the role of behaviour in the transition to more energy efficient use at home – lessons from...

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


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


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


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


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



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).


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.


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


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


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,


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;


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


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


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).


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).


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).


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.


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


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;


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,


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,


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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).


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.


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;


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


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


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.


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).


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


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


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


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).


50

Figure4-1:Reducingcaruse:Factorsaffectingbehaviouralchange,(Prendergrastetal.2008,p.104).


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).


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.


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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,


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.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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?


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).


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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).


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


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


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.


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).


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


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


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.


95

• Group 4; targeted at the individual respondent, looking at characteristics such as age, gender,

educationandincome.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


Male

Female

FG7


Male

Female

Total


Male

Female

FG5


Male

Female

FG6


Male

Female

FG3


Male

Female

FG4

FG1


Male

Female

FG2


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.


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


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.


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:


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.


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


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


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)


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.


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


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:


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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


Thischapterdiscussedthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudythatlookedathowenergyisusedathomein

termsofitscharacteristicsanddeterminantswithinthePortuguesecontext.Table6.3providesanoverview

aboutthefindings,howthoserelatetotheresearchquestionsandanynoteworthyobservations,followed

byasummaryofthefindingswithregardsonhowtheyrelatetothefirstresearchquestion,(RQ1)andthe

literature.


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.


129


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.


130


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.


131


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


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


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


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


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:


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


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


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.


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


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:


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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:


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


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.


151

Figure7-6:EnergyefficientbehavioursdiscussedduringtheFGs.


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


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.


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:


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:


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


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


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


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


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.


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’


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


163

Insummary,adoptingmoreenergyefficientbehaviourfrequentlydidnotappeartobeaquestionofability,

butratherofwillingnessofdoingsoandthusrelatestotheoutcomeexpectations,suchastheexpectations

regardingenergysavingsandindividualimpact,orcontrarily,theperceivednegativeaspects,suchaslossin

comfort,wellbeingandfamilyharmony.


Thischapterdiscussedthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudylookingatwhatinfluencesenergyuseathome,

(RQ2),withinaPortuguesecontext.

Thefollowingtablesummarisesthefindingsfromtheresearchpresentedinthischapter.Thesearerelated

totheRQsandhighlightthegapsidentifiedbytheempiricalstudies.


164

Table7-2–SummaryoffindingsrelatingtoRQ2.


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.


165


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.


166


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


167


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


168


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.


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


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.


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-


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,


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


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


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.


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.


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:


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


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.


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


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:


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


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


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:


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.


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,


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.


Thischapterdiscussesthefindingsfromtheempiricalstudylookingatthepotentialeffectivenessdifferent

interventionstrategiestoencouragetheadoptionofmoreenergyefficientbehavioursathomewithinthe

Portuguesecontext.


189

In the following table the findings from the research presented in this chapter are related to RQ3,

highlightingincludinganynoteworthydeviationfromthereviewedliteraturethatcouldbedetectedfrom

thefindingsofthisresearch

.


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


191


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.


192


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.


193


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

226

Appendices

AppendixI:Energyprofilersurveyquestionnaire

Appendices

227

Appendices

228

Appendices

229

Appendices

230

Appendices

231

Appendices

232

Appendices

233

Appendices

234

AppendixII:Reducedversion-FGquestionnairebeforediscussion

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

242

AppendixVII:Variablesdefinedduringenergyprofilerstudy

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

244

AppendixIX:–ListofidentifiedbarriersduringtheFG

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