Societal learning and sustainable technologies

Eva HeiskanenResearch Director, University of Helsinki, Guest Professor Tema T Liu

My current work• The role of users and contexts of use in the adoption of more sustainable technologies

(user innovators, early adopters, mainstream market…)• Energy efficiency, demand response• Building-scale renewable energy solutions (heat pumps, wood/pellet boilers, solar thermal, solar PV)• Local aspects of learning (community energy, network effects, combinations of technologies and social

systems)

• Ways of engaging users• Choice architecture, behavioral economics• Peer-to-peer learning, role of community in framing sustainable practices• Intermediaries and their roles in energy transitions

• Experimentation, pilots and demonstrations• As a form/context for learning• Evaluation and its problems• Experiments as a way to learn about ’gaps’ in surrounding society

• Social constructions of new markets• Public understanding of energy, role of intermediaries in creating markets

And a few others…

Some of my recent research interests1. Social diffusion of innovations: the role of peer effects (people

learning from each other) – examples mainly solar PV, heat pumps…2. Legitimacy of a new technology, role of entrepreneurs in creating

legitimacy over time (historical analysis of ground-source heat pumps Finland with some data from Sweden as well, most of it I never had the time to analyse)

3. The role of demonstration projects in societal learning (widely understood) about new technologies – example solar heat and power in buildings

Implications for diffusion of smart grid technologies locally

• Innovators and early adopters are not dependent on others or on clear benefits, but they might not create sufficient critical mass so that local service providers emerge

• Innovators and early adopters might not be relevant references for the early majority

• Late majority and laggards not likely to adopt until the others have (ultimately, until the product is so standard that you cannot avoid having it) -> threshold of adoption

Notion of simple diffusion criticized… implementation as a site for innovation

Fleck (1993) Innofusion: Feedback in the innovation process. In F.A. Stowell et al. (Eds.) Systems Science: Addressing Global Issues. London, Plenum.Raven et al. (2008) The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies: meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 28, 464-477.

Growing evidence of local and peer diffusion for certain technologies

PV panels• Previous installations of PV increased the probability of new

adoptions by 15 percentage points per month on the street level (Bollinger and Gillingham 2012)

• One PV installation in a U.S. block has been estimated to cause 0.44 new adoptions during the next quarter (Graziano and Gillingham 2014)

Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. S. (2011). Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid market: Observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(2), 150-159.Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K., 2012. Peer Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Panels. Marketing Science 31, 900–912. doi:10.1287/mksc.1120.0727Graziano, M., Gillingham, K., 2014. Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J Econ Geogr lbu036. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbu036

Policy implications• 10 households reported 275 EV-related social interactions over

the course of their 5-week PHEV trials (Axsen and Kurani 2011)• Trials and demonstrations are also about communicating the technology

within social networks

• Bale et al. modelled the use of social networks via ”seeding” (random free installations), ”communities” (free installations to workplace/local groups) and ”snowballing” (vouchers if people recommend to others)

• Support initial adopters within network• Support active recommendations

Bale, C. S., McCullen, N. J., Foxon, T. J., Rucklidge, A. M., & Gale, W. F. (2013). Harnessing social networks for promoting adoption of energy technologies in the domestic sector. Energy Policy, 63, 833-844.

Peer effects in solar PVs in Sweden

Qualitative and mixed methods research of early adopting communities• Role of local utilities (Palm 2016)• More active than passive, based

largely on pre-existing social networks (Palm, forthcoming)

• More encouragement than advanced technical advice (Palm, forthcoming)

Palm, A. (2016). Local factors driving the diffusion of solar photovoltaics in Sweden: A case study of five municipalities in an early market. Energy Research & Social Science, 14, 1-12.Palm, A. (forthcoming) Peer effects in residential solar photovoltaics adoption – a mixed methods study of Swedish users

Factors underlying local variation in diffusion• Passive peer effects (observation of

installations/technologies)• raise awareness, signal

availability/suitability/desirability

• Active peer effects (discussion with neighbours)

• raise awareness etc…• concrete advice, recommendations,

help…• translation/domestication…

development of user identities, embedding technology in everyday life

• Other local sources of market formation (installers, employees of local businesses, authorities, energy companies, local organizations) – these can accumulate and interact with the peer effects

• Other local variations (property values, employment/education, geographical conditions, etc.)

Could local and peer effects influence heat pumps too?Local effects can be due to several factors• Geographic effects likely more pronounced than for PVs and

EVs on a municipal/postcode/street level (soil quality)• Value of property might have a larger impact since costs are

literally sunk

Passive peer effects not so likely• Not very visible once installed

Active peer effects• Discussion, recommendations and advice might be as

important, or more so, than for PVs or EVs since local experience has distinct value

GSHP installations in Finland (≈2011-2014), % per municipality

> 6% of SFHs

> 3% of SFHs

> 2,1% of SFHs

> 1,3% of SFHs

> 0,7% of SFHs

< 0,7% of SFHs

Factors influencing installation level (exploratory analysis)• Value of property• Correlation between % GSHP

installed and property prices R=0,47

• Swedish-speaking municipality

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Plot of % GSHP installations by average property value € in municipality

Unilingual SwedishBilingual SwedishBilingual FinnishUnilingual Finnish

Analysis of GSHP permits issued in the city of Vantaa,

2011-2014 (N=186)

14% of all installations in Vantaa are on the same street as another installation, 6% no more than 2/3 street numbers apart

An aside… change of ownership had a big influence too

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

5

10

15

20

25

Time lag between ownership change and heat-pump investments

Time lag [years] between ownership change and heat-pump investments

in the Vantaa data (N=186)

From: Heiskanen, Jalas, Juntunen, Nissilä (in press) Who invests in renewable energy in Finland?

Potential policy implications• More research is needed

• modelling of the relative importance of various factors• survey data on the diffusion of innovation in various social networks and through

various segments of the population• qualitative local-level research on factors underlying strong/weak local diffusion (role

of local initiatives, installers, authorities, DSOs, banks vs. factors that we cannot influence)

• Hypotheses concerning policy implications• social networks/peer effects could be targeted along with other factors• focus on households that are likely to adopt (property value merits investment,

change of ownership makes investment salient)• support social diffusion via local organizations + by providing people with the

opportunity and vocabulary to discuss energy investments and normalizing the practice of doing so (+ voucher idea?)

Example of mobilizing peer effects for enhanced diffusion of smart grid technologiesFinnish adaptation of the UK Open Homes events• Organized walks (ultimately

by local residents’ associations)

• 3-4 places visited/walk• 30 minutes per place for Q&A

• What did it cost, does it work, how is it to live with, who made it for you etc…?

• Participant observation 6 events

• Survey (n=67) and interviews with 10 participants

Types of learningType of learning Example quoteExperience novel solutions/combinations in real life

I got a lot more informed about solar collector systems, how they work in Finnish conditions, what works and what doesn’t … and the realities of it.

Identification vs. owners of systems

Here is a sensible, calm-looking guy, and he has the same kind of car as I have.

Practical information for own investment

We have a four-person terraced home. We are installing groundsource heat with underfloor heating. .. moving from radiators to underfloor heating. Ground source heat will be more effective with the lower temperature allowed by underfloor heating.

Types of networkingType of networking Example quote

Stimulating discussion

We have talked about it among the people from our village. Since not everyone was there [at the event], there was just one other guy [from our village]. And also with some outsiders… and one of the participants was a contractor for air-to-water heat pumps, so we started discussing why they were not featured in those events.

Enabling people to participate in discussions

It is nice to notice that I know a bit about this and a bit about that [compared to before]… When energy comes up in a discussion, somebody has plans, then you can say something encouraging.

Bring new items into everyday discussion

I have discussed solar collectors quite a lot… just about every day over a cup of coffee at the gas station – it isn’t at all difficult.

Questions, ideas?