtherexplored
duringtheIDinterviewswhereintervieweeswereaskedhoweasy,ordifficult,theyfoundenergysavingat
home to be. CID interviewees were divided, with two reporting it to be difficult and one considering it
moderatelyeasy.Onceaskedtoexplaintheirchoice,CIDintervieweesprovidedalistofreasonsforenergy
savings to be considered difficult to achieve, namely, existing ingrained habits, unwillingness to change
those habits, the need to invest in order to realize significant savings, the focus onmaintaining comfort
levels,aswellasthefactthatindividualeffortscanbenegatedbyotherfamilymembers’non-savinghabits.
Similar answerswere reported by PID interviewees that considered energy saving as something easy to
achieve,oratleasttoreducetheamountofwastedenergy,butsimultaneously,alsoassomethingdifficult
toachieve.PID intervieweesargued thatpeopledonotholdenough information inorder tounderstand
andrealizetheirenergysavingsintermsoftheirenergybillsandasaconsequence,thiscouldleadtothe
abandonment of energy saving behaviours, in particular where previous, negative energy saving
experiencescouldworkasabarrier towards futureenergysavingattempts.With regards to information,
knowledgeandself-efficacy, thePIDassumptionswerealignedwithEPandFGs’ responses that they felt
theyhad,overall,agoodunderstandingonhowtosaveenergy,includingthebehavioursthatmightneedto
bechangedtosaveenergy.
In summary, it might be inferred from the findings that EP respondents, FGs’ participants and CID
interviewees, overall hold a good level of knowledge, that could help them adoptmore energy efficient
behavioursandassuch,appeartobelievetheyhavetheabilitytoadoptthosebehavioursittheywantto,
but, that for some reason, they resist andareunwilling todoing so, as explored further in the following
section.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
161
7.3.4 Resistancetoandunwillingnesstochange
DuringtheFGsandCIDs,anapparentresistanceandwillingnesstochangecouldbeobservedamongstthe
interviewees and three broad reasons could be identified for this. Firstly, the majority of the FGs’
participants and all three CID interviewees reported a disbelief regarding the outcomes of their actions,
notablyontheamountofenergythatcouldbeindeedsaved,byadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.
FGs’participantsandCIDintervieweesexpressedanoverallfrustration,regardingtheoutcomesofprevious
behaviourchangeattemptsinordertosaveenergyathome.Notbeingabletorealizetheoutcomeoftheir
savings, was reported by the majority of the FGs’ participants and by all three CID interviewees, as
influencing not only the abandonment of the newly acquired behaviour, but also as influencing future
attemptstosaveenergy,astheyfeltdiscouragedbysuchattempts:
“Istoppeddoingso,(unpluggingappliancesandswitchinglightsoff),sincetheinvoicewent
uponceIwasdoingit(…)…IgotdisappointedandcurrentlyIjustdon'tcare,Idomynormal
use””Male,FG7
“Myindividualperceptionisthatbyswitchingthelightoff20secondsbeforewon’tsolvemy
problemofreducingmyenergybill”,CID1
Thesequoteshighlightthelowoutcomeexpectancyassociatedwithcurtailmentbehaviour.DuringtheFGs,
it was possible to observe that expectations were apparently different, once it came to efficiency
behavioursthatrequiredaninvestmentinmoreenergyefficientsolutions.Thisistosaythattheexpected
energy savings that could be realized through day-to-day curtailment behaviours were perceived
insignificant or low, when compared to the, perceived, saving potential that could be achieved through
investments,suchasbuyingenergyefficientappliances,investinginrenewableenergysources,orevenby
moving into adifferenthouse.However, themajority of FGs’ participants and all threeCID interviewees
were aware that realizing such outcome expectations, through efficiency behaviours, would require
surpassingasetoffinancialandtechnicalbarriers.
Asecondreasonappearstorelatetotheindividualeffortthatisrequiredtomaintainthosebehaviours,as
wellastopromotethemwithinfamilymembers.ThisseemedtobeinparticularimportantforthoseFGs’
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
162
participantsandCIDinterviewees,whosefamilymemberswerenotsupportivewithregardstomoreenergy
efficient lifestylesathome.DuringtheFGsandtheCID interviews,anumberofexampleswereprovided,
suchastheuseofTVandPlayStations,orleavinglightson,oncenotinuse.Italsocouldbeobservedthat
familymemberseitherreinforced,orservedasadrivingforce,tosaveenergy,orintheoppositedirection
theybehavedinawaythatwouldincreaseenergyuse.Thesedifferentpointsofviewholdthepotentialto
causestressfulsituationsathomeandareinparticularevidentinparent-childrelationships,withtwoFGs’
participants reporting threatening to adopt extreme measures, like switching warm water off, if their
children spend too much time under the shower. Those FGs’ participants and CID interviewees with
unsupportivefamilymembersreportedeithertobewillingtomakeanadditionalefforttoconvinceother
familymembers touse lessenergy,or to justacceptwhat theremaining familymembersdid inorder to
avoidconflict.
This feelingofbeingalone in their individualefforts to saveenergy relates to the thirdobserved reason,
unwillingnesstoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviours;whereindividualeffortswereperceivedashaving
onlyasmallimpactandthattheywouldrequireacollectiveeffort,fromtheremainingfamilymembers,as
wellassociety ingeneral.ThemajorityofFGs’participantsandCID intervieweesreportedbelieving their
behaviourshavelittleeffectimpactontheenvironment,withoutcollectiveeffort.Thisismirroringfindings
in Kaplan (2000), on the potential impact of one’s contribution and the perception of helplessness and
personal sacrifice. During the FGs and the CID interviews, this feeling of being alone in their individual
efforts,wasoftenreportedtoexistwithintheparticipants’households,e.g.betweenpartnersandparents-
children relationships, but alsowith themajority of the FGs’ participants,who reported the feeling that
saving energy is not awidespread practice among society. For this reason, doing something that others
were not doing was reported as a discouragement to their attempts to save energy, because singular
activitywasnotfelttobeworthwhile,oreffective,withanoveralltendencyforFGparticipantstoascribe
the responsibility of saving energy to others, namely neighbours, local and national government or,
perceived,bigpolluters,suchasindustry:
“Ourfirstexampleshouldcomefromthegovernment.Iftheydon'tdoit,(talkingaboutsaving
energy),whyshouldwedoit?”Female,FG7
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
163
Insummary,adoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviourfrequentlydidnotappeartobeaquestionofability,
butratherofwillingnessofdoingsoandthusrelatestotheoutcomeexpectations,suchastheexpectations
regardingenergysavingsandindividualimpact,orcontrarily,theperceivednegativeaspects,suchaslossin
comfort,wellbeingandfamilyharmony.
7.4 Concludingremarks
Thischapterdiscussedthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudylookingatwhatinfluencesenergyuseathome,
(RQ2),withinaPortuguesecontext.
Thefollowingtablesummarisesthefindingsfromtheresearchpresentedinthischapter.Thesearerelated
totheRQsandhighlightthegapsidentifiedbytheempiricalstudies.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
164
Table7-2–SummaryoffindingsrelatingtoRQ2.
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
ChapterSection:7.1.Relationofbehavioursandenergyuse
ChapterSection:7.1.Motivationalvariablesandenergyefficientbehaviours
7.1.1.Themotivationforsavingmoney
Saving money as the most reported motivation to savingenergy.
RQ2a,RQ2bThereappearstobeamisconceptionregardingtheconceptofsaving,withsavingenergybeinginterpretedassavingmoney.
Whilecost-savingshavebeenreportedasthemostimportantmotivation, it could be equally observed that monetarymotivation appeared to be in direct conflictwith curtailmentbehaviours that would be required to actually realize suchmonetarygains.
RQ2a,RQ2bThemotivationtosaveformonetaryreasonsseemstobeevenmoreimportanttothosethatappearedtohavealowerlevelofdisposableincome.
Directandindirectrebound,withfinancialsavingbeingusedinenergy and carbon intensive behaviours, reducing theenvironmentalbenefitachievedthroughtheenergysaved.
RQ2bMisconceptions, intermsof individualbehaviour,thatcouldsaveenergywithoutnecessarilyimpactingtheenvironment,i.e.,theuseofhomeappliancesduringtheoffpeaktariffsandtheuseofwoodasawaytosaveenergy.
7.1.2.Pro-environmentalandpro-socialmotivations
Positive attitudes towards energy saving seemed to besurpassed by the direct, individual, benefits of energy use,suchascomfortandwellbeing.
RQ2cInisolation,environmentalandenergyconservation,mightbestrongmotivationalvariables,butcomparativelyweakwheninconjunctionwithothervariablessuchascomfortandconvenience.
Attitude-behaviour gap: pro-environmental attitudes seem tohavelittlepredictivepowertoexplainenergyuseathome.
RQ2cUnderstanding that today’s generation would not suffer the consequences ofpredictedandforthcomingenvironmentalproblems.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
165
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
7.1.3.Needsandexpectationsanditsrelationtomotivationforsavingenergy
Current energy use perceived as socially acceptable, withpeople’s behaviour aligned to what appears to be the socialnorm and expectations regarding the fulfilment of individualneeds.
RQ2b,RQ2c
ChapterSection:7.2.Barriersforadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviours
7.2.1.External/macrobarriers:policybased,structuralandeconomicbarriers
Policy based barriers: need for product standardization anddevelopmentofpenalty/incentiveschemes.
RQ2c
Physical-structuralbarriers:infrastructureofthehouse,aswellasexistinghomeappliances.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Evidenceofthe lock ineffect:changingexisting infrastructurewillbecostintensiveandonlyfeasibleinthemedium-term.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Reduced availability to invest in more energy efficientsolutions.
RQ2b
7.2.2.Knowledgebasedbarriers
Lackofinformation,asthemostcommonlyreportedbarriertosaveenergyathome.
RQ2b Misconceptionregardingtheuseofoffpeak,asawaytosaveenergy.
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
166
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
7.2.2.Knowledgebasedbarriers(cont.)
Existinglackofinformationwithregardsto:(1),overallenergyuse, (2) the contribution of specific home appliances andbehaviours to total amount energy use, (3), the amount ofenergy that can be saved by adopting more energy efficientbehaviour.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Noclearunderstandingofhowfarthislackofinformationisabarriertowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours.Thereseemstobeaninformation-behaviour gap and people do not act in accordance to their reported level ofknowledge, but less certainty exists once looking at specific behaviours wherethereappearstobetheneedforfurtherinformation.Apparentdifficultywhencomparingbehaviourandinunderstandtheir individualcontributiontoenergysavings.
Acknowledgeddifficulty inunderstanding therelationbetween individualenergyuse and environmental damage,which together negatively influenced individualmotivationtosaveenergy(see7.1.2).
Strongagreement thatknowing the individual contributionofenergyconsumingbehaviourcouldinfluencetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
Understanding of energy in monetary terms rather thanenergyunits,whichincreasethedifficultyofunderstandingthedifferenceinenergyusetothepriceofenergy.
RQ2b,RQ2c No clear understandingwhether denying to not being able to save energy, is astrategytodenypersonalresponsibility.
Theunderstandingofnormalenergyuseisrequiredforbetterunderstandingindividualenergyuse. RQ2b,RQ2c
7.2.3.Cultural-normative-socialbarriersCultural and social norms were perceived as influencing thenormalwayofusingenergyathomeandassuch,setthelimitsto change and adoption ofmore energy efficient behavioursandpracticesthatwereperceivedasnotdesirable.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Adopting more energy efficient behaviours might challengeexistingwaysofthinkingandbehaving:thesocialcustomsandthewayofliving.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Social norm seems to accept a level of energy use, withoutbeingperceivedasoveruse. RQ2b,RQ2c
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
167
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
ChapterSection:7.3.Individualpsychologicalfactorsasabarrier
7.3.1.Habitsasanobstacle
Most energy related behaviours are of a habitual nature andacquiredovertime.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Reasons for adoptingmoreenergy efficient habits as hard toachieve include: (1), remembering to do the right thing, (2),habitsprovidea levelofcomfort,convenienceandwell-beingthat allows for lazy and self-indulgent behaviour, (3),scepticism regarding the impact of these habits in terms ofhomeenergyuse.
RQ2b,RQ2cEarlyinfluencesonenergyuseappearedtobecriticalindevelopinghabitsthatarelearntandembedded.
7.3.2.Comfortandconvenience
Saving money, or the environment, enters into competitionwithcomfortandconvenience.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Overall tendency for considering family wellbeing as moreimportant than the financial, or environmental, impact ofsavingenergy.
RQ2b,RQ2c
7.3.3.Efficacyandoutcomeexpectations
Good reported levels of overall efficacy expectations, withdifferent efficacy expectations depending on the behaviourunderdiscussion.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Lowlevelofoutcomeexpectations,notonlywithregardtotheamountofenergythatcanbereduced,aswellastheneedforcollectiveeffortinordertobemeaningful.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Feeling of helpless and ineffectiveness of one’s own contribution that start athome,sinceitwasoftenreportedtobeanindividualeffortandnotsharedbyallfamilymembers,whichreducedevenfurther,theattemptstosaveenergywithinthehouseholdlevelunit.
Reporting to already act in a more energy efficient way,apparently provides a feeling of indulgence that justifies aperceptionofnoneedforfurtheraction.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Efficacy increases for easy to do things that have no realimpactoncomfortandwellbeinglevels.
RQ2b,RQ2c
7.Factorsinfluencingenergyuseathome
168
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservation
7.3.4.Resistenceandunwillingnesstochange
Resistance to and unwillingness to change often appear toresult from: (1), low outcome expectancy, associated withcurtailmentbehaviour,(2),individualeffortthatisrequiredtomaintainthosebehaviours,aswellastopromotethemwithinthe family members and (3), individual efforts perceived ashaving a small impact, thatwould require a collective effort,fromtheremainingfamilymembers,aswellassociety.
RQ2b,RQ2c
Findingssuggestthatadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviourdoesn’tappearstobe a question of ability, but rather of willingness of doing so, which relates tooutcome expectations, both in terms of energy saved, as well as the need forcollectiveaction.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
169
Ascanbeseenfromthischapter,thebarriersreportedwithintheenergyprofilersurveyquestionnaire,(EP),
focusgroups, (FGs)and in-depth individual interviews, (ID),outnumberedmotivationstoreducingenergy
useathome.Inadditiontothis,themotivationsthathavebeenpresenteddidnotappeartoresultinactual
energyusereductions.Positiveattitudestowardsenergysaving,appearedtobesurpassedbytheindividual
directbenefitsofenergyuse,suchascomfortandwellbeing.Equally,monetarymotivationappearedtobe
in direct conflict with curtailment behaviours that would be required to actually realize such monetary
gains.Thus,motivationalvariablesappearedtobeindirectcompetitionwiththebarriers,suchasreduced
convenienceandcomfort.Thesefindingssupportwelltheliteraturethathadbeenpresentedinchapter3
and thus support earlier results from Barenergy (2011), Darnton (2008), Darnton et al. (2011), Jackson
(2005)andPrendergrastetal.(2008).
The results do show however, that reported barriers are perhaps not actual barriers, but in part a
convenient excuse, exemplified by the information-behaviour gap, (Jackson, 2005; Schultz, 2002;
Southertonetal.,2011;Stern,1999)Thissupportstheearlier findingsfromBakerandKirsch(1991), that
peopletendtoverbalizeaninabilitytodosomething,asawayofdenyingpersonalresponsibilityindealing
withaproblem.Thiscouldalsobeobservedwithregardstoefficacyandoutcomeexpectations,whichas
such,didnotappeartobeamajorbarrier.Notably,thefindingsfromtheFGsshowedthatthequestionis
perhaps,lessaboutbeingabletoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehavioursandmoreaboutthewillingnessto
doso.Thus,theoverallresultsfromthischapterreflecttheliteraturefindingspresentedinchapter3.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
170
8 Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
Chapter eight explores the perceived effectiveness of different intervention strategies and the potential
effectiveness of change interventionswithin the field of energy use at home. The chapter discusses the
findings from the energyprofiler survey questionnaire, (EP), the focus groups, (FGs) and the in-depth
individual interviews, (ID), regarding the findings on the role of intervention strategies in energy use at
home,(RQ3).
Intervention strategies and their perceived effectiveness, in encouraging the adoption of more energy
efficientbehaviour,wereinitiallyexploredduringtheFGs,withparticipantsbeingaskedtoproposespecific
interventions that could be launched nation-wide in order to encourage the adoption of more energy
efficientbehaviourathome.Thetopicwasfurtherexplored,withintheCIDandPIDinterviews,inorderto
better understandwhat future interventionsmight look like. Figure 8-1, shows the typeof interventions
discussedduringroundtablediscussionsandhowFGs’participantsperceivedthattheseinterventionscould
addressbarrierstotheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourathome.Dataregardingthetypesof
interventionhavebeenextractedfromFGs’transcripts,withfollowupdiscussionidentifyingbarrierswhere
interventioncouldbeaddressed.
Figure8-1:Typeofinterventionsinrelationtothebarriersthatcouldbeaddressed.
TypeofIntervention FG1 FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6 FG7
Monitoringsystems(e.g.energymeters) .. .. ... . ... ...Education . . .. .. . .. ..Prompting .. .. .. ..Benefitvs.Penalty .. . . ... ..Provisionoffinancialincentives .. . . .Provisionofsimplecomparativeterms(e.g.homeappliance) . .. ..Comparisontootherpeople . .Provisionofgeneralinformationonhowtosaveenergyathome . . . . . . .Provideanaverage,normalenergyusevalue ... ... ... ...Demonstrategoodpractices/Modelbehaviours ... ... . .. ..Inclusionofsmartfeaturesinthehomeappliances . . .Provisionofsimpleexamplesattheenergyinvoices .. .Provisionofinformationatthepointofsales . . . .Provisionoftailoredinformation(e.g.energyaudit) .. .. . ..Provisionoffreesamples . . . . . . .Labellingofproducts .. .. .. ... ..
Barriers:Inabilitytomeasureenergyuse|Lackofinformation|Initialinvestmentcost|Habit|Invisibility|Socialnorms
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
171
As can be seen from Figure 8-1, education, provision of general information, or the provision of free
samples, have been put forward by each of the 7 FGs as suitable interventions. Similarly, the use of
monitoring systems, benefit vs. penalty type schemes, demonstration of good practice, as well as the
provisionoftailoredinformation,includinglabellingofproducts,wereseenbyFGs’participantsaspossible
interventions that hold high potential for encouraging the adoption ofmore energy efficient behaviour.
Thesewillbelookedatmoreindetailthroughthischapter.Further,ascanbeseenfromFigure8-1,FG1,
FG4 and FG5 are minimally populated, in terms of type of interventions discussed, when compared to
others.Thiscouldonlybeseenwhilecompiling thedataandassuch, thereasons for thishavenotbeen
directly explored within the FGs. However, each FG had specific characteristics, with FG1 composed of
participants that work within the energy efficiency field, that hold a consistent opinion regarding the
effectivenessofthedifferenttypesof intervention.Thismightbeareasonforthemdiscussingareduced
numberofinterventiontypes,thattheyperceivedasmosteffectiveandworthyofmention.RegardingFG4
andFG5,participantsseemedtoholdalowerpurchasingpower,aswellasalowereducationlevel,which
may contribute to a reduced set of intervention alternatives that, in particular, target the financial
componentofenergyuse.
Inthischapter,thenatureofInterventionstrategiesdiscussedbyresearchparticipantsandtheirperceived
effectiveness,willbepresentedinmoredetail.
8.1 Communicationdesignandpersuasion
As canbe seen from the literature, persuasion can influenceothers, (Jackson, 2005;Martiskainen, 2007;
Simons, 1976, p. 21) and is often dependent on the credibility of the sender, the persuasiveness of the
argument/message, or the responsiveness of the audience, (O’Keefe, 1990). Thus persuading people to
change can be particularly difficult, (Jackson, 2005). Therefore, one objective of the FGs was to further
explore the perceived requirements for communication design and persuasion. FGs’ participants were
asked to recall campaignspromotingenergyefficientbehaviourandsubsequently,wereasked todesign,
for themselves, a communication and information campaign on how to promote the adoption of more
energyefficientbehaviour.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
172
Withregardstocommunicationdesign, in fourof theFGsthegeneral importanceof themessagesender
wasstressedandthattheyneedtobebothreliableandabletocreateempathywiththetargetedaudience.
TheFGs’ roundtablediscussionbroughtupanumberofexamplesofwhatcouldbeconsidereda reliable
andpersuasivesender,withoverallagreementtowardsordinarypeople,knownactorsorTVreportersand
children.Messagesissuedbyutilitycompanieswereconsideredhelpful,butpotentiallylesseffectivesince
they could lead to confusionanddistrust. FGs’ participantspointedout confusionwhen receiving advice
from their electricity supplier to save energy, as this was perceived as reducing their own business. In
addition to this, it was stressed that themessage/argument needs to be persuasive, in order not to be
rejected or ignored, as a way to avoid confronting implications for appreciated energy inefficient
behaviours,aspostulatedbyUphametal.,(2009).
Further to this, an overall agreement could be seen among the majority of FGs’ participants and ID
interviewees, that persuading people to adoptmore energy efficient behaviourwould be challenging to
achieve, in particular for less easy, or simple behavioural changes or, those that were perceived as
impacting desired normal levels of comfort, convenience orwellbeing. It could not be found however if
messagespromotingsuchundesiredandunpopularenergyefficientbehaviourscouldactuallynotbackfire
and highlight the prevalence of energy inefficiency as a habit shared by other people. This, apparent,
individualunwillingness toaddress comfortandwellbeing levelswas sharedacrossFGs’participants,CID
and PID interviewees and it is uncertain how successful future interventions could be that target such a
focus. Findings from this research suggest rather that promoting the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour,perceivedashavingundesirableconsequences,couldleadpeopletonotdoingso.Thissituation
isknownintheliteratureasa,‘confirmationbias’wherepeoplelookforinformationthatisconsistentwith
whattheyalreadythink,want,orfeel,leadingthemtoavoid,dismiss,orforgetinformationthatwillrequire
themtochangetheirmind-setand,quitepossibly,theirbehaviour,(Shome&Marx,2009);where,“Ican’t”,
simplymeans,“Idon’twantto”.FindingsfromtheFGsandIDsoverallsuggestthatanindividuals’positive
attitudestowardscomfortandwellbeing,arestrongerthanattitudestowardstheenvironmentandassuch,
theremightnotbeanyemotions,suchasdisappointment,dissatisfaction,shame,embarrassmentorguilt,
that could help lead to the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. Therefore, interventions that
woulddraw frompersuasion theories, (section4.2)and thatuse judgment, cognitivedissonanceor self-
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
173
discrepancymethodologieswouldnotbeperceivedaspersuasive,orpotentiallyeffective,withregardsto
triggeringthedesiredresponsefromtheaudience.
8.2 Structuralinterventions
8.2.1 Rewardsandpunishments
ArewardsandpunishmentschemewasdiscussedwithinfiveoutofthesevenFGsasawaytoencourage
theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour. FGs’participantswere foundopen toanapproach that
wouldrewardthosepeoplewhounderusedenergyandpunishedthosethatoverusedit.Asapre-requisite
for suchascheme,FGs’participantsagreedon theneed todefinea setofbasevalues forenergyuseat
home, topunish thoseoverusingand reward thoseunderusingenergyathome. InaccordancewithFGs’
participants,abasevalueforenergyuseshouldtakeintoaccounttheamountofenergyrequiredtofulfil
basicneeds;thoughitwasnotfullyunderstoodwhatwasconsideredtobeabasicneedand,similartothe
discussions of chapter six and seven, what is understood to be normal. Some of the FGs’ participants
suggestedthisbaselevelofenergyusecouldbeprovided,eitherforfree,orataflatrateentrancevalue,so
astoprovideanunderstandingofwhatisconsideredanacceptablelevelofbasicenergyuseathome.This
conceptofaflatbasicandanincreasingnon-basicratewascomparedbysomeoftheFGs’participantswith
one that they recalled forwater consumption in Portugal,where people paid different prices forwater,
higherconsumptionequallingahigherpricecharged.Yet,eventhoughgreetedbyinitialenthusiasmfrom
theroundtablediscussionduringFGs,itwasnotpossibletodeterminehoweffectivesuchaschemecould
be.
AnumberofFGs’participantsexpressedanopinionthatsuchaschemewouldprobablynotwork,duetoa
lackofmotivationandthatpeoplewouldmaintainestablishedpracticesaslongastheycouldaffordtouse
energy as they do at the present. Despite such concerns, there was an overall agreement that such a
schemeshould,nevertheless,facilitatethedevelopmentofameasurablemindsetforenergyuse,aswellas
beingafairinstrumenttocompensatethosepeoplewillingtoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviourandto
uselessenergyathome.IncontrasttoFGs’participants,PIDintervieweesdidnotconsidersuchschemea
viableintervention,althougheachfordifferentreasons.InPID1,theintervieweefromanenergysupplier,
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
174
argued that such a scheme could backfire since there is, currently, no value to identify what a normal,
(average), use of energy could be, as well how to best calculate such value, which could be a complex
process to implement andmonitor.With PID2, the interviewee from the national energy agency argued
that people canonly support penalties andpunishments until a certain point and that the energy saved
shouldbemotivationenoughtoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.ForPID3,theintervieweefromthe
nationalutilityprogram,preferredtopromoteadoptionoflong-termmechanismsthatsupportaconsistent
reductionofenergydemand,ratherthanrandommeasuresfocusedonspecificscenarios.
Insummary,resultsfromthisresearchsuggestthatenergyusersandinterventionprovidershavedifferent
opinions regarding the use of reward and punishment intervention schemes. Froma user point of view,
reward and punishment schemes appear to be evaluated as desirable and a partially effective type of
intervention.Whilefromaninterventionproviderthisinterventiontypedoesnotseemtobethatappealing
orperceivedaseffective.
8.2.2 Incentivesandsamples
Theprovisionofincentives,includingsamplesofmoreenergyefficienthomeappliances,wasevaluatedas
aneffectivealternative topromoting theadoptionofmoreenergyefficient technologies,by removingor
reducingtheriskenergyuserswouldneedtotake.Theprovisionofsampleswasdiscussedwithinall7FGs,
withFGs’participantsprovidingtheexampleofenergyefficientlightbulbsthatweredistributed,forfree,
aspartofanationalprogramtoreducethemarketentrancebarrierstothedeploymentofthenewlight
bulbtechnologies15.FGs’participantsagreedthatthisdistributionoflightbulbs,forfree,allowedthemto
experiment and removed theburdenof investment for such initial experimentations. In addition to this,
FGs’participantsalsohighlightedthelowpersonaleffortthatwasrequiredtogettheirsamplelightbulb:
“Oneonlyneededtoexchangethelightbulbs…theyevensentonetohome”,Male,FG7
“Igotthemforfree,itwasabonus…theyweregivingthemawayatthesupermarket”,Male
FG4
15ThedistributionofmoreenergyefficientapplianceswasfinancedthroughaPortugueseNationalFundaimingatpromotingenergy
efficiencywithintheresidential,servicesandindustrysectors.Moreinformationavailableatwww.erse.pt
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
175
Basedonsuchpositiveexperience,FGs’participantssuggestedthatthegovernmentcouldpromotesimilar
interventionsforotherhomeappliances,aswellasrenewableenergysources,asawaytoreducetheinitial
investmentrequiredinpurchasingmoreenergyefficientappliances.Eventhoughtherewere,atthattime,
other type of financial incentives to adoptmore energy efficient home appliances or renewable energy
sources,onlyareducednumberofFGs’participantswereawareofsuchincentiveschemes.
Within subsequent PID interviews, interviewees were, nevertheless, reluctant towards such types of
intervention,with two out of three interviewees criticizing the unfairness in distribution that frequently
accompanies the sample, or incentive provision. As a concrete example, PID2 referred to the energy
efficient lightbulbs,wherethecriterionofreceivingonewastohaveloweraveragebills,resultedin light
bulbs being repositioned to holiday/secondhomes. In addition to theunequally/unfair distribution, PID3
hadageneralconcernthatsupplyingenergyefficientappliances,forfree,couldpromotetheintroduction
ofmoreenergyefficientproductsthatareatanearlystageoftechnologicalmaturity,whichcouldleadtoa
lostopportunityofpromotingthetechnologyinthefuture,ifthefirstuserexperienceisnegative.
8.2.3 Labelling
DuringtheFGs’roundtablediscussion,afrequentnarrativeemerged,centeredaroundthediscussionofA
ratedhomeappliancesbeingbetter thanothers.Nevertheless,duringFG1, thoseparticipantsworking in
theenergyarea,suggestedthatpeopleingeneraldonotunderstandthescopeofenergyratinglabels,are
unabletocomparetheperformanceofdifferenthomeappliancesandthatasaresult, theydonotknow
howmuchenergytheywill,potentially,consume,orsave.ThisviewwascommonacrosstheotherFGsin
twodifferentways.Firstofall,duringtheFGstherewasnodiscussioncomparingothercharacteristicssuch
as size, load capacity, or use pattern, that influence the amount of energy used and that would
demonstrate FGs’ participants understanding the impact of their purchasing decision. Rather than
questioningifoneneedsabiggerfridgeorwashingmachine,thenotionwasthataslongasitis,‘Arated’,it
isenergyefficientandassuch,itisagoodpurchase.Secondly,afewoftheFGs’participantsrecommended
that all non A-rated home appliances should be banned from the market as an alternative, to release
consumers fromtheneedof trying tocompare thedifferentavailableoptions.During theFGs itwasnot
possible to fullyunderstand if thiswasastrategy topromotesustainability,or rather translating into the
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
176
difficultyFGs’participantsmighthave inunderstanding the informationprovidedby the labels, though it
couldequallyhavebeenanexample forchoicearchitecture,aswillbe furtherdiscussed in section8.2.5.
Findings do, however, question the effectiveness of labels. Even though labels apparently provided
meaningfulandeasytounderstandinformation,itwasnotclearthattheuseofstandardizedlabelsacross
productswouldindeedleadtobetterinformedpurchasingdecisionsand,inparticular,forthoseconsumers
thatlackmotivationandknowledgetocomparedifferentsolutions,intermsofpurchaseandlateruse.This
mightbeoneof the reasons for someFGs’participants reporting looking for informationat thepointof
sale, as well as from the shop staff. Shop staff appeared, during the FGs and the CID interviews, to be
perceived as a trusted source of information to facilitate the purchase of more energy efficient home
appliances instead of, or in combination with, energy labels. One PID interviewee even extended the
discussion to the home energy performance certificate16, an energy label for homes and questioned
whether peoplewould paymuch attention to the energy class of the house, orwhether other variables
wouldbeofahigherrelevancetothebuyer,suchasthehouse location.ThePID intervieweequestioned
the impact of such a certification due to, their, individual understanding that peoplemainly request the
certificate to complywith the law if theywant to sell/rent a house, rather than being interested in and
motivatedtoadoptingtheefficiencymeasuresproposedwithinthecertificate.
Insummary,resultssuggestthatlabelscouldbeanadequateinterventiontype;thoughitequallyappears
thatanincreasedlevelofknowledgemightberequiredtounderstandtheinformationwithinsuchlabels.
FindingsalsoindicatethatitwasnotunderstoodthattheAlabelaloneisonlyarelativeindicatorandnotto
beseeninisolationfromtheactualdaytodayusage.Analogoustotheliterature,findingsdidindicatethat
itmightthusbearequirementtoprovideaconsistentandcomparativelevelofinformationforconsumers,
(DGGE/IP-3E,2004).Withthis,findingsshowthatthegeneralchallengeforlabelswasseentobetoensure
thattheinformationprovidedismeaningful,easytounderstandandstandardised.Alsothatconsumersare
motivatedintowantingtotakeactionandthussupportingearlierfindingsfromSouthertonetal.,(2011).
16 Energy Performance Certificate are today obligatory for homes under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - Directive
2002/91/EC,EPBD.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
177
8.2.4 Demonstratingandfacilitating
Duringroundtablediscussions,FGs’participantsoftenreferredtomodellinganddemonstrationasawayto
promote individual behavioural change. FGs’ participants discussed three situation that could be framed
withinmodellinganddemonstration:(1),central/localgovernmentactions,thatdemonstratesavingenergy
is an important thing to do, for instance, by switching street or monument lights off at night; (2), the
modellingeffectofparentsonchildren,andviceversa.Behaviouradoptedwithinthefamilyhomeduring
childhoodseemtoremainintoadultlifeand,incontrast,parentsareinfluencedbytheirchildrenandthe
goodpracticestheylearnatschool,(e.g.withtherecyclingpractices);(3),demonstrationofthebenefitsof
moreenergyefficientappliances.SomeFGs’participantsrecalledhavingseenacomparison,atapointof
sale, between traditional light bulbs and more energy efficient ones, placed side-by-side with an
independent energy counter attached to each, indicating what amount of energy was being used. FGs’
participants agreed that this allowed them to compare the individual energy consumption of each
technology,allowingthemtohavebetterinformeddecisionsinaveryeasyway:
“Theyhadatraditionallightbulbonwiththecountermovingandnexttoitanenergyefficient
onewiththecountermovingmuchslowerandonecouldseeit”Female,FG7
Findingsfromthisresearchsuggestthatmodellinganddemonstrationwasperceivedtobeaneffectivetype
of intervention, with regards to the provision of desirable behaviours and to encourage learning by
observing how others behave. Modelling behaviour was also seen as a potentially effective avenue for
changing behaviour, as people follow these examples once they are understandable, relevant, and
rewardingintermsofpositiveresults.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
178
8.2.5 Interventionthroughdesign
DuringtheFGs,participantsdiscussedtwotypesofinterventionwithregardstoenvironmentaldesignand
materialcontextadjustment.Firstly,theneedtochangehomeinfrastructureandappliancestowardsmore
energy efficient ones and secondly, the inclusion of smart features, which was perceived as a type of
communication/feedbackmechanismthatcouldfacilitateusinghomeappliancesmoreefficiently
With regards to home infrastructure, FGs’ participants and ID interviewees highlighted the fact that the
infrastructureoftheircurrenthomesisnotsupportivetowardsusinglessenergywithouthavingtotrading-
off theirpresent levelofcomfort.Whenaskedtoevaluatetheircurrent levelofenergyuseandcomfort,
andtoforecastforthe10years,allthreeCIDintervieweesagreedtheywouldmaintain,orincrease,their
comfortlevel,whilstpotentiallyreducingenergyusebythedeploymentofmoreenergyefficientappliances
andimprovedhomeinfrastructure.This10-yearperiodwasperceivedassufficienttoimprovetheirhomes
and to substitute existing home appliances with more energy efficient ones, which would lead to a
potentiallyreducedlevelofenergyusewithoutneedingtotakeadditionalmeasures.Yet,regardingenergy
relatedpractices,interventionsthatwereputforwardratherfocusedonimprovinghomeinfrastructure,or
existinghomeappliances,inordertopromoteincreasedsavings,butlargelyneglectedinterventionsaimed
at how the home andhome appliances are used, and on the impact of everyday behaviour as away to
reduceenergyuse.
Withregardstothewayproductsaredesignedand,inparticular,theinclusionofsmartfeaturesthatcould
facilitatetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathome,someexampleswereprovidedbyFGs’
participants, such as the inclusion of sound alerts that would remind people to switch appliances off,
comparingthistothesystemrecentcarshavetoremindyouoftheneedtousetheseatbelt.Thisconnects
with the literature on choice architecture, (Dobson, 2011; Grist, 2010; Southerton et al., 2011; Thaler&
Sunstein, 2008), which from a product perspective could, for instance, mean only having a cold wash
washingmachine, rather than trying to educate people to wash at 30º. Under these circumstances the
home appliance itself would take the decision away from the user. FGs’ participants used the standby
optionasawaytoexpresshowconvenientandcomfortablesomeofthedefaultoptionsareday-to-day:
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
179
“I try, but I have to recognize it’s difficult forme to switch appliances from standby. For
example,weare inbedandit’smucheasiertoswitchtheTVwiththeremotecontrol…it’s
morecomfortable…sometimesIrememberbutI’mfeelingsogoodinbedthatIdon’tstand
up”,Female,FG6
WithinsubsequentPIDinterviewsand,perhapsabitunexpectedly,PIDintervieweesdidnotconsidersuch
strategies that relate to choice architecture and the concept of nudging, (Dobson, 2011; Grist, 2010;
Southertonetal.,2011;Thaler&Sunstein,2008)andwherethedefaultoptionsaresetinordertofacilitate
individualbestpractice.Thereasonforsuchnon-considerationsdidremain,however,unclear.
Insummary,findingsfromthisresearchsuggestthatproductdesignandcontextualadjustmentscouldbe
aneffectivetypeofinterventiontoreduceenergyuseathome,butthattheywillnotnecessarilyencourage
theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursassuchastheyarebasedona‘technofix’approach,(see
2.2.7,4.3.2). Theyareperceivedasbeing sufficientand thus releaseusers from thedailyeffort toadopt
moreenergyefficientbehaviour.Adaptingproductdesign seems to inhibit thepotential for learningand
adoptingotherenergyefficientbehaviours,otherthanthatrelatingtotheadoptedproduct.
8.3 Psychologicalinterventions
8.3.1 Targetedface-to-faceinformation
DuringtheFGs,anoverallagreementcouldbeobservedwithregardstoadvantagesofprovidingtailored,
preferablyface-to-face,informationandfeedback.Toillustratethepoint,FGs’participantsoftendescribed
ascenariowheresomeonewithknowledgeintheareawouldvisittheirhome,evaluatestheirenergyuse,
andthenprovidetailoredadviceonhowtheycouldsaveenergyandonhowtoaccountforthosesavings.
Thoughoftennotreferringtothetechnicalterm,FGs’participantsweredescribingahomeauditasameans
with significant potential for promoting energy saving at home. The main disadvantage of this type of
intervention relates, however, to the time required for such audits and the inherent cost resulting from
being human resource intensive, (section 4.4). Providing customized information, through a number of
alternatives,wasperceivedbyFGs’participantsasbeneficialtobetterunderstandwhatonecoulddoand
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
180
howmuch energy could be saved for the specific individual circumstances, thus reducing the confusion
betweentheamountofinformationcurrentlyavailableandthedifficultytosortoutwhatisimportant.FGs’
participantsreporteddifficultyinunderstandingtheavailableinformation,comparingthedifferentsources
ofdata,aswellasbeingabletoreservetimefordoingso.Managingandunderstandingexistinginformation
wasoftenperceivedasover-demandingforthemajorityoftheFGs’participants,sinceitrequires,time,a
degree of skill, and a willingness to do so. These findings suggest an overall concern regarding which
informationisaccurate,whototrustinthemyriadofactorsinthefield,fromutilitycompaniestoNGOsto
suppliers of energy efficient products and services, crowned by a simultaneous lack of a reliable voice,
withoutvestedinterest,inthefieldofenergyrelatedinformation.
From the narratives that were built during the FGs’ roundtable discussion, one could expect that the
provision of targeted information could encourage adoption of more energy efficient behaviours yet
evidencewithinthisresearchismixed,withFGs’participantsbeingdivided.SomeoftheFGs’participants
agreedthatiftheyknewexactlywhattodo,theywouldactinaccordanceandothersreportedthatatbest
theywouldknowtheyaredoingsomethingtheyshouldnot,butwouldnotchangeexistingpracticesand
habits.However,FGs’participantsseemedtobemorereceptivetopersonalized information, ratherthan
selectingforthemselveswhatisimportantornot.Forthisreason,aface-to-face,tailored,informationtype
of intervention,suchasanenergyauditmightstillbeaneffectivetypeof intervention,toat least impact
the level of awareness, regardingmore energy efficient behaviour. The impact this type of intervention
wouldhave,intermsofgeneratingenergysavings,needsevaluation.
8.3.2 Informationandcommunicationcampaigns
DuringFGs,participantswereaskedtorecallinformationandcommunicationcampaignsthatpromotedthe
adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, to discuss their efficacy as well as to suggest perceived
requirementsthatcouldleadtotheireffectiveness.FGs’participantsrecalledsixenergysavingcampaigns,
however,consideringthetotalof41FGparticipants,thiscouldbeinterpretedasalownumber.Duringthe
followupdiscussion,FGs’participantsappearedtobelessawareofenergyrelatedcampaigns,comparedto
otherpro-environmentalfieldssuchasrecycling.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
181
Most of FGs’ participants provided a positive evaluation towards the role that communication and
informationcampaignscanplay, intermsofproviding informationandraisingtheawarenessaboutmore
energy efficient behaviour. However, they were less certain of how effective these campaigns were in
persuadingpeopletoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.MostoftheFGs’participantsreportedtobe
unsureifinformationandcommunicationcampaignscouldleadthem,ortheothers,toadoptmoreenergy
efficientbehaviour:
“Woman(W)1: Campaigns are useful but insufficient, (to promote behavioural change),
…W1:andtheywon’tmanagetoreacheverybody…W2,(complementingtheideafromW1):
peopleholdstrongideas,IalwaysdidthingsthiswaywhyshouldIchangenow,(discussing
theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours)”FG7
“W1: we see a campaign providing information on how we could save…W2 it’s only an
advertisement…W3: we don’t pay much attention…W1: one reads but doesn’t
memorize…W2:we do nothing, unlesswe are touched for some reason like the recycling
campaigns or those campaigns to feed people in need…thosemessages have an impact”
FG6
Findings thus indicate that information and communication campaigns could be effective in encouraging
theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,butthatthisencouragementalonemightnotbesufficient
duetoabasiclackofmotivationtoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
DuringtheFGs,participantswereaskedtodesignaninformationandcommunicationcampaignthatcould
be implemented nationwide in order to promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour. The
issuesdiscussedduringthedesignprocesswerewiderangingandhighlightedthecomplexityofpromoting
the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour, with a number of desirable characteristics of future
communicationandinformationcampaignsemerging.Amongthese,FGs’participantsfocusedontheneed
to provide information regarding the contribution for specific individual homeappliances and associated
practices, as well as how much could be saved by adoption different behaviours. This shows that FGs’
participants attributed a high level of relevance to understanding how much energy specific home
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
182
appliancesconsumeandhowenergyisusedwithinday-to-daypractices,inordertoconsidertoadoptmore
energyefficientones.Thisiswellinlinewiththediscussioninsection8.4.1andprovidesfurtherevidence
that FGs’ participants and CID interviewees lack information regarding energy used under specific
circumstancesandasaconsequence,ofhowmuchenergycouldbesaved.Also,FGs’participantsfocused
on providing positive messages that could enhance the ‘fun’ part of saving energy, rather than on the
perceivedobligationofdoingso.
“Tohaveaghostthatwentbehindandswitchedlightsoff”Female,FG7
“Idon’tthinkthereistheneedforrecrimination…Ibelievethattorecriminateintroducesa
negative dimension that I don’t find essential for changing behaviours…the child can
suggest to the mother and the mother can answer that you are right, I was not even
recognizing what I was doing, (discussion during the design of the communication
campaign),Female,FG2
Positivemessageswereperceivedasstressingtheresultsofsavingbehaviour,whichmightbeareasonfor
all suggested campaigns to have very similar slogans, focusing on the idea of saving, on short term-
immediatechange,andhighlightingthefinancialimpactofsaving.ThesefindingshighlightFGs’participants
focus on short-term, immediate gains rather than long-term investments in energy efficiency, which, in
general, isopposite to themajorityofcampaigns that focuson long-termgains,aswellasmoreabstract
termsofsavingtheenvironment,orsavingtheplanet.AmorerecentcommunicationcampaigninPortugal
has been stressing the immediate gain, in particular the cost-saving potential day-to-day, that energy
efficient behaviour can have. Only a few FGs’ participants agreed to the use of shock, fear, or blame
messages topromotemoreenergyefficient lifestyles.Thesemessageswere, for themajorityof theFGs’
participants,perceivedasnotcontributing to thesuccessof thecampaignandFGs’participantsusedthe
exampleofcigarettepacketswithwarningmessagesand imagesandhowsmokers foundaway toavoid
thesebybuyingacoverforthepacket.Analogoustopositive,funmessaging,theopposite,fearandblame
messaging, were perceived as not leading to individual identification, as there seemed to be a related
fatigue and tiredness regarding negative messages that could enhance a feeling of helplessness and
guiltinessandasaconsequence,ofdisempowerment:
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
183
“Nowadaysweareaddressedeachdaywithnegativethings…it’stoomuch”Female,FG7
“I would become very frustrated since I already save in somany things, withmore energy
efficientlightbulbsandwhatsoever,thatIbelieveIhavetherightofhavingalongershower”
Female,FG6
Overall, findings from the FGs suggest that communication and information campaigns canbeused as a
way to provide information and to generally highlight the benefits of adopting more energy efficient
behaviour.Findingsindicatefurther,thatinformationcampaignsmightnotnecessarilyleadtoactionsince
theremightbealackofmotivationtoadoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.Assuch,findingsfromthis
researchdosupporttheliteratureinthatcommunicationandinformationcampaignsmighthavelittle,or
no, impact on promoting individual behavioural change and thus can be expensive in relation to their
effectiveness,(Southertonetal.,2011;McKenzie-Mohr2000).
8.3.3 Educationinterventions
During the FGs, the provision of formal education emerged as one of the interventions that could
encourage the adoption ofmore energy efficient behaviour by current, aswell as future generations. A
number of FGs’ participants acknowledged that during their school education therewere not thatmany
educative programmes that provided themwith an understanding of the environmental impact of their
behaviour.
“Mysonwenttothekindergartenandteachersfocusalotontheenvironment,notontheuse
ofwaterorelectricitybutratherintermsofrecyclingandtheenvironment”Female,FG6
However,theynoticedthatnowadays,childrenatschool learnhowtobehave inamoreenvironmentally
friendlyway,providing theexampleof recyclingasone such interventionarea.Asa resultof this school
effort, FGs’ participants agreed overall that this could have a positive impact on their children’s future
behaviour,whichpotentiallycouldbemoreenergyefficientandenvironmentalfriendlyandsimultaneously
have a side effect on the parents’ behaviours as a result of child influence and pressure. Yet,
simultaneously, this is also an example of how FGs’ participants do not perceive themselves as being
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
184
responsible for their current behaviour in terms of energy use at home. During the FGs, a number of
participants referred to the pressure they felt from their children to recycle at home and how this has
become ingrained into the family routine. Yet, in the case of energy, such pressure could not be clearly
identified.Nevertheless,thismightalsoberelatedtothefactthatrecyclingeducationeffortshavealong
traditionwithin the Portuguese school system, as opposed to the energy-focused interventions that are
morerecent.
8.3.4 Communitybasedinterventions
FindingsfromthisresearchsuggestFGs’participantsandCID/PIDintervieweesvaluetheirabilitytoprovide
their familieswith comfort andwellbeing levels that are, socially,perceivedas requiredanddesirable to
have, regardlessof the amountof energy that is required to supply these.During theFGs andCID/PIDs,
participants and interviewees often compared their energy use to those of familymembers, friends, or
peoplehavingahousewith similar characteristics.Thiswasperceivedas sufficient to justify theirenergy
use at homeas normal, or average, even if it includednon-essential, but rather desirableneeds. Shared
practicesthatareperceivedaspartofthisnormalenergyuse includeowingseveralTVsets,havingmore
thanoneshowerperday,orleavinghomeappliancesonstand-bymode;withthefirsttworepresentinga
normalcomfortlevelandthelasttheconvenienceoflessenergyefficientbehaviour.Theunderstandingof
normalenergyuseasacomparisonhasbeendiscussedinchapters6and7andfurtherexploredwithina
reward-penaltysysteminsection8.2.1.Bycalculatingthebaseenergyuselevel,householdenergyusecan
be compared against other households and would allow identification of those households that have
averageconsumptionandthosethatover-consumeorunder-consumeenergyathome.Nevertheless,only
oneofthePIDinterviewees,(PID3),wasinfavourofsuchanapproachsinceitwasconsideredtoappealto
acompetitivenatureandwouldinfluence,whatheunderstoodasan,individual’sunwillingnesstoloseata
game.
“Iguessthoseexamplesyouprovided,tomeasure,touseinexpensivemonitoringequipment
toreachtheconsumer,toguidetheconsumerinrealtime.Thetruthisnotforthoseinenergy
poverty,butfortheothersthisissmallmoneywhencomparedtoarestaurantbilloracinema
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
185
ticket. People will save more by enrolling in a game, that will stimulate their competitive
behavior,noonelikestoloseagame”,PID3
Ultimately, itappeardas if the relativeandcomparativeaspectofenergyusedid supportbuildingupan
understandingofwhat isunderstoodasbeinganormal consumption,which in thecaseof relativeover-
spendingwouldthusbeaquestionableincentivetouselessenergy,incombinationwithfeedbackprovision
and monitoring equipment, (see 8.4.3). Nevertheless, the results from this research are not conclusive
regarding the effectiveness of how such a comparison system would encourage the adoption of more
energyefficientbehaviour.But,toprovidefeedbackonenergyuse,basedonacomparisonsystem,could
be an alternative to complement the provision of individual feedback regarding energy use and
improvement in the effectiveness of interventions. As such, collective feedback strategies that use
neighbourhood data to feed comparitive use data, may be a useful addition to individual household
feedbackasaninterventionstrategy,thatencouragestheadoptionofmoreenergyefficicentbehaviours.
8.4 Combinedstructural/psychologicalinterventions
This section provides an overview on aspects that have been discussed within the FGs from both, a
structuralandpsychological interventionperspectivethatare, thus,presented inthissection,providinga
combinedlookatstructuralandpsychologicalintervention.
8.4.1 Information,feedbackandmonitoringequipment
There was an overall agreement among FGs’ participants and PID interviewees regarding the role that
monitoringequipmentcouldhaveasawayof,“Commoditizing”,behaviourintoagoodproxy, inorderto
makeconsumptionvisible,assuggestedbyWWF(2008).FGs’participantsandPIDintervieweessuggested
the use of monitoring systems, such as energy meters, as one suitable option of providing continuous
feedbackabouttheamountofenergybeingused.DuringPID,intervieweesacknowledgedthedifficultythat
energy invisibilitycouldaddtotheaimofpromotingtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,as
wellastherolethatmonitoringequipmentcouldhaveintermsofprovidingsomevisibilitytohomeenergy
use,asthefollowingquotedemonstrates:
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
186
“Oneofthemostimportantaspectsforchangingenergyuseisitsvisibility.Duringthe
'ecofamílias'17 project with the use of energy meters…we managed to materialize
energy,somethingthatotherwiseisinvisibleandwediditfairlysuccessfully”,PID1
Thoughonlya fewFGs’participantshadexperiencewithenergymeters, themajorityofFGs’participants
agreedthatinordertobeeffective,suchtypeofmonitoringequipmentmustprovidesimpleinformation.
DuringtheFGssomeexamplesofwhatwasmeantbysimpleinformationwereprovided,suchasasimple
coloursystemindicatingwhetherconsumptionwaswithinacertainrange,orsimplealertstriggeredonce
reachingadefinedvalue,withtheinformationsuppliedinEurosandotherunits,suchaskWorCO2,anadd-
onthatcouldbeprovided ifwanted.ThissameopinionwassharedamongPID interviewees,whoagreed
thatprovidedinformationshouldbesimple,inordertobeusefulandsupportindividualdecision-making.If
theseconditionsweremet,energymeters,orsimilarmonitoringequipment,wereperceivedasholdinga
potential to promote more energy efficient behaviour and thus for energy to be saved. However, this
almost unanimous, opinion regarding the use of energymeters, or similarmonitoring equipment,might
need to be evaluated with care, since when questioned about the effectiveness of providing real time
information and how this could influence the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, three
alternativeopinionsemergedamongFGs’participants:(1),thoseFGs’participantsthatwereconvincedof
the benefits of knowing their detailed energy use, as this would lead to the adoption of more energy
efficientbehaviours; (2), thosethatrecognizedthatholdingthis levelof feedbackwouldbeof interestto
them, though itwouldnothavean impact in termsof theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours;
and (3), those that were not interested at all in learning about their energy use, since this could cause
feelingsoffrustrationanddisappointment:
“But it is only a soup I’mwarming up” (note:when discussing the impact of knowing how
much energy was spent for warming up a soup at themicrowave and whether this could
influence her individual behaviour, which was perceived as severely conditioned by her
financialsituationalready),Female,FG7
17Ecofamíliasprojecthad3editionsandinvolvedatotalof1.225familieswiththeaimofevaluatingtheirabilitytoreducetheirenergy
useathome.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
187
This diversity of opinion thus questions the effectiveness of providing real time feedback; whether
monitoringequipmentcouldpromotelong-termadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviours,orwhether
thiswould ratherbe a short-termphenomenon. Though FGs’ participants acknowledged thepotential of
monitoringsystemstoallowthemtoimprovetheirknowledgeregardingthecontributionofspecificenergy
related behaviours to their monthly bill, even those FGs’ participants in favour of having a monitoring
systemathomesharedtheopinion,that,withtime,theymightloseinterestinconstantlymonitoringtheir
energyuse.Forthisreasonmonitoringequipmentmightonlyhaveashort-mediumtermimpact:
“IhavenoideahowthemonitoringequipmentwouldbebutifIwouldneedtocheckforthe
energybeingusedeachtime,Iusedxamountofenergy,Iusedxamountofenergy,IbelieveI
wouldgetupsetafterawhile”,Female,FG7
Thepotentialeffectivenessoftheuseofmonitoringequipment incombinationwithpromptingstrategies
willbefurtherdiscussedinthesubsequentsection.
8.4.2 Smartmeteringandpromptingstrategies
Prompting strategies appeared to be less known, though ultimately, FGs’ participants provided several
examples. One FGs’ participant used post-it notes to remind family members on what they should do,
anotheronereferredtoamobilephonethatproducesanoiseoncecharged,oranotherreferredtohome
appliancesthatproducedsomekindofsoundasareminderthattheyarestillinstandbymode.Overall,the
inclusion of integrated smart features into home appliances appeared to be very well accepted by the
majority of the FGs’ participants, which could provide opportunities to effectively prompt individual
behaviour,withthemessagebeingdisplayedincloseproximitytotheplacewherethetargetbehaviourcan
beperformed,as,forexample,suggestedbyGelleretal.,(1982),threedecadesago.Thesesmartfeatures
wereperceivedbyFGs’participantsashavingapromptingrole in remindingusers toadoptmoreenergy
efficientbehaviourinordertoreduceenergyuse.Findings,thus,suggestthatpromptingstrategiescouldbe
thecounterparttothebarrierof,“Iforgotdoingso”andfallinlinewithliteratureclaims(seesection4.5.1.)
that smart featuresholdgreatpotentialdue to theirproximity towhere theaction takesplace. Findings
thussupportearlierstudiesthatsuggestsmartfeaturescouldbea,relatively,lowcosttypeofintervention,
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
188
to promote the adoption of more energy efficient behaviours, (Lehman & Geller, 2004). Yet, FGs’
participantsfeltoverallthatthesepromptsshouldbestatedpositively,toavoidelicitingnegativereactions,
(seealso8.3.2)andthattheyshouldbelabelledtoprovideinformationdesignedtohelpconsumersmake
informedchoices,(seealso8.2.3).
8.4.3 Information,feedbackandenergybills
Accordingtothefindings inthisresearch,energybillsmightnotbethemostefficientstrategytoprovide
peoplewithinformationonhowmuchenergytheyhaveused,oratleastnotforthecaseofPortugal.The
majorityofFGs’participantsfounditdifficulttounderstandhowmuchenergytheyusedduringaspecific
monthforanumberofreasons:inPortugalenergybillsincludeotherfeesandsurchargesnotrelatedtothe
amountofenergybeingconsumed,oftentheyarebi-monthly,(eachcoveringtwomonths)andbasedonan
estimated annual consumption, or fixed for 11 months. As a result of this, FGs’ participants reported
difficulty in understanding the amount of energy used for a specificmonth, aswell aswhatmight have
contributedtoadifferingenergyusepermonth.OnlyafewFGs’participantsappearedtobewellinformed
abouttheiractualmonthlyenergyuseandwerequitehappyandwillingtosharethedata.FGs’participants
suggestedthatinordertobemoreuseful,energybillsshouldprovideinformationinaneasilyunderstood
way,suchasabargraphwithmonthlyconsumptionbasedonrealconsumption,oracomparisoninaway
they could relate to, such a basic home appliance. Overall findings from FGs are well in-line with the
literature, (Brandon& Lewis, 1999; Darby, 2006) and provide further evidence on the role, but also the
limitationsforenergybillstoprovideusefulfeedbackonenergyuse.
8.5 Concludingremarks
Thischapterdiscussesthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudylookingatthepotentialeffectivenessdifferent
interventionstrategiestoencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathomewithinthe
Portuguesecontext.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
189
In the following table the findings from the research presented in this chapter are related to RQ3,
highlightingincludinganynoteworthydeviationfromthereviewedliteraturethatcouldbedetectedfrom
thefindingsofthisresearch
.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
190
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservations
ChapterSection:8.1.CommunicationDesign
Persuadingpeopletoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,generallyseenaschallengingforless,‘easyandsimple’,behaviouralchanges,oroncenothavinganimpactondesirednormallevelsofcomfort,convenienceorwellbeing.
RQ3b
People do not appear to hold any inconsistency between theirattitudesandtheirbehaviour,ifoneconsidersthattheirpositiveattitudestowardscomfortandwellbeingarestrongerthantheirattitudetowardstheenvironment.
RQ3a
Previous messages from interventions do not appear to bealigned with those behaviours that people accept doing, butrathertotheonestheyreject,orarenotcommittedtodoing.
RQ3a
ChapterSection:8.2.Structuralinterventions
8.2.1.Rewardsandpunishments
Findings suggest that a rewards/punishment system might beeffective for some people to encourage the adoption of moreenergyefficientbehaviour.
RQ3a,RQ3b Thepotentialeffectivenessofrewards/punishmentsystemcouldnotbefullyunderstood,inparticulartothemedium/longterm.
8.2.2.Provisionofincentivesandsamples
Findings suggest the provision of incentives and samples couldencouragetheintroductionofmoreenergyefficienttechnologiesbyreducingtheinvestmentrequiredandriskofsuchapurchase.
RQ3a
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
191
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservations
8.2.3.Labelling
Theefficacyoflabellingcouldnotbefullyunderstood,aspeoplemight lack the ability to fully understand the informationprovided.
RQ3b
‘Arated’seenassynonymforenergyefficient,withoutconsideringactualuse.
ObservedlackofabilityacrossallFGstounderstandenergylabels,tousethemasameanstoactuallycomparetheperformanceofhomeappliances,resultinginanapparentlackofeffectivenessofsuchlabels.
8.2.4.Demonstratingandfacilitatingasaninterventionstrategy
Modellingbehaviourwas seenasapotentiallyeffectiveavenuefor changing behaviour, as people will follow these examplesonce they are understandable, relevant, meaningful andrewarding,intermsofpositiveresults.
RQ3a,RQ3b
8.2.5.Environmentaldesignandmaterialcontextualadjustment
Even though the contribution of technology could play animportant role, there is some common agreement thattechnological solutions to domestic energy reduction might beinsufficientwithoutthecooperationofindividuals.
RQ3a
Apparentneglectingofinterventionsaimedathowthehomeandhomeappliancesareusedandhowtheycanbeadjustedonaneverydaybase.
Productdesignandcontextualadjustmentscouldbeeffective,butwillnotnecessarilyencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,beingamoretechnofixapproach.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
192
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservations
ChapterSection:8.3.Psychologicalinterventions
8.3.1.Targetedface-to-faceinformationandfeedback
Face-to-face informationappearstobethedesirablealternativetoreceivedcustomizedinformation,yet itmightnot leadtotheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
RQ3a
Informationshouldbeprovidedfirstinmonetaryterms,andpotentiallyalsoinotherunitssuchasCO2.
Overallconcernregardingwhichinformationiscorrectandwhomcanpeopletrust.
8.3.2.Informationandcommunicationcampaigns
Informationand communication campaignsareperceivedas anadequate alternative to provide information and raisingawareness, but might have little or no impact on encouragingbehaviouralchange.
RQ3a,RQ3b
Lowincidenceofrecallforenergysavingcampaigns
Encouragement via information and communication alonemight not be sufficient to lead tochangeduetoabasiclackofmotivationtoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
FGs’ participants focused on providing positivemessages that could enhance the fun part ofsavingenergyratherthanontheperceiveobligationofdoingso.
8.3.3.Educationinterventions
Theprovisionofeducationisperceivedasaneffectivestrategytoencourage the adoption of more energy efficient behaviour bytodays’andfuturegeneration.
RQ3a,RQ3bRecyclingasanexampleforperceivedsuccessofbehaviouralchangeinterventionsinPortugal.
Recyclingasanexampleforchildrenpressuringparentstorecycleathomeandhowthisbecameingrainedintothefamilyroutine.
8.3.4.Communitybasedinterventions
Comparing individual energy use to that of other communitymemberscouldbeaneffectivemeansof informationprovision,thatcouldprovokeandencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourbyprovidingcomparativefeedback,afeelingofcompetition,socialcomparison,orsocialpressure.
RQ3a,RQ3bCollectivefeedbackstrategiesthatuseneighbourhooddatatofeedcomparativeusedata,maybeausefuladditiontoindividualhouseholdfeedbackasinterventionsthatencourageachangeinenergybehaviour.
8.Interventionstrategiesandperceivedeffectiveness
193
Empiricalstudyfindings RQ Noteworthyfurtherobservations
ChapterSection:8.4.Structural/Psychologicalinterventions
8.4.1.Information,feedbackandmonitoringequipment
Information should be provided firstly in monetary terms, andpotentiallyalsoinotherunits,suchasCO2.
RQ3aTheuseofenergymeters,intermsofacceptanceandimpactlevel,apparentlydovary,rangingbetweenappreciationtoannoyance.
8.4.2.Smartmeteringandpromptingstrategies
Promptscouldbeaneffectiveinterventiontoremembereasytodoactivities. RQ3a
FGs’participantsoverallfeltthesepromptsshouldbestatedpolitelytoavoidelicitingnegativereactions,(seealso8.3.2)andthattheyshouldbelabelledinsuchawayastoprovideinformationdesignedtohelpconsumersmakeinformedchoices,(seealso8.2.3).
Smart features could be a, relatively, low cost type ofintervention to promote the adoption ofmore energy efficientbehaviour.
RQ3aIntegratedsmartfeaturescouldprovideasetofopportunitiestoeffectivelypromptindividualbehaviour,withthemessagebeingdisplayedincloseproximitytotheplacewherethetargetbehaviourcanbeperformed.
8.4.3.Information,feedbackandenergybills
RQ3bEnergybillsmightnotbethemostefficientstrategytoprovidepeoplewithinformationonhowmuchenergytheyhaveused.
Table8-1–SummaryoffindingsrelatingtoRQ3
8.Interventionstrategies,behaviouralchangeandenergyefficiency
194
Here,asummaryisprovidedonhowtheresultsreportedinthischapterprovideanswerstowardsresearch
questions3,(RQ3),“What isthepotentialroleof interventionstrategiesonenergyuseathome”andthe
sub-questions, “What are perceived requirements of intervention strategies”, (RQ3a) and “What are
individualperceptionsontheeffectivenessofinterventionstrategies”,(RQ3b).
With regards to the perceived requirements of intervention strategies, findings presented in section 8.1
highlighthowimportant it is tosendtheappropriatemessagebytheappropriatemessenger,sothatthe
targetaudienceidentifieswiththemessageandincreasesthelikelihoodofthemactingasdesired.Ascan
beseenacrosssections8.1to8.4,persuadingpeopletoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviourappearsto
be challenging and, in particular, for less ‘easy and simple’ behavioural changes, or those perceived as
impactingdesired‘normal’ levelsofcomfort,orwellbeing.Asshownthroughthechaptertheprovisionof
information and feedback, in its various forms, had been perceived as being efficient in providing
informationandraisingawarenesstowardsmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.Yet,onceitcametoindividual
experience and actions, it equally could be seen that FGs’ participants did often appear to lack of
motivation. In this regard it was not possible to understand how these perceived requirements, for
interventions to be successful, could address the observed lack ofmotivation for adoptingmore energy
efficientbehaviour,andthattheyfrequentlyappearedtobeanchoredonthemotivationtoprovidetheir
family with socially agreed normal levels of comfort and wellbeing. With this, the overall efficacy of
interventionsmightbequestioned.These findings,dohowever, supportearlier findings that information
andfeedbackprovisionalonemightnotbesufficienttoeffectivelyencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergy
efficient behaviour and thus might require information and feedback provisioning to be used, in
combination with other type of interventions, so to increase their chance of success, as suggested, for
example,byAbrahamseetal.(2005),orSouthertonetal.(2011).Duringtheempiricalstudy,anexampleof
such a combination emerged and was related to the need for information and feedback to be used in
combination with promoting the adoption of a social understanding of normal energy use. As such
information provision might not be a panacea for the effective adoption of more energy efficient
behaviours.Ascouldbeseenthroughchaptereight,contextualinterventionstrategiesthatwereperceived
as more efficient included, the adjustments within product design, house infrastructures and home
appliances and all, to a certain degree, removed the responsibility from the user to adoptmore energy
8.Interventionstrategies,behaviouralchangeandenergyefficiency
195
efficient behaviour,(Southerton et al., 2011). An additional focus, thus might be placed on providing
effectiveincentivesandpunishments,incombinationwithacommunityleveltypeofinterventiondrawnon
comparative feedback, instead of the individual approach that appears to have dominated so far, as
suggested by Abrahamse et al. (2005), Darby (2006), EEA (2013), Heiskanen et al. (2009), orMiddlemiss
(2008).
9.Conclusion
196
9 Conclusion
This study investigateddomestic energyusebehaviours in thePortuguese context and aimed to explore
howtheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathomecouldbeencouraged.Withthistheresearch
hasthreeobjectives.Firstitattemptstoprovideanoverviewofwhatexplainsandinfluencesenergyuseat
home(RQ1).Secondithastheobjectivetoadvanceonthetheoryofmotivating,enablingandreinforcing
factors that couldpromote the adoptionofmoreenergyefficienthabitual behaviours andpractices at a
household level (RQ2). Thirdly, this research has the objective to explore the potential effectiveness of
change interventionswithinthe fieldofenergyuseathomeandthedifferenttypesof interventionsthat
mightbeused(RQ3).
9.1 Specificanswerstotheresearchquestions
9.1.1 RQ1:Whatexplainsenergyuseathome?
Ashasbeenshownthroughouttheresearch,energyuseisnottheresultofasingledeterminant,butrather
theresultfromanumberofinternalandexternaldeterminants.Thedeterminantsandexistingconditions
foundthroughthisresearch,appeartobe inoverallsupportofthe literaturepresentedinchapter2and,
notably,with theworks of BPIE (2011), DGGE/IP-3E (2004), Goldblatt (2005) andMaréchal (2010).With
regards to home appliances, this research provides further evidence that the ever-increasing number of
home appliances does increase energy use, (6.2.1; 6.2.3). But, this simultaneously helps to trigger
participants’awarenessoftheneedtopurchasemoreenergyefficientappliancessotoreduceenergyuse,
(6.2.4).As couldbe seen inboth, theempiricalworkand the literature,participantsnotonly substituted
old,obsoletehomeappliances,butalsoboughtmoreappliancesoverall(2.2.).
Throughout this research, the availability of energywas never truly questioned by the participants,with
energybeingperceivedassomethingessentialforpeopletoliveinthewaywe,inanindustrialisednation’s
context, have become used to, (6.1.2). With this, it could also be seen that energy is an intermediary
betweenneedandfulfilmentofneed,aspartofasocio-economical-techno-culturalcombinationthatframe
‘our’needs,opportunities,belief systemsandabilities, (7.1;7.2.3). Findings from theempirical studydid
9.Conclusion
197
showtherelationbetween‘energyprices&energyuse’,aswellas‘disposableincome&energyuse’,with
both constituting determinants for energy use, (6.2.4). Though savingmoney seemed not to be amain
priority fortheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,butrathertomaintainexistingbehaviouras
long as deemed affordable, (7.1.1). Findings from the FGs and interviews reveal a tendency for higher
reportedincomelevelstobeassociatedwithhigher,reported,energyuse,withparticipantsagreeingthat
perceived‘needs’increasewithincomelevel,(6.2.5;6.2.6.),whichappearedaspiredtobythoseonlower
incomes,(6.2.5.).Thisassumptionissupportedbyearlierresearch,(WWF,2012;DECC,2011;Gatersleben
etal.,2002;2.2;2.2.5.;2.2.8).Findingsfromthisresearchindicatethatthemajorityoftheparticipantswill
maintain their behaviour, even if prices increased, as long as they could afford doing so, (6.2.4), thus
providingfurtherevidencetothebodyofliteratureregardingenergyuseaspriceinelasticintheshortterm,
(DECC,2011;Gaterslebenetal.,2002,Sorell,2007;2.2.4;2.2.5;2.2.8.).However,consideringthatoverall
energyconsumptiondeclinedinPortugalasaresultoftheeconomiccrisis(1.7)thisalsosuggeststhatsome
peoplestoppedbeingabletoaffordtheirformerenergylevel.Morepreciselyitcouldbeobserved,(6.2.4;
7.1.1),thatenergyandfuelpovertyseemtobearealityforanumberofpeoplewithintheempiricalstudy,
withparticipantsnotbeingabletoguaranteeservicessuchasheatingtheirhomes,or toaffordtospend
moreoftheirmonthlyincomeonenergy.ForthecaseofPortugalitalsocouldbeseenthatpoorbuilding
envelopes and infrastructures (2.2.7) could further impact upon energy and fuel poverty. In any of such
cases people are forced to use less energy if prices rise, which has also been found in other studies,
(Boardman,2010;Buzar,2007a;Healy,2003;SEI,2003;SILC,2007;WHO,2012;2.2;2.2.5.).
Thisresearchfurthershowsthatexistinghabitsareadrivingforceforenergyuseandrepresentachallenge
totheeffectiveadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,sincemostenergyrelatedbehaviourareofa
habitual nature and often acquired over time, (7.3.1), supporting existing studies, (IPPR, 2009; Green
Alliance,2011,Jackson,2005;3.4.1).
9.1.2 RQ2:Whatinfluencesenergyuseathome?
As could be seen, barriers appear to influence energy use more than motivations and outnumbered
motivationsineachofthethreephasesoftheresearch;evenexistingmotivationsultimatelydidnotappear
toresultinanyactualenergyusagereduction,(7.1;7.2;7.3).Motivationalvariablesappeartobeindirect
9.Conclusion
198
competitionwithbarriersandfindingsindicatethatthereportedbarriersare,perhaps,notactualbarriers,
butinpartaconvenientexcuse,(7.3.4.).Therefore,energyuseisperhapslessinfluencedby‘beingable’to
adoptmore energy efficient behaviour andmore about ‘beingwilling’ of doing so. As such, findings do
supporttheliteraturethatpeopletendtosaythattheycannotperformthebehaviour,(lowself-efficacy),
rather thantheywillnotperform itand, inparticular,once theyanticipateanaversiveoutcome,suchas
reducedlevelofcomfort,theyarenolongerwillingtoadoptbehaviourthatmayproducesuchanoutcome,
(Allen and Ferrand 1999; Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Bandura, 1986; DECC, 2011; EEA, 2013; Jackson, 2005;
Kollmuss&Agyeman,2002;Leiserowitzetal.,2011a;Prendergrastetal.,2008;Shove,2003;Vandenbergh
etal.,2008;3.4.2;3.4.4).Thiscouldhelpexplainwhyenergyusehasnotbeendecreasingmorenotablyin
Portugal despite the growing number of governmental supported tangible and intangible interventions
(1.7).
This is also supported through the apparent observed importance and role, of norms, habits and beliefs
with regards to lack of efficacy, or the understanding of giving up something, that were frequently
highlightedasmainbarrierstowardstheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourbytheparticipantsof
thisresearch,(7.2.3;7.3.1;7.3.3).Findingsfurtherrevealthatattitudesandvaluesmightinfluenceenergy
useathomeonce it comes to family comfortandwellbeing,withvalues,attitudesandbehavioursbeing
wellalignedandresultinginapotentiallyhigherenergyuseathome,(7.1.2;7.3.2;8.1).Furthermore,there
seemed to be an individual resistance towards specific behaviours that did compete with wellbeing,
convenienceandcomfort, (7.1.3;7.3.2;7.3.4),ashasalsobeenfound inotherstudies, (DECC,2011;EEA,
2013;Jackson,2005;Prendergrastetal.,2008;Shove,2003;2.2.2;2.2.5;3.3.1;3.3.3;3.4.2;3.4.4).
Participants appeared to be quite comfortable with a, certain, level of normal energy use and there
appearedtobeasociallysharedunderstandingofthisnormalthatdirectlyseemedtoinfluenceenergyuse,
(7.3.2),as isalsoknownfromthe literature, (Goldblatt,2005;Maréchal,2010;Shove,2004;2.2.1;2.2.3).
Further to this, existing energy use habits were reported as highly influencing energy use, due to the
difficultyofchallengingandchangingsuchhabitsandencouragingmoreenergyefficientones,(7.3.1).
In addition to this, findings from this research, (6.2.4; 7.1.1; 7.3.2), support the literature, (DECC, 2011;
Gaterslebenetal.,2002;2.2;2.2.5;2.2.8),thatahigherincomelevelmightbeassociatedtohigherenergy
use.Thosewhoaremoreaffluentappearwillingtotrademoneyforwhattheyseeasnormalcomfortand
9.Conclusion
199
convenience, givingpriority to individual and familywellbeing, rather than for environmental protection.
Nevertheless, thismightnotbeaconscious,“tradeoff”,betweenenergycosts in relationto income,but
ratherthatenergyseemstobecheaptosomeoftheparticipantsandthusthereisnorationaletoconsider
reducing usage. A longer-term view, regarding environmental protection, might be required to build a
responsetothissortofrational.
In contrast to this, those in energy and fuel poverty appear to not be able to reach the aspired normal
comfort level, suggesting thatan increase in incomecouldpromotehigher levelsofenergyuseathome,
(6.2.5.). This research provided evidence that the amount of those in fuel povertymight be higher than
whatiscommonlyperceivedandmuchin-linewiththeexistingstatisticsandassumptionsfromliterature,
(Healy,2003;SEI,2003;SILC,2007;WHO,2012).
Withregardstothesefactorsthatseemnottoinfluenceenergyuseathome,findingsfromthisresearch,
(7.1.2;8.1),suggestthatpro-environmentalvaluesandattitudesareamongthedeterminantsthatappear
tohavelessinfluenceontheamountofenergybeingusedathome.Thissupportsthefindingsfromearlier
studies,(Kollmuss&Agyeman,2002;McKenzie-Mohr&Smith,1999;Poortingaetal.,2004;Schultzetal.,
1995;Thøgersen,2004;3.2).
9.1.3 RQ3:Whatisthepotentialroleofinterventionstrategiesonenergyuseathome?
Findings from this research suggest that any attempt to reduce energy use at home would face strong
competition from the, perceived, normal level of use, (9.2.1). To support the adoption of more energy
efficientbehaviourathome,interventionstrategiesmustchangethisunderstandingofnormaltoaclearly
definednew level that is consideredsustainableanddesired, (8.1).During this research itwas,however,
notpossibletounderstandhowexistingnormscouldbeeffectivelyintegratedwithinfutureinterventions,
(6.2.5;7.2.3;8.2.1).Assuch,littleevidencewasuncoveredduringtheempiricalstudytosuggestthatnorms
couldbeusedtoencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,(6.2.5),assuggestedbythe
literature,(section2.2.3).
Other strategies to interventions that might be adopted include choice architecture, product design, or
penalty-incentive approaches, as they circumvent decision-making based on shared understandings of
comfort, wellbeing and individual preference, (8.2.1; 8.2.5). However, the literature suggests that such
9.Conclusion
200
strategieswould,inaddition,needtopayattentionto,‘intrinsicmotivation’andculturalandinfrastructural
influences,(Dwyeretal.,1993;Lutzenhiser,1993;Lowe,1996;WilhiteandShove,1998;2.2.).Sinceafocus
on ‘knowledge-penalty-incentive-behaviour’mightfail torecognisethecomplexityanddynamics inwhich
energyuseisembeddedintheflowofday-to-daylife.Thus,theultimatesuitabilityofchoicearchitecture,
productdesign,orpenalty-incentivestrategies,perhaps,wouldneedtobefurtherexaminedinlightofthe
existingliterature.
Findings equally show that the evaluation of previous attempts might also impact the potential
effectivenessofinterventions.Thus,inplanninginterventionstrategiesitmightberequiredtoconsiderthe
outcome expectations people have, regarding the efficacy of individually adoptingmore energy efficient
behaviour, as well as to collectively engage in them, (7.3.3; 7.3.4). As has also been suggested in the
literature,(Bandura,1977a;Cialdinietal.,1990;Martiskainen,2007;vanderPligt,1985;3.3.3;3.4.3).
All of these findings also show that frameworks that attempt to support intervention strategies must
providetherightinterplaybetweenthevariousexistingfactorsandasfurtherdiscussedinsection9.2.
9.2 Keyfindings
Thissectionprovidesanoverviewofthekeyresultsof thisresearchandthecontribution itmakestothe
field of knowledge in sustainable energy use. A particular focus is on how the adoption ofmore energy
efficientbehavioursathomecouldbeencouraged,inthecontextofunderstandingexistingdeterminants,
motivating,enablingandreinforcingfactorsandtherelatedimplicationstowardsinterventionstrategies.
Thefindingsofthisresearchgenerallyshowthatiftherateofadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour
is to increase, then interventions that are focusing on providing information or financial incentives are
unlikely to work for a large proportion of energy users. Instead, the adoption of more energy efficient
behaviour at home depends on the ability of intervention strategies to challenge existing norms, thus
creating new understandings, expectations and utilization of energy services that could manifest in the
adoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.Assuchtheworkhasshownthatcommunity-basedinitiatives
might be an adequate means to challenge social norms and to bring about change and as detailed in
followingsections.
9.Conclusion
201
9.2.1 Importancetochallengetheunderstandingofnormal
Section4.1discussedanumberofframeworksthatcouldsupportinterventionstrategiesandthatattempt
to provide the right interplay between the various existing factors. And indeed the findings from this
researchdosupporttheimpactthatthevariousexternal,internalorsocialfactors,suchasnormsorhabits,
couldhave.Withthisfindingsdosupportearlierstudiesthat(Prendergrastetal.,2008)informationaland
financialleversalonemightnotbesufficienttopromoteindividualbehaviouralchange,butinsteadwould
require frameworks thatattempttochangeexistingperceptions,knowledge,attitudes,normsandvalues
(Abrahamseetal.,2005),or thatgobeyondthe individualandalsoaddressthecommunity levelandthe
social aspects of energy-relatedbehaviour (Abrahamseet al., 2005;Darby, 2006;Heiskanenet al., 2009;
Middlemiss, 2008). With this the findings of this research do suggest that the frameworks and models
presentedinsections4.1and4.2indeedcouldsupportinterventionstrategiestofindtherightinterplay.A
common finding across all of the three empirical phases of the research had been the unwillingness to
adopt more energy efficient behaviour, mainly for the reason that they are perceived as impacting
establishedlevelsofcomfort,convenienceandwellbeing,(6.2.5;7.3.2;7.3.4).Thisunwillingnessappeared
torelatetowhatisperceived,expectedandsociallyacceptedasnormalenergyuse,normalcomfortlevels,
normal services that energy provides, that have entered peoples’ day-to-day lives, (7.1.3; 7.3.2).
Expectationsofenergyservicesandusearenormalisedintermsoflevelsofcomfortandtochallengethat,
in asking people to adopt different behaviour, challenges the core expectations that have become
established,(7.2.3;8.1).
Fromsuchaperspective,theadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourathomedependsontheability
ofinterventionstrategiestochallengetheexistingnorm,sotocreateanewunderstandingandexpectation
ofenergyservicesthatcouldbecomemanifestintheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour,(7.2.3;
8.1).Ascanfurtherbeseen,theabilityofinterventionstrategiestoprovideopportunitytounderstandand
compare one’s energy use and to provide customized circles of information and feedback, (7.2.2; 8.3.1;
8.3.4; 8.4.1; 8.4.2), or, to question and promote debate, with regards to normal and taken-for-granted
practices, (7.3.2), appear to hold high potential to increase the likelihood of success of intervention
strategies.
9.Conclusion
202
9.2.2 Invisibilityofenergyanditsimplications
Previousresearch,(Burgess&Nye,2008;Darby,2006;Hargreaves,2012;2.2.),suggeststhat‘invisibility’isa
distinctivecharacteristicofenergyuseathomeandthisstudysupportsthis,withparticipantsconsidering
energy as intangible and abstract when compared to other utilities, (6.1.1.). Participants compared the
energy that flows in pipes inside the home to the water they see flowing out of the tap and energy
invisibility,indeed,appearedtobeadistinctivecharacteristicofenergy,whencomparedtootherutilities,
(6.1.1.). Despite being a distinct characteristic, the empirical study did however equally provide some
evidence,(6.1.1.),thatincreasingenergyvisibilityperhapsdoesnotresult intheadoptionofmoreenergy
efficient behaviour. Findings from this research show that invisibility did constitute a barrier for the
adoptionofenergyefficientbehaviour,(6.1.1.).Whatremainedtosomeextentunclearthroughthisworkis
whatimpact,ultimately,wouldanincreaseinvisibilityhaveintermsofenergyuse.Thefindingsobtained
are insupportof the literature, (Abrahamseetal.,2005;Geller,2002;Martiskainen,2007;Staats,Wit,&
Midden,1996;2.2.1;2.2),thatevenifenergyusebecomesvisible,theimpactofthisvisibilityonenergyuse
andontheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviourmightbelimited,(6.1.1).
9.2.3 Financialmotivationstosaveenergy
During the empirical study saving money, or reducing cost, appeared to be the main motivation for
individuals’ to save energy, (7.1.1; 7.1.2). However, findings from this research equally indicate that this
motivation directly competes withmotivations of not reducing energy use, such as tomaintain existing
comfort levels, (7.3.2). Moreover, participants in this research appear to be aware of this competing
situationandpreferenceforincreasedenergyuse,appearingtofeelcomfortablewiththisaslongasthey
couldaffordit,(6.2.4;7.1.1.).Furtherevidencewasfoundthatenergyuseismostlytheresultofafocuson
the services that energy provides, (6.1.1), such as cooking, lighting, or enjoying a movie, rather than
considering theenergybeingused, (Goldblatt,2005;Martiskainen,2007;2.2).Thismightbe inparticular
problematicasthenumberofhomeappliancesownedisconstantlyincreasing,asaretherelatedpractices
tosuchappliances,suchasheatingorcoolinghomes,(6.2.1;6.2.3).Withinthisworkitwas,however,not
possibletoclearlyunderstandthescopeofassociationbetween‘practice’,‘services’and‘energyuse’,nor
whetherthiscouldinfluencethepurchasedecisiontowardsmoreenergyefficienthomeappliances,(6.2.4).
9.Conclusion
203
Thus,despitebeingreportedasthemostimportantmotivatingfactorforsavingenergy,thefindingsfrom
this work rather suggest that financial motivations appear to not be a main priority for adopting more
energy efficient behaviour, (7.1.1). An exception to this are those people on a low income that find
themselves ina situationofenergyand fuelpoverty, towhomreducingenergybills, thus savingmoney,
wouldbecrucial, (6.2.4;7.1.1.).This studyprovided furtherevidence theamountofpeople that live ina
situationofenergyorfuelpovertymightbehigherandwhatiscommonlyperceivedinaSoutherncountry.
9.2.4 Knowledge,competenceandself-efficacy
Findingsfromthisresearchindicatethatparticipantsdoholdagoodlevelofinformationregardingenergy
efficient behaviour; with this level of information decreasing once it impacts specific behaviours. This
suggeststheneedforimprovingthehouseholders’knowledgeonthespecificbehaviourstheycouldadopt
andcustomizes to their realityandneeds,asopposed togeneral information, (7.2.2). Inaddition to this,
mostofthemoreenergyefficientbehaviourappearstohavebeenlearnedduringchildhoodandthrough
life experience, rather than as a result of information received through any type of intervention, (7.3.1;
8.3.3). The findings also show that to encourage the adoption ofmore energy efficient behaviourmight
thus also require increasing knowledge, competence and self-efficacy and not simply provision of
information through, for example, the design of customized utility bills, (8.4.2), the provision of energy
labels,(8.2.3),theprovisionofenergymeters,(8.4.1),oroftariffstructureadoption,(8.2.1).
Ascanbeseenfromboththiswork,(7.2.2;8.1;8.2.3;8.3.1;8.3.2;8.4)andtheliterature,(3.1;3.2;3.3;3.4;
4.2; 4.4; 4.5.), strategies of information-based interventionsmay not be enough to effectively challenge
expectationsofenergyneedsandencouragepeopletoadoptmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.
9.2.5 Energyefficientbehaviourandoutcomeefficacy
Participants in this research declared an, apparent, overall preference for ‘easy to do’ energy efficient
behaviours,e.g.switchinglightsoffwhennotinuse,thatfrequentlyappearedtoresultinabeliefofhaving
done their bit, or even everything they could, to save energy, which have also been an often-reported
reason for not adopting additional energy efficient behaviour, (6.2.1; 7.3.3; 8.1). This understanding of
doing‘theirbit’appearedtobeoftenassociatedwithalackofperceivedcollectiveefficacy,beitwithinthe
9.Conclusion
204
familysetting,amongtheirfamilyandfriends,orevensociety,(7.3.4),andmuchinsupportoftheworkof
Cialdinietal.(1990)andvanderPligt(1985)andasdiscussedin4.2.Thisistosaythatparticipantsfromthe
empiricalstudyoftenreportedtheyfeltthattheywerealoneintheireffortsandnotsupportedbyfamily,
friendsorsociety,toadoptmoreenergyefficiencybehaviour.Thisnegativelyimpactedtheirperceptionof
theefficacyoftheireffortsandtheiroutcomeefficacy.
9.3 Limitationsoftheresearch
Thisresearchhasanumberofidentifiedlimitations.Firstofall,itcannotclaimtoberepresentativeforthe
Portuguese population. Even though the quantitative survey used representative sampling, the focus
groupswereonlyconducted intwodifferent locations intheNorthofPortugalandconsequently,donot
necessarilyprovidearepresentativeviewof thePortuguesepopulation.Thefact thatboththesampleof
participants in FGs and CID interviews was limited to a range of consumers who shared a geographical
location,whichmighthavelimitedthediversityofanswers.
A second limitation is that the study measured self-reported intentions and willingness to act; but not
actualbehaviour.Responsesmight,thus,notbeasaccurateastheycouldhavebeen,dueto,forexample,
influenceby socialdesirability,orother self-reportdistortions, (suchas recallingdifficulties), as is known
fromtheliterature,(e.g.Darnton,2008).Whiledirectobservationmethodologycouldhavebeenadopted,
itwouldhaveunderminedtheexploratorycharacterofthisresearchandtheattempttoallowfora large
varietyofnarratives.
9.4 Suggestedfutureresearch
Anumberoffutureresearchdirectionscouldbeidentifiedthroughthisworkasfollows.
Despitethebodyofexistingresearchandevidencepresentedthroughthiswork,thereappearstobestill
noclearlyagreedbestpractice,within the literature,onhowtoultimatelysupport theadoptionofmore
energyefficientbehaviourathome.Practitionersareequippedwitharangeofinterventionstrategies,but
thedifficulty faced is tounderstandwhichoneshouldbeused inrelationtothevastrangeofunderlying
andimpactingdeterminants,inordertoencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviour.While
9.Conclusion
205
some previous research has demonstrated that certain intervention strategies did, or did not, produce
changes in behaviour, theymostly could not sufficiently explain how change came about and led to the
desired adoption, whether short or long-term, of more energy efficient behaviour. The findings of this
researchhavechallengedthepotentialimpactofstrategies,suchasinformationprovision,butalsoshown
thepotentialthatcommunity-basedinitiativesappeartohave,astheytendtofocusontheimportanceof
social networks for circulating information and expectations, regarding appropriate behaviour. These are
fieldsthat,therefore,mightbefurtherexplored,forexamplethroughtheuseofsmarttechnologies.
Thisresearchhasalsoshownthatiftherateofadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehaviouristoincrease,
thatinterventions,focusingonprovidinginformationorfinancialincentives,areunlikelytoworkforalarge
proportion of energy users. Consideration might thus be given to exploring how self-efficacy could be
increasedand,mostimportantly,howstrategiesofreducedenergyusedeveloped.
This study acknowledged the number of programmes and interventions that have been implemented in
Portugal (1.7.). Nevertheless little evidence could be found in terms of the impact of such interventions
withinthescopeofthisresearch,andthusfuturestudiesmightwanttoadvanceonthis.
References
206
References
Abrahamse,W. (2003).Theeffectof tailored informationgoalsettingandfeedbackonhouseholdenergy
use. In L. Hendrickx, W. Jager & L. Steg (Eds.), Human decision making and environmentalperception.Understandingandassistinghumandecisionmakinginreal-lifesettings(pp.183-201).Groningen:DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofGroningen.
Abrahamse,W. (2007).Energy conservation throughbehavioral change: Examining the effectiveness of atailor-made approach. University Library of Groningen. Retrieved from
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/gmw/2007/w.abrahamse/.
Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to
households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5),711-720.
Abrahamse,W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at
householdenergyconservation.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,25(3),273-291.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, Ch., & Rotehengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal
setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviours, and
behaviouralantecedents.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,27(4),265-276.
ACEEE.(n.d.).Glossary.Retrieved18ofFebruary,2013,fromhttp://aceee.org/glossary.
ADENE.(2013).Guiadaeficiênciaenergética.Lisbon:AgênciaparaaEnergia.
ADENE. (n.d.). Planos e programas. Retrieved 22 of June, 2015, from http://www.adene.pt/planos-e-
programas.
Ajzen, I. (1991).The theoryofplannedbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,50,179-211.
Ajzen, I.,&Fishbein,M. (1980).Understandingattitudesandpredictingsocialbehavior.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Halls.
Ajzen,I.,&Madden,T.J.(1986).Predictionofgoal-directedbehavior:Attitudes,intentions,andperceived
behavioralcontrol.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,22,453-474.
Ackermann,M.E.Ackermann(2002).CoolComfort:America'sRomanceWithAir-Conditioning.Washington,
D.C.andLondon:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.
Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental
behavior.EnvironmentandBehavior,31,338–353.
Anderson,C.A.(2007).BeliefperseveranceEncyclopediaofSocialPsychology(pp.109-110).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health, socialdevelopment,andtheenvironment.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
APA [American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global
Climate Change]. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted
phenomenon and set of challenges. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx.
References
207
Backhaus,J.,Breukers,S.,Mont,O.,Paukovic,M.,&Mourik,R.(2012).SustainableLifestyles:today'sfacts
andtomorrow'strends.SPREADSustainableLifestyles2050consortium(pp.160).TheNetherlands:
EnergyresearchCentreoftheNetherlands.
Baird,J.C.,&Brier,J.M..(1981).Perceptualawarenessofenergyrequirementsoffamiliarobject.JournalofAppliedPsychology,66,90-96.
Baker,S.L.,&Kirsch,I.(1991).Cognitivemediatorsofpainperceptionandtolerance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,61(3),504.
Bamberg, M. (2003). Positioning with Davie Hogan – Stories, Tellings, and Identities. In C. Daiute & C.
Lightfoot (Eds.),Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 135-157).London,UK:SagePublications.
Bamberg,S.,Ajzen,I.,&Schmidt,P.(2003).Choiceoftravelmodeinthetheoryofplannedbehavior:The
rolesofpastbehavior,habit,andreasonedaction.Basicandappliedsocialpsychology,25(3),175-187.
Bandura,A. (1977a).Self-efficacy:Towardaunifying theoryofbehavioural change.PsychologicalReview,94(2),191-215.
Bandura,A.(1977b).SocialLearningTheory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bandura,A.(1982).Self-efficacymechanisminhumanagency.Americanpsychologist,37(2),122.
Bandura,A.(1986).SocialFoundationsofThoughtandAction:ASocialCognitiveTheory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Bandura,A. (1990). Selectiveactivationanddisengagementofmoral control. Journalof Social Issues,46,27-46.
Bandura,A.(1992).Observationallearning.InL.R.Squire(Ed.),Encyclopediaoflearningandmemory.NewYork:Macmillan.
Barenergy (2011). Barriers to changes in energy behaviour among end consumers and households. FinalReport.
Barr,S.,&Gilg,A.W.(2006).SustainableLifestyles:framingenvironmentalactioninandaroundthehome.
Geoforum,37(6),906-920.
BBC News. (2010). Climate scepticism 'on the rise'. BBC poll shows. Retrieved 08 of July, 2012, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm.
BBCWorldServicePoll.(2007).AllCountriesNeedtoTakeMajorStepsonClimateChange:GlobalPollPIPA,
GlobalScan.
Becker, L. J. (1978). Jointeffectof feedbackandgoal settingonperformance:A field studyof residential
energyconservation.JournalofAppliedPsychology,63(4),428-433.
Becker,L.J.,Seligman,C.,Fazio,R.H.,&Darley,J.M.(1981).Relatingattitudestoresidentialenergyuse.
EnvironmentandBehavior,13,590-609.
Bergman,M.M.(2010).OnConceptsandParadigmsinMixedMethodsResearch.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,4(3),171-175.
Bergman,M.M.(2011).TheGood,theBad,andtheUglyinMixedMethodsResearchandDesign.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,5(4),271-275.
Berkhout, P.H.G.,Muskens, J.C., & Velthuijsen, J.W. (2000). Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy,28(6-7),425-432.
References
208
Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound
effect?Ecologicaleconomics,36(1),119-132.
Bittle,R.G.,Valesano,R.,&Thaler,G. (1979).Theeffectsofdaily cost feedbackonresidentialelectricity
consumption.BehaviorModification,3(2),187-202.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C.,& Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influencesonhousehold energy
adaptations.JournalofAppliedPsychology,70(1),3-21.
Boardman, Brenda. (1991). Fuel poverty: from cold homes to affordable warmth. London, UK: BelhavenPress.
Boardman,Brenda.(2010).FixingFuelPoverty:ChallengesandSolutions.London,UK:Earthscan.
BPIE.(2011).Europe'sbuildingsunderthemicroscope:BuildingsPerformanceInstituteEurope(BPIE).
Brandon,G.,& Lewis,A. (1999). Reducinghousehold energy consumption: a qualitative andquantitative
fieldstudy.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,19(1),75-85.
Brehm,J.W.(1972).Responsestolossoffreedom:Atheoryofpsychologicalreactance.NewYork:GeneralLearning.
Brehm,S.,&Kassin,S.(1996).SocialPsychology(3rded.).Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany.
BrookLyndhurst. (2007).DefraWaste&ResourcesR&DProgramme - LifestyleScenarios: theFutures for
WasteComposition.SummaryReport.AprojectforDefra’sWREP:BrookLyndhurstLtd.
Brookes,L.(2000).Energyefficiencyfallaciesrevisited.EnergyPolicy,28(6),355-366.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L. M., & van Beukering, P. (2008). “A convenient truth”: Air travel passengers
willingnesstopaytooffsettheirCO2emissions.ClimaticChange,90(3),299-313.
Burgess,J.,&Nye,M.(2008).Rematerialisingenergyusethroughtransparentmonitoringsystems.EnergyPolicy,36(12),4454-4459.
Burns,D.,(2006)‘Evaluationincomplexgovernancearenas:thepotentialoflargesystemactionresearch’,
in B. Williams and I. Imam, Using systems concepts in evaluation, Fairhaven, MA: American
EvaluationAssociation.
BusinessDictionary.(n.d.).EnergyConservation.BusinessDictionary.Retrieved12ofFebruary,2013,from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/energy-conservation.html.
Buzar,S.(2007a).EnergyPovertyinEasternEurope:HiddenGeographiesofDeprivation.Aldershot:Ashgate.
Buzar, S. (2007b). The ‘hidden’geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: between institutions and
households.Geoforum,38(2),224-240.
Buzar, S. (2007c). When homes become prisons: the relational spaces of postsocialist energy poverty.
EnvironmentandPlanningA,39(8),1908-1925.
Campbell,C.(1995).TheSociologyofConsumptionAcknowledgingConsumption(pp.96-126).LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Carey,S.(1986).Cognitivescienceandscienceeducation.AmericanPsychologist,41(10),1123-1130.
Carpenter,S.R.,Folke,C.,Scheffer,M.,&Westley,F.(2009).Resilience:accountingforthenoncomputable.
Ecology&society,14(1),13.
Cassiani,S.,Zanetti,M.,&Pelá,N. (1992).Thetelephonesurvey:amethodologicalstrategy forobtaining
information.JournalofAdvancedNursing,17,576-581.
References
209
Chaiken,S.,&Trope,Y.(1999).DualProcessTheoriesinSocialPsychology.NewYork:GuilfordPublications.
Chappells,H.&Shove,E.(2005).BuildingResearch&Information,33(1),p.32-40p.
Chatterton,T. (2011).AnIntroductiontoThinkingAbout ‘EnergyBehaviour’:amulti-modelapproach(pp.
39).London,UK:DepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange.
Cialdini,R.B.(1993).Influence(rev):ThePsychologyofPersuasion:HarperCollins.
Cialdini,R.B.(2001).Influence:ScienceandPractice(4thed.).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical
refinement and reevaluationof the role of norms in humanbehavior.Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology,24(20),1-243.
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the
conceptofnormstoreducelitteringinpublicplaces.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,58(6),1015-1026.
Cialdini,R.B.,&Trost,M.R. . (1998).Social influence:Socialnorms, conformityandcompliance. InD.T.
Gilbert&S.T.Fiske(Eds.),Thehandbookofsocialpsychology (4thed.,Vol.2,pp.151-192).NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Clough,P.,andNutbrown,C.(2007)Astudent’sguidetomethodology.London:SagePublications. ISBN0
978-1-4129-2912-7.
Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2000).Researchmethodsineducation(pp.245).London:Routledge
Falmer.
Cole,S.A.(2006).WitnessingCreation.SocialStudiesofScience,36(6),855-860.
Cole. R. J. (2011). Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change. Building Research &Information,39(5),431-435
CCC. (2012). How local authorities can reduce emissions andmanage climate risk (pp. 96). London, UK:
CommitteeonClimateChange.
Cooper,H.(1998).Synthetizingresearch:aguideforliteraturereviews(3rded.).BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Corti,L.(1993).Usingdiariesinsocialresearch.Socialresearchupdate,3(2).
Creswell,J.W.(2009).ResearchDesign:Qualitative,QuantitativeandMixedMethodsApproaches.London:SagePublications.
Creswell,J.W.,&Clark,V.L.P.(2007).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sagepublications.
Creswell,J.W.,&Miller,D.L.(2000).Determiningvalidityinqualitativeinquiry.Theoryintopractice,39(3),124-131.
Crosbie, T.,& Baker, K. (2010). Energy-efficiency interventions in housing: learning from the inhabitants.
BuildingResearch&Information,38(1),70-79.
Dainton,M.,&Zelley,E.(2005).Applyingcommunicationstheoryforprofessionallife.ThousandOaks:Sage.
Darby,S.(2005).Sociallearningandpublicpolicy:Lessonsfromanenergy-consciousvillage.EnergyPolicy,(34),2929-2940.
Darby, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of feedback on Energy Consumption: A review for DEFRA of the
literature on metering, billing and direct displays (pp. 24): Environmental Change Institute,
UniversityofOxford(availableat:http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/research/).
References
210
Darby, S. (2010). Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement?, Building Research &Information,38:5,442-457.
Darley,J.M.,&Latane,B.(1968).Bystanderinterventioninemergencies:diffusionofresponsibility.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,8(4p1),377.
Darnton,A.(2008).ReferenceReport:AnoverviewofbehaviourchangemodelsandtheirusesInS.S.i.G.
Government Social Research (Ed.), GSR Behaviour Change Knowledge Review: Centre forSustainableDevelopment,UniversityofWestminster.
Darnton, A., Verplanken, B., White, P., & Whitmarsh, L. E. (2011). Habits, Routines and Sustainable
Lifestyles:AsummaryreporttotheDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs.London,
UK:A.D.ResearchandAnalysisforDefra.
Dawson,C.(2002).Practicalresearchmethods:Auser-friendlyguidetomasteringresearch.Oxford:HowTo
BooksLtd.ISBN1-85703-829-0.
Dawson, T. L. (2002). New tools, new insights: Kohlberg'smoral reasoning stages revisited. InternationalJournalofBehaviorDevelopment,26(2),154-166.
deDear,R.J.,&Brager,G.(2001).Theadaptivemodelofthermalcomfortandenergyconservationinthe
builtenvironment.InternationalJournalofBiometeorology,45(2),100-108.
deGroot, J. I., Steg, L.,&Dicke,M. (2007).Morality andReducingCarUse: Testing theNormActivation
Model of Prosocial Behavior. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Transportation Research Trends: NOVAPublishers.
DECC.(2011).GreatBritain’shousingenergyfactfileInJ.Palmer&I.Cooper(Eds.),(pp.118):Department
ofEnergy&ClimateChange(DECC).
DECC. (2012). Public attitudes tracking survey: wave 2 Public attitudes tracking survey: Department of
Energy&ClimateChange(DECC).
DEFRA. (2007). Survey of Public Attitudes and Behaviours toward the Environment: 2007. London:DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA).
DEFRA. (2008). A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours Report. London: Department for
Environment,FoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA).
Denzin,N.,&Lincoln,Y.S.(2002).HandbookofQualitativeResearch.London:SagePublications.
DCLG. (2012). Definitions of general housing terms. Definitions for local authorities compiling data.Retrieved12ofJanuary,2013,fromhttps://www.gov.uk/definitions-of-general-housing-terms.
Deutsch,M. (2010). Life Cycle CostDisclosure, Consumer Behavior, andBusiness Implications. Journal ofIndustrialEcology,14(1),103-120.
DGEG. (2010). National Energy Characterization. Retrieved 11 of February, 2012, from
http://www.dgge.pt/.
DGGE/IP-3E. (2004). Eficiência energética em equipamentos e sistemas eléctricos no sector residencial.Lisbon:DirecçãoGeraldeGeologiaeEnergia(DGGE).
Dholakia,R.R.,&Dholakia,N.(1983).Fromsocialpsychologytopoliticaleconomy:Amodelofenergyuse
behavior.JournalofEconomicPsychology,3,231-247.
Diekmann, A., &Meyer, R. (2008). Schweizer Umweltsurvey 2007. Dokumentation und Codebuch (Swiss
Environmental Survey2007.Documentationandcodebook). Zurich:Professorship forSociology,
ETH.
Dobson,A.(2011).SustainabilityCitizenship(G.HouseEd.).UnitedKingdom:GreenHouse.
References
211
Dolan,P.;Hallsworth,M.;Halpern,D.;King,D.;Vlaev,I.(2010).Mindspace-Influencingbehaviourthrough
publicpolicy.
Donn, J. (1999). Frustration sapping environmental concern, researcher says: Associated Press state and
localwire.
Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M. (1993). Critical review of
behavioral interventions to preserve the environment. Research since 1980. Environment andBehavior,25(5),275-321.
Easterby-Smith,M., Thorpe, R.,& Lowe, A. (2002).Management Research: An Introduction. London,UK:SagePublications.
EEA. (2004).EEASignals2004-AEuropeanEnvironmentAgencyupdateonselected issues.Copenhagen:
EuropeanEnvironmentAgency(EEA),OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities
(OPOCE).
EEA.(2008).Energyandenvironmentreport2008.Copenhagen:EuropeanEnvironmentAgency(EEA).
EEA.(2011).FinalenergyconsumptionbysectorintheEU-27,1990-2008.Retrieved12ofFebruary,2012,
fromhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/final-energy-consumption-by-sector-4.
EEA. (2013). Achieving Energy Efficiency through behaviour change: what does it take? Copenhagen:
EuropeanEnvironmentAgency(EEA).
EIA. (2013). Glossary. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved 12 of February, 2013, from
http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm.
ECI.(2005).40%house.Oxford,UK.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New York:CapstonePublishingLtd.
Energaia (2008).Energyprofiler:Perfil energéticodo sector residencial. ENERGAIA,AgênciadeEnergiado
SuldaÁreaMetropolitanadoPorto.
EnergySavingTrust.(2011).Theriseofthemachines:areviewofenergyusingproductsinthehomefrom
the1970stotoday.London:EnergysavingTrust.
EnergySavingTrust.(2012).Poweringthenation:householdelectricityusinghabitsrevealed.London,UK:
EnergySavingTrust.
Energyprofiler. (2011). Transformar atitudes em ação: Perfil Energético do Setor Residencial: ENERGAIA,
AgênciadeEnergiadoSuldaÁreaMetropolitanadoPorto.
Eurobarometer. (2011a). Special Eurobarometer 365. Attitudes of European citizens towards theenvironment.
Eurobarometer.(2011b).SpecialEurobarometer372.ClimateChange.
European Commission. (2010). EUR 24283 – Energy-efficient Buildings PPP Multi-annual Roadmap andlongertermstrategy.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.
European Commission (n.d.). Energy efficiency directive. Retrieved 19 of June, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive.
Eurostat.(2007).Statisticsonincome,socialinclusionandlivingconditions-Ad-hocmodules(2007module:
Housing conditions). Your key to European statistics. Retrieved 10 of July, 2013, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/d
ata/ad_hoc_modules
References
212
Eurostat. (2011). Energy Statistics Data. Retrieved 1 of October, 2011, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/data/database
Eurostat. (2013). Inability to keephomeadequatelywarm (source: SILC). Retrieved8of July, 2013, from
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_mdes01&lang=en
Eurostat. (2015). Consumption of energy. Retrieved 19 of June, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy.
Eurostat. (n.d.). Statistics explained. Energy price statistics. Retrieved 14 of July, 2013, from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics#Natural_
gas_prices_for_industrial_consumers
Eurowinter Group. (1997). Cold exposure and winter mortality from ischaemic heart disease,
cerebrovasculardisease, respiratorydisease,andall causes inwarmandcold regionsofEurope.
TheLancet,349(9062),1341-1346.
ERSE.(2007).Planodepromoçãodaeficiêncianoconsumodeenergiaelétricapara2008.Lisbon:Entidade
ReguladoradosServiçosEnergético.
ERSE. (2008). Medidas aprovadas PPEC 08: Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia
eléctricapara2008.Lisbon:EntidadeReguladoradosServiçosEnergético.
ERSE. (2009). Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia elétrica para 2009-2010. Lisbon:
EntidadeReguladoradosServiçosEnergético.
ERSE. (2010). Plano de promoção da eficiência no consumo de energia elétrica para 2011-2012. Lisbon:
EntidadeReguladoradosServiçosEnergético.
ERSE. (n.d.). Medidas em Implementação. Retrieved 22 of June, 2015, from
http://www.erse.pt/pt/planodepromocaodaeficiencianoconsumoppec/edicoesPPEC/siteppec1112
/medidasimplementacao/Paginas/default.aspx.
FAI(n.d.).Fundodeapoioàinovação.Retrieved25ofJune,2015,fromhttp://fai.pt/o-fai/.
Feather,N.T.(1990).Thepsychologicalimpactofunemployment.NewYork:Springer.
FEE (n.d.). Fundo de eficiência energética. Retrieved 25 of June, 2015, from http://fee.adene.pt/o-que-
e/Paginas/default.aspx.
Feenstra,C.F.J.,Backhaus,J.,&Heiskanen,E.(2009).Howtochangeconsumers’energy-relatedbehaviour?Improving demand side management programmes via an action research approach. Paperpresented at the First European Conference on Energy and Behaviour, Maastricht, The
Netherlands.
Feinberg,M., &Willer., R. (2010). TheGood of Gossip? The Benefits of this Unlikely Prosocial Behavior.
Berkeley:DepartmentofPsychology.UniversityofCalifornia.
Festinger,L.(1957).ATheoryofCognitiveDissonance.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energyefficiency,1(1),79-104.
Folke,C.(2006).Resilience:TheEmergenceofaPerspectiveforSocial-EcologicalSystemsAnalyses.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,16,253-267.
FutureFoundation.(2006).EnergyEfficiency-Publicattitude,privateaction:Logica.
Galli,A.,Kitzes, J.,Wermer,P.,Wackernagel,M.,Niccolucci,V.,&Tiezzi, E. (2007).Anexplorationof the
mathematicsbehindtheecologicalfootprint.InternationalJournalofEcodynamics,2(4),250–257.
References
213
Gardner,G.T.,&Stern,P.C.(2002).EnvironmentalProblemsandHumanBehavior(2nded.).Boston,MA:
PearsonCustomPublishing.
Gardner,G.T.,&Stern,P.C. (2008).Theshort list:ThemosteffectiveactionsUShouseholdscantaketo
curbclimatechange.Environment:ScienceandPolicyforSustainableDevelopment,50(5),12-25.
Gärling,T.,Eek,D.,Loukopoulos,P.,Fujii,S.,Johansson-Stenman,O.,Kitamura,R.,Vilhelmson,B.(2002).A
conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demandmanagement on private car use. TransportPolicy,9(1),59-70.
Garvey, James. (2009). We broke it. So we own it. The Guardian.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/07/climate-change-10-10
Gascoigne, C., Morgan, K., Gross, H., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Reducing the health risks of severe winter
weather among older people in theUnited Kingdom: an evidence-based intervention.Ageing&Society,30,275-297.
Gass,R.H.,& Seiter., J. S. (2003).Persuasion, Social Influence, andComplianceGaining. Boston:PearsonEducation,Inc.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). The measurement and determinants of Environmentally
significantconsumerbehaviour.EnvironmentandBehaviour,34(3),335-362.
Gatersleben,B.,&Vlek,C. (1998).HouseholdConsumption,QualityofLifeandEnvironmental Impacts:A
Psychological Perspective and Empirical Study. In T. S. Uiterkamp (Ed.),Green Households? (pp.141-183).London:Earthscan.
Gatersleben,B.C.M.(2000).Sustainablehouseholdmetabolismandqualityoflife:Examiningtheperceivedsocial sustainability of environmentally sustainable household consumption patterns. (PhD),UniversityofGroningen,Groningen,theNetherlands.
Geller,E.S.(1981).Evaluatingenergyconservationprograms:Isverbalreportenough?JournalofConsumerResearch,8,331–335.
Geller,E.S.(1992).Ittakesmorethaninformationtosaveenergy.AmericanPsychologist,47(6),814-815.
Geller,E.S.(2002).Thechallengeofincreasingproenvironmentalbehavior.InR.B.Betchel&A.Churchman
(Eds.),Handbookofenvironmentalpsychology(pp.525-540).NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
Geller,E. S.,Berry,T.D., Ludwig,T.D.,Evans,R.E.,Gilmore,M.R.,&Clarke,S.W. (1990).Aconceptual
frameworkfordevelopingandevaluatingbehaviorchangeinterventionsforinjurycontrol.HealthEducationResearch,5(2),125-137.
Geller,E.S.,Winett,R.A.,&Everett,P.B.(1982).Preservingtheenvironment:Newstrategiesforbehaviorchange.Elmsford,NY:Pergamon.
Geller,H.,Harrington,P.,Rosenfeld,A.H.,Tanishima,S.,&Unander,F.(2006).Policesforincreasingenergy
efficiency:ThirtyyearsofexperienceinOECDcountries.EnergyPolicy,34(5),556-573.
Gerdes, J. (2009). Energy Efficiency Policies and Measures in The Netherlands. Petten: ECN, ODYSSEE-
MURE,IntelligentEnergyEurope.
Gibbs,Anita.(1997).Focusgroups.Socialresearchupdate,19(8).
Giddens, A. (1984).The Constitution of Society – outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Gifford, R., Iglesias, F., & Casler, J. (2008). Psychological barriers to pro-environmental behavior: Thedevelopment of a scale. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological
Association,Montreal,QC.
References
214
Giorgi,S.,Fell,D.,Austin,A.,&Wilkins,C. (2009).EV0402:publicunderstandingof linksbetweenclimate
changeand(i)foodand(ii)energyuse:finalreport.AreporttotheDepartmentforEnvironment,
FoodandRuralAffairs.London:BrookLyndhurst&Defra.
Glasersfeld,E.von(1989).“Cognition,ConstructionofKnowledgeandTeaching.”Synthese,80(1),121-140.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1990). “Environment and Education.” In L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (eds.), Transforming
Children’s Mathematics Education: International Perspectives, (pp. 200-215). Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaum.
Golafshani,N.(2003).UnderstandingReliabilityandValidityinQualitativeResearch.TheQualitativeReport,8(4),597-607.
Goldblatt,DavidL.(2005).SustainableEnergyConsumptionandSociety-Personal,Technological,orSocialChange?WashingtonDC,USA:Springer.
Gottron,F.(2001).EnergyEfficiencyandtheReboundEffect:DoesIncreasingEfficiencyDecreaseDemand
CRSReportforCongress(pp.1-4).
GreenAlliance.(2011).GreenAlliancepolicyinsight.
Grier,S.,&Bryant,C.(2005).Socialmarketinginpublichealth.PublicHealth,26,319-339.
Grist,M. (2010).Changing theSubject,Hownewwaysof thinkingabouthumanbehaviourmight change
politics,policyandpractice.London:RSA.
Grubb,M.J.(1990).Communicationenergyefficiencyandeconomicfallacies.EnergyPolicy,18(8),783-785.
Guagnano,G.A. (2001).Altruismandmarket-likebehavior:Ananalysisofwillingness topay for recycled
paperproducts.PopulationandEnvironment,22,425-438.
Guertin,C.,Kumbhakar,S.,&Duraiappah,A.(2003).DeterminingDemandforEnergyServices:Investigating
income-drivenbehaviours:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.
Hardin,G.(1968).TheTragedyoftheCommons.Science,NewSeries,162(3859),1243-1249.
Hargreaves,T.(2012).Openingtheblackboxofthehousehold:Understandinghowhouseholdersinteract
withfeedbackfromsmartenergymonitors3SWorkingPaper.Norwich.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how
householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6111-6119.
Harrington, B. E., Heyman, B.,Merleu-Ponty,N., Stockton,H., Ritchie,N.,&Heyman, A. (2005). Keeping
warmand stayingwell: findings from thequalitativearmof theWarmHomesProject.Health&socialcareinthecommunity,13(3),256-267.
Hastings, G., & Saren, M. (2003). The Critical Contribution of Social Marketing: Theory and Application.
MarketingTheory,3(3),305-322.
Hastings,G.B.,&Haywood,A.J. (1991).Socialmarketingandcommunication inhealthpromotion.HealthPromotionInternational,6,135-145.
Healy, J.D. (2003).Excesswintermortality inEurope:acrosscountryanalysis identifyingkeyrisk factors.
JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth,57(10),784-789.
Healy,J.D.(2004).Housing,FuelPovertyAndHealth:APan-EuropeanAnalysis.London:Ashgate.
Heberlein, T. A., & Warriner, G. K. . (1983). The influence of price and attitude on shifting residential
electricity consumption from on-to off-peak periods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4(1), 107-130.
References
215
Heiskanen,E.,Johnson,M.,&Vadovics,E.(2009).CreatingLastingChangeinEnergyUsePatternsthroughImprovedUserInvolvement.PaperpresentedattheJointActionsonClimateChangeConference,
Aalborg,Denmark.
Heiskanen,E.,Mourik,R.,Feenstra,Y.,&Pariag, J. (2009).BEYONDINDIVIDUALBEHAVIOURALCHANGE–
WHYANDHOW?Europeancouncilforanenergyefficienteconomy(ECEEEE),EnergyEfficiencyandBehaviour.http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/EE_and_Behaviour/2009/Panel_7/7.702
Helmig,B.,&Thaler,J.(2010).Ontheeffectivenessofsocialmarketing–whatdowereallyknow?JournalofNonprofit&PublicSectorMarketing,22(4),264-287.
Herring,H.(2006).Energyefficiency-acriticalview.Energy,31(1),10-20.
Higgins,E.T.(1987).Self-discrepancy:atheoryrelatingselfandaffect.Psychologicalreview,94(3),319-340.
Hitchings,R.(2009).Studyingthermalcomfortincontext.BuildingResearchandInformation,37(1),89-94.
Homans,J.(1958).SocialBehaviorasExchange.AmericanJournalofSociology,63,597-606.
Huebner, Gesche M., Cooper, Justine, & Jones, K. (2011). Energy saving practices, barriers against andreasons for change among social housing tenants. Paper presented at the Research student'sconferenceon"Buildingsdon'tuseenergy,peopledo?"-domesticenergyuseandCO2emissions
inexistingdwellings,Bath,UK.
Hussey,J.,&Hussey,R.(1997).BusinessResearch:APracticalGuideforUndergraduateandPostgraduateStudents.London:Macmillan.
INE.(2011).AnuárioEstatísticodePortugal2010.Lisbon:InstitutoNacionaldeEstatística,I.P.(INE).
INE (2012). Orçamentos Familiares - Inquérito às despesas das famílias - 2010 / 2011. Retrieved
28/10/2013, from Instituto Nacional de Estatística
http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=1415
77698&PUBLICACOESmodo=2&xlang=pt.
INE I.P./DGEG. (2011). Inquérito ao Consumo de Energia no Sector Doméstico 2010 Estatísticas Oficiais.Lisbon,Portugal.
IPCC.(2007).ClimateChange2007-Impacts,AdaptationandVulnerability:WorkingGroupIIcontributiontotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIPCC (M.L.Parry,O.F.Canziani,J.P.Palutikof,P.J.vander
Linden&C.E.HansonEds.1sted.).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
IPPR. (2009). Addressing Climate Change through Sustainable Development.U.S. Department of State e-journalUSA-ClimateChangePerspectives.www.ippr.org
IUCN, UNEP, & WWF. (1991). Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. London: World
ConservationUnion(IUCN),UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP),WorldWideFundfor
Nature(WWF).
Jackson,T.(2005).MotivatingSustainableConsumption:areviewofevidenceonconsumerbehaviourandbehaviouralchange:UniversityofSurrey.
Jager,W.,Janssen,M.,Vries,H.D.,Greef,J.D.,&Vlek,C.(2000).Behaviourincommonsdilemmas:Homo
economicus and Homo psychologicus in an ecological-economic model. Ecological Economics,35(3),357-379.
Janda,K.B.(2011).Buildingsdon'tuseenergy:peopledo,ArchitecturalScienceReview,54(1),15-22
Jeannerod,M.(2003).Themechanismofself-recognitioninhumans.Behaviouralbrainresearch,142(1),1-15.
References
216
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:JournaloftheEconometricSociety,47(2),263-291.
Kaplan,S. (2000).Newways topromoteproenvironmentalbehavior:Humannatureandenvironmentally
responsiblebehavior.Journalofsocialissues,56(3),491-508.
Kates, R.W., Clark,W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability
science.Science,NewSeries,292(5517),641-642.
Kempton,W.,Boster, J.S.,&Hartley, J.A. (1995).EnvironmentalValues inAmericanCulture.Cambridge,
MA:TheMITPress.
Kempton.W.,&Montgomery,L.(1982).Folkquantificationofenergy.Energy7(10),917-927.
Kempton, W., Reynolds, C., Fels, M., & Hull, D. (1992). Utility control of residential cooling: resident-
perceivedeffectsandpotentialprogramimprovements.Energyandbuildings,18(3),201-219.
Kennedy,L.(2011).SustainableDevelopment.louiskennedy-JustanotherWordPress.comsite.Retrieved5ofFebruary,2012,fromhttp://louiskennedy.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/back-again/
Khazzoom, J. Daniel. (1980). Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency Standards for Household
Appliances.TheEnergyJournal,1(4),21-40.
Kitzes, J.,Galli,A.,Bagliani,M.,Barrett, J.,Dige,G., Ede, S.,Wiedmann,T. (2009).A researchagenda for
improvingnationalEcologicalFootprintaccounts.EcologicalEconomics,68(7),1991-2007.
Knott,David,Muers,Stephen,&Aldridge,Stephen.(2008).AchievingCultureChange:APolicyFramework,
AdiscussionpaperbytheStrategyUnit(pp.138).London:StrategyUnit,CabinetOffice.
Kollmuss,A.,&Agyeman, J. (2002).Mind the gap:whydopeople act environmentally andwhat are the
barrierstopro-environmentalbehavior?EnvironmentalEducationResearch,8(3),239-260.
Kollock,P. (1998).SocialDilemmas:TheAnatomyofCooperation.AmericanReviewofSociology,24,183-214.
Kotler,P.,Roberto,E.L.,&Roberto,N..(1989).Socialmarketing:strategiesforchangingpublicbehavior:FreePress.
Kotler, P.,& Zaltman,G. (1971). Socialmarketing: an approach to planned social change.The Journal ofMarketing,35(3),3-12.
KPMG. (2012). Expect the unexpected: Building business value in a changing world.
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/building-business-
value.aspx
Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces of the
puzzle.AnalysesofSocialIssuesandPublicPolicy,2(1),257-278.
Leal Filho,W. (2011).About theRoleofUniversities andTheirContribution toSustainableDevelopment.
HigherEducationPolicy,24(4),427-438.
Leedy,P.,&Ormrod,J.E.(2001).Practicalresearch:Planninganddesign(7thed.).UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey:Prentice-Hall.
Lehman,P.K.,&Geller,E.S.(2004).Behavioranalysisandenvironmentalprotection:accomplishmentsand
potentialformore.BehaviorandSocialIssues,13(1),13-32.
Leiserowitz,A.(2007).PublicPerception,OpinionandUnderstandingofClimateChange–CurrentPatterns,
TrendsandLimitationsHumanDevelopmentReport2007/2008-Fightingclimatechange:Humansolidarityinadividedworld.
References
217
Leiserowitz,A.,Maibach,E.,&Roser-Renouf,C.(2009).SavingEnergyatHomeandontheRoad:ASurveyofAmericans’ Energy Saving Behaviors, Intentions, Motivations, and Behaviors. Yale Project onClimateChange.
Leiserowitz,A.,Maibach,E.,Roser-Renouf,C.,&Smith,N.(2011a).ClimatechangeintheAmericanMind:
Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in May 2011. In Y. P. o. C. C. Yale Project on
ClimateChangeCommunication(Ed.).NewHaven,CT:UniversityandGeorgeMasonUniversity.
Leiserowitz,A.,Maibach,E.,Roser-Renouf,C.,Smith,N.,&Hmielowski,J.D.(2011b).Climatechangeinthe
AmericanMind:Publicsupport forclimate&energypolicies inNovember2011.NewHaven,CT:
YaleUniversityandGeorgeMasonUniversity.
Lewis,D.(1969).Convention:APhilosophicalStudy.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Lindenberg,S.,&Steg,L.(2007).Normative,gainandhedonicgoalframesguidingenvironmentalbehavior.
JournalofSocialissues,63(1),117-137.
Linville,P.W.,&Fischer,G.W.(1991).Preferencesforseparatingandcombiningevents:asocialapplication
ofprospecttheoryandthementalaccountingmodel.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,60,5-23.
Litoselliti,L.(2003).UsingFocusGroupinResearch:Continuum.
Lomas,K.J.(2010).Editorial:Carbonreductioninexistingbuildings:Atransdisciplinaryapproach.BuildingResearchandInformation,38(1),1-11.
Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives.
ClimaticChange,77(1-2),73-95.
Lovins,A.B.(1998).Furthercommentsonredherrings.LettertotheNewScientist(2152),18.
Lovins,A.B.,Henly,J.,Ruderman,H.,&Levine,M.D.(1988).Energysavingresultingfromtheadoptionof
moreefficientappliances:anotherview;afollow-up.EnergyJournal,9(2),155.
Lutzenhiser, L. (1993). Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annual Review of Energy and theEnvironment,18(1),247-289.
Lutzenhiser,L.(2002).MarketingHouseholdEnergyConservation:TheMessageandtheReality.InT.Dietz
&P.C.Stern(Eds.),NewToolsforEnvironmentalProtection:Education,Information,andVoluntaryMeasures.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyofSciences.
Maddux,J.E. (1995).Self-Efficacytheory:An introduction. InJ.E.Maddux(Ed.),Self-Efficacy,Adaptation,andAdjustment:Theory,Research,andApplication(pp.3-33).NewYork:PlenumPress.
Magalhães,S.,&Leal,V.(2012).EPBDassessmentasatoolforfuelpovertyestimation.PaperpresentedattheIAIA12,Porto,Portugal.
Maibach,E.,Roser-Renouf,C.,&Leiserowitz,A.(2009).GlobalWarming’sSixAmericas2009:Anaudience
segmentation.NewHaven,CT:YaleProjectonClimateChange,GeorgeMasonUniversityCenter
forClimateChangeCommunication.
Maréchal, K. (2010). Not irrational but habitual: The importance of "behavioural lock-in" in energy
consumption.EcologicalEconomics,69(5),1104-1114.
Marshall, G., & Lynas, M. (2003). Why we don't give a damn from
http://www.newstatesman.com/node/146820
Martiskainen,M.(2007).Affectingconsumerbehaviouronenergydemand.Brighton,EastSussex:UniversityofSussex.
References
218
Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A., Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C., & Phillips, J. (2007).
Communication andmental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate
information.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,17(1),47-58.
Matthies,E.,Klöckner,C.A.,&Preißner,C.L.(2006).Applyingamodifiedmoraldecisionmakingmodelto
changehabitualcaruse:howcancommitmentbeeffective?AppliedPsychology,55(1),91-106.
McCalley, L.T.,&Midden,C. J.H. (2002).Energyconservation throughproduct-integrated feedback:The
rolesofgoal-settingandsocialorientation.JournalofEconomicPsychology,23(5),589–603.
McCarty, John A., & Shrum, L. J. (1993). A Structural Equation Analysis of the Relationships of Personal
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs about Recycling, and the Recycling of Solid Waste Products. In L.
McAlister&M.Rothschild(Eds.),AdvancesinConsumerResearch(Vol.20,pp.641-646).Provo,UT:AssociationforConsumerResearch.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable
behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),543-554.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-basedsocialmarketing(2nded.).GabriolaIsland,BritishColumbia,Canada:NewSociety.
McMahon,T.(2007)‘Isreflectivepracticesynonymouswithactionresearch?’,EducationalActionResearch,
Vol.7(1),pp.163-169.
McMakin,A.H.,Malone,E.L.,&Lundgren,R.E. (2002).Motivatingresidentstoconserveenergywithout
financialincentives.EnvironmentandBehavior,34(6),848-863.
McMichael, A.,Woodruff, R., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future
risks.TheLancet,367(9513),859-869.
Merton,R.,&Kendall,P.(1987).TheFocusedInterview.AmericanJournalofSociology,51,541-557.
Middlemiss, L. (2008). Influencing individual sustainability: a review of the evidence on the role of
community-based organisations. International Journal of Environment and SustainableDevelopment,7(1),78-93.
Mill, J.S. (1836).OntheDefinitionofPoliticalEconomy,andontheMethodof InvestigationProperto It.
LondonandWestminsterReview.
Miller, G. R. (2002). On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions. In J. P. Dillard &M. Pfau (Eds.), ThePersuasionHandbook:DevelopmentsinTheoryandPractice(pp.3-16).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Mischler,E.G.(1986).ResearchInterviewing:ContextandNarrative:HarvardUniversityPress.
Morgan,D.(1998).TheFocusGroupGuidebook.London:SagePublications.
Morgan,D. (2007).ParadigmsLostandPragmatismRegained :Methodological ImplicationsofCombining
QualitativeandQuantitativeMethods.JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,1,48-76.
Morgan,D.L.,Krueger,R.A.,&King,J.A.(1998).AnalyzingandReportingFocusGroupResults.London,UK:SagePublications.
Morgan,M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002).Risk Communication: AMentalModelsApproach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Morse,J.M.(2003).Principlesofmixedmethodsandmultimethodreseacrhmethod.InA.Tashakkori&C.
Teddlie(Eds.),Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch(pp.189-208).London:SagePublications.
References
219
Moser, S. C. (2007). More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change
information. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicatingclimatechangeandfacilitatingsocialchange(pp.64-80).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Moser,S.C.,&Dilling,L.(2004).MakingClimateHot:CommunicatingtheUrgencyandChallengeofGlobal
ClimateChange.Environment,46(10),32-46.
Nakajima,T.,&Hamori,S.(2010).Changeinconsumersensitivitytoelectricitypricesinresponsetoretail
deregulation: a panel empirical analysis of the residential demand for electricity in the United
States.Energypolicy,38(5),2470-2476.
Nolan, J. M. (2010). “An Inconvenient Truth” increases knowledge, concern, and willingness to reduce
greenhousegases.EnvironmentandBehavior,42(5),643-658.
Nordlund,A.M.,&Garvill,J.(2002).Valuestructuresbehindproenvironmentalbehavior.EnvironmentandBehavior,34(6),740-756.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on
willingnesstoreducepersonalcaruse.Journalofenvironmentalpsychology,23(4),339-347.
NorwegianMinistryoftheEnvironment.(1994).SymposiumonSustainableConsumption.OsloRoundtableonSustainableProductionandConsumption.http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html
Nye,M.,Whitmarsh,L.,&Foxon,T.(2010).Sociopsychologicalperspectivesontheactiverolesofdomestic
actorsintransitiontoalowercarbonelectricityeconomy.EnvironmentandPlanning,42(3),697–714.
O’Keefe,D.J.(1990).Persuasion:theoryandresearch.Michigan:SagePublications.
O’Keefe,D.J. (2002).Guiltasamechanismofpersuasion. InJ.P.Dillard&M.Pfau(Eds.),Thepersuasionhandbook:Developmentsintheoryandpractice(pp.329-344).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Odyssee,&MURE. (2011). Energy EfficiencyPolicies in the EuropeanUnion - Lessons from theOdyssee-
MureProject:IntelligentEnergyEurope,APEMS.
OECD. (2012). Taxing Energy Use: A graphical analysis. http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-
policy/taxingenergyuse.htm
Ølander, C. F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for
environmentalprotection.JournalofConsumerPolicy,18(4),345-385.
OnePlanetLiving.(n.d.).Retrieved08ofJuly,2013,fromhttp://www.oneplanetliving.org/index.html.
OSF. (2013). Energy consumption [e-publication]. ISSN=1798-6869. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred:
29.10.2013].Accessmethod:http://www.stat.fi/til/ekul/kas_en.html
Osterhus,T.L.(1997).Pro-SocialConsumerInfluenceStrategies:WhenandHowDoTheyWork?JournalofMarketing,61(4),16-29.
Oxford University Press. (2013). Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Retrieved 12 of February, 2013, from
www.oed.com
Patton,M.Q.(2002).QualitativeResearch&EvaluationMethods:ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Peattie,S.,&Peattie,K.(2003).ReadytoFlySolo?ReducingSocialMarketing'sDependenceonCommercial
Theory.MarketingTheory,3(3),365-385.
Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).Theelaborationlikelihoodmodelofpersuasion.InL.Berkowitz(Ed.),
Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.19,pp.123-205).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Piaget,J.(1952).TheOriginsofIntelligenceinChildren.NewYork:InternationalUniversitiesPress.
References
220
Piaget,J.(1969).Mechanismsofperception.(TranslationbyG.N.Seagrim)NewYork:BasicBooks.
Poortinga,W.,Pidgeon,N.F.,&Lorenzoni,I.(2006).PublicPerceptionsofNuclearPower,ClimateChange
and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and
November2005TechnicalReport(UnderstandingRiskWorkingPaper06-02).Norwich:CentreforEnvironmentalRisk.
Poortinga,W., Steg, L.,&Vlek, C. (2004).Values, Environmental Concern, andEnvironmental BehaviorA
StudyintoHouseholdEnergyUse.Environmentandbehavior,36(1),70-93.
Portuguese Government (2013). Council of Ministers Resolution No 20/2013. The Portuguese Official
GazetteSeries1,70.
Poumanyvong,P.,&Kaneko,S.(2010).DoesurbanizationleadtolessenergyuseandlowerCO2emissions?
Across-countryanalysis.EcologicalEconomics,70,434–444.
Powell,R.R.(1997).BasicResearchMethodsforLibrarians:GreenwoodPublishingGroup.
Powell,R.,&Single,H.(1996).FocusGroups.InternationalJournalofQualityinHealthCare,8(5),499-504.
Prendergrast, J., Foley, B., Menne, V., & Isaac, A. K. (2008). Creatures of Habit: The Art of BehaviouralChange.London,UK:TheSocialMarketingFoundation.
Quercus.(2008).ProjectoEcoFamílias–RelatórioFinal.
Quitzau,M-B.,&Røpke, I. (2008).TheConstructionofNormalExpectations.ConsumptionDrivers for the
DanishBathroomBoom.JournalofIndustrialEcology,12(2),186–206.
Randles,S.(2009).Practice(s)andratchet(s).asociologicalexaminationoffrequentflying.InP.U.Gössling
(Ed.), Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges, and Solutions (pp. 245-272). London:EarthscanLtd.
Reynolds,T.W.,Bostrom,A.,Read,D.,&Morgan,M.G. (2010).Nowwhatdopeopleknowaboutglobal
climatechange?Surveystudiesofeducatedlaypeople.RiskAnalysis,30(10),1520-1538.
Roberts, S.,&Baker,W. (2003). Towardseffectiveenergy information. Improving consumer feedbackon
energyconsumption.AreporttoOFGEM.http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/pub1014.pdf
Rohan,M.J. (2000).Arosebyanyname?Thevaluesconstruct.Personalityandsocialpsychologyreview,4(3),255-277.
Rossini, Giuliana, 2009. “HydroOne: In HomeReal TimeDisplay: Customer Feedback from a 30,000UnitDeployment”.HomeEnergyDisplaysConference,Orlando,2April2009
Rotter,J.B.(1954).Sociallearningandclinicalpsychology,EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall.
RoyalSocietyofLondon,&U.S.NationalAcademyofSciences.(1997).TowardsSustainableConsumption.
PopulationandDevelopmentReview,23(3),683-686.
Rudestam, Kjell Erik & Newton, Rae R. (2001). Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide toContentandProcess,London:SAGEPublications.
Schiffman,Leon,&Kanuk,Leslie.(1999).ConsumerBehavior:PrenticeHall.
Schipper,L.,&Grubb,M.(2000).Ontherebound?Feedbackbetweenenergyintensitiesandenergyusesin
IEAcountries.EnergyPolicy,28(6-7),367–388.
Schultz,P.W.(2002).Knowledge,Information,andHouseholdRecycling:ExaminingtheKnowledge-Deficit
ModelofBehaviorChange.InT.Dietz&P.C.Stern(Eds.),Newtoolsforenvironmentalprotection:education, information, and voluntary measures (1st ed., pp. 67-82). Washington DC: National
AcademiesPress.
References
221
Schultz,P.W.,Gouveia,V.V.,Cameron,L.D.,Tankha,G.,Schmuck,P.,&Franěk,M.(2005).Valuesandtheir
relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of cross-culturalpsychology,36(4),457-475.
Schultz, P. W., Nola, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The Constructive,
Destructive,andReconstructivePowerofSocialNorms.PsychologicalScience,18(5),429-434.
Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and
situationalfactors.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,15(2),105-121.
Schwartz, B. (in Hastings, G. (2008). Social Marketing: Why should the devil have all the best tunes?ButterworthHeinemann.
Schwartz,S.H.(1970).Elicitationofmoralobligationandself-sacrificingbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,15,283-293.
Schwartz, S.H. (1977).Normative influenceson altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.10,pp.221-279).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Schwartz,S.H. (1992).Universals inthecontentandstructureofvalues:Theoryandempiricaltests in20
countries.InM.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.25,pp.1–65).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Schwitzgebel,E.(2010).ActingContrarytoOurProfessedBeliefs,orTheGulfBetweenOccurrentJudgment
andDispositionalBelief.PacificPhilosophicalQuarterly,91,531-553.
ScottishGovernment.(2010).SummaryofdifferencesinUKFuelPovertymethodologies.
Sedgwick,Peter,&Edgar,Andrew.(1999).KeyConceptsinCulturalTheory.London,UK:Routledge.
SEI.(2003).AReviewofFuelPovertyandLowIncomeHousing(pp.72).Ireland:SustainableEnergyIreland
(SEI).
Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965).Attitudes and attitude change: The social judgment-involvementapproach.Philadelphia:W.B.Saunders.
Sherif,M.,&Hovland,C.I.(1961).Socialjudgment:Assimilationandcontrasteffectsincommunicationandattitudechange.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
Shome, D., &Marx, S. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: a guide for scientists,journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public (A. Cimino & Leapfrog
Communications Eds.). New York: The Trustees of Columbia University, Centre for Research on
EnvironmentalDecisions.
Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of ConsumerPolicy,26(4),395-418.
Shove,E.(2004).EfficiencyandConsumption:TechnologyandPractice.Energy&Environment,15(6),1053-1065.
Shove, E. (2005). Consumption - Perspectives from ecological economics. In Ropke, I. & Reisch, L. (Ed.).Cheltenham:Elgar,p.111-13222p.
Shove, E. (2006). Efficiencyand consumption: technologyandpractice. In T. Jackson (Ed.),TheEarthscanReaderinSustainableConsumption.London,SterlingVA:Earthscan.
Shove,E.(2009).Habitsandtheircreatures(pp.3):DepartmentofSociology,LancasterUniversity.
Shove, E.,&Southerton,D. (2000).Defrosting theFreezer: FromNovelty toConvenienceANarrativeof
Normalization.JournalofMaterialCulture,5(3),301-319.
References
222
Shove,E.;Chappells,H.;Lutzenhiser,L.,&Hackett,B. (2008).Comfort ina lowercarbonsociety.BuildingResearch&Information,36(4),307-311.
SILC. (2007). Module: Housing conditions.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/income_social_inclusion_living_conditions/d
ata/ad_hoc_modules
Simons, H. W. (1976). Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis. London, UK: Addison-Wesley
PublishingCompany.
Skinner,B.F.(1971).Beyondfreedomanddignity.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.
Slovic,P.(2000).Theperceptionofrisk.London:Earthscan.
Slovic,P.,Finucane,M.L.,Peters,E.,&MacGregor,D.G.(2004).Riskasanalysisandriskasfeelings:Some
thoughtsaboutaffect,reason,risk,andrationality.Riskanalysis,24(2),311-322.
Smith,A.(1776).AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations(E.CannanEd.):UniversityOfChicagoPress.
Sorrell, S. (2007). The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings
fromimprovedenergyefficiency.UK:TheUKEnergyResearchCentre(UKERC).
Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., & Evans, D. (2011). International Review of Behaviour Change InitiativesRetrievedfromwww.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch
Spaargaren, G., & van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyle, Consumption and the Environment: the ecological
modernisationofdomesticconsumption.SocietyandNaturalResources,9,50-76.
Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. (2004). Effecting durable change a team approach to improve
environmentalbehaviorinthehousehold.EnvironmentandBehavior,36(3),341-367.
Staats, H. J.,Wit, A. P., &Midden, C. Y. H. (1996). Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public:
Evaluationofamassmediacampaignfromasocialdilemmaperspective.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement,45,189–203.
Staats,H.,Leeuwen,E.,&Wit,A.(2000).Alongitudinalstudyofinformationalinterventionstosaveenergy
inanofficebuilding.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,33(1),101-104.
Stake,R.(1995).Theartofcasestudyresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Steg,L.(2003).Canpublictransportcompetewiththeprivatecar.IATSSResearch,27(2),27–35.
Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. . (2006). Acceptability of Energy Policies. Environment andBehavior,38,92-111.
Stern,N.(2007).TheEconomicsofClimateChange:TheSternReview:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stern, P. C. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psychologist, 47(10),1224-1232.
Stern,P.C.(1997).Towardaworkingdefinitionofconsumptionforenvironmentalresearchandpolicy.InP.
C.Stern,T.Dietz,V.R.Ruttan,R.H.Socolow,& J. L. Sweeney (Eds.),Environmentally significant
consumption:Researchdirections(pp.12–35).Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress,1997.
Stern,P.C.(1999).Information,incentives,andproenvironmentalconsumerbehavior.JournalofConsumerPolicy,22,461–478.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of SocialIssues,56(3),407–424.
References
223
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L.,&Guagnano,G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, andpro-environmental action:
attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,1611-1636.
Stevensen, F,&Rijal,H.B. (2010).Developingoccupancy feedback fromaprototype to improvehousing
production.BuildingResearch&Information,35(5),549-563.
Streimikiene,D. (2012). The impactof interventionmeasuresonhouseholdenergy conservationand the
GHGemissionreductioninLithuania.IntellectualEconomics,6(1(13)),713-729.
Streimikiene,D.,& Ciegis, R. (2010). The Changes of Life Style: Significant Contribution toGHGemission
Reduction Efforts. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Universities for Climate Change (pp. 280-299). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Strengers, Y. (2008). Comfort expectations: the impact of demand-management strategies in Australia,
BuildingResearch&Information,36(4),381-391.
Tabara, D., Darier, E., Gerger, A., Kasemir, B., Schule, R., 1999. Knowledge for sustainability: reflexive
learning and mass communication on Global Environmental Change. Paper based on research
carriedoutundertheULYSSESProject,financedbyDGXIIoftheEuropeanCommission.
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2010).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch(pp.189-
208).London:SagePublications.
Thaler,R.H.(1981).Someempiricalevidenceondynamicinconsistency.EconomicsLetters,8(3),201-207.
Thaler,R.H.,&Sunstein,C.R.(2008).Nudge:Improvingdecisionsabouthealth,wealth,andhappiness:YaleUniversityPress.
TheRoyalSociety.(2012).Peopleandtheplanet,summaryandrecommendations.London,UK:TheRoyalSocietySciencePolicyCentre,ExcellenceinScience.
TheUniversityofYork.(n.d.).EUFuelPovertyNetwork.http://fuelpoverty.eu/
Thøgersen, J. (2005).Howmayconsumerpolicyempowerconsumers for sustainable lifestyles. JournalofConsumerPolicy,18,143-178.
Thøgersen, J., & Møller, B. (2008). Breaking car use habits: The effectiveness of a free one-month
travelcard.Transportation,35(3),329-345.
Thøgersen, John. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in
environmentallyresponsiblebehavior.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,24(1),93-103.
Thøgersen, John, & Ølander, Carl Folke. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable
consumptionpattern:Apanelstudy.JournalofEconomicPsychology,23(5),605-630.
Thomas,C.,&Sharp,V.(2013).Understandingthenormalisationofrecyclingbehaviouranditsimplications
for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social norms and recycling. Resources,ConservationandRecycling,79,11–20.
Throne-Holst,H.,Strandbakken,P.,&Stø,E.(2008).Identificationofhouseholds'barrierstoenergysaving
solutions.ManagementofEnvironmentalQuality:AnInternationalJournal,19(1),54-66.
Tobler,C.,Visschers,V.H.,&Siegrist,M..(2012).Addressingclimatechange:Determinantsofconsumers'
willingnesstoactandtosupportpolicymeasures.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,32(3),197-207.
Townsend,P.(1979).PovertyintheUnitedKingdom.London,UK:AllenLaneandPenguinBooks.
Triandis,H.(1977).InterpersonalBehaviour.Monterey,CA:Brooks/Cole.
References
224
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model.
Quarterlyjournalofeconomics,106,1039-1061.
U.S.CensusBureau.(2011).InternationalDataBase.InU.S.D.o.C.UnitedStatesCensusBureau(Ed.).
UK Government. (2013). Fuel Poverty Statistics.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-
change/series/fuel-poverty-statistics
UN. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development andInternationalCo-operation:Environment.http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
UN.(1992).Agenda21RiodeclarationRetrievedfromhttp://www.un-documents.net/agenda21.htm
UN.(2007).WorldPopulationProspects,The2006Revision,Highlights.NewYork:DepartmentofEconomic
andSocialAffairs,PopulationDivision.
UN.(2011).File1:Totalpopulation(bothsexescombined)bymajorarea,regionandcountry,annuallyfor1950-2100 (thousands): United Nations (UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
PopulationDivision.
Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine-Wright, P.
(2009). Public Attitudes to Environmental Change: a selective review of theory and practice.
Manchester,UK:ESRC/LWEC.
Uusitalo, L. (1990). Are Environment Attitude and Behaviour Inconsistent? Finding from a Finnish Study.
ScandinavianPoliticalStudies,13(2),211-226.
van der Pligt, J. (1985). Energy conservation: two easy ways out. Journal of Applied Social PsychologyBulletin,15(1),3-15.
Vandenbergh,M., Barkenbus, J.,&Gilligan, J. (2008). Individual carbonemissions: The low-hanging fruit.
UCLALawReview,55,8-36.
Verplanken, B., & Faes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of forming implementation
intentionsonhealthyeating.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,29(5-6),591-604.
Verplanken,B.,&Holland,R.(2002).Motivateddecisionmaking:Effectsofactivationandself-centralityof
valuesonchoicesandbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,82,434-447.
Vygotsky, L S (1978) “Mind and Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes”, Harvard
UniversityPress,Cambridge.MA.
Wackernagel,M., Schulz, B., Deumling,D., Callejas Linares, A., Jenkins,M., Kapos, V., Randers, J. (2002).
Trackingtheecologicalovershootofthehumaneconomy.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,99(14),9266-9271.
Weaver,K.,&Olson,J.K.(2006).Understandingparadigmsusedfornursingresearch.JournalofAdvancedNursing,53(4),459-469
Weber, E. U. (1997). Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and
technological adaptation. InM. Bazerman, D.Messick, A. Tenbrunsel& K.Wade-Benzoni (Eds.),
Psychological and Ethical Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues inManagement (pp.314-341).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Evidence-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global
warmingdoesnotscareus(yet).ClimaticChange,77,103-120.
Weinreich,N.K.(1999).Handsonsocialmarketing:Astepbystepguide.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
References
225
Whitmarsh, L. E. (2009). Social and psychological drivers of energy consumption behaviour and energy
transitions. In S. Dietz, J.Michie& C. Oughton (Eds.),Political Economy of the Environment: AnInterdisciplinaryApproach(pp.213-228):Taylor&Francis.
Whitmarsh, L. E., Turnpenny, J., & Nykvist, B. (2009). Beyond the regime: can Integrated Sustainability
Assessment address the barriers to effective sustainable passenger mobility policy? Journal ofEnvironmentalPlanningandManagement,52(8),973-991.
Wilhite,H.,&Lutzenhiser,L. (1999).SocialLoadingandSustainableConsumption. InE.J.Arnould&L.M.
Scott(Eds.),NA-AdvancesinConsumerResearch(Vol.26,pp.281-287).Provo,UT:AssociationforConsumerResearch.
Wilhite, H. & Richard, L. (1992). "The Person Behind theMeter: An Ethnographic Analysis of Residential
EnergyConsumptioninOslo,Norway."ProceedingsfromtheACEEE1992SummerStudyonEnergyEfficiencyinBuildings10:177-186.Washington,D.C.:ACEEEPress.
Wilkinson,D.,&Birmingham,P. (2003).UsingResearch Instruments:aguideforresearchers.London,UK:Routledge.
Williamson,T.;Soebarto,V.&Radford,A.(2010).ComfortandenergyuseinfiveAustralianaward-winning
houses:regulated,measuredandperceived,BuildingResearch&Information,38(5),509-529.
Winett, R. A., & Kagel, J. H. (1984). Effects of information presentation format on resource use in field
studies.JournalofConsumerResearch,11,655–667.
Winett,R.A.,Leckliter, I.N.,Chinn,D.E.,Stahl,B.,&Love,S.Q.(1985).Effectsoftelevisionmodelingon
residentialenergyconservation.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,18,33–44.
Winter,D.D.N.,&Koger,S.M.(2004).ThePsychologyofEnvironmentalProblems:LawrenceErlbaum.
Wright,A.(2008).Whatistherelationshipbetweenbuiltformandenergyuseindwellings?EnergyPolicy,36(12),4544-4547.
WHO. (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health
Organization(WHO).
WWF.(2008).LivingPlanetreport2008:WorldWideFundforNature(WWF).
WWF.(2012).LivingPlanetreport2012-Biodiversity,biocapacityandbetterchoices:WorldWideFundfor
Nature(WWF).
Appendices
235
AppendixIII:Consumerinterviewroadmap
1. Howeasyordifficultdoyoufindtoreducetheamountofenergyyouuseathomeonadaytoday
base?
a. Followupquestion:whatarethereasonsforeasinessordifficultness?
b. Followupquestion:ifyouwouldneedtochoseonereasonfromalltheaboveforeasiness
ordifficultnesswhichonewoulditbe?
c. Backupinformation:listofbarriersfromFG:
i. Comfort
ii. Habits
iii. Willingness/Laziness/resistancetochange
iv. Self-indulgence
v. Environment/future
vi. Initialinvestment/RoI
vii. Information
viii. Actionsalreadytaken
ix. Economicalconditions
x. Socialnorms,socialdilemmaandhypocrisy
2. Whatdoescomfortmeantoyouathome?Howdoesitaffectyourdaytodayuseofenergy?Can
youprovidesomeexamples?
a. Promptforthermalcomfort
b. Promptforshoweringhabits
c. Promptforlightingpractices
d. PromptforhavingtheTVonevenifnotwatching
e. Promptforleavingstand-byon
f. Promptforusingappliancessuchaswashingmachinesatanypointoftheday
g. Promptforleavingfridgeopen
3. Canyoudescribeyourexpectationsofaminimumlevelofcomfortathome?
4. If youhad to chosebetween spending less onenergy andmaintaining your comfort level,what
wouldyouchose?
a. Atwhichpointwouldyourprioritieschange?
b. Whatcouldtriggerchange?
c. Haveyoueverbeenatasituationwereyouneededtoreduceyourcomfortlevel?Canyou
describethecircumstances?
Appendices
236
5. Some people have been referring to the fact that changing some of their behavioursmight be
quiteinconvenient/youhavementionedthefactthatchangingsomeofthosebehaviourswouldbe
quite inconvenient to you. Is comfort and convenience the same to you? What are the
similarities/differencesbetweenthetwoofthem?
a. Promptforstandby
b. Promptforoffpeaktariffs
c. Promptforleavingthedoorofthefridgeopne/openfrequently
d. Promptforcookingwithlidson
6. Whichactionscouldyou take inorder to reduceyourenergybillwithout reducingyourcomfort
level?(Writeinapaper)
a. Followup:canyoupleaseordertheactionsyoujustmentioned,startingwiththeoneyou
woulddofirsttotheoneyouwoulddothelast(usethepaperfromabove)
b. Followupquestion:Canyoudeveloponthereasoningoftheordering?
7. Howdoyouconsideryourenergyuselevelathome?High,normal,average,loworconditioned?
a. CanyouexplainthereasonsforlocatingyourselfasXXX?
b. Whatisforyoua‘normal’energyuselevel?
c. Howwouldyoudescribeit?
d. Whataboutyourfamilyandfriends?Howdoyouperceivetheirenergyusetobe?
e. Wheredoyoulocateyourselfwithinthisgraph?
Appendices
237
f. Howdoyouseeyourselfin10yearswithinthegraph?Whydoyouthinkthatis?
Imagineyouneedtoreduceyourenergyconsumptionbyhalf?Whichofyourbasicneedsyouwouldwant
tomaintain?Whatcouldbeconsideredaluxuryunderthosecircumstances?
Appendices
238
AppendixIV:Practitionerinterviewroadmap
1. Howeasyordifficultdoyouthinkitisforpeopletoreducetheirenergyuseathome?
a. Howdoyouunderstandtheeasinesstochangeonetimeinvestmentdecisions?
b. Howdoyouunderstandtheeasinesstochangedailyhabitualbehaviours?
2. Which barriers to change do people face in reducing their energy usewith regards to changing
theirdailyhabitualbehaviours?
a. Backupinformation:
i. Lackofinformation
ii. Lackoffinancialresources
iii. Resistancetochange
iv. Ingrainedhabits
v. Lackofmotivation
vi. Lackofenvironmentalconcerns
vii. Lack of connection between their individual energy use to the global
consumption
viii. Lockedtobuildinginfrastructure
ix. Limitedbyotherfamilymembers
x. Unwillingnesstoreducecomfortlevel
xi. Convenienceofcurrentbehaviours
3. Fromthebarriersyoumentioned,whichdoyouidentifyasimportantoncedesigninginterventions
andwhy?
a. Canyourecallanexamplewhenthatwasdone?
b. Havethoseinterventionsbeeneffective?
c. Howdoyouknowthat?
d. Has your organization focused their interventions on any of those barriers you just
mentionedasimportant?Ifnot,whatcouldbethereasonforsuch?Ifyes,howsuccessful
havetheybeen?
e. Howdoyouperceivethatpeoplereceiveandenroloninitiativestopromotelessenergy
intensivelifestyles
4. Youhavebeenmentioning/peoplehavebeenmentioning thatmaintainingcomfort level isquite
importantforthem.Whatdoyouthinkpeoplemeanbycomfort?
a. Whatisyourunderstandingoftheroleofcomfortasabarriertochangeindividualenergy
use?
b. Hasyourorganizationevertriedtotackletheexistingexpectationforcomfortwithintheir
interventions?
c. Howdoyouthinkcomfortshouldbeincludedwithinfutureinterventions?
d. Do you think it would be feasible to promote an adaptation of the level of individual
comfort?
Appendices
239
e. Howwouldyoucommunicatetheneedtoreducecomfortinaworldthatmightrunoutof
energy,howwouldyoudisrupttheflowofcurrentmessagesandsetadifferentagenda?
5. Youhavebeenmentioning/peoplehavebeenmentioning that changing theirdailybehaviours is
inconvenient.Whatdoyouthinkpeoplemeanbyconvenience?
a. What isyourunderstandingof theroleofconvenienceasabarrier tochange individual
energyuse?
b. Hasyourorganizationevertriedtotackletheexistingexpectationforconveniencewithin
theirinterventions?
c. Howdoyouthinkconvenienceshouldbeincludedwithinfutureinterventions?
d. Doyouthinkitwouldbefeasibletopromoteanadaptationofthelevelofconvenienceof
currentbehaviours?
6. Inyouropinion,whatdoes‘normal’energyconsumptionmeanstoindividualusersorhouseholds?
KWh,costorservices?
a. Howdoyouconsiderindividualusersareinfluencedbywhattheyseeasnormal?
b. Howcouldoneinfluencethisideaof‘normal’consumption?
c. Hasyourorganizationevertriedtotackletheexistingnormswithintheirinterventions?
d. Howdoyouthinknormsshouldbeincludedwithinfutureinterventions?
e. Howwouldyoucommunicatetheneedtochangenorms?
f. Doyoubelievenormscouldbechangedthroughacarrotandstickapproach?
g. Doyouthinkitwouldbefeasibletopromoteanadaptationofnorms?
Appendices
240
Appendix V: List of answers for Question 6 of EP survey questionnaire
regardingenergysavingreportedbehaviours
Appendices
241
AppendixVI:–Listofanswers forQuestion15ofEPsurveyquestionnaire
regardingenergysavingreportedbehaviours
Appendices
243
AppendixVIII:–ListofanswersforquestionQ16ofEPsurveyquestionnaire
(reportedbarriersandconstraints)
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%
AlreadydowhatIcan
Isaveenoughalready/Isavetoomuchalready
Iwouldliketodomore,butdon’tknowhow
Itwouldreducemycomfort
Idon’thavetimetodomore/I’mtoobusy
Idon’twant toknow/itdoesn’tconcernme
It’snotuseful/it’snotnecessary
Itwouldbeveryexpensive
Thegreatestpolluteristheindustry
Itwouldn’tmakeanydifference
Idon’tseeanyreductioninthebill
Aloneitwouldn’tmakeanydifference/Idoit…
Thefuturewillcomeupwithsolutions
Electricity/gasischeap/Ipayverylittle
50,3%
22,1%
16,9%
10,6%
8,2%
3,9%
2,3%
1,7%
1,4%
1,4%
0,9%
0,9%
0,8%
0,2%
Reportedbarrierstosaveenergy(in%)
Appendices
245
AppendixX:–Sampledistributionwithregardtoregion,gender,agegroups
andrural/urbanarea
Male Female
16-25
years
25-45
years
>45
years
16-25
years
25-45
years
>45
years Total
North
URBAN 14 15 14 14 14 14 85 170
(16.7%)RURAL 14 14 14 14 15 14 85
Centre
URBAN 14 14 14 14 15 15 86 172
(16.9%)RURAL 14 14 14 15 14 15 86
Lisboa
URBAN 12 16 12 14 16 9 79 164
(16.1%)RURAL 14 14 14 14 15 14 85
Alentejo
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 14 84 170
(16.7%)RURAL 14 14 14 15 14 15 86
Algarve
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 14 84 170
(16.7%)RURAL 15 15 14 14 14 14 86
Islands
URBAN 14 14 14 14 14 15 85 173
(17%)RURAL 14 15 14 15 15 15 88
167 173 166 171 174 168 1.019